Glad to hear you found it helpful. And I agree completely....the day I stop learning is the day they need to put me on the other side of the grass.

Woogie Man, here is where I see the debate at this point:

You brought up factual information regarding pie bald coloring indicating that it is associated with deafness and blindness in other breeds. You then asked if there was reason to believe that this could be true in yorkies as well. You also asked some rather provocative value questions as to whether the risk was worth taking. After that, you answered your own questions, saying that it was likely that pie bald yorkies would have the same problems, and that it was wrong to take that risk ("russian roulette").

From what I've seen, one person(?) said that they've observed five generations of parties and seen no issues. This is reasonable, though not iron clad, evidence. Other people have said that they would observe breeding results and only beed healthy lines. There are other breeds of dogs where you have to be careful you don't over-select for a particular physical trait, and in fact, have to breed every other generation back with a dog that doesn't display the desired trait.

As for whether the risk is worth it, well, since it's a value judgment, people are going to come up with different answers.

I agree that not all responses to you have been particularly polite or well informed, but many of them have been, and since you do seem to have some bias, people are going to react to that.

As always, just my opinion.

I hope I didn't say anything that upset you. I have Biewers and I am certainly not in denial as to their breeding future...I am going into this with my eyes wide open. I have learned a great deal from reading this thread and from the links you posted. The only point I wanted to make is that there are health issues, and serious ones, or the potential for them, in all breeds.

I said right from the beginning that we would watch for that and change our breeding practices if that happened. the only other alternative is to not breed at all.

No one, including you, seemed to be satisfied with that answer. You all kept harping on it.

We are not ignorant, we know there are risks as there are with any breeding program or anytime some one ventures into unknown territory. But that has not stopped people in the past, and it won't stop us.

all we can do is tell you that we plan to do it responsibly, only time will tell the outcome.

we've been told we are in it for the money, that we are ruining the breed, that we are going to produce deaf dogs, that responsible breeders breed to the standards set by they YTCA, like the YTCA created them.

We've heard it all and we are not going to stop. so you can ll quit harping.

As for the facts. You have yet to produce any facts of any parti colored yorkies producing deaf puppies. True it has happened in some other breeds, but equally true that it has not happened in all other breeds.

We cannot prove something that never happened.

All pioneers go through this same sort of ridcule, yet they proved that the earth was not flat, that life did exst on the other side of the mountains etc. but they could not have proved it if they had litened to all the nay sayers.

I bet way back when, they were told that they could not possibly turn a 100 pound wolf into a 5 pound, long haired, two toned dog, had those people listened, we would all have pet wolves.



parti colored yorkshire Terriers are here to stay. Get used to it.

Pretty good summary. Yes, I brought up what I think are good, factual points about breeding piebalds (partis). There is a lot of good research about this. I probably wouldn't use the word 'provocative' to describe my questions since I see it as adding another risk to the other risks we are more familiar with. I do stand by my statement that it's like playing Russian roulette, especially if one doesn't acknowledge the risk. The observations you mentioned I do acknowledge, but there is good evidence that those observations, though true, are trumped by the research that's already been done. I don't know if I have a 'bias', but do feel that those that wish to breed partis should be well informed. It is an added risk that shouldn't be casually dismissed. I honestly didn't come into this with a strong opinion but feel that some don't like the message so chose to shoot the messenger. Some may disagree with my opinions but facts are just facts and don't care what anyone thinks. Thank you for your post. I appreciate your civility. This is a topic that always seems to get heated for one reason or the other and I hope it can continue in a reasonable fashion.

LOL, I'm actually not upset though you may not be able to tell that by my post where I lumped a bunch of posts directed at me together. I breed Yorkies and am constantly researching to try and improve what I'm doing. For me, it's hard enough to do that well without taking on the added worry of another risk. The only real motivation I had in posting on this thread in the first place was that it seemed that what I saw as an obvious concern in regard to breeding Partis was, to me, being overlooked. So, I posted a few links and it kind of snowballed. Ah, well....

Well, I thought this thread had taken up a fairly positive tone earlier this morning. I was really done posting after I posted this morning with post #306. I don't see how that post was harping on things but it got picked apart, line by line, and I responded, line by line. Things went downhill from there. I think the posts speak for themselves and everyone is free to have their own opinion as to who is harping, flippant, sarcastic or whatever. I posted some information....take it or leave it.

From what I've read, dogs that go deaf as a result of the extreme piebald gene, normally loose their hearing within the first few weeks of life, it's not something that may happen 5 or 10 years down the road with a dog (at least where the parti gene is concerned).

"Deafness associated with piebald coloring is inherited in some breeds, but the presence of the gene by itself is not sufficient to cause deafness. For example, all Dalmatians have two copies of the extreme piebald gene (homozygous), but not all of them are deaf – there appear to be other genes involved as well.

However, it is important to eliminate other causes for deafness before coming to a conclusion that your animal is deaf due to the extreme piebald gene. Deafness in Samoyeds is not common (extreme white), but may be attributed to any of the following, or a combination thereof;

Congenital (present at birth) - Genetic (hereditary)
Congenital (present at birth) - Acquired (for example, dam exposed to toxic drug)
Otitis (inflammation) through bacteria or fungal infections in Inner or Outer Ear
Injury by accident or foreign body invasion
Old age (Presbycusis)
Drug Toxicity including General Anaesthesia
Noise Trauma

However, not all breeds with these genes (parti) have been reported to be affected. The deafness, which usually develops in the first few weeks after birth while the ear canal is still closed, usually results from the degeneration of part of the blood supply to the cochlea (the stria vascularis). The nerve cells of the cochlea subsequently die and permanent deafness results. The cause of the vascular degeneration is not known, but appears to be associated with the absence of pigment producing cells (melanocytes) in the blood vessels. All of the function of these cells are not known, but one role is to maintain high potassium concentrations in the fluid (endolymph) surrounding the hair cells of the cochlea; these pigment cells are critical for survival of the stria. Deafness in the Doberman, which is also accompanied by vestibular (balance) disturbance, results from a different mechanism, where hair cell death is not the result of degeneration of the stria but is instead the primary cause. Deafness may also occur later in life in dogs from other causes such as toxicities, infections, or injuries, or due to aging (presbycusis); these forms of deafness almost never have a genetic cause in animals and thus do not present a concern in breeding decisions."

Piebald or Extreme Piebald Gene – Deafness — Samoyed Club of America Education and Research Foundation (SCARF)


Genetics of Deafness in Dogs

Looks like while the rest of us were on here hashing over the possibility, you went and did your homework..

good job, thank you for the information.

Deafness Somewhat rare. This condition is possibly linked to Papillons which carry a Piebald gene. The genes
affect the amount and distribution of white areas on the body. Deafness can be described as (1) congenital or late
onset, (2) hereditary or acquired, and (3) conductive or sensor neural. Congenital deafness is affected by a
Piebald gene. That makes the mismark or almost all white Papillon being a suspect of higher incidence because it
is an extension of the piebald gene. The mechanism of inheritance is not known, and not only mismarks have been
affected by deafness. Unilateral (one ear) and bilateral (both ears) deafness has been diagnosed in Papillons. Not
enough Papillons are routinely tested to compile reliable statistics about deafness.


Behavioral deafness detection with young puppies in the home is difficult, as the deaf young cue off the behavior
of their littermates. Often deafness is not noticed until the puppies are separated from their littermates. A puppy
that does not awaken in response to a loud noise is almost certainly bilaterally deaf, but the unilaterally deaf
cannot be detected with any reliability. As a consequence, behavioral hearing assessment of animals in the clinic
or home is of limited reliability. If deafness is suspected a "BAER" Brainstem Auditory Evoked Response (electro
diagnostic) test should be given by a qualified veterinarian.

Thought this might interest all of you parti breeders. Maybe all puppies should be BAEr tested as unilateral deafness is hard to detect.

Good advice. thank you.

From what I've read, Congenital (present at birth) - Genetic (hereditary) means that the condition is present at birth and it's hereditary, but it does not mean the condition always displays itself at birth. There are two types, piebald, and extreme piebald, and only in the extreme piebald will the condition be displayed at birth.

Genetics of Deafness in Dogs -- George M. Strain, PhD
Inherited deafness can be caused by a gene defect that is autosomal dominant, recessive, sex-linked, or may involve multiple genes . It is usually impossible to determine the cause of congenital deafness unless a clear problem has been observed in the breed or carefully planned breedings are performed. In this article I will discuss what is currently known about the genetics of deafness in dogs so that breeders can make the best informed decisions possible when attempting to reduce or eliminate deafness.
Congenital deafness has been reported for approximately 60 breeds, with the list growing at a regular rate ; it can potentially appear in any breed. The deafness has often been long-established in a breed but kept hidden from outsiders to protect reputations. The disorder is usually associated with pigmentation patterns, where increasing amounts of white in the hair coat increase the likelihood of deafness. Two pigmentation genes in particular are often associated with deafness in dogs: the merle gene ( Collie, Shetland Sheepdog, Dappled Dachshund, Harlequin Great Dane, American Foxhound, Old English Sheepdog, and Norwegian Dunkerhound among others) and the piebald gene (Bull Terrier, Samoyed, Greyhound, Great Pyrenees, Sealyham Terrier, Beagle, Bulldog, Dalmatian, English Setter). Not all breeds with these genes have been reported to be affected. The deafness, which usually develops in the first few weeks after birth while the ear canal is still closed, usually results from the degeneration of part of the blood supply to the cochlea (the stria vascularis). The nerve cells of the cochlea subsequently die and permanent deafness results. The cause of the vascular degeneration is not known, but appears to be associated with the absence of pigment producing cells (melanocytes) in the blood vessels. The function of these cells is not known but appears to be critical for survival of the stria. Deafness in the Doberman, which is accompanied by vestibular (balance) disturbance, results from other mechanisms. Deafness may also occur later in life from causes such as toxicities, infections, or injuries, or due to aging (presbycusis); these forms of deafness almost never have a genetic cause in animals and thus do not present a concern in breeding decisions.

The incidence of congenital deafness in different breeds is seldom known because of the limited number of studies. In the Dalmatian, where the incidence is highest, 8% of all dogs are bilaterally deaf and 22% are unilaterally deaf. In the English Setter, Australian Cattle Dog, and Bull Terrier, where fewer numbers of dogs have been hearing tested, the incidence appears to be about ½ of that of Dalmatians. Unilateral or bilateral deafness is found in 75% of all white Norwegian Dunkerhounds, but the incidence in normal-color dogs is unknown. Other breeds with a high incidence are the Catahoula and Australian Shepherd. The incidence of all types of deafness in the general dog population is low, reported to be 2.56 to 6.5 cases per 10,000 dogs seen at veterinary school teaching hospitals. Recognition of affected cases is often difficult, because unilaterally deaf dogs appear to hear normally unless a special test (the brainstem auditory evoked response, BAER) is performed; facilities to perform the BAER are usually only available at veterinary schools. It should be noted that a unilaterally deaf dog can be as great a genetic risk for transmission of deafness to its offspring as is a bilaterally deaf dog.

The method of genetic transmission of deafness in dogs is usually not known. There are no recognized forms of sex-linked deafness in dogs, although this does occur in humans. The disorder has been reported to have an autosomal recessive mechanism in the Rottweiler, Bull Terrier, and Pointer, but this suggestion is suspect because the reports were before the availability of BAER testing and the ability to detect unilaterally deaf dogs. References usually state that deafness transmission in most other breeds is autosomal dominant, but there is reason to believe that this is not true, as will be discussed below. Pigment-associated inherited deafness is not restricted to dogs. Deafness in blue-eyed white cats is common and is known to be passed on as an autosomal dominant defect. Blue eyes, resulting from an absence of pigment in the iris, is common with pigment-associated deafness but is not, in and of itself, an indication of deafness or the presence of a deafness gene. Waardenburg's syndrome in humans presents with deafness, a stripe of white in the hair and beard, blue or different colored eyes (even in blacks and asians), no pigment behind the retina, and minor structural deformities around the nose and eyes. This is an autosomal dominant disorder with incomplete penetrance, which means that individuals that inherit the disorder may not show all components of the syndrome - i.e., they may not be deaf.

In simple Mendelian genetics, each dog carries two copies of each gene, one from each parent. The possible outcomes of breedings can be demonstrated with tables showing the genotype of both parents and the possible combinations in their offspring. If deafness is carried as a simple autosomal recessive gene (d), the breeding of two hearing carriers (Dd) (Table 1) will result, on average, in 25% affected dogs (dd), 50% hearing carriers (Dd), and 25% free of the defect (DD). The breeding of a carrier to a dog free of the defect (Table 2) will result in no affected dogs but 50% carriers and 50% free. The breeding of an affected dog to a carrier (Table 3) will result in 50% affected, 50% carriers, and no free. Finally, the breeding of an affected dog to a dog free of the defect (Table 4) will result in 100% carriers and no affected or free.

If instead deafness is carried as a simple autosomal dominant gene (D), the breeding of an affected dog (Dd) to a free dog (dd) (Table 3) would result on average in 50% affected and 50% free. Dogs with the genotype DD would be unlikely to occur unless two deaf dogs had been bred. All of the above assumes that incomplete penetrance is not acting. If more than one gene (recessive and/or dominant) is involved in producing the deafness, the possible combinations become much more complicated. It is estimated for humans that there are 10-15 different autosomal recessive deafness genes, so that children of two deaf parents can be unaffected but carry both genes. If deafness in dogs results from more than one recessive gene, the possible outcomes of breedings are more numerous and determination of the mechanisms of transmission will be difficult.

As stated above, deafness is often associated with the merle (dapple) gene, which produces a mingled or patchwork combination of dark and light areas. This gene (M) is dominant so that affected dogs (Mm) show the pattern, which is desirable in many breeds. However, when two dogs with merle are bred, 25% will end up with the MM genotype (i.e., Table 1). These dogs have a solid white coat and blue irises, are often deaf and/or blind, and are sterile. Breeders of these dogs know not to breed merle to merle. In this case the deafness is neither dominant nor recessive, but is linked to a dominant gene that disrupts pigmentation and secondarily produces deaf dogs.

Genetic transmission of deafness in dogs with the piebald (sp) and extreme piebald (sw) pigment genes, such as the Dalmatian, is less clear. These genes affect the amount and distribution of white areas on the body. Deafness in Dalmatians does not appear to be dominant since deaf puppies result from hearing parents. It does not appear to be a simple recessive disorder: we have bred pairs of deaf Dalmatians and obtained bilaterally hearing and unilaterally hearing puppies, when all should have been deaf if it was recessive. These findings might be explained by a multi-gene cause, the presence of two different autosomal recessive deafness genes, or a syndrome with incomplete penetrance. Further studies (in progress) will be required to determine the mechanisms.

So what should breeders do when deafness crops up? The most conservative approach would be to not breed the affected animal and not repeat the breeding that produced deafness. It is frequently recommended (i.e. Dalmatian Club of America) that bilaterally deaf puppies should be euthanatized, since they make poor pets, are prone to biting, frequently die from misadventure (cars), and require excessive care. There is considerable controversy on this point (see The Deaf Dogs Web Page), and there is no question that many people have successfully raised deaf dogs. For every horror story of a problem deaf dog there seems to be a story of one that was successfully raised. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict how a deaf puppy will turn out. Unilaterally deaf dogs can make good pets but should not be bred. When deafness is uncommon in a breed, affected dogs should not be bred, but this does not mean that all related dogs are a risk and must be retired from breeding. An understanding of simple autosomal recessive and dominant patterns, as explained above, can allow the breeder to make informed decisions and likely avoid future deaf animals without sacrificing a breeding line that has been shaped over many years. However, extreme caution must be used when line breeding of dogs related to deaf dogs, whether the deafness is unilateral or bilateral. To make these decisions in an informed manner for breeds with known deafness, it is important that advantage be taken of hearing testing facilities at veterinary schools. Unilaterally deaf dogs cannot be detected by other means, and these dogs will pass on their deafness genes.


Not to keep kicking a live horse, but this last sentence is very informative also.:)

Now we're getting somewhere! :D

JeanieK, can I ask how it is that you would like to breed partis, but have not produced any yet? Do you breed standard yorkies and you're hoping to see a parti eventually?

It is good to see this info posted. If you read enough of these type pages, you'll find the info to be consistent and validated by science. Though not alarmist, these sites do urge caution when breeding piebalds. The links posted earlier say much the same. Here's something from a Chihuahua site...."Spotting/Piebald Pattern Gene
is a recessive, complete pigment reducing pattern gene, which removes ALL pigment to white in random unpredictable areas affected by the gene, it removes all colors to those areas affected, thus no color present, extreme whites by definition with blue eyes are partial albinos, therefore by default partial albinos must be considered a form of albinism. Blue eyes have been linked to the piebald gene, spotting gene has been linked to microphthalmia. See the prior link for spotting gene specific microphthalmia. All litter mates and parents of a blue eyed whelp pup must be considered a recessive carrier of the recessive blue eye gene. Piebald and or spotted on whites and excessive whites are homozygous forms of the piebald(SP/SW) gene. It is a recessive gene, therefore it can skip generations, and at this time can not be DNA'ed for its presence, but it is just around the corner, see our health testing page for more info. It is still uncertain if recessive carriers can or are effected by the gene linked disorders. Piebald/spotting gene effects a large majority of the canine breeds, and it is causing problems within many breeds. Some breeds more than others.

It has be scientifically proven that the more patches of color the less likely the chance for disorders. Proving once more color is a healthier choice for the breeder and the dog.
See a medical article on the spotting gene.
Breeds/ Facts about the risk of the spotting gene in many canine breeders.
Dalmatians, Bull Terriers, Great Danes, Bulldogs and many other breeds openly discuss their concerns over too much white and/or the presence of the piebald gene, below we will share just some breed clubs with open concerns.
Samoyed Club : Bichon Frise Club : Boxer Club : Biewer Club
there are many more, we just want to show you how piebald, spotting gene effects health and how some breed clubs are coping with the spotting gene

LSU article, breeds most affected by deafness, MITF news , breeds with congenital deafness, Dr. Strain misquoted,
There are many more research sites to study, but we wanted to give a starting point to find some facts we referred too".....Here's the link...Patterns

:thumbup::thumbup:

kpstoybox,

This is not meant as an affront but is your avatar of a Parti or a Biewer?

well yes, is there another way?

No just joking. My partis are in my avatar. But I have a carrier male and so far no partis.

Congenital means present at birth, but is not necessarily herditary. Could be cause by something that happened with the mother during pregnancy.

Very good advice, for people with breeds with known deafness.

If ever I start getting deaf dogs, I will look into the testing, I will definitely not repeat the breeding, and I will spay/neuter the faulty puppy.

I appreciate your concern, I reallt do. but I do not plan to scrap my breeding program for something that may never happen.

I have no intention of breeding to produce an all white yorkie. I like the color on the ears, and that is the look I will strive for.

My breeder has been breeding partis for many years and many generations and is not producing deaf puppies.

People are posting lots of scientific links, but until someone actually reads and COMPREHENDS what the link is saying, it doesn't do any good.

My quote was directly from a link Pinehaven post number 368 to support her claim that the



I wasn't defining the word congenital and describing the differences between acquired and genetic. I was explaining that something could be congenital and genetic and while the condition would be PRESENT at birth, it does not have to DISPLAY itself at birth.

Here's my direct quote, isn't it plain what I was saying? Why would you feel the need to say there are two types of congenital, clearly we are only referring the genetic kind.

Your explaining the difference between two types of congenital, - acquired and genetic leads me to believe you do not have an understanding of what I was trying to say. What this means is that while some puppies would be born deaf, you won't know about others until later, perhaps 5-7 years later.

With all the talk of genetics, I have an interesting question.

Since all dogs can eventually be traced to the wolf. The wolf must contain all of the genetic markers for all; the traits found in all of the various breeds.

The various dog breeds were created by eliminating certain genes. Therefore if one started breeding all of the breeds back together again, could we eventually produce a wolf?

I understood what you said. the condition is present at birth but does not display itself til later.

Thank you for your kind concern for my potentil inability to COMPREHEND. Next time I will be more careful in my explainations so you can comprehend that I comprehended.

Still not scrapping my breeding program for somethuing that may or masy NOT ever happen.

I bet that not one of the puppies has been BAER tested and as you have read,(hopefully) the unilateral deafness problem is almost impossible to tell unless they are tested. So how do any of you know that this problem does not exist in your breeding program?

Who knows? Since the earliest domisticated dog is around 31000 year old maybe it would take about 31000 years of mixing to find out.:D

I appreciate your concern, and all the informational post. However I am very computer literate and have one my own research of the subject. Upon interviewing parti yorkie breeders I have found no incidene of deafness, so therefore see no reason to be concerned at this time

I will have my dogs tested as I see fit, and I will assume all risks and responsibilty for any deaf dogs that I might produce.

Thank you very much for all of the research that you have done on my behalf.

You said we ARE ALL and I don't care to be included in that, as I'm not a breeder, is all I said

If the shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it.

I've been reading back through the thread and some things just don't add up for me. It appears as though a couple of parti breeders have their own club and are actually writing a standard for the partis. It seems that, when breeding partis of any breed, awareness of the piebald gene risks is critical. From the time line of the posts, it looks like the breeders that are trying to set standards for the parti Yorkie were unaware of these risks. I would think that anyone that is putting themselves in such a position would be keenly aware of all risks and wouldn't attempt to write a standard before having all possible information. Here...I'll try to illustrate my point. On 1-31, when asked about how many members are in the club and how many dogs were produced, JeanieK responded in post 278...."Our club is very new, and there aren't as many serious parti yorkie breeders out there yet. most of us have just recently aquired our partis and hfave yet to even have our first parti pups".My opinion is this isn't much to go on if you're writing the standard. After more information was posted concerning the risks of breeding piebalds, JeanieK responded, on 2-1 in post 302...."Thank you ladies for all the great information, it is definitely something we will be watching for.

That is true, only time will tell. The Biewers Yorkies have been around for a long time and I have not heard of any deafness in their dogs. But that does not mean it won't happen in the partis, so now that we are aware of it we can watch for it.

I have spoken to may breeders including my own, that prefer to breed carriers to partis, and this might be why.

Sue I think we need to adjust the standard to discourae the breeding of Dogs with all white heads. I like the color on both ears anyway". Does this sound like someone who was previously aware of the piebald risks? Well, at least she's mentioning adjusting the standard. Question is, why wasn't this looked into earlier? The only research that seems to have been done is asking the few other parti breeders and concluding it's not a problem. The factual posts that have been made have been dismissed because a few breeders with no more than a few generations say otherwise. I'm not really sure that those breeders were even asked since, referring to post 302, it all seems to be new information. Again, this by those writing the standard? Finally, today, when asked about testing that had been done to make sure there was no uni-lateral deafness, JeanieK responded in post 386...."I appreciate your concern, and all the informational post. However I am very computer literate and have one my own research of the subject. Upon interviewing parti yorkie breeders I have found no incidene of deafness, so therefore see no reason to be concerned at this time

I will have my dogs tested as I see fit
, and I will assume all risks and responsibilty for any deaf dogs that I might produce". While it may be fine to assume your own risks, shouldn't those writing the standard be concerned about the risks to other parti breeders? And, again, how much research was really done on the subject (see post 302). All I can say is thank God for responsible breed clubs.

Honestly you really don't make any sense with posting of how parti people should breed or handle their club, have their dogs tested etc etc. Who appointed you dog God over all the parti colored dogs?
If you look at the AKC list of dogs on the AKC site 21 of the first 35 dogs and that is just the A and B list can be tricolored or parti. So these people should not breed these dogs because of chance of deafness? If you go down that list of AKC dogs the tri colors out number the solids by alot.
These dogs can be spotted....
Akita
American Foxhound,
American Staffordshire Terrier
American Eskimo Dog
Anatolian Shepherd Dog,
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Shepherd, Australian Terrier
Basenji Bernese Mountain Dog
Bichon Frise Borzoi
Boston Terrier Border Collie
Basset Hound Brittany
Beagle Bulldog
Bearded Collie
Beauceron
Bedlington Terrier

These can not:...Affenpinscher
Afghan Hound
American Water Spaniel
Anatolian Shepherd Dog
Belgian Malinois
Belgian Sheepdog
Belgian Tervuren
Bouvier des Flandres
Bloodhound
Border Terrier
Briard
Brussels Griffon
Bullmastiff

And thats just the A's and B's
Maybe you need to petition AKC about allowing all these spotted dogs to be bred.
Get over the spots geeeesh!!!!!!!!!!!!