Actually even when there was enough information available (N/H horses could and would die) many people continued to breed them and still do to this day. :mad:
Yes, HYPP is dominant and WFFS is recessive. However little is known at this point in time about WFFS except that it seems to be lethal in its homozygous state. There is not enough information available yet, regarding WFFS in its heterozygous state.
Just as you realize that people did not understand the effect of the gene on the health of HYPP carriers when the disease was first determined, people don’t yet understand the repercussions of WFFS in its heterozygous state. There may be no effect, but we don’t know yet.Thus, caution is warranted at this point in time until more is learned about the defect.
Thanks that you at least understood what I wrote!!
But I am not sure why you say there is no information about WFFS.
The test was developed in 2013. Thats 5 years ago. I am pretty sure that the researches at Cornell who developed the test did more research since then. (why should they just drop the subject after developing the test?) I am sure in 5 years there could be some results if there is anything scary. I haven’t heard anything.
So for me WFFS is recessive disorder, which you can control by not breeding 2 carriers together. Thats my current information and thats what I believe until new information published by scientists will come out.
Until then for me it doesn’t make sense to spread rumors and personal assumptions based on experiences with a completely different disorder…
HUGE difference between doing testing to find the gene that causes WFFS, and conducting a study to determine possible effects that state has in the hetero form. That’s a big undertaking - enough tested horses over a long enough life span with enough performance to be meaningful, enough horses who don’t perform at higher levels (to see if more work over time has an effect), and compare that to some database of controls, to see if there’s any increase in any correlating risk of injuries in the hetero horses.
If that study is under way, it seems nobody knows about it yet. My guess is it’s not
So for me WFFS is recessive disorder, which you can control by not breeding 2 carriers together. Thats my current information and thats what I believe until new information published by scientists will come out.
Believing something doesn’t exist doesn’t make it not exist. WFFS as the disease we know about IS a recessive disorder, that’s never been contested. You have no idea what the heterozygous state does to a horse
Until then for me it doesn’t make sense to spread rumors and personal assumptions based on experiences with a completely different disorder…
NOBODY has spread or started any rumors :no:
Nobody has made assumptions either. The only thing that’s been done is acknowledging what is possible because it HAS happened. But dang, what good is history if we ignore it?
Well read the thread and then you know what I mean.
And again… My point of view is that its great that they found the test, its even better that Hilltop went public with their findings and at the moment everybody should test their horses before breeding them in order to avoid breeding carrier to carrier. Everything else is creating (wrong) rumors at the moment. We don’t know about any additional risk for carriers at the moment. So eliminating carriers from the breeding population might cause more harm then good for all we know right now. Maybe the remaining horses carry far worse things in their genes…
BTW… “acknowledging what is possible” is making assumptions…
The problem with breeding carriers to noncarriers is that you produce MORE carriers, which increases the risk to produce more horses that could actually have the disease unless EVERYONE tests. What’s the realistic odds of that? If you stop breeding carriers to noncarriers, you will relatively quickly eliminate the problem from the gene pool.
Yeah, I guess this is what I don’t get-- if it is only a small percentage of the population currently, why would I breed my non-carrier mare to a carrier when there are SO many other choices? Even if the worst-case scenario is only that I produce a foal that is carrier, it doesn’t seem worth it.
In this thread I think part of the problem people have with being this logical thought is that they know horses that are carriers and they do not want to have people think that being a carrier lowers the value of their horse that is a carrier.
Interesting… so you think a horse which is a carrier has a lower value?? Great for you!! So now you have another thing on your list if you are horseshopping…
For me a horse needs to be sound and willing to work, and when I made a breeding decision in the past I looked for performance and longterm soundness in performance. Yes I am not crazy about having an abort or a dead foal(So far I was really lucky and never had one) so now that I know about it, I will test my mares in the future if I plan to breed (Which I don’t right now) But thats about it. For me personally a carrier status in a otherwise nice horse will not make a difference at all… But I guess everybody is free to make their own decisions… If they get everybody to cooperate after starting a witch hunt by saying that horses with a carrier status have a lower value…
I don’t think anyone implied that carriers would have a lower value.
But, I think everyone should be able to decide whether or not they’d like to purchase one.
If the opportunity exists to eliminate carriers, or lessen the number of carriers, why wouldn’t we?
As of now, do we know for sure that carriers don’t have issues? Just because they weren’t fatal flaws at birth, doesn’t mean they don’t harbor other issues that won’t be detrimental later in life. Research is the key.
And usually people decide themselves what horse to buy or not to buy…
And if they choose to not buy a horse otherwise perfectly suitable for their purpose because its a carrier for something they will never have a problem with I guess thats an individual choice…
And if you believe carriers have issues… Test your own horse and of course get rid of it if its a carrier and then never touch one again… I guess that would be the correct way to go…
really many times??? interesting… For me value doesn’t matter because I am not breeding right now.
But I really do believe that people which are concerned about loosing money probably resist testing and transparency if they hear that carriers will be less valuable for different reasons… And then we will have more aborts and dead foals
I think thats sad and easy to avoid…
Maybe you don’t actually understand the definition of “rumor”:
“a statement or report current without known authority for its truth”
I have not seen a single person say “X stallion is a carrier, my cousin’s trainer’s breeder friend said so”. Have you?
I have not seen a single person say “I heard that X gelding was retired from performance because his WFFS carrier status made him too prone to injury”. Have you?
We don’t know about any additional risk for carriers at the moment.
Bingo.
So eliminating carriers from the breeding population might cause more harm then good for all we know right now. Maybe the remaining horses carry far worse things in their genes…
Really? Do you honestly think the pool of breeding stock is so large that eliminating them would indirectly cause “bad genes” to be bred more widely? Where are these “bad genes” now? They’re (theoretically) already in the breeding pool, yes? Do you really think that eliminating the likely small % of horses who would be breeding from tomorrow on, would have such an impact of ANY trait going forward?
BTW… “acknowledging what is possible” is making assumptions…
No, it is not. Here’s another definition, to make sure we are all on the same page:
“a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”
Nobody has accepted anything, or held it in faith that WFFS will be found to be deleterious in the hetero form. Nobody.
We absolutely don’t know any such thing (despite Manni continuing to think some of us are stating they do, assuming they do, creating rumors that they do
Just because they weren’t fatal flaws at birth, doesn’t mean they don’t harbor other issues that won’t be detrimental later in life. Research is the key.
Some people love to roll the dice, others don’t.
Exactly :yes: Caution. That’s all.
Trub did not.
And if you believe carriers have issues… Test your own horse and of course get rid of it if its a carrier and then never touch one again… I guess that would be the correct way to go…
Really? That’s your suggestion? Dump a horse because he MIGHT have a problem down the road? :no: :no:
And again, omg, NOBODY has said or implied or rumored or assumed or believed that carriers HAVE ISSUES.
I can tell you why THIS breeder was not convinced it was a thing 5 years ago. Though I was on that thread and you should know why. Winand had not published. All she had done was to do some research (not published) and develop a test. Who does that when there is nothing published???
Remember when I scoured the internet and could find nothing except ads for the test? Nothing in the vet journals, nothing in aaep, nothing on pubmed. Nothing, nothing nothing for someone that thinks critically. Now that this is something published and reviewed, I can read it and NOW I can say with certainty that I was wrong. But I am not going to beat myself up for not taking her initial efforts seriously when she had diddley to back up her claim.
All well and good, but the peer reviewed article was published in 2015. It was summarized in Equus in 2015. I came back here and reported both of those things and got some dismissive comments from people. It is now 2018… crickets from registries and breeders until Hilltop finally did something.
That’s three more breeding seasons when people could have been taking action.
If Hilltop hadn’t made this a thing, how much longer would it have stayed under the radar?
I don’t want to re-litigate the whole discussion we had in 2013, although I found it intensely interesting. I truly respect so many things that warmblood breeders do. I am crossing my fingers that they don’t fall into the same trap with genetic disorders that other registries have tried to negotiate. From my vantage point as a total outsider, it’s looking kind of shaky right now.
Very good post!! And if you read the old thread, my opinion has not changed since then… I posted the same things then as now.
I have not bred any foals since so no need to test for me, but if I will ever breed again, I will test for sure!!
And I agree with you that it is shaky right now. And I truly believe that in order to get everybody to test and to be open with the results its smart to stick to the known facts (known right now, they might change) that carriers have no problems at all and that the test can prevent aborts and dead foals.
It is important to talk about the advantages of testing!. And I remember how it was in dogs, once people started to test, more people followed. I think it is extremely important to avoid anything which might breeders scare or convince them that testing will have disadvantages for them. Because that will slow down the process of everybody testing.
