So then I have a question...

The one dog in the liter that had it, would this mean both parents were carriers...does this mean somehow only one dog got both recessive genes and the others are now either non-carriers at all or carriers? Mathematically this doesn't make sense...how is it that one litter out of two carriers can have all pups affected and another litter only has one pup affected? Or do some of the other dogs probably have it just not at a level a novice person would ever notice? I'm comparing this to a litter mentioned earlier in a post.

I know there are a lot of questions in that paragraph, but I'd like to know what to expect from my boy, is it even worth it to figure out that he's a carrier? Or say I do get an offer for stud, do I disclose that his litter mate had megaE and he could possibly be a carrier, although there is a large chance he isn't a carrier?

 

So then I have a question...

The one dog in the liter that had it, would this mean both parents were carriers...does this mean somehow only one dog got both recessive genes and the others are now either non-carriers at all or carriers? Mathematically this doesn't make sense...how is it that one litter out of two carriers can have all pups affected and another litter only has one pup affected? Or do some of the other dogs probably have it just not at a level a novice person would ever notice? I'm comparing this to a litter mentioned earlier in a post.

I know there are a lot of questions in that paragraph, but I'd like to know what to expect from my boy, is it even worth it to figure out that he's a carrier? Or say I do get an offer for stud, do I disclose that his litter mate had megaE and he could possibly be a carrier, although there is a large chance he isn't a carrier?

Statistically speaking, when 2 carriers are bred together, 1/4 will actively have it, 1/2 will be carriers, 1/4 will be completely clear. Does this always happen? No. Nothing is ever for sure when breeding.

When a carrier is to a non-carrier, 1/2 will be clear, 1/2 will be carriers.

Now, as far as the litters where the majority have the mega e, the current belief is that one of the parents has the autosomal dominant gene. So far studies show this dog actually actively has the disease. The dog may not show a single symptom that is even really noticeable.

 

That is a good question for a vet school - now, what I have read conservatively recommends not breeding affected dogs or their siblings: Megaesophagus | Canine Inherited Disorders Database | University of Prince Edward Island because their research is older, I would either ask the vets working on these studies or maybe if your vet teaching hospital had anyone who was looking at this could be a secondary resource.

 

That is a good question for a vet school - now, what I have read conservatively recommends not breeding affected dogs or their siblings: Megaesophagus | Canine Inherited Disorders Database | University of Prince Edward Island because their research is older, I would either ask the vets working on these studies or maybe if your vet teaching hospital had anyone who was looking at this could be a secondary resource.

I asked Clemson and they agree, parents and siblings of the affected dogs should not be bred. Clemson is the one doing the genetic research for ME.

 

It is Surely not autosomal dominant? It is recessive for sure. I know of animals who carry who have been bred extensively in American lines. If dominant then it goes undetected a lot!

Also, when breeding a carrier to a carrier it not at all true that half of pups will carry and half won't! The pups could all carry, no pups could carry or some percentage inbetween. There is no way to predict the number of affected offspring. The percent values apply to each puppy's "chances" of inheriting. It is a roll of the genetic dice for each individual pupper.

 

Alright...so then there are different ways of getting this genetic problem? It can be both dominant and recessive and the dog can get it either way? I'm trying to figure this out from a genetic stand point because of course a dog that has the dominant gene should never be bred, but one with a recessive version of the gene could be bred if that dog has something that is worth the risk of passing on the gene.

 

Yes, it can be passed one of 2 ways according to current research.

To me, neither should be bred once a mega e pup has been produced neither should be bred. There is no test so there is no way to know if you are breeding to a carrier or non carrier. Once a genetic test is formed, then that will make a difference.

 

It sounds like the current understanding of the problem and how it is passed down is uncertain. I don't know if we should strike every dog related to a dog with the problem until there is more certainty.

 

This is where I was headed with my line of questioning, and it seems like the only way to for sure know what's going on is to breed the dog. If a stud or a bitch produces high amounts of megaE dogs in their first litter, then they should not be bred, but assume the breeder doesn't believe its the dominant version and is just the recessive one, they can breed again with a different stud or bitch and not get any puppies with the disease. Now, if they breed and all the sudden you have the same issue, you know the dog in question has the dominant version.

It seems like the dominant version of the disease is much easier to cull. After 2 breedings there shouldn't be any questions if the dog has it. But the recessive form might not ever show up, if A) you're lucky to breed with a bitch without the recessive gene or B) by luck of the draw none of the puppies end up having two recessive genes.

 

I was thinking the same thing, Sue.....

 

Honestly, that thought process bothers me. I don't like the thought that a dog who knowingly produced a severe genetic disorder being bred again. Maybe nothing will happen with the next breeding or the breeding after, but what about the next generation? Or the generation after? Why risk passing this gene on when it is known the dog does pass it?

 

Because there are no perfect dogs. And there are certainly no perfect dogs with all perfect relatives. And while MegaE can be a heartbreaker for certain, that is not always the case. Nor is it something that is pandemic in this breed outside of a small population of bloodlines where it is already known to be an issue (such as the Seeing Eye's breeding program). It's really pretty infrequent. And as far as issues go, it pales in comparison to many other health, and certainly temperament, problems that plague the breed and are a much bigger issue for efforts to be focused on.

I'm not advocating automatically breeding a dog who'd produced a problem solely for the reason of seeing what happens next time. But I'd certainly never advocate automatically throwing out a dog, and it's whole bloodline, littermates, etc... based on this alone either.

 

There are breeds where it's known to be recessive. There are breeds where it's known to be dominant. It sounds like what Kendra is saying is that they believe both forms exist in GSDs.

If that is the case, the dominant version would be very rare. And also very easy to eliminate. Dominant traits always are because they are expressed, not hidden. Recessives are much more tricky because they can be hidden for a long while. But at the same time, there is less frequency of occurrence.

It's good that research is being done into this, but I don't feel at this point there is any cause, or way, for breeders to do other than what they've already been doing. Which is to look at each situation individually, weigh the potential risks and rewards of the totality that the dog has to offer, and make the best decision they can. Avoid dogs or lines where there is a high incidence. Don't automatically throw out those where there may be an occasional, infrequent occurrence based on that alone. Look at the big picture and make good, careful, well thought out and well researched breeding choices.

 

There are breeds where it's known to be recessive. There are breeds where it's known to be dominant. It sounds like what Kendra is saying is that they believe both forms exist in GSDs.

If that is the case, the dominant version would be very rare. And also very easy to eliminate. Dominant traits always are because they are expressed, not hidden. Recessives are much more tricky because they can be hidden for a long while. But at the same time, there is less frequency of occurrence.

It's good that research is being done into this, but I don't feel at this point there is any cause, or way, for breeders to do other than what they've already been doing. Which is to look at each situation individually, weigh the potential risks and rewards of the totality that the dog has to offer, and make the best decision they can. Avoid dogs or lines where there is a high incidence. Don't automatically throw out those where there may be an occasional, infrequent occurrence based on that alone. Look at the big picture and make good, careful, well thought out and well researched breeding choices.

This is a much better explanation of what I was trying to say. Thanks Chris.

I am not sure yet how rare the dominant form is. I have been trying to get a hold of Dr Clark but she is out today. My curiosity with genetics makes me impatient. lol

As far as I know, only one breed has been found to pass it by a dominant gene only. All others it is recessive. The GSD, as has been said already, is the only dog that shows both variations.

One of the biggest problems with researching potential health issues in GSD's is the amount of culling that used to take place. Those pups never "existed" in the first place, if you get what I mean. It can make it very difficult to know what the lines actually have passed on.

 

But what if that dog is OFA Excellent, SchH3, V rated, and produces one ME pup. What if that dog is OFA good, AKC Ch., GSDCA Select rated, CDX, and produces one ME pup?

You are suggesting that another test breeding would be irresponsible when the experts cannot even decide how ME is genetically transmitted?

 

But what if that dog is OFA Excellent, SchH3, V rated, and produces one ME pup. What if that dog is OFA good, AKC Ch., GSDCA Select rated, CDX, and produces one ME pup?

You are suggesting that another test breeding would be irresponsible when the experts cannot even decide how ME is genetically transmitted?

How many studs are out there that fit this same example that have not passed an issue like this on? We constantly jump on new members interested in breeding that there are more than enough breeding dogs out there, but when it comes to a dog that has passed a genetic disease off it's automatically ok to continue? That seems a bit hypocritical to me. I'm not trying to be mean, hateful, or argumentative, but it really confuses me that one is ok but not the other.

 

There may be a lot of studs with those credentials. There are very few that have the credentials AND the pedigree, traits, etc.. that a specific breeder is looking for for a specific bitch. Believe it or not, but while there are a lot of credentialed studs out there, there are very, very few options that are the right match for any one female and the goals of her owner. Ask any breeder that question, and they will tell you the same thing.

 

I wasn't saying that you should do test breedings just to see what form the dog has, I was just making a hypothetical situation where a dog proves it is breed worthy (titles, health certs, ect) and this happens to occur.

Jaggirl...I think your research into pedigrees will lead you to see that although there are some lines/breeding programs that have this as an issue. You think its much more broad. Most of our dogs are related, be it 3, 4, 5 or more generations ago, GSDs in the same area or country are related. Its due to the fact that there is always the one male to breed to. So every decade hundreds and thousands of dogs are produced by the same dogs. If it was such a big issue, even the recessive gene would pop up a lot more often. When my pup was hit with the disorder, I had a hard time finding any information that wasn't just repetitive stuff copied onto different websites.

I'm sure there are bloodlines known to carry this gene, but I'm in agreement with the few breeders that have posted on the thread, its just too small of an occurrence to completely remove dogs from breedings because they are related to a dog with megaE.

 

I really enjoyed reading this thread.
Chris.....I applaud you. I find myself agreeing with many of your comments and ideals, and you have an excellent way to put into "type" your thoughts.

Breeding is not easy...it's not supposed to be.
Concerns face us with every litter born.....no breeder "wants" to consistently produce a problem or problems......especially when they build upon the puppies they produce.
But...if you (blindly) eradicate each dog from the breed gene pool, that has ever carried or produced a problem....there would be none left to breed from.
We do not make a breed stronger this way....we destroy it.
Breeding is like any form of science.......it is balances of trial and error....and we learn from it.
JMO

 

Ok, so we throw out every dog who's produced MegaE, or has a first degree relative with it, from breeding.

But wait, there are a lot of health problems that are far more debilitating. And those issues no doubt have their own crusaders out there who want to eliminate all of those dogs and their relatives from breeding and will put crosshairs on any breeder who doesn't bow to that demand.

So now we add HD, ED, DM, EPI, back problems, allergies and immune problems, digestive problems, and probably others I'm not thinking of off hand to the list. Any dog who's produced those, or who has a first degree relative with those, is now eliminated from breeding.

Of course, since nerve and temperament problems are a much bigger deal than health issues most of the time, considering they are equally heartbreaking and debilitating, usually much more difficult to manage and impossible to actually fix, not to mention can be potentially dangerous, those dogs have already been eliminated from breeding. Hopefully they were gotten rid of before the focus became health.

Any GSDs left? Probably not....

 

Like I had written somewhere up there, I think the more breeders that admit to the issues and talk about and share these issues can better assist each other in minimizing these issues. I know admitting to an issue can cause a breeder to lose business, which I do not agree with. When they admit it and learn from it, it can only strengthen the breed.

That was one of the issues originally brought up in the thread. The owner of the dam admits it and is doing what they can to improve on it. The sire's owner didn't even want to acknowledge it and was trying to keep it quiet. That only causes more potential risks further down the road.

FYI- the stud owner is now acknowledging the mega e but I don't think they were given any choice.

 

I'm not a breeder but this is not really that complicated to me.

Lets say you have a dog that has it "all" except for hips. You don't want to lose the "all" just because of the hip issue. So if you really understand pedigrees and bloodlines the way Chris, Robin and others do, you don't throw the baby out with the bath.

By selective breeding you can save the "all" and hopefully minimize or fix the hip issue. Like Chris said, there are all manner of issues that could present in what are otherwise great dogs.

Breeders who don't know what they are doing or don't care are a bigger problem and you won't get through to them anyway.

 

I'm not a breeder but this is not really that complicated to me.

Lets say you have a dog that has it "all" except for hips. You don't want to lose the "all" just because of the hip issue. So if you really understand pedigrees and bloodlines the way Chris, Robin and others do, you don't throw the baby out with the bath.

By selective breeding you can save the "all" and hopefully minimize or fix the hip issue. Like Chris said, there are all manner of issues that could present in what are otherwise great dogs.

Breeders who don't know what they are doing or don't care are a bigger problem and you won't get through to them anyway.

The big problem with this is the dogs do not get bred with the bad hips. The majority of breeders will place the dog and not add it to the breeding program. I already asked pretty much the same question but didn't get a response.

 

I can totally understand the point of concern the OP has.....
Since any dog...(stud owner, brood owner ) can potentially produce a puppy with a defect or health concern....it is the responsibility of those involved with the breeding...to be aware of the "risks"....
But being aware of "risks" does not immediately mean.....omitting dogs from breeding. (It's all checks and balances).

I know as a breeder AND owner....I would much rather (if a potential problem) surfaces...it be with a dog/puppy that I have chosen to keep, than a dog/puppy that was sold/placed to someone else.
I would rather "suffer" the pain, tears and anguish...than to have someone else go through the torture.......as a breeder...I suffer twice as hard when it is happening to my puppy person....

 

One of the reasons I started this thread is not only would you breed the dogs again, but would you be honest to the owners of dogs you may want to breed to. I personally do not like the thought of breeding the dog again but I think it is much worse to hide the issue.

 

When I use a stud dog.....USUALLY, I use a dog that I have seen progeny from....
If the dog is overseas...I ask a friend to help with research...
Breeders do "net-work" with other breeders......we do ask other breeders about the litters they may have had with a specific stud dog. *I have.*
Brood owners have their own first hand knowledge with the litters they have produced.

BUT...we also know...that there are always "risks" involved. We (breeders) do not purposely breed to or from dogs that are *known* to produce genetic problems.....over and over again.....That would be reckless, and financially/emotionally devastating...
Eradicating dogs from the breed because of "risks", or because they may have potentially produced a problem.......is completely different than removing a dog from breeding because of *know & proven* genetic producing problems.....

IE: HD dog from breeding....than a dog that had produced an HD dog.

 

This discussion is making me think about dalmatians, and their breeders. Knowing that the dogs have such a chance of producing problems, they still breed the dogs. I know they don't breed the ones that are already blind/deaf, but its pretty much impossible to find a dalmatian that doesn't have a litter mate that's not blind or deaf. I think breeders need to reduce the risk of passing this trait, but it just doesn't seem like at this point there is enough knowledge about how it is passed. It's clear that its not as simple as carrier/carrier, and is more like the HD problem which is pretty much known to be uncertain and the best advice is "stack the deck by using two dogs with great hips" but those dogs also do produce okay hips and even bad hips.

 

Also to add:
IF a potential problem arises...it is important to keep track of which bloodlines were combined, which individual dogs and which line breedings.
One dog can "carry" a problem because of another dog...generations back.
By not "combining" the same dogs or a past dog....can also be useful in omitting potential risks.
Breeding is much more involved than just the 2 dogs being bred......it really is all about checks and balances. One combined pedigree can work beautifully, while another of similar ancestors...not so much....simply because of one specific dog.

 

If every dog was removed from breeding that produced 1 genetic or health problem....there would be no dogs to breed period.
No one should breed their dogs from any bloodline......because *guaranteed* there is/are at least one dog from both sides (mother & father) of every dog used for breeding that has produced a genetic problem within the first 5 generations.......which would mean removal of said dog, along with parents & siblings from not only that particular breeding....but from prior breedings as well....because after all.....they are all related and carry similar genes.

 

OK, another question for you guys.....

This same stud dog impregnated a female. The entire litter died but no reason was given. Then, his last litter produced mega e from a completely different female.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

When an entire litter dies....I would suspect the Herpes Virus as my first culprit.
The only way to know for sure....would be by performing necropsies on the entire litter.
I would not even begin to speculate anything else....until the virus was ruled out.
The stud dog would not be in question at that point...unless the necropsies proved that an "inherited disease or defect" was at fault.

 

Robin, I should have clarified....the mega e litter, half of the litter was still born in addition to mega e. That is in addition to the other litter that all died.

 

The one condition could have nothing to do with the other.....again, without a necropsy...no definite answer can be made.
*SUSPICIOUS...of course....and then YES....I would question, especially if the same female or male was used.*

But again....bacteria infections, under developed fetuses, viral infections...etc...can ALL play a park in stillborn pups.....along with infectious milk from the mother.
Speculation is all we can have....without necropsy results.

 

Yes I know, it's all suspicion. Same sire, different dams. I wish necropsies were done but they weren't and noone will ever know.

I does make one question.