Would anyone experienced in these matters (not me then!lol) consider that some breeds do not require health testing? We all know certain breeds are particularly in need of stringent testing but just recently I found a breeder who doesn't health test at all and I'm a bit torn as to whether that is ok or not, as the other breeders seem to, though not as much as in other breeds I reckon (because there's less potential problems, not because they're lax).

If it's the breed I'm thinking of then I'd be hoping that hips are done and eye testing I'd like to see too.

The more I'm looking into it the more I'd like to see every breed eye tested regardless of any known common problems in the breed or not.

If other breeders are testing and this one is not... then I think I would be going with the 'other breeders are more responsible than this one' line of thought.

There are one or two conditions, one I can think of in Deerhounds, where its not quite so black and white..

Factor 7 deficiency - its not life threatening, its unlikely to ever be a problem and its been around for YEARS before we either knew about it, or could test for it - however, now we DO know about it, I think it would be irresponsible of breeders not to KNOW the status of their dogs.

I would personally (which is easy for me to say as I don't breed) not actually let that information heavily influence breeding decisions - but I do think breeders should use the tests available and be transparent about the status of their dogs (ie, affected, carrier, non carrier)  so that we all know what we are dealing with.

I do think there are very very few conditions like this though and anything that other breeders are routinely testing for, that would affect the health and lifespan of the individual dogs produced, should be tested for and those results used in the careful consideration of who to breed from.

A breeder NOT doing this gains what exactly? A false sense of 'pride' that certain conditions are not proven within their lines.. A hefty saving in time and money.

Neither of these things are to the benefit of potential puppies they produce, or their prospective owners, so I would probably walk away here!

Yeah it's very confusing. I read an interview with them from a few years ago where they said that they do not health screen but do general checks when breeding. I don't know enough about this to know what is ok and what isn't.... but given the choice between a health tested litter and a non-tested one i will go with the former.

check out the breed as all breeds have their different health issues - really just general checking is insufficient, most breeds should be eye tested and hip scored as a basic minimum... check if anything else needs to be tested and what might need DNA testing... it would be great if dogs needed need any health tests ;-)  Have a look on the KC list and also Optigen for DNA tests.

The KC website lists breeds and what they should each be tested for, some tests are a must and others are recommended by the breed clubs so I would go for the ones who do both,ones who do neither I would walk away from, the results have to be good, no point in testing to prove you have done it and then go on to breed from dogs who have poor results.

The problem with breeds who need multiple tests doing is getting good results in every one, not easy I should imagine.

I assume you're talking about a greyhound, in which case there are no recommended health tests. Sighthounds in general are very sound, with extremely low hip scores so it's just not thought necessary to test them, hd is not a problem in greyhounds.

There is a dna test for greyhound neuropathy which is a debilitating disease requiring a young dog to be put to sleep, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is and what lines it is in. As it's a relatively cheap test I can't see any reason for breeders not to do it, unless of course the parents of the litter are clear by birth.

It will be interesting to see if KC wants breeders to keep testing when the dogs are genetically clear?  Will they want this to be confirmed?

With border collies there are lots of tests, but they reduce as you use genetically clear.  So my bitch is genetically clear of CEA, CL and TNS, she has a clear eye test (at 5 years) and a clear gonioscopy (for narrow angled glaucoma) and has had her hips scored.  Elbows haven't generally been an issue in border collies, her sire was scored (0) and I haven't had her done.  I haven't had a BAER test either.  The next dog I'm using is also genetically clear of CEA, CL and TNS, with a clear eye test and gonioscopy.  His hips but not his elbows have been scored and he hasn't had a BAER test.  As I used a sire who was a carrier of CEA for one litter and I've DNA tested the pup I kept and she is a carrier if she has a litter it will be to a clear dog and I'll test if I keep one.  Her hips are ok, and she's been eye tested and has a clear gonioscopy.  Again she's not been BAER tested.  Some people think you shouldn't use a carrier, but for me it does depend on what they're carrying - for me CEA isn't a major issue but I wouldn't want to use a TNS carrier sire.  I wish there was a DNA test for epilepsy as many people hide this problem :-(

There are no health tests required by the KC for my breed.. Quite a few are doing heart testing now...

Personally I believe all breeds should have the basics of Hip scoring and eye testing, and then breed specific things after that.

A breed I was involved in with in the past did not have eye issues so they thought, not until a few people eye tested only to find their dogs had hereditary cataract.

Hip dysplasia can be found in all breeds large and small (even though bigger ones more prone) and wild Candis too.

I could understand for example not Hip Scoring in Greyhounds as they score so low, but in the show lines being a smaller gene pool I would want it done to make sure it stayed that way..

In my breed a DNA test was found for PRA  back in the 80's. However majority of breeders are saying that their stock is still clear "through pedigree", but at a recent health seminar Jeff Sampson advised that dogs should be tested and not to rely on stock being clear by hereditary.
In fact he went so far to suggest that our breed should never have been given this all clear.
Must say that we have had our latest pups, who are3 years old now, Optigen blood tested and they were clear.

Brainless I echo everything you have just posted.

Sweden who has such strict breeding policies have NO health tests recommended for any sighthounds. There are no statistics on the BVA list for hip scores for Greyhounds (which means either none at all have been hip scored, or less than 10). So taking this into consideration, I would not reject a breeder who did not hip score as it would make it pretty impossible to find a breeder at all.

In the USA under OFA statistics http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html for Greyhound are: ranking 157, evaluated 343, excellent (better than BVA score of 6) 35.6%, dysplastic (over 25 BVA score) 2.0%. 

So that means that around 63% score between 7 and 24 equivalent BVA system, so worth keeping an eye on in a small gene pool.

Some stud owners DNA test their PRA cord1 hereditary clear males just so they have a certificate to show prospective bitch owners.

My 3 younger dachsies are first generation hereditary clear, all their parents were tested clear, I may do a spot check a couple of generations further down the line depending on what happens re PRA cord1 in the mean time. My other male was DNA tested clear as neither of his parents had been DNA tested but both had normal eye exams.

Think that there being a problem with giving most sighthounds a GA or even a sedative in some cases means that people are reluctant to have any tests that involve GA or sedation.

So that means that around 63% score between 7 and 24 equivalent BVA system, so worth keeping an eye on in a small gene pool.

Oh I agree Barbara -my point was merely that as it is NOT the norm to hip score, it would make it impossible to get a good pup if breeders who didn't hip score were rejected.