just curious what does everyone think about breeding a dog that has food allergies?
Printable View
just curious what does everyone think about breeding a dog that has food allergies?
I've heard that food allergies appear to have a genetic link (i.e. Westies), but if the dog is an outstanding specimen with beautiful hips and eyes and a clean pedigree with outstanding work ethic...who cares if it's a little intolerant of chicken? In the long run, restricting your dog's access to a certain food is a small price against breeding non-allergic animals with the potential to pass on genetic diseases. That's my two cents.
I don't agree with it. It is very very often genetically passed down and can get worse with each generation becoming more intolerant and more immunocompromised. Things like colitis result from problem with that and that can be a nightmare for anyone who has a dog with that. As it gets passed down it also had a propensity for becoming worse and worse and you can end up with dogs who are intolerant to MANY things you might try to feed and then trying to find a food is a nightmare. Not to mention, what if some of those puppies end up in homes who don't have either the money to give proper food or care for that condition, or don't care enough and it gets hot spots and is in poor health because the owners don't want to pay money for more expensive or specialized food?
There are enough genetically sound dogs out that that don't have allergies, that personally I think its unnecessary and can lead to nightmares down the road for both dogs and owners.
Lets say two NON-food allergic dogs are bred, but the breeder wants to know if the pups have them anyways...is there a test that can be done? im assuming after a few weeks of birth..lets say 7 or 8 weeks old!
My RB Buck had food allergies (he was allergic to chicken) but he sired pups who never had any. But I wouldn't risk it. (My parents bred him, I was like 8 at the time)
well im glad yours all came out okay! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sumbirdy
I don't think it's right at all to breed a dog that has known problems.
There's already too many healthy dogs that are homeless.
(The following are just questions meant to find the answers too, by NO means are the following questions meant to start any sort of tift here) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sumbirdy
How do you know none of his puppies had allergies?
Is your family still in touch with every puppy they sold?
(I just want to point out things; I would want anyone to have found false hope in your experience with RB Buck and his pups)
We kept them all. My parents are nuts. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pitc9
Allergies in dogs are probably something that those who had dogs with allergies might be focused on. And there's nothing wrong with trying to prevent genetically linked skin conditions from being passed on to future generations. But how serious are allergies to food in dogs? Sheldom does one hear of a life threatening case.Quote:
Originally Posted by pitc9
However if one is interested in improving the health of our dogs, then more needs to be done to track and retire from breeding stock those lines who have a high incidence of: Lymphoma, Hemangiosarcoma, Osteosarcoma, Melanoma (oral), and other cancers.
The next time someone on this forum is interested in buying a pure breed dog, ask the breeder if s/he can supply the health records of all siblings of the parents and their parents and all their siblings. Ask what the incidence of cancer was in these lines. Prediction: You'll get a blank stare, or a generic non-specific avoidance answer. Neither is it profitable for them to retire their breeding stock affected. After all who cares if a few of the parents siblings died of Lymphoma? Well, the owner of the one of the puppies might care- years from now.
Ad hoc breeding has created a cancer epidemic in our pets. It's affecting mix breeds, and occuring in even puppies - witness the recent Raven thread. Even if addressed today, it will still get worse for awhile. Sadly it's not being addressed. While not wanting to pass on skin disorders via breeding is noble, it is minor compared to the major problem of cancer.
wow, thats alot of little mouths to feed!Quote:
Originally Posted by sumbirdy
extremely good point! thank you for making that evident! i think sometimes after a major accident or surgery ect. has happened and after all is well, we all seem to kinda forget, unless it's the person who it happened too!Quote:
Originally Posted by dragondawg
I know we dont mean to forget but it's a part of life, and im glad you brought that to our attention!:D thank you!
ditto. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by pitc9
The way I look at it, every dog is allergic to something. How many people can say that they tried a dozen dog foods, and over a period of six months on each of them their dog was fine on every one? Every dog will have a food that just doesn't "sit right." It may be the ingredient, the chemicals put into the ingredient, where the ingredient came from, how the ingredients are put together, etc.
Why else do so many people change foods for? "My dog had large stools on this food," "my dog wasn't shiny on this one," "my dog smelled bad on this one," "my dog was gassy on this food," "my dog gained weight on this food," "my dog's's glands were always full when fed this food," "my dog's hair felt greasy on this one." All symptoms of allergies.
How many people can truly say that they have fed the same dog food to all of their dogs since they had dogs and every one of their dogs has been "perfect" on it? And since you haven't switched to something else, how can you really compare to truly KNOW that your dog is perfect on it? And if your dog is perfect on it, how do you know it wouldn't be on something else? See where I am getting? I have known so many people who thought their dogs did not have any allergies until they were forced to switch foods, and suddenly their dog was farting all of the time. I've known many people who thought their dog didn't have allergies until they switched foods and suddenly their dog was more vibrant, had a more gloosy coat, higher energy, and leaner muscle. Until you start looking at things from a more natural or holistic view, people often don't see that allergies are more than what they seem. "Intolerances" can be seen in many different ways, even behavioural ones.
And if you don't think your dog has an allergy to ANYthing, you are wrong. You may think the same about yourself, and you are wrong. Everyone's body is intolerant of something and we show it in ways that we don't believe are symptoms of an allergy. Especially in ouir dogs, we recognise it as a "dog thing" but rarely see it as an allergy. If you go to a naturopath, he will test you and tell you what your body does not react well to. My friend recently went in and found out she is allergic to pineapple, citrus fruits, tomatoes, and wheat -- all things she ate on a regular basis. Since she has cut all of these out of her diet she has more energy, has lost weight, and no longer gets canker sores. She didn't know she lacked some energy because she had nothing to compare it to -- she thought she was overweight due to eating fatty foods -- and she thought her canker sores were just something she got since she was a child. But it was all due to allergies to these foods.
There really is a big picture. I am in complete agreement with Dragondawg. While some 'types' of allergies can be seen as something deeper, such as an immune issue, the majority of allergies are mild and alot less serious than cancer and epilepsy. I would breed to a dog with a foodallergy before I bred to one whose close relatives had epilepsy -- and believe me, in my breed, finding a dog without epliepsy nearby is virtually impossible. I am lucky to have a dog with a pedigree that is incredibly healthy compared to the great majority of Belgians these days.
You need to define perfect Wolfsoul. Not to stray too far from the thread subject... would I consider my little Barney's coat perfect? No, it has a little dander, probably left over from his puppy Demodex mange days almost 4 yrs ago. It doesn't seem to bother him, and his coat still shines. As I watched him this morning chasing like wild after a Bunny down my driveway (I had to step aside to keep the terrified Bunny from literally running into me with my little monster in pursuit), it isn't too difficult to figure out he is getting enough energy and vitality out of his diet. He has no identified health problems. Neither does his older sister. Not sure if that defines perfect, but it does define healthy. Both have been on the same brand of dog food all their lives, the same brand I fed my previous dog of 11 years.Quote:
How many people can truly say that they have fed the same dog food to all of their dogs since they had dogs and every one of their dogs has been "perfect" on it?
My previous dog had allergies to something in the Fall environment. Probably leaf mold was a good candidate. Chewed on her paws a little. What I commonly read on forums (not just this one) are people talking about switching foods, and how it takes time to purge the previous food's toxicity from their bodies. They usually speak in terms of months. So if I had switched diets, and observed my dog's allergies had cleared up in 3 months, it might be easy to assume it was a food allergy. Of course that leaf mold has sort of also cleared up in that time period. ;) Then next year the allergy returns, and yet another food try. Quickly one could jump into the domain of saying one's dog was allergic to many dog foods, or had a sensitive tummy. That's not to say there are dogs without true food allergies. But rather there is a higher incidence of us humans jumping to that conclusion. Also the more foods tried, the more likely it is a food allergy (not to mention digestive problems) will be encountered.
Back to the thread... It's my belief there are very few breeders if any that are addressing the problem of genetically linked cancer in our dogs. Goldens have a high incidence of Hemangiosarcoma, and Lymphoma. Labs have a high incidence of Lymphoma. My poor Daisy 1/2 of each of those two breeds was like a walking Lymphoma time bomb- that did go off at 10 yrs of age. Not even hybrid vigor could prevent it. If you want a definition of perfect health, she was it (leaf mold allergy not withstanding), up to the point of diagnosis. She lasted 1 yr and 3 days. The big C problem will get worse in future years. Maybe after we humans create a genetic disaster in our dogs via breeding practices, something will be done?
I know several breeders that can tell you every major illness suffered by every puppy that has left their property. So - while they may not have the health records of the siblings of their dogs, they can tell you if cancer is an issue in their lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragondawg
Do they voluntarly stop breeding and sterilize all dogs in those lines they kept for breeding where there is an elevated incidence of cancer? Without the history of the siblings, parent, and grandparents of the mating pair, they are also in the dark genetically.Quote:
I know several breeders that can tell you every major illness suffered by every puppy that has left their property. So - while they may not have the health records of the siblings of their dogs, they can tell you if cancer is an issue in their lines.
Shall we do a very quick search on Golden Retriever cancer breeding? An interesting link first on the list is: Golden Retriever Club of America. What is the closest they come to addressing the issue of cancer? In one section they discuss on the breeding decision for those who own a Golden:
SOUNDNESS. Your dog should be tested free of certain genetic defects, as should the proposed mate. Knowledge of the status of parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. with regard to genetic testing is also desirable. HIPS should be properly X-rayed, and the X-rays submitted to the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals or PennHIP to be read as free of hip dysplasia. HEARTS should be examined by a board-certified cardiologist. EYES should be examined annually by a board-certified veterinary ophthalmologist and be free of hereditary cataracts, progressive retinal atrophy, and any other eye anomaly. ELBOWS should be properly X-rayed and the X-rays submitted to the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals or a board-certified veterinary radiologist, to be read as free of elbow dysplasia.
Any inheritable defects, including but not limited to retained testicles, overshot or undershot jaw, congenital heart defects, recurrent skin problems, thyroid deficiency, immunological problems, orthopedic problems and recurrent seizures or epilepsy occurring in either parent are all reasons not to breed, regardless of other qualities.
Criteria for breeding a Golden?
Note the absence of the word cancer. At any point do they make the statement: If any parents, grandparents, or siblings have cancer any offspring will not qualify for their papers?
They do recognize the problem of cancer is epidemic in the breed.
As you know, Golden Retrievers have a high incidence of cancer, with a 1998 Health Survey indicating that 57% of females and 66% of males will be affected. While many types of cancer are elevated in the breed, approximately half of the totals are lymphoma (1 in 8 Goldens) and hemangiosarcoma (1 in 5 Goldens).
What is the near term purpose of their research efforts:
This information has the potential to impact therapy decisions, as owners and veterinarians can take breed specific data into consideration when they explore treatment options...In addition to financial support, we also aid researchers in obtaining vital tissue and/or blood samples from affected dogs.
Golden Retriever Club response
It sounds noble that they are supporting research for treatment, but that's downstream and after the fact.
In summary you have a major organization who although they have made progress in combating hip dysplasia, have made no effort to provide strict breeding guidelines to prevent the propagation of oncogenes from one generation to the next. There's no other way to say it: Follow the money trail. If the incidence is 57% of females and 66% of males will be affected imagine an organization coming up with a program where their breeder members are told they can not breed 60-70% of their breeding stock starting tomorrow based on family history? It's not going to happen any time soon. Maybe when the breed is up to a 95% incidence of cancer the issue will be forced. In the mean time the oncogenes will continue to propagate not just in the pure breeds be it Goldens, Labs, Boxers etc, but also into the mix breeds.
I definitely think there is no black & white here... it depends on the severity of the allergies.
I wouldn't breed a dog who was violently allergic to every meat source except venison, for instance. But, it's not a big deal if the dog gets an upset tummy when they eat lamb.
However, if I were breeding dogs, I would be hyper-critical about the health & conformation & worthiness of breeding my dogs; as any breeder should be! I think you have to honestly look at the dog's health as a whole.