- Brad: Ofa can be a bit slow on posting, I have heard that complaint from other people. Thank you for testing your dogs.
Overall, I assumed that most understood that health testing is no guarantee on how health will fully develop in any mammal. However, it does seems logical to know where the base line is for fresh imports as a starting point. I guess it boils down to knowing phenotype or genotype of the breed lines and understanding how problems are carried and budgeting the cost of testing. Obviously, removing a dog from a program has to be weighed based on the results. As I understand it it's all a risk even years well into a program. FWIW I personally feel more comfortable with some data so that is something I will look at.
- Nazomi: I understand your concern and it is more comfortable to have the clearances but I am sure you know it does not guarantee that something will not happen. No need to skip out on them but no guarantee in regard to new territory for a new breed. I hear you and you are not the only one to have seen and cared for dogs that have had to have orthopedic surgery at 3 to 6 k a pop in addition to the 5k a yr to keep immuno problems in management proportions for a few others. If there is better way to pin point issues through genome testing in the future you bet I am going be all on that for lineage. Whether one can afford it or not it is not something I want to see any dog go through nor owner anxiety to deal with the issues.
Congrats on your new addition and taking the plunge! I can't wait to hear how training goes...do you plan on agility with your Kai?
At this point much of the Nihons are in the same place the Shibas were 22 yrs ago or so. I can only hope that there won't be a downward spiral and communication will remain open and concerted effort to maintain health will continue given the recording and testing now available. Really there isn't an excuse not to.
- Dave: I am really sorry to hear about Lucy. I know you did the very best you could for her. My condolences, I know it has been a very bumpy road.
Calia: At least you know and can somewhat manage it for Miyu. Often cases of mild to moderate dysplastic hip(s) the dog does not become horribly debilitated. It is such a case by case thing. Strengthening muscles can help as long as there isn't strain or trauma by over exertion. Not an excuse and it does not resolve anything but at least there is some leeway.
@Nozomifarm - Thank you. My apologies for my harsh words. As you may have guessed, it's still a bit raw for me. Congrats on your puppy. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Kai Ken.
Tara - I have heard of Kai with LP and HD as well as eye issues, and spine issues, epilepsy, and skin problems s.! And let's not forget Kodak and his ACL, which I do think is a hereditary issue especially when it shows up in a young dog.
Eunice - no need to apologize, you know I agree with you. And congratulations on the new puppy! As I said on the phone, a Kai from any breeder in North America will make for a wonderful companion! Please keep all of us posted on your success in your sporting work with your Kai. )
Also, Lindsay and Eunice, I was being sincere about breeding Kai. The breed will not make it without new and responsible breeders!
Language barrier! I would have so much to say but I don't how to put across my thoughs . If I'm getting this right is that breeders don't trust OFA's results. Why? Here in Finland results from our kennel club vet are very reliable, maybe you should send your x-rays here for the analysis . So, how much does basic test cost in the States like eyes, knees and x-rays from elbows and hips? I know that importing isn't cheap and while you are also studying it really costs much. But even if I have imported both my Kais I have money to test them and AI the female. People think I'm crazy when I put all my money for my dogs and do every possible test to them but this way I can sleep my nights tight. I just calculated how much healthy checks have cost to me and total amount from Ife is 195e which is ~263$. For me it's not much even if I have to eat oatmeal 24/7 for two months. Of course there is many other vet appointments but they have been normal checks. (I'm taking my dogs to the vet for every little abnormal behaviour. My vet has already said that I'm paranoid and I'm sure my number is saved to his cell phone with name "Do not answer, paranoid Kai owner".)
@brada1878 Are you planning to put results to your websites someday?
Can I play devil's advocate for a second? I know this is a little late, but I am curious to know other's opinions on it.
Some of you have stated that you do not feel it is necessary to health test new imports for a rare breed because they will be bred anyway because of such a small gene pool. And while I understand this, I am curious to know if there is not a better way.
I think we may have discussed this in another thread quite some time ago, but what about testing the new imports to see where they line up and breed them with a dog that could make the problem (if there is one) potentially less detrimental?
For example, say one imports and male Kai who is health tested with 'fair' knees. Would it be better to know this and breed him to a female that has scored 'good' or better? Or do you feel you would get the same result no matter the pairing?
But then again... Before all of these 'health tests', breeders could only find out if there were genetic issues by trial and error. And while technology is great, sometimes going back to the basics is better, especially for a small gene pool. Since health checks can not guarantee the health of the offspring, do you feel that using a trial and error method could actually create a healthier breed in the long run? Would most breeders feel more obligated to keep up with their puppies throughout their lives to determine if there were any problems?
@MirkaM - Yes, once they are no longer preliminary results. We'll retest everyone around April as most will be past the prelim age at that point. I've also considered putting pictures of their radiographs up on our site, but that is so subjective and so few people really know what they're looking at, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort.
----
@sunyata - I think people are suggesting exactly what you are suggesting. The issue may be in the term "health test". Some may feel that a "health test" is only the result of a submission to an institution like the OFA, while other's may feel a radiograph and a vet consultation is a "health test".
Now that the hot topic is cooling down a bit, can I ask a clarifying question. You had mentioned culling F1 if the offspring had health problems (presumably serious health problems). Did you mean to say P1? I wasn't sure based on the context.
P1 = parental generation which in this case would mean the imports F1 = first filial (daughter) generation F2 = second filial (daughter) generation etc.
@brada1878 - The institutions that everyone is talking about (please forgive my simpleness, as I have never really looked too much into it, since I am not a breeder nor do I plan to breed, and my only experience with 'health tests' have been with Nola's hip and reading a vets interpretations of Nola's dam and sire's tests), such as OFA... I was under the impression that these were generally just databases and not superior rating systems. I know that OFA has its own rating system, but can anyone say that their system is more precise or accurate than a vet (or even an experienced and knowledgeable breeder or enthusiast) who has experience with reading radiographs?
@sunyata - I think your first question about learning something from the tests to guide the choice of breeding paris is exactly what Lindsay and Eunice were arguing for.
What Brad suggested, which is consistent with what Beth has experienced with her Miyu, is that knowing something about the breeding pair is less important than knowing about the offspring they produce. These databases like OFA or Penn Hipp are a way to track health issues across generations. For complex genetic issues like HD that aren't controlled by a single allele you need more information.
For example, in labs there is a genetic issues called Exercise Induced Collapse (EIC). EIC seems to be caused by a single recessive allele. A dog can be clear, meaning it has both dominant alleles. It can be a carrier, meaning it has one dominant and one recessive allele. Or it can be affected, meaning it has two recessive alleles. Breeding a clear dog to a carrier will never produce an affected dog, and breeding two carriers may produce some affected, some carriers, and some clear dogs. In simple situations like that, genetic testing of the parents is enough to prevent severe problems.
I'm 99% sure the issues Lindsay and Eunice are advocating testing for (HD, LP, PRA) are not controlled by a single allele. So to get any real solid data about those diseases, you need to know something about the lines of the dog going back a few generations, not just the parents. @ayk can probably clear this up better than I can.
That's why I was arguing that expense of testing is better targeted at diversity (i.e., importing additional outcrosses) than in learning something about the parents. That's also why I responded to Lindsay's comment saying testing of offspring (the "F1" that Ann mentioned) would be a good use of resources.
That being said, if I had millions of dollars and didn't care about a few extra grand here or there, I'd test every dog to build up the collective knowledge of the breeding community. But I don't have that kind of money, and I'd be shocked if any of the breeders do either.
@dlroberts - Thank you for the information. This has been a really informative thread and I really appreciate everyone's knowledge and differing opinions.
Dave: let's say a person does have the resources to test all of their breeding dogs, but they don't have the space to house as many as would be needed for their own "line" of dogs. Are you saying it would be a bad use of resources to do that instead of importing a number of dogs they can't house?
Fundamentally, I believe everyone participating in this discussion wants to do the right thing for the dogs, just in different ways depending on what they can offer. This is where I think satellite "spoke" breeders with small numbers of dogs (me!) working with a larger breeding "hub" kennel like Brads, are invaluable to work together to cover as many bases as possible. The burden is shared rather than placed all in one persons lap.
While I agree that testing for the sake of testing is a poor use of resources, and OFA results do not predict or indicate overall health, or should be the only yard stick to guide a breeding, if a home has the ability to offer "standard" tests like hip and elbow certs, why not do it?
I totally understand that a dog can suffer from an inherited condition that was not detected by OFA or PennHip, and the parents also tested clear. There are as many stories of dogs passing tests, from parents who were clear, and living long healthy lives and producing offspring who are clear and live long healthy lives. These tests are just more tools that are available, and not everyone has to use them.
@lindsayt - In looking back at my four posts, I see I did use the phrase "a waste of resources" once. Poor choice there. The rest of the time, I described the choice between importing and testing as "better". That is to say, neither is bad, but I believe importing is a better use of resources at this point in time. Opting to test your dogs is only detrimental to the goals of creating a healthy and diverse gene pool in so far as it comes at an opportunity cost of not getting more dogs to choose from. Health testing, used properly, can be very beneficial. But it is only useful when there is enough data and breeders interpret the data correctly.
My argument boils down to this. Right now, the addition of one or two (relatively healthy) new dogs to the breeding population will have a far greater impact on the overall health of the population than adding P1 generation health certs to a database.
To be clear: I don't think health testing is bad. I do think importing is better given the current circumstances.
@sunyata - I'll add one more bit to Dave's post...
The OFA and PennHIP isn't just a DB of test results, it's a program - a tool - that breeders can use to *improve* the health of a breed (or breeding program).
The issue I have with those registries is that breeders tend to only add passing results to the registry, or to test dogs they think will pass, which doesn't really give the registries the ability to achieve their real value. The value of those registries comes from seeing a realistic picture of the health a of a breed as a whole, so that, then, the programs those registries offer can be used to improve the health of the breed. If you don't have a wholistic view of the breed in the registry's data then you cannot use those tools properly to improve the breed... Instead, it's simply used as a marketing platform for breeders to show off passing health results.
I agree with Patrice ( @StaticNfuzz ), in a breed with a small population, it's better to have some data than no data, but it doesn't mean those programs (OFA, PennHIP) are being used to better the breed.
Take the Shikoku as an example - I know of 3 Shikoku with HD, and 2 Shikoku with LP. Of the most recent imports, I know of at least one with poor hips (not OFA'd yet), and 3 with "fair" OFA results. I know of only one import Shikoku with "excellent" OFA results... This is all just off the top of my head. Now look at the Shikoku's OFA DB, the majority are passing... Obviously that can't be the case, the breed must have hip issues somewhere if we've already had 3 HD cases and 2 LP cases with so little Shikoku in this country - and that's all I know of... So how is the OFA helping that breed?
----
Here's a thought experiment for you guys: Which breeder would you choose to purchase a "Kaikoita Inuken" from? ...
Breeder 1) 5 dogs in their breeding program, produces 3 litters a year, has 3 passing OFA results in the OFA DB.
Breeder 2) 15 dogs in their breeding program, produces 3 litters a year, has 10 failed OFA results and 5 passing OFA results in the OFA DB.
Breeder 3) 3 dogs in their program, produces 1 litter a year, has no entries in the OFA DB.
Which breeder is helping the breed the most? Which breeder would you purchase a dog from?
@ayk - I think the reason why many would pick breeder 1 is because they give that false sense of security. There is no negative results, so this breeder must be good and thus a puppy born from them is the most likely to be healthy, right? At least, this is the sort of thought process I feel puppy buyers would have when looking at these choices.
Personally, I wouldn't choose any of these breeders without further information. I would like to know the reasoning of why breeder 1 and 3 do not have results for all their dogs. I would ask breeder 2 how they would utilize their dogs and what they would do to reduce the possibility of bad results.
@Calia - I think it may be because I strongly approached it from the viewpoint of a puppy buyer, for a one-time purchase, than someone who is trying to save a breed.
For the first breeder, the "majority" of the dogs are OFA good. The remaining two dogs are gambles. Maybe they are fails, but maybe they might be goods? Maybe the breeder has a decent eye in picking his foundation dogs? And then there is the matter of the frequent litters. There's bound to be some information obtained by the prior litters. Someone would have picked up issues by then...
A lot of assumptions, I know, but this is just the gut talking.
Switching to the "helping the breed" mold, I would be asking questions about what is known "upstream" of these breeding dogs. Are they all completely unrelated? Fifteen dogs could be impressive but not if all of them are half-siblings... Are all of them starting from same degree of known background? Three dogs doesn't sound impressive for a breeding program, but what if they have known, reliable background for 7 generations? That would weighs things more in their favor.
Breeder #2 would be my first pick, breeder #1 my second pick, and breeder #3 my third pick. I'd like to see testing being done and only dogs who pass their testing being used for breeding.
Theoretically, breeder #1 could be breeding only his three passing dogs in such a way as to produce 3 litters per year. Doubtful, but possible, but I'd certainly check them out.
Breeder #2 is honest and gutsy, and I respect that. If the 5 passing dogs actually are the ones being used for breeding, 3 litters per year is very reasonable. If those 5 dogs have a solid history of passing OFA's behind them, I have a really good chance of getting a sound dog from this breeder.
Breeder #3 is not worth my time unless breeders #2 and #1 don't pan out.
That's my honest opinion. I respect the careful and informed decisions breeders make - if I didn't, I'd own mutts
As for the hypothetical question... For me, I respect the openness of Breeder #2. I am not sure that I would pick them as the breeder of my puppy (assuming that I could research and question each breeder about their practices individually), but they would be my first choice to research further. I think that being open and honest about their breeding stock is probably the most important quality they could possess.
Granted, there is a lot about these three breeders that we do not know... Breeder #1 could have 2 dogs that are not old enough to have been OFA certified yet and are not participating in their breeding program now. Breeder #3 could use PennHip instead of OFA. And Breeder #1 could have had a bad radiologist or x-ray tech for several of their dogs... You just never know without actually researching and asking questions.
@dlroberts - I had overlooked your referral. (Hard time focusing on-topic recently.) Here's an article that may summarize what you were trying to convey to Nozomifarm earlier:
Yea, I would pick #2, but I'll take it a bit further and say I'd pick #2 even if they were selectively breeding the failed OFA dogs.
Looking at the whole picture, but not knowing all the details, if breeder #2 has 15 dogs and 10 of them have failed OFA tests, then I'd guess that breed is in pretty bad shape... So, I would be willing to work with a breeder who was actively trying to improve the health of a breed without painting themselves into a genetic corner, which would require working with what they have and out-crossing to dogs that may not be "first choice" in order to keep some population diversity.
The real point I was trying to make is that the OFA is a tool for breeders to improve the health of their dogs. It sets guidelines of how to use OFA results to effectively eliminate HD from a program. The OFA, as a tool, is only useful if the good AND the bad is recorded in the registry. If breeders only submit passing results, that doesn't at all give a holistic view of the state of the breed and it also gives other breeders a smaller pool of dogs to use as out-crosses (since they'll typically only use OFA passing dogs for stud), which then hurts the diversity of the breed in the same way the "popular stud" concept does.
Going back to the Shikoku as an example, obviously we are not getting a true holistic view of the health of that breed if we are producing dogs with HD but have only passing results in the OFA DB.
Please excuse the thinking out loud, but I am trying to figure this all out. I am really appreciative of this thread and its indications!
So in theory, in order for the OFA database to effectively do its job, all dogs of a breed should be tested and entered, even dogs that will not be part of a breeding program in the future (i.e. puppies going to pet homes on S/N contracts).
This would give breeders an accurate indication on what their lines and what other breeders' lines are producing, which would in turn allow breeders the ability to attempt to eliminate HD in the breed while keeping genetic diversity intact.
Am I right in thinking this?
And yes, I know that it is virtually impossible to test every single specimen of a breed, unless there is a very small and very dedicated breeding community (with a theoretical bottomless checking account).
This has been an interesting discussion. I agree with the posters who are a bit surprised that breeders aren't doing health tests on dogs being used to establish new breed(s)in the U.S. That's eye-opening! Coming from the potential puppy-buyer end.... As someone who has several rare breeds on her "to-have-someday" list-- I would never, ever, ever, ever buy a pup from a breeder who does not health check via OFA, CERF, etc (or whatever the Parent Club recommends). I don't care how limited the gene pool in said breed. How can breeders ethically charge people $900 + for a puppy (I'm assuming rare breed pups go for at least this amount) and not health test the parents? That turns me off not only as a puppy buyer but as someone who works in rescue and sees thousands of healthy (and unhealthy) dogs euthanized every year. Why bring more dogs into this world unless we are seriously working at eliminating health problems and breeding for the perfect representative -physically, temperamentally, etc- of the breed? ESPECIALLY a breed that is just getting started in the U.S.
I do understand that OFA, CERF etc designations are not fail-safe but they are a good starting point and - to *me*- are a good-faith gesture from the breeder that they are invested in the health of their lines and their chosen breed. That they are serious about their dogs and not just breeding Fluffy because Fluffy is special, Fluffy is a rare breed and is super cute, Fluffy has a great personality that the world deserves to see, etc.
Just a bit off topic... @ttddinh - there is a type of injectable "super glucosamine" called Adequan if your dog warrants something powerful- my vets have had VERY good results with it. I started my GH on it when he was misdiagnosed with arthritis (turns out he has a ripped groin muscle)-- it's not cheap initially as you need to do 2 shots per week. But after a loading dose of one month, you go to a once-monthly shot. Great stuff!
How much does OFA testing cost? I thought it was less than a grand. I don't think you need a bottomless bank account to do the minimum amount of tests for your breed. The average pet buyer might not think its worth it but I'm sure the financial resources are there.
Comments
Overall, I assumed that most understood that health testing is no guarantee on how health will fully develop in any mammal. However, it does seems logical to know where the base line is for fresh imports as a starting point. I guess it boils down to knowing phenotype or genotype of the breed lines and understanding how problems are carried and budgeting the cost of testing. Obviously, removing a dog from a program has to be weighed based on the results. As I understand it it's all a risk even years well into a program. FWIW I personally feel more comfortable with some data so that is something I will look at.
- Nazomi: I understand your concern and it is more comfortable to have the clearances but I am sure you know it does not guarantee that something will not happen. No need to skip out on them but no guarantee in regard to new territory for a new breed. I hear you and you are not the only one to have seen and cared for dogs that have had to have orthopedic surgery at 3 to 6 k a pop in addition to the 5k a yr to keep immuno problems in management proportions for a few others. If there is better way to pin point issues through genome testing in the future you bet I am going be all on that for lineage. Whether one can afford it or not it is not something I want to see any dog go through nor owner anxiety to deal with the issues.
Congrats on your new addition and taking the plunge! I can't wait to hear how training goes...do you plan on agility with your Kai?
At this point much of the Nihons are in the same place the Shibas were 22 yrs ago or so. I can only hope that there won't be a downward spiral and communication will remain open and concerted effort to maintain health will continue given the recording and testing now available. Really there isn't an excuse not to.
- Dave: I am really sorry to hear about Lucy. I know you did the very best you could for her. My condolences, I know it has been a very bumpy road.
Calia: At least you know and can somewhat manage it for Miyu. Often cases of mild to moderate dysplastic hip(s) the dog does not become horribly debilitated. It is such a case by case thing. Strengthening muscles can help as long as there isn't strain or trauma by over exertion. Not an excuse and it does not resolve anything but at least there is some leeway.
Snf
Eunice - no need to apologize, you know I agree with you. And congratulations on the new puppy! As I said on the phone, a Kai from any breeder in North America will make for a wonderful companion! Please keep all of us posted on your success in your sporting work with your Kai.
Also, Lindsay and Eunice, I was being sincere about breeding Kai. The breed will not make it without new and responsible breeders!
@brada1878 Are you planning to put results to your websites someday?
Some of you have stated that you do not feel it is necessary to health test new imports for a rare breed because they will be bred anyway because of such a small gene pool. And while I understand this, I am curious to know if there is not a better way.
I think we may have discussed this in another thread quite some time ago, but what about testing the new imports to see where they line up and breed them with a dog that could make the problem (if there is one) potentially less detrimental?
For example, say one imports and male Kai who is health tested with 'fair' knees. Would it be better to know this and breed him to a female that has scored 'good' or better? Or do you feel you would get the same result no matter the pairing?
But then again... Before all of these 'health tests', breeders could only find out if there were genetic issues by trial and error. And while technology is great, sometimes going back to the basics is better, especially for a small gene pool. Since health checks can not guarantee the health of the offspring, do you feel that using a trial and error method could actually create a healthier breed in the long run? Would most breeders feel more obligated to keep up with their puppies throughout their lives to determine if there were any problems?
----
@sunyata - I think people are suggesting exactly what you are suggesting. The issue may be in the term "health test". Some may feel that a "health test" is only the result of a submission to an institution like the OFA, while other's may feel a radiograph and a vet consultation is a "health test".
----
Now that the hot topic is cooling down a bit, can I ask a clarifying question. You had mentioned culling F1 if the offspring had health problems (presumably serious health problems). Did you mean to say P1? I wasn't sure based on the context.
P1 = parental generation which in this case would mean the imports
F1 = first filial (daughter) generation
F2 = second filial (daughter) generation
etc.
----
What Brad suggested, which is consistent with what Beth has experienced with her Miyu, is that knowing something about the breeding pair is less important than knowing about the offspring they produce. These databases like OFA or Penn Hipp are a way to track health issues across generations. For complex genetic issues like HD that aren't controlled by a single allele you need more information.
For example, in labs there is a genetic issues called Exercise Induced Collapse (EIC). EIC seems to be caused by a single recessive allele. A dog can be clear, meaning it has both dominant alleles. It can be a carrier, meaning it has one dominant and one recessive allele. Or it can be affected, meaning it has two recessive alleles. Breeding a clear dog to a carrier will never produce an affected dog, and breeding two carriers may produce some affected, some carriers, and some clear dogs. In simple situations like that, genetic testing of the parents is enough to prevent severe problems.
I'm 99% sure the issues Lindsay and Eunice are advocating testing for (HD, LP, PRA) are not controlled by a single allele. So to get any real solid data about those diseases, you need to know something about the lines of the dog going back a few generations, not just the parents. @ayk can probably clear this up better than I can.
That's why I was arguing that expense of testing is better targeted at diversity (i.e., importing additional outcrosses) than in learning something about the parents. That's also why I responded to Lindsay's comment saying testing of offspring (the "F1" that Ann mentioned) would be a good use of resources.
That being said, if I had millions of dollars and didn't care about a few extra grand here or there, I'd test every dog to build up the collective knowledge of the breeding community. But I don't have that kind of money, and I'd be shocked if any of the breeders do either.
Fundamentally, I believe everyone participating in this discussion wants to do the right thing for the dogs, just in different ways depending on what they can offer. This is where I think satellite "spoke" breeders with small numbers of dogs (me!) working with a larger breeding "hub" kennel like Brads, are invaluable to work together to cover as many bases as possible. The burden is shared rather than placed all in one persons lap.
While I agree that testing for the sake of testing is a poor use of resources, and OFA results do not predict or indicate overall health, or should be the only yard stick to guide a breeding, if a home has the ability to offer "standard" tests like hip and elbow certs, why not do it?
I totally understand that a dog can suffer from an inherited condition that was not detected by OFA or PennHip, and the parents also tested clear. There are as many stories of dogs passing tests, from parents who were clear, and living long healthy lives and producing offspring who are clear and live long healthy lives. These tests are just more tools that are available, and not everyone has to use them.
My argument boils down to this. Right now, the addition of one or two (relatively healthy) new dogs to the breeding population will have a far greater impact on the overall health of the population than adding P1 generation health certs to a database.
To be clear: I don't think health testing is bad. I do think importing is better given the current circumstances.
The OFA and PennHIP isn't just a DB of test results, it's a program - a tool - that breeders can use to *improve* the health of a breed (or breeding program).
The issue I have with those registries is that breeders tend to only add passing results to the registry, or to test dogs they think will pass, which doesn't really give the registries the ability to achieve their real value. The value of those registries comes from seeing a realistic picture of the health a of a breed as a whole, so that, then, the programs those registries offer can be used to improve the health of the breed. If you don't have a wholistic view of the breed in the registry's data then you cannot use those tools properly to improve the breed... Instead, it's simply used as a marketing platform for breeders to show off passing health results.
I agree with Patrice ( @StaticNfuzz ), in a breed with a small population, it's better to have some data than no data, but it doesn't mean those programs (OFA, PennHIP) are being used to better the breed.
Take the Shikoku as an example - I know of 3 Shikoku with HD, and 2 Shikoku with LP. Of the most recent imports, I know of at least one with poor hips (not OFA'd yet), and 3 with "fair" OFA results. I know of only one import Shikoku with "excellent" OFA results... This is all just off the top of my head. Now look at the Shikoku's OFA DB, the majority are passing... Obviously that can't be the case, the breed must have hip issues somewhere if we've already had 3 HD cases and 2 LP cases with so little Shikoku in this country - and that's all I know of... So how is the OFA helping that breed?
----
Here's a thought experiment for you guys: Which breeder would you choose to purchase a "Kaikoita Inuken" from? ...
Breeder 1) 5 dogs in their breeding program, produces 3 litters a year, has 3 passing OFA results in the OFA DB.
Breeder 2) 15 dogs in their breeding program, produces 3 litters a year, has 10 failed OFA results and 5 passing OFA results in the OFA DB.
Breeder 3) 3 dogs in their program, produces 1 litter a year, has no entries in the OFA DB.
Which breeder is helping the breed the most? Which breeder would you purchase a dog from?
----
I'm trying to figure out why I feel that way though. I know the answer should be breeder 2.... :-p
Personally, I wouldn't choose any of these breeders without further information. I would like to know the reasoning of why breeder 1 and 3 do not have results for all their dogs. I would ask breeder 2 how they would utilize their dogs and what they would do to reduce the possibility of bad results.
For the first breeder, the "majority" of the dogs are OFA good. The remaining two dogs are gambles. Maybe they are fails, but maybe they might be goods? Maybe the breeder has a decent eye in picking his foundation dogs? And then there is the matter of the frequent litters. There's bound to be some information obtained by the prior litters. Someone would have picked up issues by then...
A lot of assumptions, I know, but this is just the gut talking.
Switching to the "helping the breed" mold, I would be asking questions about what is known "upstream" of these breeding dogs. Are they all completely unrelated? Fifteen dogs could be impressive but not if all of them are half-siblings... Are all of them starting from same degree of known background? Three dogs doesn't sound impressive for a breeding program, but what if they have known, reliable background for 7 generations? That would weighs things more in their favor.
Theoretically, breeder #1 could be breeding only his three passing dogs in such a way as to produce 3 litters per year. Doubtful, but possible, but I'd certainly check them out.
Breeder #2 is honest and gutsy, and I respect that. If the 5 passing dogs actually are the ones being used for breeding, 3 litters per year is very reasonable. If those 5 dogs have a solid history of passing OFA's behind them, I have a really good chance of getting a sound dog from this breeder.
Breeder #3 is not worth my time unless breeders #2 and #1 don't pan out.
That's my honest opinion. I respect the careful and informed decisions breeders make - if I didn't, I'd own mutts
Interesting question!
As for the hypothetical question... For me, I respect the openness of Breeder #2. I am not sure that I would pick them as the breeder of my puppy (assuming that I could research and question each breeder about their practices individually), but they would be my first choice to research further. I think that being open and honest about their breeding stock is probably the most important quality they could possess.
Granted, there is a lot about these three breeders that we do not know... Breeder #1 could have 2 dogs that are not old enough to have been OFA certified yet and are not participating in their breeding program now. Breeder #3 could use PennHip instead of OFA. And Breeder #1 could have had a bad radiologist or x-ray tech for several of their dogs... You just never know without actually researching and asking questions.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/031825p473055378/fulltext.pdf
Yea, I would pick #2, but I'll take it a bit further and say I'd pick #2 even if they were selectively breeding the failed OFA dogs.
Looking at the whole picture, but not knowing all the details, if breeder #2 has 15 dogs and 10 of them have failed OFA tests, then I'd guess that breed is in pretty bad shape... So, I would be willing to work with a breeder who was actively trying to improve the health of a breed without painting themselves into a genetic corner, which would require working with what they have and out-crossing to dogs that may not be "first choice" in order to keep some population diversity.
The real point I was trying to make is that the OFA is a tool for breeders to improve the health of their dogs. It sets guidelines of how to use OFA results to effectively eliminate HD from a program. The OFA, as a tool, is only useful if the good AND the bad is recorded in the registry. If breeders only submit passing results, that doesn't at all give a holistic view of the state of the breed and it also gives other breeders a smaller pool of dogs to use as out-crosses (since they'll typically only use OFA passing dogs for stud), which then hurts the diversity of the breed in the same way the "popular stud" concept does.
Going back to the Shikoku as an example, obviously we are not getting a true holistic view of the health of that breed if we are producing dogs with HD but have only passing results in the OFA DB.
----
So in theory, in order for the OFA database to effectively do its job, all dogs of a breed should be tested and entered, even dogs that will not be part of a breeding program in the future (i.e. puppies going to pet homes on S/N contracts).
This would give breeders an accurate indication on what their lines and what other breeders' lines are producing, which would in turn allow breeders the ability to attempt to eliminate HD in the breed while keeping genetic diversity intact.
Am I right in thinking this?
And yes, I know that it is virtually impossible to test every single specimen of a breed, unless there is a very small and very dedicated breeding community (with a theoretical bottomless checking account).
I do understand that OFA, CERF etc designations are not fail-safe but they are a good starting point and - to *me*- are a good-faith gesture from the breeder that they are invested in the health of their lines and their chosen breed. That they are serious about their dogs and not just breeding Fluffy because Fluffy is special, Fluffy is a rare breed and is super cute, Fluffy has a great personality that the world deserves to see, etc.
Just a bit off topic... @ttddinh - there is a type of injectable "super glucosamine" called Adequan if your dog warrants something powerful- my vets have had VERY good results with it. I started my GH on it when he was misdiagnosed with arthritis (turns out he has a ripped groin muscle)-- it's not cheap initially as you need to do 2 shots per week. But after a loading dose of one month, you go to a once-monthly shot. Great stuff!
Jen