This is a placeholder text
Group text
by mrdarcy on 26 February 2011 - 17:02
Please note TOS no 5, You may not be rude, disrespectful,or insulting. Thank you.
mrdarcy(mod)
mrdarcy(mod)
by Videx on 26 February 2011 - 18:02
Please note the highlighted and underlined words, these words should ALWAYS be remembered. They give context to what you copied and posted above.
What you posted above was following on from this:What you posted above was following on from this:
For breeds with a high frequency of the rd mutation:
1. My dog is a clear. Examine this dogs good and bad traits. Can he/she be bred to a carrier in your kennel that can complement their traits? Yes. At this time, many breeds with rd have an very high frequency of the mutation, and in order to protect the gene pool, this type of breeding is necessary.
You keep the clear puppy from this cross that has the traits from both parents that you were hoping to get.
2. My dog is a carrier. Ideally, this animal should be bred to a clear with traits that would complement this animal. - Clear progeny from this cross can be kept for future breeding. There is a 50% chance in this case of producing a clear in the first generation. If no other options exist, this animal can be bred to another carrier. In this case, your chances of producing a clear for your next generation are 25%. There is a 25% chance that a animal that is homozygous for the mutant allele will be produced from this breeding.
3. My dog is homozygous for the mutant allele, but otherwise is sound in body and temperament, and brings positive trait to the breed. This is a two step breeding to get a clear. This dog should be bred to a clear, if possible. All of the puppies in the first generation will be carriers. No need to DNA test at this point. A carrier puppy from the first generation of breeding can now be used in the second generation to produce clears as in example 2.
DOWN THE ROAD, your ultimate goal is to breed clear to clear so that you have eliminated rd from your kennel without having compromised the gene pool.
What you posted above was following on from this:What you posted above was following on from this:
For breeds with a high frequency of the rd mutation:
1. My dog is a clear. Examine this dogs good and bad traits. Can he/she be bred to a carrier in your kennel that can complement their traits? Yes. At this time, many breeds with rd have an very high frequency of the mutation, and in order to protect the gene pool, this type of breeding is necessary.
You keep the clear puppy from this cross that has the traits from both parents that you were hoping to get.
2. My dog is a carrier. Ideally, this animal should be bred to a clear with traits that would complement this animal. - Clear progeny from this cross can be kept for future breeding. There is a 50% chance in this case of producing a clear in the first generation. If no other options exist, this animal can be bred to another carrier. In this case, your chances of producing a clear for your next generation are 25%. There is a 25% chance that a animal that is homozygous for the mutant allele will be produced from this breeding.
3. My dog is homozygous for the mutant allele, but otherwise is sound in body and temperament, and brings positive trait to the breed. This is a two step breeding to get a clear. This dog should be bred to a clear, if possible. All of the puppies in the first generation will be carriers. No need to DNA test at this point. A carrier puppy from the first generation of breeding can now be used in the second generation to produce clears as in example 2.
DOWN THE ROAD, your ultimate goal is to breed clear to clear so that you have eliminated rd from your kennel without having compromised the gene pool.
by Doppelganger on 26 February 2011 - 19:02
So please explain how that differs from the chart I copied?
by Abby Normal on 26 February 2011 - 23:02
Doppelganger
I agree, all results of all tests should be published to enable a clear picture to emerge about the incidence of any genetic disease which can be tested for. The PD test isa good example, with published results of both clears and carriers (at the breeder/owner request) indicate that no breeder is being villified for having a carrier dog, the opposite in fact. I should think they have been overwhelmed by the praise heaped upon them.
It's high time that secrecy and concealement of health issues became a thing of the past. We live in a more enlightened age you would think. The practice advocated by Videx of concealing carrier dogs will, quite rightly cause one to ask questions as to why these animals are being concealed, and whether there is a hidden agenda behind it.
I know of numerous breeders who have openly admitted to having a variety of problems within their lines that they have then addressed appropriately, to remedy. Nikki is a case in point, and Nikonis is a highly successful kennel. The public won't know or often even won't think beyond the obvious HD/ED tests, and a breeder who is looking to purchase a puppy as a breeding prospect, or a well informed GSD
enthusiast would understand perfectly and know exactly what they were buying. Openness and honesty in all aspects of breeding can only enhance a kennels reputation IMO. It does for me anyway.
I thought the KC may publish results of any health tests, I know that they do in another breed I am involved with. The problem is the split between the GSD movement and the KC. Those that have taken an alternative path to the KC don't want to have anything to do with the KC (and lots of the dogs aren't registered with the KC, but the SV in any case). Multiple fragmentations within the breed, and a lack of cohesion generally means that there is not one central body that keeps health results of all GSD, which is far from ideal.
I agree, all results of all tests should be published to enable a clear picture to emerge about the incidence of any genetic disease which can be tested for. The PD test isa good example, with published results of both clears and carriers (at the breeder/owner request) indicate that no breeder is being villified for having a carrier dog, the opposite in fact. I should think they have been overwhelmed by the praise heaped upon them.
It's high time that secrecy and concealement of health issues became a thing of the past. We live in a more enlightened age you would think. The practice advocated by Videx of concealing carrier dogs will, quite rightly cause one to ask questions as to why these animals are being concealed, and whether there is a hidden agenda behind it.
I know of numerous breeders who have openly admitted to having a variety of problems within their lines that they have then addressed appropriately, to remedy. Nikki is a case in point, and Nikonis is a highly successful kennel. The public won't know or often even won't think beyond the obvious HD/ED tests, and a breeder who is looking to purchase a puppy as a breeding prospect, or a well informed GSD
enthusiast would understand perfectly and know exactly what they were buying. Openness and honesty in all aspects of breeding can only enhance a kennels reputation IMO. It does for me anyway.
I thought the KC may publish results of any health tests, I know that they do in another breed I am involved with. The problem is the split between the GSD movement and the KC. Those that have taken an alternative path to the KC don't want to have anything to do with the KC (and lots of the dogs aren't registered with the KC, but the SV in any case). Multiple fragmentations within the breed, and a lack of cohesion generally means that there is not one central body that keeps health results of all GSD, which is far from ideal.
by NikkiF on 27 February 2011 - 11:02
'I thought the KC may publish results of any health tests, I know that they do in another breed I am involved with. The problem is the split between the GSD movement and the KC. Those that have taken an alternative path to the KC don't want to have anything to do with the KC (and lots of the dogs aren't registered with the KC, but the SV in any case). Multiple fragmentations within the breed, and a lack of cohesion generally means that there is not one central body that keeps health results of all GSD, which is far from ideal.'
Abbey Normal - the KC will only publish or even list tests if they have been instigated by them - they will not print anyother information on the registration certificate at all. I have spoken on several occasions to Bill Lambert and Jeff Sampson with regard to recognising the JRD DNA test now that it has been fully tested and patented but to no avail - they will not even consider it! Also all German Shepherds have to be registered with the KC full stop. Even those who come over just to show have to give all the dogs details in order to obtain an ATC no. The only thing that clubs who are taking alternative routes have done is to no longer hold Championship Shows as they no longer feel that the Challenge Certificate is worth anything. They are still all KC Registered Clubs and register puppies in exactly the same way as has always been done - so no German Shepherd unless bred by BYB or puppy farms and registered with an alternative system are not on the KC database. I do think that there will be more and more of those unfortunately as time goes by. As a boarding kennel owner we see many people bringing their GSD to board who have no registration papers at all and quite often have been to Wales to collect the dog. Quite amazed when told we breed GSD's here! A lot of them have got the name of the breeders off the KC puppy list and are quite surprised when we ask what the pedigree is as they never got one or a registration certificate. Quite surprising as the Midlands area probably has a good amount of responsible GSD breeders in it!
Abbey Normal - the KC will only publish or even list tests if they have been instigated by them - they will not print anyother information on the registration certificate at all. I have spoken on several occasions to Bill Lambert and Jeff Sampson with regard to recognising the JRD DNA test now that it has been fully tested and patented but to no avail - they will not even consider it! Also all German Shepherds have to be registered with the KC full stop. Even those who come over just to show have to give all the dogs details in order to obtain an ATC no. The only thing that clubs who are taking alternative routes have done is to no longer hold Championship Shows as they no longer feel that the Challenge Certificate is worth anything. They are still all KC Registered Clubs and register puppies in exactly the same way as has always been done - so no German Shepherd unless bred by BYB or puppy farms and registered with an alternative system are not on the KC database. I do think that there will be more and more of those unfortunately as time goes by. As a boarding kennel owner we see many people bringing their GSD to board who have no registration papers at all and quite often have been to Wales to collect the dog. Quite amazed when told we breed GSD's here! A lot of them have got the name of the breeders off the KC puppy list and are quite surprised when we ask what the pedigree is as they never got one or a registration certificate. Quite surprising as the Midlands area probably has a good amount of responsible GSD breeders in it!
by Videx on 27 February 2011 - 11:02
Abby Normal: No hidden agenda, simply recognising reality after many years of active involvement in this breed and receiving thousands of calls/emails from GSD breeders and other breeders who have health problems/risks in their breeding stock. Coupled with that one only has to look at the reality of health screening statistics which are available, PD is a good example, not exactly overwhelmed with results are we?
Many people who advocate publishing health screening details do so NOT from establishing a toll for breeding information or for the puppy buying public, they do so for a tool to bash breeders with. This will NEVER change. So I can fully understand any breeder ignoring repeated requests to publish results.
FACT: "Piecemeal Publication" will never attract large numbers to disclose their health screening test results, and it will never attract large numbers to put their dogs through such health screening tests.
The only way Health screening results will be generally published is when the TEST is conditional on breeding, or part of a required/desired qualification/award, and it is controlled/implemented by a major organisation, the KC, GSDL, BC, SV, WUSV etc. Then the required paperwork for completing the health test CLEARLY INCLUDES THE ASSERTION THAT ALL RESULTS WILL BE PLACED ON A DATABASE AND PUBLISHED, which the GSD owner signs prior to their dog having the health test.
I fully agree with this database and publishing system because it includes EVERY DOG that takes the health test. As such EVERY DOG and EVERY BREEDER is on a level playing field and equally as vulnerable to the outcomes. They are also equally in a position to benefit from such universally available information. Just consider how useful it is to have Hip & Elbow information universally available. These are two schemes that NO reputable breeder can opt out of. This should be the system for ALL required health screening tests.
The KEY word here being REQUIRED. I wouldn't hold my breath for the Kennel Club to determine what is REQUIRED. The GSDL/WUSV Regional Group will hopefully have a greater influence on this major issue, I sincerely hope they can exercise this responsibility with great skill and care, it is far too easy to make mistakes which can be detrimental is so many ways.
I hope I am around long enough to see much of the potential progress for our GSD breed realised.
Many people who advocate publishing health screening details do so NOT from establishing a toll for breeding information or for the puppy buying public, they do so for a tool to bash breeders with. This will NEVER change. So I can fully understand any breeder ignoring repeated requests to publish results.
FACT: "Piecemeal Publication" will never attract large numbers to disclose their health screening test results, and it will never attract large numbers to put their dogs through such health screening tests.
The only way Health screening results will be generally published is when the TEST is conditional on breeding, or part of a required/desired qualification/award, and it is controlled/implemented by a major organisation, the KC, GSDL, BC, SV, WUSV etc. Then the required paperwork for completing the health test CLEARLY INCLUDES THE ASSERTION THAT ALL RESULTS WILL BE PLACED ON A DATABASE AND PUBLISHED, which the GSD owner signs prior to their dog having the health test.
I fully agree with this database and publishing system because it includes EVERY DOG that takes the health test. As such EVERY DOG and EVERY BREEDER is on a level playing field and equally as vulnerable to the outcomes. They are also equally in a position to benefit from such universally available information. Just consider how useful it is to have Hip & Elbow information universally available. These are two schemes that NO reputable breeder can opt out of. This should be the system for ALL required health screening tests.
The KEY word here being REQUIRED. I wouldn't hold my breath for the Kennel Club to determine what is REQUIRED. The GSDL/WUSV Regional Group will hopefully have a greater influence on this major issue, I sincerely hope they can exercise this responsibility with great skill and care, it is far too easy to make mistakes which can be detrimental is so many ways.
I hope I am around long enough to see much of the potential progress for our GSD breed realised.
by Abby Normal on 27 February 2011 - 12:02
Nikki
Not so. The KC does publish for example the TNS test in border collies, which is carried out at the University of NSW in Australia.
I wonder whether the JRD test was not acceptable as it was not fully tested at the time, and ID is not confirmable. I don't know, just surmising.
The whole point is that concealement encourages suspicion, openness does not. Perhaps it is time that breeders discard the old ways and take the lead in publishing all results. If their breeding policies take into account clears/carriers etc, there couldn't be any what you term 'breeder bashing'.
I fully agree with this database and publishing system because it includes EVERY DOG that takes the health test. As such EVERY DOG and EVERY BREEDER is on a level playing field and equally as vulnerable to the outcomes. They are also equally in a position to benefit from such universally available information. Just consider how useful it is to have Hip & Elbow information universally available. These are two schemes that NO reputable breeder can opt out of. This should be the system for ALL required health screening tests.
Exactly my point. It surely has to be the only logical way forward.
In respect of not revealing results, yes, PD is a verygood example. I know of many dogs tested where results are not being published. Those results are both clear and carrier, so it is not just a case of worrying about 'breeder bashing'. If that were the case, those with clears would be publishing them. I think it is more the piecemeal publication that may be limiting participation.
Not so. The KC does publish for example the TNS test in border collies, which is carried out at the University of NSW in Australia.
I wonder whether the JRD test was not acceptable as it was not fully tested at the time, and ID is not confirmable. I don't know, just surmising.
The whole point is that concealement encourages suspicion, openness does not. Perhaps it is time that breeders discard the old ways and take the lead in publishing all results. If their breeding policies take into account clears/carriers etc, there couldn't be any what you term 'breeder bashing'.
I fully agree with this database and publishing system because it includes EVERY DOG that takes the health test. As such EVERY DOG and EVERY BREEDER is on a level playing field and equally as vulnerable to the outcomes. They are also equally in a position to benefit from such universally available information. Just consider how useful it is to have Hip & Elbow information universally available. These are two schemes that NO reputable breeder can opt out of. This should be the system for ALL required health screening tests.
Exactly my point. It surely has to be the only logical way forward.
In respect of not revealing results, yes, PD is a verygood example. I know of many dogs tested where results are not being published. Those results are both clear and carrier, so it is not just a case of worrying about 'breeder bashing'. If that were the case, those with clears would be publishing them. I think it is more the piecemeal publication that may be limiting participation.
by Doppelganger on 27 February 2011 - 13:02
As I understand the situation breed clubs have to request a 'breed specific scheme' to be adopted by the KC at which time they will publish results from tests and record any results from prior to the adoption of the scheme. They cannot publish results without this breed club involvement/request as they have no control over the labs that conduct the test.
by Doppelganger on 27 February 2011 - 13:02
by Doppelganger on 27 February 2011 - 13:02
DNA Screening Schemes
Where a gene based DNA test exists and is available in the UK, the Kennel Club, in conjunction with breed clubs and several centres or laboratories, runs DNA screening schemes for breeders which can provide precise information as to the genetic status of breeding stock with regard to certain diseases.
There are a growing number of DNA tests available worldwide, click here for a list of DNA tests currently available
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/315
Where a gene based DNA test exists and is available in the UK, the Kennel Club, in conjunction with breed clubs and several centres or laboratories, runs DNA screening schemes for breeders which can provide precise information as to the genetic status of breeding stock with regard to certain diseases.
There are a growing number of DNA tests available worldwide, click here for a list of DNA tests currently available
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/315
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
