# Health certifications Gone too far?



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

I am sure this will be responded to with a fair amount of righteous indignation, but Archer’s question about line breeding and in breeding got me to thinking if we may have gone too far on the insistence of OFA certified joints and CERF certifications on eyes. 
If a potential stud or dam exhibits great traits such as marking, water attitude, tractability but has a minor genetic defect, it seems that dog is avoided like the plague for breeding purposes. What about a dog with a minor joint or eye issue that was HT titled at a young age, is a consistent performer with a high pass rate % but has a hip that may be OFA fair or mildly dysplastic. Dog has a great personality, high intelligence, great training attitude, etc. and all the things that a trainer or handler would look for but he/she may not be bred for the above stated reasons. Let’s assume the dog lives to 10+ years old with no obvious physical problems. Just the usual stiffness and aches and pains associated with old age in dogs and people for that matter? Have we done the breed a service or not?
One of the very best hunting dogs I have ever trained, I got as a washout for a very low $ because he had a retinal fold. He consistently retrieved thousands of ducks and geese for several years with a large commercial outfitter in N. Alberta and I personally saw him on several occasions mark sailers that went at least 300 yards in large flat grain fields. He could see very well, retinal fold or not. He could run very long blinds and we very rarely lost a bird. He was a beautiful dog, wonderful with the hunters and also with other dogs. He had an outstanding competitive pedigree but was never bred. 
Are we really doing the breeds a justice by not breeding these type of dogs?
Just being a devil’s advocate for discussion purposes.
MP


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Mike

I agree with you 100%. If we were discussing genetics and crop plants you probably wouldn't have an argument, not from me anyway. If a breeder has a breeding program with a long term goal why not carry an undesirable trait with the goal of eliminating it in future breedings? How about test breedings to determine whether a trait is genetic vs. environmental (like elbows)?

Especially relevant to me. I just attended a health clinic to have hips, eyes, and elbows done.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Probably the most influential tbred sire the last 10 to 15 years would not have been bred 30 years ago. He is a cryptorchid named AP Indy.........makes you think doesn't it?


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Tim

You're a farmer, I believe. Are you doing any breeding of livestock? What is your approach to breeding and genetics?


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Personally I don't think we can "go too far with health certifications". I am not a geneticist, however my knee-jerk reaction would be to avoid breeding and/or purchasing a puppy from a breeding with a parent with a genetic defect. 

Lonnie Spann


----------



## Chelsey's Triple H (Dec 22, 2009)

I think everyone's opinion on "minor" issues differ and not all dogs that have these issues are asymptomatic. You may be crossing some nice dogs off your list, but I feel if you can test for genetic defects or _potential_ problems, why not use one of the numerous dogs that meet both the performance and health criteria?

- Not a breeder but an owner of a symptomatic dysplastic dog.


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

Here's one in the same Mike. Over 9 years old over 4000 ducks and geese retrieved. HRCH and 500 point club. Great personality and very intelligent but was diagnosed with retinal folds. I has her fix and sometimes regret it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Lonnie Spann said:


> .......I am not a geneticist, however my knee-jerk reaction would be to avoid breeding and/or purchasing a puppy from a breeding with a parent with a genetic defect......


 So, you've never owned a dog?

I've been looking for ONE perfect dog my whole life. 
I haven't found one. Let alone two.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Have we gone too far? No.

Do people allude that maybe we have or that we are thinning the gene pool to justify and fit their "logic"? Yes.

A dog that HAS a disease is different than a dog that has the POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE the disease. Through genetic testing, we can keep more individuals in the breeding pool while not producing affecteds. 

In your case, with HD, its multi-faceted. Its not easy to eliminate so breeding a dog with it, only solidifies that it stays soundly in your program. A simple recessive, is much easier to breed around. Keeping the good traits of the carrier dog without producing affecteds. 

If there were a "black and white" criteria for WHY or WHO should be bred it might be easier. But who is the "breeding police" and who "polices the police" and then who "polices the police who policing the other police".....

WRL


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

Okay, just for discussion purposes I will post. I am almost done with my agrononmy degree - plant and soil sciences, I have helped my dad on his hog farm for years where we did farrow to ween which is - breed the sow- farrow her/ whelp the piglets - after 17 days ween the piglets and with in the next 2 weeks breed the sow again. 

All that being said I enjoy studying animal and plant genetics, in plants we breed them to produce more fruit - ie corn bigger ears, and we also breed them to adapt to nutrient deficiencies, disease and pest pressure, as well as drought tolerance. 

In livestock we breed them to have better marbling - mostly cattle there but also done a bit for hogs - and bigger breasts in chickens - as well as feed weight gain efficiency - the farmers and ranchers that show their livestock do care about conformity as well as hereditary defects but the majority of growers and ranchers are more interested on how to get the biggest bang for their buck. 

If the growers find an animal that has bad hips or joints then it will just be culled / sent to slaughter - that is how they eliminate them from the breeding stock. In plant breeding we go through a minimum of 9 selections to create a cultivar and then it is bred again to gain or loose a trait and the whole process is done over again. 

For me it is much different with dogs, it is much harder to live with a dog with a hereditary defect - my room mates dog is EIC Affected - he is hard wired for birds and water but collapses after 30 min of hunting -  It is painful to have to leave him behind because he likes it so much. I believe it would be the same with a dog with dysplastic hips or messed up eyes, and some dogs may not show much signs until older, but when the dogs are older they still want to hunt, I enjoy taking my buddies 13 yr old dog out pheasant hunting he may be slower but he is not in pain, and he is still faster than the birds when running. I dont believe a dog with dysplastic hips would be able to do that at his age. 

If you really want to breed a dog with a defect, that is up to you. I personally wouldnt do it for the fact that these dogs become a part of our family, I wouldnt want to place a pup with someone knowing that the puppy could wind up hurting later in life because I wasnt strict enough with my breeding program. 

There is a long list of dogs that have great hunting instincts and have all their health clearances, I pick from that list.


----------



## Jiggy (Apr 14, 2003)

Mike. I agree with you wholeheartedly...to a point.
I think a person can become over obsessed with breeding a clear "everything" dog and not consider that this dog can't mark and has a poor temperament (example), whereas another dog maybe be "less" clear and have exceptional non testable traits and never be considered by the same person. 
I proudly bred an EIC carrier female...something that is debatable amongst folks...although less now then a couple of years ago.
I also spayed a wonderful dog that has Retinal Folds (RD/OSD carrier). She's on the Derby List, is QAA and running Opens now. Vision NOT an issue at all. She has a spectacular temperament, can flat out mark, is great in the water...yadda...yadda...yadda. Do I wish I could breed her to have what I think is a wonderful addition to the gene pool?? Yes, absolutely. Do I regret spaying her? Only in moments of weakness. Do I think she should be bred? No, absolutely not.
I think SOME genetic issues should not totally eliminate an otherwise wonderful dog from the gene pool and I think some people can get too focused on clearances rather then the dog itself. But would I want to mess with health affecting issues that are PROVEN to be genetic? No.
Not one dog in our breed is truly "clear" of everything.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Marcy had it right...."Not one dog in our breed is truly "clear" of everything."

What really worries me the most is that people want to stay away from animals that are CARRIERS of whatever disease. If they are a carrier only, say of EIC, they are NOT AFFECTED. This comment has come up on RTF before in various discussions. We do a the breed a disservice by getting rid of carriers.

Genetic tests have made it possible to help us avoid producing some diseases and things like phenotypic testing (x-rays for hips/elbows) have helped us reduce incidence of disease. The latter is NOT as precise as the former, but it's all we have. Carriers of whatever, need not be abandoned if they have everything else you want. Just breed them to clears! 

As someone said before, some things we have are multi-factorial, hip dysplasia for example. There are probably more than one gene that effects it then you add in environment. 

We just do the best we can to hedge our bets.

I have a dog, the one in my avatar, that has a grade 2 and a grade 3 elbow. Excellent hips. He is running Master at 9 years of age. Is he hindered by his elbows? Yes. Is it enough to stop him from doing what he loves? No. Do I want someone that has less experience (say pet people) dealing with it? No. 

I will try not to produce it.....

But we can't only breed to clearances. Other things have to be taken into consideration, marking ability, temperament, structure, type.....etc...

Humans aren't perfect...why do we expect dogs to be? 


Sue Puff


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> Tim
> 
> You're a farmer, I believe. Are you doing any breeding of livestock? What is your approach to breeding and genetics?


I am no longer involved in breeding of horses or cattle. But the process of breeding horses doesn't translate well to breeding dogs. I am certainly no expert on breeding dogs just a litter every couple of years.

In breeding horses you have much more help on the genetic side with actual studies that compare similar past pedigree crosses to a pedigree cross you are contemplating. It used to be expensive to do but now you can get them for free from the stallions you are looking at. To my knowledge that isn't available in breeding dogs.

There is an old saying in the horse business though. Breed the best dam you can afford to the best sire you can afford and hope for the best.


Sorry I couldn't be of more help.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

duk4me said:


> I am no longer involved in breeding of horses or cattle. But the process of breeding horses doesn't translate well to breeding dogs. I am certainly no expert on breeding dogs just a litter every couple of years.
> 
> In breeding horses you have much more help on the genetic side with actual studies that compare similar past pedigree crosses to a pedigree cross you are contemplating. It used to be expensive to do but now you can get them for free from the stallions you are looking at. To my knowledge that isn't available in breeding dogs.
> 
> ...


Thank you Tim. What you have said is plenty. Breed the best to the best. However, I think that the best does leave some room for opinion because the best could mean "what is best for my plans".


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> Thank you Tim. What you have said is plenty. Breed the best to the best. However, I think that the best does leave some room for opinion because the best could mean "what is best for my plans".


Yes indeed. The most important thing is to have a plan to attain your goal. After that choose the best you can afford to get there. 

I referenced AP Indy earlier. He has been pensioned but I think his last stud fee was in the neighborhood of 250k Obviously few could afford that but if I had a mare who had a nicking pattern of crossing well with sons of Seattle Slew, AP's sire, I would look at other sons. After finding some in my price range I would then look at their conformation to see if it would compliment the conformation of my mare.

One huge difference in breeding of horses and breeding of dogs is the window of time to make evaluations of sires and especially dams/bitches. That is changing with the advent of frozen semen. I would not be suprised to see some smart breeder come up with a nicking ,not electrical;-), system for dogs and make a fortune. For all I know it could already exist.

Sorry if this was a hi=jack.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

i am not a breeder but it seems to me if you did breed a dog with defects you would have to lower the price of the pups to get rid of them. i would not pay any where near the price of a clear dog to get one with possable defects in the future


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Tim

Not a hijack but good input.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

pat addis said:


> i am not a breeder but it seems to me if you did breed a dog with defects you would have to lower the price of the pups to get rid of them. i would not pay any where near the price of a clear dog to get one with possable defects in the future


The ironic thing is you get a dog you think is clear and six months later a new genetic discovery comes out and you test your dog and find out he is a carrier for xyz. That would be my luck anyway.

But you are correct in your reasoning.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

pat addis

Suppose I breed my bitch to a male with a bad elbow, OK, Grade I. Now don't forget, this is based on pictures. Questions to ask: Is this environmentally caused? Is this due to trauma? Is nutrition a factor? Does the male have other qualities that are definitely valuable, a good contribution to the breed?

If I were really interested in improving the breed and profit and money were not factors, I would breed, keep the progeny, test when appropriate, and cull what I didn't like. Now it seems like I have a plan to truly improve the breed. I can carry an unwanted trait a generation or two and then eliminate it, assuming the trait were not linked to the other desirable traits. I get the feeling that this is how it might have been done when breeding sporting dogs began. Also there was more interest in breeding that included outcrossing to get good qualities in a dog and I think that "conformation" was secondary. Show conformation not to be confused to breeding true.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Mike, I think your question has merit. I do agree with others also that some affected dogs should not be bred. What price is greatness worth in the long run? Then again would Super Powder have been bred today? If not no CNFC,FC/AFC Chena River No Surprise, Ruby, and many,many others.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

EIC has gone too far. People avoid it at all costs and lots of really nice dogs are rarely bred to. Instead its the same ones over and over. I don't think we have gone too far when it comes to joint soundness.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

claimsadj said:


> EIC has gone too far. People avoid it at all costs and lots of really nice dogs are rarely bred to. Instead its the same ones over and over. I don't think we have gone too far when it comes to joint soundness.


Maybe it has. Consider that Hip Dysplasia is polygenic---involving more than one gene. Also it is a genetic trait influenced by environmental factors. 

I believe that poor hip conformation may result from other factors, perhaps trauma at a young age or rapid growth, but I would really like to hear from a vet.


Isn't hip dysplasia really a phenotype?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> If I were really interested in improving the breed and profit and money were not factors, I would breed, keep the progeny, test when appropriate, and cull what I didn't like. Now it seems like I have a plan to truly improve the breed.


This may need to be a new thread, but this comment (and you are not the first to state it) I find is about as pompous as pompous comes. Truly, as a breeder, who feels they are sooooo good or soooo special that the breed "cannot survive without them"......That is really what the statement "breeding to improve the breed" is all about. As I stated earlier, these things are so subjective that there is not one person that the breed could not do without. 

I see it more as "do no harm" to the breed. But for an "individual" to think that THEY are "improving the breed" is bs.

We breed what we think will do "well" for our venue. The conformation people have done so (and look what they have). The field people also will go to the extreme. We do what we think will produce a competitor. That is not an "objective" goal. Its very subjective. 

It really does become "policing the police who police the police"........

WRL


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

My apologies. What I really wanted to point out is that the wealthy of England did not have to worry about money. They treated their dogs as animals and were quite aware of the necessity of culling by destroying unsuitable animals.

I did not mean to take a swipe at you or other breeders. I do think that many would do well to learn more about genetics.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> My apologies. What I really wanted to point out is that the wealthy of England did not have to worry about money. They treated their dogs as animals and were quite aware of the necessity of culling by destroying unsuitable animals.
> 
> I did not mean to take a swipe at you or other breeders. I do think that many would do well to learn more about genetics.


I did not take it personally. I was making a statement that you see breeders stating what you stated all the time. "I'm breeding to improve the breed".....

That's basically what Mike is saying. He has evaluated a dysplastic dog as being suitable for breeding based on HIS criteria. Implying he is doing right by the breed....."improving the breed" (although its not flat out stated like lots of others do).

As I said, I think its more like "Do no harm".......

He's taken a HT titled dog that is AFFECTED with a disease and determined it brings enough to the table that it should be bred. That even though its affected, its genes will improve the breed. I disagree. Breeding an AFFECTED dog of a polygenetic trait isn't "bettering the breed" NOR is it "doing no harm".....with a simple recessive, you could breed an affected and within two generations end up with not only a non-affected dog but a CLEAR dog of this gene. Not so with a polygenetic trait.

WRL


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

WRL 


Please take a look at my comments. I am not unfamiliar with genetics and breeding and do have more than a layman's knowledge, probably more than you suspect. I am certainly not pompous by any means. And when I say improving the breed I also think about health and working qualities. Remember that I am a golden person and goldens have a big problem.

Also, just because one is a breeder does not mean that one understands the science of genetics.

Edit: I would like to add that I have had dogs for over 30 years and have never bred a dog. I am always hoping to get something special, health being of primary importance, and breeding the dog.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I see that there is more to this thread than I suspected. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone.

I do see lots of comments on breeding (I won't get into them) that really show a lack of deeper understanding.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I was told many years ago that Super Powder had bad hips and was thus retired because of the problem and his brother Air Express was good..The problem lies in that Super Powder passed the gene pool on to the next generation a lot better than Air Express did..If the story is correct ,I don't know ..Maybe Ed or others may confirm this...But the fact is, some are better at passing the needed stuff on than others...Le's no throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak..Steve S


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

steve schreiner said:


> I was told many years ago that Super Powder had bad hips and was thus retired because of the problem and his brother Air Express was good..The problem lies in that Super Powder passed the gene pool on to the next generation a lot better than Air Express did..If the story is correct ,I don't know ..Maybe Ed or others may confirm this...But the fact is, some are better at passing the needed stuff on than others...Le's no throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak..Steve S


We are talking about polygenic factors which leads to a complicated model for expression of the hip dysplasia. Factor into that the influence of BMI. This is not a case of simple dominance and recessiveness. For example, which genes have the biggest influence? Which combination of genes is more critical? How many genes are known to be involved?


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

If the gene pool is narrow, I might consider breeding the dysplastic but sound dog.
In the case of our big three retrievers there is NO reason to breed a dysplastic dog. There are PLENTY of dogs out there that have just as good drive ,trainability,looks etc., but do not have the health issue.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> WRL
> 
> 
> Please take a look at my comments. I am not unfamiliar with genetics and breeding and do have more than a layman's knowledge, probably more than you suspect. I am certainly not pompous by any means. And when I say improving the breed I also think about health and working qualities. Remember that I am a golden person and goldens have a big problem.
> ...


I'm not saying you are pompous. I am saying the STATEMENT ("breeding to improve the breed") is. 

You are just stating here what I have seen stated a multitude of times by LOTS of breeders. I was addressing the STATEMENT of "breeding to improve the breed".

Second, because we all have our own goals, that is what we (breeders) breed for. Its VERY subjective because we have no "objective" body to govern breeding. And then in order to "maintain objectiveness" we'd have to have the "policing the police" system for checks and balances.

In my OPINION, breeding a dog AFFECTED by a polygenetic disease, it not only NO "bettering the breed" its also NOT "doing no harm".....

Something that is a simple recessive, I agree with you that if the individual was that spectacular, then you could incorporate it into the breeding program with the idea you could breed out the undesired gene within two generations. 

WRL


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

WRL

Thank you for clarifying. My respect to you as a knowledgeable and ethical breeder.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Lee, get off your high horse. We all have hopes of "improving " the breed. At least for field trials  JK. I have an EIC carrier that will probably be bred way down the road if she gets her FC. I will be selective in who I breed her to.
Steve S just an FYI Air Express was a littermate to Wanapum Darts Dandy not Powder. And yes Air Express did very well in some of the dogs he produced.He was HOF .Produced Trieven Thunderhead , Itchin To Go, Winsome Cargo, and many more. He was a very influential sire and is behind Harley, Skywatch Radar, Baracuda Blue,to name just a few.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

This is my opinion and mine alone....................
Goldens (the breed) are no different in their own genetic issues.
The breeders are different in their thinking......................
It is far worse now than it used to be............
Too many dogs(both bitches and studs) are washed out of folks minds for health issues(too many are washed even because of known relative effected or carriers of some known genetic disorder).
Our gene pool is tiny especially in the field avenue. Cancer is lumped into a big nasty word. Cancer of ? I ask folks................
I think Mike if you want to breed your dog AND you know what his /her health issues are than it is your own business just be straight up front with me as a puppy buyer.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Sue Kiefer

I think that within the last year and a half there was an article in GR News discussing this issue of washing out dogs for health issues. That is where my comment comes in suggesting breeding to get good traits and breeding subsequently to eliminate, or minimize the undesirable traits in the line.


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

One article I read put information into understandable form for me when I first started learning about genetics was this. 

Polygenic Inheritance and Disorders

The inheritance of polygenic traits depends upon the interaction of two or more genes. This is sometimes confused with the idea of multiple alleles, which are just different forms of the same gene. However, the two concepts are related when discussing the probable phenotype resulting from a particular genotype. Such diseases as diabetes mellitus or heart disease are not the consequence of single gene inheritance, likewise physical traits such as height, weight or even behavior are all examples of quantitative traits whose expression depends upon several different factors. These include the number of genes involved, the number of alleles each gene has, and how much the phenotypic variability depends upon environmental interactions. Unlike qualitative traits such as blood type or other multiple allelic genes that show an unambiguous phenotype, quantitative polygenic traits show a range expression

Many different diseases show polygenic inheritance patterns. Lets say two dogs with healthy hips are mated and produce offspring with the result that some of the puppies are completely crippled, some of them seem normal, but x-rays show they have hip dysplasia, and some of the puppies are not affected. *This gradation from severely dysplastic to normal is the result of a cumulation of mutations that cause the disease to finally reach a threshold level and to then be expressed. Each of the parents has some of the mutations that cause the disease, but not enough to express the disease in themselves. However, when the two are bred, some of the their puppies get enough of the "bad" genes to have the severe form of the disease, some of the puppies get enough to show the moderate form of the disease and others were lucky and did not get enough of the deleterious genes to be affected, but are most likely carriers of some the disease genes as their parents.*

Because environmental factors can play such a large part in the expression of diseases that are polygenic, many people are not aware they carry these genes until their offspring accumulate enough of the defective genes to express the disease. This makes these types of disease hard to eradicate. 

This article was found at - http://www.bookrags.com/research/polygenic-inheritance-and-disorders-wog/


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I just have to add that I know of one breeder who has quite a following, actually a cult following. Said breeder has quite a website and makes many claims about healthy dogs and multipurpose dogs. Observation of dogs reveals a temperament problem, actually aggression.

Health clearances are good. 

I will leave it at that. I won't even mention the breed.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

My comments ARE NOT directed at anyone . It is simply my opinion. I am NOT a member of GRCA so I did NOT read any such article. I simply stated my own opinion as I see it from hearing/reading gossip over the past 25+ yrs. in Goldens.
Sue


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Sue Kiefer said:


> My comments ARE NOT directed at anyone . It is simply my opinion. I am NOT a member of GRCA so I did NOT read any such article. I simply stated my own opinion as I see it from hearing/reading gossip over the past 25+ yrs. in Goldens.
> Sue


Too bad you didn't read it. It supports your opinion.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

I do not breed. I do own a breed that has it's fair share of avoidable problems.

I feel you cannot have too many tests for genetic problems. Each new discovery allows those who do breed many more choices to make sound decisions on a case by case basis. By having all of this data at ther disposal, they can work around known defects, minimizing the risk of passing them on. In the end, it is all on the breeder and choosing wisely.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I too despise the phrase "bettering the breed" and dislike seeing it used for marketing especially. My breed is Labrador and I don't think it needs any bettering, I think it is a pretty danged fine animal. So fine, in fact, that it has been split into a variety of branches, field, bench, "British", pointing, etc. Everyone who breeds a litter of Labs does so for their own specific purpose and desire. As long as they aren't hurting the dogs (or slamming mine ;-) ) , I don't care much, to each their own.

Just addressing the common, normal clearances for Labs: No point in discussing breeding EIC/CNM/PRA, those are easy as simple math to breed around to not produced affected dogs. If one chooses to produce potentially affected dogs from these, then I think it is on that person to test those pups and keep the affected ones to deal with responsibly. If they have the stomach to cull in order to breed something they absolutely have to have, then that's on them, no one else should have to deal with affected offspring unless they choose to. Carriers and clears are not affected, a simple, cheap test identifies the genetics, end of story.

Eyes have their own issues, cataracts, folds, entropion, ectropion etc. Yes, some seem kind of pointless to fail CERF for, folds being a particular point of contention, but overall, less problematic than hips/elbows, in my experience anyway. 

Breeding around hip and elbow dysplasia is not black and white. There is no simple mode of inheritance. Radiographs are all we have to screen with, OFA and PennHip, and there are problems with both, even more so with elbows & OFA, in my opinion. It is very difficult to get an accurate representation of a history of hips and elbows on OFA. Much that fails doesn't get published. Some spend time filling in the blanks, researching close relatives of the dogs, listen to the gossip of who is out with what injury/surgery, and try to form a pattern of what "lines" (to oversimplify) might be trending with bad wheels, (including CCL ruptures for me). Age also plays a part, when did the dog start having problems? Add in environmental and it becomes even more muddied. I don't think all dysplasia is created equally, particularly elbows, I think there's more to it and the individual needs to be considered. But, to take the risk of breeding to a known dysplastic, or even a normal dog with more than the average percentage of offspring with issues, well, I'm not that big of a gambler, personally, but, that is my choice, others will make different ones.

I've had dysplastic dogs live normal, active lives. It's easy to say what's the big deal sometimes. Usually, that sometimes is when someone has a nice dog that they've put some time and money into and really wants to breed it and needs to find that justification to do so. Other times, it is knowledgeable breeders making an informed decision. We can go too far in expecting perfection, yes, but how much risk is justified in a breed with the depth and width of Labradors that a dog with failed clearances needs to be bred? That's up to the breeder. It's bad enough when things go wrong even when all the clearances are there. How do I explain and justify to the sobbing, frustrated owner that I deliberately bred to a higher risk? That's what I have to weigh.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> If the gene pool is narrow, I might consider breeding the dysplastic but sound dog.
> In the case of our big three retrievers there is NO reason to breed a dysplastic dog. There are PLENTY of dogs out there that have just as good drive ,trainability,looks etc., but do not have the health issue.


If you meant to include Chesapeakes in the "big three retrievers"...you simply cannot compare the size of their gene pool to Labs'. Over 150,000 Labs are registered annually, compared to around 1,900 CBRs. The CBR gene pool is miniscule compared to that of Labs, and unfortunately they have a higher rate of CHD. CBRs have a 20+% rate of Canine Hip Dysplasia--that means any puppy born has a one in five chance of being dysplastic based on OFA stats. Add in the fact that something like 65 percent of tested dogs have one or both genes for Degenerative Myelopathy, so you have to pick your poison within an already small gene pool. And we all know that a clean set of clearances do not necessarily mean it's a dog worth using in a breeding program. When I say picking your poison, I mean that everyone prioritizes flaws they can and cannot live with. Speaking personally and hypothetically, I'd pick asymptomatic CHD over a history of needing cruciate ligament surgery in my breeding program. I've never used either, but my personal view is that mild CHD is much easier to manage and less costly than TPLO surgery. It's not just the cost, either; it's the lengthy rehab and loss of a year or more of a dog's already brief competitive career. I'd also quantify using a dysplastic dog by saying that *if* I did, it would be because the dog had no symptoms and came from a strong family with good/excellent hips, accomplishments at the highest levels, *and* had bloodlines not readily available elsewhere.


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

Rainmaker said:


> How do I explain and justify to the sobbing, frustrated owner that I deliberately bred to a higher risk? That's what I have to weigh.


X 2 that hits the nail on the head.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> pat addis
> 
> Suppose I breed my bitch to a male with a bad elbow, OK, Grade I. Now don't forget, this is based on pictures. Questions to ask: Is this environmentally caused? Is this due to trauma? Is nutrition a factor? Does the male have other qualities that are definitely valuable, a good contribution to the breed?
> 
> If I were really interested in improving the breed and profit and money were not factors, I would breed, keep the progeny, test when appropriate, and cull what I didn't like. Now it seems like I have a plan to truly improve the breed. I can carry an unwanted trait a generation or two and then eliminate it, assuming the trait were not linked to the other desirable traits. I get the feeling that this is how it might have been done when breeding sporting dogs began. Also there was more interest in breeding that included outcrossing to get good qualities in a dog and I think that "conformation" was secondary. Show conformation not to be confused to breeding true.


i understand what you are saying and i'm not going to judge any one i think as long as every one getting a pup knows the possible future problems they can decide them self. i just still think it would lower the price


----------



## JKOttman (Feb 3, 2004)

Perhaps of interest... this from the UMinn web site concerning EIC:
Lastly, and very importantly, we do not recommend selecting dogs for breeding based solely on their both being N/N for the DNM1 gene. Such a drastic strategy, although more quickly eliminating the possibility of producing E/E genotypes and EIC affected dogs, also has the undesired result of losing many of the outstanding exercise and performance traits expected of many lines of Labrador Retrievers. A better approach would enable the continued use of some of the many excellent E/N and E/E dogs by mating them to N/N dogs. This would produce litters without EIC and a choice of dogs to progressively decrease the frequency of the E form of the DNM1 gene by future matings to N/N dogs. 

http://www.vdl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@vdl/documents/asset/cvm_asset_107687.pdf


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Julie I am including CBR's as one of the big three. Of course there is no comparison in the #'s , but there is still diversity in the CBR and fortunate for you guys ,not the extreme split in the breed that the LR has. You still have dogs that CAN do it all.
Everybody has to make their own criteria and hope and prayer they make the right decisions...


Julie R. said:


> If you meant to include Chesapeakes in the "big three retrievers"...you simply cannot compare the size of their gene pool to Labs'. Over 150,000 Labs are registered annually, compared to around 1,900 CBRs. The CBR gene pool is miniscule compared to that of Labs, and unfortunately they have a higher rate of CHD. CBRs have a 20+% rate of Canine Hip Dysplasia--that means any puppy born has a one in five chance of being dysplastic based on OFA stats. Add in the fact that something like 65 percent of tested dogs have one or both genes for Degenerative Myelopathy, so you have to pick your poison within an already small gene pool. And we all know that a clean set of clearances do not necessarily mean it's a dog worth using in a breeding program. When I say picking your poison, I mean that everyone prioritizes flaws they can and cannot live with. Speaking personally and hypothetically, I'd pick asymptomatic CHD over a history of needing cruciate ligament surgery in my breeding program. I've never used either, but my personal view is that mild CHD is much easier to manage and less costly than TPLO surgery. It's not just the cost, either; it's the lengthy rehab and loss of a year or more of a dog's already brief competitive career. I'd also quantify using a dysplastic dog by saying that *if* I did, it would be because the dog had no symptoms and came from a strong family with good/excellent hips, accomplishments at the highest levels, *and* had bloodlines not readily available elsewhere.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Of the Big three breeding wise I don't think you can compare, the Goldens & Chessies to Labs @ all. Both breeds have their own issues and not near the gene pool to pull from. In many cases it would be a extreme hindrance to blatantly drop worthy individuals, out of the gene pool because they carry a certain undesirable trait. It could in fact be dangerous to eliminate sires and dams that way as all it does is create an even smaller gene pool, adding together all those recessives just waiting to drop another perhaps worst genetic condition with no variety to pull from to solve it later. With that type of gene pool it is more worth while to balance negative and positive and breed dogs by trying to push the entire population away from the disease over time, still keeping as much variety as possible. Rather than using single lacking traits as elimination criteria. 

EX; A Good field Golden, who perhaps has a moderate hip/elbow problem, but comes from a line of dogs that have fair-good hips/elbows, but have all died @ 12-16 yrs. with no trace of cancer in their lines, might be considered a very good breeding candidate, to someone who has dogs with excellent hips/elbows but incidences of cancer @ 5-7 yrs. 

I would not consider breeding a Lab with the same lack, one can pick and choose labs, it's easy to find lines and individuals with everything, the other breeds not so much.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Julie I am including CBR's as one of the big three. Of course there is no comparison in the #'s , but there is still diversity in the CBR .


The CBRs barely have a "kiddie end" to their FT gene pool. In the last 40 years you can trace every FT titled and most QAA dogs to 2 sires. It is this shallow pool that has allowed certain genes to manifest themselves into a disease.

IMHO puppy health certificates are a misnomer. At best we have a genetic marker profile of parents. Certificates and guarantees are marketing tools. Pick a breed, a breeding and a breeder put your money down and roll the dice.


Tim


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Maybe I better just stick to labradors.....


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

pat addis said:


> i am not a breeder but it seems to me if you did breed a dog with defects you would have to lower the price of the pups to get rid of them. i would not pay any where near the price of a clear dog to get one with *possable defects in the future*


Pat, please explain what you mean. Are you saying that a carrier puppy has the potential to become an affected dog?
Or are you referring to owner responsibility in breeding a carrier?
Thanks.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Maybe I better just stick to labradors.....


I shake my head when I hear Lab breeders whining about inbreeding, EIC or CNM carriers, etc. and just know they'd have a melt down if they were dealing with a breed with a gene pool as small as the Chesapeake's. Agreed 100 percent with Tim C., you have to pick your poison.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I have done every available test on my dog, and will continue to do so as new ones become available.
While he still may produce an unhealthy puppy or two at some point, at least I will know it was not because I failed to make use of simple testing that is available. I would be horrified to find out a "defective puppy" could have been prevented if I had only bothered to do a simple blood test.
JMO.


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

This thought has crossed my old and feble mind--- If we, as humans were as careful when we breed ourselves as we are when we breed our animals, there would not be a problem with overpopulation in this world and maybe we would have a more inteligent group sitting in our Capitol. Just a thought from an 83 year old, no longer in the "stud" pool. Bill


----------



## RockyDog (Nov 18, 2008)

Bill Watson said:


> This thought has crossed my old and feble mind--- If we, as humans were as careful when we breed ourselves as we are when we breed our animals, there would not be a problem with overpopulation in this world and maybe we would have a more inteligent group sitting in our Capitol. Just a thought from an 83 year old, no longer in the "stud" pool. Bill


Amen to that! My husband shakes his head whenever I threaten to get a t-shirt made that says "Spay and Neuter...It's not just for pets" 

On a serious note, common sense on the part of the breeder and the dog owners has to come into play. There is a big difference between a dog that carries a particular gene and one that is affected by that genetic trait. Education needs to go hand in hand with the genetic testing.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Back the original post, some great links always come to my mind when thinking about dysplasia (or any polygenetic issue really-- I think allergies could be included here). 
http://www.offa.org/ed_faqs.html This one is about elbows and how the incidence *and* severity of the issue is often increased in the progeny if breeding one parent w/ Grade 1 elbows.
http://www.britlabs.com/mating.htm This one (scroll to bottom of page) shows Labrador breeding pairs by OFA ratings.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

Scott Adams said:


> Pat, please explain what you mean. Are you saying that a carrier puppy has the potential to become an affected dog?
> Or are you referring to owner responsibility in breeding a carrier?
> Thanks.


 no i am not saying a carrier could become affected. i just think that if you had the litter tested the people that buy the pups have a right to know if it is clear or not. also if parents have any problems with hips eyes or what the hot thing to check on at that time. i would buy a carrier pup if it was one i wanted.but if there were 2 litters of the same quality i think i would get the clear one. i look at it like if i was buying a truck and 2 were sitting side by side one was perfect and the other has hail damage i think 99% of us would get the perfect one.


----------



## blkpudel (Dec 19, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have done every available test on my dog, and will continue to do so as new ones become available.
> While he still may produce an unhealthy puppy or two at some point, at least I will know it was not because I failed to make use of simple testing that is available. I would be horrified to find out a "defective puppy" could have been prevented if I had only bothered to do a simple blood test.
> JMO.


Well said! You owe it to your breed to do as much health testing as is available. Especially if you are going to breed. At least then you are armed with as much information as possible. AND, posting the test results to an OPEN public health database like OFA, regardless of outcome, is the right thing to do.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

pat addis said:


> no i am not saying a carrier could become affected. i just think that if you had the litter tested the people that buy the pups have a right to know if it is clear or not. also if parents have any problems with hips eyes or what the hot thing to check on at that time. i would buy a carrier pup if it was one i wanted.but if there were 2 litters of the same quality i think i would get the clear one. i look at it like if i was buying a truck and 2 were sitting side by side one was perfect and the other has hail damage i think 99% of us would get the perfect one.


OK I get it.


----------

