Requesting genetic testing on a horse for sale (or: How to not buy a horse, I guess)

[BeeHoney]

Your etiquette in asking for the test was fine, but it was also fine that the seller was not interested in going this route.

From a sellers perspective, some types of extra testing can take up too much time and pull a horse off the market too long to be fair to the seller. Obviously if you were spending the $$ for the testing you wouldn’t want the seller to sell the horse to someone else while waiting for the results. Many sellers want a PPE done pretty briskly, a matter of days or at most a week for a horse in this demographic, in case a more motivated/less picky buyer comes along.

Also, people who do PPEs that feel “extra” (unless it’s a high end show horse) often find a reason to not buy the horse. And then the seller is left in the difficult situation of having wasted time only to now have to disclose to potential buyers that the horse “failed a vetting” or had some suboptimal feature on PPE. I’ve even seen weird situations where the buyer passes on the horse for some particular reason, but then tracks the horse’s social media ads and messages potential buyers warnings about the results to pre-emptively police that the seller is disclosing the info.

I’m not judging your desire to do the test as nitpicky. If that’s what you want, that’s what you want. At the same time it’s not part of a typical PPE for a typical draft cross. (Maybe it should be/ will be in the future.) I’m also pointing out that there are some time constraints and also social media has introduced a lot of opportunity for people to behave weirdly and I think that makes sellers a little more cautious about working with a buyer who doesn’t seem to be following what they see as the traditional script.

[cardinale]

@BeeHoney

Your etiquette in asking for the test was fine, but it was also fine that the seller was not interested in going this route.

Your points have a lot of validity had this been a reasonably priced horse new on the market that was likely to sell fast

This horse has been for sale for a looonnnggg time, at a pretty high price. The seller herself said she had no serious interest to date. I was a serious buyer. There is a lab with quick turnaround for this test (a few days). I didn’t ask her to keep the horse off the market while the test was run; the chance of someone else swooping in was minuscule at this point. I was fine with taking that risk.

Yes, she was not familiar with the test and who knows what construct she put upon my request. In hindsight I agree with you that the seller just didn’t want to get into anything unusual that she’s not familiar with, let alone risk finding out something negative.

But, after I’ve read of so many problems with draft crosses related here on COTH threads, I was not willing to take the risk, especially in a breed (the sire’s) with almost 2/3 incidence of P1. This was not a flaky or unreasonable request. It’s just that the testing is not widely known and requested yet.

It’s too bad that some (many? most?) people breed draft crosses without realizing that they can and should check PSSM1 status of the draft parent.

[red_mares]

The seller has made it clear by her none reply that she has no intent on allowing you to do the test. So don’t buy the horse. It’s that simple.

The seller may not have people beating down her door to buy the horse, but apparently doesn’t want the hassle of dealing with you. It’s the seller’s choice. They may not really want to sell the horse. It wouldn’t be the first time someone listed a horse for sale that they didn’t want actually sell.

[trubandloki]

@cardinale

The problem with rooting out carriers among breeding stock producing draft crosses is that the people who want to cross their QH, Arabian, etc. mare to a draft stallion might not be educated in depth on draft horse heritable diseases.

I would hope that anyone who is breeding is researching the heritable diseases of both the breed of the mare and of the stallion. Seems irresponsible to not do that.
With the internet available, why wouldn’t someone do that?

[NaturallyHappy]

@cardinale

But, after I’ve read of so many problems with draft crosses related here on COTH threads, I was not willing to take the risk, especially in a breed (the sire’s) with almost 2/3 incidence of P1. This was not a flaky or unreasonable request. It’s just that the testing is not widely known and requested yet.

I would not take that risk either. Well, I might if I’d fallen in love, but if it was just “in like”, no way. Anecdotally, my lste DVM DH did not like 50-50 first generation draft crosses. He felt they had too many problems. He’s been gone 20+ years.

[cardinale]

Good points all, above. trubandloki, your question is the paramount one for me. The breeder literally had no idea what PSSM1 was.

I was a serious buyer (or wouldn’t have contacted the seller) but not desperate to proceed. So, after the seller did not get back within a reasonable period of time after she said she would speak with her vet, I wrote this one off. Also, I don’t press people to take my money .

[BeeHoney]

That’s helpful info. Also, it’s possible the seller isn’t actually that serious about selling in the first place as @red_mares pointed out.

Some other thoughts: Has the seller met you in person and have you already test ridden the horse? I think that would give you some credibility as to your seriousness with the seller. I don’t think many sellers would see any advantage to jumping through the hoop of pre-testing a horse before an interested buyer actually showed up and rode the horse.

Also, if you have the ability to get the test completed in just a few days, I think that it would be best to actually sign a contract and put down a deposit while you do your PPE and testing. Most sellers would be willing to give a person a week to finalize the PPE. And I agree, I don’t think you necessarily need to explain to the seller in advance that you are doing that test. I mean, I wouldn’t be weird about it and try to hide it, just do it the same way you might pull blood. It’s not like it’s an invasive test.

I think it also might be useful to consider that many breeders of working type horses are using their stallions on their own mares and are using the offspring for actual work. While the horses might not be getting tested, horses with issues often (not always) get somewhat ruthlessly weeded out. I’m much more suspicious of backyard breeders, who in far too many cases tend to populate their broodmare herds with horses who have failed out of a working or riding career and choose stallions based on things like appearance/color/size.

[cardinale]

@BeeHoney

Some other thoughts: Has the seller met you in person and have you already test ridden the horse? I think that would give you some credibility as to your seriousness with the seller. I don’t think many sellers would see any advantage to jumping through the hoop of pre-testing a horse before an interested buyer actually showed up and rode the horse.

Also, if you have the ability to get the test completed in just a few days, I think that it would be best to actually sign a contract and put down a deposit while you do your PPE and testing. Most sellers would be willing to give a person a week to finalize the PPE. And I agree, I don’t think you necessarily need to explain to the seller in advance that you are doing that test. I mean, I wouldn’t be weird about it and try to hide it, just do it the same way you might pull blood. It’s not like it’s an invasive test.

It’s a yearling, so no riding trials. The seller is half the country away from me, which perhaps in the seller’s mind made me less serious or perhaps she doesn’t like selling her horses to people she can’t meet (but then don’t advertise on a nationwide platform).

If I were doing it again, I wouldn’t have mentioned PSSM1 and just have it done unobtrusively as part of the PPE. It’s a simple hair test; there’s a lab with a few days’ turnaround time. However, I asked her hoping she knew the PSSM1 status of the sire, which would have alleviated my concerns enough to proceed. In her case, it definitely seems to have been a case of “breed first, ask questions later.”

[MorganMaresVT]

@trubandloki

I would hope that anyone who is breeding is researching the heritable diseases of both the breed of the mare and of the stallion. Seems irresponsible to not do that.
With the internet available, why wouldn’t someone do that?

I wish this were the case, but there are certainly breeders out there who see PSSM as “no big deal.” I don’t want to get overly emotional about the topic because of my personal experiences, but when this became a big public issue for Morgans in 2022/23, there were plenty of well established breeders railing against people on FB who suggested they should test their stock. There is clearly a highly prolific stallion who is the common denominator in the pedigree of many publicly identified horses with PSSM1- that breeder will not release test results. Another highly popular stallion ended up being IDed because a breeder got multiple positive foals the year she used him and the mares had clear testing- and the breeder with the positive foals got dragged over the coals for talking publicly about the link to the stallion.

There is at least some proportion of breeders don’t want to know, don’t want to test, and want to just wait until people forget about it. Plenty of the pushback was about breeders feeling offended that they should pay to test their herds, or lose out on revenue by removing PSSM+ horses from their herds. The hair test through UC Davis is $45. I’m with you, I can’t understand why any responsible breeder would even think twice about knowing it, but there is a very vocal group who thinks PSSM is no big deal, present at too low an incidence in the breed to make it worthwhile, and just want to continue on as is. So, that does leave the onus on buyers to only by tested stock if it’s important to them. And sadly allows the disorder to continue to show up in the breed, when we are in a place that it could potentially be bred out with some key stock removed from the breeding population.

[trubandloki]

That same logic they are using ruins their theory on not testing.
There are still plenty of people who do not care (like the whole HYPP thing).
Advertise your stock for what it is and let the people who do not care keep buying your animals that are positive and let the people who do not want to deal with this issue move on to other horses.
Seems so simple.

[cardinale]

@NaturallyHappy

Anecdotally, my lste DVM DH did not like 50-50 first generation draft crosses. He felt they had too many problems.

That makes sense in such wide outcrosses, although this yearling I was interested in was quite harmonious in appearance and not “clunky” or patched-together looking. The seller said that the sire had been “refined over several generations” indicating that he was himself a crossbred (I could find neither mention of him among stallions of his draft breed nor any photos), hence the yearling was probably at most 1/4 draft.

[quietann]

Are the initials of the stallion AD?

If so, a friend bought a 5YO Morgan mare that was a granddaughter of that stallion. Beautiful, sweet mare. She was trained to drive, but only in a pair. She was bred by one of the breeders who has since removed PSSM1 horses from their breeding stock.

Anyway, that mare turned out to have a blind panic bolt if pressed too hard in driving or riding. My friend had that mare with 3 different trainers. The first ended up with a broken arm. The second rode the mare a couple of times and experienced the bolt, and asked a well known driving trainer to evaluate her. Their response? “Never, ever hitch this mare.” She hadn’t been tested, but my friend is now almost sure she had PSSM1.

The breeder of AD offered to take the mare for low 4 figures as a broodmare only. Less than a year later, the breeder posted a photo of the mare being driven by her new owner, an Amish man with 2 kids in the buggy with him, and in foal to one of the breeder’s stallions. Yikes.

It was a horrible experience, and I was worried my friend would give up on Morgans, but she bought a N/N young gelding from a breeder friend of hers, kept him with the breeder, and eventually sent him to be started by the driving trainer who’d nixed her mare. He’s now 5, and while still green, has done quite well at CDEs and CTs, and the NEMHS.

(In the meantime, she bought an older non-Morgan gelding who needed to step down from CDEs, and has had a lot of fun driving him.)

[rulex]

@MorganMaresVT

There is at least some proportion of breeders don’t want to know, don’t want to test, and want to just wait until people forget about it.

Not just breeders, but sellers as well.

@BeeHoney

that makes sellers a little more cautious about working with a buyer who doesn’t seem to be following what they see as the traditional script

The traditional script needs to evolve along with our knowledge and sellers need to get with the program. I feel like sellers not willing to disclose basic health information about their animals are not serious sellers. Or they are waiting for the type of buyer who won’t care. But given the extra needs of a PSSM positive animal, that doesn’t seem like it’s in the best interest of the horse.

In breeds where these genetic issues are known, it should be a given that buyers will be asking questions. When I was shopping and considering QHs and other stock breeds, 5 panel status even if by parentage was a standard question. I remember asking about one QH and was told “unknown” yet when I looked up their papers on AQHA it was listed right there PSSM positive.

I looked at another appy with a well known PSSM carrier stallion on their papers and again, no info on the horses’s status. I passed on that one as I didn’t want to add the complications of waiting for the hair test and there were also a couple of other complications with that deal. Also didn’t think the turnaround would be as quick as a few days. I think if it’s less than a week it’s not unreasonable to ask. Of course the seller can refuse, and both parties can move on.