# EIC - hush - hush - hush



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Just saw a thread posting that could have been pretty informative get deleted from the board very quickly. I was in fact responding, and as I entered my response it came back with a reply "no thread exists". 

This thread is not taking the same avenue, but I would like to know why a thread containing "known" EIC carriers would not be allowed to say up on the board? If, a party is willing to disclose that their dogs have been tested as "affected" EIC dogs, then the information is no longer subjective. It's factual, whether some want to believe that or not. It is not speculative. 

I can understand not allowing a "suspected" type thread of carriers, but not allowing a list of "known" carriers to be published is a disservice to breeders and puppy buyers. If someone is willing to share their tested information, they should be allowed to do so. 

Hushing the subject does not "help" with the situation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

There's a big long thread on here somewhere, maybe it's for cnm though, I can't remember... where people were posting their results.

I have not replied to your pm to me yet because my computer crashed and I don't have access to the file where I saved everyone's results -- and I get cnm and eic confused all the time and don't want to give you the wrong information.

There have been a handful of threads where we've talked about it, the problem is there are so many threads, it's hard to take the time to go through them all.

-K


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

The poster of a thread can delete their thread. My guess is that might be the case.
In addition anything posted would be difficult to authenticate. No EIC test has yet to be proofed by the veterinarian medical community and made available as a certified test. No authorized group has signed on to distribute such test, do the testing and be the keeper of the results. 
Lyle


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

I have seen those threads, and a short private list can be made by individuals who care to do so. You know what scares me? The number of folks who are sitting on information that are scared to post it in public. I can understand why in some ways, but those who feel free to release their information should be allowed to do so, and not on some obscure board no one knows about. I personally know of a couple of available litters right now, that either the sires are dams are know carriers. Should this information be available right now so buyers can make a choice? As most now know, a carrier bred to a carrier will produce 1/2 carriers, 1/4 "affected", and 1/4 clear. Falling into the 1/4 "affected" category can because information was with held is an injustice. I pray that no one get's harmed because information has been deleted off of the forum.


----------



## ducksoup (Oct 3, 2005)

I started and then deleted the thread you speak of -- it was based on other threads already existing -- and really just rehashed what has already been said on those -- since I decided this was not my wisest idea -- and since I would hate for anybody considering me as "that Canadian" posting again on RTF, ranting and raving in another pi**ing match -- and I guess it's really that I'm tired of tilting at windmills -- this is not my fight -- there has been info posted about various dogs that may or may not be "carriers" -- but I think the best thing I can do is digest that information and make sure that I have every possible test done on my BLM Maxx who has several of these dogs in his bloodline -- I'm aware that there might be potential problems -- and this is what I think anybody here on RTF should do with such info -- note it but get your dogs tested no matter what -- those clearances are important -- really the only important thing -- not who was or wasn't a carrier -- just get any dog you're going to breed tested or make sure that it has all available clearances -- JMHO


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

It should come as no suprise with the amount of money involved that people are not publishing CNM carriers and or EIC affected dogs. When the EIC tests become available a decision can be made based on the genetic status of a breeding. Until the tests have been performed there are many things that could be misdiagnosed as EIC. Labeling studs as carriers has no validity. When the test comes out shortly this will change.

I won't hold my breath for voluntary disclosure of carrier status for EIC or CNM. For CNM I will now assume carrier status unless it is disclosed otherwise. If I am skeptical I will want to see test results.

A CNM database and later an EIC database would be a very positive step in the right direction. Then carriers wouldn't be bred to carriers and breeders could make informed decisions. If a carrier is much better than other studs he will still be very much in demand.

My opinion and only my opinion
Mark L.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

Tall Gunner said:


> I have seen those threads, and a short private list can be made by individuals who care to do so. You know what scares me? The number of folks who are sitting on information that are scared to post it in public. I can understand why in some ways, but those who feel free to release their information should be allowed to do so, and not on some obscure board no one knows about. I personally know of a couple of available litters right now, that either the sires are dams are know carriers. Should this information be available right now so buyers can make a choice? As most now know, a carrier bred to a carrier will produce 1/2 carriers, 1/4 "affected", and 1/4 clear. Falling into the 1/4 "affected" category can because information was with held is an injustice. I pray that no one get's harmed because information has been deleted off of the forum.


It's not that complicated...

You find a litter you like, you ask if the sire and dam have been tested, ask around and confirm with others, post on here about the breeding you're looking at or your dog's pedigree if you want history. Worst case, people will reply privately with any information they have to share.

The test is not complete yet. Even though it appears to correlate correctly with known carriers and affecteds, it is not officially complete. And it makes it unfair to say for sure that certain dogs are carriers or not. 

It's up to breeders AND buyers to research and educate themselves. The information is out there if people do the legwork. There are databases for almost every other health screening -- hips, eyes, elbows, cnm and others. When the eic test is complete and on the market, I'm sure they will have a database, too.

Until then, it will take some effort to confirm or take a good guess whether some dogs are carriers or not. If you are very concerned, then only buy from a breeder that is invested in preventing EIC... 

-K


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Tall Gunner said:


> I have seen those threads, and a short private list can be made by individuals who care to do so. * You know what scares me? The number of folks who are sitting on information that are scared to post it in public. * I can understand why in some ways, but those who feel free to release their information should be allowed to do so, and not on some obscure board no one knows about. * I personally know of a couple of available litters right now, that either the sires are dams are know carriers.* Should this information be available right now so buyers can make a choice? As most now know, a carrier bred to a carrier will produce 1/2 carriers, 1/4 "affected", and 1/4 clear. Falling into the 1/4 "affected" category can because information was with held is an injustice. I pray that no one get's harmed because information has been deleted off of the forum.


Well if *you've seen* the results of the EIC test conducted by the U of M issued to the owner go ahead and share.
Lyle


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Kristie 
Please forgive my ignorance but where would I find the CNM database. 
Mark L


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

http://www.labradorcnm.com/


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Lyle Harne said:


> Well if *you've seen* the results of the EIC test conducted by the U of M issued to the owner go ahead and share.
> Lyle


The "test" isn't all we have to work with. I would like to see a thread where owners of affected dogs, either cnm or eic, could give the name of their dog and it's sire and dam. Most affected dogs will not be found listed in the more common databases for obvious reasons. Since it requires that both sire and dam be a carrier to produce an affected pup we could all learn from such a thread. From a legal standpoint, no one has to identify carriers belonging to someone else, only that their dog is affected with cnm or eic and that their sire and dam are identified as, just that, sire and dam.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Lyle Harne said:


> Well if *you've seen* the results of the EIC test conducted by the U of M issued to the owner go ahead and share.
> Lyle


Awe....there in lies the problem. It's not up to me to post it, but an owner of an affected dog has indeed posted it in a buried obscure thread. 

Are you suggesting I'm not releasing confidential information? Maybe, maybe not. Until I get some type of okay from the board owner that it's okay to post, I'll keep my information to be shared in private only. 

I'm also having a battle of thoughts concerning posting........is it ethically the right thing to do at this time? I'm still on the fence.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Ken Archer said:


> *The "test" isn't all we have to work with*. I would like to see a thread where owners of affected dogs, either cnm or eic, could give the name of their dog and it's sire and dam.


Do you mean that if an individual that has had a dog confirmed by the yet unapproved U of M study test would post their dog, then we'd know that the parents are carriers? If so the "test" is what confirmed it.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Tall Gunner said:


> I'm also having a battle of thoughts concerning posting........is it ethically the right thing to do at this time? I'm still on the fence.


Then why say? " I personally know of a couple of available litters right now, that either the sires are dams are know carriers."
Lyle


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

fishduck said:


> A CNM database and later an EIC database would be a very positive step in the right direction. Then carriers wouldn't be bred to carriers and breeders could make informed decisions. If a carrier is much better than other studs he will still be very much in demand.
> 
> My opinion and only my opinion
> Mark L.


There is a CNM database. If your concerned I'd go with if their not listed, save to assume they have CNM. 
Lyle


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

I guess I'm trying to convince myself that it's the right thing to do. It's not an easy decision for fear of possible ramifications. 

If one were to just post there dog's registered name, I assume this would be all that is needed considering good dog info. and the other free site are available to research the sire and dam. That is, if their dog is listed on one of these sights. What if it is not?


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

As I've mentioned before I am planning on breeding my blf in August. I have been looking diligently for eic clear sires to breed her with. Biscuit advertises as eic clear, and so does Meet Joe Black, I think there are a couple others that I don't recall of the top of my head. Until a certified test is available, I am willing to put my faith in the U of M test that was done on a limited basis. However, so many good sires were not tested, it really limits the pool. I will be considering other dogs that show no eic in their history, however, most do not disclose if pups had eic or are carriers, mostly because not enough time has passed to provide this info. As far as parents, some is know and some not. For example, a sire I am considering has lean mac for a sire. Lean mac is known to throw eic (carrier?) dogs, however, are these due to the sire or dam being a carrier, or both. It is anybodys guess. With lean mac breeding as often as he has, and only a handfull of eic pups, who knows. Until the certified test is avalilable it will be a crap shoot. All you can do is gather what information you can and take your chances. Bud


----------



## ducksoup (Oct 3, 2005)

To quote my earlier post this is all that should matter: "get your dogs tested no matter what -- those clearances are important -- really the only important thing -- not who was or wasn't a carrier -- just get any dog you're going to breed tested or make sure that it has all available clearances -- JMHO"
This is the only way that anybody can be sure


----------



## ghak99 (Jun 1, 2007)

For those who don't know,

huntinglabpedigree.com is a free Labrador database that allows you to post the results of your EIC testing, and other health tests, when you put you dog into the system. The more people who add their dogs, especially "affected" dogs, the easier it will be for people to search a sire, select to view a list of his offspring, and check their test results.

labradata.org also has an EIC testing list that can be viewed for free. It looks like 1 affected, 9 carriers, and 10 clears are currently listed. 

Buyers and breeders will only be able to take advantage of these tools *IF* people enter their tested dogs.


----------



## cgoeson (Jan 22, 2008)

So if the sire is a field trial dog, and the dam is a hunt test dog, but neither has had the EIC test, you could be looking at breeding two carriers at worst, right? Am I correct that now the puppies have a 50% chance of being affected?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Tall Gunner said:


> I have seen those threads, and a short private list can be made by individuals who care to do so. You know what scares me? The number of folks who are sitting on information that are scared to post it in public. I can understand why in some ways, but those who feel free to release their information should be allowed to do so, and not on some obscure board no one knows about. I personally know of a couple of available litters right now, that either the sires are dams are know carriers. Should this information be available right now so buyers can make a choice? As most now know, a carrier bred to a carrier will produce 1/2 carriers, 1/4 "affected", and 1/4 clear. Falling into the 1/4 "affected" category can because information was with held is an injustice. *I pray that no one get's harmed because information has been deleted off of the forum*.


The originator of the thread apparently chose to remove it. That is a feature that came "stock" with our current bulletin board software an it has been left in place.

This board is a resource that folks can use to help share information. I would caution anyone that information posted on here or other boards is frequently worth what you pay for it. 

Buying a puppy is always a roll of the dice. It would make sense for a buyer to use all possible resources to make the best decision possible. RTF should not be considered as the standard by which puppy choices should be made. It can be a piece of your strategy, but should not be all of your strategy. 

Chris


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

cgoeson said:


> So if the sire is a field trial dog, and the dam is a hunt test dog, but neither has had the EIC test, you could be looking at breeding two carriers at worst, right? Am I correct that now the puppies have a 50% chance of being affected?


I think that is a question for the researchers, not an internet forum. You will get opinions, not facts to base a correct or incorrect answer.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

cgoeson said:


> So if the sire is a field trial dog, and the dam is a hunt test dog, but neither has had the EIC test, you could be looking at breeding two carriers at worst, right? Am I correct that now the puppies have a 50% chance of being affected?


No- carrier to carrier produces 25% clean and 25% affected and 50% carriers
A carrier bred to a clean will statistically produce 50% clean and 50% carriers. 
This is the statistical average of what will be produced. Each individual litter will be different.
Lyle


----------



## ghak99 (Jun 1, 2007)

cgoeson said:


> So if the sire is a field trial dog, and the dam is a hunt test dog, but neither has had the EIC test, you could be looking at breeding two carriers at worst, right?


The way I understand it, affected dogs only display the condition if the owner/trainer has pushed them hard enough, or used the right item or environment to reveal it. Young kids, wild pheasants, hard work, playing with puppies, the third bird in a triple.....who knows what will set each individual dog off.

In your above breeding you're assuming the dog would have already revealed it's condition. This *might* be a safe assumption.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

so, this may have been covered, but if a dog is affected it can be ascertained that both of that dogs parents were at least carriers, right?


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

precisionlabradors said:


> so, this may have been covered, but if a dog is affected it can be ascertained that both of that dogs parents were at least carriers, right?



Yes...........as I just posted in a new thread, my dog is affected, and at minimum, both parents are indeed carriers. 

HR Boss Man's Blackwater Revenge - "Rocco"


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

boy, there is a stir in the air.....the ripples are felt widely i suppose.

it's a good thing. anything that promotes the health of the breed, right.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

cgoeson said:


> So if the sire is a field trial dog, and the dam is a hunt test dog, but neither has had the EIC test, you could be looking at breeding two carriers at worst, right? Am I correct that now the puppies have a 50% chance of being affected?


Most likely, yes.

However, some dogs could be affected, but not have had any major episodes... I would think on average, people would KNOW if their dog was affected.

So that is the "worst case" scenario, but not worth the risk if you can avoid it. One of my EIC dogs almost drowned last month just playing here at home... 

-K


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Most likely, yes.
> 
> However, some dogs could be affected, but not have had any major episodes... I would think on average, people would KNOW if their dog was affected.
> 
> ...


No, that's not correct. If two carriers breed, about 1/2 pups will be carriers, 1/4 will be "affected", and a 1/4 will be clear. 

Also, just because a dog has been sucessful at HT or FT's don't assume the dog is not an "affected" EIC dog. As Kristie said correctly, they may just not have shown any symptoms.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I think that the statistics are a little misleading...every pup has that % chance. So you could have a litter in which all of the pups were statistically lucky and all are clear OR a litter where the pups are all terribly unlucky and all are affected OR any chance between the two extremes for each pup in a litter...the percentages are an average. Just like the percentages noted when breeding for color...

Just because another pup in a litter is clear does not mean that they all are. And just because a pup is affected in a litter, it does not mean that all others are affected or carriers. Nor does it mean that the percentages noted are accurate for each litter born...

Until the test is available, it is just a crap shoot on what your particular pup might be UNLESS both parents TEST clear...


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

SueLab said:


> I think that the statistics are a little misleading...every pup has that % chance. So you could have a litter in which all of the pups were statistically lucky and all are clear OR a litter where the pups are all terribly unlucky and all are affected OR any chance between the two extremes for each pup in a litter...the percentages are an average. Just like the percentages noted when breeding for color...
> 
> Just because another pup in a litter is clear does not mean that they all are. And just because a pup is affected in a litter, it does not mean that all others are affected or carriers. Nor does it mean that the percentages noted are accurate for each litter born...
> 
> Until the test is available, it is just a crap shoot on what your particular pup might be UNLESS both parents TEST clear...


I would say the percentages probably will indeed be accurate. My pups litter had 8 in it. As of now, two have tested positive ie: EIC affected. 

I think the below from the Univ. of Minn. has also clearly laid it out, though I'm sure they % won't 100% accurate, but close. 

From my letter returned with my test results........posted in part.......

EXPLANATION:

Every dog gets 2 copies of every gene - one from its dam and one from its sire. The mutation in the gene that causes EIC is inherited as an autosomal recessive trait, which means that all affected dogs (those showing signs of collapse) have 2 copies of the mutated gene - one that they got from their dam and one from their sire.

Carriers, by definition, are dogs that have one copy of the mutated gene that they got from either their dam or their sire and they have one normal copy of the gene that they got from the other parent. These dogs do not have EIC and will not show signs of collapse. They will pass their copy of the mutated gene on to approximately half of their puppies. 

Clear dogs are dogs that do not have any copies of the mutation.
- these dogs do not have EIC and will not show signs of collapse

Affected dogs have 2 copies of the mutation
-both of their parents are either carriers or affected by EIC
-affected dogs have EIC and most will show signs of exercise intolerance or collapse when participating in trigger activities with a high level of excitement/stress 
- a few genetically affected dogs (having 2 copies of the mutation) never exhibit any signs of EIC

IMPLICATIONS FOR BREEDING

Carriers have one copy of the mutated gene and one copy of the normal gene. They will pass their copy of the mutated gene on to approximately half of their puppies. 
- if a carrier is bred to a non-carrier, none of their pups will be affected by EIC, but about half of their pups will be carriers.
- if a carrier is bred to another carrier, about 1/2 of their pups will be carriers, 1/4 of their pups will be non-carriers (clear) and 1/4 of their pups will be affected by EIC. 
- if a carrier is bred to an affected dog, about 1/2 of their pups will be carriers and 1/2 of their pups will be affected by EIC. 
So you can see, if you have a carrier dog or bitch, it is very important to know the EIC status of any dog you are breeding to. Puppies can then be tested to determine which pups are carriers and which are clear.

Clear dogs do not have any copies of the mutation.
- if a clear dog is bred to a non-carrier (clear) dog, none of their pups will be carriers and none will have EIC 
- if a clear dog is bred to a carrier, about 1/2 of their pups will be carriers but none will have EIC 
- if a clear dog is bred to an affected dog, all of their pups will be carriers, but none will actually have EIC.

Affected dogs have 2 copies of the mutation. They will pass the mutated gene onto each of their puppies.
-both parents of affected dogs are either carriers or affected by EIC
-most affected dogs show signs of exercise intolerance or collapse when participating in trigger activities with a high level of excitement/stress but a few genetically affected dogs (having 2 copies of the mutation) will never exhibit any signs of EIC
-breeding one affected dog to another affected dog will result in all puppies having EIC.
- if an affected dog is bred to a carrier, about 1/2 of their pups will be carriers and 1/2 of their pups will be affected by EIC. 
- if an affected dog is bred to a clear dog, all of their pups will be carriers, but none will actually have EIC


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I did not state that over time and including every litter, those percentages are not accurate. Statistically, I believe that the scientists know the correct mode of inheritance and the chances for each result. But that does not mean each litter will result in the 25-25-50 percentages. 

In fact, I know of a breeding many years ago that was repeated - 2 litters. Out of the 18 pups only one was affected. Since one was affected, one would have to assume that both sire and dam were carriers. One of the resulting males is one of the top studs used currently and he apparently is neither a carrier nor affected.[/I] Many of those pups had long FT careers. Apparently, the 25-25-50 percentages did not work out in those two litters...


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

SueLab said:


> I did not state that over time and including every litter, those percentages are not accurate. Statistically, I believe that the scientists know the correct mode of inheritance and the chances for each result. But that does not mean each litter will result in the 25-25-50 percentages.
> 
> In fact, I know of a breeding many years ago that was repeated - 2 litters. Out of the 18 pups only one was affected. Since one was affected, one would have to assume that both sire and dam were carriers. One of the resulting males is one of the top studs used currently and he apparently is neither a carrier nor affected.[/I] Many of those pups had long FT careers. Apparently, the 25-25-50 percentages did not work out in those two litters...


Are you talking about something other than EIC? Many years ago a reliable EIC test didn't exist.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

No, I am talking about EIC...there was no test then just observations and breeding results.

The reliable test now has not been used except by the small number who submitted their dog's swabs...

Just like now...If the dog has not been tested, how do you know? By observation and breeding results. You also need to know for sure that the resulting pups actually have EIC instead of some other problem...Not all sires or dams have gone through the preliminary testing for EIC.

Example: The 2 dogs listed below...one is clear by virtue of the EIC preliminary testing and is also clear of CNM. The other was not tested for either. One is an offspring of the other. Can I assume anything about the one not tested? Heck no!


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

SueLab said:


> No, I am talking about EIC...there was no test then just observations and breeding results.
> 
> The reliable test now has not been used except by the small number who submitted their dog's swabs...
> 
> ...


Many things you say are just plain wrong. You need to dig a little deeper. 

You said...."The reliable test now has not been used except by the small number who submitted their dog's swabs..." That is totally untrue as they have accepted numerous blood samples, including mine. 

You also stated that many years ago the percentages did not work out........this was with observation? How unreliable. Please educate yourself a bit more on the subject.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Tall Gunner said:


> Many things you say are just plain wrong. You need to dig a little deeper.
> 
> You said...."The reliable test now has not been used except by the small number who submitted their dog's swabs..." That is totally untrue as they have accepted numerous blood samples, including mine.
> 
> You also stated that many years ago the percentages did not work out........this was with observation? How unreliable. Please educate yourself a bit more on the subject.


Wait a minute, so are you saying that Sue is wrong in that the % given are the "chances" the pups have of being affected, carrier, clear? Are you saying that every litter from two carrier parents will produce exactly 25, 50, 25% pups?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

No ...I also used the preliminary testing. But do you really think that there is a huge database of all the dogs that are now used for breeding? Do you think that everyone sent in swabs for their dogs? If that were the case, then why would a test ever be developed for future animals and future breedings...?

You need to also think alittle. Statisics are just a guideline to demonstrate how the inheritance works. They work out over time but not for every single unit (litter). Go to the color charts which also have a statiscal percentage for color results...it doesn't always work out the way the chart says it should...you might be expecting 50% yellow and 50% black and you may not get both colors at all...

Thank you Achiro!


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Statistics are just that. Go flip a quarter. Statistically you should come up heads 50% of the time. But I'm sure we have all had a run of tails 10 times in a row.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

No, I agree with you that some litters may not fall in the exact % parameters. But, I also think it will be more accurate, than not. Mother nature does weird things sometimes, and some of them can't be explained, even with science.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Tall Gunner said:


> No, I agree with you that some litters may not fall in the exact % parameters. But, I also think it will be more accurate, than not. Mother nature does weird things sometimes, and some of them can't be explained, even with science.


What if there is only one puppy?

Simplified, not every litter is half girls and half boys. Not every litter from yellow factored is half black and half yellow.
and I would venture to say that maybe you should educate yourself a bit more before you start telling someone else to do it.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

achiro said:


> What if there is only one puppy?
> 
> Simplified, not every litter is half girls and half boys. Not every litter from yellow factored is half black and half yellow.
> and I would venture to say that maybe you should educate yourself a bit more before you start telling someone else to do it.



Look who always shows up to start some crap. If you noticed above, I agreed with her. Oh, you still can't read. 

Sue, I'm sorry if I affended you, it wasn't my intent. 

achiro......stay out of it.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

OK: here's a little math problem.... How many puppies do you need to check to be 95% sure that at least one of them is homozygous for the EIC gene. (The answer is 6-8 depending on how you do the math).

On average, there may not be enough puppies in a litter to know.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

you can argue percentages until the cows come home......

it will all take on new meaning when you've paid good money for a talented pup that you have put a year or more of training into, and love to death, and find out the hard way that it is affected.

this is a SERIOUS genetic defect. denial or ignoring it will not improve the situation. i will hold off on buying my next pup until i know where it's coming from.-paul


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

No problem...I like being called a liar and ignorant.

Go take a statistics course...you will find that each animal has an equal chance at all the options in the exact percentage ratio expected. The fifth pup doesn't have different chances because the first 4 got all the best/worst options. Each roll of the dice has exactly the same opportunity to result in any of the three options at the expected percentages.

Best regards,
Nancy 
(and what is your name???)

PS...I can't wait until the test is out for all to use. It is the only way that anyone will be assured that the pup they get is not affected and the only way that breeders can be sure that they are not producing affected pups...I have had my share of canine genetic problems and it is really heartbreaking to own an animal with any severe genetic disorder.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

My name is clearly printed in the first post. I offered my apoligies, and at this time I personally don't give a crap about the percentages. I'm here to offer help with "affected" dogs and to keep someone/anyone from making a possible mistake. 

More concerned with my affected dog and helping others than getting in a pissin' contest regards,

Brian Carmody (for the second time)


----------



## Jayne (Dec 23, 2007)

Kristie,

I would like to respond regarding " the test is not complete" yet. Unless some new information has come out within the last few weeks that I am not aware of. The test is complete. It is not open to the public yet because they need to go through some hoops still. However, it is my understanding the actual test is not being revamped when it is open to the public. The test used in the sampling will not change from the test the U of M will open up to the pubic. I spoke with Katie Minor close to a month ago and she said they were very close to having the test open to the public. Possibly two months. I understand this has been said before but it sounds like they are completing whatever they have to do to make it public. I personally believe we do need a factual data base of EIC carriers. This doesn't mean put dogs names and parents on the list unless you have had the dog tested by the U of M and have received your results. I am sure some of you will not agree with me, but their are many stud owners that know their dogs are carriers of EIC. They may not have known for a few years or more after breeding began but I have know doubt the bitch owners are letting the stud owners know they are getting calls that pups are affected. Some stud owners will tell you the truth that they believe their dogs are carriers and some won't. Some of the dogs that I know are carriers are now 10 or 11 years old (big time dogs). How do I know because I have had an affected dog (he was in the pilot program and I also received confirmation from the U of M once the test came out). Also I know people who have had their dogs tested at the U of M with other studs(again very well known studs). I would not disclose other peoples EIC dogs parents but I do believe if it is your dog and you have proof they are EIC affected you have a right to put them on a data base. There is a lot of opposition because a lot of money is involved with some studs. As well as the pride felt by the owners of the dogs accomplishments. I agree with Chris you have to be careful on whether the information is accurate. I did do my homework before picking my dog (EIC). No one would confirm the stud or bitch were carriers until I had an EIC affected dog. Then I had many people tell me of stories of affected litters. I don't think I was aware of this site at the time (it might have helped). Cash is now gone but I believe he would be going on five or six years old. On this site I hear people recommend the stud of my dog many times when asked who to breed to. I have not heard his name mentioned as a carrier. I won't publish the information on here unless a database is started. So please don't ask me to. I have had a few people pm me and I have disclosed the information by pm.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Tall Gunner said:


> Look who always shows up to start some crap. If you noticed above, I agreed with her. Oh, you still can't read.
> 
> Sue, I'm sorry if I affended you, it wasn't my intent.
> 
> achiro......stay out of it.


You are the one throwing insults and incorrect info and I can't read. Got it.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> Go take a statistics course...you will find that each animal has an equal chance at all the options in the exact percentage ratio expected. The fifth pup doesn't have different chances because the first 4 got all the best/worst options. Each roll of the dice has exactly the same opportunity to result in any of the three options at the expected percentages.


That is how my probability theory professor explained it to me, too.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

OK so I just got a PM from Tall Gunner that asked, among other things(like calling me names), that this thread remain "serious"

My response:
Brian, if you truly want people to take you serious on ANY subject, the first thing you should do is actually educate yourself on that subject. I know "genetics is hard" but when you do in fact get it wrong and someone calls you on it, it would probably be much better to maybe check on their facts and learn something instead of attacking them. This is a touchy subject for many and I understand that but you must remember to keep science separate from emotion.

BTW, you can't find anything that I posted in this thread that is incorrect or even off topic(other than the last one), yet you decide to jump in and start throwing attacks? Seems like maybe you have an issue with me.


----------



## lilly (Jun 24, 2008)

SueLab said:


> I think that the statistics are a little misleading...every pup has that % chance. So you could have a litter in which all of the pups were statistically lucky and all are clear OR a litter where the pups are all terribly unlucky and all are affected OR any chance between the two extremes for each pup in a litter...the percentages are an average. Just like the percentages noted when breeding for color...
> 
> Just because another pup in a litter is clear does not mean that they all are. And just because a pup is affected in a litter, it does not mean that all others are affected or carriers. Nor does it mean that the percentages noted are accurate for each litter born...
> 
> Until the test is available, it is just a crap shoot on what your particular pup might be UNLESS both parents TEST clear...


This is the accurate statement. Each pup has a 50-25-25 percent chance of being a carrier 50%, clear 25%, or affected 25%.


----------



## TonyK (Oct 11, 2007)

I would really like to learn more about CNM and EIC - or are they the same thing? I've never heard about it and until now have not heard it discussed by experienced breeders. What exactly happens with affected dogs? What is the best place to get some independent information on the subject? Thanks for any information.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2008)

splashbird said:


> I would really like to learn more about CNM and EIC - or are they the same thing? I've never heard about it and until now have not heard it discussed by experienced breeders. What exactly happens with affected dogs? What is the best place to get some independent information on the subject? Thanks for any information.


Do a search here on both and you'll have more information than you can easily digest... 

Website for CNM: http://labradorcnm.com/

And there are lots of sites for EIC. You'll find many of them in the search you do on here... Just easier to look it up than repeat it all...

-K


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

EIC website: http://www.cvm.umn.edu/VBS/Faculty_Biographies/Mickelson/lab/eic/home.html


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I just got off the phone with the breeder that my pup is coming from and to her knowledge there isn't a test for EIC. You're talking about a woman who is a professional trainer for over 2 decades now and knows a thing or 2 about breedings/dogs. Now, if any of yall can prove this to be wrong, I'm all for it. Would love to look @ actual proof of it being thrown from a sire/dam and not a simple Pungent square %.


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

> Now, if any of yall can prove this to be wrong, I'm all for it.




http://www.vdl.umn.edu/vdl/ourservices/canineneuromuscular/home.html

http://www.cvm.umn.edu/VBS/Faculty_Biographies/Mickelson/lab/eic/home.html



.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

That looked like a study done by 1 university. I'm looking for actual test info you can find around Americana. H#ll, I'd love to look @ any database listing what lab has what "status". You can look @ pedigrees/elbows/hips/CNM, and so on but nothing about EIC. Hmmn. Not trying to come across as an a$$hole. Just saying.


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

> That looked like a study done by 1 university



Yep, just like CNM, one test that started by one University lab in France. Still the only lab that does the test. CNM started as a study just like EIC test is doing.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Thanks. You kinda answered my question. There is no public test you can do thus having it for sure available. You're talking about biology and there's a h#ll of a lot of potential tweaking that can be done. There's over 600 possible defective genes in a lab right now when they thought it was only 400, previously. I'll be glad when they have a definite thing with the test like the eye/hip/CNM tests. Until they have it down to an exact science, I'm not gonna put too much into it. Thank you for answering again.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

SLICK said:


> I just got off the phone with the breeder that my pup is coming from and to her knowledge there isn't a test for EIC. You're talking about a woman who is a professional trainer for over 2 decades now and knows a thing or 2 about breedings/dogs. Now, if any of yall can prove this to be wrong, I'm all for it. Would love to look @ actual proof of it being thrown from a sire/dam and not a simple Pungent square %.


look for it yourself. it's not like what you are asking for hasn't been posted about a hundred times. also, watch your tone. later post says you don't want to come across as an a$$hole, but the way you write erases your desire.

you might have better luck not being so demanding.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

SLICK said:


> Thanks. You kinda answered my question. There is no public test you can do thus having it for sure available. You're talking about biology and there's a h#ll of a lot of potential tweaking that can be done. There's over 600 possible defective genes in a lab right now when they thought it was only 400, previously. I'll be glad when they have a definite thing with the test like the eye/hip/CNM tests. Until they have it down to an exact science, I'm not gonna put too much into it. Thank you for answering again.


You should. But that's your god given right to blow of data that's right in front of your face. Hey, it's just odds right? Statistics.......maybe you will come out on the good side. Maybe not. I wish you luck.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Kristie and Rainmaker

Thanks for the CNM website. One dog from white list parents and one with a clear sire. The dam was from a small time breeder and was probably not tested. I will get this one tested for CNM before making any decisions.

Now the voodoo of EIC has reared its ugly head I have something else to worry about.

Informed decisions are good decisions! As soon as an EIC database is established, breeders can start making these decisions. Otherwise we are like the middle ages: burning at the stake because we don't know better.

The first step would be to document certified positive tests. The sharing of information is the first step towards banishing ignorance.

Mark L.


----------



## Alan Sandifer (Oct 17, 2007)

Tall Gunner they are going to have a test ready for the public in a couple of week's ,,,,,and like cnm you can still breed a carrier to a clear .


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

SLICK said:


> Not trying to come across as an a$$hole. Just saying.


you are/were successful, and where is "God's country".....

Just Askin' Regards....;-)


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

precisionlabradors said:


> look for it yourself. it's not like what you are asking for hasn't been posted about a hundred times. also, watch your tone. later post says you don't want to come across as an a$$hole, but the way you write erases your desire.
> 
> you might have better luck not being so demanding.


Um, I've looked over info about it (EIC) for days. Watch my tone? Check your ego @ the door. I went out of the way not to make it come across like that by typing it (What I didn't want the person I was replying to take my post as.) and exactly how can you tell how I meant it over a post on a message board? You can't.


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

> [I'm in the D/FW area right now but I live in Monroe, LA. I've been told about a guy in Miss., Ronnie Lee as well as Tim Milligan from TX. I checked out Danny Farmer's page and they have a puppy program now. Granted, I don't know how much $ they would charge. I'm waiting on a reply back from the Eckett's about the same thing. Who would you recommend to take the pup to until they would take him if they don't? I'm all ears and I'll consider any/everything. Jacob /QUOTE


 
Here you go Ed, he is all yours:razz:

and his future pup


The dad. http://www.hightest.com/drake.php The mom. http://www.hightest.com/sue.php

Don't you just hate that search function

And yes, tone can be construed from messages. And Colors. And Fonts.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

The Omerta: Breeders code of silence

What do most (some?????) modern-day breeders and the Mafia have in common? What a strange question, you may say. It is, sadly though, a very real commonality. The answer is simply what Padgett, a well-known geneticist refers to as the “Code of Silence” for breeders and perhaps more commonly discussed as “omerta” for the Costa Nostra. Both are deadly silences. It’s easy to understand the reasons for the conspiracy of silence when it refers to criminals, but what reasons can a breeder possibly have for maintaining “omerta”?

The reason most often given for not sharing genetic information is the fear of being made the object of a “witch hunt.” It lies much deeper though. It begins with ownership and the human need to see what one owns as being the best. Remember the “keeping up with the Jones” mentality? Everyone wants the very best and the accolade of owning the best. Admitting that what one owns or has bred may have faults is difficult for most people. Also at fault is the huge financial and emotional investment that breeders have in their dogs. Discovering that there may be defects in the sires and dams that breeders have so much of themselves invested in becomes frightening and causes many to refuse to even contemplate that their dogs may possess defective genes. Egos and fear of being labelled “poor breeders” are ultimately the reasons for breeders maintaining this detrimental code of silence.

Even more dangerous than the Code of Silence though is the refusal to contemplate defective genes may exist within a breeding program and be present for generations, quietly meshing through many bloodlines before manifesting itself. Could it be possible that dogs which appear healthy can actually be spreading dangerous, sometimes lethal genes throughout the breed community until finally two healthy, but gene-defective carriers combine to produce that first tell-tale affected offspring? 

Of course it is and time and again the geneticists tell us how this is possible.
Simplistically, breeders cannot see defective genes and what they don’t see must not exist. Therefore using that logic, all the untested dogs must be as beautifully healthy inside as they are structurally beautiful outside. If only that logic were true! Unfortunately, far more emphasis is placed upon structural and superficial beauty simply because it is something that is easily seen, acknowledged and obtained. It’s also something without any “unnecessary” financial investments. One doesn’t need to pay for x-rays or blood tests or specialists’ knowledge in order to evaluate how a dog conforms to a physical standard.
The real danger, though, comes not from those dogs who are tested, but from those breeders who keep their heads in the sand and refuse to believe that their dogs could be less than 'perfect'. We can begin to fix that which we reveal, but that which remains hidden is a threat to the future. But here omerta, that “Code of Silence” is very evident. Not only do these breeders hold fast to the belief that their dogs are untainted by defective genes, structural defects or temperament problems, but they also believe that no dog that they choose to bring into their breeding program through mating with their dogs could possibly be carriers either. After all, they only “breed to the best,” and of course, that best just has to be perfect.

Now the truly criminal act occurs. These breeders are quite often very successful in the show ring; their dogs are thought to be the best – after all, they have ribbons and placings and titles to prove how worthy their dogs are! Because of their show ring success, they are seen as breed authorities, people that newcomers to the breed trust for knowledge and information. And the information these newcomers get is that there are no genetic problems to be concerned with, no need to do that “expensive testing when the dogs are all healthy.” Even more disastrous to the breed’s future is that these breeders’ attitudes begin to prevail. The newcomers see the success of these breeders’ dogs and buy them (even though few, if any, have had even the most rudimentary testing for structural faults, poor health or defective genes). The newcomers then have a financial and emotional investment to protect which begins to spread this attitude, with predictable results. Soon, because these breeders are the “powers” within the breed (quite often judges, people selected to discuss the breed at seminars, breeders who command respective prices for puppies and stud fees, breeders seen winning), they use this “power” to ensure that it becomes unethical to discuss any defects, in either health or temperament, found in any of the pedigrees of their sires, dams or progeny of their sires or dams. All too often one hears “I don’t dare say anything if I want to win” or “there are three lines with epilepsy (or heart or eye or pick a health problem), but you don’t need to know about them.” Of course we need to know about them, how else are we to make intelligent decisions about which dogs would best benefit the future we plan for our dogs unless we consider not only the structural beauty, but also the hidden genetics that we are attempting to also improve? What about the breeders who openly discuss the defects found in their own dogs? Unfortunately, they are all too often labelled as “poor breeders” and their dogs said to be “defective”. They are shunned and spoken of in whispers and sneers. The very fact that these breeders are striving to share knowledge openly and to scientifically test their dogs make these breeders the subject of witch hunts by the very people who are either too cheap, too unconcerned, too egotistical, too uncaring about the future to even test their dogs, much less have the courage to honestly discuss their dogs. Instead of applauding these breeders who choose to share information, these breeders become shunned and hounded. As a result, and because human nature makes us want to be part of a group instead of outside the group, breeders begin to do what they do best – they maintain silence and lie or refuse to admit what they do know.

As more and more newcomers join a breed and inexperienced breeders and exhibitors all jump on the bandwagon of showing, owning and practicing the art of breeding, they turn to the breeders who are winning, equating winning with superior quality dogs. The breeders are, therefore, more determined to have nothing bad revealed about any of their dogs, further establishing in their minds the perfection of the dogs they breed and further increasing the financial and emotional investment that they have in perpetuating this theory. Winning in the show ring has nothing to do with genetic health. Indeed, a number of the winning dogs are carriers of genetic disorders at the least and, in some instances, are known to have genetic health disorders. While a genetic disorder itself, depending upon type and severity, should never preclude the dog from the genetic pool, it is absolutely mandatory that people be aware of any area of concern in order to breed intelligently. At the very least, the dogs that the dog is bred to must be tested and their backgrounds looked at carefully to limit the possibility of affecting more dogs or making more dogs carriers of the disorder. Yet, because the winners don’t want to be labelled as “poor breeders” and lose the accolade of being the best (as well as the possible financial loss in not being able to sell puppies or stud fees at as high a price), the “Code of Silence” becomes even more firmly embraced.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

What can we do to break the deadly Code of Silence? The majority, if not all, breed clubs have a code of ethics that require members to breed healthy dogs. One of the places to start is with the clubs. Instead of being social institutions or “good ole boy” clubs, these breed organizations could begin upholding the very real goal of protecting the future of the breed by demanding and requiring that genetic testing be undertaken prior to breeding. Far more serious than breeding a sixteen-month old bitch is the practice of breeding without taking every possible safeguard that genetic health is a priority. Yet, in many clubs “poor breeders” are identified by the age at which they breed or the frequency in which they breed rather than the very real criteria that proof of health be mandatory. Take the emphasis off winning – how many clubs determine “breeder of the year” based on the number of progeny that wins? Are there clubs that actually require that the breeder also must show proof that they are doing all they can do to ensure the future of the breed? 

We can break the silence by commending those with the courage and determination to talk about problems, share successes and knowledge instead of ostracizing them. Omerta fails if every puppy buyer and stud dog user demands that proof of genetic testing is shown. The Code of Silence fails when we realize that it is not enough to breed winning dogs or to command the highest price for puppies or to have a stud dog that is used fifty, sixty, a hundred times; we must take back the passion with which we all first embraced our breeds and passionately work with determination toward a future where the numbers of genetic disorders are reduced each year.

If those you know breed without testing, ask yourself why – is it lack of courage in perhaps finding a carrier within their breeding stock? Is it because they fear a financial loss if they test? Is it because they truly believe that their dogs couldn’t possibly be less than perfect? Is it because they fear they will lose their “top breeder” standing if they admit that there are problems that need working on? Is it because they fear that it will be harder to breed beautiful and healthy dogs? Or have they lost the passion with which they first loved the breed while they were climbing the road to winning success? Or, more sadly, is it because they really just don’t care about that which they cannot actually see?

It’s hard work and takes great courage to develop a breeding program using scientific methods and tests, but the hope of a better future should drive us all to that very commitment. The key is being able to work together without fear of whispers or silence. Omerta, the code of silence, can be broken if more of us decide that we are not going to tolerate the quiet any longer.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Tall Gunner said:


> You should. But that's your god given right to blow of data that's right in front of your face. Hey, it's just odds right? Statistics.......maybe you will come out on the good side. Maybe not. I wish you luck.


K. I can understand where you're coming from with the dog you have and all. I'm sorry your pup has that. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Lean Mac = Greatest sire ever? Would you agree with that? There are "Rumors" he passed on EIC as a "Carrier". Now how many breedings did he have? Again, there are over 600 defective genes in labs that they know of now and they aren't nearly done. There are no dogs that are clear from everything. They've tried to do a lot over the history to make the negative things (EIC/whatnot.) irrelevant. You're talking about bio and nothing in bio would be perfect. You can only make the best decision you can with the info in front of you.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> you are/were successful, and where is "God's country".....
> 
> Just Askin' Regards....;-)


"God's Country" (For me.) would be Louisiana but I made it back to D/FW yesterday. No clue what I was thinking coming back to TX. :razz::razz::razz::razz:


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

SLICK said:


> Thanks. You kinda answered my question. There is no public test you can do thus having it for sure available. You're talking about biology and there's a h#ll of a lot of potential tweaking that can be done. There's over 600 possible defective genes in a lab right now when they thought it was only 400, previously. I'll be glad when they have a definite thing with the test like the eye/hip/CNM tests. Until they have it down to an exact science, I'm not gonna put too much into it. Thank you for answering again.


The commercial test will be available soon and it will be the same test that the University of Minnesota used/developed. The fact that it is not yet commercially available does not invalidate the results that the test has yielded so far. I've got no interest in getting in a pissing contest with you or anyone else, but your tone honestly comes off as quite combative in several of your posts on this thread.

Good luck to you and your dogs.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

This test for the gene per Katie Minor "The test is specific for a mutation within the coding sequence of a gene."

The commercial test will be out very shortly. Achiro and others need to come with actual evidence the test is invalid if they continue to fight it. The development of genetic testing for diseases that are caused by autosomal recessive genes has become mainstream. It takes time, but always successful.

Russ


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

SLICK said:


> K. I can understand where you're coming from with the dog you have and all. I'm sorry your pup has that. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Lean Mac = Greatest sire ever? Would you agree with that? There are "Rumors" he passed on EIC as a "Carrier". Now how many breedings did he have? Again, there are over 600 defective genes in labs that they know of now and they aren't nearly done. There are no dogs that are clear from everything. They've tried to do a lot over the history to make the negative things (EIC/whatnot.) irrelevant. You're talking about bio and nothing in bio would be perfect. You can only make the best decision you can with the info in front of you.


Have you ever witnessed a dog going down with an EIC episode? If you haven't, I hope you never do.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Russ said:


> This test for the gene per Katie Minor "The test is specific for a mutation within the coding sequence of a gene."
> 
> The commercial test will be out very shortly. Achiro and others need to come with actual evidence the test is invalid if they continue to fight it. The development of genetic testing for diseases that are caused by autosomal recessive genes has become mainstream. It takes time, but always successful.
> 
> Russ


Hey how about this, SCREW YOU RUSS! We've been through this and Ive told you before not to put words in my mouth to try and make me out to be the bad guy. I'm pretty sure you will never find anywhere that I have said that the test was in fact "invalid"
Is English your second language? I ask because I am pretty sure that I have said time and time again that we need to wait on the peer review to finish and for the test to be finalized, that is all. Time and time again, I have said that until then we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. So tell me Russ, what part of that do you take issue with? You want to call me out again?


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

D Osborn said:


> Here you go Ed, he is all yours:razz:
> 
> and his future pup
> 
> ...


Oh oh oh oh my.................check the stud dog pedigrees...........nice.........


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Aussie........freakin' awesome post!!!!


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> The commercial test will be available soon and it will be the same test that the University of Minnesota used/developed. The fact that it is not yet commercially available does not invalidate the results that the test has yielded so far. I've got no interest in getting in a pissing contest with you or anyone else, but your tone honestly comes off as quite combative in several of your posts on this thread.
> 
> Good luck to you and your dogs.


I'm not getting into any pissing contest about anything. I'm merely stating they don't have it available to the public for commercial use. I've lost countless hours of sleep trying to find any available info about the disease. I have yet to come across any definite anything that the sire of my pup is a carrier despite being "Rumored" to. I've waited awhile for a litter off of Drake that I would buy and I have talked to people from the E/W coast and from the south to Canada about a trainer for him. That's a lot of time/effort into this. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from now. I didn't put 1/2K the amount of time/effort into buying any vehicle I've ever owned as I've put into this "Investment". Believe you me, I want them to have a definite test that would be for sure, "Accurate". Who wouldn't?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Tall Gunner said:


> Have you ever witnessed a dog going down with an EIC episode? If you haven't, I hope you never do.


Only on clips. I don't care to have to go through that. I couldn't imagine. Kinda why I made mention of being sorry that you have went through it.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Russ said:


> This test for the gene per Katie Minor "The test is specific for a mutation within the coding sequence of a gene."


Did they name an exact gene? Curious.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Tall Gunner said:


> Oh oh oh oh my.................check the stud dog pedigrees...........nice.........


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

HuntinDawg said:


> The commercial test will be available soon and it will be the same test that the University of Minnesota used/developed. The fact that it is not yet commercially available does not invalidate the results that the test has yielded so far. I've got no interest in getting in a pissing contest with you or anyone else, but your tone honestly comes off as quite combative in several of your posts on this thread.
> 
> Good luck to you and your dogs.


No, it doesn't invalidate the results per se, but those dogs still need to be retested under any new sampling protocols. If they are now only taking blood samples, perhaps there was a worry about cross contamination. I never saw any warning on the test packages about keeping dogs separated, no shared water bowls etc, like the CNM and Healthgene color tests I've also done. These things need to be kept in mind for testing litters by the way, so hopefully that will all be spelled out when the test comes out. 

I figure my results will come back the same if the test is not changed in any way because I was careful in taking my samples. I just hope they get it out soon. I don't think anyone is "fighting it". In fact, it's probably good that my one bitch (carrier by the U of MN test) came into season a month earlier than I could do a breeding. It would have been hard to sit and twiddle my thumbs because the test wasn't ready for the stud I wanted to use.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

SLICK said:


> I'm not getting into any pissing contest about anything. I'm merely stating they don't have it available to the public for commercial use. I've lost countless hours of sleep trying to find any available info about the disease. I have yet to come across any definite anything that the sire of my pup is a carrier despite being "Rumored" to. I've waited awhile for a litter off of Drake that I would buy and I have talked to people from the E/W coast and from the south to Canada about a trainer for him. That's a lot of time/effort into this. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from now. I didn't put 1/2K the amount of time/effort into buying any vehicle I've ever owned as I've put into this "Investment". Believe you me, I want them to have a definite test that would be for sure, "Accurate". Who wouldn't?


It sounded to me like you were disparaging the legitimacy of the test because it was not commercially available. That and your tone on some of your posts was the reason for my post. I was responding that the fact that the test is not yet commercially available is not the same as "there is no accurate test" which would be a decent paraphrase of some of your comments. I have no idea if your pup's stud is a carrier (or the dam for that matter). I hope not. If he is, I hope your pup will not be affected. I also hope that the test, once it is commercially available, will be used by breeders to make sure that: 1) Fewer carriers are bred; 2) If a carrier is such an outstanding performer that he/she should still be bred, he/she will only be bred to a clear dog; 3) all puppy purchasers will have full disclosure of the status of the sire and dam for that particular litter. I know that last one won't happen (the "all" part), but that is what I hope. Personally, I do think there is a definite test that is accurate, but it is not yet commercially available. By the time it is commercially available, I guess we will have the peer review results, etc. I regret that this test will be too late for litters currently on the ground or for litters already bred. I truly hope that all of your research pays off with the desired result.

Good luck to you and your dogs.


----------



## Paradox (Nov 9, 2006)

SLICK said:


> Did they name an exact gene? Curious.


Yes, they have identified the exact gene. Out of respect for the investigators wishes to publish their findings prior to public announcement I will not repeat it on this forum. However, I have seen the data and it is very nice work. I have no doubt that they have identified the specific mutation within a gene that results in EIC. There is even a similar mutation in Drosophila (fruit flies) with a temperature sensitive phenotype that mimics what we see in labradors.
Wayne Jensen, DVM, PhD, MBA


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Paradox said:


> Yes, they have identified the exact gene. Out of respect for the investigators wishes to publish their findings prior to public announcement I will not repeat it on this forum. However, I have seen the data and it is very nice work. I have no doubt that they have identified the specific mutation within a gene that results in EIC. There is even a similar mutation in Drosophila (fruit flies) with a temperature sensitive phenotype that mimics what we see in labradors.
> Wayne Jensen, DVM, PhD, MBA



That is excellent news. Looking forward to reading more about it!


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> It sounded to me like you were disparaging the legitimacy of the test because it was not commercially available. That and your tone on some of your posts was the reason for my post. I was responding that the fact that the test is not yet commercially available is not the same as "there is no accurate test" which would be a decent paraphrase of some of your comments. I have no idea if your pup's stud is a carrier (or the dam for that matter). I hope not. If he is, I hope your pup will not be affected. I also hope that the test, once it is commercially available, will be used by breeders to make sure that: 1) Fewer carriers are bred; 2) If a carrier is such an outstanding performer that he/she should still be bred, he/she will only be bred to a clear dog; 3) all puppy purchasers will have full disclosure of the status of the sire and dam for that particular litter. I know that last one won't happen (the "all" part), but that is what I hope. Personally, I do think there is a definite test that is accurate, but it is not yet commercially available. By the time it is commercially available, I guess we will have the peer review results, etc. I regret that this test will be too late for litters currently on the ground or for litters already bred. I truly hope that all of your research pays off with the desired result.
> 
> Good luck to you and your dogs.


I agree with you on pretty much all points. I don't see why they wouldn't have to make the EIC test info available. People should demand that if it is correct. Thanks for answering and ditto on the luck.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Paradox said:


> Yes, they have identified the exact gene. Out of respect for the investigators wishes to publish their findings prior to public announcement I will not repeat it on this forum. However, I have seen the data and it is very nice work. I have no doubt that they have identified the specific mutation within a gene that results in EIC. There is even a similar mutation in Drosophila (fruit flies) with a temperature sensitive phenotype that mimics what we see in labradors.
> Wayne Jensen, DVM, PhD, MBA


Thank you. That's fairly interesting. Do you know when the case study will be published or can you even mention it? Jacob


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Buying a puppy is always a roll of the dice. It would make sense for a buyer to use all possible resources to make the best decision possible. RTF should not be considered as the standard by which puppy choices should be made. It can be a piece of your strategy, but should not be all of your strategy.
> 
> Chris


Chris, you have updated the puppy classified guidlines so that the sire and dam must both have OFA hip and cerf clearances. I do not KNOW the reason you did this but I have a good idea.

now that cnm testing is available why not also have those results as a requirement?


----------



## DebM (Jul 8, 2008)

We just found out that our 16 month old lab most likely has EIC. We are completely devistated. He showed tremendous promise as a 7 month old pup last fall. This past winter my husband had him out working and he came back with a strange gait. We just thought he was out of shape, etc. It has happened a few more times now so I started doing some research. His symptoms are classic of EIC. Our vet did not know of any treatments for this, and we had never even heard of it. Do any of you that have dogs affected with this know of any treatments? Are you still able to hunt with your dogs? We are at a complete loss here and need all the help we can get. Thanks...


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Dealing with the Disorder
When researchers began to recognize EIC as a distinct disorder, they also began to try
different management approaches. Taylor initially suggested a "metabolic cocktail" of
carnitine, CoEnzyme Q1O, and riboflavin, in response to the lowered level of carnitine she
was seeing in the muscles of some affected dogs. Though this is an established treatment
for other metabolic disorders, it had little effect on most dogs with EIC. Gillette tried
Clomicalm, a medication used for certain behavioral disorders, in response to the excitation
factor, but that didn't prove particularly effective either.
Responding to differences in glucose levels in blood work, Gillette has tried giving a glucose
supplement and increasing the fat content of the diet. This has reduced the occurrence of
episodes in some dogs. Now he is experimenting with mineral supplementation, again in
response to blood work levels. It's too early to tell if this course will prove effective.
The most generally accepted current treatment is phenobarbital. Taylor has found that a
significant number of severely affected dogs will be normal if kept on phenobarbital. It's
uncertain why this medication used to treat seizures has an effect on EIC. The hypothesis is
that the resulting decreased excitability of brain cells stops the neurological process
involved in the collapse. Phenobarbital does, however, have potential adverse side effects,
such as increased thirst, urination and appetite and even possible liver damage. A
veterinarian should carefully monitor its use.
All researchers agree that EIC occurs in less than 1 percent of the Labrador population. But
they also note it appears to be on the rise. So while there's no need to be overly concerned, affected dogs and their close relatives for genetic analysis and by carefully tracking any
breedings that produce EIC in offspring.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

paul young said:


> i will hold off on buying my next pup until i know where it's coming from.-paul


Paul, Bearing in mind your past kindness and how you treat your dogs, I can organise a very nice clean skin puppy for you. You and Anne would have to visit first though, so I can re check references. xxxxxxx Puppy cost - Nil.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

gdluck said:


> Chris, you have updated the puppy classified guidlines so that the sire and dam must both have OFA hip and cerf clearances. I do not KNOW the reason you did this but I have a good idea.
> 
> now that cnm testing is available why not also have those results as a requirement?


That may very well be a good idea.

Perhaps one day we will make that a requirement. Today it is not a requirement for someone to have CNM results posted, in order to list puppies for sale on RTF. 

Please understand that this does not mean that the individual buyer cannot implement a more stringent set of criteria in his personal search for a puppy that's right for him.

As genetic tests come on the market, you will see more and more sellers putting CNM clear and other such "selling points" in ads for their puppies. That's a good thing, especially when the information posted is valid.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

achiro said:


> Hey how about this, SCREW YOU RUSS! We've been through this and Ive told you before not to put words in my mouth to try and make me out to be the bad guy. I'm pretty sure you will never find anywhere that I have said that the test was in fact "invalid"
> Is English your second language? I ask because I am pretty sure that I have said time and time again that we need to wait on the peer review to finish and for the test to be finalized, that is all. Time and time again, I have said that until then we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. So tell me Russ, what part of that do you take issue with? You want to call me out again?


Russ and Russ,

I am getting really confused with who's saying who to what in the above, but it's all written by Achiro Russ.

This is the part where I say please don't use personal attacks. Please do feel free to debate the issue, but don't make it personal.

Next is the part where you say "Got it buddy. Sorry." 

Finally we all get down the road.

To Achiro, minus the taking it so personally part, and the making it personal back part, I'm with you. As someone who is tied to running a board like RTF, I cannot allow a yet un-commercial test to be presented or written about as more than it is.

It will be wonderful when this test is reviewed, approved, validated, and commercial. I feel terribly for those with affected pups and I honestly believe that all good dog folks do. I believe that the list of folks who are not good dog folks is extremely short.

Thanks for your help and that of all of you good RTF'ers,

Chris


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

DebM the classic symptoms of EIC are a lot more pronounced then a "strange gait". On my EIC dog, and others I have seen via vidio, the rear hind quarters on both sides simply quit working for a period of time, generally starting to function after a half hour or a bit longer of rest. It can and frequently does start out as a strange gait involving the rear legs but quickly leads to total loss of function. I am hoping that your dog is affected with another type of abnormality then EIC, perhaps one with a cure or treatment available. There is a thread on here over the past couple days titled something like "living with a eic dog", look that up, it can be quite educational. Good luck to you and your dog. Bud


----------

