• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Update to Forum Rules: Criminal Allegations

In our continuing effort to provide an avenue for individuals to voice their opinions and experiences, we have recently reviewed and updated our forum policies. Generally, we have allowed users to share their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, trainers, etc. within the industry, and that is not changing.

When it came to overt criminal allegations, however, those discussions have in the past needed to stem from a report by a reputable news source or action by law enforcement or the legal system.

We are now expanding our policies to allow posters to share their own first-hand experiences involving overt criminal allegations, such as animal abuse or neglect, theft, etc., but only if they publicly provide their full first and last name along with the post. We still will not allow anonymous postings alleging criminal activity.

So, a user may now make a specific claim against a named individual or company, but it must be a FIRST-HAND account, and they have to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. Users have always been legally responsible for their posts, and nothing has changed there, but we want to loosen the reins a bit and further allow the free flow of discussion and information relevant to the horse community.

We are not providing a free-for-all of anonymous rumor-mongering. As enduring advocates for the welfare of the horse, we want to provide a forum for those willing to sign their name and shine a light on issues of concern to them in the industry.

The full revised rules are posted at the top of each forum for reference.
2 of 2 < >

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums’ policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Important news!! WFFS is finally recognized

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by skydy View Post

    Yes, I think it will be difficult for him to remain the odd man out.
    With so many owners and now some registries willing to be forthright about the testing results of their stallions, obfuscation will not serve him well if his business interests include standing his stallions to a large percentage of outside mares.

    Most mare owners do care about their mares and don't want to lose a foal either in utero or on the ground. Testing is the only way to prevent the loss.

    I would think that stallion owners would want to test, since without testing, and limiting the breeding of carrier to carrier, it seems as though a stallion's fertility rate can not be accurately measured.

    Again, I am more familiar with TB breeding, so not well educated about the records and statistics kept by the Warmblood registries regarding breedings, live foals, foal mortality etc...

    The Jockey Club is pretty meticulous, those statistics are readily available for TBs.

    skydy , I don’t know of a resource that keeps that info for Warmblood breeding. Certainly stallion owners may know how many mares are on the stallion’s book, and mare owners know if a breeding is successful. But I have never known of a database for the info you list. Would be great to have, but without a central registry, I don’t know if that info could be efficiently collected and accurately tracked.

    Maybe someone with more breeding experience has further information. All I have ever heard in casual conversation, sometimes, may be the quality of a stallion’s semen/breeding dose.
    "When I look back on my life, the times I have been stingy or unappreciative haunt me. I don't regret one instance of generosity." --PeteyPie

    Comment


    • The "doing something" appears to be a little half-****d at this point and more motivated by the desire to perfect marketing strategies. Demanding stallions to be tested is certainly better than doing nothing but it won't help to prevent spreading it any further.
      The most likely scenario is that without mandatory testing for both mares and stallions there will fewer carrier stallions rather quickly but the allele will keep popping up by virtue of carrier mares that are bred without testing. A percentage of owners will always be in denial because they follow the school of thought 'oh I haven't had any affected foals in x years of breeding' and you can hardly blame them.
      Only if they take an interest in improving the gene pool overall will this condition matter to them. And it is a plain and simple fact that not all breeders have this mentality hence there will be untested horses in the future so the condition will remain.
      For KWPN it was a smart move to jump onto the matter. Again they have managed to present themselves as being on the forefront without actually doing all that much (mainly because the other registries have set the bar for 'publicly visible efforts to improve soundness' at zero so any entity who does 'something' automatically gets the brownie for being the most proactive.
      If you think of the OCD-Index essentially what it is is a shifting from one insecurity to the other. With breed value indices beginning as low as 30% it means your chance for the index to be correct is significantly less than if you tossed a coin which has a 50% reliability.
      Has anybody read the actual statutes for the KWPN OCD index? The index is far from being the reliable tool KWPN claims it is. The concept is flawed from beginning to the end and only serves a marketing purpose and to shift more money from breeders to the registry. Even the learning sample was a joke. They collected the data from randomly selected foals aged 6 to 11 months. Findings in foals are known to be often transient and the mere fact that a foal has no OCD findings at this young age is far from being a guarantee that it will not have as an adult horse and the other way around.
      Unless mare testing is made mandatory the condition will prevail and as long as other registries don't follow suit with requiring testing for stallions KWPN can rightly claim that they have at least done something where others have been blocking the efforts altogether.
      It will be interesting to observe whether WBFSH will put it onto their agenda. The allele could be easily reduced and eventually eliminated within a few generations if registries and breeders worked together for a change.
      Will we see it happen? Unlikely. But that doesn't mean one should just plod on as usual.
      Froh zu sein bedarf es wenig...
      http://www.germanhorseconnection.com
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Germa...m/237648984580

      Comment


      • Kareen, I agree with your comments. In an earlier post, I suggested THREE steps registries could (should) take to limit the spread of this disease.
        1. Mandate stallion testing and publish carrier status on their stallion roster. Even better would be to *not license* carrier stallions.
        2. Require testing of every mare presented for inspection, and record the mare's status in their mare books, and send notification to owners of carrier mares that they should be sure to use only non-carrier stallions for the mare.
        3. Test foals and permanently record their carrier status on their registration papers, as well as notify the breeder/foal owner of the foal's carrier status.

        An even more draconian step would be to not register carrier foals, but that would send breeders to other registries with less stringent rules (so there needs to be cooperation and cohesion among all the warmblood registries.).

        Of course, the new KWPN rule doesn't go far enough, but they are the first registry to do *anything* other than suggest that breeders test their stock and avoid breeding carrier to carrier.

        And yes, a percentage of breeders will always be in denial - and that goes for both mare owners and stallion owners.

        I too would like to see WBFSH get involved, but I don't expect that organization to do much more than advise its member registries to notify breeders to test their stock (i.e., what some registries are now doing).

        Paul Schockemoehle can fuss and fume all he wants about "American women gossiping", but if it takes "gossip" to goad the registries into taking stronger measures, than so be it.

        Comment


        • Does anyone know if the current test works using frozen semen?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DownYonder View Post
            Does anyone know if the current test works using frozen semen?
            Yes, DNA is DNA

            It doesn't have to be frozen on arrival, it just has to stay cold. 1/3 of a typical straw is what Animal Genetics says is needed.

            I saw somewhere else that in Germany the amount asked for is .05cc, so 1/3 or even 1/4 of a straw would be more than enough.
            ______________________________
            The CoTH CYA - please consult w/your veterinarian under any and all circumstances. - ET

            Comment


            • Yes it was Laboklin that stated 0.05cc
              Froh zu sein bedarf es wenig...
              http://www.germanhorseconnection.com
              https://www.facebook.com/pages/Germa...m/237648984580

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JB View Post

                Yes, DNA is DNA

                It doesn't have to be frozen on arrival, it just has to stay cold. 1/3 of a typical straw is what Animal Genetics says is needed.

                I saw somewhere else that in Germany the amount asked for is .05cc, so 1/3 or even 1/4 of a straw would be more than enough.
                Yes, I know that DNA is DNA. It was early and I was on my first couple sips of coffee.

                What I was trying to ask is - "will the labs accept frozen semen for WFFS testing?"

                Thank you and Kareen for answering.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bent Hickory View Post

                  Breeding is seldom, if ever, based on selection of a single trait. Your statements (and inferences drawn therefrom) are only valid in the context of avoidance of this single allele. One may infer then that your measure of "successful breeding" is the reduction of the allele in the population. This is naive.

                  Breeders can simultaneously care about the genetic breeding population (and the improvement thereof) and continue to use carriers. <gasp>!!!

                  Such breeders will be utilizing measures of success, or quality metrics, that include a variety of factors, not just the absence of this allele. Such breeders may be able to improve the overall quality of the genetic breeding population even as the number of carriers increases when one considers other quality metrics besides just absence of this single allele.
                  Of course! And your point is well-taken. In almost all cases, it makes no sense to plan a breeding based on a single allele. (Of course, if the allele is common enough and lethal, its frequency in the population will come to have an appreciable effect on the health/longevity of that group.)

                  I agree that really sophisticated management of this population would involve knowing the linkages between this relatively dangerous allele (aquiring that danger when it becomes common among individuals in the group), and knowing the relative value/desirability of the other alleles that tend to come with it, as they are at close-by locations on a chromosome. If y'all can do this, my hat is off to you! But that's a very complicated problem; that's not to say that I don't understand it or overlooked it. And to acknowledge another problem-- there is so, so much one must simplify when building mathematical models useful to talking about allele frequency. Trying to do that for even a modest number of alleles at once gets mind-boggling.

                  That point about selecting multiple (and often unknown alleles) at once just complicates the basic question that I think this thread raised: Given that this awful and lethal defect is caused by a single recessive allele, should we fire up the engine of Mendelian population genetics, harness that to the power of registries that can be "gate keepers" for breeding individuals and therefore alleles in a population? Or do we not need to do any of that? Or should we not do any of that because the science isn't familiar and there are pressing economic reasons to continue on as we are?

                  I do think Kareen's comment about the technologies of fresh- and frozen semen is worth noting. That can make a stallion much, much more influential within a population now than any breeding animal has ever been in the past (except for brief moments in miniscule populations). And all this means that it's more possible to create a "genetic bottle neck" now via a handful of very popular stallions who care similar genetics than ever before. It's a very interesting and pressing problem, IMO.
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kareen View Post
                    The "doing something" appears to be a little half-****d at this point and more motivated by the desire to perfect marketing strategies. Demanding stallions to be tested is certainly better than doing nothing but it won't help to prevent spreading it any further.
                    The most likely scenario is that without mandatory testing for both mares and stallions there will fewer carrier stallions rather quickly but the allele will keep popping up by virtue of carrier mares that are bred without testing. A percentage of owners will always be in denial because they follow the school of thought 'oh I haven't had any affected foals in x years of breeding' and you can hardly blame them.
                    Only if they take an interest in improving the gene pool overall will this condition matter to them. And it is a plain and simple fact that not all breeders have this mentality hence there will be untested horses in the future so the condition will remain.
                    For KWPN it was a smart move to jump onto the matter. Again they have managed to present themselves as being on the forefront without actually doing all that much (mainly because the other registries have set the bar for 'publicly visible efforts to improve soundness' at zero so any entity who does 'something' automatically gets the brownie for being the most proactive.
                    If you think of the OCD-Index essentially what it is is a shifting from one insecurity to the other. With breed value indices beginning as low as 30% it means your chance for the index to be correct is significantly less than if you tossed a coin which has a 50% reliability.
                    Has anybody read the actual statutes for the KWPN OCD index? The index is far from being the reliable tool KWPN claims it is. The concept is flawed from beginning to the end and only serves a marketing purpose and to shift more money from breeders to the registry. Even the learning sample was a joke. They collected the data from randomly selected foals aged 6 to 11 months. Findings in foals are known to be often transient and the mere fact that a foal has no OCD findings at this young age is far from being a guarantee that it will not have as an adult horse and the other way around.
                    Unless mare testing is made mandatory the condition will prevail and as long as other registries don't follow suit with requiring testing for stallions KWPN can rightly claim that they have at least done something where others have been blocking the efforts altogether.
                    It will be interesting to observe whether WBFSH will put it onto their agenda. The allele could be easily reduced and eventually eliminated within a few generations if registries and breeders worked together for a change.
                    Will we see it happen? Unlikely. But that doesn't mean one should just plod on as usual.
                    Right on, Kareen. Thanks, too for the info about the OCD index. I had no idea that existed and how it was made. The quality of information out in this kind of question comes from the quality (and size) of the database going in.

                    One more addition to the point you made (which I think echoes my concern about thinking in terms of the genetic health of the breeding population now and in the future)--- I think time is of the essence. And let me be clear: Want to gather data about the frequency of this recessive allele now does not amount to panic. Rather, it means beginning to gather the data you'd need sooner rather than later when you have more carriers in the population because we didn't bother to test.... and then you need more breeding animals who are homozygous for the dominant allele (plus holding the other alleles you want) for successful breedings.

                    I really don't see why registries or breeding contracts don't require mares to be tested. That generates more data, protects individual breeders (from, if nothing else, seeing a foal die an awful death), and spreads around the burden of protecting the gene pool of the population. Anyone breeding has this responsibility, IMO.
                    The armchair saddler
                    Politically Pro-Cat

                    Comment


                    • Considering how a carrier stallion can have way more of an impact on the carrier status of a population, is it wildly inappropriate or untenable to propose that (future) stallions with carrier status cannot be licensed, but mares with carrier status can?

                      That way the bloodline can still continue -- but not at a massive saturation.

                      I'm sure it's not an ideal solution to some.. but just a thought because people are claiming if we don't breed carriers we can lose valuable traits... what if we limit it to a specific sex?
                      AETERNUM VALE, INVICTUS - 7/10/2012

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        Originally posted by beowulf View Post
                        Considering how a carrier stallion can have way more of an impact on the carrier status of a population, is it wildly inappropriate or untenable to propose that (future) stallions with carrier status cannot be licensed, but mares with carrier status can?

                        That way the bloodline can still continue -- but not at a massive saturation.

                        I'm sure it's not an ideal solution to some.. but just a thought because people are claiming if we don't breed carriers we can lose valuable traits... what if we limit it to a specific sex?
                        Any proposal to prevent carriers from breeding is pretty inappropriate at this moment. It doesn't matter whether its stallions or mares IMO
                        https://www.facebook.com/Luckyacresfarm
                        https://www.facebook.com/Ulrike-Bsch...4373849955364/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Manni01 View Post

                          Any proposal to prevent carriers from breeding is pretty inappropriate at this moment. It doesn't matter whether its stallions or mares IMO
                          Manni01, I don't agree that it's inappropriate to discuss some sort of protocol to handle limiting the impact carrier stallions have on a population.

                          We're seeing that it's more prevalent than originally estimated, and more prevalent in some very popular lines.. that can and will shape the future of the breed registries because you can't throw a cat without hitting some of those stallions, their sons, their daughters..

                          As a breeder, you of all people should recognize that influential stallions shape the future of the registry - not the non-influential ones - and you, as a breeder, should recognize that the diversity for popular bloodlines at the moment is very small. If the diversity is small, and a major founding stallion, with major stallion sons, has been declared a carrier -- how can you not see the forest for the trees?

                          AETERNUM VALE, INVICTUS - 7/10/2012

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mvp View Post
                            And all this means that it's more possible to create a "genetic bottle neck" now via a handful of very popular stallions who care similar genetics than ever before. It's a very interesting and pressing problem, IMO.
                            I just read a piece from one of the geneticists on the forefront of the WFFS issue. This geneticist believes that WFFS dates back to the 1800s. Here we are 150-200 years later with an existing warmblood population believed to be 90-94% clear (i.e., no carriers). This (WFFS and other genetic diseases/syndromes) is an issue for the registries to address, but hardly one that warrants the widespread hysteria it has caused.

                            Many of the registries have advised their membership of the WFFS issue, recommended that breeders test their breeding stock and suggested that breeders use caution when breeding with carriers. This is the simplest, most straight-forward and practical step toward mitigating the risk that WFFS poses. Developing registry policies beyond that will require thoughtful discussion.

                            The sky is far from falling.
                            Last edited by Bent Hickory; May. 16, 2018, 01:34 PM.
                            "You armchair quarterbacks truly disgust me. Get out from behind your keyboards and go try to learn half as much about horsemanship as Ms. Colvin." -- APirateLooksAtForty

                            Comment


                            • Incidentally for anyone who hasn't been following, animal genetics is currently citing 6.4% of the population as carriers. This is a FLUID NUMBER (I haven't seen them cite how large their tested population is) and subject to change as more horses are tested. This number is currently lower than the one they stated yesterday (7.8%) and on the low end of the estimates I have seen since the beginning. You can see the information at the link below.

                              https://www.animalgenetics.us/Equine...sease/WFFS.asp

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bent Hickory View Post

                                I just read a piece from one of the geneticists on the forefront of the WFFS issue. This geneticist believes that WFFS dates back to the 1800s. Here we are 150-200 years later with an existing warmblood population believed to be 90-94% clear (i.e., no carriers). This (WFFS and other genetic diseases/syndromes) is an issue for the registries to address, but hardly one that warrants the widespread hysteria it has caused.

                                Many of the registries have advised their membership of the WFFS issue, recommended that breeders test their breeding stock and suggested that breeders use caution when breeding with carriers. This is the simplest, most straight-forward and practical step toward mitigating the risk that WFFS poses. Developing registry policies beyond that will require thoughtful discussion.

                                The sky is far from falling.
                                I agree the sky isn't falling.

                                You can't compare the population in the 1800s from now - it was way more diverse back then - most yards had their own separate breeding pools, and most people were limited to selecting a stallion either within their local geography, or their means -- which made it so the population remained relatively stable and unique.

                                Then WWI&WWII happened, the gene pool & genetic diversity took an absolute nosedive, and now, with the advent of shipped/cooled/frozen, you can have any stallion you want in a matter of a click -- and now, you are breeding for sales and inspections, which means you will select stallions that are popular or trendy -- which means that trendy/popular stallions are being selected over local ones, which further increases the chances of a population becoming less and less diverse.

                                I also would personally refrain from using the word 'hysteria' to describe the reactions seen here and on FB -- it cheapens the legitimate concern that SO and MOs should have about this disease, and it's implicitly insulting. Who knows - it could very well explain the many abortions some people have had over the years, particularly when light is shed on the fact that one or both of the parents are carriers. The amount of breeders is getting smaller and smaller every year - it's so expensive, it's very risky on the mare, it's a huge financial risk, and it's a labor of love -- SOs and MOs absolutely should be concerned and should have the knowledge/information at hand to stack the cards in their favor and prevent not only loss of life, but loss of finances -- breeding is fast becoming the wealthy's game, despite the fact some of the best breeders in the US are not independently wealthy.. Can we really afford to lose the breeders we have in the US over something that is preventable?
                                AETERNUM VALE, INVICTUS - 7/10/2012

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  Originally posted by beowulf View Post
                                  Manni01, I don't agree that it's inappropriate to discuss some sort of protocol to handle limiting the impact carrier stallions have on a population.

                                  We're seeing that it's more prevalent than originally estimated, and more prevalent in some very popular lines.. that can and will shape the future of the breed registries because you can't throw a cat without hitting some of those stallions, their sons, their daughters..

                                  As a breeder, you of all people should recognize that influential stallions shape the future of the registry - not the non-influential ones - and you, as a breeder, should recognize that the diversity for popular bloodlines at the moment is very small. If the diversity is small, and a major founding stallion, with major stallion sons, has been declared a carrier -- how can you not see the forest for the trees?
                                  I think its ridiculous to accuse me of not seeing the forest for the trees...... I started the thread, I already discussed the topic in 2013 and I still have the same pretty solid opinion now that I had in 2013. And which relieves me most is what I read from the scientist who developed the test and probably has the most insight information about WFFS of all people. It sounds exactly like my opinion.

                                  What is important now is to test as many horses as possible in order to get more information how far it is spread. For the future I would simply avoid to breed carrier to carrier and to require either test results from any horse used for breeding or clear certificates of both the parents of the the horse being bred. And thats it.... Nice and easy.
                                  No witch hunts, no hysteria, no rules based on ideas of single persons.......

                                  I think I wrote this about 10 times already in this thread and I am will to repeat it as many times as needed.... Very simple approach and I would bet that in 20 years from now the numbers are down anyhow......
                                  https://www.facebook.com/Luckyacresfarm
                                  https://www.facebook.com/Ulrike-Bsch...4373849955364/

                                  Comment


                                  • As someone has brought up the financial component of breeding in regards to WFFS, I thought I would share a few things I've been mulling over.

                                    I speculate that it's the non-European breeders (specifically, non-German and non-Dutch) that have the most to lose if WFFS carriers are immediately phased out of breeding. Removing carrier breeding stock and continuing to breed would require two things: A. Access to replacement stock/bloodlines and B. Being able to afford them. Germany especially has the easiest access to a quantity of affordable and well bred animals. American breeders have been discussing horse prices (especially comparing them - North American vs German) for as long as I can tell that NA breeders have had skin in the warmblood breeding game.

                                    It's pretty acknowledged that while NA can offer competitively recognizable/desirable bloodlines, horses purchased here cost more. So telling breeders to eliminate all carriers from their stock - what about breeding operations that have three, four, or five carrier mares (from a foundation mare to their program who may have been a carrier)? Can they A. find those bloodlines elsewhere and B. can they afford to replace those mares?

                                    If we're going to lobby around financial repercussions of WFFS, I suspect that for many programs, being told to eliminate carriers from breeding would be catastrophic, financially. (And that doesn't even factor in the programs that have inadvertently bred the gene through their program, having introduced a carrier in the advent of their program but then have spent years breeding for specific pedigrees and bloodlines, and had the gene continue through their program. That's a tremendous sum put into semen, reproductive work-ups, vaccinations, training, etc.)

                                    The second key point that stands out to me from a financial standpoint is that the WFFS test actually makes breeding less of a financial gamble - even with carriers being permitted to breed. Prior to the test it was an unknown risk that got claused in with the "risk of breeding" so to speak - mares would abort, reabsorb a pregnancy, or a foal would be born "not quite right". Now that we can test for WFFS, breeders can see if their mare is a carrier - and even if she is, they don't have to risk thousands of dollars put into semen, vet work, vaccinations, medication, and anything else affiliated with breeding. They can find a non-carrier stallion and they won't risk losing that money to a WFFS/WFFS loss.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by beowulf View Post
                                      You can't compare the population in the 1800s from now
                                      I don't need a history lesson. The fact remains that WFFS has been with us for a very long time and warmblood breeding is simply not in imminent danger of collapse.

                                      Originally posted by beowulf View Post
                                      I also would personally refrain from using the word 'hysteria' to describe the reactions seen here and on FB -- it cheapens the legitimate concern that SO and MOs should have about this disease, and it's implicitly insulting.
                                      Yes, WFFS is a legitimate concern, but it simply does not warrant the present reaction. I have followed this issue on the front line since Hilltop's announcement. There is no word other than "hysteria" that adequately captures the reaction of far too many folks, including many who have no stake whatsoever in this issue. The problem has been identified and the mechanism for immediately mitigating the risk of WFFS is known. And yet there are members calling the registries demanding (yes, demanding) that the registries immediately disclose all known carriers, that licenses/approvals be immediately revoked from stallions that are carriers, that foals that are carriers not be issued registrations, that mares that are carriers no longer be allowed to breed, and on and on. Even the genetic experts on WFFS have not recommended such actions! Virtually all other registry functions have ground to a halt while the registries attempt to field member concerns.

                                      Your "woe to the breeder" rant is a just another example of the senseless wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth on this issue.

                                      Yes, hysteria is the correct word.
                                      Last edited by Bent Hickory; May. 16, 2018, 04:03 PM.
                                      "You armchair quarterbacks truly disgust me. Get out from behind your keyboards and go try to learn half as much about horsemanship as Ms. Colvin." -- APirateLooksAtForty

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Bent Hickory View Post

                                        I don't need a history lesson. The fact remains that WFFS has been with us for a very long time and warmblood breeding is simply not in imminent danger of collapse.

                                        Yes, WFFS is a legitimate concern, but it simply does not warrant the present reaction. I have followed this issue on the front line since Hilltop's announcement. There is no word other than "hysteria" that adequately captures the reaction of far too many folks, including many who have no stake whatsoever in this issue. The problem has been identified and the mechanism for immediately mitigating the risk of WFFS is known. And yet there are members calling the registries demanding (yes, demanding) that the registries immediately disclose all known carriers, that licenses/approvals be immediately revoked from stallions that are carriers, that foals that are carriers not be issued registrations, that mares that are carriers no longer be allowed to breed, and on and on. Even the genetic experts on WFFS have not recommended such actions! Virtually all other registry functions have ground to a halt while the registries attempt to field member concerns.

                                        Your "woe to the breeder" rant is a just another example of the senseless wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

                                        Yes, hysteria is the correct word.
                                        I'm aware you're trying to be condescending, and I am just going to answer your response to the best of my abilities without returning the favor since I find being condescending is not really conducive to discussion.

                                        You mention that "it has been around for a very long time" - however, that is just unproven theory at this point. The originator of the disease has not been discovered yet. So if it has not been isolated, how are you able to say with any certainty at all how long it has been around?

                                        Furthermore, if we don't know how long it has been around, how can you measure the rate in which it has increased or decreased in the gene pool? You can't compare today to yesterday, sorry, so you can't really say with any certainty how fast or how slow the carrier gene is spreading through a population. We simply don't know. Also, the last 150-200 years was a very different breeding regime -- live cover up until very recently from a genetic standpoint. Shipped/cooled/frozen completely changes the game and yes, it will impact the diversity of the genepool going forward. So, it may have been at 1% for the last 150-200 years and then bounced up to 10% in the last 15 thanks to a very well known, very common stallion -- or, it might have been 30% and trickled down to the numbers we have now. We just don't know.

                                        We simply don't know enough about the disease right now to know if carriers/non-affecteds don't also have issues related to the disease.

                                        What you can see, anyone can see, is that multiple major, trending stallions have tested as carriers.

                                        It's really simple math. The WB population is thinning. The amount of available sires that share similar bloodlines is increasing. We are breeding for sales and inspections. We are following a trend. Anyone who can observe a pattern can see that taking a cavalier attitude towards a genetic disease when your founding and/or most popular stallion[s] are carriers is not a sound strategy.

                                        It was not a "woe-to-breeders" speech. It was an observation, made about the fact many breeders, some well-known on COTH, some long-time here, have stepped back from breeding because it is very expensive and not very financially rewarding and have said so, here and in other places. To me, it makes sense to try to stack the deck in your favor, test what you can, and prevent more losses/aborts in the future.

                                        So, there's obviously many opinions here. I think you misunderstand mine, since I never said to "immediately revoke licensing for current stallions", nor that "registries must disclose all carrier stallions."

                                        I haven't seen anyone in this thread be hysteric.

                                        I don't think that it is a good idea to sit on your hands about this. YMMV, as it obviously does. I think testing should be mandatory, yes, and that people should be advised to never breed carrier to carrier. A long term solution might be in the cards when we find ~20 years down the road that the carrier population is not decreasing, as I doubt it will, since many popular and trending stallions are carriers and, down the road, will likely be linebred to because they are phenomenal athletes.

                                        The point is, people should be discussing it because it is obviously a very complex problem that has repercussions no matter which way you look at it. Whether that's to limit the studbook of carriers, cull them completely, or ignore them, there's a negative to every angle you observe, and discussion should be happening. Sorry you don't agree.
                                        AETERNUM VALE, INVICTUS - 7/10/2012

                                        Comment

                                        • Original Poster

                                          Originally posted by beowulf View Post

                                          I'm aware you're trying to be condescending, and I am just going to answer your response to the best of my abilities without returning the favor since I find being condescending is not really conducive to discussion.

                                          You mention that "it has been around for a very long time" - however, that is just unproven theory at this point. The originator of the disease has not been discovered yet. So if it has not been isolated, how are you able to say with any certainty at all how long it has been around?

                                          Furthermore, if we don't know how long it has been around, how can you measure the rate in which it has increased or decreased in the gene pool? You can't compare today to yesterday, sorry, so you can't really say with any certainty how fast or how slow the carrier gene is spreading through a population. We simply don't know. Also, the last 150-200 years was a very different breeding regime -- live cover up until very recently from a genetic standpoint. Shipped/cooled/frozen completely changes the game and yes, it will impact the diversity of the genepool going forward. So, it may have been at 1% for the last 150-200 years and then bounced up to 10% in the last 15 thanks to a very well known, very common stallion -- or, it might have been 30% and trickled down to the numbers we have now. We just don't know.

                                          We simply don't know enough about the disease right now to know if carriers/non-affecteds don't also have issues related to the disease.

                                          What you can see, anyone can see, is that multiple major, trending stallions have tested as carriers.

                                          It's really simple math. The WB population is thinning. The amount of available sires that share similar bloodlines is increasing. We are breeding for sales and inspections. We are following a trend. Anyone who can observe a pattern can see that taking a cavalier attitude towards a genetic disease when your founding and/or most popular stallion[s] are carriers is not a sound strategy.

                                          It was not a "woe-to-breeders" speech. It was an observation, made about the fact many breeders, some well-known on COTH, some long-time here, have stepped back from breeding because it is very expensive and not very financially rewarding and have said so, here and in other places. To me, it makes sense to try to stack the deck in your favor, test what you can, and prevent more losses/aborts in the future.

                                          So, there's obviously many opinions here. I think you misunderstand mine, since I never said to "immediately revoke licensing for current stallions", nor that "registries must disclose all carrier stallions."

                                          I haven't seen anyone in this thread be hysteric.

                                          I don't think that it is a good idea to sit on your hands about this. YMMV, as it obviously does. I think testing should be mandatory, yes, and that people should be advised to never breed carrier to carrier. A long term solution might be in the cards when we find ~20 years down the road that the carrier population is not decreasing, as I doubt it will, since many popular and trending stallions are carriers and, down the road, will likely be linebred to because they are phenomenal athletes.

                                          The point is, people should be discussing it because it is obviously a very complex problem that has repercussions no matter which way you look at it. Whether that's to limit the studbook of carriers, cull them completely, or ignore them, there's a negative to every angle you observe, and discussion should be happening. Sorry you don't agree.
                                          I agree very much with Bent Hickory and I think it is hysteria to discuss ideas spooking around in the heads of some people which will not make any difference to the problem at all...
                                          there were so many in this thread it’s amazing...

                                          WFFs carriers might be handicapped in some dubious way,
                                          breeders who do not cull carriers are unethical and mainly thinking about multiplying and money
                                          if you don’t restrict breeding carriers. warm bloods are doomed And probably some more I did not keep track off....

                                          what sense does it make to discuss things with no scientific background which are just in the heads of some people....
                                          https://www.facebook.com/Luckyacresfarm
                                          https://www.facebook.com/Ulrike-Bsch...4373849955364/

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X