New Filly Dwarf????

[Riverrose28]

Thank you Mona for your response. Seems like there should be some kind of report if for nothing else to identify which lines are carriers. I've been with minis since the 90"s and don't know all the lines that carry this, so I can see how a new breeder wouldn't have any idea.

 

[TPs flat rock acres]

i s there sign that parents have that might indicate they might produce them

 

[TPs flat rock acres]

Thank you Mona for your response. Seems like there should be some kind of report if for nothing else to identify which lines are carriers. I've been with minis since the 90"s and don't know all the lines that carry this, so I can see how a new breeder wouldn't have any idea.

how are you?

what I feel bad about is that are these problems left for the new comers? I have boughten a few mares paid extra because they were bred only to have overly fat mares one told me the wrong age and one mare I think has something going on with her eye as it is hazy i thought I was buying nice horses that were decent quality only to possibly get throw back for one reason or another how does a new comer know who to trust

 

[Riverrose28]

The answer to that question is yes and no. The pair that we bred together didn't show any signs at all! I also have a mare that has a domed head, but has had two beautiful foals but bred to a refined stallion, I do think if I bred her to a short stocky one it may turn out different, but I won't do that, in fact I'm not breeding anymore. Some say there are signs, like elbows out, low set necks, broad shoulders, domed head. Maybe someone else will chime in with more knowledge. I do think that breeding has improved in the last 10 or 15 years and more people are not breeding the really small stocky type, but whose to say that is the only type that carrys? No one will ever know until there is a test, or if someone takes action and starts requiring that dwarf foals be reported to the registries once a stallion report is sent it.

 

[MindyLee]

AWWWWWWWWWW!!! Regardless if she is or not, at least shes healthy looking.

Congrats on a good delivery even if shes not 100% perfect conformation.

At least she has a good mommy who is aware of dwarfisum.

 

[Riverrose28]

I'm going to PM you!

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I gelded the horse in my Avatar, a beautiful blanket Appy to boot, because the test for Dwarfism failed to materialise (I had waited four years) and his grandsire is a dwarf. His sire has thrown no dwarfs, his dam has no dwarfs in her pedigree, but as a stallion he could, in theory, have sired up to fifty potential carriers a year (OK, so few of us actually breed this many, I am talking theory) and I was just not willing to take the chance. He shows NO signs whatsoever (he is a show horse) his sire shows NO signs whatsoever (also a show horse) but it is, potentially, in there.

The thing that annoys me the most about dwarfism (after we have overcome the helplessness and the heartbreak) is that I am pretty sure if a few more people with some serious money could throw some of it into the research it could be sorted. Then, of course, we would have to actually get the registries to insist on mandatory testing and eventual removal form the gene pool.

What do we actually have?

People who say it's OK to breed the pair again, just not to one another!!!!

We had a similar situation with Von Willebrands in Dobes, and testing was, thank goodness, found almost immediately. That did not stop people ignoring the problem for a bit. It was also said that if we were to act on the testing we would have no gene pool left but you know what? That was over 25 years ago and the Dobe is still here, and most, if not all reputable breeders insist on their sire and dam being tested, and the resultant pups being tested before being cleared to breed (not sure if your KC allows you to withold breeding status, ours does) the KC did NOTHING!

I think we can forget our registries doing much, too.

If we breed, we have the responsibility to say when this happens, and not be ashamed of it. The support people get when somehting like this happens , on this Forum, warms my heart, it really does.

 

[ohmt]

I so agree Jane!

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I meant to say that the people that breed the most, obviously, have the potential at least to have the most dwarfs, that is why I feel it is they who should be interested in actually finding a test, but of course, I am just being naive, I guess!! So much easier to just bury the evidence (in every way) and get on with the real business of selling...... (ARGH, sorry, CYNIC warning!!)

 

[ohmt]

I agree with you regarding that as well. I find it frustrating that there is such a lack of a funding when it comes to the tests. You would think that our registries would be trying their very best to make sure that it has all the funding it needs-maybe send out pamphlets to people and have an option on their work order forms for donations. Put in a few ads in their magazines, but I've never seen any. Many years ago I think one of them ran a dwarfism article in their magazine and then asked for dna samples for the tests, but that's it. I think we could have had the tests a while ago if the funding was there.

 

[RockRiverTiff]

Just wanted to come on and clarify again that I am NOT one of the people asking that this issue be "swept under the rug" nor was I shushing the OP. I think anyone that breeds minis does so with some fear of the dreaded "D" word. Just as an example, I spoke to a person last year that had a dwarf. The sire had three of the most popular bloodlines in his pedigree, among others. That person now believes that all of those lines are dwarf carriers. I'm guessing a lot of people would object to that assumption, but without a test obviously we can't prove anything either way. That is the only reason I think that it's dangerous to start naming names - because without a test every name in a carrier's pedigree is implicated.

I would dearly love to have a test that would remove some of the fear and uncertainty, but I do believe that many people would be against it. As some have already pointed out, many popular lines have been implicated in association with the dwarf gene. A test would reveal the truth, and any big farms built around those lines would undoubtedly lose some of their market as many breeders would exclusively seek out non-carriers. If the heavy-hitters aren't on board, I don't know how you could convince the registries to start recording information or funding research, but I wish it was more of a priority.

 

[Riverdance]

I have a question... those of you who breed pintos check for the Lethal white gene. If your horse carries it, would you not use it for breeding? I think that most of you still use the horse for breeding. Would not the dwarf gene be the same?

I am one of those that truly believes that if there is ever a test for the dwarf gene, we will find that a great portion of the Mini population carries this gene. Would we not then, have to make sure that we do not breed a carrier to a carrier? If only 25% of foals born become carriers, then we could possibly slowly breed this out, without destroying the gene pool. I too am and have been a dog breeder for over 40 years. The last 35 years with Tibetan Terriers. There was a time that we had lots of dentalia problems, but over the years, most of us have been able to breed that out without loosing the gene pool. As well as some breeders have now added other problems to the gene pool going after the almighty championship.

We all have to be careful how we breed, but we also have to worry about the gene pool.

Again, I have never had a dwarf and with 14 years of breeding my lines, you would think I would have, but I am still convinced that some of my horses are carriers and that I have just been lucky.

So like the lethal white gene, we would have to selectively breed and not breed till we know if our horse carries the gene or not.

 

[ohmt]

Until there are tests, Riverdance, no known carriers should be bred IMO. If there are tests, then I think it is up to the breeder, but I think we need to remember that a recessive dwarf gene can "fight" the dominant gene and present a characteristic or two on the carrier or future carriers they produce. Whether someone thinks those characteristics are "ok" is up to them.

Just wanted to come on and clarify again that I am NOT one of the people asking that this issue be "swept under the rug" nor was I shushing the OP. I think anyone that breeds minis does so with some fear of the dreaded "D" word. Just as an example, I spoke to a person last year that had a dwarf. The sire had three of the most popular bloodlines in his pedigree, among others. That person now believes that all of those lines are dwarf carriers. I'm guessing a lot of people would object to that assumption, but without a test obviously we can't prove anything either way. That is the only reason I think that it's dangerous to start naming names - because without a test every name in a carrier's pedigree is implicated

I agree, Tiff!

 

[Hosscrazy]

Here's the link to Janell's website - she is incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about helping the little ones.

http://www.littlemagicshoes.com/

I co-owned a mare with a local breeder in my area, and the mare we owned together had a dwarf. The co-owner of the mare decided to keep breeding the mare, and it resulted in me not only ending the partnership, but also got me out of breeding altogether. Best wishes with your little one - Janell is the BEST and she sure can help you out..

Liz N.

 

[StarRidgeAcres]

I agree with you regarding that as well. I find it frustrating that there is such a lack of a funding when it comes to the tests. You would think that our registries would be trying their very best to make sure that it has all the funding it needs-maybe send out pamphlets to people and have an option on their work order forms for donations. Put in a few ads in their magazines, but I've never seen any. Many years ago I think one of them ran a dwarfism article in their magazine and then asked for dna samples for the tests, but that's it. I think we could have had the tests a while ago if the funding was there.

The registries, in general, only want what "we" want, the collective membership. And the collective membership is generally "run" by the largest of the breeders/showers/whatever the registry in question encompasses. Many, not all, of those larger breeders would be put out of business in short order if testing was prevelent. Even if not required by the registries, those looking to buy and looking to only produce the best of the best, would insist horses they were considering purchasing were tested. So over time, those farms would lose their clientele. Of course, this is just my opinion and just my interpretation of the situation. And of course not all "large" farms would be hesitant of the testing. I'm sure some would welcome it as I would.

Just wanted to come on and clarify again that I am NOT one of the people asking that this issue be "swept under the rug" nor was I shushing the OP. I think anyone that breeds minis does so with some fear of the dreaded "D" word. Just as an example, I spoke to a person last year that had a dwarf. The sire had three of the most popular bloodlines in his pedigree, among others. That person now believes that all of those lines are dwarf carriers. I'm guessing a lot of people would object to that assumption, but without a test obviously we can't prove anything either way. That is the only reason I think that it's dangerous to start naming names - because without a test every name in a carrier's pedigree is implicated.

I would dearly love to have a test that would remove some of the fear and uncertainty, but I do believe that many people would be against it. As some have already pointed out, many popular lines have been implicated in association with the dwarf gene. A test would reveal the truth, and any big farms built around those lines would undoubtedly lose some of their market as many breeders would exclusively seek out non-carriers. If the heavy-hitters aren't on board, I don't know how you could convince the registries to start recording information or funding research, but I wish it was more of a priority.

Ditto!

Personally, if there was a test, I'd test every single breeding horse (or prospect) on my farm and then I'd advertise the heck out of the results! I'd also remove any carriers from my herd and be open about them testing positive. But you all already know that as I don't just talk it, I've walked it! Did it cost me a ton of money? Yep! But I think the breed is better off for it.

Someone said in another thread, and I'm paraphrasing here, that some "well-known" horses were producers and if they had been removed from the gene pool we'd have missed out on so many national champions, etc. No we wouldn't have! That's malarky! Another horse would have been named with that title and who knows...maybe we'd be better off today! Again, speculation on my part, but it's a line of thinking I've believed for a LONG time. I think we'd have been MUCH better off and farther ahead in the quality of the breed if the mindset had been to remove those producers and not just avoid that particular mare/stallion pairing again.

My two cents. I'll try to get off my soap box now!lol

 

[ohmt]

Great post, Parmela!

The registries, in general, only want what "we" want, the collective membership. And the collective membership is generally "run" by the largest of the breeders/showers/whatever the registry in question encompasses. Many, not all, of those larger breeders would be put out of business in short order if testing was prevelent. Even if not required by the registries, those looking to buy and looking to only produce the best of the best, would insist horses they were considering purchasing were tested. So over time, those farms would lose their clientele.

In my naivety I didn't even think about that! I had just assumed that those people would want to know who their carriers are to keep from producing the dwarves that they "hide".

 

[targetsmom]

I wonder if there would be more funding for the test, and less resistance to it (yes, I do think there is resistance from some places) if we looked at the glass as half full instead of half empty. By that I mean call it a test for "minis that are free of the dwarf gene". No stigma attached there, just a boost in value!!! I also believe that is exactly how we should look at the testing. And like Riverdance, I support the idea of treating dwarfism the same way lethal white in pintos is treated. You don't eliminate all the frame overo horses just because they carry a potentially fatal gene. Because there IS a test, you just test possible carriers and don't breed two carriers together.

But dwarfism is not that simple, because as I understand it there are now thought to be at least 5 forms - a new one discovered recently??? So a horse might carry the gene for one type but would be safe to breed to a horse carrying another type - meaning they would not be able to produce a DWARF, but of course could pass on the gene. And this is likely what is happening now, without a test, and why there are likely a lot of carriers in relation to the number of actual dwarfs produced.

 

[Mona]

Riverdance, I do think along the same lines as you when it comes to a test being avaialble. I think the test can be VERY ueseful in the careful management/breeding practices to avoid dwarfs, once we know for sure who carries, and who doesn't. Unfortunately, I got out of minis before the test ever became a reality, but I so hope it soon is an option. I would most definitely have all my breeding horses tested, and would not be too hasty in making any decisions long term on how I would react to the results. I am not sure if I would totally remove the stock from my herd, or of I would breed selectively...that would have to be determined at the time. I guess it really would rely on the results that are uncovered by the testing, once available. This said however, I DO know that if buying, I would only buy non-carriers.

I guess the difference in comparing the testing to that of LWO, is that with LWO, the resulting LWO foal dies...survival of the fittest so to speak, whereas with the dwarf gene, the dwarf can live, thus a greater potential for it being bred by unscrupulous owners. Yes, there are still the same percentages of "carriers" whether it be LWO or dwarfs, so the risk of those remain the same.

There is just no easy answer for me until they actually have the test available, and I guess for me, it matters not PERSONALLY anymore, since I no longer have minis, but I contiunue to hope and pray this breed can be saved by having that test available some day. It may even be what is needed to raise the value of the Miniature Horse once again.

 

[ohmt]

But dwarfism is not that simple, because as I understand it there are now thought to be at least 5 forms - a new one discovered recently??? So a horse might carry the gene for one type but would be safe to breed to a horse carrying another type - meaning they would not be able to produce a DWARF, but of course could pass on the gene. And this is likely what is happening now, without a test, and why there are likely a lot of carriers in relation to the number of actual dwarfs produced.

Hmmm...I thought I read that John thought maybe a couple of the "types" were actually two of the others combined? I'll have to go back and reread that as I could have read/interpreted incorrectly.

Yes, there are 5 types, but the new one discovered is a severe, early abortion type.

 

[REO]

I have a question... those of you who breed pintos check for the Lethal white gene. If your horse carries it, would you not use it for breeding? I think that most of you still use the horse for breeding. Would not the dwarf gene be the same?

To me, it isn't the same thing. LWO is a pinto pattern. A horse that carries it is healthy and does no harm in passing it's single copy of that gene on, if bred to a tested not carrier. In that reguard, the pinto pattern is harmless.

But dwarves.......it is known that they have breathing problems, organ problems, leg problems, etc etc etc. And in MOST cases don't live very long lives. It is not the same as a pinto pattern being passed on.

It takes 2 carriers to make a dwarf. But those people that just breed the KNOWN carrier to a different horse.......well that carrier is still, at times passing on that dwarf gene to their normal looking offspring. They sell those carriers to unsuspecting buyers, who then have dwarves pop up in their programs. Or even if the buyers don't, they are then spreading the dwarf gene on and on and on. (without knowing it because the seller didn't mention that)

Years before I had a computer or any knowledge about dwarves, we bought a bred mare who had a dwarf. NOT KNOWING anything about them, I bred her to my stallion and that foal was normal & sold as a pet. I later sold the mare and she went on to have another dwarf. She was a nice looking mare with no outward traits and came from a farm that is known. After later learning about dwarves......if I could go back in time I would have sold her to a pet home or something where she wouldn't be bred any more. But I didn't know then what I know now.

There are many people who DO know yet keep breeding known carriers together or to others. IMO that is not doing the miniature horse breed any favors.