Our community blogs
Is "tough talk" or "open dialogue" - and why is it a challenge in the dog world?
As often happens, the same topic comes up several times in a short space of time - and from different sources and angles.
Someone asked me why do many kennel clubs not record or link any health information to pedigrees, when in most countries kennel clubs are under a mandate to not only register dogs, but also to protect the health of those for whom they are responsible? Explanations might include that pedigree people truly care for their dogs and breeds, and may have come to simply assume that because of that they must be acting in the animals' best interest... or, perhaps, they are rather afraid that might not be so, and they are not willing to face open, transparent statistics and information on health... or, it is too time-consuming and expensive. Notwithstanding, the priority for attention to health as part of the responsibility for registration is very evident among many of the IPFD Contributing Partner kennel clubs; but it is certainly not true of all national organizations or breed clubs.
Today, Embark (one of our Sponsor Genetic Test Providers (GTP) in the Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) posted on Facebook a quote from a panel discussion I participated in as part of their online Summit. Although it comes across as very direct, and might take people aback, it is really just factual.
A couple weeks ago I posted a blog called Linebreeding vs. Inbreeding – Let’s be perfectly clear. That post sparked a lot of discussion on Facebook. And yet, the message was very basic. That is, linebreeding is a form of inbreeding and "Linebreeding/inbreeding - by definition - reduces genetic diversity. By how much depends on the closeness of mating pairs and the time/number of generations over which the process is repeated." Really, there should have been nothing surprising or shocking about that blog. But it seems, straight-talk, clear, fact- and evidence-based discussion, seems to startle some in the dog world. Of course, others find is refreshing and welcome it.
Bodil Carlsson, in her blog Collie Friends, in Sweden, posted blogs recently with translations from our IPFD document: Reframing Current Challenges Around Pedigree Dogs A Call for Respectful Dialogue, Collaboration, and Collective Actions. In her discussion, she welcomes the 'straight talk' but is somewhat surprised to hear it from someone who is an official capacity in the dog world (i.e. the CEO of IPFD). She says (Google translation to English):
"[Is it surprising] ... because plain language is uncommon in the dog world, especially from leading people: they tend to have too many interests to consider to speak out."
That may be a very valid, but sad point - except I truly do not think it reflects us! IPFD prides itself on being impartial yet able to talk plainly and practically about issues in the dog world. Because we are an independent and multi-stakeholder organization, one of our great strengths is being able to address challenging issues from a Big Picture view - relatively unhampered by limited or member-focused priorities. Personally, there are many occasions when I endeavour to be somewhat diplomatic, compassionate, and aware of sensibilities. However, I try hard not to let that distract from evidence-based reality.
Because, let's face it, dealing with the major issues about pedigree dogs and all dogs requires participation from all stakeholders. The challenges across groups - e.g. veterinary organizations, researchers, breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs and other cynological organizations, the pet industry, regulators, owners, and society, in general - will not be solved by ignoring the fact that all those groups have a say in the overall health, well-being and welfare of dogs. This is why the Reframing document talks about the roles and responsibilities of people in all sectors and calls on all those who care for dogs to step up. Not just the extremists; not just the loudest voices on social media; but the vast majority (I hope) who represent a sort of 'middle'. For example, those who support the breeding of pedigree dogs - but want a clear indication that the health and longevity of purebred dogs is a priority for all those who breeding them. And those who represent breeds not (currently) highlighted as having health issues who must speak up and demand increased stewardship from those responsible for the most challenged breeds - because it matters - to all dogs. And, as I have said, all this, with a little less emotion and more evidence. As Bodil said in her blog - in response to a quote from the Reframing document about confrontational actions looking like protectionism - it looks like protectionism, because it is.
Next steps? A few specific ideas...
- As others have suggested - read, ponder, discuss - your role and personal responsibility. (Note: The Collie Friends blog, on our Reframing doc is thought-provoking. In my google translation to English there is a term 'reindeer breeds' which I believe should be 'purebreds'.)
- Encourage open discussion among others - open and brave and realistic.
- If you are a pedigree breeder or member of a breed club - start making recommendations on how to prioritize health and longevity, and maintain genetic diversity (e.g. limit use of popular sires, use a wider and larger representation of the available breeding population, use tools for health testing, genetic testing, measure of breed health, etc.). And try to move people to prioritize health before appearance or winning in the show ring.
- Participate in work to further define the Big Picture of health in your breed - see our Get a GRIHP! program, do health surveys, share!!
- Support leadership in kennel clubs as they try to focus on programs for health - don't fight them. Speak up loudly in support to balance against those in opposition or who embrace avoidance and denial.
- Veterinarians - look for ways to support the breeding of healthy dogs, without mainly pointing fingers at others; collaborate with breeders, educate owners. Check our out Meet the Breed features in the Word Small Animal Association Bulletin.
- Legislators - look at the Big Picture, embrace collaboration rather than confrontation, look at the long term implications, not mainly actions that will be popular in the short term. See our presentation to APDAWG in the UK.
- Check out more ideas in our Think Globally, Act Locally - Promoting Open Dialogue and Collective Actions document that will continue to evolve with more ideas on moving forward - together.
- NEED INSPIRATION? There are individuals and clubs approaching health in a proactive way and embracing strategies for breed improvement. Find them! Participate. We highlight them in so many areas on dogwellnet.com including in Breed Specific Health Reports, and there are tools and templates to help. If you have something to share - let us know.
And let me return the favour to Embark, with another quote from their Summit. I view this as sage advice from someone with great business acumen and a commitment to the health of dogs and dog populations.
Is that tough talk? Maybe. Is such talk needed, for the benefit of dogs and dog people? Absolutely.
Let's all keep doing everything we can - personally and collectively for these breeds and dogs who give us so much !!
- Read more...
- 0 comments
The epidemiology of stiﬂe joint disease in an insured Swedish dog population
Engdahl, K, Hanson, J, Bergström, A, Bonnett, B, Höglund, O, Emanuelson, U. Epidemiology of stifle joint disease in an insured Swedish dog population. Vet Rec. 2021;e197. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.197
Background: Stiﬂe joint diseases (SJD) are common in dogs and include a variety of diagnoses. The objective of the study was to provide an overview of the epidemiology of SJD in insured dogs.
Methods: An historical single cohort study of dogs insured in Agria Pet Insurance (2011–2016) in Sweden was performed. Incidence and relative risk (RR) of SJD was calculated for the whole dog population and for subgroups divided by breed, breed group and sex.
Results: The study population included almost 600,000 insured dogs (>1.7 million dog-years). Ninety-three different stiﬂe joint diagnoses were reported in 9624 dogs, and the most common were cruciate ligament rupture and patellar luxation. The incidence of SJD was 55.4 cases per 10,000 dog-years at risk. Bulldog and boerboel had the highest RR of SJD. The breeds that accounted for the highest proportion of all SJD claimed dogs were mixed breed and Labrador retriever. Female dogs had a slightly increased RR compared with male dogs(RR1.06,p = 0.006). The incidence increased yearly during the observation period.
Conclusion: The study demonstrates breed-speciﬁc differences in incidence of SJD in dogs, which may be of importance for breeders, dog owners and veterinarians.
In conclusion, SJD was common in the insured dog population. Several breeds were identiﬁed to be at high or low risk of SJD, and there was a clear distinction between the breeds that accounted for highest proportion of all SJD claimed dogs and the breeds with high- est RR of SJD. Some breeds, such as the Rottweiler and Labrador retriever, were primarily affected by CCLD, while others, such as the Chihuahua, were primarily affected by patellar luxation. Others, for example the miniature and toy poodles, Bichon frise and Yorkshire terrier, were affected by both conditions. Female dogs had increased RR compared with male dogs, and there was an increasing incidence during the study period. The demographic factors associated with SJD in the current study may guide veterinarians in their clinical work and educate dog owners about breeds at risk of disease. Further, results can be used to highlight the importance of various SJD and guide future research projects evaluating the aetiopathogenesis of these dis- eases, with the objective to identify why certain individuals are affected.
We would like to thank Agria Pet Insurance for access to the database and especially Monica Dreijer, Peter Nord Andersson and Jan Mikael Yousif for support with data access and processing. The ﬁnancial support from Agria Pet Insurance is gratefully acknowledged.
Also see DWN's related content
- Read more...
- 0 comments
Recently we received a question from a Harmonization of Genetic Testing (HGTD) user, who had wanted to use an "Ancestry" genetic test to determine a puppy's likely sire. It is not uncommon, when trying to determine the right test for your purposes, to mistake "Ancestry" tests for parentage, or genetic identification tests. The information below talks about what ancestry, or breed mix genetic tests are, how they can be used, and some of the limitations.
What is an Ancestry/Breed Mix Genetic Test for dogs?
Ancestry/breed mix tests are a way to estimate what breeds compose your mixed-breed dog, or to help determine what breed(s) your dog of unknown origins might be. You can find more information about the different kinds of genetic tests available, here. It is not uncommon for people who use an ancestry/breed mix test to have some surprising results. Understanding how these tests generally work might make it easier to understand your results.
At its most basic, an ancestry/breed mix test compares specific sections of your dog’s DNA, known as markers, to a reference database of hundreds of dog breeds or types. A genetic marker is a DNA sequence with a known physical location on a chromosome. Genetic markers can help link an inherited disease or trait with the responsible gene. This data estimates the likely breed(s) that compose your dog, to a few generations back (e.g. grandparents). You can find genetic test providers offering these kinds of tests by searching for "Breed/Type/Variety test" on HGTD.
How precise these tests are is dependent on a number of factors, including:
- The size and scope of the reference library
- The number of specific areas (referred to as genetic markers) of DNA the test “looks” for in your dog
- How well understood the markers are, and how well they correlate with genetic markers associated with breed-specific traits
The size of the reference library, in terms of gene coverage and breed/types included is important to improve precision. Arguably even more important is having genetically well-defined breed samples, and knowledge of breed population-specific challenges such as breed population variations or genetic diversity. More markers doesn’t automatically mean “better” if the markers don’t associate well with specific breeds – though you also need a large enough number to differentiate between breeds/types.
When you look at different test providers information online, you can usually find information on how many breeds are included in their reference panel, how they determined which dogs to reference, what kinds of genetic markers they are using for comparisons, etc. They should also be able to tell you how many “generations” they are including in your dog’s results and answer any questions when your results aren’t what you might be expecting.
How are Ancestry/Breed mix tests helpful?
If you have a dog of unknown origin, these tests can help give you some idea of the dog’s traits - such as size, temperament, and even potential health risks. Test packages vary, but in addition to breed estimation, often include some specific genetic tests for traits (like coat colour) and sometimes disease risks.
If you have a mixed or crossbreed dog you are considering using for breeding, the testing packages with breed or type-specific disease risk results can help in choosing suitable mates to reduce the risks of inherited diseases in subsequent generations of dogs.
What Ancestry/Breed tests do not do:
- It is not a way to confirm a pedigree breed, or refute pedigree papers.
- It is not for determining parentage.
- It is not necessarily for permanent ID*.
- It does not determine “health” nor determine all inherited disease risks. (e.g. there are many inherited diseases that cannot currently be genetically tested for).
So, what is a Parentage test?
A parentage test works by collecting DNA samples from the dam, sire, and offspring to determine each individual dog's unique genetic profile, based on a special group of genetic markers. This special group of markers might be called a "parentage panel" or "genetic profile panel" or by the technical type of reference panel used. There are 2 main reference panels for this purpose: ISAG (International Society for Animal Genetics) and the AKC (American Kennel Club) Panel. Each dog's unique genetic profile of markers is compared, and, much like in human parentage testing, if enough markers are in common, you can confirm parentage. Likewise, you can confidently exclude possible parents. In very rare cases, if the dogs are highly inbred, or the disputed parents are very closely related and inbred, it can be more challenging to absolutely determine parentage. You should expect your genetic test provider to have very specific protocols for sample collection for parentage.
Benefits of parentage profiling:
- Improves accuracy of pedigree data
- Confirms accuracy of hereditarily clear by decent genetic test results
Limitations of parentage profiling:
- Parentage can only be robustly confirmed when you have data from the dam, sire, and offspring
- You cannot normally “back-determine” parentage from other relatives data – e.g. you can’t use combinations of grandparents, siblings, half-siblings, etc.
- For highly related or inbred matings, there can be challenges in determining parentage
- You cannot determine parentage using incompatible marker panels (e.g. ISAG + AKC)
A breed ancestry or breed mix test estimates the likely breed(s) that make up an individual dog.
A parentage test identifies specific, related individuals: parents and offspring.
*different product packages may include options for including permanent ID
Cover photo: Eddie Galaxy via Pexels.
- Read more...
- 0 comments
Breed Relevance Ratings (BRR) are a way to assess the relevance of a specific test for a specific breed, based on the currently best-known information on the research and development of a test - but genetic tests are not limited to pedigree breeds. Genetic tests are used for a variety of reasons on all dogs, and understanding the relevance is important for any purpose-bred dog or breeding program, as well as individual dogs. BRR’s are estimated for all dogs, and where the research is not available for a specific breed or type, we have processes to provide transparent information about test relevance.
How are BRRs estimated for cross-breeds?
Where a test is available to a crossbreed, but there isn't crossbreed-specific research:
If you are not yet familiar with the BRR color-code system, you can find information here. BRRs available for named crosses on the HGTD database do not assume the level of cross that has occurred – e.g. they do not assume that it is a Goldendoodle X Goldendoodle VS Golden Retriever X Standard Poodle. This is important, because research and anecdotal evidence from cross-breeders indicate that crossbreeds can vary in their crosses origin, and a 50:50 split between 2 breeds should not be assumed. This also acknowledges that some breed crosses are between similar breeds who may already share genes from before a division into distinct breeds - for example, Irish Setter and Irish Red and White Setters certainly share some historical origins. The table below gives a summary of the normal estimation of BRR where there is no cross-specific research known.
Breed A Breed B Cross A x B Comments BRR is red or orange BRR is red or orange BRR may be orange, or yellow, with details in the phene/test breed-specific information Using test may risk results that are unhelpful or detrimental in decision-making BRR is green BRR is red or orange BRR is yellow, and may have information in the phene/test breed-specific information Impact of test results is unknown – may or may not be informative. This test should be considered with caution. BRR is yellow BRR is yellow, or test is not available BRR is yellow
Impact of test results is unknown – may or may not be informative
BRR is green BRR is yellow, or test is not available BRR is normally green, with details in the phene/test breed-specific information Test results are, on balance, likely to be informative and the test is relevant to the crossbreed BRR is green BRR is green BRR is green, but may be at a lower-level, unless additional evidence is available. Test results are likely to be informative and the test is relevant to the crossbreed
For any BRR that are not able to be cross-breed specific, it is strongly recommended that you review the phene information to learn more about the disease/trait that is being tested for. The information there will be valuable to you when making a decision about the risk or importance of the test. Understanding the type of cross you have is also important. For example, if your dog is a Golden Retriever X Standard Poodle vs. Goldendoodle X Goldendoodle. If you're using a genetic test for breeding plans, this will impact the risk of inheritance in subsequent generations. The phenes database holds information on breed-specific research, and can include comments from researchers or pre-publication information that could be helpful for crossbreeds.
For example, in PRA GR PRA2, there was specific feedback from the research team that developed the test to recommend it to Goldendoodles, based on the testing already performed across Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, and Goldendoodles, as well as the original published research. Few researchers have the funding to do fully published and peer-reviewed cross-specific research for genetic tests, so the recommendation for tests with simple inheritance (e.g. Autosomal Recessive) is usually to test for any breed-specific tests in the composing breeds.
Where there is crossbreed-specific research:
The BRR is estimated in the same way as any breed. You can find information here.
A good example of this is the genetic test for the disease “Ichthyosis, PNPLA1-related”. This is a relatively rare skin condition, that causes serious discomfort and welfare issues for a dog. The mutation was first discovered in the Golden Retriever in 2012, but was further investigated and described in golden-retriever-poodle crosses. When looking at the phene data, you can see publications for both breeds/types, in addition to the usual general description of the phene, GTPs offering the test, and other related information.
What should I do if I don't see my crossbreed listed?
New purposely bred crosses, or less common crosses, should ideally look at the breed-specific information for the breeds they are crossing when prioritizing testing information to use as part of a breeding plan, or to inform on an individual dog's risks. If considering genetic testing as part of breeding plans, it would be reasonable to be conservative, and use the breed-specific tests on the male and female being crossed to identify any genetic risks to the dogs themselves, and any genes they may pass on. In many cases, there can be genetic tests in common between breeds. These tests in common would likely be more informative on the risks for an individual dog, as well as any breeding considerations. For example, Progressive Retinal Atrophy - PRA prcd has 22 different breeds where the test is relevant (as of Dec 2020), and many more where the test is available. So, in principle any cross between those 22 different breeds should be one where the test results of PRA-prcd are considered. Where tests are not in common between two breeds being crossed, it becomes more complicated. If used in breeding plans, best practice would still recommended testing parents, and then off-spring, for all breed-specific tests for both parents. For an individual dog's risks, contacting your test provider for genetic advice or counselling may be valuable. You may find the table above useful in considering prioritizations.
What about for “ALL” dogs?
There are some tests that are available and relevant to all dogs. Examples include genetic tests that are:
- Diagnostic for a dog-wide condition (e.g. some cancer-risk tests)
- It relates to genes common to all dogs (e.g. coat colours)
- It is a genetic tool specific to an individual dog such as DNA profiling, or parentage
As inheritance in cross and mixed breeds is generally less predictable than breeds using breed-specific tests, it is important to be aware of risks, take your time to research or get advice on genetic testing. Any permanent decisions (e.g. neutering, healthcare) should be approached with especial caution and with robust veterinary and genetic counselling, with the dog’s welfare always in mind.
Any questions? As we are developing more advice and support for cross and mixed breed dogs, please feel free to contact us with any questions about genetic testing until more resources become available, at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Title image with thanks to Helena Lopes via Pexels.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 Health Workshop, was an opportunity to learn more about cutting edge research that is improving dog health. 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
After 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
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!
Here is the downloadable PDF version:
Be sure to keep checking www.DogWellNet.com for more information on dog health and wellness!
- Read more...
- 0 comments
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 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.
All the information on the Finnish walk test can be found here.
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
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:
- Read more...
- 0 comments
Recent EntriesLatest Entry
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.
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.
Every other year, in April, this education is held specifically directed to hunting dog breed clubs.
- Read more...
- 0 comments
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
- Read more...
- 0 comments
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.