# Regarding the possible future DNA testing for Chondrodysplasia-like Dwarfism



## Debby - LB (Oct 11, 2013)

To not take away from Arion Mgmt - Mr. John Eberths wonderful announcement I want to start a new post about what this possible test will mean to the Miniature Horses industry in the future and how some of you will deal with it. Please excuse this being long and excuse my grammar.

in that thread found here targetsmom posted: (hope you don't mind me quoting you Mary)

_Thank you so much for pinning this! I hope more people get to see it and realize the implications to the miniature horse industry. Now, my wish is that with the Lupton's instigating the change to the AMHA rules so that color test results can (but are NOT REQUIRED TO) be added to the registration certificate that it will be an easy change to just VOLUNTARILY add dwarfism test results. If this is done along with DNA testing there should be no question of identity. The horses who test test negative can be advertised as such and we will likely see their value increase. Then all you need to do to assure no more dwarfs in your herd is to test and not breed two carriers (of the same gene) together. Just the same way we avoid Lethal White foals - which isn't by getting rid of all the carriers._

________________________________________

I agree!! It is my hope that eventually this will be mandatory testing for breeding stock but I know that would be way in the future.

This is something that has been on my mind for months now since I got caught up in the middle of the blow up in the miniature longhorn cattle industry. At the time all I could think of was OMG this would be a major impact on the Miniature Horse industry and I hope and pray the breeders there don't act this way!!

The miniature Texas longhorns were supposed to be pure and bred down but upon DNA testing for Chondrodysplasia (Dexter bulldog gene) it was found that many people who claimed pure breeding actually used Dexters or known Dexters to bring the size down... thus introducing the dexter bulldog gene . Some used Zebu but that's another story and as far as I know didn't cause any genetic dwarfism issues.

The only way you could get the Bulldog Chondrodysplasia dwarfism gene in a Texas Longhorn was if it was not pure. (for the cattle the test for Chondrodysplasia has been available since 2009 -2010) So needless to say their Mini Texas Longhorn registries were worthless unless you came clean with your tested cattle and only registered them as their policy stated. Well... I'm sure you can see where this is going, most knew the bloodlines, they had to know some of theirs were not pure. The registries were built on this and the gene was in most if not all the breeding stock.

I felt really bad for the people who invested their time and money but I couldn't believe the things I was told by some who tried to justify this happening! I guess when people are in this position they want to believe what they are told. I was informed, among other things, that the cattle were pure, not crossed with Dexter and anyone could have this type of dwarf born..... because of a parasite.

To quote Mary again: _The horses who test negative can be advertised as such and we will likely see their value increase. Then all you need to do to assure no more dwarfs in your herd is to test and not breed two carriers (of the same gene) together. Just the same way we avoid Lethal White foals - which isn't by getting rid of all the carriers._

This is similar to what I told the few breeders who asked me back then what I thought would be the outcome of a test like this for our horses. This is what I told them:

If a test came out for mini horses it would be wonderful in the long run but the chaos it would bring would take a while to recover from. On the other hand there is no doubt what-so-ever in my mind that there would be a HUGE market for N/N results and people who have them could name their prices.
Some farms would test and never tell the results or lie about them just like your breeders are doing now. Money is a big motivator so admitting their stallions should be gelded and mares retired will be a hard pill to swallow. Being able to advertise dwarfism free stock would be a HUGE HUGE boon to the mini horse industry....IF testing is embraced and the registries promote it.

I know that unlike the cow info. in this post most mini people already know that dwarfism is in the Miniature Horse so this is some what different but do you foresee some of the same problems with misinformation and misrepresenting happening? Do you see the implications to the miniature horse industry?... pros ? cons ? how would this relate to the future close of hardshipping? Do you think we as owners/breeders will embrace the testing and use it, or maybe use it and continue to hide the results? Will you personally test and post results?


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 11, 2013)

I don't mind at all that you quote my thread - quite the opposite, as I am glad to see this topic raised.

I think one of the issues is that the farms (estimates on here of >40% of farms when I did a poll in 2007) that have had a dwarf foal or fetus KNOW they have minis that will test positive. Those breeders may be concerned about how the test might be used (they see the glass as half empty). I see it the other way around - my glass is half full as I see the potential for promoting those minis that test negative (N/N).

I do not agree that stallions that test positive should be gelded or that mares should be removed from the gene pool. I think that is the reason breeders are concerned about the test. I think if test results are used properly so that positives are not bred to positives, just like we do to prevent Lethal White Foals - you will at least prevent more dwarf foals from being produced. Of course you will still have the dwarf gene in the population but until we have a better idea of how many horses carry dwarfism, I think it is premature to decide their fate. Think about some of the horses in the past that might have been removed from the gene pool if the test had been available 20 or even 10 years ago.

As for those stallions (especially) that test positive, breeders can and will likely keep quiet about them, but silence will speak volumes!


----------



## Vertical Limit (Oct 11, 2013)

targetsmom said:


> I think if test results are used properly so that positives are not bred to positives, just like we do to prevent Lethal White Foals - you will at least prevent more dwarf foals from being produced. Of course you will still have the dwarf gene in the population but until we have a better idea of how many horses carry dwarfism, I think it is premature to decide their fate. Think about some of the horses in the past that might have been removed from the gene pool if the test had been available 20 or even 10 years ago.
> 
> As for those stallions (especially) that test positive, breeders can and will likely keep quiet about them, but silence will speak volumes!


Exactly! You just have to educate yourselves. KNOW what you are breeding!


----------



## Tremor (Oct 11, 2013)

From the way I understood the paper, it will be a lot more complicated than just breeding carriers of different types. There are multiple types of dwarfism on one location AND they can carry multiple types.

Its going to be a lot more difficult, and lets also realize that they haven't even located where Achondroplasia is. We still have to worry about that.

EDIT: I will admit that the test will make a huge impact on the industry and I'll be testing all of my horses for the genes when the tests are released.


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 11, 2013)

I agree but to my way of thinking what you describe is how responsible breeders were and are already handling it. All these years it has been the only way we could.

For me personally once I knew I could buy a horse that was tested as clean I'd never breed known carriers or buy non tested again at all. To know positively which ones carry is a whole new ball game and time to cull.

I do agree that until we have a idea how many horses carry dwarfism, it is premature to decide their fate. It will be interesting for sure to see how many people test and see it as a boon to the industry.

*note I no longer breed anything so just my little opinion here hoping I don't step on anyone's toes.


----------



## wingnut (Oct 11, 2013)

Good breeders will do right by their horses. People who breed to make a quick buck? They will do whatever it takes to continue their efforts in this regard. It's human nature. I wish it weren't so. Should I be in the market for another horse after a test were to become available, I will definitely be working with those farms who have had the testing done and can show me the results. That's what an educated buyer should do. The education has to be on both sides of the coin.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 11, 2013)

I breed a Mini foal here & there, or have done up until now--not really planning to have any more after 2014--but once the test is available, I wouldn't breed again without first testing the horses I intend to breed. If either stallion or mares prove to have a dwarf gene, the positive horse(s) would not be bred. I do not see the need to breed a carrier, even to a non-carrier; at least it is not what I want to do--not when I can know one way or the other by testing. If I were to buy another Mini mare or stallion I would want to see a negative test before I paid any money. Obviously in a gelding it wouldn't matter, as long as I like the horse's conformation it wouldn't matter what might be hiding in his genetic makeup. If he is carrying a dwarf gene it's not going to pop up and bite me somewhere down the line.


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 11, 2013)

I cannot view the article so am not educated on what this test will test for. Is it for ALL types of dwarfism or just one or two types? If it is just for one or two types, that would mean that even though your horse tested negative, it still MAY carry the other types of dwarfism so by saying "dwarf free" it could be very misleading that there is not ANY dwarf genes at all in your horses which may or may not be totally true without being able to test for ALL types of dwarfism. But like I said, I am unable to access the article so I may be way off base.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 12, 2013)

BSharp-the tests are for all but the achondroplasia, which is located in a different area in the genome so hasn't yet been isolated. There are still the 4, not including the mixing of them so it would eliminate most worry for breeders.


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 12, 2013)

Okay. I cannot access the article, so by the title figured it was just one kind. Cool.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 12, 2013)

Skipped to the end, sorry.

For me this is a no brainer. The AMHA should add a box, as they should have done years and years ago for the colour pheno/geno type. The box should merely say "DNA tested N/N N/C (carrier) for dwarfism C1 (or whatever they decide to call it) Thus, as with HYPPD, you can choose to advertise if your horse is tested or not. I actually think, with something as important as this, it should be compulsory from the moment the test is proven, but I KNOW that is never going to happen so there is no point in even suggesting it. I doubt very much if even the innocuous box for proudly declaring your horses proven status will appear as I am a cynic and have watched just how long it is taking the QH people to remove their heads from- OK you can say the sand if you wish!!



They still accept N/H horses for breeding and people can still breed N/H to N/H- now how long has that test been out?

The dwarf test and all John's work is invaluable and we all thank him- all us sensible ones, that is, all the people who will take advantage of the test (even if it came years too late for D.C's testicles!!!) as soon as it is available. As for the rest? I do not think it will even stir the surface of the pot, quite frankly. When you have something that is not visible, as with a single dwarf gene, or, as I found in Dobes VwB (Haemophilia) people can just ignore it and go on happily throwing out their trash. Until the relevant societies take a stand (as our Dobe society in the UK did almost immediately) and start publishing the status of the animal and demanding testing (VwD will not show until relative maturity, although two unaffected parents cannot throw and affected pup) then the "top" people, on whose livelihood this depends, will do nothing at all and go on spreading the hype that, as thier horse is perfect it cannot be affected.

Cynical, moi??

Yes, after fifty years I am afraid I am, just a little!


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 12, 2013)

gotta agree Jane. Like was said before though about those who may not test or those who do test but try to hide it..silence will tell. So far every one of the people I've spoken with about this in the last 6 months say they would want a N/N test if and when it's available.

I don't breed anymore but I will test my 2 girls that I couldn't part with and their status will be available. It will be interesting to see their results and to hear the results of others as we watch the gene or genes gather in certain or all bloodlines.

To answer the anonymous person who emailed me wanting to know why I thought it my business to know the DNA status of anyone's herd since I don't breed minis.... for years now I do help people find horses to purchase so DNA for parent qualifying, color, or possible dwarfism... which at this time my only available option was to research through pedigree and searching online with photos and message boards... will still be my business. The new testing - If and when available - will make it way easier.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 12, 2013)

I do think it is going to be a big selling point to advertise negative test results. Depending on how many negative horses are available there may still be a market for the carriers, but I don't see people having a great deal of success in selling horses that don't have test results available. Informed buyers are going to want to know what they are buying.

I don't know if I will test my non-breeding horses--that will depend on cost and if I have the $$ to spare--they are driving horses or pets, their status doesn't really matter except for the sake of interest. As I said earlier, if I'm going to breed anyone then those horses will be tested, and any mares being advertised for sale will be tested with their results available. (I won't be selling any stallions.) Geldings--again, I don't see it mattering except for the sake of interest, but if anyone wanted a test on a gelding I was selling then I would certainly do one.


----------



## Tremor (Oct 12, 2013)

When the test is released, I'll be testing all my minis from my ex broodmares to my dwarf gelding. They may not be breeding, but I want to know out of curiosity.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Oct 12, 2013)

I no longer breed miniatures, and no longer have breeding age mares, nor any stallions...but when I did, and had one dwarf born, I completely removed sire and dam from my breeding program,giving both to a boys/girls' ranch who didn't 'do' breeding,along w/ a normal filly by the stallion....all with full disclosure...admittedly, I later wished I had had the stallion gelded before gifting him; spaying the mare, while a good idea, would have been more than I could have afforded. I kept nothing by or out of either of the pair who produced the dwarf.

I kept a son of my personal favorite 'outside' stallion; later, 'someone' emailed to say they'd owned that stallion's dam and she had produced a dwarf for them. to this day, I'm not sure whether I believe it, as I had stated my personal beliefs about never again breeding anything that produced a dwarf, and suspect the person in question has and continues to breed, for sale of the offspring, dwarf producers-and may just have resented my strong stance??? In any case, my horse was gelded after siring only a few foals---all normal and of excellent conformation quality...and he is STILL my favorite mini I bred/raised.

All this said, I have looked forward to the day there was a reliable test, and am thrilled beyond description by John's work and emerging results! Were I still breeding, I would absolutely be testing ALL breeding stock, with the results open to examination.

I agree w/ Rabbitsfizz on most points...including about the AQHA (cannot begin to express how I've lost respect for them as a result of their lack of proper action on genetic issues--(just TODAY, I saw a online ad for an APHA mare, with BRAGS about her N/H sire!!)And, I also believe that the sad truth is that too many miniature horse buyers are uneducated/naive, and will continue to be preyed upon by unscrupulous breeders because they do not/will not 'do their homework FIRST, so it will take a LONG time, if ever, before the issue is truly addressed in a comprehensive way.It will be a BIG step in the right direction, though, to have the test available, and I hope it will be widely and completely utilized!


----------



## susanne (Oct 13, 2013)

.

To the person who sent that email to Deb:

We may not all breed, but we are your potential customers, so YES, IT IS OUR BUSINESS.

Once the test is available, many will choose to buy only those horses that test negative, whether they plan to breed or not. 

Unfortunately, too few breeders have the integrity to rid the miniature horse world of the dwarf gene. Breeding those that are positive, even to horses that are negative, will only serve to perpetuate the dwarf gene and allow it to rear its ugly head in the future.

Between the closed minded reactions of some breeders to the ramification of this test and the idiocy of both registries closing and thereby limiting the gene pool...do I see another miniature horse registry forming in the future? Ah...I can only hope!


----------



## Charlotte (Oct 13, 2013)

I have a question. I assume the feeling that AMHA should have testing for dwarfism be mandatory includes AMHR? So having said that, Everyone says miniatures come from Shetlands, so why not start at the root of the problem and have ASPC require testing? Wouldn't that be the place to start? As soon as the shetland lines that were carriers were known then miniature owners would have some idea of where to start testing instead of feeling so overwhelmed with horses to test. Maybe if this were done then people would be more willing to test.

Oh, just on the same subject, I have been meaning to mention this for a long time and I keep forgetting. At the last Annual Meeting where John came and did a presentation on his research Frank asked him a question regarding the prevalence of dwarfs in the miniature breed now as compared to 20 years ago, 15, 10 etc. I don't remember the exact wording of the conversation, but John agreed that the number of dwarfs being produced had dropped substantially from early years. So I think we can all be comforted to know that for the most part breeders are policing themselves and that characteristic is being bred out for all practical purposes.


----------



## Becky (Oct 13, 2013)

In my observation since I purchased my first miniature horses in 1989, serious, committed breeders are breeding out undesired characteristics. I see way fewer miniature horses with dwarf like features now than I did back in the 1990's. So, there is self-limiting going on which is a great thing. Testing for dwarfism should be all inclusive of every breed that miniatures horses are derived from.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 13, 2013)

Charlotte--it is very doubtful that there is dwarfism in today's ASPC ponies. Just because the Miniatures originated with Shetlands does not mean than Miniatures are 100% Shetland, and it doesn't mean that the dwarfism mutation originated in the Shetland. John's article says that it is a fairly new mutation... In any case--if there were some dwarfs showing up in ASPC ponies in the 60's and 70's, those dwarfs would not have been desirable in any Shetland breeding program. For one thing, Shetlands have always been judged on movement, and a dwarf is not going to be able to move. Any self respecting Shetland breeder would have ditched any dwarf and quite likely the parents of any dwarf. If there were any ASPC dwarfs (and I don't know that there were, but cannot say there were not) it is almost certain that owners did not revalidate the papers on those dwarfs. If the papers were not revalidated when revalidation was necessary, those ponies were no longer included in the Shetland registry. Any dwarf Shetlands were almost certainly dropped from ASPC and then went on to become part of the foundation of the Miniatures.

I for one would be extremely surprised if any of todays ASPC ponies were to test positive for dwarfism. From everything I've read--I think John Eberth would be too.

There is little point in demanding that Shetlands be tested for dwarfism when it is the Minis that have been producing the dwarfs.


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 13, 2013)

This is a quote from page 32 of John's thesis: "AMHR horses have a much less incidence of carriers of dwarf alleles
compared to the AMHA population". And if I read the thesis right, John feels that there are even fewer dwarfs in Shetlands - that the mutation is new and not from the Shetland blood.

So I agree with Minimor - not much point in requiring Shetlands to be tested.

But one thing I have not seen discussed is the number of dwarfs that are not viable and result in early abortions. It looks like about half of the possible combinations that produce dwarfism are not viable so could be the reason a miniature mare "slips a foal" or comes back in heat. And of course even breeding two carriers together will not always produce a dwarf. So while some breeders might be aware they have carriers because of actual dwarfs being produced, the chances of breeders being fully aware of all carriers without a test seems pretty unlikely.

I would also like to comment on Susanne's statement "too few breeders have the integrity to rid the miniature horse world of the dwarf gene. Breeding those that are positive, even to horses that are negative, will only serve to perpetuate the dwarf gene and allow it to rear its ugly head in the future." Let's present a hypothetical of the breeder with a stallion (and a mare too of course, because it takes two) that produce a dwarf so he knows they are carriers. The consensus seems to be that you geld the stallion and never breed the mare in order to help remove the dwarf gene from the gene pool. Does that mean that you stop breeding? Because at the present time, without a test, how will you find another stallion (or mare) that you can be sure is not a carrier? Remember that poll I did a few years ago on here where over 40% of breeding farms anonymously reported a dwarf foal or fetus? And what if this same stallion is himself or is producing World Champion horses? Don't say it doesn't happen because I am pretty sure it does (or did)....


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 13, 2013)

Charlotte up until Janes post I think we all (I know I was) were including ALL Miniature Horse registries...actually simply "The Miniature Horse" in general in our remarks. I think Jane specified AMHA because over there in England the little AMHA horse is their ideal since they measure different but I could be wrong.

Anyway to answer your question since all mine were under 34 and double reg. Yes if it were brought up to vote I'd want mandatory testing to include AMHA _and_ AMHR.

I may be wrong about this but it's my understanding that in the rules if a Miniature Horse is a dwarf (to me a horse that has dwarf characteristics is a dwarf) it cannot be registered? In my initial post I said "it is my hope that eventually this will be mandatory testing for breeding stock but I know that would be way in the future."

If the rules do state that dwarfs can't be registered... then the test actually should be mandatory when it's available but that's only my opinion.

Straight Shetlands I never dealt with at all, I went from 15 - 17 hands to less than 8 hands I never stopped in the middle LOL.. but sure if they fall within being a Miniature Horse I'd test those too heck if I had a taller one whose bloodlines I were using or in my programs pedigree I'd test it because this is our start at eradicating this gene or genes.

I've got to ask this so if anyone knows the answer please.. how would anyone _know_ the number of dwarfs being produced had dropped substantially from early years? I mean I would hope that they have, surely they have considering way-back-when they deliberately bred dwarves but how would someone be expected to actually know this?

There are still many dwarfs aborted and born every year just like there are many dwarfs registered.

I do agree committed breeders are breeding out undesired characteristics. The little horses are definitely getting better! I can look back in my years stash of magazines and the difference is amazing. I really don't see way fewer miniature horses with dwarf like features, those are still plentiful imho but I am seeing way more miniature horses with more horse like conformation than there was.


----------



## susanne (Oct 13, 2013)

> And what if this same stallion is himself or is producing World Champion horses? Don't say it doesn't happen because I am pretty sure it does (or did)....


I don't care if it were Buckeroo himself, I would not breed a horse with the dwarf gene. Even with a gelding, I would want to know before buying, as that would speak volumes about the seller's ethics. If they were selling a gorgeous stallion gelded because he tested positive, I would be all the more likely to want to buy from them.

The good thing is, this test combined with DNA will enable people to choose for themselves. Just because some will breed does not mean others have to buy.

My question is, how important do we really consider eliminating the dwarf gene? Is the industry serious, or is it just lip service?

As for AMHR and Shetlands, while I wouldn't necessarily say that this is where testing should _begin_, once the test is available I feel that ALL very small horses should be tested. I don't buy the claim that Shetlands are totally free of the dwarf gene -- as was pointed out, miniatures are largely from Shetlands and the gene didn't just magically apear. Shetlands do have a much larger gene pool, and smaller stock in the past were not valued until the invention of the miniature horse. We'll never know, however, unless people test.

Whether it be testing small horses for the dwarf gene or humans for Alzheimers or ALS, to not test is to bury one's head in the sand. It may be painful to learn the results, but I want to know.


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 13, 2013)

Playing Devil's advocate...What happens if an extremly large percentage of minis do test positive for the gene? Then what? At what percentage of the population of minis would we decide that the breed needs those individuals that carry a dwarf gene? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? If you start to sterilize everyone that tests +, and it only leaves those horses that are untested and those that test -, where will it leave a.closed book breed, if a large percentage of those horses are + and sterilized?


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 13, 2013)

BSharpRanch said:


> Playing Devil's advocate...What happens if an extremly large percentage of minis do test positive for the gene? Then what? At what percentage of the population of minis would we decide that the breed needs those individuals that carry a dwarf gene? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? If you start to sterilize everyone that tests +, and it only leaves those horses that are untested and those that test -, where will it leave a.closed book breed, if a large percentage of those horses are + and sterilized?


My point exactly! I made this point early in this thread, that until we know what percentage of minis (however they are defined) carry the dwarf gene it is premature to try to decide their fate. And let's be realistic, like others have pointed out, the powers that be in the registries will never make dwarf testing mandatory. Well, not in my lifetime anyway. But as I said earlier, I think it will be a huge improvement to have the test available, and let the test results take care of themselves through advertising (or lack thereof). I think even with the test it will be difficult to know the extent of the gene in the population because only those animals that have never produced a dwarf will likely be tested. So I would expect the rate of the dwarf gene in that population to be very low. Of course others might test to see which dwarf genes their horses carried, but I wouldn't count on it.

When this discussion started on Facebook it was an offshoot of a discussion on AMHA closing their books. I said I thought this was a very poor time to do that just when the dwarf test was about to come out. Let's get a better idea of how many AMHA minis carry the gene(s) before we close the books!


----------



## Minimor (Oct 13, 2013)

Actually, susanne, isn't that more or less what a generic mutation is? Not a magical change, but nevertheless a change in the DNA...and John says this appears to be a relatively new mutation, so it may have suddenly appeared in one family of horses. It hasn't necessarily been passed down through generations of ponies. I know many would like to blame it on the Shetlands.


----------



## susanne (Oct 13, 2013)

I'm not looking to blame anyone; I just want to know. Minimor, you're correct about mutations springing up, but when I consider the origins of the minature horse and the fact that it came largely from the tiny Shetlands, pit ponies and other tiny grade ponies, we shouldn't deny any possibility and would be wise to test all. I hope that it is proven that Shetlands are at least largely free of this gene, as that is where many future miniature horses will come from if much of the current stock tests positive. (I know...those are fighting words...sorry, but I believe what I believe.)



> What happens if an extremly large percentage of minis do test positive for the gene?


Those who are serious about eliminating the dwarf gene will no longer breed those horses that test positive, even to negatives. Others obviously will consider themselves to be in the clear as long as they don't breed positive to positive. Again, it all depends upon how serious people are about eliminating the dwarf gene from the miniature horse. I'm simply saying that MANY will choose not to buy the resulting foals, choosing those that are dwarf gene-free, be they miniature or Shetlands.


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 13, 2013)

Okay, let's say unrealisticly, that all breedable, registered minis are tested (not including geldings or spayed mares). The results come back with the staggering number of 50% positive dwarf carriers. You have now removed 50% of the breeding population. So where is that going to leave the breed? The gene pool will be awful shallow with a closed book.


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 14, 2013)

"So where is that going to leave the breed?" Closer to actually becoming a breed I think. People who have been seriously picking and choosing to breed only non characteristic horses by phenotype only are already dealing with a shallow gene pool, being able to use genotype will make it even shallower. You have to look way into the future to see what a legacy this will leave!


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 14, 2013)

I actually have to say I do not believe the dwarf genetic came from AmShets but from the UKShets- this would explain the higher incidence of dwarfism in AMHA horses. 35 years ago I was dealing with dwarfs bred from UKShets so it was around then. Of course the sensible breeders (this was 35 years ago, remember) had a quick answer to the problem, but no idea whatsoever where it came from or why it happened. A friend had an achondroplasic dwarf mare he bred from on a regular basis, not having recognised it for what it was.


----------



## Marty (Oct 15, 2013)

So how about curbing the whole problem by getting these breeders (Who I call GREEDERS) who continue to breed 30-40 and 300 + head a year just to knock it off already? Then you'll all have a whole lot less horses to worry about in the first place.

And my other question is what's going to happen to all the little horses that come up testing positive? Are they going to end up being shoved off to auction or a worse fate taken around back of the barn so someone can claim they are dwarfism free?

I agree with Debby as this is going to cause a world of chaos before it gets better.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 15, 2013)

Well, the most they could come up is N/ affected, which means they could be bred to an N/N stallion and, although they could throw another N /affected foal they could never throw a dwarf. That is the very first, baby step.

No horses thrown out/away unless they are dwarfs and there are plenty of people waiting to take dwarfs in, so long as no-one is asking thousands for them!!

Stop all N/A stallions and N/A x N/A breedings.

Plenty of time to get your breeding programme in order......


----------



## Mo mhuirnín (Oct 15, 2013)

Fools tread where angels fear to go. So here I go.

The only blame to lay is directly at humanities feet. Whether ts HYPP HERDA or Dwarfism humans think more is better so concentrate genetics . There is a saying if one breeds close relatives and get a good offspring its line breeding if it doesn't its in breeding. Crap shoot at whose expense. Right now in my mind some of the horses that are " national show winners" are putting the breed at risk they are getting so fine boned high strung and some of the heads that are analgized to Arabian look like they have an abnormal forhead. For me I will test I will not breed carriers. If its 50% then take that move on for the betterment of the horse.Thank you Mr. Eberth


----------



## Lewella (Oct 16, 2013)

Over the years I've had the privilege of visiting some of the largest, oldest American Shetland breeding farms in the country during foaling season. Never once have I seen a dwarf foal. Not a one of the old timers I've spoken to over the years has even alluded to their competition producing a dwarf foal and considering how fast they are to out each other on what Hackney or Welsh so and so was rumored to be using behind the barn "back in the day" I feel strongly it is something they would have talked about. Some of our Shetland herds are so tightly bred they'd make an Arabian breeder raise an eyebrow - if dwarfism were there, we'd be seeing it and seeing it often and we aren't seeing it at all.

IMO, it would seriously narrow the miniature horse gene pool to exclude all individuals who test heterozygous for one of the 4 mutations that John identified in his research. If the incidence in a larger sample continues to be at the range it was in his AMHA samples, eliminating the carriers could eliminate such a high number of horses as to make the registry no longer sustainable. Again, just my opinion, but I think dwarfism needs to be approached like SCID, LFS, and CA are in Arabians - test and don't breed carrier to carrier. Over time this will result in fewer carriers being produced. Here is a very good article on breed stewardship in regard to recessive genetic disorders in the Arabian breed - http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/genetic/docs/12Genetic_AHW_Editorial.pdf


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 16, 2013)

Lewella I am sure that this has come from UK Shetlands, not AmShets. I have seen pictures of some of the animals imported (and there were hundreds, possibly thousands sent out to the states in the late 70's early 80's) and they are straight up dwarfs. I had an enquiry from one of the top studs of the day asking if I had any dwarf foals for sale!! (I told them I did not have dwarfs and if I did I certainly would not be selling them!) I don't think it is a mutation, I think it has been backed up by all the close breeding (call it what you will, it has always worked for me!) and has just gone on circling quietly through the smaller breeds. I have NO idea why anyone would think a dwarf would take the size down, but there you go, Fashion dictates and people follow......


----------



## horsehug (Oct 16, 2013)

Excellent post and excellent article Lewella. You have explained and look at it the very same way John has explained it all to me for the past 10 years as he did his research and since I first emailed him with questions 10 years ago.

Susan O.


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 16, 2013)

I think that IF the miniature registries would have acknowledged dwarves born to registered stock the whole breed would have been able to make better informed decicions a long time ago. All that they would have to have done is to give the dwarves some type of registration that would NOT allow breeding OR showing. The lines which throw dwarfism would have been known a long time ago, thus breeders would have been able to make better informed breeding choices a long time ago and the cropping up of dwarves, in theory, would have dwindled. Horses that were known to throw dwarves could have had their papers stamped as dwarf carrier, thus making choices easier for all involved.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 17, 2013)

I understand what you are saying but it is only fairly recently that dwarfs, of all types, have been fully recognised- and even then sometimes it is very difficult to tell. Even though a dwarf is a dwarf (both copies of the gene) some show minimal characteristics. Perhaps Tremor can be persuaded to put a section of her gallery up?


----------



## Tremor (Oct 17, 2013)

BSharpRanch said:


> I think that IF the miniature registries would have acknowledged dwarves born to registered stock the whole breed would have been able to make better informed decicions a long time ago. All that they would have to have done is to give the dwarves some type of registration that would NOT allow breeding OR showing. The lines which throw dwarfism would have been known a long time ago, thus breeders would have been able to make better informed breeding choices a long time ago and the cropping up of dwarves, in theory, would have dwindled. Horses that were known to throw dwarves could have had their papers stamped as dwarf carrier, thus making choices easier for all involved.



It is HARDLY this easy. John Eberth has said before that a large percentage of the miniature horse breed carries at least some type of dwarfism, and almost all lines have been known to produce at least one dwarf.

YES. Let's give the dwarves a registration. For what? To create a market for registered dwarves? Sounds like a horrible idea that would have gone off like wild fire in the 1960s. Crap. Sounds like we already did that.

Rabbitsfizz, anybody specific you would like me to post?

EDIT: I can post pictures of whomever you like tonight when I get off work. Just curious as to what you'd like. Our ex stallion, our mares, dwarf foals, non-dwarf foals, etc.

EDIT: I posted this thread AGES ago and either people don't see it or what, but here's a VERY nice thread with pictures. Take a gander. And to this day, I STAND by my small ear theory. Out of all my horses, all my EXTRA small eared minis have produced a dwarf. That is my theory. I have non-dwarf minis with normal sized ears who haven't produced dwarves (or haven't been bred yet) and some with EXTRA small ears compared to their heads and bodies that HAVE produced dwarves. That's my theory.

http://www.miniaturehorsetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=129033


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 17, 2013)

I was thinking of the minimal characteristiced proven dwarf producers...


----------



## BSharpRanch (Oct 17, 2013)

Actually, I have quite a bit of hands on experience with dwarves. IF they had been registered, it would have been just a piece of paper. No show, no breed, just information. By registering them as dwarves ONLY, the most common lines would have been known long before now, however, I assume that when these little anomilies showed up they were probably just disposed of like other breeds did with "unacceptable colors", etc.

I have seen poorly conformed animals all the way to dwarves so dwarfy that you would have to be blind or, well, you couldn't miss them.

So I do have experience with dwarves. Even had a dwarf (shhhh don't tell anyone as they are mystical beings that do not exist) hereford cow. Full sized parents and she was but 30 inches tall at full growth. But ask any hereford breeder and they will tell you that it is impossible as dwarfism was eradicated in their breed!


----------



## Minimor (Oct 17, 2013)

Well, I have never had a dwarf but....have to say that of I did I would never have bothered with getting papers for it--why bother???? I would have stopped breeding both sire and dam, and I sure wouldn't have paid for dwarf papers on the foal.

I suspect that many/most people would not bother either--and many would just dispose of the dwarf and not admit that it ever existed. So, I don't see that dwarf registrations would have done much to expose the dwarf producers.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 17, 2013)

BSharpRanch said:


> I think that IF the miniature registries would have acknowledged dwarves born to registered stock the whole breed would have been able to make better informed decicions a long time ago. All that they would have to have done is to give the dwarves some type of registration that would NOT allow breeding OR showing. The lines which throw dwarfism would have been known a long time ago, thus breeders would have been able to make better informed breeding choices a long time ago and the cropping up of dwarves, in theory, would have dwindled. Horses that were known to throw dwarves could have had their papers stamped as dwarf carrier, thus making choices easier for all involved.


While this might sound good in theory, it would have failed dismally in practice. It wasn't all that long ago that both registries were completely open with no hardship clause. When the registries were completely open people would buy a registered horse and then proceed to reregister it with a different name and unknown parentage. There are probably thousands of horses that wore multiple sets of papers during their lifetime with multiple names. Dwarf producers could have simply been sold and repapered with no one the wiser that the horse had produced a dwarf (and probably were). I don't know when AMHA instituted its hardship clause but I do know AMHR didn't until the mid-1990s. So we're talking less than 20 years since that registry was completely open and you could paper a horse however you wanted to. It would have been impossible to track dwarfism in a completely open registry.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 18, 2013)

AMHA "closed" in 1987/8, but hardship was easy and relatively cheap.


----------



## horsehug (Oct 18, 2013)

Hardship with AMHA, ever since it was started in the late 80's or very early 90's, has been $600 for a mare and $1200 for a stallion.

I have done it several times but have always felt it was expensive. I just wanted the ones I have done to be in the AMHA bad enough to spend the money.

However, to others it might not seem expensive like it has to me. I cant speak for anyone else's finances.

The first mare I ever hardshipped in was back in 1990 or 1991 and it was $600.

Susan O.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 19, 2013)

HH I think the exchange rate was different back then!!!






Also, it was actually still possible to hardship in Europe before the AMHA shut the door, without consultation or warning.......


----------



## amysue (Oct 20, 2013)

The possibility of testing for dwarfism poses both benefits and issues depending upon how you look at it. I personally question if whether or not the registries will make it mandatory for several reasons. The more horses registered, the more money the registries make, period. While I am in no way criticizing any registry or association and I have the utmost respect for the breeders who preserve the breed heritage and perpetuate the breed forward, I feel that as "fads" change over time and in an effort to keep up with the times some things change, and not always for the better. There was a time when (and still are breeders today) breeding primarily for size. I cannot tell you how many times I hear or read "to size the foals down" in an ad or during a sales pitch. Not everyone breeds for quality, many just for money. I assume that this is how the dwarfism gene has spread, breeding non ideal horses for size, inbreeding and irresponsible breeding. I like what someone else said about horses today being conformed so differently, and I think it is inextricably intertwined with the dwarfism trait. Today, Arab like horses win at halter, no one shows the "chunkier" minis of yesterday in halter. A while back, they were breeding for shorter horses like they are breeding for Arabian type ones today. How many have "Tiny Tim" in their pedigrees? That is a lot of horses possibly carrying dwarf genes. What sort of implications will the test have on the mini horse market now? Is the ability to test a positive thing for the registry to improve quality? Personally I think so, as I do not buy crooked or poorly conformed horses even if they have papers, and I would not buy a known dwarf producer/carrier for breeding either. What if a huge number of already registered horses test positive? What if the test is only mandatory for new registrations and through the results, registered stock gets exposed, will horse values plummet? I see SO MANY poor quality horses with A and R papers that in my opinion are not worth the paper the certificate is printed on, but the registries took the breeders money with no qualms. I feel that a certificate should imply quality and unfortunately, I fear that papers now a days do not guarantee that. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are many super high quality horses out there with papers, that have earned their places in the show ring, but I'll bet some of those horses would test positive for carrying the gene, even if they do not possess the characteristic phenotype for it. I fear that if a test is available and an extensive volume of horses test positive, then will the horse market flood and collapse further? Will a huge influx of minis get shipped off to slaughter? What will become of carrier horses? if not bred, they will make great performance or pet horses, but will their value decrease? Will they be "disposed of"? I feel that the mini breed is plagued with over breeding because so many people believe that you can't do much else with them (so not true) and in the breeding world the best horses show, win and breed to pass on their traits (ideally, doesn't mean this happens) but Will the exposure of dwarfism in the breed hurt the mini industry more than help it?

Will the registries make it mandatory, and risk losing revenue from registrations? I assume that the test is being developed for the main purpose of improving the quality of the breeding stock right? That is why scientists are trying to isolate gene markers for human genetic defects, to identity them, detect them, be warned about them and ideally eradicate them. After all no one wants to breed for dwarfs no more than parents want to have a child born with a genetic disorder that would make life difficult. (I am in no way starting an ethics debate or in any way claiming that the gene pool needs drained, I am not ranting about some whacked out sort or "cleansing mission" either) I am just saying that we know today that many human diseases that were unheard of 100 years ago have remained in existence because of advances in medical science that allow individuals with the trait to live longer, thus reproduce and carry the trait on. It is evolution of the species on an elementary level. Same holds true for minis. If the dwarf horses were not continuously bred, the trait would be much rarer, if not gone, but it was bred for, on purpose by some and unknowingly by others (in horses who carry but do not express the trait) never the less it is present in the breed and now what do you do? In the livestock world the aim should be to breed the BEST quality animal possible, but what is considered "best" as time goes on, the ideal horse changes. I personally feel that the ability to test would benefit breeders and improve the breed, which I strive to do in my breeding program, but what about the people who collect dwarf horses and put them on display and profit off of their "attraction" ? Will the ability to isolate and test for dwarfism create a clandestine following of dwarf breeders? There already are people who do this. Will people actually market known dwarf foals to make a quick buck?

People usually hear about, are interested in and remember negatives before positives. Will this exposure, obviously meant to improve the breed and educate people actually tarnish the miniature image in not only the equine world but to society? People are already misinformed. I get asked a lot at events "do you breed those little dwarf horses?" even though none of my minis have dwarf characteristics nor have I ever had a dwarf foal. People just associate all mini horses with "dwarf" because the word has been used in popular culture for so long, so will the exposure tarnish the breed as a whole before it improves it? If the test is available and affordable, I will certainly utilize it. I will use it to make better informed decisions about breeding and purchasing, I just hope others do as well, but I fear that some may not.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 20, 2013)

Amysue you raise some good points in a very sensible manner but, in all honesty, I do not think you need to worry about any of it. There is NO way that any of this will become mandatory any time soon. Even if I were less cynical and thought everyone will want to test, it just would not be feasible. Just too many horses will have one half of the gene. We were told, when VwB (haemophilia) was first isolated in Dobes that so many were affected we would have to either close down the breed and start again or set a "clotting threshold" below which we did not breed and start from there. We chose the latter. Even now, thirty years or so later, we still have not eradicated it. We are two thirds the way there, I think, so long as we go on as we started and other countries are as scrupulous (the US was) VwB is a two sided gene like dwarfism, and the status on the pedigree forms is voluntary but it is one of the questions most asked now, just as "what is your horses HYPPD status" should be in QH!! I think anyone from the BH world would just be impressed that we cared enough to try, and there are always going to be dwarfs around, sadly, as there are thousands of unregistered horses just as there are thousands of unregistered Dobes!!


----------



## horsehug (Oct 20, 2013)

Just some more thoughts of mine on this.

First let me say I am not against breeding non carriers to carriers once we are able to test and know what we are doing. The breeders I have talked to who have bred for years and in large numbers have told me they believe a recessive dwarf gene to be in 50% or more (possibly as much as 80%) of miniatures. And so I do believe carriers should still be allowed to be bred for their qualities that are good for the betterment of breed, when bred to non carriers.

However, for those who do not think carriers should be bred, I wonder if they are "For" the closing of the hardship registry for AMHA.

I personally have hardshipped in several horses over the years, and see it as a mistake.

And now in relation to dwarfism, I foresee people testing their minis, and finding that some that are unregistered or AMHR but not AMHA, are free of a dwarf mutation (non carriers) and yet now will be ineligible for hardship into AMHA.

If it were still open after this year we could be gradually adding more non carriers to the gene pool by hardshipping in non carriers.

In any event..... it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I still hope at some future meeting there will be a rule change to re-open the hardship registry.

Susan O.


----------



## targetsmom (Oct 20, 2013)

Of course without a test no one can know how many carriers there are in the population but I think John estimated somewhere between 25 and 40% of all minis. At any rate, I agree with Horsehug that it sounds reasonable to breed carriers to non-carriers once they can be identified by testing. When pondering how many carriers there might be among minis, one of the things that struck me from John's thesis was the number of combinations that produced not live dwarfs but non-viable fetuses. How many times have we seen threads here on LB where someone says they thought the mare was bred but she must have slipped the foal, or certain mares that are hard to get in foal? Hello people!!! Some of those are very likely mares that are aborting non-viable dwarf fetuses!!! The way I read the thesis, if one of the pair contributed D1, and the other one contributed any of the 4 dwarf genes John studied, the mare will abort because the fetus will be non-viable. Did I read that right? And I am pretty sure these are early abortions, not late term.

One of my proposals - either here or on Facebook where another discussion was going about closing the AMHA registry - was that the registry should consider staying open to miniatures 34" and under with ASPC or AMHR papers who can prove they are NOT DWARF CARRIERS.

I think it will be quite interesting to see what happens once the test becomes available and perhaps we get a better estimate of how many dwarf carriers there really are.


----------



## Arion Mgmt (Oct 20, 2013)

I want to clear up a few things some are confused about and to explain a few things I did not put in the thesis because it did not pertain to chondrodysplasia. Remeber it was my thesis on specifically the dwarfisms I worked on within the gene _ACAN._

I dont remember who wrote specifically these misunderstandings but i will try to be short and simple to explain.

First there are other dwarfisms within the minis already known besides the ones within _ACAN_. Specifically the ones I breifly referred to as skeletal atavism currently being worked on in Sweden in collaboration with me. I supplied most of the dwarf samples for them. That allowed them to do a SNP test study on those. They are finalizing their results and I believe they found the cause. You can look in my bibliography and see. Also this type, the skeletal atavism type is the one some old US shetland breeders saw from some shetlands long ago (some old shetland breeders called them "midget ponies" they also called normal small shetlands midgets too), most likely those that came from Europe, since an unknown type of dwarfism was *anecdotally* known to exist in Europe. *This is all speculation *on my part, however look at the Fresian type and the skeletal atavism type, very similar. I talked directly to old shetland and mini breeders years ago when some were still here with us and got A LOT of information people would be shocked about. I cannot and will not discuss it due to my research confidentiality, but it helped IMMENSELY understand the trail of genetics, since pedigrees were worthless back then even some are today. Remember I started this seriously in 1993 in undergrad but had already talked with them to learn history of the breed in 1990.

THere are dwarf samples I have that do not have the four mutations I found, they have one of the mutations but not two of the same or combos... I am still working on a part of the gene that cannot be sequenced with todays technology due to its sequence characteristics, (read my chapter four). So I strongly feel there are more mutations within this gene that may cause another type.

As for the references on this mysterious Miniature dwarf type called Achondroplasia... It is a reference of INCORRECT ANECDOTAL NOMENCLATURE....used for years by some mini breeders that looked at the human Achondroplasia and just started using that term. Achondroplasia is caused by a mutation in the FGFR3 gene. The Miniatures were looked at back in 1995-96 here at UK by Dr. Cothran when I first got here and they did not have the mutation that caused Achondroplasia. I also looked at microsatellites surrounding the FGFR3 gene in the Minis and found no correlation with the dwarfs I have worked on. So Achondroplasia DOES NOT exist in the Minis.

As for the questions about prevelance within the breed....These four mutations ALONE....may VERY likely involve upwards of 40++% of the AMHA population. This does NOT include the dwarfs I have that have mutations I havent found NOR the dwarfs I have of skeletal atavism (different gene) and independent of _ACAN_. I have skeletal atavism dwarfs that ARE CARRYING in heterozygous form one of the four in _ACAN_. The only mutation found in the AMHR population I tested was D2 AND only 2 were carriers, and I have no idea where those samples came from, were they minis or mini/ponies or ponies....I honestly do not know, it was a true random test. but more need to be tested. But those 40 samples were MUCH lower than the 100 random samples I tested in AMHA. Hopefully, I will be more indepth at the AMHA Convention. I was not given any time by the AMHR ASPC registry for their convention here in Lex next month, so they might have to wait until next year to hear me.


----------



## Tremor (Oct 20, 2013)

Personally, I think its going to be another 15-30 years before any of the registries add any admittance to dwarfism testing on papers. Its going to take time for the testing to get out, perfected, to get everybody to accept the testing, for laws, bi-laws to be approved, and the process for the testing to be put on papers. I bet A LOT of people won't be keen on testing, won't want it on papers, etc. I think there is going to be a lot of wasted time arguing about the laws around it.

I have said this before, I'll be testing. No worries on that! I'd love to and would be testing IMMEDIATELY!

On the topic of horses with Bonds Tiny Tim and carriers (since he was...ever so popular), I have a 2013 colt with Bonds Tiny Tim in his pedigree TWICE (8 generations back; half brother bred to half sister) and Komokos Little Husseler (TWICE. 7 and 8 generations back). It's obvious that physically, these stallions are much too far back to have any physically

affect on my colt, but genetically? We'll see once the testing comes out. SURE, he may NOT actually have any of these horses in his pedigree since there was a lot of name switching back then, but its the only information I have.

I have to say, look back at the OLD dwarfism discussions on this forum. Its quite fun and interesting. Here's one from 2007 that I've been reading.

http://www.miniaturehorsetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=85021&st=0


----------



## Tremor (Oct 20, 2013)

Of course, I spend over an hour typing a response while I'm off doing other things and John Eberth posts.

If he posted more often I'd be yelling at him to quit posting and to get the tests out for commercial use.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 21, 2013)

Thank you for the post, John!

Tremor-do you believe Komokos Little Husseler was a dwarf, or dwarf carrier? Just wondering, as I think I have read that the Eberths were fairly certain Komokos Little King Supreme was not a dwarf carrier based on number of offspring and mares crossed with, which would rule out Husseler as being a dwarf. The picture that is used for him is not very flattering, I definitely agree there.


----------



## Tremor (Oct 21, 2013)

ohmt said:


> Thank you for the post, John!
> 
> Tremor-do you believe Komokos Little Husseler was a dwarf, or dwarf carrier? Just wondering, as I think I have read that the Eberths were fairly certain Komokos Little King Supreme was not a dwarf carrier based on number of offspring and mares crossed with, which would rule out Husseler as being a dwarf. The picture that is used for him is not very flattering, I definitely agree there.


I have no clue. Everything I knew about dwarfism and even my own horses is gone. Literally. 
KLKS, was a heck of a nice horse and KLH produced some good and bad horses but the good had his eyes and dishy head (or so I've read). I have a 2013 colt with both in his pedigree and I'm just now doing research on them. I can certainly say I don't like the picture of KLH that I've seen, and I don't think KLKS was a carrier, which is great for me and my colt.

Ask me again on my view on dwarfism once the research and tests are out, because after the past couple weeks I am just...lost.

A friend asked me if I thought one of my mares was a carrier, and if her "dwarf" foal was in fact a dwarf or just exhibiting conformtional faults from both sire and dam. After extensively thinking about THAT foal, it just completely ruins my confidence in my knowledge. Do I think THAT foal in particular was a dwarf? (I don't own him anymore and he was gelded) Maybe not. Was his dam a carrier? Possibly not. Was his sire? I know that for a fact. So does this mean his full siblings are possible carriers? Not. A. Stinking. Clue.

(Foal in question was stocky at birth, cow hocked, had dam's domed head, constructed nostrils, roach back, pot belly...that the dam had as well. The dam was not a beauty queen in any way shape or form, and the sire had a long back and short neck. I had a full brother to this colt that had a slightly bad back, long back, short neck, and bad stifles. Was a good looking boy, and so were his other non-dwarf siblings. The "dwarf" colt now makes me question whether he just exbhited his dam and sires faults instead of resembling his sire like his siblings. It's not like I had decently conformed parents to begin with, I had horses with the same faults, and one with more severe ones. If they were World champions and perfect and this colt was born, I'd be running for the hills and gelding immediately. But this situation makes me doubt everything. This then extends to my 2010 filly in my avatar. It's a lot harder for me to distinguish between dwarf and a horse exhibiting a lengthy amount of bad conformation that has spanned multiple generations.

I wish I had all the answers. I could speculate and speculate, but when it comes down to it, I don't know a single thing about my own horses anymore.

I will say this, I have my suspicions about KLH, but I must ask this, How old was he in the pictures I've seen? Are their actual conformation pictures instead of front pictures? Is he the actual sire of KLKS?

Would KLKSs status as a non-dwarf carrier take KLHs running as a dwarf out of the system? Before Johns thesis came out I would have said it came down to percentages, but now I just don't know.

I wouldn't knock any horse with him in it.

The only thing I can say, is that I am a *wee* bit confident that my colt isn't a carrier after researching his pedigree and knowing the horses up close. But. I could be mindblown at any minutes.


----------



## MiniNHF (Oct 21, 2013)

Tremor I send you a photo I had of KLH that I have for my boys pedigree and it is a side shot of him with his owner, not sure if you have seen those or not from the front/angled front shots of him that are out there.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 21, 2013)

Thank you for taking the time to post that John, I find it very interesting that Achondroplasia- which is the term used here at the moment for the most common form of dwarfism in UKShets is a nomenclature. It is going to take me FOREVER to change my way of thinking on this subject- it is way, way more complicated than, I feel, anyone thought. Did you ever think, in 1990 that here, 23 years later, you would only just be starting to unravel the genetics?


----------



## Tremor (Oct 21, 2013)

Has anybody donated samples to the research? I've dabbled with the idea before, but I'm not sure if it would be helpful at all?

I have three possible dwarves, a mare and her two offspring. I don't own the stallion anymore and can't get samples from him other than pictures and pedigrees.

I also have another mare who *may* have produced a dwarf, and her 2011 filly. The offspring are all sired by the same sire.

I can get pictures and pedigrees of all the horses and dwarves, but not blood samples since most are deceased or sold to new homes.

I would LOVE to send in blood samples/pictures/pedigrees, and I could have my vet pull blood next spring and send in the vials.


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 22, 2013)

Thank you John!


----------



## Debby - LB (Oct 22, 2013)

Very good post Susan O





wow many good points and things to think about! To answer your question about the closing of the hardship registry, In light of this near future ability to test for this type of dwarfism, sorry I am NOT "For" the closing of the hardship registry for AMHA.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 22, 2013)

Good post, Tremor-it's tough "knowing", isn't it? I will be so glad when we have tests for them all. Just the first 4 will be fantastic



Yes, I do think Husseler was King Supreme's sire. LK really liked their Komokos lines, the color and size fits, the pretty heads fit. Of course Husseler may have been a carrier, I don't know, but not a dwarf himself. He was thicker than what we're used to seeing nowadays (but not for back then), in pasture condition without being clipped and set up, and the picture was taken from above, so keep that in mind. I do wish I could go back in time and see these foundation horses in person!


----------



## Tremor (Oct 22, 2013)

ohmt said:


> Good post, Tremor-it's tough "knowing", isn't it? I will be so glad when we have tests for them all. Just the first 4 will be fantastic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Time travel would be fantastic, and not even to mess with people but just to see these horses! I was finally able to track down a GOOD portion of my 2013 colt's pedigree, but there are STILL missing links. I would give anything to go back in time and just SEE what a lot of these horses look like so that I could have a good idea of what he'd grow into, but I thankfully have a pretty good idea right now.

I could easily see Husseler being a carrier as well. I could see a lot of the "dwarf" stallions in our horses pedigrees just as being carriers because who honestly knows?!

I cannot wait for the tests to come out. I'm hoping that it'll be one test overall, and it'll tell us what the other four say like the SW tests.


----------



## horsehug (Oct 22, 2013)

Just thought I'd mention this page on Tony's Little America site.

http://www.littleamericaminis.com/reference/historicalstallions.html

He does not have all of them of course but has lots of stallions from the past and actually saw most of them at one time or another also. And he has always been happy to answer any questions that I had as well, about any horses he had seen.

He has interesting little bits of info on some of them on their pages also.

About Little Husseler, I'm not sure if the picture on Tony's site is the one you are talking about, as this picture looks to me like it was taken by someone down on his same level. And yes he was in fact the sire to Little King Supreme, who you are correct in saying was not a carrier of a dwarf gene.

Just a little more info, in case any of it helps. I always love looking at the old pictures as well.





Susan O.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Oct 23, 2013)

I have only ever seen one picture of Husseler- it is possible that, in the days before digital, that was the only decent picture ever taken . It is however, always a point of significance to me when only one picture is ever used! Egyptian King was around a long time ago and there are loads of pictures available of him......

I personally know of at least one horse who has recently gone champion and is, IMO, a dwarf. Obvioulsy I shall not name it, but these things are still, even today (or a few years ago, anyway) happening.


----------



## tagalong (Oct 24, 2013)

> Tremor-do you believe Komokos Little Husseler was a dwarf, or dwarf carrier?


I met Husseler in person a couple of times when he had moved to Canada. Tony has vehemently disagreed with me on this - but he *was *a dwarf. No doubt about it. At least his legs were not badly messed up - but he toed out in front and had clubby front feet. He was rather post-legged in back. I would have liked to see his bite as he had a very "pug" face. Even a non-horse person with me on the trip asked me what was wrong with that "odd little horse". I wish I had taken pictures - then it would have been obvious.

How do we know for a fact that Supreme was not a carrier of any kind of dwarfism without testing him for all types possible? I figure that 50% of all minis would test positive as carriers.

Husseler... he was older and a lot coarser when I met him. The second pic flatters him IMO...







]

This week. a friend in NY state was offered an AMHR mini stallion as a "show prospect". He was 28 1/2" tall and definitely a dwarf.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 24, 2013)

I think John had said that with the number of foals sired by King supreme and the mares he was crossed with (maybe known dwarf carriers?) he felt safe saying he was not a carrier of any dwarf genes.

I think Husseler was short and thick, but not a dwarf, though of course he may very well have been a carrier. Therein lies the issue-people insist various horses were dwarfs or produced them, but do we know FOR SURE before pointing fingers, because there are many horses who have dwarf characteristics, but that doesn't automatically make them a dwarf themselves. The testing will be very nice to have.


----------



## tagalong (Oct 24, 2013)

Well, I actually met him. Not just in pictures. And yes, he was a dwarf - with as many "characteristics" as he had, he could not have been anything else. If you had seen the short, stunted, thick, coarse, club-footed, pug-faced little horse I saw, you would have thought the same thing. He was not "just" an "old style" mini. This was about 1995 -1996. (?) It is not "fingerpointing" - it is factual observation. I am not just looking at a pic on the computer and pointing fingers - I am basing my opinion on seeing the actual horse several times. Up close.

If only I had had a cell phone then, I would have videoed him and there would be no doubt about what you were looking at. I was not the only one who was put off - or outright horrified - when they saw him. No one here - and now - would have thought he was anything but a dwarf if they saw him in person at the time. But back then, people were not that worried or knowledgable about the entire dwarf issue - and small was important. And Husseler was very small, had huge eyes and was a cool color (red dun). All that was very desirable at the time.

But Tony has argued with me in the past about Husseler.



I know what I saw - as did the others. We will just agree to disagree.


----------



## chandab (Oct 24, 2013)

_Tag, your second picture isn't showing._


----------



## Mona (Oct 24, 2013)

Chanda, right click on it and copy/paste the url into your browser and it will work that way.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 24, 2013)

Personal observation/opinion is different than scientific fact. Not that I don't believe you, but there are many threads on here where half of the people commenting are "positive" the horse is a dwarf and the other half are "positive" the horse is not a dwarf. I know Tony has seen his fair share of dwarfs and non dwarfs so we have two very smart, long time horse breeders who disagree. So, again, the tests will be great to have!


----------

