I disagree that it is okay to breed animals who are known carriers of FFS or other genetic disorders with tragic consequences. There are PLENTY of good stallions who aren’t carriers and I doubt very seriously the sport horse world would be adversely affected very much by eliminating all carriers from the breeding population.
9 Likes
This is not correct, as to the very best of my knowledge, no one has reported a difference in heterozygotes versus WFFS free horses. Look, I saw Sensation in person, and I’ll be the first to admit that when WFFS emerged, I was incredibly sus that the heterozygote state was linked to that type of movement. The research has not born that out. If you have access to a peer reviewed paper I don’t know about, I would love to see it.
And I don’t have a direct quote at hand, but the leading WFFS researchers have said that it would be impossible to “breed it out” as there are too many carriers in the gene pool.
Regarding your personal question, yes, I had one carrier mare. I carefully selected her stallions to be WFFS free. Her 63 page USEF record more than proved her “worthiness” to reproduce. 
I’m not at all insulted that you think I shouldn’t have bred her. Do you think Balou du Reventon or Apache shouldn’t be bred either? 
See above. People other than me have said this is impossible (and I 100% disagree with you, in that eliminating all carriers would incredibly reduce and bottleneck the gene pool, as well as eliminating some great performance horses). While it’s a noble goal of yours, I’ll leave you to die on your own sword with that project.
7 Likes
Ya, because there is no study published yet that definitively rules out carrier status having adverse impacts on a horse. Which is what I said. Until breeders know more about the scope of FFS as a whole, it’s not unreasonable for a breeder to not want to take the risk.
You are right that there are many carriers in the gene pool and it just so happens that many of the in vogue stallions happen to be carriers also. Change starts very small. Just incentivizing MOs to breed to non [W]FFS carriers would be a start. If Dobermans can come back from the staggering amount of individuals with DCM (60%+) with careful breeding protocols, I’m confident that WB registries could do the same considering how open their breed books are to outside mares and stallions.
No one said it was irresponsible to breed her, but you took it that way right out of the gate.
It really wouldn’t. [W]FFS carrier status is in as few as 11% to as much as 30% of WB registries, depending on which registry you are looking into.
That is not really a bottleneck from a genetic standpoint. Registries have the added benefit of outside blood coming in - meaning these registries are in no danger of bottlenecking any time soon as these are not closed studbooks.
Well, except for those years everyone bred their mares to Fürstenball or Secret.
It’s not a problem that has a simple solution, and it requires the cooperation of everyone that wants the registry to succeed. But you are right - if people don’t actively try to eliminate breeding to carriers, change will never happen.
5 Likes
I think it is irresponsible to knowingly breed any animals that have easily identified genetic defects. Period. The QH people went through this same resistance to culling out HYPP from breeding stock, but eventually seem to have done the right thing and HYPP is getting rare.
There are likely other genetic diseases in the WB gene pool and as those genes are identified, responsible breeders will also stop breeding those animals too.
7 Likes
One thing is for sure - it will never be eliminated as long as people keep using “performance” as justification for the breeding of carriers.
9 Likes
I don’t know enough about WFFS and its prevalence in warmblood populations to have a strong opinion about breeding carriers or not.
I will admit to owning and breeding a mare who is a carrier for a recessive genetic disorder (SCID). In all honesty, had I known the mare was a carrier before I purchased her, I might have passed. And that would have been a huge mistake. This mare is exceptional. Truly. The gene pool in my breed (Arabian) is limited to begin with. Drill down to purebreds suitable for my chosen discipline - working western - and the pool becomes extremely shallow. SCID and CA are ubiquitous, and there is no option of bringing in outside blood.
So I’m making the best decisions I can regarding breeding my mare. I have two daughters from her so far - one is clear and one is a carrier. The clear one is a Half Arabian, or I might not have ever bred for the purebred. That also would have been a mistake. I’m trying for one more purebred daughter and hoping that she is clear. But, if she’s not, she will likely still be worth breeding if she shares the positive traits of her other family members.
I’m trying to breed away from all (known) recessive disorders. But I am not short-sighted enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.
6 Likes
More accurate comparison would be Von Willebrands in Dobermans. Which has significantly decreased, without a genetic bottle neck, by not breeding carriers to carriers (or affected, of course). As soon as the genetic test was there, with the option to know which is which, prevalence significantly dropped.
Problem with DCM is that there is no genetic test and mode of inheritance is still being researched.
2 Likes
That is a much better comparison. Thank you.
1 Like
Culling doesn’t mean euthanizing. It means removing an animal from the breeding population. Just because people take it to mean killing the animal doesn’t mean it’s correct.
8 Likes
I assure you that when a German breeder tells you he culled something, there’s a very good chance it went to the abattoir. Also please read Beowolf’s post again, in which there was a clear differention between “retired from breeding” and culling. That’s why I made the statement I did.
It’s also interesting that I didn’t get an answer to that.
1 Like
I’m sorry but . “Performance” is a much much better reason to breed any horse than, it looks pretty, or I loved her dam and I want another just like that, or any of the plethora of other inappropriate reasons people choose.
I would rather breed to a carrier stallion who is at the top of his game (an Apache or a Balou du Reventon) who suits the mare based on pedigree temperament and type, than a non carrier stallion who doesn’t. Planning matings is a balancing act, and I think it’s odd that this is the one issue you’re choosing to be a deal breaker.
5 Likes
Yes, but:
A single affected copy of either gene is necessary to develop symptoms, but not all dogs with DCM1, DCM2, or both mutations will develop disease. Since a single copy of either mutation can increase risk for disease, this trait is considered a dominant trait. However, since not all dogs with these mutations go on to develop disease, these mutations are thought to be incompletely penetrant. Other factors likely explain the incompletely penetrant nature of this disease, and studies to investigate additional genetic and non-genetic risk factors are ongoing. Recently it was noted that in a European Doberman Pinschers sample set, the DCM1 mutation was not as correlated with disease risk as it is in the original Doberman study cohort.
Further, not all Doberman Pinschers with dilated cardiomyopathy have either of these mutations. Therefore, it is also likely that additional as of yet unidentified variants in these or other genes are involved in disease presentation and progression. Continued research is needed to identify additional genetic and non-genetic risk factors.
Definitely progress but not a sure thing. Von Willebrand’s is easier with mode of inheritance better know. <I am not a geneticist and don’t play one on tv>
1 Like
Someone who really wanted to help eradicate this genetic defect would find a high quality FFS-negative stallion son of Apache or BduR to use, instead of the known carrier sire. (And of course would also use an FFS-negative mare.)
But it’s your prerogative to think it is okay to continue to breed carriers of FFS. I think carriers should be eliminated from breeding programs, so we will have to agree to disagree.
7 Likes
A ‘good chance’ is a very subjective term and definitely doesn’t mean the horses are always slaughtered.
4 Likes
You did get an answer:
This thread is about an American breeder, not a German. 
We will use American distinctions.
There is also a distinction in the US between totally removing all products (mare/stallion, subsequent offspring) from the breeding program (culling), and retiring from breeding, which can just mean the individual mare/stallion is retired but not their offspring.
Homozygous FFS is a fatal disease. I’m not following why a breeder wouldn’t understand why some fellow breeders don’t want to perpetuate it in the carrier form in their breeding population.
Again, FFS(carrier status) is in as few as 11% of some WB registries. That’s a marginal number in terms of breeding. Breeding the remaining 89% in that registry only is hardly a bottleneck from a geneticist standpoint – but you registries have the added benefit of reciprocity with other registries, which opens up a huge pool of available individuals beyond the original book.
If a closed studbook (QHs, Arabians, etc) can do it without tanking the genetic diversity, I think WB registries can too. 
7 Likes
In sporthorse breeding in Europe it has become a (sad) trend to retire stallions early from breeding. There are a lot out there who only did the one season before they lost their balls. Some are still available on frozen, most of them are not.
A qualified guess it all comes down to a combo of using bad breeding material in regards to temperament, and it’s become too easy to get ones stallion licensed, in a world where it is still considered a feather in the hat to have produced a licensed stallion.
So a 13 year old being taken off the market wouldn’t bother me that much. He is probably not being used enough to make it worth while for the owner.
Hi again,
I thought might update this post. After posting, I realized that I had overreacted and shown that I am not familiar with how breeding farms operate. But since the breeder had ghosted me for over a week and marked both the horses as sold on his website, I moved on.
He then texted me out of nowhere to see if I was still interested and he said he marked them as sold because another buyer and I seemed so interested that he was sure they would sell soon. I thought this was again super strange but I had learned my lesson not to ask too many questions with this hot-tempered man 
.
For context the horse I was mostly interested in had some soundness issues and had surgery. My vet told me to get full vet records with before and after radiographs and the written up surgery report. I told him I would fly out to come see them if I could get these records and a conformation photo. He sent me very incomplete records and no photos a few days later. I told him that is not what I asked for an he went off on me about how I was taking up so much of his time and told me that I was stupid for wanting all the records that my vet told me to get (to clarify I only asked for the records of the horse I was going to buy not the stallion lol). So I told him I wasn’t interested doing business with him anymore.
It’s a shame because that horse seemed perfect and I was ready to buy but he was just way too rude and sketchy. I’m sure one could find ways to justify what he did but I truly believe he is trying to cover up a soundness issue. I know a trainer in the area and she said he “has issues” and to be careful but wouldn’t elaborate. So I guess I know what she means now lol.
9 Likes
Sometimes you have to “vet” the seller before the horse. Better to buy from someone who is reputable and straightforward (if a little gruff) than someone with a reputation locally. Even if you made some sort of mistake in the interaction, this sounds like someone not being reasonable or logical.
Moving on is a good choice, I think.
9 Likes
