This is a placeholder text
Group text
by BlackthornGSD on 14 September 2010 - 16:09
Assuming you're talking about pituitary dwarfism, isn't this pretty easily seen by the time the puppy is 8 weeks old; thus no breeder should be selling a puppy with a hidden problem. Perhaps an ignorant or unethical breeder might say "oh he's just a runt"--but I'm not sure.
I think if I had a dwarf show up in a litter, and there was a DNA test available, I'd want to DNA test all potential future sires for that female (and any puppies from that litter that might go on to breeding homes) to check for whether or not the sire also had the relevant gene(s). I'm not sure that I'd test all females before breeding, unless it was a known issue in the bloodlines I was breeding. (It's currently extremely rare in the European working bloodlines.)
I think if I had a dwarf show up in a litter, and there was a DNA test available, I'd want to DNA test all potential future sires for that female (and any puppies from that litter that might go on to breeding homes) to check for whether or not the sire also had the relevant gene(s). I'm not sure that I'd test all females before breeding, unless it was a known issue in the bloodlines I was breeding. (It's currently extremely rare in the European working bloodlines.)
by Abby Normal on 14 September 2010 - 19:09
Shirley
Thank you for posting your thoughts, and the reasoning behind your decision. Exactly what I too would hope to see from a good breeder, as Mackenzie says. There are many issues that currently cannot be resolved within the breed, but it is so good when a tool becomes available to tackle at least one. I too would like to see the results available centrally, and I am hoping fervently that in the not too distant future a test for epilepsy will become available, and that will be cause for celebration indeed.
I too understand that the problem of PD could be eradicated entirely in a relatively short space of time if the right actions are taken. We now have the means to do that.
@ Mackenzie - Although there is not too much evidence of dwarfs (ie living pups) with culling, another symptom of the disease is death in utero, fading puppies or early death of puppies. There has, until now been no way of knowing whether the cause of fading puppies or stillborn puppies (not uncommon) may be due to dwarfism.
Of course the numbers are impossible to guess.
I still cannot agree with you on any of the financial aspects of not testing. Why are some, like Shirley prepared to invest in testing, and not others? Many breeders expect to make a loss on their breeding, not a profit. Breeding isn't usually undertaken for profit, except when it is done commercially and those breeders certainly should be able and willing to afford it, and really it is should be a serious responsibility for them in particular, as they are putting so many more animals into the population with the potential for passing it on.
Blackthorn GSD - Generally a breeder would spot a dwarf and it would not be sold as a normal puppy, although there are degrees of dwarfism (some less affected by a lack of growth hormone) which could lead to the rare case of a pup slipping through the net, thought to be a runt. I understand that occasionally they are kept, or the breeder has someone who may wish to take care of one. Many more of course are culled at that stage. As I say, it is impossible to estimate the problem in any population in these circumstances. Alhtough of course a rarity unchecked can become more commonplace over time.
Thank you for posting your thoughts, and the reasoning behind your decision. Exactly what I too would hope to see from a good breeder, as Mackenzie says. There are many issues that currently cannot be resolved within the breed, but it is so good when a tool becomes available to tackle at least one. I too would like to see the results available centrally, and I am hoping fervently that in the not too distant future a test for epilepsy will become available, and that will be cause for celebration indeed.
I too understand that the problem of PD could be eradicated entirely in a relatively short space of time if the right actions are taken. We now have the means to do that.
@ Mackenzie - Although there is not too much evidence of dwarfs (ie living pups) with culling, another symptom of the disease is death in utero, fading puppies or early death of puppies. There has, until now been no way of knowing whether the cause of fading puppies or stillborn puppies (not uncommon) may be due to dwarfism.
Of course the numbers are impossible to guess.
I still cannot agree with you on any of the financial aspects of not testing. Why are some, like Shirley prepared to invest in testing, and not others? Many breeders expect to make a loss on their breeding, not a profit. Breeding isn't usually undertaken for profit, except when it is done commercially and those breeders certainly should be able and willing to afford it, and really it is should be a serious responsibility for them in particular, as they are putting so many more animals into the population with the potential for passing it on.
Blackthorn GSD - Generally a breeder would spot a dwarf and it would not be sold as a normal puppy, although there are degrees of dwarfism (some less affected by a lack of growth hormone) which could lead to the rare case of a pup slipping through the net, thought to be a runt. I understand that occasionally they are kept, or the breeder has someone who may wish to take care of one. Many more of course are culled at that stage. As I say, it is impossible to estimate the problem in any population in these circumstances. Alhtough of course a rarity unchecked can become more commonplace over time.
by Sherman-RanchGSD on 15 September 2010 - 00:09
I think it can be used in a positive way like many other tools we have. and that IF understood can be used wisely to improve breeding programs and the dogs lives. I have heard there are many problems that go with PD and would not wish that on any living creature if could be helped.
Many of the DNA tests avail are not yeah or nay answers to breeding quandries I would have to learn more about the means and values of this particular test before making my own choices on particular breeding pairs... I dont know all the details in regards to the test... but I think having more tools available can be a good thing.
Debi
www.sherman-ranch.us
www.ironfistcreations.us
Many of the DNA tests avail are not yeah or nay answers to breeding quandries I would have to learn more about the means and values of this particular test before making my own choices on particular breeding pairs... I dont know all the details in regards to the test... but I think having more tools available can be a good thing.
Debi
www.sherman-ranch.us
www.ironfistcreations.us
by Mackenzie on 15 September 2010 - 05:09
Abby Normal
I am sorry to disagree with you on the question of profit. Let us be clear, profit is not a dirty word and some profit is vital to breeders, thus enabling them to continue breeding and meet the costs of the health tests at the current levels. Whilst many breeders accept that there will be losses from time to time it would be foolish to continue down that route with every litter. Nobody, wealthy or otherwise wants their hobby to be their ruin. If we were talking about breeders with just one breeding female then losses would not be so bad, however, some breeders have many more females in their breeding pool and this is when costs start to become prohibitive. As a matter of interest why do you not carry out an exercise for yourself using as a basis three females having one litter a year each and cost it out using the expenses list that I set out in an earlier post. Also, bear in mind that if the females are kept from when they are pups there will be no return for two years on each animal. The costs will shock you and you will then appreciate that although for many of us it is a hobby the only way to sustain it is by running the operation on commercial principles. In my expenses list I did not include the cost of showing but if you add in the costs of showing to gain credibility with the females then the costs move to the sky high bracket. Common sense tells us that profit is essential.
Like many others I have never bred a dwarf and in forty years the only one that I have seen was bred by Dorothy Beach who bred under the affix of Stranmillis. That would be in about 1970/71. Since then I have only heard of perhaps half a dozen being bred. I do accept that there has been more but how many we will never know. Of course it is distressing for those who have bred a dwarf but to test every animal in the breeding pool is not practical when balanced against the risk of the frequency of this problem.
Mackenzie
I am sorry to disagree with you on the question of profit. Let us be clear, profit is not a dirty word and some profit is vital to breeders, thus enabling them to continue breeding and meet the costs of the health tests at the current levels. Whilst many breeders accept that there will be losses from time to time it would be foolish to continue down that route with every litter. Nobody, wealthy or otherwise wants their hobby to be their ruin. If we were talking about breeders with just one breeding female then losses would not be so bad, however, some breeders have many more females in their breeding pool and this is when costs start to become prohibitive. As a matter of interest why do you not carry out an exercise for yourself using as a basis three females having one litter a year each and cost it out using the expenses list that I set out in an earlier post. Also, bear in mind that if the females are kept from when they are pups there will be no return for two years on each animal. The costs will shock you and you will then appreciate that although for many of us it is a hobby the only way to sustain it is by running the operation on commercial principles. In my expenses list I did not include the cost of showing but if you add in the costs of showing to gain credibility with the females then the costs move to the sky high bracket. Common sense tells us that profit is essential.
Like many others I have never bred a dwarf and in forty years the only one that I have seen was bred by Dorothy Beach who bred under the affix of Stranmillis. That would be in about 1970/71. Since then I have only heard of perhaps half a dozen being bred. I do accept that there has been more but how many we will never know. Of course it is distressing for those who have bred a dwarf but to test every animal in the breeding pool is not practical when balanced against the risk of the frequency of this problem.
Mackenzie
by Abby Normal on 15 September 2010 - 09:09
Mackenzie
Don't be sorry - nothing wrong in having different views. In the UK the cost would I believe be roughly £100 per (breeding) dog for the test - not for every litter. As Shirley has said, the test need only be done on breeding stock. For some, say with 7 dogs, it is not a vast outlay versus return.
I am not suggesting profit is a dirty word, but often it is not readily linked to breeding. I've lost count of the times that certain breeders have said that they do not expect to make a profit. What happens more often is that the money from puppy sales helps to offset the cost of their hobby, making it achievable. Most do not rely on it as income. Many people have hobbies that offer no return at all for their outlay, other than pleasure.
It is a matter of choice and what you can afford. For those that do rely on it as sole income, it is obviously a different issue and profit becomes more important. Having said that, in the same way that others who produce a 'product' for sale, the production costs need to be incorporated into the pricing of the product.
If all breeding animals were tested (only once), and a correct breeding policy implemented, this defect could be completely eradicated from the breed.
I think we will have to agree to differ, but I am really heartened by some of the responses from breeders who are prepared/able to bear the cost for the improvement of the breed.
Don't be sorry - nothing wrong in having different views. In the UK the cost would I believe be roughly £100 per (breeding) dog for the test - not for every litter. As Shirley has said, the test need only be done on breeding stock. For some, say with 7 dogs, it is not a vast outlay versus return.
I am not suggesting profit is a dirty word, but often it is not readily linked to breeding. I've lost count of the times that certain breeders have said that they do not expect to make a profit. What happens more often is that the money from puppy sales helps to offset the cost of their hobby, making it achievable. Most do not rely on it as income. Many people have hobbies that offer no return at all for their outlay, other than pleasure.
It is a matter of choice and what you can afford. For those that do rely on it as sole income, it is obviously a different issue and profit becomes more important. Having said that, in the same way that others who produce a 'product' for sale, the production costs need to be incorporated into the pricing of the product.
If all breeding animals were tested (only once), and a correct breeding policy implemented, this defect could be completely eradicated from the breed.
I think we will have to agree to differ, but I am really heartened by some of the responses from breeders who are prepared/able to bear the cost for the improvement of the breed.
by Mackenzie on 15 September 2010 - 12:09
Abbey Normal
This quote from your last post sums up what I have said from the beginning.
" What happens more often is that the money from puppy sales helps to offset the cost of their hobby, making it achievable."
"It is a matter of choice and what you can afford. For those that do rely on it as sole income, it is obviously a different issue and profit becomes more important. Having said that, in the same way that others who produce a 'product' for sale, the production costs need to be incorporated into the pricing of the product."
Both of your comments apply to the commercial breeder and the hobbyist as did mine from the beginning.
The expense for the testing carries on in the puppies that breeders will run on as potential breeding material. These have to be tested at the earliest possible moment to avoid the higher expense of running them on for several months and, perhaps failing the test. Also, I do not think many stud dog owners will test in any great numbers and, the eradication of the problem will not be achieved unless you can get all the breeders in Europe to join in testing their stock. I quote Europe only because that is where most of the UK breeding material comes from.
Bearing in mind the level at which this problem occurs I do not think it justifies the expense particularly as co-operation from those who supply the breeding material, mainy from Germany, will not be 100%.
Those who do want to test should not be discouraged, especially if it puts their mind at rest.
Mackenzie
This quote from your last post sums up what I have said from the beginning.
" What happens more often is that the money from puppy sales helps to offset the cost of their hobby, making it achievable."
"It is a matter of choice and what you can afford. For those that do rely on it as sole income, it is obviously a different issue and profit becomes more important. Having said that, in the same way that others who produce a 'product' for sale, the production costs need to be incorporated into the pricing of the product."
Both of your comments apply to the commercial breeder and the hobbyist as did mine from the beginning.
The expense for the testing carries on in the puppies that breeders will run on as potential breeding material. These have to be tested at the earliest possible moment to avoid the higher expense of running them on for several months and, perhaps failing the test. Also, I do not think many stud dog owners will test in any great numbers and, the eradication of the problem will not be achieved unless you can get all the breeders in Europe to join in testing their stock. I quote Europe only because that is where most of the UK breeding material comes from.
Bearing in mind the level at which this problem occurs I do not think it justifies the expense particularly as co-operation from those who supply the breeding material, mainy from Germany, will not be 100%.
Those who do want to test should not be discouraged, especially if it puts their mind at rest.
Mackenzie
by hutch on 16 September 2010 - 15:09
I wonder whether similar questions were raised when hip scoring was first introduced?
Perhaps this was a numerically greater problem and almost definately it had greater public awareness but did some say that it would not catch on?
In April 2009 the VDH in the Netherlands put a recommendation forward regarding pd testing and I guess it is not too much greater a step for them to make testing compulsory - and maybe others will follow suit. (Full text of the recommendation is on the Videx site)
I guess the more stud dog owners are asked whether there dog is tested, the more likely they are to think it is worth doing. It is a question that I will be asking from now on.
Mackenzie: I don't have a feel for the frequency of occurence and it is going to be ? impossible to ascertain this as many die before birth but I know I don't want to produce one and I would like to reduce the chance of losing pups before they are born.
Yes it is expensive but I think the information is worth that expense. (Be also prepared that currently you have to pay by in Euros by bank transfer / an international money order and the charges can be high to do that too - my bank quoted £25) I am saving for the next one!!
Shirley
Perhaps this was a numerically greater problem and almost definately it had greater public awareness but did some say that it would not catch on?
In April 2009 the VDH in the Netherlands put a recommendation forward regarding pd testing and I guess it is not too much greater a step for them to make testing compulsory - and maybe others will follow suit. (Full text of the recommendation is on the Videx site)
I guess the more stud dog owners are asked whether there dog is tested, the more likely they are to think it is worth doing. It is a question that I will be asking from now on.
Mackenzie: I don't have a feel for the frequency of occurence and it is going to be ? impossible to ascertain this as many die before birth but I know I don't want to produce one and I would like to reduce the chance of losing pups before they are born.
Yes it is expensive but I think the information is worth that expense. (Be also prepared that currently you have to pay by in Euros by bank transfer / an international money order and the charges can be high to do that too - my bank quoted £25) I am saving for the next one!!
Shirley
by Mackenzie on 16 September 2010 - 17:09
To answer the points raised by Hutch in her last post let me start with the hip dysplasia point first. Yes, of course, resistance was met in the first instance, however, it must have been accepted that many dogs can live a normal life (mongrels are an example) with the disease although a proportion will be too severe. Bearing in mind that all those years ago the number of dogs with dysplasia was in the majority but it was accepted that to x-ray was a way forward. Common sense prevailed and in order to allow the breed to progress the system that we see and know so well today allows for three catogories so that those with grade three hips would know which males had better hips and could be useful in a mating to reduce the incidence and hopefully in time eradicate it. Breeders were left with options.
To turn to dwarf’s I agree with Shirley and I also would not like to breed a dwarf. She also says that many die before birth, however, death may not be caused because of dwarfism. It could be infection, or, a number of things. Also, how sure are we as to whether the stillborns are actually a dwarf? I do not think anyone will test the stillborn’s mother if she has not already been tested.
The test fee would not be a big deal to owners of stud dogs but I think their attitude would be he hasn’t produced one yet so why should I test?
At this time I think the better way forward is for breeders who have a dwarf in a litter is to be open about it as there is no stigma in producing one, no loss of reputation. What I do think is important is if breeders will identify sires and dams so that over a period of time the breeding families can be researched for repeat situations. At least this would provide some direction in trying to resolve the matter, or, should breeders just remove the females from their breeding programme and say nothing? If a test is positive what options are there for the breeder?
Mackenzie
To turn to dwarf’s I agree with Shirley and I also would not like to breed a dwarf. She also says that many die before birth, however, death may not be caused because of dwarfism. It could be infection, or, a number of things. Also, how sure are we as to whether the stillborns are actually a dwarf? I do not think anyone will test the stillborn’s mother if she has not already been tested.
The test fee would not be a big deal to owners of stud dogs but I think their attitude would be he hasn’t produced one yet so why should I test?
At this time I think the better way forward is for breeders who have a dwarf in a litter is to be open about it as there is no stigma in producing one, no loss of reputation. What I do think is important is if breeders will identify sires and dams so that over a period of time the breeding families can be researched for repeat situations. At least this would provide some direction in trying to resolve the matter, or, should breeders just remove the females from their breeding programme and say nothing? If a test is positive what options are there for the breeder?
Mackenzie
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top