|
PERSPECTIVES
A Mini-Course in
Applied Genetics
By BJ Andrews
Discussions with breed fanciers
indicate that breeders are no closer to getting a handle on health problems
than when Bill and I decided to get back in Mini-Bulls last year. When I
went to England and selected four dogs that we hoped would nick with the
best lines here, I didn't know that along with an exciting acceleration of
breed type, health problems had also proliferated.
How can that be? How can anyone
who owns a MBT ignore a proven way to protect that dog? Ok Ok, there are
Mini-Bull producers that do seem to ignore a problem as long as it's in
someone else's lap. Even so, we can not blame all of the health problems on
uncaring, uneducated puppy producers.
So if good breeders are
conscientiously trying to solve genetic health problems, how can the health
defects have reached such seemingly gigantic proportions in just the twelve
years that we've been out of the loop? We brought a total of thirteen Minis
to the States and to my knowledge, not one single dog ever developed an eye,
heart, or kidney problem. I can only vouch for a small number of first line
descendents but in any case, the math just doesn't work. We were not just
"lucky" and our breeder, much as we love her, isn't that much more talented
than many other careful English breeders.
The equation is out of balance
in Mini-Bulls and that in and of itself may be a tip-off that we're either
not taking the right approach or that the stats are misleading. If
statistical incidences have been incorrectly interpreted or accidentally
inflated, then those numbers need to be corrected before any more people
drop out of the breed rather than risk having their hearts broken. If the
statistics are accurate, then our approach to solving the problem is faulty.
Either scenario begs the question - why is the MBT so disproportionately
affected by three serious health problems? It isn't like we have thousands
of pups whelped yearly by hundreds of big producers, as is the case in
healthier breeds. Most Mini-Bull fanciers are dedicated, conscientious
people trying to do the right thing.
I have rejected some of the more
plausible explanations such as a dog that was dominant for heart defects
permeated the breed with multiple heart problems. OK, then there must have
also been a widely used dog dominant for kidney problems? Hmmm. Perhaps
there was one dog capable of inundating the gene pool with both defects? Not
likely - he would have quickly bred himself into extinction, So unless we
also postulate that those one or two dogs were also dominant for lens
luxation, you can throw such logical explanations out the window, otherwise
there would by now be descendants of the heart/ kidney dog(s) which are
genetically clear for eyes.
I've exaggerated the examples
but scientifically, I'm on solid ground so please bear with me. I don't have
letters after my name so it's hard to state qualifications without sounding
like a braggart. Bill and I have bred way over two hundred AKC champions
from a lengthy but very limited breeding program. Over one hundred are
Multi-Group, Specialty winners, and/or Register Of Merits. In fact, over
half of all Akita Top Winners and Register Of Merit Sires and Dams are O'BJ
bred. More important to us, Akitas O'BJ are known as the typiest, soundest,
and healthiest in the world.
I know that there will be those
who say "so what?" and who will try to belittle an accomplishment which they
secretly envy. I'll accept that along with the inevitable criticism that
always follows expression of a politically incorrect thought. It doesn't
bother me because my ego is non-existent compared to the joy of having a
living work of art that loves me back and the satisfaction of having
designed it and then created it. The point here is that even if we had a
jillion-dog puppy mill, we could not have achieved those records without a
basic understanding of applied genetics.
That doesn't mean throw the
books away. It does mean having to backtrack, admit mistakes, study, earn
the confidence of other top breeders and have sense enough to listen to
them, and to be absolutely uncompromising about quality. It means a
determination to breed complete dogs, not caricatures with numbers and
letters but no brains or beauty. It also signifies a stubborn resolution not
to be misled by popular but genetically unproven rhetoric, even when it
comes from the hallowed pages of veterinary journals. Applying genetic
theory so that you can reach certain pinnacles without failing on your face
or doing harm to a breed means you accept reality and weigh new ideas on the
scale of proven practicality.
We want to apply a lifetime of
experience and success in other breeds in a way that will benefit the MBT.
The Mini-Bull is not a "have to" breed for a couple of seniors too creaky to
continue in big dogs. We have four Chihuahuas and Bill co-owns "Rio" who is
among the top 5 Toy Dogs again this year. In 1983 we knew the MBT was "it"
for us but we couldn't just walk away from club duties and the opportunity
to breeder-owner-handle the All Time Top Winning Akita. So we did the right
thing. We put Minis on the back burner until we could devote ourselves to
them completely.
We're ready to do that and have
offered funding or seed money for worthwhile projects. (So far, no takers.)
If we can help shed light in the corners of confusion, it will benefit our
own dogs and I know you feel the same way. So if in the process, I stumble
over someone's toes, please remember I have no axe to grind, no personal
issues at stake. What I do have is open communication with top breeders in
all Groups and the 20/20 perspective that has earned a continuous byline in
national breed magazines since 1975.
First, Primary Lens Luxation.
According to Professor Keith Barnard, Animal Health Trust (England),
prominent and highly respected researcher, there have been no recorded cases
of PLL (in England) in dogs under three years. On that basis, there is a
sensible belief that there's no need to check for PLL prior to three years
of age. The Brits are a bit more in-the-know due to the small size of the
country and fewer shows. It is harder to conceal problems and published
critiques also help to promote a more open attitude about faults, something
which has thankfully, filtered to the U.S. So unless there is conflicting
documentation, I accept the British approach to lens luxation. There are
other problems that can be identified earlier so this does not imply "don't
check," it means simply that PLL has late onset. Put in perspective it could
also mean that a dog may be lost to other age-related disease long before he
luxates. Sort of like the new truth in prostate cancer. If you're over
seventy, forget surgery. You'll die of old age or surgical complications
before the cancer gets you.
Heart defects. It would be
utopia if we knew for sure what is genetic and what isn't. But since
researchers don't know yet if certain conditions are acquired or inherited,
we're going to have to wait. We just had a youngster diagnosed as "most
likely a form of tricuspid valve dysplasia.... possibly congenital." Italics
are mine because find such reports insulting. Bill could easily hear the
whooshing, could see the gaping on doppler, and quickly spotted the
enlargement on thoracic radiographs. So why mince words? She has serious
heart defects, has already fainted once. The breeder said, "put her to
sleep" but we will keep her and love her for as long as she lives. What
troubles us is that even the most obvious problems are couched in the same
deliberately obtuse, incomprehensible, CYA terms as are tests which reveal
nothing! We don't know increased flow rates are "normal" in Minis. We don't
know if it indicates a serious potential or future problem. Neither do
cardiologists!
I will happily provide copies of
reports on our dogs. They all say "nothing showed up but..." or "appeared
normal at this time" etc etc. There will always be instances when a
definitive report is impossible but only the tester can benefit from a
speculative essay riddled with self-protecting loopholes based on personal
interpretation. We are learning that many (most?) echocardiograms present a
gray area filled in only by the experience of the cardiologist. Even more
frustrating for all concerned, the doppler is often contradicted by no
auditory evidence of abnormality or vice versa!
We know of instances wherein
dogs were found normal on doppler and very soon thereafter they died from
"massive heart problems" per autopsy reports. We can cite other dogs who
didn't do well on a doppler but who lived long active lives with no symptoms
of any problem whatsoever. So the bottom-line as we see it at this time:
Definitive diagnosis by doppler is possible only when glaring abnormalities
are present. Incidence Statistics in all three areas could be flawed. There
exists confusion as to which defects are proven hereditary and which "just
happen" or are the result of trauma, virus, illness, test compromises, or
external influence. Readings are subjective. It is not like x-raying your
tooth and being able to point out a cavity that is certain to enlarge. OFA
was forced to raise the minimum certification age from twelve to twenty four
months because the readings were so often wrong. They still are and now
PennHip has joined the fray of critical comments. In fact, there is growing
evidence that what some outspoken breeders have said for decades may be the
only truth in dysplasia - hip x-ray is a great diagnostic tool but is not
necessarily predictive!
I fear we are expecting too much
of cardiologists at this time. We are so demanding of 'answers' that we have
frightened some vets into a new way of writing reports. Perhaps the
unexpected (and therefore infinitely more traumatic) deaths of dogs believed
to he heart-sound accounts for increasingly ambiguous written reports. In
one recent episode involving four dogs, we received oral summaries at the
time of exam, followed by written reports, followed by totally rewritten and
contradictory reports after the cardiologist conferred with another vet
'more familiar" with Mini-Bulls.
I suggest that we continue to
use every means at our disposal to foresee and avoid genetic problems but
that we not run about like the Mad Hatter when a vet refuses to give an
unconditional "all clear" on your dog. The sky probably isn't falling. It is
our expectations that should be lowered until such time as definitive lab
testing and/or DNA analysis is available for eye, heart, and kidney
problems.
I also suggest that we remember
that Mini-Bulls are wonderful dogs! Hardy, healthy, tough-as-nails exteriors
and snuggly-soft sensitivities. Sure they have health problems. Darn right
we should pay attention and use every means to reduce the incidence. But
stop and think - if tests alone could do it, if it was as simple as breeding
only test cleared to test cleared, then why are we being told by the club
(?) and by some individuals that eye and heart problems are rampant and
kidney defects are getting there?!!? Even if we make exceptions and
occasionally use an outstanding dog with a less than perfect test result, we
should be light-years ahead by now. Instead, we are going backwards, not
forwards!
Do not ever refer to this
article as a reason to "not bother' with health tests and periodic
evaluations. Just put things in perspective. Remember that - eggs were bad
for us. Now they aren't. Butter was sure to clog our arteries, now we're
told its better than margarine due to trans-fatty acids. Remember how many
ulcer patients suffered horrible emotional, physical, and financial hardship
(and needless loss of their stomachs) because doctors refused to listen to
one small voice that kept saying "uh excuse me guys, but its really only an
easily treatable bug called pylori bacteria...
Please test. Please disclose.
Please help. Please keep your priorities and perspective in balance. And
please urge your parent club to provide meaningful and accurate information.
(Our offer to fund another simpler, re-worded survey is still on the table.)
Most of all, PLEASE put aside personalities in order to work together for
that little guy who follows every step you make. He will do anything for
you. We just need to be worthy of that kind of unconditional love and trust. |
