Puppy dies from previous litter-Should I be concerned?

[jicksies]

First of all, I wasn't quite sure if this is where I should post this question and I'm sorry if I goofed...anyway, here's the question-Booder's mom had a litter prior to Booder, and one of the pups (almost 2 years old) collapsed and died in the breeder's backyard. Heart failure of some kind. Should I be concerned genetically speaking? I had planned on breeding Booder in the future, after all the tests are done, but now I'm wondering if I should because of this sad news. I was surprised to hear that a Boxer pup so young could collapse and die like that...So far Booder's heart has checked out just fine, but I plan on doing more heart testing before I breed him. Since this was Booder's "brother" from a previous litter (same sire and dam) I'm not sure if this would be good reason NOT to breed Booder. Help?!! I want to do what's right in maintaining a healthy breed .....should I worry? Thanks so much, Jicksies:confused:

 

[Charlotte]

Hi Jicksies~~
I may get alot of flack from this post but oh well.
It is my opinion that breeders should not in any way breed dogs who have a genetic predispostion for certain illnesses.
As most breeders do not know what illnesses the pups they sold for profit come up with after they leave their residences, most never know the health concerns to look out for and breed the dogs again and again. For as long as they get the right markings, body shape and other favourable results, they keep on breeding dogs who carry a genetic predisposition for certain illness that they can honestly claim, (because they never followed through for the entire life span of the dogs they sell), they are perpetuating a healthy line.
Do you know for sure that this other pup from the other litter had heart problems or was it another reason?
If this were me and I was positive that the health of another litter from the same sire and dam showed genetic problems I would definately not breed any of them again.
Personally, I was sold a gorgeous pup who I was told had no health problems in the line and ended up having to spend hundreds of dollars to treat a genetic problem passed from the mother and father. That pup was Sigmund, (my two year old Boxer) and I wouldn't have traded him for the world but next time I would want to speak with the breeder's vet and know for sure what health issues had come up in both the mother and father's lines.
It was a lesson learned the hard way. Thankfully, I bought Sigmund for companionship instead of breeding or show purposes and now he is a healthy, energetic, loving dog.
Best of luck, jicksies and I hope that Booder is only a carrier, (there's a good chance he is only a carrier), if it turns out that the other litter did have genetic issues.
Sincerely,
Charlotte &
Sigmund, German, brindle, docked tail, natural ears 17/9/99

 

[JulieM]

Charlotte, I understand your points but unfortunately it's not as simple as all that. If breeders did not in any way breed dogs who have a genetic predispostion for certain illnesses there would be no dogs. And while I agree that probably most breeders who sell their pups for a profit do not know what illnesses occur once the pups leave their doors, you have to realize that most responsible breeders do not sell their pups for a profit. You also have to realize that most pet buyers do not test their pups for heart conditions, and do not have autopsies performed, so the dog may die suddenly and it could be blamed on a bee sting, or poisioning, or heat stroke, or old age, or whatever. (And even if the dog did die of these things, it might have had a heart condition that was asymptomatic, which an autopsy if performed might reveal.)

Once you get past that, a responsible breeder *does* know as much about the health of the pups as they can, because they keep in touch with the owner throughout the life of the puppy. This type of information is vital to their breeding program. They also do health testing on the parents, so instead of telling you there are no health problems in their lines, they can *show* you that the parents have cleared the recommend health testing. There is a world of difference between the two.

Jicksies, do you know which heart disease the pup succumbed to? Sudden death occurs in both Aortic Stenosis and Boxer Cardiomyopathy. The problem is that parents who were cleared of AS can produce affected pups, and BCM is often a late-onset condition so a dog that has low VPCs at breeding time may have several hundred or thousand by the time he's 7.

I do have to say, though, that you will not find a dog in North America that does not have a close relative with one or the other conditions. It is widespread throughout the breed. The solution is not to stop breeding all dogs who are affected or whose littermates/half-siblings/etc. are affected, but to breed unaffected or at the most, the least-affected dogs (i.e., only breed dogs with grade 1 or 0 murmur, only breed dogs with less than a certain number of VPCs (that number has not been identified yet, btw), etc.)

I will probably get flak for this, myself, but IMO if Booder passes his Doppler after age 2 and is Holtered with little to no VPCs, you could consider breeding him, provided the bitch has also been screened. (And provided they've both passed hips, thyroid, brucellosis.) I'd certainly let any bitch owners know that a sibling from another litter had a heart condition, but as I said you are not going to find a dog from totally clear lines, so if Booder is unaffected removing him from the breeding pool could be detrimental to the breed in the long run. You might want to take it further and only breed him to bitches that don't have littermates with one of the conditions or that haven't produced pups with one of the conditions.

I would say that Booder's sire and dam should not be bred to each other again, nor should they be bred to other dogs that have produced a problem. (I realize that's not your call to make, but someday you might be in a similar situation.)

 

[Marimat]

Julie, jicksies & Charlotte

Julie writes

Charlotte, I understand your points but unfortunately it's not as simple as all that. If breeders did not in any way breed dogs who have a genetic predispostion for certain illnesses there would be no dogs.

Agreed it is not so simple. For one thing I have to say that there would in fact still be dogs but they would then be coming from the exclusive domain of the backyarders, millers and ignoramouses that Charlotte eludes to. These are the people who undertake the "willy-nilly' attitude to breeding. If ever were it decreed that we stop breeding animals with a genetic disposition out of the loop, we'd be in fact taking out the best chance to control or even eradicate said diseases. Why? Because such a mandate would be viewed seriously and followed by the responsible breeders who would take it to heart and follow that guideline, therefore as Julie said (but with my extension), there would be no dogs from responsible breeders. The charlotans will still go on and we'd be worse off as no one would be looking for any control

Julie also said

I will probably get flak for this, myself, but IMO if Booder passes his Doppler after age 2 and is Holtered with little to no VPCs, you could consider breeding him, provided the bitch has also been screened.

Well, not from me. The best followed axiom when trying to control or eradicate genetic nasties is to undertake breeding the best available to the best available. If that best happens to be animals clear of any genetic nasties then well and good. Trouble is we often don't know, as illustrated by what Julie says about a dog registering low VPCs at 2 years and hundreds or thousands at 7 years. For mine, the potential for a dog having increased VPCs later in life is probably the biggest pain in a**. For this reason my belief on best to best would be if I had a dog with only 5 VPCs, I'd be wanting a bitch with none.

Studies in the UK with AS prove conclusively that breeding best to best does lower the incidence of these diseases.

Work in the UK in the 80's with the dreaded PA also proved that by careful selection and culling (NOT killing) of affected stock even a recessively inherited disease can be eradicated.

There are many other things that can be done to improve the situation as well, less emphasis on close line or in breeding for one thing. Importing new blood. Monitoring of puppies we sell to see if they have a problem early that would indicate a parent has a problem earlier than we might know by just relying on yearly testing.

It's not an altogether hopeless situation, we are not in dire straits yet. Mandate that we don't use any stock at all with a predispostion to disease will only serve the non caring even better.

Matt
(probably not the last I'll have to say here LOL so I'll keep it short. Well relatively anyway)

 

[Charlotte]

Hi guys~~
I think my point may have been overlooked here.
Where I'm from, Toronto, Cananda, there are many breeders that sell companion Boxers, (many for breeding and show purposes as well but the majority are for companion), all with "papers"; meaning that the dam and sire are registered...big deal.
The average cost for a pup here is $600-$800, making it a huge profit margin for those who are not breeding for show dogs.
We're talking no titers, just hopeful breeders looking for "nice looking" dogs that can bring them high profit. Being as they are all eligable to be "registered", this ups the anty.
Then there are those who have a gorgeous companion Boxer, (everyone says their's is the cutest ), who think that they too can make some cash by breeding their handsome stud with another beautiful dam and either split the costs, (pre-post natal and first shots+worming), or work out some other ways to share in the profit. They aren't even aware of titers and their pups can still be "registered" if the parents are. :/
Even the "responsible" breeders of today do very little if any follow up on the pups they sell to know if they will eventually develope health problems that could affect other pups with the same sire and dam.
I'm not saying that any dog with any genetic predispostion to certain illness should not be bred at all; I am saying that it is extremely unwise and irresponisible to breed two known dogs with similiar genetic predispositions as there will most likely be a gauranteed ill breed of puppies that will only go on to further those particular health issues.
Why would those who breed not actually *want* to go for healthy lines?
profit....period.
Just my two cents.
Charlotte and Sigmund

 

[jicksies]

Breeding...

Hi Charlotte,
Thank you for your input on this issue. I do need to defend my particular Breeder however-She is an extremely conscientious breeder who has stayed in contact with me from time to time to check in on Booder and Barley's welfare. She is not in it for the money; she loves her animals and takes a serious interest in all the pups she has produced. When my breeder contacted me regarding the death of one of her pups (from a previous litter), she was devastated (naturally) and at the same time, felt it her duty to let me know what had happened. She has asked me repeatedly over the past year if I have had any health concerns with regards to Boods and Barley.
As far as Booder goes, his health has been excellent;his temperment typical of the Boxer; and his appearance meets the breed standard. I have every intention of having all the proper tests done before we stud him, and also will require the bitch to be tested as well. As far as making any money; that is the least of my concerns-we are actually only asking for a pup from the litter as payment. Before I plan on studding Booder, I will make sure the family involved is also not in it for "the money"...I am very aware of backyard breeders and puppy mills (I have had a few unpleasant experiences in the past) and so I proceed cautiously.
I am very concerned about the fact that one of Booder's brothers from a past litter died so suddenly so I posted this thread to find out as much as I can I also know that both parents of Booder and Barley have passed all the health tests and have had two healthy litters...thanks again for your input-and again, I am taking this very seriously ...take care, hugs to your furbabies, Jicksies

 

[dog gone boxers]

Health issues in Boxers

Hi,
This has been well covered by most of the responces I have read.
I'd like to give you another view that seems is being over looked. First did you purchase from someone you feel is trying to improve the bred? If so, stop & think how they must feel? Coming home to a dead dog of there breeding? Do you have any idea how this must effect there breeding program,? As a breeder I will speak for myself only. The worst call I have ever had to make stemmed from an issue much like this, the broken hearts on the other end of the line, the hopes dashed. The dreams gone forever. I currently have a 2 yr. old male who's father at the age of 8 has tested not so good on the heart monitor. After years of clean testing. My breeder was on the phone to me in tears, Is this her fault? NO. Did they do this to me on purpose? No. There whole lifetimes work is now in question.
Yes there are people who would bred on.. Not us... But then you should have sensed that from them long before you signed that contract to purchase a dog.
Please understand this is not a perfect world, Both of my males parents tested well. We as breeders have a responsibility to not bred un-fit stock. We thought we had crossed ourT's & dotted our I's. But the bottom line is sometimes these things can happen even in the best of attempts to stop it. Unless we start doing gene splicing, & our dogs are concieved in a petre dish, God & the genitic line up of genes will allways have the final say. I wish you the best of luck, & please test your dog.

 

[jicksies]

Wow

Thank you for that...My breeder is heartbroken...and had the conscience to tell me what had happened...thank you ...jicksies

 

[JulieM]

Charlotte,

I'm not saying that any dog with any genetic predispostion to certain illness should not be bred at all

Sorry if I misunderstood - your original statement certainly sounded as if that were exactly what you were saying:

It is my opinion that breeders should not in any way breed dogs who have a genetic predispostion for certain illnesses.

I think the issue here is that you're talking about irresponsible breeders and Matthew and I are talking about responsible breeders. There is a world of difference between the two.

The average cost for a pup here is $600-$800, making it a huge profit margin for those who are not breeding for show dogs.
We're talking no titers, just hopeful breeders looking for "nice looking" dogs that can bring them high profit. Being as they are all eligable to be "registered", this ups the anty.

That's the average for a pet pup here, too - but I would amend your comment to say that it represents a profit for those who are not doing health testing (or is that what you mean by "titers"?). Showing costs go above and beyond the money you'd receive for the average litter of 6-8 puppies (which just about covers health testing and maintaining the bitch through pregnancy, whelping (without complications) through weaning, and the pups until they are placed in their new homes.) I had thought it was a law that any dog that is sold as purebred must be registered - I'm surprised that increases the price in Canada. (In the US registration is not required by law, so of course a "papered" dog brings a higher price.)

Even the "responsible" breeders of today do very little if any follow up on the pups they sell to know if they will eventually develope health problems that could affect other pups with the same sire and dam.

I would expand your search for responsible breeders, then - most of the ones that I know follow their pups throughout their lifetimes, in an effort to preserve and improve the health of their breeding program.

Jicksies, it sounds like you have a very responsible breeder and I am sure that with the advice she'll give you and the opinions you've gotten from this board, you'll be able to make an informed decision.

Unfortunately, heart conditions are not the only problem in our breed. It might be preferable to breed to the asymptomatic 8 year old male with "not so good" Holter results (depending, of course, on the actual number) who is still alert and active, isn't down in the rear, is free of cancer, and has normal thryoid than to breed to the Holtered clear 5 year old whose sire died at 6 of cancer.

Situations like these are always difficult. There are so many grey areas with inherited diseases in Boxers, there are no clear-cut answers. We must all do what we feel is best for our program and our dogs - and what that is will differ from breeder to breeder and from line to line.

 

[Marimat]

Hello again

To Charlotte

saying that any dog with any genetic predispostion to certain illness should not be bred at all

Sorry too but I read this statement the same way Julie did and found that one of your next statements was rather contradictory

I'm not saying that any dog with any genetic predispostion to certain illness should not be bred at all

But I guess you have clarified that here as well.

The point I want to touch on here is an extension to what Julie said with her statement

I think the issue here is that you're talking about irresponsible breeders and Matthew and I are talking about responsible breeders. There is a world of difference between the two.

When talking average price of puppies it is prudent to mention average cost of raising said puppies in the first place.

In Australia, average price would be between $400.00 and $600.00. That's average strictly.

When I had my boarding kennels I was required to be licensed. The breeding side had to come under that license as my dogs were counted in the numbers under terms of the license. Having a license also meant I had to do a tax return on the kennel. This in turn meant costing the litters I had to do an accurate return. Having that explanation out of the way I can tell you that the cost of raising a puppy to 8 weeks is, for me, around $450.00 to $500.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It all starts with the dam, she has to be maintained until breding age; fed, immunised, health tests, miscellaneous vet visits, worming etc all adds up. Then if you mate her you have a stud fee at best, at worst you have the same costs again of raring your own stud dog. You then have to maintain her pregnancy. Extra food and/or supplements, more vet visits, preparation of equipment (there is A LOT if it's all done right). Puppies come and the bitch may need even more food and care. If you are lucky you don't have a C Section (expensive). Puppies then have to be reared so the food bill is up again. Comes a time then when puppy shots are due, tail docking needs doing, more worming to pay for, dewclaw removal, microchipping (compulsory here), advertising if need be. And whatever other miscellaneous costs come up.

The point being that to quote an average price that a breeder will get means nothing without looking at what a breeder spends.

And that's the fundamental difference between responsible and irresponsible breeders. The charlotans will scrimp and save on every turn of the cycle to ensure a higher profit margin. The responsible breeder will in many (most) cases actually lose money and profit is not a goal.

The only thing I differ from with Julie (and I HAVE to differ, it's compulsory LOL) is that I don't take showing costs into account. Showing is not compulsory to breeding so any costs borne out of showing are because we choose to do it. I always ask myself if showing were banned tomorrow would I still breed. The answer is still always yes, I would.

Matthew