I posted on a thread the other day. As some already know, I have a bench bred bitch who has tested to have two copies of the dynamin-1 gene mutation and has been classified by UMN as "Affected," but has never collapsed. The more I hear about other peoples' results, I am convinced that the preliminary statistics are not correct and that far more than 30% of "affected" dogs have not collapsed.

I have set up an online anonymous questionnaire and am collecting data about tested dogs who have two copies of the mutation (UMN "EIC Affected"). This is not a witch hunt!! I am simply collecting data both on those who do collapse as well as those who do not collapse. All information collected will be strictly confidential. I will not be releasing any names of owners or dogs, just statistics regarding the type of breeding "bench, field, etc), age, and whether or not the dogs have collapsed. If you do not wish to give a call name or registered name, that is fine, but please give at least a month and year of birth so that I can calculate age. I do not want information from anyone other than the owner of the dog to ensure that no data is duplicated.

Again, this is only for UMN tested dogs that came back "Affected" in either the research or paid testing phases.

www.LegaSeaLabs.com/EIC.htm

Thank you!
Carrie

Thank you Carrie for doing this.... Very nice

My problem with the survey is that it doesn't provide any useful information. ALL of the submittals to the researchers have a place to indicate whether the dog has or has not experienced a collapse and whether the dog is from show or field breeding. If a dog was found to have two copies of the EIC gene mutation, then the researchers ALREADY know if it has had a collapse from the submittal form and that information is reflected in the reported data and percentages.

You can "suspect" until the cows come home that their figures are not accurate, but those suspicions are completely unfounded. EVERY one of the submittals requests that information, so there is no need to collect a second set of anecdotal reports from the subset of people who read these forums. It is not only unscientific, the findings have no relationship to the complete information already collected.

I suspect that the collapse rate in show bred dogs is really higher than the official figures, because the percentages do not include those dogs that have a first observed collapse AFTER the test was submitted. I know of several that fit this category and some have even been reported on this forum. My suspicion is far more logical than assuming a large number of those who submitted tests lied on the form to say their dogs collapsed when they did not. That is the only way the official percentages could be underreporting genetically affected dogs that have not collapsed.

I am not sure what your personal agenda is, Carrie, but collecting anecdotal information to compare against official submissions certainly seems like a waste of your valuable time.

Ok Maureen, where are these statistics that we can SEE them??
Are they published somewhere?
I think Carrie is just trying to get a survey going that we can actually read and see the numbers for ourselves.

I think that anyone who is willing to put in their valuable time to help research EIC should be commended and considered. The somewhat polite dismissal of the second post is unfortunate, especially for today. Let's make this a collaborative effort, one person's way, many not be the right way, or the way in which others feel comfortable in participating. I would have preffered to read the second post as this, "Carrie, let me know if I can help you in any way."

Merry Christmas to you too, Maureen!

FWIW, the UMN researchers do not have any pedigree information on the five dogs I submitted two months ago unless they paid $8 a dog to order from AKC. There is no place to submit parentage on their test form. I have been waiting for them to contact me regarding my affected dogs and haven't yet been emailed. I did indicate that they are non collapsing on the submittal but they have no way to know that they run with the ATV daily and all hunt regularly with no collapses. I didn't feel that information was necessary or even asked for upfront, as I didn't expect the results either.

Thank you, Carrie. As you know, I'm happy to help you and I too think that it will be beneficial to anecdotally investigate whether or not collapses run in certain 'lines'. I hope you will share your findings and that everone will participate in this survey, either with or without your name attached.

Happy new year!

Try to have an open mind here Maureen and for once stop being so argumentive. I for one don't believe that test is accurate as many others also don't believe it is. I think it is GREAT that Carrie is willing to take the time to do this. Have a Merry Christmas!
Aloha,
Jackie

"FWIW, the UMN researchers do not have any pedigree information on the five dogs I submitted two months ago unless they paid $8 a dog to order from AKC. There is no place to submit parentage on their test form. "

The research phase of the program is completed for now. There is no reason to collect more pedigrees unless they want to do more research and they can do that at a later time. At this point, their agenda is to show the gene mutation has the determined effect in laboratory animals (not dogs). They are working on this phase now.

The information about the percentage of submitted dogs that are genetically affected and what percentage of those have been reported to collapse is has been published here and is available on the UMN site. Calculating this figure again without collecting ALL the data is Carrie's STATED purpose for the survey - not to do pedigree research on lines that do not collapse. Trying to figure a percentage from only partial data is a waste of time when we already have the accurate figures from the actual test submissions.

Best of the holiday season to you Anon... and all the other anon posters. Even though you don't have names we at Nimloth wish you and yours the merriest of holidays My hope for the new year is that the lives and future of our dogs and our breed become a high priority for everyone - researchers, breeders and owners alike. We have to stick together to keep the AR folks from putting us ALL out of dogs!

"The research phase of the program is completed for now. There is no reason to collect more pedigrees unless they want to do more research and they can do that at a later time. At this point, their agenda is to show the gene mutation has the determined effect in laboratory animals (not dogs). They are working on this phase now."

This statement is a bit troubling...and the reason I stand behind my decision NOT to test, for now.

I would think that if this test was reliable, a finished product if you will, that they would have ALREADY completed the phase with showing the gene mutation has the effect in lab animals???

Shouldn't they already KNOW it does if they are going to put this test on the market and tell us it's accurate????

I don't buy it, and won't be using it. Not until they get their story straight.

Merry Christmas!

"I think that anyone who is willing to put in their valuable time to help research EIC should be commended and considered. "

I agree. The survey is NOT research. It only collects a random subset of data that has ALREADY been fully collected by the real researchers. The results of the official research report gives statistics that have meaning. The result of an informal "poll" serves no possible purpose from a research standpoint. Anyone who fills in the survey has already given that SAME information to the official researchers, so what is the point?

I applaud Carrie's interest and hope that all those who have the desire and ability to help our breed find ways to do so. This is not it. It is scatter plowing ground that has already yeilded an official and accurate crop. My biggest concern is that it will lead to MORE divisiveness and less testing - which are NOT in the best interest of anyone.

I have no interest in just "arguing", Jackie. It is a total waste of my time. This survey is another waste of time for all involved. The results will be meaningless! How can anyone draw conclusions from a survey of people who just happen to see the questionnaire and bother to reply? We ALREADY have accurate figures from the actual test submittals. My comments are not "argumentive" - I am trying to be logical and hope that others will see the obvious logic as well. If we quit spinning our wheels and wasting time on this sort of meaningless exploration, perhaps those with inquiring minds like Carrie can find some really useful way to help us explore some of the health issues that challenge the breed.

Whether you want to use the test or not is NOT the issue, Jackie. The survey is being represented as a way to get "accurate" figures, when by design it will do just the opposite. The accurate figures have already been collected and published. Wishing they were not true is no reason to initiate meaningless surveys that will generate meaningless figures.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Try to have an open mind here Maureen and for once stop being so argumentive. I for one don't believe that test is accurate as many others also don't believe it is. I think it is GREAT that Carrie is willing to take the time to do this. Have a Merry Christmas!
Aloha,
Jackie

Fine maureen but where can WE see that data "aleady collected"???

Where, where, where????

I would like to thank Carrie for her efforts. I have one of those non-collapsing affected dogs. Do I think she will never collapse? Who knows? Would I like to know why some collapse and others don't? You betcha. Do I think that answer is going to be found without the U of Minn following up with pedigree research on these dogs? Nope.
Is there a possibility that Carrie's collection of data might convince the U of Minn to rethink what kind of information they collect on tested dogs? Maybe.
Just my opinion and while I know that some folks on this list have stated that those that are uninformed on a subject, are not entitled to an opinion. I'm giving it anyway :-)

The following is from the UMN website link:
http://www.vdl.umn.edu/ourservices/canineneuromuscular/faq/home.html
***
4. My dog is E/E but to my knowledge has never collapsed.

To date we have identified over 500 dogs as E/E. More than 80% of all E/E dogs that are over age 3 have been observed to collapse. The remaining E/E dogs over age 3, and in particular younger E/E dogs may not yet have been exposed to sufficient conditions to initiate a collapse.

Besides excitement and exercise intensity, other factors affecting the likelihood of an E/E dog collapsing also appear to include the level of stress experienced in training in the different lines, including the use of e-collars and the difficulty of the retrieving event. The E/E dogs most commonly seen to experience EIC episodes also seem to have a very excitable temperament and lots of drive.

We consider all E/E dogs genetically susceptible to EIC. However, like any genetic disease, calling EIC a simple autosomal recessive disease is not completely accurate, as it is possible that some E/E dogs may never exhibit signs of EIC.

Thus being E/E does not guarantee that an individual dog will show classic signs of EIC, but dogs with classic signs of EIC are E/E. We understand that this can be confusing, and lead some to hope that there is some other cause for EIC than this DNM1 mutation. Please note however, that we have seen several examples of non-collapsing E/E dogs producing affected offspring.
***

When I find the exact reference for the difference in percentages of non-collapsing genetically-affected dogs from field vs. show lines, I will post it. Katie Minor, one of the researchers, has posted this data on several lists and forums. After the holidays I will ask her where on the UMN site that information is available. In the meantime, I am going to enjoy a holiday feast at my favorite Chinese restaurant!

Go up a few lines in the thread. I posted the link to the UMN FAQ on the topic. I found it by just going to the UMN website, looking for the VDL (vet laboratory) and finding the link to Canine Neuromuscular Testing. There are some other links to information at that page. If you have not read through the data available from that website, it is a good source of background and specific information.

"I applaud Carrie's interest and hope that all those who have the desire and ability to help our breed find ways to do so."

Maureen, this is how your first post should have begun. Please know that I am always interested to hear what you have to say and I appreciate the efforts that you are putting forth to better understand EIC. That being said, the tone of your posts is sometimes off putting and may cause others with valuable input to disengage from the dialogue.

I hate these discussions because they become so much we versus them, with them being the developers of this test.

Maureen, while you have use "we" when talking about this research and this test and you might have contributed to the testing with blood submissions, you are not part of the research team. For some reason you see yourself as such. So be it.

There is a problem with this test or with the description of the disease or both. I have no horse in this race as all my dogs have come back clear but I get heartburn when a test has such a poorly defined disease, that carriers collapse and affecteds don't and apparently, even clears can collapse. Even if it is 1/1 million normals that collapse, that should be considered a large red flag.

All data, collected in whatever manner, is useful.

What I would like to see is someone gather data on age of the dog, exactly what activities their affected dogs currently participate in and what activities their dogs have participated in the past. For dogs that collapse I would like a set of questions so the collapse can be absolutely defined for each dog that collapses and see how consistent the results are from dog to dog. This idea that a 10 year old field trial champion would collapse in their backyard chasing bumpers because that is more exciting than a field trial or training for a field trial is way off from the reality of that dog's life, in my personal opinion.

I would need a much better clinical description of the disease, a very clear explanation for why carriers (and a handful of normals) collapse and why a significant number of affecteds never collapse to begin to believe in this test.

Bonnie

Thank you maureen.

I have a dog who does collapse.
His parents do not, and they are up there in years,5+, both active show dogs.
I have not done the test on any dogs, I do not own both parents but know each very well.
What would be the stand point on genetics concerning this according to research?

I have a dog that is affected and collapses only when off my property and only sometimes. His grandsire is on labradata as having produced an affected offspring. I think there is something to the testing even though not all collapse. He did not begin collapsing until he was 1-1/2+ years old. I also have a girl that had a collapse recently at over 3 years of age, but we have not tested her yet but the collapse was typical to that of the male.

I have a E/E that does not collapse

I have an E/E that does collapse but has the most low key temperament, not the least bit exciteable.

I have an E/E that is exciteable and does collapse

My point is that it is extremely difficult to stereotype dogs with this condition. It would behoove us all to embrace this test, but just not throw out the baby with the bath water. Our breed will only benefit as we collect more info. Sticking your head in the sand does not help. I hear many breeders say they breed to preserve and protect those precious traits that make a Labrador a Labrador, and improve on their own lines. This should include health issues. We will never make progress with this attitude that it is not worth testing. Just be open to the possibility that a this disease may prove to be more complex.

And Maurenn, try re-reading your posts. Whether or not it is your intention, the language you use comes across as judgemental, with a tone of superiority. example, when you say (paraphrased) that others should come to the same logical conclusion that you've come to...

Sometimes we all need to take a step back.

Complex issues as to if the dog will experience an episode, heat, humidity, playing alone , playing with other dogs. Not a whole lot of data of this type.

Everyone should be testing their dogs and selectively breeding otherwise you could be adding more affected dogs to the gene pool. Better safe than sorry. Don't be afraid, what do you have to lose? (a few bucks at the most)

Thanks to those who have supported my little project by submitting data and emailing me.

I have also been told that the 'research phase is over' and was also sent an email that then stated that UMN was interested in families of dogs who are E/E and don't collapse. I sent an extended pedigree of my dogs and offered DNA on as many relatives as I can find, but was told that it is not needed at this time.

Several different people have emailed with information about families of dogs that are testing as E/E but are not collapsing. The reason why I asked for pedigree information (if the owner wishes to give it) is to see if there is a trend among these anecdotal reports. Again, everything is confidential and at this point, I am just putting the information into The Breeders Standard and having conversations and communications with people who have emailed me privately.

The UMN researchers are estimating that 5% of all labradors (BYB, bench and field trial) are E/E (homozygous for the mutated gene), and state that up to 20% of those don’t collapse. That means less than 1% of all labs fall in this category (and yes, I realize there are millions of labs in the country, so 1% isn't that small!). I *personally* know of twelve other E/E dogs that do not collapse, and seven of those are with or have been with field trainers and have been pushed purposely, but do not collapse. Considering that only a very small percentage of labradors have even been tested, those numbers just don’t add up in my mind.

So speaking of odds, if 5% of all Labradors are E/E, and 80% of those collapse when triggered, that would mean that 4 out of every 100 dogs at a hunt test or specialty show should have *clinical* EIC sometime in their life. So at the Potomac (estimated 900 dogs), there should be at least 36 dogs who collapse… and at even one hunt test (200 entries in all stakes), there should be 8 that collapse. And those statistics are just in the general population and don't take into consideration the selective breeding, especially linebreeding and inbreeding on dogs that are now implicated as "EIC carriers." Yet, very few people have actually witnessed a collapse. I certainly haven’t. It just doesn’t make sense statistically, to me.

I really didn't want this thread to go the way it has. I simply wanted to get the word out to as many as possible so that I could collect a little data.

If you don't agree, or don't want to share your information, then that's fine too. If you want to email me privately, my email address is given. I will share statistics if/when I have enough sampling.

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, or at least a nice cozy day off work with your loved ones and four-legged friends! I sure did!
CME

Disagree. EIC has no doubt been around and is not a new problem.
We have been breeding for decades without this test.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Everyone should be testing their dogs and selectively breeding otherwise you could be adding more affected dogs to the gene pool. Better safe than sorry. Don't be afraid, what do you have to lose? (a few bucks at the most)

Carrie, I for one would be interested in what the results of your survey show. I like many others, just don't buy the 5%/30% number. I have had Labs since 1976 and have never seen a collapse. In my circle of friends, one thinks she had one dog about 12 years ago but is not 100% certain and that is it.
If on an informal survey it bears out that indeed the 30% number is close to correct I would strongly consider testing. Just like drug companies on testing for new drugs, there is a financial incentive to make the results come out as desired. The EIC numbers are very similar to PRA percentages, I think most of us have seen a case or two and know several breeders that have produced an infected, I can't help but compare the two. This is the basis for my doubts. I feel Carrie's poll can provide valuable information to those sitting on the fence as I am. It is very similar to a political poll which probably a lot of us paid attention to in the last election.

Quote: "Disagree. EIC has no doubt been around and is not a new problem.
We have been breeding for decades without this test."

That's a good attitude, indiscriminately breed until all dogs are carriers or affected.

The point was that it ISN'T in all dogs!
You go jump on your band wagon, I'll keep my baby and his bathwater too

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Quote: "Disagree. EIC has no doubt been around and is not a new problem.
We have been breeding for decades without this test."

That's a good attitude, indiscriminately breed until all dogs are carriers or affected.

I am convinced the test is accurate for what it tests for and that the dynamin 1 gene is a major (probably THE major player) in causing EIC. I also am convinced that there are other genetic loci influencing the trait. The trait is incompletely penetrant, and something is protecting the dogs that aren't collapsing. Also, even among the dogs that collapse, some require very special conditions to do so, and some do it frequently, so there is variable expressivity, all of which point to other loci being involved.

So what should the researchers be doing? They SHOULD be doing the research they are concentrating on right now, because the one piece of evidence they need to verify the identity of the gene is proof that the mutation they have can cause the phenotype of EIC. My understanding is that there is another lab at Minnesota that is following this up using fruit flies. If they get good results with the fruit flies, that should be fine. But I wonder, considering how different the physiologies of warm-blooded mammals are from cold-blooded fruit flies, whether they will be able to verify it in a non-mammal. I think they ought to be working with mice, as well.

The fly research is necessary to verify their claims about the gene, but it will not help us to know why some E/E dogs and maybe some whole lines of dogs don't collapse. They should also be collecting pedigree data. The crucial question isn't whether the percentage of affected dogs that do not collapse is correct or not; it is what is protecting those non-collapsing dogs from the effects of the dynamin mutation. The researchers should be collecting information on those noncollapsing dogs and their relatives and storing blood samples for future research! Maybe they feel that they already have samples enough, but it doesn't take alot of freezer space to store blood samples.

So what should we be doing? I am a firm believer that we need to use the test, not to decide what dogs to keep as part of our breeding program, but to decide what breedings to do. I do not have any E/E dogs (Sorry, Carrie), but I do have a few carriers. I could not breed my carrier girl to my first choice of stud dog, as he turned out to be a carrier as well. It took some more research, but I eventually found a non-carrier that I am just as happy with. I will use the carrier later with a clear girl. And maybe Carrie should collect pedigree data on those non-collapsing E/E dogs, and maybe we should pressure the Minnesota people that, as far as we are concerned, they haven't closed the book on this condition and need to investigate the non-collapsing E/E dogs. Maybe there are some carrier to carrier breedings that would be safe if we fully understood the condition.

And those of you who are saying that EIC is not nearly as important as TVD, get ready, because I understand that TVD is thought to be caused by multiple loci, as well. And if one of those loci is dominant with incomplete penetrance, as I have heard some people surmise, we will NOT be able to use carriers safely unless the other genes are tracked down.

Quote: "The point was that it ISN'T in all dogs!"

Not YET, that's the point.

What to do? Test, and in responding to Carrie's questions, IF including pedigrees, how can that hurt.
At least she is testing and trying to make value judgments from the results! I sent in my girls as I
was told one was a possible carrier because of her sire,
amazingly, she came back a clear, but others came back
carriers. I have three clears and two carriers. I sent my pedigrees in to Minn along with the blood samples...makes sense they could use them.

The good news is, there ARE some fabulous stud dogs who have already tested and come back CLEAR and even more
who are doing the testing as we speak. I wrote several stud dog owners telling my predicament with my 'carrier' girls...and thankfully they not only said yes, but one great AM/CAN chocolate stud dog just came back a clear!

You just don't get it.
It's been around, we've been breeding forever without this new test and it's still very rare.
The sky is not going to fall now just because of this test.

Breeder, YOU don't get it, EIC isn't rare and the sky won't fall if you test your dogs.

Interesting artical on EIC in Just Labs Mag.(Nov/Dec 08)

Nope it won't, and when they come out with a reliable test where they they actually finished experimenting on it, I will test my dogs.

"Nope it won't, and when they come out with a reliable test where they they actually finished experimenting on it, I will test my dogs. "

The same here.

The problem is that, we can't get there unless we use the test and find it's faults. We have a test available. It may not be perfect, it may not be the whole story, but it is a problem in the breed that needs to be addressed. The more it's talked about, the more common it seems to be. If breeders as a whole were a little more accepting of the test, I think we would find the condition to be more wide spread than first thought. But, without that acceptance, people are afraid to admit that they've seen it/produced it, etc.

Those of you who don't test may have the welfare of your own dogs at heart but don't seem to value the need to preserve the Labrador as a breed. I think that's pretty short sighted.

My concern is about people like "Stupified" from a pevious thread who are so enamoured by this "new, wonderful test" that they are willing to change their breeding program according to the results!!
THAT worries me!!!
The test isn't accurate people!!!
They have you believing it's a "new tool" for you when all it is so far is a biology project for them!!!
You all can run your breeding programs according to the results of experimental genetic testing, I will not.

ONCE AGAIN RUDE!

The problem isn't with the test- the test is accurate for what it is testing for. But it is a DNA test for a specific mutation, not for a phenotype of collapse. It's the phenotype that is messy. That's nature, folks, and we have to accept the messy phenotype. We're dealing with the nervous system, which is the most complex part of the body. Mimicking conditions are going to occur, and the environment is going to have effects. The questions that are pertinent are:

Is EIC a serious enough condition that we need to worry about it? Well, dogs do rarely die from this, and a dog with a high level of expression must be very restricted in what it does. If you are breeding couch potatoes, maybe you don't have to worry about EIC. If you are breeding working Labradors, you should be concerned.

Is the mutation in the dynamin 1 gene responsible for a large enough proportion of the EIC cases that it is worth testing for? That's the question that is bothering Carrie, I think. Note that Carrie has tested her dogs. She isn't using her question as an excuse not to test. But she is concerned about what she sees as a low level of penetrance compared to what the researchers are reporting. This question may be resolved as more people test and as more time goes by. I said above that I think the researchers should be collecting pedigrees and studying the dogs that are E/E and have not collapsed.

Can we trust the test to guide us in our breeding decisions? I am convinced that the test will allow us to avoid producing dogs affected with EIC if every breeding has one clear parent. It will not stop dogs from having seizures or other collapses that superficially look like EIC but are caused by other conditions. Veterinarians are not universally familiar with this condition, much less breeders and pet owners. And, yes, some people may be able to have carriers and even affecteds and never see a dog collapse. But we don't know anything about the genetics that allow some E/E dogs to avoid collapse. What are you going to say to the puppy buyer who loses out on the EIC lottery and discovers that you could have prevented their dog's problems with a $65 test? If you feel OK with that, fine. I couldn't live with it, myself.

Realistic

"Breeder" don't assume to know what I was thinking or am going to do with my boy. WATCH yourself!
It was nice and sad to see there are many other people out there with + dogs not collapsing.
Yes, every test out there is a tool to use. I will hang onto my boy and retest IF and when the test is changed. I will hope that he will come back a clear or at least a carrier. He is lovely.
There is such venom being spewed! GOSH

Peggy that was not meant for you. It was meant for "Breeder"

OK- that's fine. I certainly would not suggest that anyone eliminate breeding stock on the basis of this test. I do hope that people consider the test results when they plan breedings. As I said earlier, there is a carrier boy I really want to use. I may have to wait a generation to use him, but I will do so when I have a clear bitch that is right for him. I hope the owner keeps him healthy for me!

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

thank you, Peggy,
That was extremely well articulated, and really puts the testing process and the disease in perspective.

To all of you out there, the only way we will get to understand the phenotype expressed (E/E dogs that do AND don't collapse) is by utilizing the test and scrutinizing it.

This is what breeding is all about.

Yes you are being argumentive Maureen, for some reason you are hell bent on believing this test is correct when there are so many reasons to believe it is indeed NOT a accurate test. Carrie is no idiot, she does a lot of research on diseases in labs. Stop trying to sway others from a valid question on this test.

Aloha,
jackie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I have no interest in just "arguing", Jackie. It is a total waste of my time. This survey is another waste of time for all involved. The results will be meaningless! How can anyone draw conclusions from a survey of people who just happen to see the questionnaire and bother to reply? We ALREADY have accurate figures from the actual test submittals. My comments are not "argumentive" - I am trying to be logical and hope that others will see the obvious logic as well. If we quit spinning our wheels and wasting time on this sort of meaningless exploration, perhaps those with inquiring minds like Carrie can find some really useful way to help us explore some of the health issues that challenge the breed.

Whether you want to use the test or not is NOT the issue, Jackie. The survey is being represented as a way to get "accurate" figures, when by design it will do just the opposite. The accurate figures have already been collected and published. Wishing they were not true is no reason to initiate meaningless surveys that will generate meaningless figures.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Try to have an open mind here Maureen and for once stop being so argumentive. I for one don't believe that test is accurate as many others also don't believe it is. I think it is GREAT that Carrie is willing to take the time to do this. Have a Merry Christmas!
Aloha,
Jackie

Amen!

"What are you going to say to the puppy buyer who loses out on the EIC lottery and discovers that you could have prevented their dog's problems with a $65 test? If you feel OK with that, fine. I couldn't live with it, myself."

Well said Peggy!
Thank you

If the test was relaible and accurate, I'd say I was sorry I should have the test.
Since it's not, can't say much at all.

Quote:
"If the test was relaible and accurate, I'd say I was sorry I should have the test.
Since it's not, can't say much at all."

It doesn't sound like you will be doing the test either way (accurate or not).

To: "If the test was reliable and accurate, I'd say I was sorry I should have the test.
Since it's not, can't say much at all."

Do you honestly think that sorry would make everything all better!! I'm a pet owner and it wouldn't!! I believe that if your going to breed a dog, it is your responsibility as a breeder to better the breed! If their is a test to prevent a dog from passing it along then as a responsible breeder you should do it!! or don't breed at all! I do understand what EIC is. Thankfully the breeder who I got my puppy from believes in doing everything she can do to better the breed! She did test for EIC and she does have some carriers. She uses these results as a tool to help her in her breeding program. I give her alot of credit she's not afraid to post these results on her website. To me this is what a responsible and honest breeder should do!!

Now how can you make that assumption?
I do the tests we should be doing, the proven, accurate ones.
You know, OFA, CERF, Optigen.

Yup and as I said, when the test is accuate and reliable, I will be happy to do it.
For now, it's not and I won't.
PS - in my many years in Labradors, I have never been told I have produced an EIC affected dog.
Doubt I'll start now just because there is research going on.
I say kudos to the researchers for caring, but shame on them for implying that their test is accuarate and reliable.
And shame on those breeders (mostly the newer ones from what I've seen) for putting down those who don't believe in the test the way it is now.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

To: "If the test was reliable and accurate, I'd say I was sorry I should have the test.
Since it's not, can't say much at all."

Do you honestly think that sorry would make everything all better!! I'm a pet owner and it wouldn't!! I believe that if your going to breed a dog, it is your responsibility as a breeder to better the breed! If their is a test to prevent a dog from passing it along then as a responsible breeder you should do it!! or don't breed at all! I do understand what EIC is. Thankfully the breeder who I got my puppy from believes in doing everything she can do to better the breed! She did test for EIC and she does have some carriers. She uses these results as a tool to help her in her breeding program. I give her alot of credit she's not afraid to post these results on her website. To me this is what a responsible and honest breeder should do!!

For research sake.

How can you say that OFA is a proven test? It is a snapshot in time - not a genetic test. How many of you re-xray your 10 year old dogs? If truly normal with no CHD, there should be very little difference between films at 2 and 10. CERF is also a snapshot in time. If it were truly a reliable test, it would only need to be done once in a lifetime. The point is, this is another tool, you don't necessasrily have to cull breeding stock based on this test. You need to see the forest for the trees.

I've been breeding for over 20 years and I've just had that first fateful phone call about an EIC collapse with a puppy I bred. Came from a line I have been breeding from for that whole time.

Never say never. Just because you haven't seen an episode, or heard about one in your lines, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

And do you think if you had tested your breeding stock and bred by the test it would have prevented you producing a dog that collasped? If you do your living in fantasy land believing in a test that is not an accurate test, especially with clears and carriers collasping. How can you be 100% sure it was a EIC collaspe? If you ask me there are lots of people mistaking a EIC collaspe for something else... the power of suggestion with all this hoopla about EIC right now.
Aloha,
Jackie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I've been breeding for over 20 years and I've just had that first fateful phone call about an EIC collapse with a puppy I bred. Came from a line I have been breeding from for that whole time.

Never say never. Just because you haven't seen an episode, or heard about one in your lines, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Very well said, Jackie!
Thank you..

what makes them 100% sure the pup collapsed from EIC? If it was not such a hot topic then I am sure they would have continued to look at other options.

You say it is the first pup out of a 20 year old line, did you breed outside your line with a new stud? Why would it only happen to one pup in 20 years if it truly is a genetic issue?

and even though they have found markers in dogs that collapse they have yet to prove every dog with those markers actually collapse or produced dogs that collapse.

What will be the next great find in Labrador genetics that is not 100% proven but will definitely make good breeders bad ones if they don't use it and even worse if they refuse to cull every dog that might have it.

Common sense needs to play a big part in a breeding plan or we will end up with a genetically clear testing lab that really is no longer a Labrador at all.

First of all, I believe, as many do, that the test is accurate for the specific mutation it tests for and as Peggy has already stated, it is the phenotype of the collapse that is still an unknown. What bothers me is people throwing out phrases like “carriers and clears collapsing”. All that does is further spread misinformation and confusion. Carriers and clears have NOT collapsed. The wording on the test is worded that way because there are other types of collapse other that EIC, and carrier or clear EIC status is not going to prevent dogs from those other types of non-EIC collapse.

No one is saying not to use common sense when breeding, but everyone has different breeding ideas and different levels of comfort. It is no one else’s place to say that someone should not base their breeding decisions based on an EIC test. There are breeders out there who still produce dogs that go into working homes and a collapsing dog is not acceptable to them. If EIC is acceptable to you and you are willing to live with and take responsibility for collapsing pups if and when you produce them, then that is your business.

People believe in using OFA, yet clear OFA results do not mean the dog cannot produce joint problems. All an OFA Excellent means is that the particular dog x-rayed, at the point in time of the x-ray, has excellent joint structure. That dog still has the potential to produce dysplastic puppies. Tests for PRA and EIC and CNM are far more informative than OFA results, because they do test for a specific mutation and can prevent people from producing those issues. As far as culling dogs from breeding programs, many people with undesirable OFA results do not cull their grade 1 (or worse) elbows or unclear hips, especially if the dog is winning big. There are many breeders who do not even wait for final clearances (let alone waiting for the dog to get to at least a year old) before breeding, despite several generations of unclear elbows in the pedigree. At least EIC carriers and affecteds can be bred responsibly (therefore there is no reason to cull), to clears. The same cannot be said of dogs with joint issues.

To "Breeder"

Anyone who says they OFA because it's accurate or proven has no clue what they are saying. We use it as a tool, to make sound decisions. Elbow after elbow after elbow stories I hear along with the nonsense of how hips fail only to pass. OFA flawless or accurate?? no way. Any form of testing, EIC, OFA, all of them are simply tools to make more responsible decisions.

...the sky is falling, EIC is rare, throw out the baby with the bath water, the test is not accurate, I have never produced a dog with EIC, etc, etc, etc....

Do these rantings sound intelligent? With computers and the educated puppy buyers we are now seeing, good luck explaining your stance should their puppy end up with EIC. How long do you think it will take to mark your good name?

Diagnosed by a veterinarian and confirmed by the test.

Jackie, you mention clears collapsing. Firstly, how do YOU know they collapsed with EIC?

I know because i've had reliable and respected breeders tell me so that's how, i've also had respected breeders tell me they have dogs that have tested affected that NEVER collasped and these are older dogs that have done things that would have under the conditions they've been under.
Aloha,
jackie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Diagnosed by a veterinarian and confirmed by the test.

Jackie, you mention clears collapsing. Firstly, how do YOU know they collapsed with EIC?

Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.