Just Labradors banner

FINALLY...I think we have every health clearance known to labs! LOL

8K views 69 replies 16 participants last post by  Fallriver 
#1 ·
Monty has now been cleared to the hilt, I think:

OFA hips- good
OFA elbows- normal
CERF- normal (annually in Feb)
Optigen A (normal/non-carrier)
OFA thyroid- normal
OFA Cardiac- normal (color doppler echocardiogram)
Color tested (eeBB- Yy)
OFA patellas- normal
Labrador CNM- PIV (normal/non-carrier)
Bloodwork- all completely normal, including brucella neg and normal vaccine titers just a couple of weeks ago

Anything I'm missing? ;)
 
#4 ·
OFA hips- good
OFA elbows- normal
CERF- normal (annually in Feb)
Optigen A (normal/non-carrier)
OFA thyroid- normal
OFA Cardiac- normal (color doppler echocardiogram)
Color tested (eeBB- Yy)
OFA patellas- normal
Labrador CNM- PIV (normal/non-carrier)
Bloodwork- all completely normal, including brucella neg and normal vaccine titers just a couple of weeks ago

Anything I'm missing?
Yep, DNA profile. ;D
 
#7 ·
I am very happy for you that he is healthy but I have to ask why such a long list? In a stud dog I personally only look for CERF, Optigen (to breed accordingly as stud does not have to be an A), hips, and elbows. And I believe they only need a DNA marker on file if they sire more than 3 litters in a year.
 
#8 ·
WigWag said:
I am very happy for you that he is healthy but I have to ask why such a long list?
Why not?

These are all tests that are readily available and all help to make sure you are using the healthiest possible animals when breeding in an attempt to prevent passing along any diseases that *can* be tested for.

Since I'm in the animal health profession, I figure you can't know *too much* about an animal's health.
I would honestly never consider a breeding to a stud dog (I'm not talking about 25-year-old frozen semen here) who didn't have at least hips, elbows, and annual CERF...and Optigen if I didn't know for sure that my girl was an "A."

I added in patellas when he had his final hips/elbows done a few weeks back because I know of 3 people now who got puppies from extremely well-bred litters and extremely reputable breeders whose dogs are affected by MPL's. It was just an added in palpation/manipulation test.

Cardiac? Because I feel that again, knowing people who have TVD-affected dogs, I want to make sure everything is A-OK. I think most around here anyhow are moving toward making sure that is another clearance on a stud dog they may be looking into and most reputable breeders around here are just automatically doing some sort of cardiac clearance on their stud dogs. Besides, there was a heart clinic at the SVLRC specialty this past fall and the color doppler echo was half-price of anywhere else, and done by a cardiologist who actually authored a veterinary cardiology textbook. Can't get much better than that!

Color testing? We already know what he'd be because of his pedigree. However, it is a good thing to have in writing. Another thing that you would likely want to know for a planned breeding to a girl who is or may carry chocolate, to ensure the stud dog doesn't carry chocolate too.

The CNM test was done on more of a "dare" from a few of the field breeders I have hung around with...one of those complaints that "show people don't do this"- now they can't say that. One of them was thinking of possibly adding in some show lines with their stock, but hesitated because of lack of testing for these types of things. I never figured that it would be a problem (and had no doubts he'd clear that with flying colors), but it is just another clearance to add. :) Since most of the rest are *easy* tests to run (just bloodwork or a swab), why not? It makes me feel better that I know he doesn't have anything going on that can be tested for, especially since he is getting some interest and inquiries as a stud dog.

WigWag said:
And I believe they only need a DNA marker on file if they sire more than 3 litters in a year.
He should be expecting a litter around Feb 10th, and has another planned breeding in the next 2-3 wks. Both *very* nice girls, and if these litters end up as nice as we hope, he probably will have another one lined up in the spring. We'll see. That takes him to that magic number very early in the year. :)

Wish us luck! Fingers crossed that he's going to be a daddy soon!
 
#9 ·
Wow! That's quite the alphabet soup of medical clearances!

Baloo317 said:
Is he paw-printed for the FBI's records..? HMM..?? Well then. Better get on it. STAT!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yep, I think that's about the only thing missing. LOL

CaliforniaLabLover said:
...Wish us luck! Fingers crossed that he's going to be a daddy soon!
Oohh, Monty puppies! We will get to see pictures, right? :)
 
#10 ·
I have not done patellas but I prolly should. I have also heard that this has been a growing problem in our breed. That if we tested more dogs we would be surprised at how many have a problem with patellas. Good for you for getting them done and congrats on good final clearances for EVERYthing.
 
#12 ·
Yay!! Congrats Monty - and to Julie too for getting all those clearances done :) I think it's great that you're going above what is considered "enough" by too many people. You won't know unless you look right? I can't wait to see Monty puppies, seems like you just got him yesterday! (Did you decide not to do penn hip or all you still waiting for that one, just wondering, you know my fascination with pennhip ;) )
 
#13 ·
I think it's great that you're going above what is considered "enough" by too many people.
I shouldn't have responded the way I did because now an explanation is needed and I want to be careful and not ruffle any feathers. This is only my $0.02 for whatever it's worth. I respect Julie and her boy tremendously. It's not a question of "more than enough" clearances. I don't want this list here to make others believe that you should not breed any dogs that aren't "officially" cleared for ten or more conditions. We are breeding a total dog and not say patellas. We are breeding a superior Labrador and there are literally hundreds of factors to consider when selecting a stud dog and/or planning a litter or the future of an entire breeding program. Problems can and will arise and many believe that if they breed two "perfect" dogs as far as clearances go and that if they have a list long enough that they will not produce any problems and sadly that it not true. Knowing a line and seeing a dog move in the ring and in the field speaks volumes over a single piece of paper.
 
#14 ·
yellojakesmom said:
I think it's great that you're going above what is considered "enough" by too many people.
So, you are saying that when I breed dogs that "only" have hip/elbow/CERF/Optigen/Heart clearance, I am somehow cutting corners or not doing enough??? Interesting. Have you ever researched an 8-10 generation pedigree and looked at siblings, etc. when selecting a new puppy? Well, I have when considering a breeding. That research will tell you a whole lot more than the clearances on ONE dog (or two in the case of parents of a litter). When you start breeding on clearances alone to "eliminate" this or that, other problems will crop up and in the meantime, you can easily lose Labrador type. The goal should be to avoid producing affected animals. Unfortunately HD/ED it is not so cut/dry because the mode of inheritence is not known. The PRA that is tested for with Optigen is another story. When you use the test as it was designed, carriers no longer have to be tossed from breeding programs. They can be bred to "normal" dogs who do not carry the gene for the disease.

This is why I don't post too often about clearances on this forum. Things are a little bit too black and white when in reality in making breeding decsions, there are shades of gray.

Julie is a friend and Monty is a wonderful dog. My comments are not taking away anything from them or the commitment Julie has to the breed.

JMHO
 
#15 ·
nwlabs said:
This is why I don't post too often about clearances on this forum. Things are a little bit too black and white when in reality in making breeding decsions, there are shades of gray.
I completely agree, Peggy. Breeding is far more than just clearances. It is looking into how different pedigrees cross, what different pedigrees have a tendency to carry (for instance, one of the dogs I know cleared all sorts of health tests- as did his parents- but several littermates have now been diagnosed with elbow dysplasia...not good when thinking about breeding a girl to him who may have elbow issues in her pedigree), and what a dog produces that you feel you need to add to your ***** line, etc.

Clearances are relatively easy for me, since I am also in the animal health profession. I can run home and draw blood on my own dog(s) and bring it to work with me, or get my boss (the owner of the hospital where I work) to do a swab for CNM or whatever. In *my* case, it wasn't nearly as much about him being a stud dog as it was just learning more about the tests and general health status of my dog. It was FUN to learn about and FUN (for me) to get all of these results! Especially those OFA and Optigen tests. Since his sire was Optigen A and his dam was Optigen B, he had a 50-50 chance of being a B and he turned out to be an A! :) Yay! It gives me more options in the *far* future if I ever decide to lease a ***** or whatnot to breed to him.

And, in all actuality, CNM was the last thing on my mind to test for, since I already knew it would be negative. It really was based on a dare from someone else. ;) LOL Most of the breeders I know (mostly show breeders, some field breeders) know their pedigrees like the back of their hand (and then some)...if they feel they are doing adequate clearances and are doing at least hips/elbows/CERF/Optigen, then that is fine by me. :) Those are the basics as far as I'm concerned, and again, Optigen can likely be avoided if a puppy is from "A" parents.

This was definitely not meant to start any clearance wars. ;) It was just being excited (and relieved) that everything I did came back so great!
 
#16 ·
CaliforniaLabLover said:
Clearances are relatively easy for me, since I am also in the animal health profession. I can run home and draw blood on my own dog(s) and bring it to work with me, or get my boss (the owner of the hospital where I work) to do a swab for CNM or whatever. In *my* case, it wasn't nearly as much about him being a stud dog as it was just learning more about the tests and general health status of my dog. It was FUN to learn about and FUN (for me) to get all of these results! Especially those OFA and Optigen tests. Since his sire was Optigen A and his dam was Optigen B, he had a 50-50 chance of being a B and he turned out to be an A! :) Yay! It gives me more options in the *far* future if I ever decide to lease a ***** or whatnot to breed to him.
I know that Julie...that is why I said my comments were not about you or Monty, but more about the general comments here about breeders here just doing "enough".

Too much else involved in a breeding program than just dog A with X amount of clearances bred to ***** C with Z amount of clearances. I wish it were that simple, but it is just not.
 
#17 ·
[/quote] And, in all actuality, CNM was the last thing on my mind to test for, since I already knew it would be negative. It really was based on a dare from someone else. ;) [/quote]

Not to sound confrontational at all, but how did you KNOW it would be negative? I know the person who produced the first case of CNM diagnosed... right here in WA in the 1970's. They never did figure out where the carrier came in on the *****'s side (and she was show bred, btw), the male was field bred. I know when my 3 that I tested for CNM recently came back clear, I sighed a deep sigh of relief.

Have you done the EIC research test yet, btw? We're at 40+% carrier status (show lines being slightly higher than field at closer to 50%) in the breed last I knew based on the samples they've done. The U of MN is still accepting show bred labs for testing but figure they'll have their test ready for the public sometime in the 2008. I have test forms if anyone wants. You can use 2 q-tips in lieu of a swab, removing the un-used end as per the instructions. I think it'll come to the point that we have to map out each of our dogs just to avoid certain things (just as we do w/ PRA carriers/clears right now). -Anne
 
#18 ·
I just want to reiterate what Peggy and Sharon are saying.
Pedigrees are equally important as parents' clearances when making decisions about health. With many diseases, clearing the parent does not mean you are out of the woods as many are carriers but do not express the disease themselves. It worries me a bit that people are so hung up on clearances without understanding the long term ramifications. Monty aside, there are far too many stud dogs out there who have every clearance under the sun but only remotely resemble a labrador. Remember, we are breeding labrador retrievers and all the desirable and undesirable baggage that goes with them, so if you can not tolerate the inherent risk of ED or HD, you might want to consider another breed because we can not rewrite pedigrees without the breed suffering huge losses.

As breeders, we must seek balance at all times and if we tip the balance in one direction, another will suffer. Breeding sound, healthy and typey dogs is walking a fine line but breeders have done a pretty good job of it before the clearance police showed up and will continue to do so in the future. ;) ;)

Having said that, you rock Julie and Monty!!! You should feel free to do whatever testing you want to, however much or however little ;D
 
#19 ·
Have you done the EIC research test yet, btw? We're at 40+% carrier status (show lines being slightly higher than field at closer to 50%)
Where is this data located? I find it extremely hard to find that to be true. If show lines have a 50% carrier rate for EIC then that means that 1 in 4 dogs would be affected and I have never even heard of one case in my own circle. I saw on a show forum someone posted they had a dog with it but that was one person and thousands visit that forum daily. Every dog I have ever heard of is from field lines. I know it can be present in show lines but it's very very rare.
 
#20 ·
WigWag said:
Have you done the EIC research test yet, btw? We're at 40+% carrier status (show lines being slightly higher than field at closer to 50%)
Where is this data located? I find it extremely hard to find that to be true. If show lines have a 50% carrier rate for EIC then that means that 1 in 4 dogs would be affected and I have never even heard of one case in my own circle. I saw on a show forum someone posted they had a dog with it but that was one person and thousands visit that forum daily. Every dog I have ever heard of is from field lines. I know it can be present in show lines but it's very very rare.
Well...50% could be 10 dogs if only 20 dogs (from show lines) have been tested. I would like to know numbers...not percentages. I think the percentage numbers can be misleading.
 
#22 ·
FallRiver said:
Of course the results will be skewed as mainly breeders with affected lines will participate!!! Most other breeders don't see the point as many have never seen a single case, except in field lines.
That was one thought, however, those of us who volunteered DNA samples at LRC did so w/ the thought that our dogs were clear. I've never seen a dog go down w/ EIC either, but guess what? We've almost all had our little surprises w/ results. :eek: Some breeders w/ heavily used stud dogs aren't feeling so good right now, and I'm going to have to personally try to factor it in w/ a couple here too. Problem is, so many of you feel it doesn't exist so I may not be ABLE to work around it!

Now part 2. The feeling from my discussions w/ U of MN (where the data came directly upon my query) is the reason we don't see much of the collapses is that the dogs have to do more than an agility run or 2, or go fetch a couple marks or the tennis ball, whatever. They recently found a Border Collie w/ EIC, btw!!! And the gene is in Chessies and Curlies... and a friend knows a Golden owner w/ a dog that recently collapsed due to "overexertion". So, just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Part 3: As for numbers-- they've tested ~500 field labs so far, pretty much all from the upper midwest (though I had some friends here plus 2 of my own sent in also), so they feel quite comfortable w/ their 40% stats there. I know they've tested some "tweeners" because I've sent some in. They had tested only 50 show bred dogs, almost all collected at LRC Natls in OR in Oct. Fortunately, more folks are submitting their show bred dogs' samples--- because that is the only way to get reliable research stats. ;)

Anne
 
#23 ·
The feeling from my discussions w/ U of MN (where the data came directly upon my query) is the reason we don't see much of the collapses is that the dogs have to do more than an agility run or 2, or go fetch a couple marks or the tennis ball, whatever.
Then why do you feel that it is such a significant problem ??? Honestly, I am seeing a self limiting problem that has not been clearly identified as a significant risk in our lines and I don't get what all the fuss is about. Why go looking for a problem that will almost certainly not come to fruition? There are so many more prevalent and risky health problems threatening our breed that breeders DO produce, not MIGHT produce. By the time we stay completely away from HD, ED, epilepsy, TVD and eye issues, there are no dogs left, so what is the sense in more testing ???
 
#24 ·
FallRiver said:
The feeling from my discussions w/ U of MN (where the data came directly upon my query) is the reason we don't see much of the collapses is that the dogs have to do more than an agility run or 2, or go fetch a couple marks or the tennis ball, whatever.
Then why do you feel that it is such a significant problem ??? Honestly, I am seeing a self limiting problem that has not been clearly identified as a significant risk in our lines and I don't get what all the fuss is about. Why go looking for a problem that will almost certainly not come to fruition? There are so many more prevalent and risky health problems threatening our breed that breeders DO produce, not MIGHT produce. By the time we stay completely away from HD, ED, epilepsy, TVD and eye issues, there are no dogs left, so what is the sense in more testing ???
You know, I'm not saying it IS a significant issue right now for the average show or pet home. But haven't I read here about other diseases mutating and becoming more severe with time?

It's my premise if we can nip it now by at least eliminating the affecteds from the gene pool (much like most of us are trying to do w/ the PRA test results), we'll be miles ahead. And I'll admit, I'm that sort of breeder who really doesn't like to hear of any health issues w/ my puppies, so I'll try to do whatever is within my powers to prevent such. I'd really like to hope that no dog of mine retrieving a duck or goose way out in the choppy, strong currents of the Columbia River would ever have such an issue... and quite probably drown as a result of my complacency. Especially if there is a test that is accurate that we can use wisely. JMO. I agree that we have a hell of alot of other things to breed around, but it will be part of my little puzzle if need be. Anne
 
#25 ·
if we can nip it now by at least eliminating the affecteds from the gene pool (much like most of us are trying to do w/ the PRA test results), we'll be miles ahead
But we don't need to eliminate PRA affecteds from the gene pool...I would breed one of my clear/normal girls to an affected male in a heartbeat if he were otherwise the dog for her. See, this is where the waters get muddy...people automatically start looking to take dogs out of the gene pool as soon as these tests are devised . I have no problem with the test, rather the mindset associated with it.
 
#26 ·
FallRiver said:
But we don't need to eliminate PRA affecteds from the gene pool...I would breed one of my clear/normal girls to an affected male in a heartbeat if he were otherwise the dog for her. See, this is where the waters get muddy...people automatically start looking to take dogs out of the gene pool as soon as these tests are devised . I have no problem with the test, rather the mindset associated with it.
Exactly!! There was a speaker at the Tuft's Canine Genetics conference I went to a few years ago that discussed this very thing. Its not about eliminating currently affected or carrier dogs....its about breeding appropriately to not produce any additional affecteds which you could do using the Optigen test. The test was meant to help continue to use otherwise great dogs without producing PRA affected offspring. It is completely doable.

It is really short sighted to start throwing dogs overboard because of their carrier status. JMO....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top