Cajun Casey wrote:You have to breed carriers to avoid bottlenecking. No different than EIC in Labs or PRA in Irish setters. Have they ever identified a gene on LD or is the test still for a marker? I've always felt it was a hepatic issue rather than integumentary.
ACooper wrote:I get what you meant about carrier x non- carrier. I still think carriers should not be breed. Why not breed non carriers and not have to worry about the pups that are carriers? I feel different if the GSP gene pool wasn't so large.
Elkhunter wrote:Cajun Casey wrote:You have to breed carriers to avoid bottlenecking. No different than EIC in Labs or PRA in Irish setters. Have they ever identified a gene on LD or is the test still for a marker? I've always felt it was a hepatic issue rather than integumentary.
Cajun I have the article that I posted, it seems to have some pretty good info.ACooper wrote:I get what you meant about carrier x non- carrier. I still think carriers should not be breed. Why not breed non carriers and not have to worry about the pups that are carriers? I feel different if the GSP gene pool wasn't so large.
I understand that issue, but you can have non-carriers after just one breeding. I would hate to see someone passing up on breeding to a HOF dog just because he is a carrier, that would be an injustice to the breed also. Obviously it would require more testing and hand holding to make sure you get the pups tested to identify what ones are carriers and what ones are not.
Greg Jennings wrote:My own personal ethics.
I can somewhat understand that, I don't necessarily agree with the term "ethics" because that would insinuate that breeding a dog that is a carrier would be "unethical".
gpblitz wrote:Elkhunter wrote: have heard multiple times that it is not that big of a deal at all. Not too mention that is only if the dog is going to be bred, so if the dog is never planned on being bred the whole carrier gene is a non-issue.
If a carrier is spayed and not bred no big deal. Remember thou one of the parents of this dog had to be a carrier in order for the pup to carry the gene recessive.
I would not breed knowing a dog carries the recessive gene.Elkhunter wrote:Not too mention I am sure that there are multiple recessive genes that cause all sorts of diseases or problems in our dogs now that we are not even aware of at this moment.
We can identify Loupoid that's the differance
ACooper wrote:There are non-carriers in the lines that have been shown to be carriers, not breeding carriers doesn't automatically rule out any particular lines.
Elk hunter you gave a Hypothetical example of breeding to an NFC that is a carrier, what if the NFC had a littermate brother that was not a carrier? Would that be a viable option?
I am talking about breeding and selecting those that are not carriers and perpetuating those lines through the non-carriers.
bruns333 wrote:What health testing do you think a FUS should have?
Elkhunter wrote:I bred to a carrier last spring, had 9 pups. 3 were carriers and 6 non carriers. All pups doing great!
I agree that carriers can be bred to non-carriers in order to improve certain desirable traits that might not be as available in other lines. The problem/concern I have is how do you guarantee one of the carrier pups that is born is never bred to another carrier down the road? Even if you can avoid that, how do you guarantee that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. generation offspring that are carriers are never breed to another carrier? I know that all of the pups would not be carriers but there’s a good chance a few pups in each litter would carry the recessive gene. It seems like at some point you would have to neuter or fix any carrier off-spring in the litters to guarantee that the recessive LD gene is not passed on or worse, that two carriers are not bred down the road resulting in off-spring afflicted with the disease
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests