My girl is a Carrier for a condition, and should only be bred to a stud who tests Clear. 

The stud I'm looking at, hasn't had this particular health test done (it's one of the more obscure tests which is not on the ABS list and many people don't test for it, even reputable breeders). 

It is just a DNA cheek swab, so a pretty easy one to do.

I am emailing to ask the stud owner if they will have this test done.  Should I offer to split the cost?  Should I just see what they say if I ask them to do it, and agree to split if they ask me?  Should they pay for it all???

I'd offer to pay it in total.
As you say they could easily decide to join the other "reputable breeders" and not bother.
To you ...with a carrier...the knowledge is important.

I did think that toolz - but I also thought that it might make him more appealing as a stud, to other bitch owners in the future, that he has had this extra test done.  (There are not a great number of studs around who have had it done.)  If that's the case, and if it's another string to his bow as it were - surely the stud owner should at least pay in part for it?

Those studs who have had it done (not choosing some of those because they don't suit my girl as well in terms of the pedigree) are not charging extra for stud duties because their dog has been tested for it - so with that reasoning, I don't know why I should pay for the test?  (You don't pay extra per health test a dog has had - you tend to pay extra for quals and achievements, rather than health tests!)

I thought part of the service a stud owner should provide, is to offer a fully health-tested and healthy stud.  Should I pay extra for something which (I think) should be done anyway? 

I don't mind paying for it or part of it, if everyone unanimously thinks that is the right thing to do, but I just didn't want to be a sucker and offer to pay for something which really should be provided by the stud owner anyway.  (Especially when you're paying top dollar for the stud.)

Thoughts??

I thought part of the service a stud owner should provide, is to offer a fully health-tested and healthy stud.  Should I pay extra for something which (I think) should be done anyway?

YOU think it should be done because you have a carrier bitch -that's fine. But if it isn't even recommended in the ABS, where do you draw the line? Can ANY dog ever be FULLY health tested? Where do you draw the line? It sounds like you are talking about a rare problem? If it was my bitch, I'd definitely offer to pay the cost. DNA tests aren't expensive anyway, it's not like asking for hip scoring and elbow scoring or MRI scanning, for instance. In fact, I have a male dog in mind for one of my bitches for the future. I have not yet approached the owner but this dog is basically an agility dog, owner is not a breeder, and so he isn't DNA tested for what I need. I've thought all along that if and when I approach the owner I'd offer to pay for the test as I am the one needing it.

Ok, sounds reasonable. 

It isn't that rare a condition... I've had dogs in my classes with it.  Really, more dogs should be tested for it, but unfortunately it takes a while and people are slow on the uptake of new DNA tests as they come out. 

I agree it's not a huge cost so I'll just offer to pay it, as a nice way to approach them about using him in the first place.

Your kindness will come back to you if you pay in full.
You reap the benefit and so does the breed. Win-win

SO. I emailed the stud owner and asked if she would do the test and offered to pay for it.

She was very nice in her response but said she didn't want to test in case it "ruined his stud career" if he was found to be a carrier too!!! And in case of the fallout with litters he has already sired!!

She did say she would "mull it over" but basically it sounds like it's not going to happen.

I really want to start advertising the upcoming breeding so I don't want to wait longer and will move on :(

Sadly a common scenario. Ostrich Syndrome where money is concerned.
The tide of opinion will change as it has for so many breeds and being 'seen to be doing the right thing' will prevail.

I would avoid if they don't want to do the test: even that you're offering to pay for it, the fact that she's worried about his stud career, what's that saying..??? Glory of dogs going into the ring sired by her boy and/or the money... Poor show for me

The stud owner said that it's not the money - that if she did do the test, she'd be more than happy to pay for it herself.

It was more that she didn't want to do the test because (her words) "you WILL find murky treasure" if you go poking around, and also because the condition was not life-threatening.

The condition is SD2 (dwarfism).  Although it's not life-threatening, no dog with it could be a competition prospect (show or field), nor be bred from because no one would want the pups, and wouldn't be much use as a working dog either, as I doubt they can jump very high(!).  I wouldn't be surprised if there are skeletal issues which are associated with the condition as well, just as with very short-legged breeds.  Pity the innocent puppy buyer who ends up with a pup who has it (you can't tell till they are around 5-6 months, I've had one in my training classes before).

It is not a huge problem in the breed, but here and there dogs with it crop up, and it would be an easy one to fix if everyone would test.

Compare this response to the response of my own breeder, when I told her that my dog was a Carrier:  She immediately put up a statement on her website and on social media announcing this to everyone and advising anyone with a pup sired by her dog, to test for SD2 OR only to breed to studs tested Clear.  She also tested all her own dogs which are related to mine (I can see this via Mate Select), including a half-brother (same dad) she'd kept as a potential stud herself.  She knew that my dog's mum was Clear, which meant the carrier was the dad.  Dad has now been exported abroad to a relative and retired from stud duties.

I'm a bit shocked to find this in someone I'd previously thought was ultra-reputable and who competes with her dogs.  :( :(

Suejaw, there's no way I'm using a stud which is not SD2 tested.  So no worries there :)

Unless your girl has something fantastic to add to the gene pool, I personally would not breed from her. My opinion only
But I am lucky enough to have clear dogs .

If the owners of all Carriers didn't breed, the gene pools would shrink massively.  It's important that people still use Carriers and studs which are Carriers, for that reason alone.  They just need to be bred only to Clear dogs.

Pups will either be DNA tested before they leave me, so I know if any of them are Carriers OR a requirement for endorsements to be lifted, will be that they have been DNA tested Clear or, if Carrier, will only be bred to Clear tested dogs.

> nor be bred from because no one would want the pups,

That's rubbish, as if mated to clear mate no dwarfs would. be produced, and just needs potential breeding stock tested.

People are coming to realise with more and more DNA tests that most dogs will be carriers for something, and used wisely can remain as breeding stock to keep the gene pool open.

Better for something known than the unknown which we dice with all the time.

Not breeding from carriers to clears is a sure way to deplete your gene pool.
In my breed with its existing health issues..if we don't breed from carriers in the conditions we now DNA test for ....the other conditions will be condensed...madness!

Surely health is the first issue. Unless the carrier has something fantastic to add to the gene pool then it should not be bred from. I suppose I am lucky in that my dogs are tested clear. However, am I wrong to think that the dogs we breed should be healthy?  There are many thoughts that we should breed carriers to clear which would result in at the best carriers. Where would that leave the next generation? It is ok to think about what we want now and sod the future generations?

> am I wrong to think that the dogs we breed should be healthy?

A carrier is a healthy dog, and if mated only to clear partners (for autosomal recessive conditions) will only produce healthy offspring, statistically half of which will also be clear.

More importantly ALL DOGS CARRY SOME NEGATIVE GENES, that as yet are unknown, so anything that reduces the gene pool is by reducing the number of dogs that can be bred from will cause more harm than good.

> There are many thoughts that we should breed carriers to clear which would result in at the best carriers.

As said above a Carrier to Clear mating will statistically produce as many clears as carriers.

> Where would that leave the next generation? It is ok to think about what we want now and sod the future generations?

The above means we can keep more and more clears without loosing the genetic input of the carriers.

Excellent reply Barbara.

Spot on Barbara!

Totally agree with all you say Barbara.. .except:

>That's rubbish, as if mated to clear mate no dwarfs would. be produced,

That might be true, but if a dwarf dog can't be shown or competed with in any way, how can anyone judge if it's worth breeding from?? Plus, you can try to tell buyers till you're blue in the face that you've bred the dog to a Clear, so only Carriers should result but they will still look at the mum - that's what people 'buy' when they look for a pup, they look at the parents...so I still think no one is going to want a pup from an Affected dog...

If this is one of the conditions the KC/BVA Schemes cover then this stud dog owner 'should' have had her dog tested before offering him at public stud (she says - but things are not 'perfect' eh).   Trouble is if the dog should fail a test, his status will be published in the KC Breed Records and just possibly, as happened with a REALLY good dog in my breed who failed such a test, which was only a 'predisposition' to that condition, not a given he'd develop it.   He was 'removed' from the gene pool - and to me this was sad - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If I were you, I'd look for another stud dog, who has been tested clear.   I don't think you can insist the owner of this dog tests him, you pay for the test or not, even if morally she should if he's at public stud.   Your know your bitch is carrier for the condition so with respect, it might be more to the point to not breed her at all.   Clear to carrier will produce 50% clear but 50% carrier.   Meaning this condition will be passed on, the stud dog testing clear, or not.

"It's important that people still use Carriers and studs which are Carriers, for that reason alone."

Carrier to carrier produces 25% clear, 50% carrier and 25% affected.   Hardly a situation to promote putting carrier to carrier?

No one would ever advocate breeding Carrier to Carrier.
Carrier to clear...test...keep Clears.....
If you do keep a carrier..use a clear...simple!

> ....... if mated to clear mate no dwarfs would. be produced, and just needs potential breeding stock tested.

The trouble is even if clear to carrier only produces 50% carrier, surely steps need to be taken to make sure carriers don't proliferate, meaning that eventually more dogs will be 'carrier' than clear.  Yes 50% of clear to carrier will be clear, but again what about the 50% that will be carrier?   I do agree about the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as already said, but in these days of indiscriminate breeding (BYBs) is it safe to be deliberately putting a carrier into the gene pool, unless said breed has a very wide gene pool.    There is no such thing as perfection, but how many people know when to take a dog/bitch out of the gene pool?   When a problem becomes rife in a breed, it's too late.

I personally believe that you can't insist on the owner of this stud dog to get him tested, paying for it or not.   Her dog, her decision.   There will be other stud dogs, perhaps with similar bloodlines AND tested?

I was assuming that we were discussing ethical breeders who have the breeds interest at heart.

DNA testing is unlikely to register on  the radar for most BYB ....proximity and value are generally higher priority.
There will be a large number of Recessive conditions affecting dogs and these will largely be ignored, for all they know they may already have a yard full of carriers for other problems......just don't know it yet.

Facebook Replies:

Niamh Callaghan says: I wouldn't offer to pay for anybody else's health tests to be honest. I have had the same dilemma with one of my girls. I just went further a field for the right dog. Best of luck.

.....

Marguerite O Leary says: So many factors here, if the stud is suitable in every other way do you want to pass on him over the cost of one test. How easy will it be to find another suitable stud? From the studs prospective if they have all the standard testing done and it is the bitches owner that is requesting the extra testing then I would expect the bitches owner to cover the test. After all its the bitch that is coming with the extra requirements not the stud..

~~~~~

Sue Williams says: Stud owner has refused even with the bitches owner offering to pay- it might harm her dogs stud career.. If you read the thread it's there... Very sad way of thinking...

> so I still think no one is going to want a pup from an Affected dog...

but we weren't talking about an affected dog but a potential carrier? 

The dog you'd like it's owner to test is not a dwarf, nor is your bitch, yes?.

Of course if it's the last of a line then an affected dog could be used for breeding, but as all it's offspring would be carriers your not really making progress in eliminating the faulty gene, but it maybe needed in small gene pools.

No-one would of course mate a bitch or dog with a debilitating condition, but with late onset conditions even affected animals can be bred from if there is nothing else, and means the end of a good line with many virtues.

For example we now have tests for prcd-PRA which in our breed is late onset, and also glaucoma which has incomplete penetrance and also normally does not show symptoms until around 6 years of age, so an affected animal could be bred from who has not yet developed, or may never show symptoms.

Since testing began I know no-one who has bred from an affected, but some of us have found that such has inadvertently happened before. 

I know for certain that I have bred a litter (now 4 1/2) where both parents have subsequently turned out to be carriers for Glaucoma, and have advised all puppy owners to test, yet only two have chosen to do so, despite the fact that knowing would enable them to have eye pressures regularly monitored to stave off symptoms and prevent pain and save sight.  Interestingly the two tested have come back one carrier and one clear, both in non breeding homes.

I have been very lucky that my two younger bitches of breeding age have both come back clear even though both their half sister dams were carriers, their grandma was clear, and her dam a carrier.  Yet in 7 generations I have not had any clinically affected dog reported back to me.

> surely steps need to be taken to make sure carriers don't proliferate, meaning that eventually more dogs will be 'carrier' than clear.  Yes 50% of clear to carrier will be clear, but again what about the 50% that will be carrier?   I do agree about the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as already said, but in these days of indiscriminate breeding (BYBs) is it safe to be deliberately putting a carrier into the gene pool,

Without testing they are being put out there anyway, by non testing BYB's etc, and those who are breeding within the KC umbrella would endorse all pups and not remove endorsements on carriers, or only if owned by a knowledgeable owner who understands the need to do the same, mate to clear and endorse and test offspring.

One should always aim to breed from the best and if the best is a carrier then so be it, sooner or later there will be an offspring that is the best of the litter, but clear.

I do think the KC should automatically endorse affected, Carrier/obligate carrier animals 'offspring ineligible for registration except to clear mate, on prior application'

> I do think the KC should automatically endorse affected, Carrier/obligate carrier animals 'offspring ineligible for registration except to clear mate, on prior application'

Unfortunately the 'toothless' KC can only legislate as it applies to whether or not the litters can be registered.   When we live in a 'free' society, the bottom line is whether or not the breeder is ethical, cares enough about their breed - which means, clearly, there are bound to be more who could care less, as long as they continue to bring in income.  And the only thing that can be done is to shut down places who are not keeping animals in good conditions.   And we are, to some extent, still faced with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.   Obviously if some problem becomes endemic in a breed then steps have to be taken, but by then it's probably too late.   Back to whether any animal who is carrier should be bred at all, whether to 'clear' or not.   Carrier status has to have come from somewhere - do most breeders know where any problem might have come from, so be able to avoid doubling up (recessives!).

Given the terribly inbred state of many breeds - even comparatively 'healthy' breeds with a wide gene pool are becoming increasingly inbred - it is completely foolish to eliminate all Carriers from a gene pool. 

You would lose huge genetic diversity, which in turn means that recessives for other conditions (which no health tests exist yet for) are then doubled up, and the breed ends up even less healthy and with no options genetically, apart from including blood from a different breed.

I have spend hours and hours and hours putting names into Mate Select and looking at COIs to choose a stud, and some of what I've seen has been pretty horrendous.

I did make comment re 'not throwing the baby out with the bathwater' in conditions that are basically not really life-threatening especially.   BUT again it's all too easy to adopt a head in the sand attitude, especially with novice breeders who do tend to be 'win at all costs', there for the normal 5 years and then when it's all gone wrong, disappear again, leaving untold damage having been done to that breed.   I adhere to the addage 'make sure the breed passes through your hands undamaged'.   Knowing what can be risked, and what shouldn't be, is part of the challenge of establishing a healthy bloodline.   Again if carriers are ignored often enough, there will be a point when carrier will be bred to carrier, producing the recognised 25% cleaqr, 50% carrier and 25% AFFECTED.  It's like, to me, allowing edge to edge bites when a scissor bite should be what's aimed for.   If edge to edge is bred to edge to edge often enough, you start getting undershot.   Which is why much as I agree about not necessarily eliminating all 'carriers' but this is only okay if done by experienced breeders, who have an in depth knowledge of their breed.   Which is why, I suggest, the KC recommends that although they will accept matings like this, those novice breeders intending to do half-sibling matings, talk to a knowledgable fellow-breeder in that breed, for advice first.

> Back to whether any animal who is carrier should be bred at all, whether to 'clear' or not.   Carrier status has to have come from somewhere - do most breeders know where any problem might have come from, so be able to avoid doubling up (recessives!).

Once you have a DNA test it is irrelevant where it came from, only that you don't mate two carriers, you can still double up on any dog as long as at least one of the descendants is clear. 

That's the beauty of it, no need any more to throw baby out with the bathwater.

As to what happens outwith the KC system, it would have happened regardless, the gens are out there, they will continue to mate carrier to carrier from affected etc, either ignorantly or in full knowledge when affecteds already produced.

> there will be a point when carrier will be bred to carrier, producing the recognised 25% cleaqr, 50% carrier and 25% AFFECTED.

But with tested stock no-one in their right minds would do so, but the uncaring unwilling to test are doing so all the time, and the rest of us will/are/have inadvertently be doing/have done so, with conditions that there is no test for unless we keep the gene pool as open as we can will continue to do so.

When the prcd-PRA test became available in my breed some breeders felt carriers should not be used at all, and passed a club rule that basically carried a financial penalty for those who did, in that it was insisted that ALL resulting puppies from a carrier to clear mating be tested, regardless of whether they would ever be bred from, (remember these are all healthy pups regardless of being clear or carrier) or that they were endorsed.  That's $135 per puppy additional cost (plus postage vet time if taking blood).  This is a very moderately priced breed, with average litter size just under 6.

As a result many chose to avoid such matings constricting our gene pool.  We now have finally a test for Glaucoma, and those supposedly  'clear' dogs are carriers fro this condition, far worse than late onset PRA.

Those people have now woken up and realise now that we have tests for 2 known important eye conditions, 1 that is thought to be bred out, one we didn't realise we had, plus the less worrisome dwarfism, people have woken up to the fact that most dogs carry something, and this in a very healthy breed with thankfully low clinical incidence of known problems.

It's how we use the resulting information and dogs in an ever shrinking gene pool (fewer breeders and number of dogs bred) to ensure we don't produce affected offspring that matters, and keep the bred as healthy as it has been or even better, with no more cases of known problems, even fi they wer uncommon.

[url=][/url][/iA carrier is a healthy dog, and if mated only to clear partners (for autosomal recessive conditions) will only produce healthy offspring, statistically half of which will also be clear.]

If that next generation carrier is bred to an untested dog as in puppy farmers or BYB, hence my comment regarding future generations as they do not adhere to KC regs

That's what endorsements are for :)

> If that next generation carrier is bred to an untested dog as in puppy farmers or BYB, hence my comment regarding future generations as they do not adhere to KC regs

But they will probably be breeding from potential untested carriers/affectyeds anyway, you can't prevent carriers appearing in the untested stock they are already using.

It's the same logic the rescue charities use saying responsible people should stop breeding, because there are so many dogs in rescue, so there are fewer wellbred dogs and more and more poorly bred ones.

Many good breeders have cut back their breeding activities to a trickle and what has happened the bad breeders take up the slack.  So the breed as s whole (if you take into account unregistered stock produced by BYB Puppy Farmers) is worse off.

>In Response to Lynneb

Surely health is the first issue. Unless the carrier has something fantastic to add to the gene pool then it should not be bred from. I suppose I am lucky in that my dogs are tested clear. However, am I wrong to think that the dogs we breed should be healthy?  There are many thoughts that we should breed carriers to clear which would result in at the best carriers. Where would that leave the next generation? It is ok to think about what we want now and sod the future generations?

I've had 3 carrier mums, kept from each, all offspring have come back CLEAR,  also carrier to clear doesn't 'at best' produce carriers, they can produce clear and carriers

This is the sort of thing that annoys me because when the PRA tests had first come out all we knew was that the dog we used and kept a girl from was a carrier so both our girls could have been affected but we still tested them and were very lucky that they both came back clear.

The norm for clear to carrier is 50% clear and 50% carrier. (Mendels Theory).   But how it's known that there will be an even split from any particular litter, I've never really understood.

They probably mean there is a 50/50 chance of each pup either being carrier or clear, rather than 50% of the litter clear/carriers

> They probably mean there is a 50/50 chance of each pup either being carrier or clear, rather than 50% of the litter clear/carriers

Good point.

> so both our girls could have been affected

only if BOTH parents were carriers.

When the prcd-PRA test became available to late 2008, I was lucky all mine were clear.

We have only just got a test for Glaucoma for our breed, never produced an affected in 8 generations, even though I now know I mated two carriers unwittingly 4 1/2 years ago.  I advised all the owners to test and only two have one is clear one carrier.  Age of onset is normally around 6 years and not all dogs genetically affected will go symptomatic.

Of my 6 bitches (one since died), oldest found to be a carrier, her daughter clear, her two daughters both carriers, and a daughter from each of them both clear.

As Genescoper offer a panel of tests in an all in price and test every dog for every test they offer, the breed now also can be tested for erd (another form of PRA, early onset and believed bred out of health tested lines) and Dwarfism. 

Also since testing started quite unexpectedly dogs have been found that carry a mutation for Von willebrands type II, that we had no idea we had.

Now I am extremely lucky my youngest two of breeding age are both clear for all the above, but every living animal carriers bad genes, the above are only what we currently know about.

My next two planed matings of my clear girls are first to a dog who is clear for prcd-PRA, erd, Dwarfism and vWD TypeII, but carrier for Glaucoma, the next is clear for erd, Dwarfism, vWD Type ii, Glaucoma, but carrier for prcd-PRA.  Why because we have very few available (and tested dogs) and these happen to be the most suitable for my girls.

As more tests become available or existing gene mutations found to cover more breeds 9we only discovered we had prcd late 2008) then there is unlikely to be many dog clear for everything.

> only if BOTH parents were carriers.

Mendels Theory -
Affected to Clear = all carriers
Carrier to Carrier = 25% clear, 50% carrier and 25% affected
Clear to Carrier = 50% clear, 50% carrier.
FWIW

Exactly you need  two carriers or carrier and affected to produce affected..

As long as at least ONE parent is CLEAR then no affected pups can be produced in conditions passed on in an autosomal recessive manner (the majority known so far).

When you have no other results to go by which we did not as the test had become available a couple of months before then they could have been affected but had he been clear then at worst his daughter could have been a carrier.