Bile Acid Testing

[blitz]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Of course Ellie is worth this but why not at least test to try and prevent the continuation of liver issues in the Yorkie?

That's exactly my question and I'm wondering why there is so little interest in this topic but many more replies to the poor breeder who was scammed.

[MyFairLacy]

Originally Posted by blitz

That's exactly my question and I'm wondering why there is so little interest in this topic but many more replies to the poor breeder who was scammed.

I always think its interesting that most breeders on this forum won't share what they do so far as health screening... I did start a thread about health screening and did get quite a few responses but not nearly as many as there are breeders on here.

[MyFairLacy]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Of course Ellie is worth this but why not at least test to try and prevent the continuation of liver issues in the Yorkie?

Exactly...the fact is that yorkies are 36 times more likely to have liver shunt than all other breeds combined. And it has been known to skip 10 generations. It's not worth taking that risk to NOT BAT

[my2boyz]

As a future breeder, and long time pet owner, I do see the need and responsibility for tests to ensure the dogs being bred are the healthiest possible. We went through almost 13 years of medical intervention with our first Yorkie, he had good days and bad, it was expensive and who knows what would have happened to him if we had not bought him. If his breeder would have done the proper tests on his parents maybe the breeding would never have taken place, granted, we wouldn't have had our Boog dog but it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering on both sides. Boog came from a litter of 5 but who knows how many other litters there were...where did those puppies end up and what did they have to go through in their lives? Were they given the advantage and benefit of a good and loving home that could afford their medical care or were those needs ignored? Don't get me wrong, I never complained about the cost of his care in all of those years but I sure did wish things were different for him.

As a future breeder I do plan to do whatever testing I need to do to ensure that my dogs are healthy enough for breeding, and it will give me and my future puppy owners peace of mind. I could not, in good conscience, blindly breed because I 'thought' everything was o.k...I need proof.

[BakersDozen]

Originally Posted by blitz

Um, of course you know we're talking about Yorkies here where liver shunt is a major problem, not a 30 year old female with no remarkable history.

I'm not even suggesting that it is irresponsible for breeders not to have BAT done. However, I want to be convinced why we should not have it done to every single Yorkie.

Yes, of course I realize this. The breeder who doesn't have it done was talking about dogs with no history in their lines. (at least that is what I gathered, I might have misunderstood) That is what I was comparing to no 'family history.'

I'm not disagreeing that the test is a good idea. I certainly feel that breeders are not doing enough testing. I'm just pointing out that the mere fact that it is prevelant doesn't necessarily necessitate the testing of every dog. In the US, diabetes is much more prevelant in Mexican Americans, blacks, and American Indians. But it is not reasonable or necessary for every single person in those groups to automatically do a fasting test. They are tested when they show some sign or symptom, or when a routine test indicates otherwise.

I agree that there is no compelling reason NOT to BAT every Yorkie. But I also feel there is no compelling reason TO BAT every Yorkie, in the absence of any indication there might be a problem.....Assuming there is great familiarity with the bloodline(s), and the other precautions already mentioned in this thread. (Please note I am not referring to breeding two dogs you know nothing about, without testing.) Since BAT won't tell you if you have two dogs with recessive genes, you could still produce offspring with liver shunt anyway. I would venture to say that the risks of either would be comparable.

Again, just my opinion.

[BakersDozen]

I just re-read your original question.....I guess upon reflection, I should not even have commented. You were asking a question of breeders; since I am not a breeder my opinion is not really what you wanted anyway. (I'm not saying this like I took offense, just apologizing for giving my opinion when it's not really the purpose of this thread.)

I do find it interesting that most of the comments have been from those with no experience breeding.

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

I do find it interesting that most of the comments have been from those with no experience breeding.

I'd say the lack of breeder's responses to this thread would indicate they do not feel a need to test their dogs. Perhaps I'm wrong....

[BakersDozen]

LOL....I need to go to bed, my thoughts are getting rambly....one last thing I wanted to say is that if I were breeding, which I plan to be someday, I probably would have the BAT done. But I feel it is only for my peace of mind, not because of a compelling, logical medical reason. Just as someone in one of those high-risk groups might have a diabetes test, without any symptoms or other indications. There's no particularly compelling, logical medical reason to do it....it just makes them feel better.

I guess really the only truly responsible thing to do is to only breed dogs of whose lines you have personal knowledge of for at least 10 generations back. Even that could not ensure 100%.

[MyFairLacy]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

Yes, of course I realize this. The breeder who doesn't have it done was talking about dogs with no history in their lines. (at least that is what I gathered, I might have misunderstood) That is what I was comparing to no 'family history.'

I'm not disagreeing that the test is a good idea. I certainly feel that breeders are not doing enough testing. I'm just pointing out that the mere fact that it is prevelant doesn't necessarily necessitate the testing of every dog. In the US, diabetes is much more prevelant in Mexican Americans, blacks, and American Indians. But it is not reasonable or necessary for every single person in those groups to automatically do a fasting test. They are tested when they show some sign or symptom, or when a routine test indicates otherwise.

I agree that there is no compelling reason NOT to BAT every Yorkie. But I also feel there is no compelling reason TO BAT every Yorkie, in the absence of any indication there might be a problem.....Assuming there is great familiarity with the bloodline(s), and the other precautions already mentioned in this thread. (Please note I am not referring to breeding two dogs you know nothing about, without testing.) Since BAT won't tell you if you have two dogs with recessive genes, you could still produce offspring with liver shunt anyway. I would venture to say that the risks of either would be comparable.

Again, just my opinion.

LS has been known to skip 10 generations. Not too many breeders will know the complete history of EVERY dog in a pedigree up to 10 generations back..that is a LOT of dogs. And what if there was an unethical breeder that owned one of those dogs that didn't fully disclose all info? There may be a LS dog in the pedigree that no one knows about...

And what if the dog is asymptomatic? It happens... The asymptomatic LS dog might be bred and pass on the defect.

A BAT is so easy and pretty inexpensive. It causes no adverse affects on the dog. There are no negatives to BAT a dog...well, unless it turns out that a dog does have a shunt and a breeder is forced to spay/neuter a dog they have a lot of time/money invested in. But an ethical breeder would want to know that so that they wouldn't go on to produce more with the defect. I see only positives by doing a BAT.

Seriously...why NOT do it? The only reasons I can see not to do it is because a breeder is afraid it is there and doesn't want to stop breeding the dogs, the breeder doesn't want to take the time or spend the money to do it, or because they don't know any better. Everyone here KNOWS how common LS is and how serious it can be. So again...why not do it?

[BakersDozen]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

I'd say the lack of breeder's responses to this thread would indicate they do not feel a need to test their dogs. Perhaps I'm wrong....

I'm inclined to agree. Obviously I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, depending on their breeding program and other factors. But I don't blame them for not jumping in, no doubt this thread could go on and on.

[MyFairLacy]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

I'd say the lack of breeder's responses to this thread would indicate they do not feel a need to test their dogs. Perhaps I'm wrong....

I have a strong feeling you are right. Honestly, there are very few breeders that are members of YT I'd look into buying a dog from. There are usually only a very few breeders here that will actually share what they do to health screen.. and I feel like if they were doing it, they wouldn't hesitate to say they do and why they do it. But I can see many reasons why they would want to avoid admitting to not doing it..

[Ladymom]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

LS has been known to skip 10 generations. Not too many breeders will know the complete history of EVERY dog in a pedigree up to 10 generations back..that is a LOT of dogs. And what if there was an unethical breeder that owned one of those dogs that didn't fully disclose all info? There may be a LS dog in the pedigree that no one knows about...

And what if the dog is asymptomatic? It happens... The asymptomatic LS dog might be bred and pass on the defect.

A BAT is so easy and pretty inexpensive. It causes no adverse affects on the dog. There are no negatives to BAT a dog...well, unless it turns out that a dog does have a shunt and a breeder is forced to spay/neuter a dog they have a lot of time/money invested in. But an ethical breeder would want to know that so that they wouldn't go on to produce more with the defect. I see only positives by doing a BAT.

Seriously...why NOT do it? The only reasons I can see not to do it is because a breeder is afraid it is there and doesn't want to stop breeding the dogs, the breeder doesn't want to take the time or spend the money to do it, or because they don't know any better. Everyone here KNOWS how common LS is and how serious it can be. So again...why not do it?

I agree 100%. Hopefully Dr. Center will have her grant proposal approved by the AKC and there will be a definitive genetic test for liver shunts soon. She should get an answer from the AKC this month. Even if she doesn't get the grant, she will still continue her genotyping project. One of the breeders on the Maltese forum I belong to is providing samples for her study now.

Until a genetic marker is discovered, the best tool is BAT testing the parents before breeding and BAT testing all Yorkie puppies before they even go to their new homes as Dr. Center recommends.

Since the test no longer requires fasting, is only about $40-80, I don't see a compelling argument not to get it done.

[BakersDozen]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

LS has been known to skip 10 generations. Not too many breeders will know the complete history of EVERY dog in a pedigree up to 10 generations back..that is a LOT of dogs. And what if there was an unethical breeder that owned one of those dogs that didn't fully disclose all info? There may be a LS dog in the pedigree that no one knows about...

And what if the dog is asymptomatic? It happens... The asymptomatic LS dog might be bred and pass on the defect.

A BAT is so easy and pretty inexpensive. It causes no adverse affects on the dog. There are no negatives to BAT a dog...well, unless it turns out that a dog does have a shunt and a breeder is forced to spay/neuter a dog they have a lot of time/money invested in. But an ethical breeder would want to know that so that they wouldn't go on to produce more with the defect. I see only positives by doing a BAT.

Seriously...why NOT do it? The only reasons I can see not to do it is because a breeder is afraid it is there and doesn't want to stop breeding the dogs, the breeder doesn't want to take the time or spend the money to do it, or because they don't know any better. Everyone here KNOWS how common LS is and how serious it can be. So again...why not do it?

I wonder just how many times it has skipped 10 generations. (I won't even get into the impossibility of proving it is genetic in that case) And the asymptomatic cases are MUCH lower in number. It is common in the Yorkie breed as a whole, of which a majority have been bred by breeders doing NO testing of any kind, breeding any two dogs they find. Unfortunately there are no stats for incidence in breeders such as the one who posted here, who do blood panel, etc. I do not feel it would be a stretch to say that the incidence would be MUCH lower.

I would like to make it very clear that I am not against this testing, in fact I stated I would do it if I were a breeder. Again, I do not disagree that there is not a compelling reason not to do it. However, I do not see a compelling, LOGICAL, MEDICAL reason to definitely test every dog, ASSUMING breeders with programs and testing like the one posting earlier here.

I thought the point of this thread was simply to get breeder's opinions? I don't blame them a bit for not posting.

[BakersDozen]

Originally Posted by Ladymom

I agree 100%. Hopefully Dr. Center will have her grant proposal approved by the AKC and there will be a definitive genetic test for liver shunts soon. .................

It would be wonderful if there were a definitive test. Hopefully will be soon.

[BakersDozen]

I am retiring for the night. I feel that I am for some reason not making my point clear; I'm not trying to say that the BAT shouldn't be done. I think I'm just saying that I do not automatically discredit a breeder who doesn't do it, assuming their other basic testing and breeding program are good. Yep, I think that's it. Sorry, I am so not a night person, my brain shuts down by 11:00. Unfortunately, tonight my eyes and hands didn't shut down at the same time. lol