>she suffered a stifle injury whilst entire, not necessarily due to conformation, but a one off unlucky incident.

So did Paul Gascoigne, and umpteen other sportsmen. Increased risk of injury goes hand in hand with activity. And remember that congenital and hereditary aren't synonymous terms.

Speaking from a puppy buyer perspective:  I want the best of all worlds in that I want the dog to grow into a good example of the breed according to the breed standard, I want it to have the best chance of being free from the types of condition that the breed clubs say are present in their breed, and I want it to have the best possible start to life having been well planned (from dogs of good temperament), and well brought up (with good health care and breeder support).  I wouldn't knowingly compromise on any of these but I accept that it means I have to wait.  My first waiting list was initially 14 months but luckily I was moved up when the list changed.  I do show my dog but even if I were not planning to do so I'd still want the right breeder and the right litter - although I'd be happy to be lower down on the pick list  

I don't see health tests purely as a check-list and I would wish the breeder to explain what they do and why and I'd back it up with my own research.  My breed only need hips but with any other breed I'd want the breeder to educate me and I see this as part of the 'package' they provide to new owners.  I accept that there may be occasions when some health tests are more 'optional' than necessary but again I'd want to hear that from the breeder and other sources too.

With regard to one side paying for the other:  I think that owners of well bred dogs from health tested parents do pay the price in insurance premiums to cover for dogs from puppy farmers or careless breeding.  There are also different markets to consider and IF breeders are finding it more difficult to sell puppies from untested parents then perhaps that is a small price to pay for eliminating puppy farming.  There will always be room for small working breeders who perhaps do fewer test as they are selling to a smaller market.  In the meantime lets make it much easier for the average pet buyer to find the better breeders.

I've hear numerous times that "working" gundog breeds don't have health problems, but I've also heard numerous times people who have had this "healthier" option an they've had the same health problems.

Problem is that many working people still believe this, don't test so don't get the results that the "show" ones do as many more show people test their dogs.

Sedation can actually be more of a problem and is harder to bring a dog round if they do have an adverse reaction than a GA so I've been told.

There's a risk to everything in life, but if we want to improve on the dog world then yes, I think all breeds should be tested and cross breeds.

Saying that my boy that died this year had an excellent score in Spain, scored 41 here, but his pups, grandchildren have good results and nothing like their dad/grandad.

>I've hear numerous times that "working" gundog breeds don't have health problems, but I've also heard numerous times people who have had this "healthier" option an they've had the same health problems.

That's certainly the impression given by the dogs that come through the door at work. Seeing that they're all descended from the same ancestry way back, it's hardly surprising.

<I don't think that's entirely true, they are less likely to test for a problem that they don't see within their lines, not less likely to test overall.  Of course, generally speaking, you will get people from show/pet/working that won't test for what they should.  But that really brings my initial point to the fore, if you know your lines, you breed a dog without problems that you know of, why do you suddenly have to start health testing it when you haven't come across any health problems>

If you have carried out the requisite tests (I have often heard "oh no - never had that in my lines" when the lines have never been tested!) then you clear yourself of that particular hurdle.   It has not been unknown for breeders to use their reputation to carry their names across the requisite of testing - but now that cannot be condoned.

There is always the environment/heredity problem when it comes to HD/elbow testing ...by carrying out the HD/elbow testing, one can use that particular testing as ammunitioni/protection should an adverse score arise from a puppy from otherwise good scoring parents.

The OFA in USA arrange Hip dysplasia statistics in order of how goos a breed is.

Greyhound results are way down the list (Bulldogs are the worst statistically)at number 151, but higher than Siberian Huskies where a very high number are scored.

Breed                           Rank   Number of evaluations    Percent Excellent    Percent dysplastic
                                                                                   (below 5                 (over 25
                                                                                    our scheme)             our scheme)
GREYHOUND                151     336                                34.8                        2.1
SIBERIAN HUSKY         152      16271                            33.4                        2.0
BORZOI                       153      833                                30.9                        1.8
SALUKI                        154      255                                43.1                       1.6
WHIPPET                     155      136                                 35.3                       1.5
GERMAN PINSCHER     156       273                                24.2                       0.7
ITALIAN GREYHOUND  157       169                               59.2                        0.0

Here is the page http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html and also a link comparing their gradings to other schemes http://www.offa.org/hipgrade.html (bottom of the page).

Not replying to anyone in particular, but just clicking the first 'reply' I came to, and trying to remember points to reply to. 

Firstly, I really didn't want this to turn into the health of one set of owner types, against another set of owner types, eg working, show, pet - and say one always has healthier dogs.  I've used the example of working cockers, because it's one I know a couple of people have chatted to me about, they are loathe to hip score their dogs when they haven't got any problems. 

Which leads me to the question, if, by health testing, we discover a problem, is it really a problem when it hasn't caused any health problems previously?  I hope that's not too daft a question, but if we health tested all cockers and found a bms of 14, so what if there is a very low incidence of actual hip problems developing with dogs?  Surely that then becomes testing for the sake of testing???  What good is having that information if the gene pool actually remains pretty healthy hip wise, the only people to have profited are the vets and the bva.  Hope that makes sense.

To try and clarify a little and get back to the actual question, perhaps it would be a better analogy to say that in a numerically small breed, split between show and working, with the overflow (if you like) going to the pet owners, what if one particular group, doesn't matter which, but just imagine two diverged gene pools with a small overlap in the middle perhaps, developed a serious health problem, something like cnm which has become a huge problem because of a bottle neck in the gene pool.  Is it then fair to make everyone pay for testing, when actually, one gene pool remains healthy without this as a problem overall. 

>Is it then fair to make everyone pay for testing, when actually, one gene pool remains healthy without this as a problem overall. 

For the benefit of research to improve knowledge of the breed as a whole, then yes, IMO.

>Is it then fair to make everyone pay for testing, when actually, one gene pool remains healthy without this as a problem overall

Who is 'making' everyone pay for testing?  Presumably the Breed Clubs work with both types (all UK based gene pools) to determine what health tests are advisable for their breed but they do not enforce it.  In fact health tests aren't forced by any governing body.

Ultimately the market will decide what breeders should test for ie they wil be unable to sell puppies if parents haven't had satisfactory results in certain tests.  There may always remain a few who do not test and whose customers do not demand it but generally testing has to be a good thing for all breeders, and owners.

I'm not sure that it's really possible to ring fence separate gene pools within one country however you do raise an interesting point about testing.  I'm not  convinced that breeders should test everything just because those tests are available (for other breeds or in other countries).  For instance my breed is routinely tested for eyes and elbows overseas but not here.  Presumably the breed clubs have some dialogue with each other - I wonder when it's deemed necessary to include new tests for UK stock?

When humans took dogs into thier lives and domesticated them they gradually began to erradicate the good if somewhat cruel job that nature had been doing all along. In a natural environment animals live by the survival of the fittest rules. If a dog had a life threatening condition (and in a wild environment most are) then it just wouldn not survive to procreate. We as humans have taken that role over from nature and decreed that our animals will have the full force of medicine at their disposal to give them long and healthy lives. However it is not our place to produce animals that could not live a natural life. If we are so superior that we can pick and choose what who and when we breed then we must take on natures job and remove the unhealthy from our gene pools. We can do it in a sympathetic ( as oposed to natures live or die attitude) way by not using any animals who have been proved to carry faults. If we do not test out stock how can we do this? It should be the responsibility of all the human race that if we consider ourselves to be more supirior to the rest of the animal kingdom then we should use our knowledge to thier advantage and do as Mother nature intended and use only the fittest animals we have.
So In my humble opinion every animal used for breeding should have all the health tests available to it, and more to the piont we should not use this knowledge in isolation but temper it with the need for correct temperament and breed type. If breeding crosses or mongrels they also should have any health tests available to thier particular breeds contents as well.
Aileen

> Which leads me to the question, if, by health testing, we discover a problem, is it really a problem when it hasn't caused any health problems previously?&nbsp; I hope that's not too daft a question, but if we health tested all cockers and found a bms of 14, so what if there is a very low incidence of actual hip problems developing with dogs?

This is exactly the situation in my breed, the breed mean is aroudn 13 or 14 and 90% score below 20.

In order to maintain this good state of affairs, even if we never improve on it (would be nice for 100% to score below 20), then we need to test to ensure the 20% of animals that score above functionally normal are not used in the breeding program, or those a little higher are only used with care to keep the good status.

Health issues in any breed don't just appear out of nowhere, they are there in a small proportion of the gene pool but with bad luck increase in frequency due to bottlenecks, popular sires, etc.

In fact a lot of the bottlenecks have occurred because a problem has been found and the liens removed, only to increase the chance of another problem cropping up more often as the gene pool narrow.

For example prcd-PRA clinical cases have amounted to 4 in my breed in the last 20 years, but finally we have the DNA test and it was surprising how many turned out to be carriers.  Often a dogs carrier status wasn't known until after it had been used for breeding maybe a last litter and many generations produced, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I have seen somewhere it quoted that in a recessive simple condition for every one percent affected there will be 18% carriers.

Merlot, I disagree to some extent.  Whilst I agree that nature is crueller in the way that it dictates survival, wild animals will also carry genetic defects, conformation issues etc, they won't all be genetically perfect, they won't perhaps live long enough to develop some of the genetic conditions that might otherwise have affected them, the same as PRA with our domestic dogs, and conformation issues may mean they're a little bit slower to either run away or after prey, but all animals develop survival strategies, to help them survive alongside what nature provides. 

Barbara, trying in vain to remember all your post (short term memory of a gnat I'm afraid, and my cuppa's brewing which I am DYING for) - but your post highlights exactly what I was talking about in testing for the sake of testing.  It is like me going to the doctors for nothing, for him to tell me, yep, you're fit and healthy, to hip score a whole gene pool to find out yep, they're healthy overall, seems madness to me. 

If we didn't have the current health tests, do people think that the gene pool would be any less healthy overall?  If we had some of the health tests we have today, available to us twenty or thirty years ago, we would have lost some great achievers, who wouldn't have been used to breed from, or at least to a much lesser extent, because they may have had the stigma of being 'carrier', 'affected', or have had higher hip scores or elbow grades than we would like to see these days. 

Which leads me to the question, if, by health testing, we discover a problem, is it really a problem when it hasn't caused any health problems previously?  I hope that's not too daft a question, but if we health tested all cockers and found a bms of 14, so what if there is a very low incidence of actual hip problems developing with dogs?  Surely that then becomes testing for the sake of testing???  What good is having that information if the gene pool actually remains pretty healthy hip wise, the only people to have profited are the vets and the bva.  Hope that makes sense.

what if that one problem dog found during testing is destined to be a top stud dog ?  what was a rarity could very soon be come common place

The problem is you can not ask a dog is something hurts. they may go through their life with sore hips , elbows etc and never show it on the surface, Dogs can be very tough especially if they have had a problem all their lives.
I've known dogs running about and seemingly normal until the day they died at 7 or 8 years of heart failure.

if you dont test for problems by the time it becomes to obvious to ignore it may be too late.

But there have already been very well used stud dogs that are now thought (pretty much 100%) to have been affected for some of the conditions we now test for, I know in Labradors I've been told of two such dogs, that perhaps wouldn't have been used as widely.  But the whole of the gene pool still remains fairly healthy, it hasn't been overtaken by this genetic problem. 

I'm not clear on your second point, you know dogs that have run around until 7 or 8 and died of heart failure, is that because of a heart defect?  Or are you relating that to them being able to run around with dodgy hips?? 

To be fair, even if you hip score, a high scoring dog can actually run around without showing any signs of discomfort, so the hip score isn't necessarily a pain indicator.  And, if your point is that you've known dogs with dodgy joints running around until old age, then that's really not a good advocate for hip scoring, it sort of proves that despite having a high score, some dogs still stay sound and enjoy life, or at least that's how I view it. 

We don't test for oodles of problems in our dogs, we test for what's currently on the market, or the ones we feel are actually a problem within the breed.  There are two tests relating to Labradors that I'm looking forward to coming out, I think they will give a much clearer picture of two very important health 'problems'.  The genetic test for HD will be an interesting one, because scoring isn't an exact science (not that genetic testing is guaranteed to be either).  The genetic test for HC will, from what other more knowledgeable people say when chatting with them, leave no option but to breed dogs that have the potential to develop cataracts, because of the mode of inheritance and the believed number of dogs who are currently 'affected' within our gene pool.  It would be a better genetic test if it were able to tell us at what age the dog will go on to develop the condition, but I doubt the test will be able to do that, and so I think it will leave many with a difficult ethical decision.  You either choose to keep the gene pool wide, and therefore healthy as regarding other conditions, many of which we don't currently test for and no test is even in development, or you decimate your gene pool to try and eradicate a problem that a dog may or may not develop, and that isn't actually life threatening, more associated with old age.  A really difficult decision, particularly for people who currently wouldn't consider the use of a carrier or affected as ethical for breeding, where the mode of inheritance means any pups produced won't be affected. 

> to hip score a whole gene pool to find out yep, they're healthy overall, seems madness to me.&nbsp;
>

No it isn't it is the only way of ensuring they stay that way, especially when up to 20% of the breed are above generally accepted scores, even if not physical effects are apparent until old age.

If these animals are allowed to breed unchecked the overall health of the gene pool will deteriorate.

In breeds like mine where the majority of breeding animals are tested the general status shows improvement.

The mean score may not change much, because all the sores are used, but if you took the scores of every 10 years and average them out, not only would you see improvement in the mean, but in the proportion with acceptable scores.  The 'median' scores improve.

It is in the popular (exploited) breeds like GSD, Labrador that show relatively little improvement because those testing are too few to make a difference in the gene pool as a whole, only in their own lines..

> or you decimate your gene pool to try and eradicate a problem that a dog may or may not develop, and that isn't actually life threatening, more associated with old age.&nbsp;

This is where DNA tests are so useful, they allow you not to decimate your gene pool because you can use any dog for breeding without producing affected offspring, yes in the short term you will produce carriers, but these can gradually be eliminated as more of their offspring are clear.

it is only the short sighted who immediately want to breed only clear to clear, regardless of quality or other factors.

Just come in on this and I haven't read all the posts in depth so excuse me if I repeat something but I strongly feel that all relevant tests should be done before breeding and the results weighed up before considering breeding. i know of KC Accredited Breeders who do the required tests then ignore the results and breed anyway (such as breeding from a bitch with a 2 elbow score.) I would like to register as a KCAB but not until they insist that tests relevant for each breed are undertaken and only clear or very low-scored animals can be bred from.
Pet owners have the right to a healthy dog with good longevity expectancy and not a potential life-time in the vets. I would ONLY sell to pet people: those who work or show are the ones likely to get rid of their dog if it doesn't succeed in the required fields (finding him a "good home" is the euphemism used) : most pet owners love their dogs unconditionally and have the right to sue a breeder who did not health test before breeding or ignored the results. A few successful court cases should deter the irresponsible. Apart from the owners, the dogs, too, have a right to a life free from pain and with normal free-running exercise. One of my Goldens was 18 months before she achieved that because of her OCD (elbow dysplacia.) She didn't deserve that.

Off my soap box now!

Posting and dashing because I've got loads of work to get through today, but, if you read my point above, re dogs that have been used in the past where it is now pretty much known that they were 'affected' (I'm thinking of a couple of old FTCH extensively used in the Labrador gene pool here) for PRA, and yet the whole of that side of the gene pool isn't all going blind young, nor are there that many coming through as 'affected'.  So surely, these dogs that have this stigma status, aren't actually damaging the gene pool overall in the way we might imagine? 

So why are the DNA tests useful, if, when all is said and done, we still have a whole healthy side of the gene pool overall, despite at least two well used dogs in the past being used extensively without knowing that they were affected for PRA?  Yes we could have avoided using these dogs, but what damage has it actually done to have them in the gene pool without the knowledge at the time, not really much, overall I'd say.  I know some wouldn't agree, because PRA makes your dog blind, doesn't it, but (and I am off to hide behind the sofa after this one) it isn't a life threatening condition, and it also is rare for a dog with an affected status to go on and develop the condition within it's life time, and rare for it to develop the condition at all when young.  I know of only one Labrador that has developed PRA at the age of four (from memory), although I'm sure there are more out there.  Personally, I'd rather see a test developed for more life threatening conditions, and I'm sure they are in the pipeline. 

As a side note, I really am enjoying this debate, and reading other peoples' viewpoints, very interesting. 

You say the gene pool is healthy overall despite carriers being used.

Even carrier to carrier will produce 75% unaffected offspring.

Are you saying that a potentially 25% affected rate is acceptable?

The Labrador has the highest number of regsitrations in any breed, and proportionally the lowest rate of testing, so you cannot know that the breeds gene pool is pretty healthy overall.

My own breed has registrations under a 100 puppies per annum over the last few years, adn not more than 150 in the last 20.

With just 4 cases of PRA confimed in the last 20 years when DNA testing began late 2008 it was found that half the gene pool were carrier or affected, this despite rigorous clinical testing of nearly all breeding stock since it first became available.

DNA testing allows you to safely use any dog in a breeding program, whether you wish to use affected dogs if there is a decent size gene pool and the same lines are available in a clear or carrier is debateable.  If it is the last of yoru valuable line, tehn yes,a dn then you mate the carrier offspring to a clear animal and select the best offspring, preferably clear, if not select clear in the next generaion.

Just to add with my breed as an example.

I think you can safely say that 4 cases of PRA found in 20 years would seem a very healthy gene pool, yet DNA testing showed different, and with the gene pool shrinking very soon we would have got a lot more cases and there would be virtually nowhere to go without the DNA test.

Even as it stands those who find themselves with only carriers left to carry on their liens have severely limited choices of breeding partner, with only the clear dogs to choose from, then they need to be not too closely related (gets very hard in a small gene pool).

Any breeds gene pool can bottle neck.  In the 1930's one of the most popular breeds was the Wire Fox Terrier, looks at the numbers, and therefore the gene pool now.

>Even carrier to carrier will produce 75% unaffected offspring. Are you saying that a potentially 25% affected rate is acceptable?

I'd say an emphatic 'no' - not when it's totally avoidable. Carriers can be bred from, but only if mated to clears, so the worst you can produce is more carriers, who won't suffer the actual condition. This is where testing is invaluable, because it gives the information needed to produce healthier puppies, and without limiting the gene pool.

with staffordshire bull terriers we  now test for HC and L2 HGA which is a rare fitting disorder.

I would not dream of breeding with an untested dog and am going to have my young dog tested in the next few weeks.

We do not see hip displaysia in staffords routinely and elbow problems are somewhat of a rarity as well.

The problem is that a lot of disorders in dogs cannot be seen and its important to have them tested so that you know the health status of the dog before mating them.

The dam of my young dog was clear but the sire was untested and therefore all the pups  need to be tested before being bred from.

Its what any responsible person would do IMO....

Posting and dashing again, busy busy and away for the weekend, so apols if it seems like I'm not responding, but, just copying your response Jean:

"I'd say an emphatic 'no' - not when it's totally avoidable. Carriers can be bred from, but only if mated to clears, so the worst you can produce is more carriers, who won't suffer the actual condition. This is where testing is invaluable, because it gives the information needed to produce healthier puppies, and without limiting the gene pool. "

Just a point, affecteds can be bred from, mated to a clear and not produce anything worse than a carrier as well for some conditions.  And whilst I agree, it isn't a nice thought, and for those who own dogs affected by conditions that aren't life threatening, like PRA, the statistics we have, and the percentage probability can't be counted as entirely accurate, as an example, what the figures do not show, is the affected status dogs, that actually go on to develop PRA in their lifetime, I believe that figure would be substantially lower.  So is it then acceptable, ethically, to discount a large portion of the gene pool, simply for a non-life threatening condition a dog might never actually develop, even with an affected status? 

Whilst I agree that there are conditions that it would be unacceptable to produce an affected dog, I also think the whole ethics of health testing are being rail roaded, everyone is encouraged to produce *clear* and *low*, a lot are only using clear x clear for conditions where there really isn't any need.  Who's to say what condition is round the corner that hasn't yet presented itself?  We've got CNM in Labs, which everyone rushed to test for, as it was thought to be the next HUGE problem, and actually, it isn't really that much of a problem within the breed, certainly goood to test for because it does mean that the vast majority of pups born with this condition don't make it to adulthood.  Also, we've got the HUGE, HUGE conundrum of EIC, where the trigger isn't known, nor is it actually known whether a collapse is due to the genetic status; what happens when the next ten tests come out?  I think we really have to start considering that we are breeding animals that will not be genetically perfect, and we can only do our best to try and produce an animal that will lead as healthy a life as possible, not something that comes with a warranty. 

I don't know what the answer is about the ethics of health testing, but, as you may have gathered, although I do think it has it's place, I am becoming more and more cautious about it overall, and how it's being promoted and used in some quarters. 

>Just a point, affecteds can be bred from, mated to a clear and not produce anything worse than a carrier as well for some conditions. 

And without testing in the first place you can't know which dogs are 'clear' ... there would be no outward difference between a carrier and a clear. As you say, mating an affected to a clear would only produce carriers. But if the supposed 'clear'(because it was unaffected) was actually a carrier you'd produce some affected puppies. this is what's inexcusable because it's avoidable by testing.

Basically testing is an essential tool in the breeder's armoury for producing the healthiest animals they can. Knowledge is power.

Forgive me for feeling strongly about this, but a neighbour's young dog (under 3 years old) has just had its second eye removed because of a hereditary eye condition that could have been avoided.

I really cannot understand the logic of any argument which proposes that health testing potential breeding stock per se gives an owner a "licence to breed"!

Everyone can breed litters of puppies, from any dog, using any bitch and any stud, in any breed (or no breed) as many times as they like without using any health tests.

If a person wants their litters KC registered than there are few more restraints, and in some breeds under the ABS a few more.

You cannot stop this any more than you can stop people selling black market CDs or people buying them (cos education on this has not prevented this)

A breeder who is considering a litter from their bitch will, health score their bitch for the good of the breed, for the maximum chance of choosing a stud, and maximising their opportunities to sell their offsrpring to suitable homes and suitable prices.  This is sensible, no different from marketing the safest car, or most efficient fridge.

A stud dog owner will do the same.

Each may turn down prospective mates on several grounds, one of which may well be the lack of health testing, another may be that the lines will not "nick" in the opinion of one and/or the other.

Purchasers will often choose stock from breeders based on several criteria, one of which may well be health. Another may be temperament, another may be conformation, another may be working ability etc etc.

To state that putting your dog under GA is a risk as an argument for not health testing is, I am afraid, not a genuine one.

First of all you can hip score and elbow score under sedation (I know there are arguments for and against but that is another thread).

Secondly the risk of the GA is posed to ONE dog. The risk of not health testing affects SEVERAL and often not just one generation but many.

Nothing in life is risk free, but I buy a dog based on a risk assessment, the same way as I do electrical items for example where I look for CE marks, guarantee, warranty, BSI/EN/ISO registration and a Which? report.  This gives me the best information on what make(s) model(s) will provide me with what I want re quality, value, service, reliability, economics etc etc.

Dogs are not "goods" as such in the same context, but I have refused people the services of my stud dog based on the fact that they have not had their bitch sufficiently health tested (IMO).  I have also refused to use my dog on bitches that have had all the health tests for other reasons.

So what I am saying is that I have a stud dog that has had ALL the health tests available for it, it has achieved awards in the working arena, conformation and been temperament tested.

Has he been used?

No

There are many people out there like me, I consider myself a responsible owner and would like to be a responsible breeder, so if he is never used I certainly will be, if he IS used I want to ensure that I have done EVERYTHING REASONABLY PRACTICABLE to maximise the health of his offspring.

Then if any issues arise it will not be because I have failed to do everything possible to eliminate risk, it will be because nature sometimes throws us a curve ball!

Jean, I know all of that, BUT, and I think it's a huge question, are we right to rely on the tests we have now and to attach such importance to breeding clear from conditions like PRA, to erradicate them from any gene pool, whether or not it's a split gene pool, when we only know the tip of the health testing iceberg?  Perhaps we may end up breeding ourselves into a corner, and find out that a particular condition, although not nice, was better to live with in the gene pool, carefully managed, rather than close off a whole section of dogs that may have kept the breed healthier overall as regards other conditions, that we may really know little/nothing about now, or not even be aware of their existence?  Does that make sense??

Tohme, but why health test for things that are not a problem within a breed overall?  Yes, I'm aware that plates can be taken under sedation, although I'm sure somewhere I've read that they should be taken under GA, and as I pointed out earlier, when the plates for my bitch were mucked up and had to be redone, I had her sedated the second time round, and she was worse from the sedation than GA.  So no, I don't think you should blythely say it's fine to put all dogs through a GA and/or sedation, for me it is a big decision, not to be taken lightly at all. 

Yes, everyone can breed, but some breeders are using the health testing to appear to be a responsible breeder, when they are not.  I know of a few people who test for narcolepsy in Labradors, why?  Because it isn't a problem within the breed, not that I've been able to find out, so why is it anything to be proud of testing for, unless you want an extra piece of paper to wave about?? Doesn't make sense unless you just want to have a list of "tested fors".  Not everybody uses the health tests for the good of the breed, they do it because Joe Public aren't always savvy enough to realise that a list of health test results does not, a good breeder, make.

I agree with you to a certain extent about health testing, but I see no point in testing for something that simply isn't a problem within a breed, and slightly back to the original question, it must be even more difficult when you have a breed with a split gene pool, where a problem arises in one side only.  It must be quite galling to be told you SHOULD test for 'x' because it's a problem within your breed, when it isn't a problem across the board and you are confident that it isn't affecting the lines of your dogs.  I know I'd be gutted, not for any financial reason, but to have a health problem associated with my dogs that there simply was no evidence of there being present. 

I am not anti-health testing, never have been, and as I've said, I've tested my dogs for what I think are a problem within the breed, and will continue to test them.  I don't like the elbow grading system, I think as far as being a useful tool, it's a rather blunt one, but it's the only way we currently have of assessing the elbow joint, and so I will support the health test and use it.  I can't draw a comparison with cars or fridges I'm afraid, I think the issues surrounding dogs, breeding and health testing are far more complex, and I will remain cynical about testing for the sake of it, I'm sure that's not a surprise to some ;) 

> Perhaps we may end up breeding ourselves into a corner, and find out that a particular condition, although not nice, was better to live with in the gene pool, carefully managed, rather than close off a whole section of dogs that may have kept the breed

With DNA tests that is the beauty you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as correctly used all can be utilised in the gene pool without producing affected animals.

What you say is what has happened in the past, and inadvertently one reason gene pools have constricted.  Breeders avoided using lines or individuals that produced undesirable traits.  I have done it myself with regards to PRA avoided using certain lines more where it had popped up, and in the event now we have a DNA test and mine are clear I can use the lines I avoided before.

A breeder cannot know or avoid every ill, and as you say may choose to prioritise, use something related or from a lien that has produced minor problems, use a higher hip score to a better than average one etc.

Breeding is an Art not a Science, and is something that should only be contemplated with as much knowledge or access to knowledge as is possible.  This is why I am so against 'casual' breeding.

> but I see no point in testing for something that simply isn't a problem within a breed, and slightly back to the original question, it must be even more difficult when you have a breed with a split gene pool, where a problem arises in one side only.&nbsp;

The problems tested for are back in the roots of the breeds, not something new, so even in split gen pools these splits are very recent and each side is just as likely to carry the deleterious genes.

As has been found with PRA several breeds share the exact same version, as at some point they have either been mixed, or have common ancestry.

I too agree that if a problem does not occur in a breed (Elbow dysplasia for example in mine, the ones that have decided to test internationally have all been normal), then there is no reason to test, but as soon as a problem shows up in any population of a specific breed then the breed as a whole world wide needs to start checking.

The prcd-PRA we have now a DNA test for has been found in UK dogs, and there are those in other countries that don't see the relevance for them, but their dogs have exactly the same lines as our, often being down from our exports, or related to the same imports in our gene pool amd they all go back to the same dogs in Scandinavia.

In the UK we have as a group all eye tested and that is why we have found the low incidence of clinical cases (but DNA has shown a high incidence of carriers), in other countries eye testing is sporadic at best, so of course they think they don't have a problem.

I agree that it is pointless health testing your dog for a disease that is not known in your breed (eye tests come to mind) but most of us health screen NOT just for the "sake of it" (most of us do not have the amount of disposable income to waste) and NOTHING in life is without risk, however as I pointed out in my first post, the risk of NOT testing IMO outweighs the risk of testing.

> (eye tests come to mind)

To be honest once people test most breeds are found to have some eye problem.

BSD's come to mind, when I was in the breed they were not eye tested, but once a few were it was found the breed had hereditary cataracts. 

To be honest clinical eye testing is one of the cheaper tests (between £25 and £45) and it could be easily argued that it along with hip scoring (not cheap) should be the routine minimum for all breeds.

Oooh, posting and dashing again, loads to do and a rather nice new addition who may need my attention.  But, some really great points again!  One thing that springs to mind about recent health tests, is those who are choosing not to keep doing the annual eye cert because they've tested their dog and it's clear for PRA - ludicrous I think.  No the eye cert can't guarantee your dog will pass the next time round, but it is still the only way of recording the current eye condition of your dog. 

Barbara, just on your point about the root of health defects, do you think that's the case though?  Yes, there may be an incidence in both gene pools, but one gene pool may have a much higher affected rate, and of those affected for 'whatever' they may develop it, where as the other gene pool may have such a low rate of affected dogs, and only a very small number develop 'whatever' condition it is.  If it were a substantial difference between each gene pool, I would be miffed if my dogs were associated with 'whatever' simply because the other side of the gene pool had somehow landed themselves in hot water.  I do see the point of view that the only way to ascertain the status of your dogs is to test, but really, if you know your lines, know your dogs SHOULD be clear of this 'whatever', the only winners are the people you pay to do the tests.  Yes, you get a nice piece of paper telling you pretty much what you knew, but I still think it would be a bit galling for those people who haven't had any health problems with their dogs.  Hope I'm making sense?? 

I think if we tested every breed, we would find they pretty much all have some level of hip dysplasia, and HC, but if the breed overall is healthy, I still can't see the argument for doing these tests.  If it is a problem in a breed, or starts to become a problem, yes, but these are animals, and they will never be 100% perfect, well, apart from my dogs of course ;)

Also, another point, just how long do we trust genetic tests for?  For those who are choosing only to breed clear x clear, are they all going to confirm the genetic status of their dogs ever two or three generations?  I will be, but then I may well consider using dogs that aren't clear as well, for conditions that wouldn't be a problem should pups turn out to be carriers.  Hmmmmm, lots of food for thought.......

I still can't see the argument for doing these tests.  If it is a problem in a breed, or starts to become a problem, yes, but these are animals, and they will never be 100% perfect, well, apart from my dogs of course 

Hmm, but if we do NOT test and WAIT until a problem appears how is that advantageous to ANYONE, eg new owners, the breeders or, more importantly the dog(s)?

Health screening means that you have the potential to PREVENT problems from growing surely by identifying suspect stock?

Would you advocate every breed were tested for every known disease, surely you start testing if a disease shows up and is known to be one that is inherited?

That is why breed surveys and breed clubs asking breeders and owners to inform them of instances of genetic disease is important before universal testing?

There are diseases that are pretty specific to certain breeds or related breeds.  Colour related deafness in some predominatly white dog breeds, Sebaceous Adenitis in poodles etc.

I was took in a dog that someone else could no longer keep.  They advised he had some 'problems' before he came to me.  Once here it was clear he had other 'problems' that the previous owner admitted when questioned.  Some problems were clearly 'temperament' issues.

I eventually contacted the breeder and asked if other dogs from the same litter/same parants showed similar issues.

The breeder told me she had heard of 'temperament' problems in the stud dog but he was a 'Champion' and she didn't really think it fair to 'do a dog down'.

With that she used this show stud to sire litters.   I was appalled.  The dogs and others from these parents do not have conformation faults or illnesses but I believe temperament is just as vital to a dog/dog owner yet some breeders will knowingly overlook this to get pups sired by a winning show dog.

I totally agree that we should test for as much as possible and then some.  Unfortunately, temperament testing is not a quantative subject  but breeders should be responsible for this as with  all physical factors.

No, I would not advocate every breed were tested for every known disease because I agree that is pointless. What I mean is that for exampleif I owned a large or giant breed I would certgainly test for HD etc.

That is what I have said every breed can have HD so all breeds should be hip scored, and as most breeds appear to have some eye condition eye testing (which is relatively cheap) should be carried out too as the starting points for all breeds.

> With that she used this show stud to sire litters.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was appalled.&nbsp; The dogs and others from these parents do not have conformation faults or illnesses but I believe temperament is just as vital to a dog/dog owner yet some breeders will knowingly overlook this to get pups sired by a winning show dog.

That is very short sighted and I would never use a dog whose temperament I was unsure of.  I usually spend a lot of time getting to know a stud dog I am interested in, and studying it's offspring.

Yes I have used foreign dogs on occasion so had to trust the people I was dealing with, but then it would not have done their reputations much good internationally if they had been less than honest.

In fact our imports since I have come into the breed have had outstanding temperaments (and invariably passed these on) despite having to do solitary confinement for 6 months in Quarantine).

In the end I want dogs I and others can live with, after all the problems will come back to roost if I don't, so it is in my own best interest because as a responsible breeder I would need to deal with the fall out.

So the more responsible the breeder the more likely they are to care to ensure their pups turn out as well as possible in ALL ASPECTS.

Barbara, first of all, I hate pressing reply to the last post because there are a few points here, so I'm not just replying to you, hope that's ok.

Suzieq, wow, what a tangent!  But an interesting one, if only there were a genetic temperament test for dogs, now that would be the first one I would be running down to the vets to book for my dogs!!  I have a bitch here, who has a higher elbow grade than I would like, unfortunately for me, the vet taking the plates wasn't the best, I wasn't the wisest, so I will never know for sure if they are a true reflection of the status of her elbows.  If I could clone her, I would, she takes everything in her stride, she is the lovliest and most accepting of dogs, and I couldn't ask for a better companion, there isn't ever going to be another bitch like her, but I had her spayed as, other than a high elbow grade, she suffered a cruciate injury and I didn't feel it was fair to put her through the rigours of whelping.  They certainly did break the mould with this one.

Tohme, are you cynical then about some of the health tests, and simply testing to have a result?  Because that's where I feel the cynicism coming in, and what prompted me to post the thread originally, because I don't feel we can will ever have in our life time 100% accurate picture of our dogs' health, we can only have a tiny snapshot of them in relation to others within the same breed, but we expect to have 100% healthy dogs.  It seems a lot to ask.

Barbara, finally replying to you, and I've probably missed a post or two above, but am just catching up, so apologies.  Trying to remember your other post re HC, but if I remember rightly, if what is believed about the inheritance mode of HC and the widespread genetic status, then actually, we are going to be very hard put to breed a majority of litters that are clear for this condition?  I may be wrong, and I hope someone with those darn genetic type language things comes along and posts.  Now some may consider this wrong, but I have always associated HC as something to do with some dogs as they grow older, eye sight faililng and all that.  This is a good example of the type of thing I have posted about earlier in the thread, none life threatening, normally develops later on in the lifespan of a dog, if at all, and in my experience, having a lab x collie with HC, didn't really affect her quality of life.  So why should we all be trying to test and breed clear of this condition?  It's a nice to have it you find a match that will provide clear progeny, but certainly wouldn't be a priority for me given current information.

> what if that one problem dog found during testing is destined to be a top stud dog ?  what was a rarity could very soon be come common place

Therein lies the crux of the problem.  Let's say that a particular line of dogs is never tested, but appears healthy; so no testing is done because none appears needed.

Then, let's say that one particular dog  is an excellent example of the breed, and is put out to stud, again with no tests because it appears healthy; he sires hundreds of pups who go on to have fantastic show careers.

Now let's say that that one dog had something that couldn't be seen by the naked eye; and that got passed on to many of his pups, and became a huge problem within the breed.

This is not a theory - this has happened, in GSDs.  Every case of haemolytic anaemia within GSDs can be traced to one sire, who was overused because he appeared to be such a good example.  If that were to happen today, then no-one would know about the problem unless he was tested - it doesn't matter what line he's on, at some point down the line his pups are bound to be bred to pups of another line.

Fact is, it doesn't matter whether one 'side' is healthier than another - unless everyone tests, it only takes one cross between lines to introduce a problem into the other 'side'.  And not testing based on 'looking healthy' is downright irresponsible.

To use Brainless's example from page 1, dobermanns - my breed - I have yet to find a breeder who does all the tests I want; the vast, VAST majority do one or two or none at all.  As a result, dobes are prone to thyroid problems, Wobbler's (a spinal problem), vWD (bleeding again), and some have hip problems.  But the big one - the one that as of the latest stats I've read, is currently killing 55% of all dobes - is the heart.

If we test only based on how the dog looks, then, as has happened and continues to happen, dogs from affected parents and dogs with the early stages of DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy) are being bred from and passing it on.  One test, once a year, can pick this up before it shows any symptoms - my oldest girl has just been diagnosed through routine screening this way - and that dog can then be removed from the gene pool.

In this instance, it hasn't made a blind bit of difference whether the dogs are workers, pets, or show lines - because they've been bred from when they shouldn't be, because people haven't tested and picked up on this problem before it shows externally, DCM is now in all lines of dobes.  Lines get crossed for various reasons - to improve shape, working ability etc - and everyone's lines get affected.

Just came into this thread (first thread since coming back to CD LOL) and I have a few points to raise.

First, some people in my breed won't bother health testing because "the min pin is healthy".  Some breeders choose the min pin, as to not have to health test.  This erks me.  As the min pin does have some health issues. 

Second, I approached someone about breeding to their male.  They thought it was a great idea!  My bitch comes from health tested parents, and I am willing to do health testing on this bitch as well.  (was going to before I even thought about breeding to ANY male).  This male, which at the time, I thought was very nice, had some strings attached.  I needed to test for several things (which I was going to anyways...so thats not the issue) but the male wasnt going to have A SINGLE health test done.  My bitch, needed testing up the wazzooo but the male wasn't even going to have eyes or knees done!  To make matters worse, I later found out the dog had a disqualifying fault which was being hidden by sneaky grooming practises.  Needless to say I wont breed to that male.  Part of me thinks, if I know ahead of time that the male isnt going to be tested for health problems in the breed, and I dont have to do any, and I still breed to the male then it would be MY issue.  What erks me, is that all this was placed on my bitch as a pre-requisite for breeding, but outright told the male wasnt going to have a single thing done. 

My older bitch (who really isnt that old, she is 4.5 years) I am contemplating on removing her from my breeding programme.  Mainly because she had an injury, and now has luxating patella.  She had preliminary tests done, and came back with NO evidence of luxating patellas before the injury.  My vet explained, that the only way an xray would prove whether a dog has LP was if the knee was out at the time of testing.  That these preliminary tests done by my vet was enough.  I am not here to debate as to whether my vet is right or wrong, but part of me sees her point. (I have LP as well, and my xrays look ok when my knee isnt dislocated....so it makes sense to me) Now, do I remove her from my breeding programme because of an injury she had, or do I breed her again, knowing that she was ok before her injury.

Also, health testing is all well and good, but breeders have to not ignore the health tests they do.  I know of a breeder in another breed, that PURPOSELY is breeding affected dogs.  (advertised on her website.....)  So yes, health testing is good, and should be done, but breeders also have to not ignore the test results by breeding affected dogs. 

Lastly, there are testing that you do once a year.  (like eyes and heart) Your dog could test clear up to breeding, and past breeding.  But later on develope Cardio or Eye problems, what do you do there.  The pups are on the ground, growing up in their new homes, and you loose a dog to heart, or your dog goes blind due to PRA.  But at the time you did the breeding, and they were part of your breeding programme, you tested faithfully every year.  Have you failed your breed, and your dogs, by breeding said dogs? 

Anyways, thats my two cents.   Ok, maybe more like a nickels worth! 

With clinical tests, especially late onset problems you have to research the health and longevity of the ancestors.

It is like with hearts in Cavaliers.  The advice is that the breeding pair must be at least 2 1/2 years old, but that their parents (pups to be  grandparents) have been tested murmur free at over 5 years of age.

It is so much easier with the definitive DNA tests (not the linkage ones) because you can safely use any dog in a  breeding program and not produce affecteds, you may in the interim still produce/use carriers, but once your pol of clear dogs is wide enough you can then use only clear to clear.

This is why breeding is such a serious matter and should not be undertaken without deep research into all aspects and the ancestors as much as is possible to avoid problems as far as is humanly possible.  You also need a great t dollop of luck.

Regards your injured bitch, if her problem was not of a genetic nature but caused by injury then the only issue re breeding is will a pregnancy make her problem worse.

As for someone expecting bitches coming to their males to be tested but not testing their stud, that's mad!

'It is so much easier with the definitive DNA tests...'

..but who says that the DNA tests are actually definitive??

We have had a very contraversial 'test' in flatcoats for JRD (Juvenile Renal Dysplasia).    This test is widely advertised, and quite expensive,  but has not been peer reviewed.   A small sample of dogs tested came back with 75% 'carriers', when the clinical incidence of the disease appears to be only about 0.2% of the population.

To confuse even more - a 'clear x clear' mating recently came back with the pups all 'carriers'.

Jo

I would be wanting to retest the parents and DNA the pups for parentage, in case of creative accounting.

They have been!   Witnessed!

Jo

Jo, this is one reason that I haven't tested for EIC in my bitch, as I just don't think the test has been proven yet, nor do they know entirely what they're testing for, except a set of symptoms.  I haven't looked back at what's going on with this test for a while, but I know quite a few people jumped in and tested their dogs, but when carriers and/or even clear dogs are having collapsing episodes, that can't be either proven or disproven that they are related to EIC, then I honestly have my doubts about whether it's worth using the test.  I hope they do go on to develop the test so that it can become a useful tool, at which point I would look at possibly testing. 

To reply to the person a couple of posts ago re things like the BVA eye cert, I do know that some people who breed Labs have now stopped renewing the eye cert for their dogs, instead, just testing for PRA.  I personally think the annual eye cert should continue to be used by anyone who breeds where there are problems within a breed overall, it won't stop some dogs being used that then go on to develop HC for example, but if you know your dog has HC, hopefully you won't continue to breed from them, so adding further dogs to the gene pool without knowing their status.  BUT, having said that, HC is a difficult one, a lot of people think it is very widespread indeed, not information from me, but much more knowledgeable people.  If it is very widespread, and the mode of inheritance slightly more complicated, it might mean we can't avoid but breeding dogs that might potentially be affected and even go on to develop the condition.  Or do we completely decimate gene pools?  I don't know what the answer is, but I like asking questions, I always hope to learn more by asking!! 

I know of a dog that has been tested for a health condition (DNA) and they sent two tests off to two different places.  One came back as the dog was a carrier, one came back with the dog being clear.  What do you do in that situation?  I guess breed to a clear, as then you know you wont get affecteds.   (and I am not sure why two tests were done for the same thing, by two different places)

Ive also heard that the xrays for hips and knees can make your dog have problems.  That when under GA they (the vet) can pull the limbs to far and actually cause issues in hips, elbows and knees.  Now I dont know if that is just a cop out for people that dont health test.  A reason to make them feel better about not health testing.  But what I do know, is instead of GA I want sedation used on my dogs.  Where if it hurts, they can still let the vet know that it does. 

Crespin, sedation can be worse than GA if your dog has a reaction to it as it's easier to bring a dog around from a GA than sedation.

Rather worrying about the DNA tests as our breed has recently started having one, though the lines that are coming back as carriers do seem to be consistent.

> To reply to the person a couple of posts ago re things like the BVA eye cert, I do know that some people who breed Labs have now stopped renewing the eye cert for their dogs, instead, just testing for PRA.&nbsp; I personally think the annual eye cert should continue to be used by anyone who breeds

That is the view of our breed clubs, we were only being tested for PRA and now have the DNAS test, but are still required to have an up to date (within 12 months of the mating) current eye test as well before breeding

Trouble is, you're heading for a genetic bottleneck in many breeds if people keep using the few 'clear' dogs when you have an apparently high proportion of carriers in the population.

Not many DNA tests I would have faith in at present, I must say - much more needs to be done, and of course time is money with these companies....

Jo

> Trouble is, you're heading for a genetic bottleneck in many breeds if people keep using the few 'clear' dogs when you have an apparently high proportion of carriers in the population.
>

That is why initially you shoudl nto be using only clear dogs.  Yoru priority shodulb e not to prodcue affected dogs.

You use carriers until the proportion of carriers in the population reduces to negligible numbers and then use clears only, as has happened with Irish Setters.

The FCI's breeeding strategies document states this quite plainl: http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/29-2010-annex-en.pdf

5. Results from DNA tests for inherited diseases should be used to avoid breeding diseased dogs, not necessarily to eradicate the disease. Dogs shown to be carriers (heterozygote) for a recessive inherited disease should only be bred to a dog that is proven not to carry the allele for the same disease.