New Filly Dwarf????

[ozymandias]

Whether it's forced by the registries or not (which I would hope it will be, but likely not) having the testing available will in effect, I believe, for the most part, force SERIOUS breeders into testing their horses and breeding selectively, if they choose to breed. I think that most people looking to buy, will find it a VERY important criteria in deciding which horse and which farm to buy from. I doubt many, if any serious breeders will want to buy horses that have come from untested parents, and that have been ested themselves. Having the test available will hopefully squeeze out those that choose not to test their stock, once they reallize thy cannot seel them without being tested due to no/very limited public interest in them.

Mona, I think you hit the nail directly on the head

If a test were available and people started testing and advertising their farms as a farm who tested it would eventually force many if not all of the larger (and hopefully smaller) breeders to follow suit because of educated buyers dictating the market and wanting tested horses. Just take myself as a hypothetical - If I found my stallion was a carrier I'd make sure that the only mares I purchased to breed to him were non carriers. Tested doesn't have to mean recessive gene free (IMO) it means you're being a responsible breeder and are not prepared to breed two positive carriers.

 

[vickie gee]

No, ozy-a dwarf ALWAYS passes on a dwarf gene to its foals so in that scenerio they would all 4 have at least 1 dwarf gene to pass on to future foals. It's if you breed two carriers together that 25% theoretically should receive no dwarf genes, 50% carriers, and 25% receive 2 being dwarves themselves.

ohmt I agree with you...you are saying "breed two carriers" so that is Dd to Dd, Right? So they could produce a DD, Dd, dD, or dd. The dd is the dwarf (two recessive genes), the DD is not carrying the recessive gene at all so it is not a carrier and not a dwarf (it is a normal mini). The Dd and dD are carriers so they are not a dwarf but could produce a dwarf if bred to another carrier.

 

[TPs flat rock acres]

exactly responsible breeding

 

[vickie gee]

Mona, I think you hit the nail directly on the head

If a test were available and people started testing and advertising their farms as a farm who tested it would eventually force many if not all of the larger (and hopefully smaller) breeders to follow suit because of educated buyers dictating the market and wanting tested horses. Just take myself as a hypothetical - If I found my stallion was a carrier I'd make sure that the only mares I purchased to breed to him were non carriers. Tested doesn't have to mean recessive gene free (IMO) it means you're being a responsible breeder and are not prepared to breed two positive carriers.

Now that makes perfect sense. Hope the testing is going to soon be available.

 

[Riverdance]

OMG! I thought with LWO homozygous foals that they went downhill within just a couple days, tops; not weeks (and it sounds like that foal was healthy, they just assumed, so took extreme action).

That was the point. There was nothing wrong with the foal, a LWO can not poop, their lower intestines are not attached. They usually die within 24 to 48 hours. This white foal was not a lethal white, but they were ignorant and thought it was and killed it.

 

[Riverdance]

To me it's different because a recessive dwarf gene still has the ability to "fight" the dominant gene and create dwarf characteristics. It's funny, there are some on here who got extremely upset with me on a previous Einstein thread for saying he was not a dwarf but that I thought he might be a carrier with a recessive gene creating a few characteristics. They said (and in caps, so I'm assuming yelled it) that any carrier with a recessive dwarf gene that presents a dwarf characteristic or two ARE dwarves. And yet, on here they have expressed that they are fine with breeding carriers (not talking about you ozy). It's....interesting.

Also, with so many people that breed (as has been shown by various polls on here) and so many people new to miniatures that breed before they are knowledgeable about doing so, it would be easy for dwarves to keep being produced even when there are tests. Everyone complains about the market and how we should all cut back on breeding, but there is so much opposition to culling dwarf gene carriers from the breeding population and I'm not quite sure why.

I am thinking that some really big farms, ones with famous stallions would not want it to get out that they are producing dwarfs. It would destroy their whole breeding program. If they have enough money the tests could be delayed for years.

I am a dog breeder. We have to test for things like PRA. There are carriers, non carriers and clears. In collies we bred to slowly get rid of the recessive gene. In Tibetans, we have to do the same thing. I suspect we will have to do the same thing with the Minis, because again, I think we will find out that a large portion of our gene pool is carrying the gene as get from these popular stallions are on many Mini farms today. So, do we get rid of our gene pool and not breed a carrier, or do we breed carefully to remove the dwarf gene as best we can? Again, i am not saying i would breed a horse that had produced a dwarf, but what if it was most of the Mini's?

 

[ozymandias]

ohmt I agree with you...you are saying "breed two carriers" so that is Dd to Dd, Right? So they could produce a DD, Dd, dD, or dd. The dd is the dwarf (two recessive genes), the DD is not carrying the recessive gene at all so it is not a carrier and not a dwarf (it is a normal mini). The Dd and dD are carriers so they are not a dwarf but could produce a dwarf if bred to another carrier.

Sorry ohmt, I must have been unclear in my post. I was meaning breeding carriers not breeding actual dwarfs

 

[ohmt]

I figured Ozy, just thought i'd clarify in case others read it!

Riverdance-i guess i really don't think there are as many carriers as would need to be to destroy a large breeding farm. I don't think there are even enough to destroy most smaller ones (emphasis on most). Say someone has half their herd as carriers (which i think is a very high percentage). Those large farms putting out 40-50 foals a year are put back to 20-25. Still a LOT foals. Most people do not breed all of their mares anyway and there is such a huge overpopulation of stallions/colts, it's not hard to get one that is GOOD without breaking the bank.

I should wait to state my opinions until we have the tests though as they are based on hypothetics. Maybe there are many more carriers than i think! But, based on the number of dwarf foals i see each year, i don't think so. Then again, how many hide them? I don't know.

 

[Mona]

the sire of my foal carries the gene and I am sure it won't be his last foal so why is it that my girl should be a pet as long as I deal with the out come like this baby she's here to stay

Well, I guess there are a few areas of thought on this, depending on how you would want to manage your herd...afterall, they are YOUR horses, you can do with them as you please, no matter what people think.

First off (and I am not pointing fingers...just giving examples of what you may or may not want to do), 2 wrongs don't make a right, so in saying "he's still breeding, so why cant my mare still breed?" that is a question only you can answer. Many will say you shouldn't and neither should the stallion. Some may say they will continue breeding to anything and taking their chances, while others may say they will only breed to those that are not known to carry the gene...that is, bredding to other horses that have not (at least YET) produced a dwarf.

Until there is a test, I would personally "never say never". Please understand, I am not telling or suggesting to you what to do, and many disagree very strongly with me, but this is a decision that YOU, as the breeder, must feel comfortable with.

When I was breeding, I did breed again even after the horse produced a dwarf. In fact, not thinking, and not knowing as much as I have learned throughout the following years, I went and rebred a stallion to the same mare that produced a dwarf. After I realized what I had done, I was on pins and needles, fearing the worst! Thankfully, the foal was A-OK, and I learned that lesson really quick! It was the same mare that went on to produce another dwarf foal by a different stallion, and I never bred her again, and I disclosed this to the new owner of the mare. She was sold to a pet home along with her dwarf filly Star that I posted earlier in this thread. That home could no longer keep them and they went to a second wonderful pet home, where they still both remain to the best of my knowledge.(at least I havn't heard otherwise) Anyway, back on track here. When I sold the stallion, I informed the buyer that he did produce a dwarf. Although many hate that I chose to breed known carriers, it was MY choice. I am not one to sweep things under the rug, and openly told interested parties that he had sired a dwarf. I believe he had sired 16 foals, and one was a dwarf. This is a good example of how a dwarf carrier can produce a large number of foals and tilt the 25% statistical number. Had that one dwarf been born at the end of the time, vs the beginning, even those culling immediately would have had 15 other foals on the ground potentially adding many more carriers, and is the reason why those that want to cull immediately, do.) So, it was my choice to give my horses a second chance before culling them.

Now then, if there was a test available, I am not sure what I would have done. I would not have immediately culled all carriers from my herd, until I knew more about how widespread it all was. I would likely have kept them, breeding selectively to non-carriers, at least for awhile. In other words, I would not have made a hasty decision to get rid of all carriers.

And, others will immediately cull the stallion and the mare, and that is a good thing too. Again, the horses belong to them, and they have a good reason for doing it, and feel so strongly about it, they will do whatever it takes to clean their herd.

So, ultimately, the chopice is one you have to make. To each their own.

 

[horsehug]

Absolutely excellent summarization and post, Mona! That is close to exactly how I feel about all of it!

Susan O.

 

[disneyhorse]

Many things which I suspect are genetic in nature are always "excused" by some breeders... Dwarfism ("just breed the mare to a different stallion next time"), locking stifles ("their toes were just too long and they had a nutrient deficiency as a youngster"), cryptorchidism ("sometimes colts take a very long time to drop") and other things which is partially why these defects are so darn common in the minis. Read the forum long enough and you'll see it over and over.

 

[Mona]

Diane, just wondering, you mentioned culling the mares that produced the dwarf, but you never made mention of the stallions?? Do you keep them in your herd, but just use them on mares that have not yet produced a dwarf foal?

 

[Mona]

Thanks for clarifying Diane.

 

[vickie gee]

Sorry ohmt, I must have been unclear in my post. I was meaning breeding carriers not breeding actual dwarfs

I had already figured that out but did not want to change, interpret, or disect your words

. Hate it when that happens. Thanks for clarifying.

I believe we are on the same sheet of music here. Because if you have an obvious dwarf any breeding of that animal is going to pass on a dwarf gene.

 

[vickie gee]

Mona, I agree with you that people just have to make their own decisions and do what they feel is right. I don't believe for a minute that the registries will ever be involved in making testing mandatory -- and I would be surprised if they ever even included a reference to the dwarf gene test (like their spot for DNA testing) anywhere on their paperwork.

To me, I culled the mares that had produced the dwarf foals. My reasoning was simply I didn't want to be responsible for allowing these mares to pass on the dwarf gene to their foals -- no matter WHAT the percentage showed, or the "possible" frequency of a foal inheriting the gene.

Like the above reference of breeding a carrier to carrier, the percentage says 25% not a carrier, 50% carriers and 25% a dwarf.

But even breeding a non-carrier to a carrier, the percentage isn't any better: 50% non-carriers and 50% carriers -- the only difference is you don't produce a dwarf foal yourself. But you've still put a possible 50% as carriers into the breeding pool.

To me, producing 50% carriers was still too high a percentage -- it just meant I wouldn't be producing dwarf foals, but half the babies could still be carriers of this horrid gene. I just "personally" chose to delete these known carriers from my herd and not risk passing on the gene to someone who may not know about this horrid gene in our midst.

JMHO -- Diane at Castle Rock

Added....here we educate and learn. Think about how many people are out there that own horses who don't even know what a Coggins is for and have never had one done on their horses.....or those who would never think to vaccinate their horses.....or, well you get the idea. How can we expect these people to understand dwarf gene testing and the ramifications of having the gene -- if and when it comes about. But once one of the special babies touches your heart and you have to help it over the rainbow bridge, you never want to cause that pain to anyone else.

Diane, you made some good points.

 

[vickie gee]

Just want to thank the OP for posting. It has been a good educational experience and would like to say in defense of the seller of the mare that if they had never had a dwarf from that mare and were never aware of her producing one that they really are innocent of any deception. The mare is a carrier as the stallion is, obviously. Neither needs to be used again for breeding purposes. Please let them know. If it ticks them off you have still done the right thing. Your foal looks to be not ridden with some of the dwarf chararcteristics that can cause so much pain in comparison to some I have seen that literally look like they have skis for feet and nostrils way up on the middle of their face. I have seen a couple of that minimal type at farms where they were so loved and tended to. One I remember was a little white mare that was kept separate from all the other horses because they picked on her. The nice lady that owned her had made her a picket fenced yard next to the driveway of their home. It had the cutest pink cottage for her to go in and out of. It was decorated to a tee...wooden yard ornaments, flower boxes, the works. They knew she needed a playmate so they got her a dwarf goat. The two were best buds. The goat was afraid of storms and when the weather got bad the goat would get up on the little mares back for reassurance. The owner made lemonade out of lemons. I am the same way about my little mare that had leg surgery and looks dwarfish on account of her short legs and full size body. She is the cream in my coffee, the ice in my tea, the chocolate syrup on my ice cream...you get the picture.

 

[Margo_C-T]

I am one who in my years as a breeder, had one severe dwarf born.She was a very endearing little critter, but I wish I'd had her euthanized at birth, because it was a TERRIBLE experience when we HAD to do it by the time she was a few months old. She was extremely 'windswept', could barely get around,and got worse and worse in that respect, along w/ having serious breathing issues. The dam was the result of breeding half-brother to half-sister--same sire, which strongly suggests that THEIR dwarf gene came from their sire; she was not a gorgeous mare, but did appear correct,w/ straight legs, though w/a somewhat short neck and only slightly 'domed' forehead. (This was around 20 years ago, and I was still 'early into' breeding minis and knowledge of the issues that are fairly common within their ranks; I also think I was somewhat 'barn-blind'.) The sire had 'good' bloodlines, was a handsome little horse w/ NO hint of dwarfiness, but WAS one who had only one descended testicle until he was 34 months of age. I would not accept that again, EVER, as I now believe that is genetic and should not be 'passed forward'.

I NEVER bred either one again. I GAVE both of them to a boys/girls' charitable 'ranch', who used miniatures in their youth programs, but weren't breeders, with full disclosure that they'd produced a dwarf and should not ever be bred again; in fact, I also GAVE them a filly by the same stallion, with the same caveat.Without a test, I personally thought this the best I could do to ensure that I would not be responsible for 'sending forward' the dwarf gene, even in non-symptomatic 'carriers'.

I look forward to a test, and IF I were still breeding, would certainly have EVERY breedable animal tested. I have mixed feelings about breeding carriers to non-carriers, simply because you could still produce more carriers, but I do understand the reasoning behind thoughtful consideration of choosing to breed 'high quality' carriers ONLY to comparable quality tested NON-carriers. For myself, I expect I'd opt to ONLY breed non- to non. JMHO.

Margo

 

[Lewella]

Miniatures aren't the only breed of horses with genetic defects. Every breed approaches them differently but in the end the demands of the membership dictate how the registry deals with the issue. The AQHA and HYPP are a great example (and I think that eventually we'll find the dwarf carriers are in some way effected by dwarfism just like HYPP N/H Quarter Horses are effected by one copy of HYPP). Once a test was developed AQHA under pressure from members started recording test results on registrations, eventually it became mandatory to test all horses descended from Impressive, and then a date was set when homozygous (H/H) individuals would no longer be accepted for registration and the plan is that eventually N/H animals will not be accepted. Basically on demand of the membership the AQHA phased in breeding HYPP out. Impressive bred Quarter Horses are just as popular as ever and much healthier due to the AQHA's actions, actions their membership insisted upon. I foresee the miniature registries taking a similar trajectory when a dwarf test or tests becomes available.

 

[TPs flat rock acres]

as I know the person "might " not have knowing with this person finding it hard or not wanting to get back to me about stud information and breeding dates before foal was born makes me wonder if they did know. still hoping to find out more information on this mare and will take it from there. hope I don't find out she has produced one before as I really will not be happy someone knowingly sold her without saying she did. on another note how do they grow is there things I should be looking for to know if I should brace legs etc she is eating fine mom is very good with her.

 

[ozymandias]

as I know the person "might " not have knowing with this person finding it hard or not wanting to get back to me about stud information and breeding dates before foal was born makes me wonder if they did know. still hoping to find out more information on this mare and will take it from there. hope I don't find out she has produced one before as I really will not be happy someone knowingly sold her without saying she did. on another note how do they grow is there things I should be looking for to know if I should brace legs etc she is eating fine mom is very good with her.

I'm so very sorry that this has happened to you and hope you somehow find a resolution. I can understand your frustration. Knowing you have a mare who has produced a dwarf and knowing there's no test so breeding her again is a craps shoot is too big of a gamble to take. I'd be pretty upset myself if I'd have bought a mare for breeding that I discovered not long after buying could perhaps never be bred again. I really hope the seller didn't know this mare would/could produce a dwarf.

On the slightly upside, if there is any upside to all of this, your foal looks to be one of the more healthy dwarfs.

Again, I'm so sorry this has happened.