Degenerative Myelopathy Test - Inaccurate for GSDs? - Page 1

I contacted a breeder lately about testing their dogs for DM. I was told that they didn't test for it because the test is inaccurate for GSDs. Is this true? 

Well, I tested most of my dogs so far but....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_degenerative_myelopathy

http://www.mzjf.com/test.html

Well, that's a bit discouraging. I'm going to assume there's not a test specifically for GSDs? (At least not yet?) 

So say a breeder has two GSDs, both test Normal/Mutant for DM. Breeds them. Would you rule out that breeding entirely, or no, considering that the test does appear to be inaccurate for GSDs? :/

I really don't know what to think anymore.  Most of my dogs are n/n and 2 are n/m.  There are dogs that are n/n and have DM.
So I believe they need to do more research on the GSD.  The test does not just appear to be inacurate IT IS inaccurate.

And there aren't any studies going on to find the specific strand for GSDs to test for? That really sucks, to be entirely honest....

Is the best bet pretty much to research the dogs in the pedigree?

I think this is a good place to start to understand the history and the researchers of this disease.

http://siriusdog.com/degenerative-myelopathy-spinal-german-shepherd-dm.htm

Why is a $65 test such a big deal? It's not like it costs thousands of dollars and only dogs with normal results can be bred.

Look, nothing in dogs is 100% and there are some who make excuses for not doing the most basic health tests that are available.  Why not just throw every health test into the trash and just put 2 dogs together and let them have at it? Why bother to xray hips when clear dogs still  produce HD. Why xray elbows? Why test for thyroid and cardiac, EPI, why CERF, when it is a fact that clear dogs have produced affected progeny. Why? Because most of us are trying to produce the best we can and put health at the top of the priority list just before or after temperament.  Some opt to use all the tools available and then factor the results into our breeding plans. Some make excuses for not using them or they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to test for anything because their dogs "have no health issues.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said here - the DNA DM test is not a test of elimination, it is just one more tool in the box to use or not use. If a dog is at risk, some will consider that a significant finding and consider that result when choosing a mate. I like to try to do everything I can to produce a healthy dog and for me the DNA DM test is one part of the equation. An at risk is not a deal breaker for me, but I would keep in mind that it should be bred to a normal and that all the resulting puppies will be carriers, so they too must be bred accordingly. For god sake, in only a few generations of selective breeding the damned gene can be bred out without sacrificing one single dog. $65 is not much for me to pay for peace of mind that I did the best I could.

Maybe the test is right for the breed, maybe it's not. I will err on the side of caution and not breed to or from untested dogs. I makes me feel good and as if I'm doing all I can to keep from breeding a dog that will develope DM. There are many normal and carrier dogs to pick from, so factoring in the DNA results should not make any difference in anyone's breeding program, but it could make a big difference in the life of a dog and its family.

I understand your point, Blitzen, but honestly - if the test isn't accurate, what good does it do? 
If some dogs that test as N/N wind up having to be put down for it later in their lives, and it's determined to be DM, honestly, what's the point? 
I totally understand attempting to eliminate every risk possible. However, if the test is as inaccurate as just guesswork, I don't see a point in wasting the $65 to have it done. 

I'm not trying to argue or disagree with you, because I would go with a breeder that does the tests over one that doesn't, but if it's as inaccurate as just throwing two dogs together without knowing those test results, why waste the money? 

At least with x-rays and such, you can at least minimize the risk. If there's a test that people will swear by, and it's inaccurate, you could be inadvertently breed at risk dogs with one another, simply because a test deemed them normal - when it's not even looking at the correct genes. 

Well, I have a question. How do we know the one dog that is "invalidating" the research wasn't tested correctly? What if something about that one dog is just not true in itself? How do we know that?  Humans make errors, tests get mixed up all the time, don't they? 

I'm thinking of the autism vaccination research boondoggle, where the science was wrong and sent the rest of the researching communities to spend countless hours and money, barking up the wrong tree.

Konotashi, did you read the article in the link I gave? Just wondering.