This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Abby Normal on 08 September 2010 - 11:09
The subject of dwarfs seems to be coming up a lot lately, so I thought I would ask a question.
I have seen a notification this week of a very well known stud dog in the UK screened clear for PD, which is excellent news.
I have also seen a report (yet to be substantiated by DNA testing) of a dwarf (allegedly) resulting from a pairing of dogs from two high profile show breeders in the UK.
Some breeders are clearly availing themselves of the PD test to ensure no dwarfs are ever produced. My question is what breeders views are and what their thoughts are on this particular issue? As the test is now available and is non-invasive I guess it would be considered best practice to screen all breeding stock? I wonder if this is now happening, or is it seen as an issue of low importance to be addressed if and when a dwarf is actually produced?
I have seen a notification this week of a very well known stud dog in the UK screened clear for PD, which is excellent news.
I have also seen a report (yet to be substantiated by DNA testing) of a dwarf (allegedly) resulting from a pairing of dogs from two high profile show breeders in the UK.
Some breeders are clearly availing themselves of the PD test to ensure no dwarfs are ever produced. My question is what breeders views are and what their thoughts are on this particular issue? As the test is now available and is non-invasive I guess it would be considered best practice to screen all breeding stock? I wonder if this is now happening, or is it seen as an issue of low importance to be addressed if and when a dwarf is actually produced?
by Abby Normal on 09 September 2010 - 09:09
Not a trick question. Interested to see how breeders a) see PD, is it an issue?
and b) is testing all breeding stock seen as an appropriate way forward?
Congratulations on Neck von den Wolfen testing clear.
and b) is testing all breeding stock seen as an appropriate way forward?
Congratulations on Neck von den Wolfen testing clear.
by Mackenzie on 09 September 2010 - 09:09
It seems that more people are talking about dwarfism these days, however, how many dwarfs are recorded as being born each year and from what breeding families? I suspect that in relation to the total breeding stock in the European area, where most of our breeding stock comes from, the incidence is extremely low. Also, I suspect that if a female produces dwarfism a repeat mating to the male will not necessarily produce another dwarf.
Taking into account the amount of testing being compulsory at this time and, with more to come, this may be a test too far. However, it is necessary that the breeding families are identified. With this in mind any breeder that produces a dwarf cannot carry the burden of blame and, therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be open about this and have it recorded in a register with the League. There is no loss of reputation, or, loss of credibility in this method. On the financial front we must remember that there is a financial limit as what our clients will pay for the dogs produced. As breeders want a fair price for their efforts they still have to build into the price of a dog all the expenses of the required tests undertaken. Of course no breeder should be discouraged from testing if they suspect there could be a problem and, in fact, that is what any prudent breeder would do as a matter of course.
Mackenzie
Taking into account the amount of testing being compulsory at this time and, with more to come, this may be a test too far. However, it is necessary that the breeding families are identified. With this in mind any breeder that produces a dwarf cannot carry the burden of blame and, therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be open about this and have it recorded in a register with the League. There is no loss of reputation, or, loss of credibility in this method. On the financial front we must remember that there is a financial limit as what our clients will pay for the dogs produced. As breeders want a fair price for their efforts they still have to build into the price of a dog all the expenses of the required tests undertaken. Of course no breeder should be discouraged from testing if they suspect there could be a problem and, in fact, that is what any prudent breeder would do as a matter of course.
Mackenzie
by Abby Normal on 13 September 2010 - 18:09
Mackenzie
You are right, a mating of 2 carriers will not necessarily produce affected offspring, yet some can have several in one litter, and if a repeat mating is done produce none. Of course no-one can estimate the size of the problem, and I actually think it is likely to be more widespread than you. Testing would of course give some indication of the scale, and perhaps their is concern among breeders as to what may be revealed.
Thanks for your well considered reply. Now having given this some thought, I cannot accept that health testing must or is dictated by bottom line profit.
The majority of breeders will espouse that they breed 'for the benefit of the breed'. If it is the case that they cannot afford to take on the burden of the cost of increasing health tests, then the simple answer is that they should not breed at all.
Certainly the 'fat' cat conveyor belt breeders can afford it, it is more likely to be the small hobby breeder that would feel the pinch the most, but conversely it is they who are more likely to test, because they don't expect to make a profit from their breeding and they are truly dedicated to the future health of the breed.
You are right, a mating of 2 carriers will not necessarily produce affected offspring, yet some can have several in one litter, and if a repeat mating is done produce none. Of course no-one can estimate the size of the problem, and I actually think it is likely to be more widespread than you. Testing would of course give some indication of the scale, and perhaps their is concern among breeders as to what may be revealed.
Thanks for your well considered reply. Now having given this some thought, I cannot accept that health testing must or is dictated by bottom line profit.
The majority of breeders will espouse that they breed 'for the benefit of the breed'. If it is the case that they cannot afford to take on the burden of the cost of increasing health tests, then the simple answer is that they should not breed at all.
Certainly the 'fat' cat conveyor belt breeders can afford it, it is more likely to be the small hobby breeder that would feel the pinch the most, but conversely it is they who are more likely to test, because they don't expect to make a profit from their breeding and they are truly dedicated to the future health of the breed.
by Mackenzie on 13 September 2010 - 20:09
Abby Normal
As far as testing is concerned, not for just the problem of dwarfism, there are breeders who have been breeding for say 10, 20, 30 years and, never encountered a problem in this and other areas because the incidence of the disease is so small. For example, if we take the breeding pool for the whole of Europe alone it could be greater than 100,000 animals which would mean that if 1% produced dwarfism then that would be 1000 dwarves born. In this example I am not saying the figure for the breeding pool is accurate but would you say that there are 1000 dwarfs, born every year? The point being that if the incidence is 1% approximately then testing may be considered by many to be unnecessary. More important is the fact that when dwarves are produced the breeder makes other breeders aware of the breeding families involved.
On the subject of profit there are considerations to be taken into account regardless of whether the breeder can afford testing, or, not. Profit allows all breeders, wealthy or otherwise to be able to afford to breed and buy in future breeding stock. I am strongly in favour of health testing but the testing has to be balanced against the risks involved. Any breeder selling their surplus stock has to build into the sale price the costs of the tests which are compulsory together with the cost of keeping a female during her breeding lifetime including the periods when she is not in whelp, the veterinary costs for each female, stud fees and travel expenses in getting the female mated and, if possible a small element of profit to go towards the future. If we then add on all the costs of testing on a voluntary basis profit is not always possible. Also, we have to remember that there are times when breeders do not get rid of all the pups when they are eight or nine weeks of age. Sometimes it can be that some puppies will not go until they are several months old. There is a limit to what the public will pay for the dogs. We all assume that testing the breed to the bitter end will solve all the problems. However, how many failures are there as result of testing and, are then taken out of the breeding pool? Does this reduce the breeding pool to the detriment of the breed? How will breeders big or small recover the costs of the failures, which can be a whole litter?
Mackenzie
As far as testing is concerned, not for just the problem of dwarfism, there are breeders who have been breeding for say 10, 20, 30 years and, never encountered a problem in this and other areas because the incidence of the disease is so small. For example, if we take the breeding pool for the whole of Europe alone it could be greater than 100,000 animals which would mean that if 1% produced dwarfism then that would be 1000 dwarves born. In this example I am not saying the figure for the breeding pool is accurate but would you say that there are 1000 dwarfs, born every year? The point being that if the incidence is 1% approximately then testing may be considered by many to be unnecessary. More important is the fact that when dwarves are produced the breeder makes other breeders aware of the breeding families involved.
On the subject of profit there are considerations to be taken into account regardless of whether the breeder can afford testing, or, not. Profit allows all breeders, wealthy or otherwise to be able to afford to breed and buy in future breeding stock. I am strongly in favour of health testing but the testing has to be balanced against the risks involved. Any breeder selling their surplus stock has to build into the sale price the costs of the tests which are compulsory together with the cost of keeping a female during her breeding lifetime including the periods when she is not in whelp, the veterinary costs for each female, stud fees and travel expenses in getting the female mated and, if possible a small element of profit to go towards the future. If we then add on all the costs of testing on a voluntary basis profit is not always possible. Also, we have to remember that there are times when breeders do not get rid of all the pups when they are eight or nine weeks of age. Sometimes it can be that some puppies will not go until they are several months old. There is a limit to what the public will pay for the dogs. We all assume that testing the breed to the bitter end will solve all the problems. However, how many failures are there as result of testing and, are then taken out of the breeding pool? Does this reduce the breeding pool to the detriment of the breed? How will breeders big or small recover the costs of the failures, which can be a whole litter?
Mackenzie
by hutch on 14 September 2010 - 13:09
My thoughts for what they are worth.....
In over 30 years of breeding, we have not, to our knowledge produced a dwarf that has survived birth. It is my understanding that a proportion of dwarves die before birth and, as most surviving dwarves are sterile, there is no issue with a dwarf being bred from - so maybe the problem seems relatively low in numbers. However, if you then read and listen to the unfortunate people that end up owning a dwarf and the cost and heartache they can go through then it is a big deal.
There is now a test which will give you an indication of whether or not your breeding stock are likely to produce the problem - it gives knowledge and allows you to make informed decisions. I understand that the problem could be eradicated in only a few generations and the recommendations that I have read do not advocate removing carriers from the gene pool but to make sure that a chosen mate for them is clear.
I have had the first of my breeding animals tested and will test any that I keep for breeding in the future. I would encourage all breeders to do the same - especially stud dog owners as they are likely to have far more progeny than the average bitch. I will be making it a condition for the lifting of breeding endorsements on all puppies which I sell in the future.
It is an expensive test and I would hope that maybe the University of Utrecht could license a commercial lab to undertake the test in the fullness of time so that they can perhaps make it cheaper (provided they keep the same level of professionalism in the taking of samples and identifying of animals). I would also really like for the test results to be made publicly available like hip and elbow scores are. This test can be done at an early age - as soon as the animal has an id number - so no need to wait until they are 12 months old to decide whether to keep them for breeding.
Would that such a test were available for epilepsy!
Shirley Hutchinson
by Mackenzie on 14 September 2010 - 14:09
Good post Shirley. Are you proposing to test each puppy in the litters as well from any female that you may find to be a carrier so the public are made aware of what they have purchased?
Mackenzie
Mackenzie
by hutch on 14 September 2010 - 14:09
No - too expensive and unnecessary if the pup is not to be bred from.
I know the KC can sometimes ignore endorsements but I understand that if you have a contract in place with the new owner then they will uphold it? I am obliged to explain the contract and endorsements to a new owner and that would obviously entail explaining the PD test if they are considering breeding and I would explain the mother and father's status and what that statistically means.
Most of the puppies I sell go to companion homes who are not interested in breeding. If breeding was an important consideration then I am sure I could come to an arrangement with the potential owner.
Shirley
I know the KC can sometimes ignore endorsements but I understand that if you have a contract in place with the new owner then they will uphold it? I am obliged to explain the contract and endorsements to a new owner and that would obviously entail explaining the PD test if they are considering breeding and I would explain the mother and father's status and what that statistically means.
Most of the puppies I sell go to companion homes who are not interested in breeding. If breeding was an important consideration then I am sure I could come to an arrangement with the potential owner.
Shirley
by Mackenzie on 14 September 2010 - 15:09
Thankyou for your response Shirley, it was as I expected from a responsible breeder. The reason for the question was for the benefit of the less experienced to learn from how this matter should be addressed.
As a matter of interest what is your opinion regarding the frequency that dwarf's appear and is this occuring more often these days. I personally think that the frequency of dwarfism is very, very low.
Mackenzie
As a matter of interest what is your opinion regarding the frequency that dwarf's appear and is this occuring more often these days. I personally think that the frequency of dwarfism is very, very low.
Mackenzie
by BlackthornGSD on 14 September 2010 - 16:09
What is PD and what sort of testing is done for it? Pitiutary dwarfism? Is this test only available in the UK?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top