Reminder: Login to access new features and members-only content!

Register to be a member of our community. Its easy!

Register a new account

Already a member?

Log In here!

Donate

Did you find our content interesting or helpful? Help support the IPFD enhance health, well-being and welfare for dogs everywhere.

Jump to content
International Partnership for Dogs - Enhancing Dog Health, Well-Being, and Welfare - Join Us
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Blogs

Featured Entries

  • Brenda Bonnett

    COVID-19 - a novel experience for dogs and people

    By Brenda Bonnett

    Sources of accurate and relevant COVID-19 information for your dog, your puppies and you. In the face of the great uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and its impact on pets and pet owners, many veterinary and regulatory organizations have been providing excellent information and advice, as have kennel and breed organizations.  It is important to remember that recommendations and restrictions vary depending on location and owners need to access and follow local recommendations, especially as t
    • 2 comments
    • 1,372 views

Our community blogs

  1. The idea for this post came during the discussions around our virtual International Dog Health Workshop on genetic diversity in May (see Ian Seath's great article about the workshop). We were discussing what kind of population statistics would breeders and breed clubs need, in order to take care of their breed population in a best possible way. I spoke to the group about the tools in the Finnish Kennel Club's breeding database, which elicited enthusiastic reactions.

    The Finnish Kennel Club (FKC), as well as other Nordic kennel clubs, is well-advanced in analyzing data and making it available to breeders and breed clubs. Let’s make a short tour on the FKC breeding database and see what specific tools there are for breed-level genetic diversity.

    The FKC advises to:

    1. avoid inbreeding especially in the first 5 generations (fast inbreeding) or keep this inbreeding coefficient (COI) below the breed average
    2. find individuals with rare alleles for breeding, and
    3. use as many dogs for breeding as possible, with as even number of offspring as possible.

     

    Regarding the advise No 1. - calculating the COI for planned litters is possible using 4-8 generations data:

    COI of planned litter.png

    It gives you the pedigree and this info:

    COI of planned litter 2.png

     

    Regarding the advise No 2. - no mean kinships etc are available, so there's clear need for either pedigree-based or genetic tools for that. But males which not yet have registered progeny you can indeed find in the database, using different search criteria:

    find males.png

     

    Regarding the advise No 3. - you can follow the numbers of litters and offspring per males and also per females:

    offspring per males.png 

    Here the cumulative % is very useful, you can see that 10 males accounted for 29 % of all puppies registered during the chosen time period (now 2017-2022). Gipstern Ifender accounted for 4.46 % of puppies during that period. The columns 'Total' are all puppies, also those born outside the chosen period.

    You can also rearrange this statistics by clicking on the underlined titles. At that point the cumulative % doesn't make sense anymore.

    And you can click on the name of the dog, which brings you to the page where you can see the pedigree of the dog and the results of health and temperament tests, trials and shows, as well as Estimated breeding values and the list of siblings and offspring.

    For monitoring, there are statistics by year and by generation (4 years):

    • breeds' average COI ('Inbreeding' - this is calculated with as deep pedigrees as the data for each dog allows, but usually not reaching to the founders)
    • N of different sires, dams and grandparents
    • ratio of sires/dams
      • a figure describing the use of popular sires. If this is 1, there are no popular sires, as the use of males is as variable as possible. 
      • this breed is Hovawart, which is famous for its' good breeding practices, but there are breeds where this figure is as low as 0.30.
    • effective population size
      • (should be calculated per generation, so the per year -figure doesn't tell you the right thing. Hopefully removed from the next version of the database.)
    • % of dogs used for breeding
      • note that Hovawarts are not used at a young age so the percents are low here - they are going to grow in the future for these age classes.

    Annual stats reg.png

    Annual stats gene pool.png

    And the good news is that most breeders / breed clubs know what to do with all this info. The FKC has a template for breed-specific breeding strategies (first version was developed in the beginning of 2000s) and has updated it a few times since then. The template walks you through on which information to include in the strategy and how to 'translate' it.

    See the sections 4.1, 6.2 and 6.3: https://www.kennelliitto.fi/en/forms/breeding-strategy-jto-template-breeds-large-populations.

     

    Thanks for reading!

    In case you have questions, or want to share information on your own kennel club or breed club, please feel free to contact us at info@ipfdogs.com.

    Read also my other blog post on how the FKC is promoting open studbooks and other important genetic diversity tools

     

  2. The KC (UK) New Registration Stats for 2021

     

    We recently published an article "How many are there? French Bulldogs, English Bulldogs and Pugs in Kennel Club Registries from 10 Countries" comparing registration statistics inlcuding numbers and relative percentages of the newly registered populations, and then popularity ranking.  These are simply for kennel club registrations, and the degree to which they reflect country wide numbers of pedigree and look-at-like dogs is unknown.  

    It was interesting to see that in some countries, especially the UK and the USA these controversial breeds continue to maintain or increase in popularity in pedigree populations.  It is important to monitor changes in time within- and across countries.

    We now have some data for 2021 from The KC, unfortunately only for the first 3 quarters. (June 2nd 2022: see a note for the whole year below the chart)

    Here is the chart comparing to 2020:

    The KC 2020 2021 image.png

    NOTE: Data for 2021 in the graph include only the first 3 quarters.  

    • Numbers of at least French Bulldogs and Bulldogs on are track to be higher than in 2020.
    • The percent of new registrations in each period are relatively similar, perhaps a small decline, e.g. Pugs.
    • These 3 breeds, together, accounted for 22.7% of new registrations in 2020.  
    • In the first 3 Qs of 2021, together they were at 21.1% - over 1/5th of all new registrations.
    • The final numbers for French Bulldogs are 54,074 and for Bulldogs 15,403.
    • These stats show the importance of looking not only at total numbers but also the proportion/percentage of registrations.

     

    From the KC Rank 2020    Rank 2021 3Q
    French Bulldog   2 2
    Bulldog    4 4
    Pug   9 10

    https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media-centre/breed-registration-statistics/

     

     

  3. After the recent publication of Degenerative Myelopathy - Diagnosis and Inheritance, we received an excellent query from an experience breeder of French Bulldogs, who was concerned that her middle-aged dog was showing "classic" signs of Degenerative Myelopathy (DM).

    The dog had a clear genetic test for the SOD 1 mutation, but was experiencing clinical signs associated with DM: awkward and uncoordinated hind gait, loss of balance and falling when turning and also when stressed. The breeder had also observed French Bulldogs over the years in dog showing with uncoordinated hindlegs, dragging feet, and other mobility challenges that they questioned, could this be DM?

    There have been concerns raised by researchers in DM diagnosis, and usage of testing for SOD 1 in the French Bulldog. French Bulldogs are currently not included as a breed associated with DM. French Bulldogs have been the subject of research investigating neurological disorders in the breed identifying other myelopathies of concern, but not DM (Mayousse, 2017). The current best available information is that SOD 1 mutation testing is unlikely to be relevant for the breed.

    Unfortunately, clinical signs of DM across many breeds of dog can mimic or appear very similar to other more common breed-associated spinal or neurological issues, it can be very difficult to confirm a diagnosis of DM without a post-mortem. This may explain why the breeder's dog appears to have clinical signs, but has tested clear for SOD 1. Some more common conditions in the French Bulldog include degenerating hemivertebrae, or missing hemivertebrae, both of which could have similar clinical signs. 

    One of the main concerns raised by vets and researchers regarding DM is the potential for misdiagnosis for more common and in some cases treatable or more manageable conditions.

    French Bulldogs are currently listed as "orange" for SOD 1 breed relevance rating (BRR), which means that the evidence reviewed is either inconclusive for relevance, or the disease has never been observed in the breed. There are some breeds listed as green (some evidence) or yellow (no research available), for SOD 1 testing. However, given the very low predictability of risk for even "green" breeds, it is a genetic test that should be approached with caution. Even for the breeds where the risk prediction value is better, it appears that the SOD 1 test is best for eliminating DM as the likely condition rather than use for breed-wide management. 

    The breeder's dog almost certainly does not have DM, but there are a number of other conditions that have similar clinical symptoms, including those that respond to treatment and management. Even for breeds where DM testing may be relevant, as described in the articles around using SOD1 (and SOD2) genetic tests for DM, the usefulness is mostly in eliminating DM as a diagnosis. 

     

    Resources:

    Infographic of SOD 1 testing for DM
    Summary of new research
    Original research, including diagnosis definition, which may be especially interesting to vets

     

    Ref:

    Mayousse, V., Desquilbet, L., Jeandel, A. et al. Prevalence of neurological disorders in French bulldog: a retrospective study of 343 cases (2002–2016). BMC Vet Res 13, 212 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1132-2

     

    Image by JK Creative via Pexels

  4. In general: Despite the devastating nature of this condition, it is rarely or infrequently diagnosed in all breeds; and the sod1 test is not – on its own – predictive of DM in any breed. Most occurrences of dogs presenting with typical signs have other degenerative conditions, not DM.

    Breeders:  Sod1 testing should not form the basis of breed-wide strategies. Eliminating dogs from breeding based on the sod tests is detrimental to breed diversity and will not achieve desired results, even in German Shepherd Dogs or Boxers, Bernese Mountain Dogs (sod1 and 2), Corgis, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Borzois, or Chesapeake Bay Retrievers. Prioritizing testing for this condition will also take away emphasis from other more common and severe conditions. The sod1 gene is incompletely penetrant, meaning that sod1 is only one factor in the polygenic DM disease, not large enough to cause the disease by itself. This complex disease cannot be controlled on the basis of this test at a breed level. Limited potential uses of the sod1 test are listed below.

     

    For a dog with clinical signs of DM - dogs with relatives confirmed* to have DM

    • If your dog is negative for sod1 or is heterozygous, basically it will not experience DM (almost 100%) – rule out DM as a problem.
    • If your dog is homozygous for sod1, it may experience DM (but it is not 100%) – DM can’t be ruled-in, and the test alone should never be cause for euthanasia.

    For Breeds where use of the sod1 (or sod2) test has been promoted...

     

    The facts suggest that this test is not accurate enough to label dogs as at risk and certainly not for use in breed-wide strategies. In fact, the test has sometimes been promoted in breeds where there have never been confirmed cases and where there are more significant diseases and issues to be considered in healthy breeding.

    For ALL BREEDS – sod1/2 testing should NOT be used as a breed-wide strategy.  Please focus on common problems in your breed – the test will not work as you hope and will cause unintended consequences for breed health.

     

    Elimination of animals from breeding based on sod1 (and sod2) testing may seriously damage any breed.

    What is required to *confirm a diagnosis of DM? See – Dr. Bell's paper and IPFD's Summary, Correcting the confusion around degenerative myelopathy

     

    ✧ OTHER IMPORTANT Breed-specific issues ✧

    Prioritizing testing for Degenerative Myelopathy can take away emphasis from other more common and severe conditions. Tests and conditions that should be considered in breeding decisions and for owners choosing a breeder or a dog.

    German
    Shepherd
    Dog

     

    Orthopedic evaluations (hips, elbows, spine), eye exams and temperament evaluation recommended by multiple health strategy providers. Risk for exaggerated characteristics: over-angulation, cow-hocked hindquarters with instability in hocks, arched top line cut away in loin and croup.

    german-shepherd-dog-800x800-fci166.png

    Boxer

    Orthopedic evaluations (hips, elbows, spine), heart evaluation and thyroid testing recommended by multiple health strategy providers. Risk for irritated skin and breathing problems. Length of nose bridge in relation to skull should be (at least) 1:2; nostrils should be open.

     

    boxer-800x800-fci144.png

    Bernese Mountain
    Dog

    Orthopedic evaluations (hip, elbows) and eye exams recommended by multiple health strategy providers. Recognized health conditions that impact length and quality of life include: a high cancer rate, digestive issues (IBD, PLE, Bloat and food allergies/mal-absorption disorders) as well as reproductive issues.

    bernese-mountain-dog-800x800-fci45.png

    Corgis

    Orthopedic evaluations (hips, elbows, spine, patella), eye exams, behaviour and temperament evaluations recognized or recommended by multiple health strategy providers. Digestive issues recognized.

    cardigan-pembroke-welsh-corgis-800x800-fci38-39.png

    Rhodesian Ridgeback

    Testing for Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy (JME) and eye disease recommended by multiple health strategy providers. Character and temperament evaluations are conducted.  Rhodesian dogs are affected by immunological diseases, of which allergies, atopy, hypothyroidism, and tumors are the most common.

    rhodesian-ridgeback-800x800-fci146.png

    Borzoi

    Heart evaluation and thyroid testing are recommended by multiple health strategy providers.

    borzoi-800x800-fci193.png

    Chesapeake Bay Retriever

    Orthopedic evaluations (hips, elbows), eye exams and thyroid testing are recommended by multiple health strategy providers. 

    chesapeake-bay-retriever-800x800-fci263.png

    No breeds should consider using a breed-wide breeding strategy for DM based on sod1 (or sod2) testing.  Possible use within family lines or to rule out DM in certain individual cases might be helpful.

     

    This article is available as a PDF. Degenerative Myelopathy and Genetic Testing Infographic - IPFD.pdf

     

    _________

    Related resources

    See Article: DEGENERATIVE MYELOPATHY-DIAGNOSIS AND INHERITANCE - Dr. Jerold Bell

    Also see DogWellnet Blogs:

    Correcting the confusion around degenerative myelopathy - Dr. Brenda Bonnett

    HGTD this week - BRR Updates on sod-1-Testing for Degenerative myleopathy-DM

     

  5. A recent research commentary paper, DEGENERATIVE MYELOPATHY-DIAGNOSIS AND INHERITANCE - Dr. Jerold Bell, from a lecture presented at the World Small Animal Veterinary Association 2021 Virtual World Congress 13 Nov. 2021 has summarized and clarified information on the clinical diagnosis and use of genetic testing for degenerative myelopathy (DM). Please see linked references below for more details. 

    Due to this new information, we have taken the decision to update the breed relevance ratings (BRR) to reflect these concerns and considerations. We will be adding in key comments to all breeds where SOD 1 variant testing may be frequently undertaken, to reflect the changes in recommendations for test usage and application. The breeds impacted by this information include those who may commonly test for DM as part of breeding programs.

    When DM testing is offered not specifically to a breed, for "all" dogs, or for mixed breed dogs of unknown origin, owners should be aware of risks associated with misunderstanding or misusing the test results, including:

    • misdiagnosing DM in a dog affected with another treatable or non-fatal disease
    • basing breeding or health management decisions on a test result in a breed where the presence of the variant is not considered risk-associated (e.g. French Bulldogs) 
    • prioritizing a risk-variant for a rare condition that may not have been clinically observed in a breed, over other more common, well-understood, or higher impact breeding and health concerns

    Changes to the BRR

    Breed relevance ratings (BRR) are dynamic, and will change to reflect additional research or expert comment. As with any genetic test, the test result should be considered in balance not only with relative risk and welfare implications specific to the disease or trait being tested for, but also within the broader context or Big Picture of health and welfare (e.g. behaviour, clinical exams, inbreeding, etc.) Given the reported low correlation between the presence of SOD 1 mutation and diagnosis of DM, the BRR have been changed to better reflect the low prediction of risk, and unknown clinical presence of DM in the vast majority of dogs. 

    When considering testing for DM, it is important to remember:

    • DM is a rare, complex condition, with an unknown number of genetic variants and possible environmental factors that determine both inheritance and clinical disease
    • SOD1 and SOD 2 are only 2 variants that have been identified as contributing to risk, and they are known to have low prediction of disease risk
    • The majority of breeds and dogs where the test is offered have not had breed-specific research to indicate relevance
    • The majority of breeds where the test is offered have not had a confirmed clinical diagnosis of DM
    • DM testing, at best, rules out DM. It is not recommended in most cases to be used as part of breed-wide breeding schemes and certainly not diagnostic. 

    A reminder of the BRR rating system:

     green paw 20.jpg    Some, moderate or strong evidence from available research. The test may be meaningful or recommended for this breed.

     yellow paw 20.jpg   Currently no evidence of relevance for the use of this test in this breed, or the test is not known in this breed. This rating should be expected to change as evidence becomes available. 

    orange paw 20.jpg  All current available evidence has been reviewed, but relevance is inconclusive, and/or the clinical form of the disease has never been seen in this breed.

    red paw 20.jpg   All current evidence indicates that the test is not meaningful or recommended in this breed.

     

    See the article: DEGENERATIVE MYELOPATHY-DIAGNOSIS AND INHERITANCE

    Also see DogWellnet Blogs:

    Correcting the confusion around degenerative myelopathy - Dr. Brenda Bonnett

    Infographic - Quick Facts on Degenerative Myelopathy and Genetic Testing

     

    (photo: T. Miroshnicheko via Pexels)

  6. National Kennel Clubs are major stakeholders in the governance and regulation of dog breeding. As such, they have been the targets of major criticism related to dog health issues. It is therefore interesting to investigate to what extent health and welfare is a priority for kennel clubs (KCs), and what are the capacities and actions implemented to deal with those issues.

     

    A survey was sent in 2017 to 40 KCs with 15 answers received from 11 European (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK) and 4 non-European countries (Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, and the USA) aimed at describing and comparing information across countries in dog breed health management (Wang et al. 2018).

     

    First, in order to determine the population of dogs under the responsibility of KC, the percentages of all dogs being registered as ‘pedigree’ dogs were estimated considering the 15 surveyed KCs, as well 35 other countries, using sources such as the FCI online statistics. Across countries, the average and median percentage of the entire dog population that were registered pedigree dogs, respectively was 20% and 14%.  However, there was a large variation across countries, with European Nordic countries showing, in general, a larger proportion of pedigree dogs (see Figure 1). This aspect is of importance, since it is expected that the responsibility toward general dog health, as well as the capacity to improve the situation, relates to the proportion of dogs that are at least to some extent under the influence of the KCs.

    Fig1.jpg 

    When asked about the current challenges, KCs ranked exaggerated morphological features and inherited disorders as the most important issues, showing those two problems are now clearly identified as priorities (Figure 2). By contrast, issues such as economic constraints to breeding were rarely viewed as problematic for dog breeding. Kennel clubs also commented on challenges related to the difficulty to find balance between increased regulation and the risk of losing members; to achieve consensus and compliance of breeders and clubs toward breed health strategies; as well as lack of capacity regarding information provision and education.

     

    Fig2.jpg

    Surveyed countries showed great diversity in terms of information management, implementation of breeding strategies, recommendations, requirement, restriction and tools. Most KCs indicated that information on genealogies, breed standards and dog shows were recorded in their data base for most, if not all breeds; however, health information (e.g. screening examinations, genetic tests) was more sparsely recorded and provided to the public, both for breeds within countries and across countries (Figure 3). For instance, KCs from Austria, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, the UK and the USA provided health information status on pedigrees and in online data bases, but in general, not all breeds were covered. When considering implementation of breeding strategies, six countries indicated that there were no breeding strategies implemented by any breed clubs, while in three countries (Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands) it was reported that each breed club had its breeding strategy.

    Fig3.jpg

     

    Several countries indicated that they were planning to develop breeding tools and provide health information to users, and for instance, France and Belgium reported having ongoing work to develop tools to provide online pedigree with health information or estimate breeding values for complex disorders such as hip dysplasia.

     

    Although limited by the relatively low number of countries considered, this survey showed that despite large differences in their approach to breeding policies and management, the awareness to improve breeding and health of pedigree dogs was strong among the surveyed Kennel Clubs. The dog breeding world is increasingly global in scope.  The understanding of both the diversity of health initiatives and the potential for coordinated actions internationally is key to further efforts to promote dog health and welfare.

     

    There is probably still a lot of progress to be made in term of information provision and collection, as well as planning breeding strategies considering dog health. In particular, finding a consensus in terms of constraints and priorities for breeding, is expected to be particularly challenging for Kennel Clubs and breed clubs in order to implement those strategies. Although the situations differ across countries, exchanges of experiences may surely help to find the most adequate solutions toward improvement of health and welfare.

     

      

    Reference:

    Wang, S., Laloë, D., Missant, F. M., Malm, S., Lewis, T., Verrier, E., ... & Leroy, G. (2018). Breeding policies and management of pedigree dogs in 15 national kennel clubs. The Veterinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.02.018

     

     

  7. Hello all!

     

    Brenda’s blog gave a great overview of the American Kennel Club National Parent Club Canine Health Conference we attended earlier this month in St. Louis, Missouri. I am grateful for the sponsorship from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals provided to myself and the 31 other veterinary students in attendance.

     

    This conference, like the 3rd International Dog FullSizeRender 7.jpgHealth Workshop, was an opportunity to learn more about cutting edge research that is improving dog OFA Logo 2017.jpghealth. Topics were varied and included tick borne disease, epilepsy, lymphoma, and reproductive health. It was exciting to see my Colorado State University (CSU) Immunology professor, Dr. Anne Avery, present on her lymphoma research. 

     

     

     

    Right: View from the top of the St. Louis Gateway Arch

     

     

    Veterinary Student Attendees at the AKC National Parent Club ConferenceAfter completing a CSU clinical orthopedics rotation a few weeks prior to the conference, it was especially interesting to hear what I had learned about Omega-3 fatty acids in my rotation be reiterated by presenter Dr. Wendy Baltzer from Massey University. Her Purina funded study described that a diet high in Omega-3 fatty acids post-surgical correction of cranial cruciate ligament disease is helpful and results in less progression of arthritis and lameness.  

    I’m am looking forward to graduation in 9 months and continued  involvement in dog health. The opportunities I have received since first starting my IPFD project have been endless and I am very thankful for the DogWellNet.com community!

     

    Left: Veterinary Student Attendees at the AKC National Parent Club Health Conference

     
     
  8. Well, it's been 10 weeks... and I've learned quite a lot. I hope you have, too! As my project comes to an end, Nina and I wanted to give our viewers a big thank you. I hope you enjoyed this blog series and feel more confident about what your role is in solving antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We would also like to extend a huge thank you to the Skippy Frank Fund who sponsored this entire project, and a thank you to Dr. Jason Stull and Dr. Brenda Bonnett for being wonderful mentors every step of the way.

     

    It is important to keep in mind that science is an ever-changing field that is constantly updated with new material. For example there's a new study that just came out suggesting that not finishing a course of antibiotics may not cause resistance, which is contrary to the current belief. Here is the link to this article if you would like to read more about it. Even though this blog is over, I hope that you continue your AMR education as new scientific data arises. 

     

    To complete my summer project, I have constructed a poster that I will be presenting at The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine's Research Day.

    Take a look!

     

    Slide1.thumb.PNG.2c6575c76e1d828f2cfd208703927bf8.PNG

     

     

    Here is the downloadable PDF version:

    IPFD Poster.pdf

     

     

     

     

    Be sure to keep checking www.DogWellNet.com for more information on dog health and wellness!

     

     

     

  9. The Finnish Kennel Club (FKC) has finished the protocol and the instructions for fitness (walk) testing of breeding dogs in brachycephalic breeds. The test is similar to the one used by the Dutch Kennel Club.

     

    Finnish test instructions have been developed by veterinarians doing research on BOAS. Their results concerning the Bulldog have already been published. The researchers are still continuing their research and testing Pugs and French Bulldogs, whose results will be published later.

     

    According to the Finnish guidelines, a dog gets an approved walk test result if he/she walks 1000 meters in 12 minutes or less, and recovers sufficiently from the walk within the recovery time. In the future, it is also possible to have different time limits for different breeds. The test result is failed if

    • The dog is, based on the veterinarian’s initial examination, showing signs of serious respiratory symptoms (including also severe hyperthermia).
    • The supervising veterinarian interrupts the test due to the dog’s serious respiratory symptoms.
    • The dog is not able to successfully complete the test and/or recover from it sufficiently within the required time.

    The FKC arranged the first pilot test in February, and the second pilot will be arranged in May. Also orientation for veterinarians will be held at that second pilot. After that, breed clubs are able to arrange the tests by their own.  The tests have to be carried out in accordance with the FKC's Guideline for walk tests, in order to get the test result recorded in the FKC breeding database.

     

    The FKC is following the development and use of different tests in other countries. It is also having close collaboration with the other Nordic Kennel Clubs on this subject. The aim is, in the long run, and with the help of accumulated experience, to develop the test further, to be as appropriate as possible.  

    UPDATED 7-15-2019

    All the information on the Finnish walk test can be found here.

    "Walk test

    The walk test is meant for short-muzzled (brachycephalic) breeds that have symptoms caused by upper respiratory tract disorders. These breeds include Pug, English Bulldog and French Bulldog. The dog's exercise tolerance and the ability to breathe normally are evaluated in the walk test and the clinical examination included in it. In the walk test, the dog must walk a certain distance in a defined maximum time and recover from the exercise within a defined time frame."

    Updated 2-18-2021 - See the 2-8-2019 FKC article

    The Finnish Kennel Club’s walk test helps eliminate dogs with severe breathing problems from breeding

  10. IPFD Board Member Dr. Patricia Olson was the keynote speaker at the Inaugural One Health Program at Midwestern University on October 8, 2015 (Downer’s Grove, Illinois). 

    Midwestern University also has one of the newest veterinary schools in the U.S. (Phoenix, Arizona).  Physicians were paired with veterinarians to deliver lectures on obesity, pneumonia, osteochondritis dissecans and epilepsy.  Dr. Olson’s lecture was on collaborative research, using the clues from animals to help advance both human and animal health/welfare. 

    See the pdf of her thought-provoking talk here: 

     

     

     


     

  11. blog-0240470001433429240.png

    Once a year, in October, the SKK Breeding Committee organizes a weekend course for

    breeding officials based on the book Dog breeding in theory and practice by Sofia Malm (SKK genetic expert) and Åsa Lindholm.

    blogentry-58-0-98774400-1433429215.png

     

     

     

     

     

    The Genetic Expert and The Breeding Consultant of the SKK Department for Breeding and Health are in charge of the course.

     

     

     

    The aim is to give breed clubs education and tools they need to work with breeding plans and breed-specific strategies.

     

     

     

    The contents of the course include basic genetics and guidance in how to conduct work at club level.

     

     

     

    There’s also a certain amount of self-directed studies.

     

     

     

     

    blogentry-58-0-62127900-1433429227.png

     

    Every other year, in April, this education is held specifically directed to hunting dog breed clubs.

     

     

  12. blogentry-68-0-75520200-1425905164_thumb

     

    On the podium:

    1st : Meisterhaus Signet Higher'N Higer ; Breed: Basenji ; Owner: Lise DURLOT and Dimitri HEBERT ; Breeder: Brenda CASSELL and Tad BOOKS

    2nd : Fall In Love Forest Ohara Of Bloom White ; Breed : Samoyede ; Owner: Mira MITKOVA ; Breeder: Elisabeth FAUCON

    3rd : Eternal Drago Of Nordic Forest ; Breed : Siberian Husky ; Owner and breeder: Valérie CHARNEAU

  • Blogs Disclaimer
    The contents of these blogs are for informational purposes only and represent the opinion of the author(s), and not that of the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD). This is not intended to be a substitute for professional, expert or veterinarian advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not recommend or endorse any specific tests, providers, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on, or linked to from these blogs.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.