I expect most of you had a form yesterday with regards to becoming an accredited breeder with the kennel club.
I read through and saw that we do all that is said on the 11 specific requirments anyway(except DNA testing). But I did read one thing that I am unsure about which maybe some of you can clarify.
4) Permanently identify breeding stock by DNA profile, microchip or tattoo. (NB after the first year of the schemes operation, all breeding stock will be required to be DNA profiled.)
Now this is me being thick here, as our dogs are microchipped. But what is the DNA testing all about? What are they looking for?  I dont really understand anything about DNA testing, so can anyone clarify for me what its all about??
Nutkin.

Not sure about that either, but  had assumed it to be the genetics of parentage. This would prove without doubt Dam and Sire, therefore eliminating underhand registering pups under another bitches details. A brilliant idea if you ask me.

Kay

Haven't had anything through from the KC about becoming an accredited breeder = maybe because our Aussie litter was the first litter that we bred for over 7 years, I suppose - but the idea of DNA makes sense to me - I have heard about some questionable registrations used to be made with the GCCF with cats, years ago.....if this sort of thing is knocked out, it can only be to the good of the dogs.

Margot

Basically you're right Kay. It is a form of DNA finger printing and assuming sire and dam are done they it is possible to prove conclusively that the puppies come from them.

Best wishes, John

I think it means that, if you want to go on their Accredited Breeder List (though I'm very disappointed that they haven't included the only health check that determines the major inherited defect in my breed :rolleyes: ), your dogs must have one of those permanent IDs, and next year must be DNA profiled.

Just a thought on this, If it were to work 100%, only accredited breeders could mate their dogs. If an accredited breeders stud was mated with a non accredited breeders bitch, there would be no available DNA for proof of DAM. If I am allowed to become an accredited breeder, (applied for) I would have to make sure the stud or bitch was also from an accredited breeder. Am I right or am I reading too much into it?

Kay

Has anyone heard how this will be done. I have only got bitches but for stud dog owners could this be expensive or will they have a print out of some sorts that they can photocopy, come to think of it generally expensive all round especially if you have large litters. Then how do the pups get tested (more money for the vets!!) I am really quite ignorant when it  comes to DNA testing the dogs. Humans can be done by saliva, DNA testing humans can take several weeks I thought, would this be the same on pups and delay the registration.

I think I will email the KC to ask their thoughts on this subject.

Although I have nothing to hide and have my dogs hips and eyes etc tested and would probably go along with it as it will stop a lot of sneaky things being done plus highlight puppy farms because I shouldn't think they would bother, I would like to know more.

Hi Yappy, Keep me informed please!!!

Kay

OK

Well I have just gone on the Kennel Club site and it is all there front page.

£15.00 per dog!! The Kennel Club is working with the Animal Health Trust to try to run it and you can download an application form for your dog.

So how much are we going to end up paying to register pups!!

It will be done by taking a sample from inside the mouth but it doesn't say (I don't think it did) how long it will take.

Go and have a look.

Good Night it is now 11.45pm

The scheme only requires breeding stock to be DNA profiled not offspring, presumably a pup would only be tested in the event of a dispute or if they are then bred from.

Am I right in thinking then, that all pups born and registered with breeding restrictions, will have to have DNA test before restrictions are lifted? What about a pup that is sold without restrictions to a pet owner who subsequently decides to breed from her dog. No DNA test required as she is not an accredited breeder. If this scheme is to work, surely all dogs bred from should be DNA tested and not just accredited breeders. Also if not DNA tested, are the KC still going to register all pups. If so, what would be the point of Accreditation. Dont get me wrong, I am all for it, but I dont understand the reasoning if all pups registered are not DNA tested.

Kay

Received mine yesterday and was a bit puzzled because I only have males in a breeding state. Now I would be happy to comply with all the requirements that apply to a stud dog but not many do. I have not to date had a request to use one of my dogs that I have felt able to accept, either because I did not consider my dog good enough or did not consider the match satisfactory. So do I bother to apply just to conform with the sprit of things even though I may never breed or use a dog at stud again, or do I ignore the form altogether and get put down among those who don't support this effort to improve the registration system that we all criticize from time to time?

Given time will the better breeders only feel able to use studs from an accredited breeder, and if we owners of males only do not join will that have an effect on the gene pool to the determent of the breed.

i do all what the kc ask,on this scheme,what it is is another £15 pounds for you the shedd out again.

Sure most breeders of quality pups do already do this but if it becomes so that as well as asking if the pups are registered the purchasers also ask if the breeder is accredited surely this will be for the good of our breeds because some who now cut corners will be brought into line and others may give up. If the KC £15's to help an accredited breeder in trouble and publicising to the GP that they should only buy from an accredited Breeder I have no objection, especially as they are running the scheme along with the AHT. It should help a good deal in sorting and eradication some of the hereditary problems that some of your dogs are prone to, and weed out those who would be fraudulent in registering their pups.

Am pleased to see that most if not all the requirements can be checked up on so if they, the KC, receive a complaint it can be looked into and once the whole system is up, running and trusted it should help in the case of the breeder being taken to law, the breeder will be able to prove that all the health tests for expected problems have been done, that the purchases signed a contract and that the conditions of the transfer of the pup were understood and also prove that the pup is indeed the product of the dam and sire as stated on the paperwork.

Do realise that the system will take a number of years to iron out the wrinkles and for the scheme to become trusted, but we do have to start somewhere and I feel this is a big improvement on what we have now, and £15 on top of the costs of owning breeding stock is very little.

I am quite happy that the KC are at last doing something in our favour.   The AHT actually will swab your dog's mouth and do a DNA test free at Crufts most years (they're going to be busy if folks cotton on!).    As far as I remember, it took about a month to come through.

If I've read the literature correctly, breeders who register more than 4 litters a year have preferential access to some kennel club options.   I might question the reasoning behind this!

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Like Jo, I'm happy that the KC are at last doing something - it's a step in the right direction, but I'm a bit put out that I have to pay another £15.00 for something I've been doing for years. I'm actually doing more than they require because, apparently my breed doesn't need to be tested for HD, even though the breed club says they do.

I think it is that breeders who breed more than 4 litters a year are currently not able to use the puppy register - but if they are accredited they will be. Breeders of less than 4 can use the puppy register anyway (for a fee!) so don't get that "benefit" from being accredited (unless the fee is reduced - which seems only fair).

Janet

Jackie H - I saw that typo before you edited it! ;) :D :D

I think the idea is good; of course there will be problems to be ironed out, but I can't imagine for one minute that only accredited breeders will be allowed to register their litters. The scheme requirements seem to be the basic essentials of what ever breeder should do anyway - no change there. But who is going to check that the breeder's statement is true?

Also, what are the advantages to the breeder of being accredited?

Ops! JG that's what happens when you have someone rabbiting in your ear, fingers take over from my excuse for a brain, and carry on, on their own, nearly had a fit when I was allowed to read it back. :o

Did not mean to suggest that only the accredited breeders would be able to register their litter that would stop the perfectly understandable one off litters because people want to extended the qualities of the bitch they own. Wished to support the scheme that could in time improve the health of all our breeds and would be happy to pay the £15 even though I think it unlikely I will ever breed again. Just not sure if as I now only have males I am eligible or wanted, think I will e-mail and in about 2 weeks I should know the answer. ;)

i have a leo pup who had restrictions put on him by the breeder.his parents have not been dna tested, but the way the kc lift the restrictions is a letter from the breeder to say that you have for filled their wishes for the restictions to be lifted.so it would depend on the breeder if the pup had to be dna tested. my pups were hips,elbows and
eyes before they were lifted.which is what i had to do if i am to use him as a stud.
i would have thought that dna testing would only be needed if it was to prove the sire / dam.
if the club asked for other test's to be done then i would do them at the end of the day it would help to make sure only healthy dogs are used as stock.

From what was written last year when this scheme was first announced the dna will become the property of the KC (AHT?) to be kept and used as they see fit.  I feel that if they want my dog's DNA that badly they should pay me for it :)

I am sorry but I can't see this Accredited Breeder scheme as anything more than a money making opportunity for the KC.  I consider I go beyond what is required for my breed and if I joined I cannot see any benefits for my dogs or myself.  The mere fact they offer more facilities to people registering four or more litters a year negates the whole thing as far as I am concerned.

The definition of Accredited from the Oxford compact ED
adj (of a person or organization) officially recognized

(and since when did the UK spelling of organisation and recognised start having "z's" in them??)

Surely the fact that many of us pay an extortionate sum just to maintain our affixes every year means they are "recognised".  I don't know what facilities there are at the KC but often wonder if we are supporting a private members club (food, drink etc) by the various fees we pay out?  Does anyone know?

As far as I can see this scheme will do nothing to stop puppy farmers or those people who keep and raise their dogs in poor conditions

<<(and since when did the UK spelling of organisation and recognised start having "z's" in them??)>>

Oxford dictionaries have always used Zs in this way, whereas Cambridge, Collins etc usually use S. In the US of course it is usually a Z. It makes life very confusing!

I refuse to get involved with this scheme as I see it aws another way of making more money from responsible breeders.  We already pay out huge fees for health screening, then pay each year to have our affixes kept up, and now they want another yearly fee just to prove we do what we already do.

I think they have it @ss packwards.  People who fulfill the acredited breeder scheme criteria should have reduced fees, or something to recongnise what they do, and those whodon't health screen etc should be paying more for services.

Well said Brainless

I too will not be joining the scheme at the moment.  Last week I enquired of the KC what health tests were required for my breed.  I have eye tested all my pups for the past 20 years because our biggest problem, CEA, has to be spotted before 12 weeks of age, after which time the retina disguises the lesions and over that age, Opthalmologists give a "clear" certificate to dogs who are actually affected!  The reply I received was

"At the moment, you would be required to use breeding stock that
have got a current eye certificate of examination.  The reason for this is
that when we set up the scheme initially we simply took the schedule 1 eye
conditions, and the breeds affected, as requirements for the scheme.
However, we are aware that some of these conditions/ breeds have marginal
relevance and this has been brought to our attention on a number of
occasions now, and in a number of different breeds.  It has always been our
intention that the scheme requirements would evolve and we intend to contact
all breed clubs in the very near future to get them to suggest what they
consider appropriate health checks to be an Accredited Breeder in their
bred.  Hopefully, this will identify some of the anomalies in the BVA
schemes, and also identify new breed specific c=screenig programmes that are
bnot carried oput under the BVA heading.

So, for the time being, it will be a requirement that a Collie Accredited
Breeder will need to use eye tested stock.  Hopefully, with the help of the
breed clubs this will be changed to reflect a more reasonable set of health
checks."

So to be an accredited breeder at the moment, I would have to agree to an unreasonable set of health checks!  Why on earth should I pay for an unreasonable set of health checks?  And why should an "Accredited Breeder" be able to not have pups eyes tested, but can produce a 'clear??' certificate for an adult??  Doesn't make any sense at all to me!

Another case of a good idea not being thought through before instigating! :(

Boy I am glad I kept reading it as I was thinking that people actually thought it was a big leap foward because I don't.

I was impressed with what I thought it would be when I heard talk of it now reading it I think it won't do any good to my breed at all. In fact probably the puppy farmers will be forming a queue to get on it as there are no health tests required for my breed . A lot of breeders do eye test that I know but it is not a requirement. 

Anyone can microchip and have a DNA test done.  It will become another marketing tool for the PF & licenced breeders I think.. I pray and hope not but I am not optimistic.

Pam

Val and I right in saying when the dogs are DNA tested the get a number that is then put on the reg docs like a serial no. This will then also go on the pups papers beside the sire dams names but then nothing happens with them. There is no check , nothing.

I guess they will only be checked if there was a dispute but that can be done now anyway but doing the DNA testing when the question or problem appears.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Pam

I have to say I agree, it also makes we wonder if it will create the wrong impression to the 'general puppy owners' .

I find the majority of them have no idea of what hip scores and eye testing means. They ask if I have it done and when I tell them the hip scores they haven't a clue what is good or bad but they have been told to ask. Now if the word goes out about accredited breeders and they think they should only go to them what does it then imply about the rest. To me I would start to have my doubts about a breeder which could be totally unfounded.

Our golden retriever club has its own code of ethics of which we abide and I do wonder where it will stop now.

Many years ago the cat world had disagreements and the cat club then split into two and they cannot mate a queen that is registered with one club if they are registered with the other. Could this lead to us not being able to breed from one dog that had not had a DNA profile done?

I guess this is yet another 'trend' from the USA. Because most of the breeders over there are getting their dogs DNA tested to verify the stock they have bred or bought in & some of the breeders have already been upheld over dogs not being bred from the said dog!
There is alot of forgery goes on in dog breeding & i would say its a good but expensive thing.

Well I have to say I am disappointed in the majority reaction to the scheme, we all say and accept that the present system is not satisfactory and is playing into the hands of puppy farmers and careless breeders and yet here we are refusing to take that first little step toward sorting the problems. DNA is not just an identification it is use to locate and isolate the genetic problems we have all been trying to eradicate with, up till now, blind folds on, and yet when given the opportunity to help in the geno map of the many breeds the majority are unwilling to participate. Can only hope that as more people start to understand the far reaching effects of the success of this scheme on the health of their dogs they will be more willing to commit their stock and their money to helping toward a better of understanding of what constitutes a good breeding practice and the eradication of hereditary disease and malformation.

Whilst we all understand what can be found out with DNA testing - at the moment the Kennel Club wording regarding disease in this profiling reads:

The DNA profile is the ultimate in individual identification and offers a 'tamper-proof' means of identity. The profile need only be produced once and the DNA sample used to produce it can be stored as a permanent DNA record throughout the dog's life. Identification could be essestial in a number of instances. For example, the availability of a profile could be used to identify an animal that may have been lost or stolen, and subsequently recovered. The profile COULD also be used to check the authenticity of a DNA sample being used to screen for the present of disease-causing genes.

This is the only mention regarding looking into diseases and note it says COULD not WILL BE.

If you read it all it really keeps repeating the fact regarding identification of parents and pups but one sentence reads 'This will ultimately have commercial value in that it puts a premium on those litters that have been analysed by DNA profiling.'

Yes I am quite happy to go along with investigations into various breed's problems and many breed councils are trying to do this but I am not quite sure if that is exactly what the KC are doing. Maybe it needs to be clarified

One would expect the AHT to use the collected information as and when the need arose, I see this as the very first step and think it worth support but if, as seems likely, breeders are not prepared to give it a try then it will fail and we will have to leave the control of breeding dogs to the law to sort out. And provide proof that a pups breeding is as the breeder said it was.

Suppose I feel that time is running out for us to sort our own house out, caring breeders of quality are being sued whilst the puppy farmers and wholesale puppy markets grow, with their own legal departments and so much money that the odd, or not so odd, upset customer can be shrugged off and paid off. It would seem that more and more puppy purchasers are rushing off to the solicitor straight from leaving the vets, and they do not need a sound reason to sue for compensation, the fact that their darling new puppy is not quite what they expected they are so upset that they need a good deal of money thrown at them till they feel better. Sometimes wonder why people bother to breed at all and can see it in the very near future being left to the very few that are able and willing to run breeding as a business.

Jackie, I understand what you are saying and I would very much like to support the scheme, even though I would prefer not to get my dogs chipped or tattooed, I can understand the thinking behind it.  Once again the honest citizen has to pay for the fiddlers!!
I was told at the end of last year that less than 10% of my breed are eye tested before leaving the breeder.  I've not let a puppy go in 20 years without testing but unless the Kennel Club makes puppy testing a requirement (as opposed to a CURRENT eye certificate) then I'm not prepared to waste any more money.  They want me to pay for an annual certificate which is likely to say that dogs are clear when in fact they are not.  I consider the puppy eye test certificates that I have are pretty worthless, but I have the litter screened so that I can say to the purchasers, "I have done all that I can do until the Opthalmologists and BVA get their act together!"
The reply that I received from the Kennel Club which said "we intend to contact all breed clubs in the very near future to get them to suggest what they consider appropriate health checks to be an Accredited Breeder" then what is the pint.  That should have been done before it was launched!

Less than 10% Val? - surely not?  Not querying your information, but that amazes me, as all those I know around here certainly puppy test. 

They don't necessarily take enough notice of it, mind ;) and have had a conversation with someone this week who is considering not testing a litter for the first time as they've been told that even puppy results now go on the KC registrations and they won't risk that.  Don't see the logic of that myself, if it's bad you shouldn't breed from the dog anyway, so what's on the registration is immaterial.

However, do think they've been misinformed, how would the KC know which of the litter is which to mark the registrations retrospectively?

Marina

Info came from Professor Crispin last November, Marina!!

That's scary - it wouldn't be so bad if they were only fooling themselves, but of course they're fooling puppy owners too.

A friend of mine bought a puppy from a very well-known breeder years ago and was told that old chestnut - they don't test, as they don't have any eye problems.  She got him tested at one of the London Collie sessions, and was distraught to find his eyes were about as bad as the tester had seen in a Collie.  Of course, his littermates have all bred on .......... :rolleyes:

Still, they kept him as a much-loved pet, and the breeder gave them another pup who was tested at the appropriate age - clear eyed, but died of auto immune complications (messy!) at about 3 years old.

And we think we've got one of the healthier breeds .............

M.

Hi Jackie

I have sent DNA from all my dogs and other Dobes that I can get my hands on over the years to the Canine Genome Project in the USA and they occasionally contact me and ask for more.

What I object to is the KC charging £15 a year for it.  It will be wonderful for the puppy farmers who can do the basic health tests that the scheme requires (I do more than the scheme requires) and say they will do this, that and the other and become "accredited".

There are no benefits that I can see to joining the scheme, certainly at present.  If we got reduced fees or some incitement then maybe but if we get additional benefits if we breed four or more litters, no, I don't think so thank you.

Labradors need elbow testing in addition to hips and eyes, which is fine, but this is a relatively new recommendation so older dogs may not have been tested. Does anyone know if there is an optimum time for this test and would a dog with a great elbow score at 12 months perhaps not be so good after a few years of wear and tear?
Amos

Hi Amos

Unless a dog has an accident when the damage will mostly be on one side, and should be obvious, most dogs should not deteriorate by more than a few points as they age.  The oldest I had a bitch done was at 7.5 years and she was 5:3 so age had probably not done her much harm

Hi Kerioak,
I meant elbow score, not the hip score, where one point has more significance.
Amos

Hi Amos

Sorry, I misread

I spoke to someone this afternoon,who has far more experience in breeding, genetics etc., than I could every hope to have regarding this subject. I asked her opinion and one of the things she said was that having spoken to the kc,at the moment, she couldn't see how it would prove that the 'accredited breeders' were doing the right thing by their dogs because the kennel club had said would still not clamp down on those that were still having six litters from a bitch and two in a year no matter how many were in the litter.

Surely that sort of thing is just as important. We mustn't lose sight of doing the right thing by the dogs.

Well thanks for all your views.
I still cant make my mind up. We do all this anyway, but they now want us to pay for what we already do ?
I dont think I would object to DNA testing if all that is involved is to check a sire and dam. 
I wondered if anything else was behind the testing.  I trust no one ha ha ha....Surely those people that already have had these tests done (which they already know at the kennel club anyway) should have free admission onto the scheme. If someone wanted a certificate then I could understand people paying for that. Also why have to do this yearly. Once the dog is hip scored its done for life. Is heart testing for life? Or does that have to be done every 12 months.
So how much would it all cost to have this DNA testing done. Also would vets do it ?  My vet does not do eye testing, although eye testing for our breed is not generally done.  He only does hip scoring. I find that most annoying as it does not encourage breeders in our area to actually have testing done.  Would I find myself in the position of having to travel countless miles just for DNA testing ?  ahhh I dont know its me just talking out loud. But all these things are going to cost us more money in the end day. For something we do anyway. (except dna I add)
Nut

There seems to be some confusion over which DNA processes are being asked for by the KC breeder's scheme.  From what I can gather, only DNA profiling is compulsory in all breeds and DNA testing compulsory in breeds where appropriate tests are available.

DNA profiling is purely for the purpose of identification.  It is a service provided by labs and a charge, quite rightly IMO, is made for this service.  Only a small section of DNA is selected and this, AFAIK is so called junk DNA which doesn't code for anything in particular and the chances of it holding any information on diseases is miniscule. 

DNA testing is a service provided by labs for identification of particular genes or their markers, for inherited diseases and other traits including some colours, in various breeds.  Labs such as Optigen charge handsomely for their tests.  They do it to make a profit.

Blood banking such as that provided by AHT and the USA Dog Genome Project is for research.  A mutually beneficial arrangement as breeders benefit by any new genes discovered and the labs by commercial tests or simply the kudos in their field.  No charge is made, as no service, or promise of such is provided.

I for one applaud the KC in introducing the DNA profiling and I long for the day when it becomes compulsory to profile all breeding stock.  There has been a surprisingly high % of false pedigrees discovered in breeding stock in other countries using this profiling.   It won't of course stop puppy farmers from breeding but it will prevent them from using KC registration as some kind of a sanction for their false pedigrees.

Julie

i was told elbows was a year + the same as the hips. my boy had them done at just over 1 year and has a hip score of 4:12 and elbow 0. but he is still growing as he is a giant breed and not adult untill 2 years.the vets told me what ever the scores at 1 year are what they should be for life.

I don't necessarily intend to breed again (and although was misinformed till it was too late last time will do relevant health checks before i even think about breeding again) having said that - the pups where and still are healthy and gorgeous oh and not pups anymore lol.  The way I see it - the KC should get all relevant info from the breed clubs before starting a new scheme, and that all breeders submit all test certs for all conditions to the KC, and DNA samples(for dogs they intend to breed from - obviously not all dogs are the required standard)then they become accredited and should maybe pay less for registration and affix upkeep, or people who don't do any pay more to register litters and upkeep their affixes. 

Maybe the accreditation scheme should have a point system - 1 if dna tested, 2 if only health checks have been received and 3 if both,  so people could see from what grade a breeder has as to what they do.Then it would be the purchaser's choice as to what they feel is relevant to them (dna testing might not be relevant if they never intend to breed for example)

Also for litters that have had the restriction put on, not only should kc need a letter from the breeder to lift it but the person has to become accredited, surely in this way it would become too difficult for the puppy farmers etc to sell kc registered dogs.  Of course it will never stop the puppy farming cos they will just register with dog lovers.  But at least people with know that a KC registered dog has been bred taking everything into consideration.

Nikki xx

The BVA scheme could then be updated to include all the relevant health testing via them rather then different ways - you know what I mean

Agre with everything you have written, how about sending your post to Dog World and Our dogs letters page and the Kennel club via their feedback system.

"The way I see it - the KC should get all relevant info from the breed clubs before starting a new scheme, "
Absolutely! 

"The way I see it - the KC should get all relevant info from the breed clubs before starting a new scheme, "

I believe they did !  :(  Instead of going for the best they went for the basics?