The Tests we do
 

I was having a discussion the other day with two of my friends, both breeders, both exhibitors, and we were talking about the pre breeding tests.

What is heart-wrenching for all of us, is there are so few genetic tests, markers, to determine if your dog has x,y, or z.

In Yorkies, let's take LS for an example. The dam, and the sire, can test clear, and yet an LS puppy is born.

In all breeds CERF for PRA, you can test at one year old clean, and at two clean, so you breed, then at 3 or 4 yrs old, you test, and whamoo bangoo, you have PRA. Then what, you've maybe bred that sire or dam, once maybe two or three times. Again no marker found yet for what is generally accepted as a genetic condition.

OFA hip elbow, knee. Many have had breeding zero to zero, and gosh darn it we have a grade 2 or grade 3 in a puppy. This is a known poly genetic condition. Where are we with determining how to eliminate this?

Further on OFA, it is just not enough to say grade one or two, where are the studies, to help us understand what can or can't be done with Grade one or Two. The rememdies proved effective for joints.

For those non breeders out there, I would like to say, we sweat blood and tears, do our best with tests, that have no guanatee, how our beloved puppies will be. We take a risk, with heart in mouth, with passionate love of this breed and health foremost.

This is not quite a rant, although it may sound so. More a forum for breeders to share their own concerns, where we could do the most and best impact to guide research.

I hear you there!!
I know what I spend at the vets on these tests alone and to know that really it means not much.
I bile acid test, liver panel, complete blood count, protein/albumin test. Why, to prove that mine are clear but what about the pups? They could still come up with it. Some say, well you have to know your lines. Ok, I do I have a 5 generation line and not one shunt, luxating patella, nothing. Then I use a male from another breeder who has been tested perfectly and together they have a leggs-perthes pup. Where did that come from?
Then comes the dreaded, I have spent years on my line, do I spay the remaining 2 girls I own and lose the entire line?
Also with that is the ones whos coats do not do as expected, teeth go off when the adults come in, or the toplines go off all after doing the blood work and Penn hips on one (400.00 for those)
I have only CERF'd one dog and then he was placed for a coat and size issue about 6 months later. Way too light and had a weird growth spurt after age 1 where he went from almost 6 pounds to 8 pounds:eek:. That was a huge loss of money:( CERF is hard here as the vets have to come up from another state so they are done sporatically but it is getting better now finally.
I wish that there were genetic markers that would tell us about these issues. I know I for one would be paying for the testing. Most of these issues are recessive or so they say but I would like to know for certain.

Please don't get me wrong here - but - in reality these tests really don't mean anything. By doing them - you just know that your sire or dam does not have it and not that the puppy you breed will not have it.

Not much different than humans. My son had some genetic tests done on himself before having a baby and all they could say was he himself doesnt have a certain disease, but wasnt a guarantee his babies wont. Seems like a waste of money cuz we already knew he was healthy.

But then again does this not fall true here with dogs? Is it not a waste of money to test if you know that your dog shows no signs of having a liver shunt and no signs of luxating patella. Why test?

Thats a good question cuz testing is not a guarantee--not for the pups and not for the sire or dam. I've spent a lot of money and have no more peace of mind than I did before the tests LOL

Well that is the whole point of this thread. What and where do we address our efforts to push for, to support a genetic marker. the genetic marker is the key, then we can test for those markers, and be truly informed.

There is LS, and I am putting that first, because it is a more , much more serious condition than LP1.

Ahh but that is the catch 22 I think.

If you do not test what does that say about you as a breeder? Especially on YTCA and Yorkietalk? Are you then making sure you have assured that your breeding stock is at least healthy? Without a bile acid MVD may go unnoticed, without hip xrays a case of hip dysplasia could go undetected for a year or 2, same with knees.....

So I know the testing does not prove the pups will not have it per say, but it does lessen the chances in the big picture of it.

Now I am hearing that pups should be tested prior to placement. Now my vet will not do the BAT till 16 weeks or prefers 6 months so you do not have to retest. So do you hold on to pet quality pups for 4-6 months? I think no. People are already chomping at the bit for a pup at 8-10 weeks! I have had many decided to go with another breeder because my pups stay till 12 weeks. I was fine with it and tried to educate but regardless they chose elsewhere.

So that would be the catch 22 for me. I choose to test the parents, give a health guarantee, and stand behind my pups fully. To me that is the best I can do at this point. But as soon as genetic markers are there so will I be in line for testing...

But does it? Everything seems to point to "No". You assure the buyers that the breeding stock is healthy - but if there are no assurances that the puppies will be healthy - then why test?

From what I've read, LS is thought to be genetic but has not been proven to be. The research has shown LS clear parents can throw an LS pup and LS affected parents can throw a clear pup. It doesn't seem to follow Mendel as I understand it.

The thing is, so many diseases and conditions may either be genetic or acquired. The studies on LS in Irish Wolfhounds was for intrahepatic shunts so not sure if that data could be transferred to extrahepatic shunts. In the IW, affected breeding dogs were identified and the incidence was lowered by about 50%, if I remember correctly.

I seem to remember something about the incidence rising in the last 30 years or so. The question is.....is that due to better diagnostics and reporting or is there a true rise in cases?

What I have taken from various research on health issues is that toy breeds are often more severely affected than larger breeds for certain things. One notable thing is auto-immune disease due to over-vaccination. I think that is largely undisputed. I also feel that introducing toxins into a small dog's system (especially early in life) can have a tremendous negative effect on their health. I'm talking specifically about flea preventatives and heartworm prevention being used before the dog's organs are fully developed and the immune system is immature. With everything that is put into a dog's bloodstream passing through the liver, it's not a stretch to consider these toxic products as being partly to blame for some liver issues.

There are practical, conservative protocols that can minimize the risks from these products. How can a breeder be sure the new owner isn't overdoing it with these products, or if their vet isn't overdoing vaccines and administering non-core vaccines or administering too often, especially in the case of the rabies vaccine. And how does a breeder protect themselves from reckless use of these things as far as liability goes while still standing behind their pups?

As for identifying pups with compromised livers, I feel that challenging the liver is effective early on, and is practical, since bile acid testing isn't reliable before 5 months of age, the age at which the organs mature. By 'challenging', I mean feeding a pup a high protein food. If the liver is compromised, the ammonia from the increased protein should provoke a reaction that we could associate with liver disease. I also feel that reactions to vaccines are an indicator of compromised health in a pup.

To me, testing the parents for something that may or may not be genetic gives a false sense of security. It's no guarantee by any means. I'm just not comfortable with the notion that testing is all we can do for now and just wait for a marker to be found. I feel there are things we can do to gauge the health of a young pup and to prevent un-necessary exposure to toxins that may be a bigger culprit than we have previously acknowledged.

I agree 110%

I must say - this has been very interesting reading. Thank you for starting this thread - and thank you to all the posters for your insight. Every day I learn so much from this site. Thanks again.

Thanks...I was a little hesitant to post because so much of it is 'just my opinion'. I am struck by how there seems to be a correlation between the wider use of vaccines and the increased use of preventatives with the increases in cancers, auto immune disease, allergies, and so on. On average, even with the 'better' care we give our dogs, they are not healthier and are not living longer. With vaccines, we are learning that more is not better and I hope we can come to an equal understanding about the monthly toxins that are a part of so many dogs regimen. To assume all these health issues are genetics or bad breeding is shortsighted, to me.

:thumbup::thumbup:

Also what I have read recently, I think a British source, is that on average more dogs seem to be overweight, in fact decidely pudgey, that combined with lower levels of exercise,will negatively affect overall health. Cardiovascular, immune, organs, and joints, will be challenged.

In the big picture I believe yes. If you have a dog with MVD or LP or Legg-perthes and you breed that dog I feel that your have increased your chances of producing a pup with that disorder. I know LS do not follow that however how many breeders would breed a LS dog? None that I know of, why?

Lifestyle will certainly impact a dog's health. Lack of exercise will definitely have a negative impact on the body. Also, many of the pre-packaged treats are not healthy.

These things will affect a dog, but usually it's an effect seen later in life. I don't think it really reflects on the breeder except that some people seem to think that any problem, at any stage of life, is the breeder's fault. That is not fair and it brings about the question of the responsibility of the owner. A breeder shouldn't be held responsible for the poor care a dog may be given by its new owner.

Since we both used the word 'challenged' in our posts, I would like to clarify. When I suggested feeding a high protein food to a pup to challenge the function of the liver, I used 'challenge' to mean to test the working of the liver. I *think* you mean challenged as in compromised. Just pointing that out so no one gets confused.

Yes challenged does mean compromised in my sentence.

To speak to the other paragraphs, breeders should speak about the risks of overweight dogs, the need for good wholesome and safe exercise, and how exercise cautions and safety changes as your pup matures to an adult dog. If you have in your puppy packet some of these things, along with vacc protocols, and as well in conversation emphasize those things, it gives instruction(s) to the new puppy parent. Show and describe how you can tell if your dog is overweight. Explain how to measure and to feed the appropriate amount of food per day.

For YT's jumping up and down like a jumping jack,as a young pup, might damage the knees, and or other joints. Besides which, it is good to start young, to train the pup, how to greet nicely newcomers. Sit, be still, get treats and lots of good pets :)

I rarely buy store bought training treats, I make my own, and or use, fresh veggies, leftover chicken, lamb, or beef. They are all cut down for my YOrkie to small pea size. I emphasize to new puppy owners treats are rewards, for good behaviour. Obedience commands, rewards for good potties, etc.

While I don't breed yorkies, I do intend to breed my BRT;s. these are large dogs, and have as well some unique, training and growth challenges. For example; you don't want to put weight too fast on the young growing pup. Their bones don't fuse until 18mths and some slow maturing lines, 24mths. No high jumping, no hill descents, etc before at least 18mths.

Good for you.OFA screening is so important.One must look over the verticle pedigrees to be able to estimate results.No data=mostly guesswork.I chose not to breed the dogs that I have that are affected with genetic disorders that cause pain.

Gail, great thread! The way I look at it is nothing is guaranteed in life. Nothing! For instance, I am 5'6" my husband is 6'0 and 2 of my daughters are 5'1 and 5'3. The other one is 5'9. Dont know where the 2 girls got their height from. Another thing is that my great grandmother was an Albino. We have no idea where that came from, deep in our family lines. You can only test for what is in front of you. You never know whats buried deep in any lines.JMO, Great thread and great info...:)

:yeahthat::bravo::yorkietal:thankyou2

I agree!! This is exactly how I was thinking. If you had one that had high bile acids you probably wouldn't breed that dog right? But how would you know that in the first place if you never had them tested to begin with?

So for all you know, if you don't test, you can be breeding dogs with high bile acids and that just doesn't seem like a good outcome.

No, testing doesn't guarantee anything but I think it still sheds a little insight on the matter and I would rather test and not be intentionally breeding dogs with high bile acids. Because if you aren't testing you could very well be intentionally breeding dogs with high bile acids.

I once heard that there is a certain hormone that the dam produces that may determine whether that pup is born with a liver shunt. If the dam doesn't produce this certain hormone during conception than they end up with a pup with LS.
I don't know how much was looked into it but I think it kinda makes more sense than it being genetic. Because it would explain why you could breed the same pair and end up with a LS pup one time and no LS pups another time.

Thanks...interesting! So i shouldnt waste my $ having my pups tested because i did not know the grandparents?

:thumbup: Yep, that is exactly what she was getting at, please continue to breed out of standard dogs in which you have no idea what they may be passing on to future generations. The Yorkie rescues aren't full enough with unhealthy dogs produced by uneducated breeders so they need your help! Thanks for the contribution, I'm sure they'll enjoy coming up with the cash to treat your future pups for genetic diseases, and trying to find them great families that can afford the medical expenses caused not by not running tests, but because the pup just pulled the short straw. ;)

Not your concern though, because once you pass them off to people in trade for goods (be it money or a new roof) they aren't your problem anymore :D just be sure to put in the health guarantee that you (the breeder of course :)) are not responsible for any medical expenses caused by congenial defects discovered in the pups...Wouldn't want you to have to come out of pocket to take care of the health of a puppy your "breeding program" produced now would you? ;)

Yeah, pretty much. Why bother? Testing the pups themselves is going to do very little good if you don't know anything about the medical history of the other dogs in their lines.

But, it's not a means of justifying not bothering with health tests, although it does make a rather convenient excuse. It's an indication that the breedings shouldn't be ocurring in the first place.

But isn't testing puppies useless because you really can't get a good reading unless they are 6 months of age? I know that there is an initial test done earlier than the 6 month mark - but what does that prove if its inaccurate on its own?

Even so, if there's a chance that it can be detected at an earlier age--even if you know a re-test will be needed to be 100% certain, wouldn't that be better from the aspect of being able to let potential owners know. Or if a pup did come back with positive test results at an early age, then the breeder could hold them until they were older and more concrete test could be conducted.

Furthermore, what would be the alternative? Have the new owners take on the responsibility of having them tested when they are older?

It's all the more reason to have had the adults (for several generations back) tested and to have a good overall knowledge of their medical histories. Sure, it may show up out of the blue anyway, but you are still GREATLY reducing the chances of having it happen.

I will have to pay up to 2x the cost of the pup for any treated defects in NJ...and i do not mind at all to give that. Just wondering what tests should be done on the pups if at all, considering parents are healthy. i do have the information on rockys lineage for i found the breeder and spoke to them.

As for the new roof update. I get my new roof on Friday!!! The hubby really wanted a puppy for they just lost his dog during the summer. but i spoke to his wife ( a friend of minE) She is still so upset about losing their dog and is just not ready for a new one yet. so i appreciate her honesty and feelings. So we will just be going to dinner as a thank you. I let you know the magazines that my home will appear in.

Wouldn't it be more prudent for one to ensure they are breeding healthy dogs to begin with? :confused: IMO, it doesn't make it an acceptable practice to breed dogs of unknown lineage just because one is willing to foot the bill IF something goes wrong.

I don't think the pain and suffering of the dog and new owner would be erased and 'worth it' just because the breeder vowed to pay the vet bills.