Originally Posted by my2boyz (Post 1841790)

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.

Originally Posted by BakersDozen (Post 1842718)

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.'

How do they know for sure? Puppies that die are not all autopsied. How about puppies that are resorbed or stillborn? I would venture a guess that any breeder who will have a necropsy performed on these puppies, will also go for the BAT.

I'm just pointing out that the mere fact that it is prevelant doesn't necessarily necessitate the testing of every dog.

Well, then how do YOU suggest that MVD be uncovered if it asymptomatic?

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.

Obviously, that analogy does not apply to the topic. If diabetes were rampent AND asymptomatic, I bet there would be routine testing.

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.....

Well, then how do you propose to work towards eradicting or at least controlling this disease?

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.

But BAT could clear your dog inasmuch as you can clear a dog and that is all one can do. We can't sit on our hands and wait and wait for the genetic marker that is going to be found any day now and in the meantime continue to breed with crossed fingers.

Again, just my opinion.

Originally Posted by BakersDozen (Post 1842737)

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.

Originally Posted by BakersDozen (Post 1842775)

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.

Originally Posted by mdcote (Post 1842835)

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

Originally Posted by mdcote (Post 1842835)

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

Originally Posted by scoobiedooiscoo (Post 1843046)

well as a buyer i know i will have my new puppy tested at 10-13 weeks and 9 months. i want to make sure it eather doesnt have it or i catch it early enough to start treating it before bad things happen. i do think that people should know about ls and mvd before buying a puppy so they can decide to test to be on the safe side.

Originally Posted by blitz (Post 1843083)

It's not fear that the thread would go on and on, it's because nobody has a valid reason for not doing it other than a) not wanting to spend the money or b) not wanting to find out that their important breeding dog may have a problem. It is easier to put it off and go on and "wait" for the genetic test.

You can do BAT at a very early age, before you breed or finish a dog.

Originally Posted by BakersDozen (Post 1843108)

...Just because you don't find their reason for not testing valid does not mean it isn't.

What is a valid reason for not testing? Just give me one!

So much for the importance of forming your own opinion....obviously the only right one is the one you share.

well, what exactly is your opinion? You said you will do it yourself, so how can you argue against it?

As we agree on the testing itself, perhaps we can just agree to disagree on the reasons for BATing.

Originally Posted by mdcote (Post 1842835)

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

Originally Posted by blitz (Post 1843090)

Well, since Sharon Center has devoted her career to LS and she suggest BAT, I'd go with that and a CBC. Good for you and your girls. This makes me so happy. I also think an ultrasound might be a lot more expensive.