RoseAmy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 So a few friends were sitting around talking and the topic of breeding and cea came up. Now here is where the discussion got interested. If you breed a "normal" to a "carrier" none of the puppies in the litter will have cea. However 50% of the litter will be "carriers". For a dog to get cea both parents must be carriers. So a carrier must be bred to a normal or puppies in the litter will be affects with cea. So here was the ethical question that came up. Should carriers even be bred? It's something I never gave any thought to since I don't breed. Needless to say everyone had different thoughts on the matter. Just some food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 It's easy to avoid CEA. Just don't breed "carrier" to "carrier", or "affected" to either "affected" or "carrier". It's a simple recessive. A superficial answer might at first glance seem to be "don't even breed carriers". But ... what if said carrier had superlative working ability? I'm not talking a dog who seems "interested" in sheep - I'm talking about a dog of the caliber to qualify for the Finals, and place well, whose only blot is that it's a carrier for CEA. It's a lot easier to breed to ensure a pup isn't affected by CEA (LOTS of "unaffected" dogs to choose from), than to breed to ensure this sort of superlative working ability were retained. How do you know that "working ability" and CEA aren't closely linked traits? You might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater to select against CEA. I wouldn't criticize anyone for breeding a "carrier" with superlative working ability to unaffected dogs (who also possessed breed-worthy working ability). I would question why anyone would breed a "carrier" with mediocre (at best) working ability to an unaffected dog. Strike that - I'd question why anyone would breed a dog with mediocre working ability, carrier or not. I'd start to speculate that they were just in it for the ego, or the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Since it is a simple test to determine status, this is one way to avoid reducing the gene pool of dogs dogs that can make valuable contributions while making wise decisions that allow the avoidance of affecteds. You can breed two clears and produce all clear pups. You can breed a clear with a carrier and produce (on average) half clear and half carrier pups. In either case, you have not changed your proportion of clear and carrier pups within the population. And you have still maintained genetic diversity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 The big danger of not breeding any of the carrier dogs is loss of genetic diversity. You can't get that back when it's gone. Another breed had a similar disease (genetic, non life threatening, mild disease, test available). They made the mistake of trying to get rid of the gene in their breed. Unfortunately, several of the bloodlines clear of that disease carried the gene for a life threatening disease. Suddenly, lots of dogs were dying when those genes increased in frequency in the gene pool. Lesson of the day, don't try to eliminate diseases, just try to avoid producing them (choose low risk mates). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Preserving genetic diversity is the key to genetic health of a breed; diversity minimizes the likelihood that two dogs with the same identified (or not yet identified) recessive mutation are bred producing affected pups. Having a test for an identified genetic mutation makes it possible to avoid producing pups affected with this mutation and preserving genetic diversity reduces the risk of producing pups affected with an emerging genetic disease. Early onset adult deafness (EOD) is an example of an emerging genetic disease in our breed. We don't have a test for it, yet, but we can minimize the likelihood of producing affected pups by breeding to unrelated lines thereby maintaining genetic diversity in each cross. If we only focus on CEA (for which we have a test) we could inadvertently increase the amount of EOD in our breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Additionally we can reduce problems in the breed by being honest about them. Take away the stigma of a dog having a particular genetic disease such as CEA, or EOD and tell people interested in breeding or purchasing pups of the problem and avoid breeding to produce affecteds. This means testing for the things we can and opening up truthfully to ourselves when a problem is suspect. In the case of diseases which we can't test for, don't cover it up. An attitude like: Well, Bowser went deaf at 3 but he was around loud noises and he was a top notch winner prior to that so we can breed him because we really want pups out of Bowser ;is selfish and not in the best interest of the breed. However honesty about potential problems is the best approach when dealing with diseases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Additionally we can reduce problems in the breed by being honest about them. Take away the stigma of a dog having a particular genetic disease such as CEA, or EOD and tell people interested in breeding or purchasing pups of the problem and avoid breeding to produce affecteds. This means testing for the things we can and opening up truthfully to ourselves when a problem is suspect. In the case of diseases which we can't test for, don't cover it up. An attitude like: Well, Bowser went deaf at 3 but he was around loud noises and he was a top notch winner prior to that so we can breed him because we really want pups out of Bowser ;is selfish and not in the best interest of the breed. However honesty about potential problems is the best approach when dealing with diseases. I think this is essential and runs both ways - that owners do not blame everything on breeders but are willing to realize and admit that something that cropped up might be due to something that happened to the animal while in their care, and that breeders are also willing to realize and admit that something that cropped up might be due to their breeding choice. I have seen at least one breeder who seems to blame *everything* on the buyers of her pups (epilepsy, parasites, obviously genetic issues) but also owners that seem to blame *everything* on the breeders of their pups. Honesty needs to be a two-way street and issues need to be out in the open for discussion, education, and decision-making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Good points Sue. It scares me that some countries are talking about holding breeders responsible for the health and temperaments of pups they sell for years, even the entire lifetime of the dog. We have to remove blame from the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.