# Megaesophagus and Breeding the Carrier



## jaggirl47

So, a pup has come down with primary idiopathic megaesophagus. This is a genetic disease which genes are passed by both parents. The breeder that owns the dam has retired her and she will be getting placed into a pet home. This was her first litter. The sire's owner is not acknowledging that their dog carries the Mega E gene and has continued to set up more breedings with this dog. It is the belief that the sire's owner is not telling the bitch's owners that the dog has produced a Mega E pup. This is the sire's second litter.

What would you do?


----------



## cindy_s

I would put the pup's pedigree on the PDB and list the megaesophagus issue. That way people researching pedigrees can be aware.


----------



## Chris Wild

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like all health issues, it has to be weighed in terms of many other factors. There are also far worse issues that a dog could produce than MegaE. Especially if it is a mild case that the dog outgrows. Severity, frequency of occurrence, and what the dogs have to offer in terms of other temperament and health traits to their pups all need to be taken into consideration. 

We had ONE pup in a litter of 9 with MegaE. Jenn's Glory. She outgrew symptoms in puppyhood. No other pups in the litter were affected. Neither sire nor dam was retired due to that one pup. The dam had one more litter with a different sire, 11 pups, no MegaE. So 20 pups total from the dam, only 1 MegaE. The sire has had several other litters to total many dozens of pups, with several different dams, all with no MegaE. Two full sisters and one half sister of the dam have also been bred, producing several other litters between them, with no MegaE in any of those either.

So there would certainly appear to be much more complexity to the inheritence of this disorder than a simple autosomal recessive as some believe. And it's not impossible that as with other similiar disorders, inheritance in one breed isn't the same as in other breeds. Regardless of means of inheritance, people have to keep the total dog in mind as well as overall production record. If every dog is eliminated from breeding if it produces one undesireable trait or pup, even if pretty severe, there won't be many dogs left to breed.


----------



## jaggirl47

They have actually figured out more on the inheritance portion of ME in regards to GSD's. If a dog actively has ME and is bred, it only takes that one parent. If not, then both the sire and dam have to have the gene to pass it to the pups. So if the dogs are still being bred, they continue to pass the gene on and make more carriers.

Why is it different with ME than it is with hip displaysia? If a dog has severe hip displaysia then the dog would not (or at least should not) be bred. Wouldn't that be considered taking dogs out of the gene pool as well?


----------



## gagsd

Is there published data available about the inheritance of mega-E? 

As someone who had a dog with it, and who has raised puppies with it.... it can be a heartbreaking disease.

Chris- At what point did you know Glory had Mega-E?


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I don't know alot about mega e on how it's passed. But I see in your first post you said that "BOTH" had to have the gene to pass it on? If this is so, who's to say if bred to a different sire/dam that it would ever happen again?? 

Is there a 'test' to see if a dog is a meg e carrier? I mean how do they "know" for sure that both dogs are mega e carriers?


----------



## jaggirl47

JakodaCD OA said:


> I don't know alot about mega e on how it's passed. But I see in your first post you said that "BOTH" had to have the gene to pass it on? If this is so, who's to say if bred to a different sire/dam that it would ever happen again??
> 
> Is there a 'test' to see if a dog is a meg e carrier? I mean how do they "know" for sure that both dogs are mega e carriers?


 
There is no test yet. Clemson university is currently working on it, but they are still in the early stages.

If there was a test, it would be easy. Carriers breed to clear, no breeding of affected. Too bad it isn't that easy.


----------



## onyx'girl

DM tests are not as accurate as once thought, either.


----------



## jaggirl47

onyx'girl said:


> DM tests are not as accurate as once thought, either.


 
That is true. However, it is better than absolutely nothing.


----------



## jaggirl47

gagsd said:


> Is there published data available about the inheritance of mega-E?
> 
> As someone who had a dog with it, and who has raised puppies with it.... it can be a heartbreaking disease.
> 
> Chris- At what point did you know Glory had Mega-E?


 
http://www.akcchf.org/news-events/library/articles/germanshepherdupdate0909.pdf

Megaesophagus - Clemson Canine Genetics


----------



## Freestep

If I was a breeder, and I had a dog that had produced a Mega-E pup, but was an outstanding dog in every other aspect, I don't know if I would retire him from breeding. But I would certainly be honest and open about the Mega-E issue, and I would hope anyone else in the same situation would be honest and open about it. Otherwise you could be breeding carrier to carrier and never know it! If the guy with the stud dog is lying to people or conveniently failing to mention that his stud has produced Mega-E, I would save him the time and trouble and just make it a matter of public record.  I think you can enter it into the PDB database.


----------



## Chris Wild

jaggirl47 said:


> They have actually figured out more on the inheritance portion of ME in regards to GSD's. If a dog actively has ME and is bred, it only takes that one parent. If not, then both the sire and dam have to have the gene to pass it to the pups. So if the dogs are still being bred, they continue to pass the gene on and make more carriers.




They thought they had inheritance of DM figured out in GSDs too, but there sure seems to be a lot of evidence to the contrary coming out, and I think it would be very detrimental to throw out all the dogs who might have 'bad genes' especially when these DNA marker tests are apparently not as cut and dried as some people think.

And if the tests are accurate, then there is the option of utilizing them to prevent producing dogs who are affected without having to eliminate all carriers from breeding and potentially narrow the gene pool severely in doing so.

Every dog has bad genes and will pass them on. Eliminate every dog without perfect genes from the genepool, and there will be no more dogs. Period. Breeders have to gather as much info as possible and use it judiciously to minimize risk, but no matter how much we all may wish things were different, there is no way to eliminate risk.

It's interesting that there are breeding programs out there that overfocused on specific health problems, and did in fact all but completely eliminate those health problems from their lines, only to have new ones pop up in much greater frequency than exists in the general GSD population. It's always balance, and as the saying goes "when you breed something in, you breed something else out" and vice versa.





jaggirl47 said:


> Why is it different with ME than it is with hip displaysia? If a dog has severe hip displaysia then the dog would not (or at least should not) be bred. Wouldn't that be considered taking dogs out of the gene pool as well?


It isn't. But originally you were talking about a dog who had produced a pup with MegaE. Now you're talking about a dog who HAS severe dysplasia. That IS different. 

The affected dog should not be bred. A dog who is related to the affected dog, even if a littermate or parent, IMO should not automatically be thrown out on that alone. Goodness, if we eliminated every dog who produced or had a littermate with HD from breeding, we really wouldn't have anymore GSDs. The same common sense, look at the big picture approach needs to apply to all traits.

And honestly, one area where MegaE is preferable to other health problems is that it is becomes apparent when pups are very young. Usually as soon as they start solid food. So it should never be a surprise to the new owner. The breeder ought to be able to identify it well before pups are going home, determine the severity and then either euthanize or place the pup in a home appropriately based on that information.


----------



## Chris Wild

gagsd said:


> Chris- At what point did you know Glory had Mega-E?


We suspected as soon as she started solid food. We did barium x-rays between 6 and 7 weeks to confirm the diagnosis. She'd pretty much outgrown any symptoms before she went to her new home at 9-10 weeks, but of course technically still has it.

As I said in my previous post, not that any health issue is good, but if you're going to have one health problem or another that is one upside to MegaE over others. With juvenille MegaE, symptoms almost always start to present as soon as the pup starts solid food. Sometimes sooner. So if the breeder is paying attention there shouldn't be any surprise.


----------



## gagsd

Yes, the litter I raised it was obvious from day 1 that something was wrong. They were severely affected. I picked them up, took them to the vet who told me impossible that it was mega-e this young. By 3 weeks we did confirm, but a total of 7 out of 9 puppies died. The two females lived.


----------



## Chris Wild

I read the articles and don't find where they are saying that they understand the inheritance pattern. The Clemson site says that they think they've identified the chromosome it is carried on, but not much more than that except that they believe it to be "complicated" in GSDs. Which would indicate not a simple recessive or dominant but rather a polygenic disorder like HD and most others. MegaE has been proven to have simple inheritance patterns in some other breeds, recessive in some and dominant in others (so clearly it isn't always the same across breeds), but not in GSDs. But I don't see where they are saying that they know enough about it in GSDs to be assuming anything about carrier status of other related dogs, nor where the statement that if a dog is affected it only takes that one dog to produce a MegaE pup but if not affected it takes 2. That seems contridictory, as the first statement indicates a dominant inheritance pattern, which clearly isn't the case in GSDs, and the second indicates a recessive inheritance. Can't be both unless it is not only polygenic, but also multifactorial.


----------



## martemchik

I also don't believe it is as simple as dominant and recessive genes. I had a pup that had MegaE and out of 10 pups he was the only one that had it. If both the mother and father were carriers in theory 2.5 dogs would've had the disease. I know many of us understand alleles and the punnet square theory, but I don't think all genetics work that easily. If this gene was so simple, that liter would've proved it to be so. I'm not sure how gagsd ended up with so many of the pups with the disease but something else must've been at work there, and not being a geneticist I can't really tell you what it was. The breeders decided to retire my pup's mother (we got another dog from that liter) and our first pup lived to be 1.5 years old and then passed away from complications having to do with the disease. The sire has had 4 liters, and only that one pup has had the disease. 3 liters were with another dam so it makes sense why they didn't have any signs, but in theory they should all be carriers. So imagine the spread of the disease if it was truly that genetically simple.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris, I can't do the quotes like you did so I will try to answer here.

The HD comment was nothing more than an example, not a change of topic. It was meant as one is cut out so why not the other.

My biggest thing is when is enough enough, if that makes sense. It's kinda of like trying to mask the gene through breeding instead of trying to get rid of it. I know I have alot to learn with genetics and pairings for breeding, as well as multiple other things. I am just really trying to get a good grasp on this defect.


----------



## jaggirl47

Also, for those of you that pm'd a specific breeder on here thinking I meant them, it IS NOT that breeder. I have already informed them of that.


----------



## gagsd

If it were PROVEN to be autosomal recessive, then yes, the stud owner and bitch owner ought to disclose. However it has not been, to my knowledge.

If a dog has been bred several times with zero incidents, then one affected pup pops up.... I personally would not rule out breeding the parents again. Although probably not to each other.


----------



## jaggirl47

I emailed Dr Clark and I hope to hear something back within the next day or 2. I will gladly update when I hear back.


----------



## Samba

Mega E can be a surprise. I have seen two dogs diagnosed with it later. One had been bred before diagnosis. There are variable expressions of the disease. It did become a real problem as to aspiration pneumonia. One girl has a large one and is in her 9th year with not too much trouble managing daily life.

I have seen carriers bred extensively. I am not sure of its incidence in the breed. Would not want to breed an affected dog or put two known carriers together. Can we eliminate all detrimental genes and not loose other valuable ones? I have noted that the geneticists are not quick to say do not breed carriers of several things in an effort to maintain other valuable genetics otherwise in the dogs.


----------



## Lilie

Freestep said:


> If I was a breeder, and I had a dog that had produced a Mega-E pup, but was an outstanding dog in every other aspect, I don't know if I would retire him from breeding. But I would certainly be honest and open about the Mega-E issue, and I would hope anyone else in the same situation would be honest and open about it.


I would certainly hope any 'reputable' breeder would provide that information as well. If not, I see a very fine line between that type of breeder and a byb, where profit comes first.


----------



## jaggirl47

Samba said:


> Mega E can be a surprise. I have seen two dogs diagnosed with it later. One had been bred before diagnosis. There are variable expressions of the disease. It did become a real problem as to aspiration pneumonia. One girl has a large one and is in her 9th year with not too much trouble managing daily life.
> 
> I have seen carriers bred extensively. I am not sure of its incidence in the breed. Would not want to breed an affected dog or put two known carriers together. Can we eliminate all detrimental genes and not loose other valuable ones? I have noted that the geneticists are not quick to say do not breed carriers of several things in an effort to maintain other valuable genetics otherwise in the dogs.


 
If the dogs showed up with it later it is considered secondary and not genetic. The genetic form is the primary idiopathic MEand shows up in puppies, normally at the time of transition to food or cy up to 8-12 weeks.

If there were tests out there and we could know who the carriers were, it would be much different.


----------



## jaggirl47

Lilie said:


> I would certainly hope any 'reputable' breeder would provide that information as well. If not, I see a very fine line between that type of breeder and a byb, where profit comes first.


 
The thing is, the breeder acknowledges this was produced 100% and is learning everything they can about it. The stud owner on the other hand, not so much. I have a feeling that even if he produces more ME pups, he would continue to stud the dog without acknowledgement or letting the bitch owners know.


----------



## Samba

Definitely genetic in the dogs I know. It just was not noted or detected early on. There is variable expression. I know the lines and the carrier sire they have in common. They were born with disorder. So, later detection does not necessarily determine that it is not genetic. But, yes, there are other causes of problems with esophageal function.


----------



## onyx'girl

I would hope that anyone wanting to use this(or any) stud would do their research first....see what he's been producing before making the decision to use him. That is what responsible breeders do.


----------



## Lilie

jaggirl47 said:


> The thing is, the breeder acknowledges this was produced 100% and is learning everything they can about it. The stud owner on the other hand, not so much. I have a feeling that even if he produces more ME pups, he would continue to stud the dog without acknowledgement or letting the bitch owners know.


That is so wrong, on so many levels. To me, that makes the stud owner no better than the byb breeding just for profit.


----------



## jaggirl47

onyx'girl said:


> I would hope that anyone wanting to use this(or any) stud would do their research first....see what he's been producing before making the decision to use him. That is what responsible breeders do.


 
I agree with this 100%. The stud has only sired 2 litters so far. Out of the 2, 1 litter was affected. The stud has 2 more breedings this week.

If the stud owner doesn't admit it, how will the potential bitch owners find out?


----------



## Lilie

onyx'girl said:


> I would hope that anyone wanting to use this(or any) stud would do their research first....see what he's been producing before making the decision to use him. That is what responsible breeders do.


Is there a location where breeders (stud or bitch) can gather (health related) information from?


----------



## jaggirl47

Lilie said:


> Is there a location where breeders (stud or bitch) can gather (health related) information from?


 
Comments from PDB maybe. That's all I can think of. The dog's pedigree link go's to workingdog.eu though. You can't place comments there.


----------



## Lilie

jaggirl47 said:


> Comments from PDB maybe. That's all I can think of. The dog's pedigree link go's to workingdog.eu though. You can't place comments there.


I certainly don't want to derail your thread. But do you realize how scary this is for us 'non-breeders'? Those of us who perform all the research (obviously only that which is available) find a 'reputable breeder' pay at least $1000 more than what we could have paid picking up a dog from Craig's List, only to find that everything we did was a waste? It's still very much a crap shoot? Only we laid down a bigger wager. At least the Craig's List folks have no idea they are selling faulty puppies - (some) 'reputable' breeders do!


----------



## jaggirl47

Lilie said:


> I certainly don't want to derail your thread. But do you realize how scary this is for us 'non-breeders'? Those of us who perform all the research (obviously only that which is available) find a 'reputable breeder' pay at least $1000 more than what we could have paid picking up a dog from Craig's List, only to find that everything we did was a waste? It's still very much a crap shoot? Only we laid down a bigger wager. At least the Craig's List folks have no idea they are selling faulty puppies - (some) 'reputable' breeders do!


 
That's why I am posing these questions. I am not a breeder, I am strictly a buyer. It's extremely scary.


----------



## martemchik

When I did my research on the disease (after the pup we got had it), I'm really not sure how it is passed. In some of my research it seems to be more of a mutation in utero rather than a true genetic disease. Out of 10 pups, one didn't get the nutrients or just got a bad cell that ended up not developing the esophagus while the pup was in the uterus. In theory any dog that has ever had megaE in its family history has a chance to be a carrier. Not sure if you can really track this down without seeing the dog produce a megaE puppy. In the case of a breeder/stud owner not disclosing that this has happened, is in my opinion ethically incorrect, but like the others have said, in my opinion it probably shouldn't rule out that dog as a stud.


----------



## jaggirl47

martemchik said:


> When I did my research on the disease (after the pup we got had it), I'm really not sure how it is passed. In some of my research it seems to be more of a mutation in utero rather than a true genetic disease. Out of 10 pups, one didn't get the nutrients or just got a bad cell that ended up not developing the esophagus while the pup was in the uterus. In theory any dog that has ever had megaE in its family history has a chance to be a carrier. Not sure if you can really track this down without seeing the dog produce a megaE puppy. In the case of a breeder/stud owner not disclosing that this has happened, is in my opinion ethically incorrect, but like the others have said, in my opinion it probably shouldn't rule out that dog as a stud.


I have never heard this theory but it has been shown that it causes changes to chromosome 12, so I would think this theory is not correct. The only in utero one that I am aware of is mega e secondary to PRAA.


----------



## Lilie

martemchik said:


> Not sure if you can really track this down without seeing the dog produce a megaE puppy. In the case of a breeder/stud owner not disclosing that this has happened, is in my opinion ethically incorrect, but like the others have said, in my opinion it probably shouldn't rule out that dog as a stud.


I can certainly understand that purchasing a live animal is a gamble. Breeders can't be held accountable for every health issue. However, when a breeder knows they have a stud/bitch that has produced (in this discussion) MegaE, it should be disclosed. 

If I'm searching for a specific type dog, from specific bloodlines, with specific traits, and therefore go to a specific breeder, then it would be my choice to accept the chance the pup might (or might not) have (in this discussion) MegaE.


----------



## jaggirl47

Lilie said:


> I can certainly understand that purchasing a live animal is a gamble. Breeders can't be held accountable for every health issue. However, when a breeder knows they have a stud/bitch that has produced (in this discussion) MegaE, it should be disclosed.
> 
> If I'm searching for a specific type dog, from specific bloodlines, with specific traits, and therefore go to a specific breeder, then it would be my choice to accept the chance the pup might (or might not) have (in this discussion) MegaE.


I do agree with this and as a buyer, I would have a greater respect for the breeder that does disclose it. Unfortunately, the vast majority don't disclose it and continue to hide it.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

martemchik said:


> When I did my research on the disease (after the pup we got had it), I'm really not sure how it is passed. In some of my research it seems to be more of a mutation in utero rather than a true genetic disease. Out of 10 pups, one didn't get the nutrients or just got a bad cell that ended up not developing the esophagus while the pup was in the uterus. In theory any dog that has ever had megaE in its family history has a chance to be a carrier. Not sure if you can really track this down without seeing the dog produce a megaE puppy. In the case of a breeder/stud owner not disclosing that this has happened, is in my opinion ethically incorrect, but like the others have said, in my opinion it probably shouldn't rule out that dog as a stud.


 
I'm with my 2nd GSD with mega and really do think it's genetic. My first mega pup was from the Seeing Eye and they knew they had it in their lines, had a geneticist on staff, and still were dealing with it. 

Since they had zero elbow/ Hip dysplasia in their lines. And had also removed other genetic issues, they didn't want to pitch all the dogs out of their program and just have to start all over with ALL the genetic problems.

I feel one of the problem with mega is how it shows in dogs. It can be so bad puppies die soon after birth, or many of them die or are very ill when going to solid foods. If/when these puppies die so young, most breeders don't do an autopsy and have no idea why they died.

Or it can be like both my mega dogs.... hardly noticable *UNLESS YOU HAVE A KNOWLEDGABLE AND HONEST BREEDER!!!*

The part I have in bold is what I feel is a big issue. Dishonest breeders who can cover up a mega issue in their lines either by culling (killing) puppies and thus removing the problem (not really AT ALL). Or honest and well intentioned breeders who just don't have a clue about this (and many other genetic) conditions that are in our breed.

Both of the breeders in the last paragraph are making sure that the GENETICS of this aren't honestly being spoken about or considered in future breedings of their dogs. 

Back to the Seeing Eye, who does such crazy research before adding ANY dogs to their program.... a few years after I got my mega pup (Elsa Rose) and their continued follow up of all their mega dogs was showing that MANY of them either grew up to be 100% normal at adulthood, or were so mildly afflicted they would easily be able to be kept in the program and given to a blind person (I got my Elsa at 7 weeks because at that time they were immediately pulling them from the program and rehoming them). They bought TWO top male Sch dogs from Germany. They were the 'showline' type GSD's and you know all their genetics were gone over and mega brought up and ruled out of these dogs.

So they purchased the two beautiful males, brought them over to the USA and started breeding them. And VOILA for the first time EVER had litter(s) with 100% of them with mega! Previously they had litters like Elsa's (7 pups, 3 with mega but USUALLY there were fewer or none). 

What does this tell you? There had to be mega in that top male GSD line that had not been brought up!!!! 

So if you KNOW a large responsible breeder with the money, time, vets ON STAFF, and a geneticist to refer to can fall prey to some type of cover up/dishonesty. For most 'regular' breeders this shows the difficulties with ANY breeding.


----------



## jaggirl47

Maggie,

I like what you wrote. I also do not think that mega is becoming more common, just that it is being reported more because culling litters is happening less and less.

I just hate the fact that so much has been hidden in the lines because now it is coming back to bite us in the butt.


----------



## martemchik

I guess after what I went through with my pup, he didn't have a mild case. So a mild case in my opinion isn't that big of a deal. If the dog can still live its full life, without that many issues eating food and still be a full size dog, I don't really think its that large of a problem. The dog we had, would regurgitate food unless he was kept upright and even then sometimes would. We gave him back to the breeder because we couldn't be there for him as much as the breeder and the dog lived to be 1.5 years old. But then the disease caused other failures in his body.

But I do understand what you mean by 100% of the liter being affected...its wrong even if it is a minor case that doesn't affect the dog's quality of life. I hope that breeder can truly figure out what is going on with the disease and try to get it out of their lines, and then explain to the rest of the world what is the cause of it.


----------



## Lilie

martemchik said:


> I guess after what I went through with my pup, he didn't have a mild case. So a mild case in my opinion isn't that big of a deal. If the dog can still live its full life, without that many issues eating food and still be a full size dog, I don't really think its that large of a problem.


I think the problem would be if the breeder didn't disclose the possibility. If the breeder knew the possiblity, it would certainly matter to me even if it were a mild case. 

If I went to a 'reputable' breeder with the hopes of purchasing the next best dog in the show ring (what ever venue) and possibly one day becoming a breeder myself, and the breeder *knowingly* sold me a puppy that could possibly *NEVER *become what I envisioned that, to me, is worse than a byb. Much worse.


----------



## Heidigsd

> Unfortunately, the vast majority don't disclose it and continue to hide it.


I think this is a sad but true statement. I am on my second GSD with major health issues and have decided not to get another dog in the future. These so called breeders don't have a clue (or maybe they do and just don't care) how heartbreaking and stressful it is to deal with some of these issues, not to mention very expensive. 

It really saddens me to think about what happens to the puppies that end up in homes that are not willing or financially able to care for them


----------



## vom Eisenherz

Whats Happening

Another breeder's experience with Mega-E, apparently carried by her stud dog, who is out of a VERY popular sire of DDR pups. Note that the females tested were negative, and only the stud showed to be a carrier and she had several affected pups in 2 litters.


----------



## jaggirl47

vom Eisenherz said:


> Whats Happening
> 
> Another breeder's experience with Mega-E, apparently carried by her stud dog, who is out of a VERY popular sire of DDR pups. Note that the females tested were negative, and only the stud showed to be a carrier and she had several affected pups in 2 litters.


 
I actually got this info from that breeder the other day. It isn't 100% correct though. The only test Clemson can do is test the dog to see if they actually have it, not just as a carrier. A dog can have ME but show signs that are so minimal it would easily go un-noticed. In this case, it is entirely possible to pass the gene by only the one parent because the gene is then dominant. If neither parent tests positive for this test, it does not mean they are not a carrier, just that they do not actively have it. In this case, it is recessive and takes both parents to carry it.

I already posed the question to Clemson.


----------



## vom Eisenherz

jaggirl47 said:


> I actually got this info from that breeder the other day. It isn't 100% correct though. The only test Clemson can do is test the dog to see if they actually have it, not just as a carrier. A dog can have ME but show signs that are so minimal it would easily go un-noticed. In this case, it is entirely possible to pass the gene by only the one parent because the gene is then dominant. If neither parent tests positive for this test, it does not mean they are not a carrier, just that they do not actively have it. In this case, it is recessive and takes both parents to carry it.
> 
> I already posed the question to Clemson.


Isn't that what she says in the link? It's in its infancy, from what I understood. Just thought since she is being honest about her dog that others might benefit from reading.


----------



## jaggirl47

vom Eisenherz said:


> Isn't that what she says in the link? It's in its infancy, from what I understood. Just thought since she is being honest about her dog that others might benefit from reading.


 
Oh, heck yes. I appreciate what she is doing and have a great deal of respect for her. It's good to see breeders that tackle this head on. Sorry if my reply showed anything but that.


----------



## Heidigsd

> Is there a location where breeders (stud or bitch) can gather (health related) information from?


IDK if this registry is still active, haven't been on there in a long time: German Shepherd Dog Breed Betterment Registry


----------



## jaggirl47

Heidigsd said:


> IDK if this registry is still active, haven't been on there in a long time: German Shepherd Dog Breed Betterment Registry


 
I have never seen this before.


----------



## Heidigsd

> I have never seen this before.


It's been around for many years and I had forgotten about it. If you search for it on pedigreedatabase you will get a lot of posts by Marjorie on the subject


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

I haven't read all the links so sorry if this is already posted:
Canine Megaesophagus, Aspiration Pneumonia & Myasthenia Gravis - Current Studies

Studies! I always sign my dogs up if I can help; so far the ones they've done were the IgA one at A/M and Anna did some DNA thing at Cornell. Not sure if Ava did as well. So please spread the word about those for any Mega-E dogs. 

Canine Megaesophagus, Aspiration Pneumonia & Myasthenia Gravis - Resources has links, including to the Yahoo group for Mega-e dogs. 

There is also this: Persistent Right Aortic Arch (PRAA) in Dogs that seems similar. 

I hope they are able to get some good info from those studies.


----------



## jaggirl47

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I haven't read all the links so sorry if this is already posted:
> Canine Megaesophagus, Aspiration Pneumonia & Myasthenia Gravis - Current Studies
> 
> Studies! I always sign my dogs up if I can help; so far the ones they've done were the IgA one at A/M and Anna did some DNA thing at Cornell. Not sure if Ava did as well. So please spread the word about those for any Mega-E dogs.
> 
> Canine Megaesophagus, Aspiration Pneumonia & Myasthenia Gravis - Resources has links, including to the Yahoo group for Mega-e dogs.
> 
> There is also this: Persistent Right Aortic Arch (PRAA) in Dogs that seems similar.
> 
> I hope they are able to get some good info from those studies.


 
Dr Clark is leading the studies for mega e. She is the same one that was leading the studies for EPI when she was at Texas A&M. She is awesome. I am hoping she shoots me an email back soon. I have heard from the lab but I like how she explains stuff.

PRAA is one of the mega e causes in pups. The mega e that is caused by PRAA is considered secondary or aquired. Last I heard on PRAA is that it is not genetic. I know several people that argue this though. They have seen it run in specific lines.

I'm like you Jean. I can't tell you how many times I sent Zappa's blood and DNA places just to do testing. He had so many issues it just felt like the right thing to do. Heck, I even sent Leyna's DNA several places just so I can see her genetic make-up. She is healthy, but it's interesting!


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Lilie said:


> I think the problem would be if the breeder didn't disclose the possibility. If the breeder knew the possiblity, it would certainly matter to me even if it were a mild case.


That's exactly right. 

It DOES matter if you have a pup with mega. Even if it's mild and has a healthy normal life. I need to know about the condition, and NOT breed the dog. Both the mega pups I ended up with, it was with the knowledge of the condition PLUS agreements with the breeders that they would be spayed and not pass on the conditions.


----------



## jaggirl47

MaggieRoseLee said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> It DOES matter if you have a pup with mega. Even if it's mild and has a healthy normal life. I need to know about the condition, and NOT breed the dog. Both the mega pups I ended up with, it was with the knowledge of the condition PLUS agreements with the breeders that they would be spayed and not pass on the conditions.


 
And this is an extremely important thing to do.


----------



## martemchik

So then I have a question...

The one dog in the liter that had it, would this mean both parents were carriers...does this mean somehow only one dog got both recessive genes and the others are now either non-carriers at all or carriers? Mathematically this doesn't make sense...how is it that one litter out of two carriers can have all pups affected and another litter only has one pup affected? Or do some of the other dogs probably have it just not at a level a novice person would ever notice? I'm comparing this to a litter mentioned earlier in a post.

I know there are a lot of questions in that paragraph, but I'd like to know what to expect from my boy, is it even worth it to figure out that he's a carrier? Or say I do get an offer for stud, do I disclose that his litter mate had megaE and he could possibly be a carrier, although there is a large chance he isn't a carrier?


----------



## jaggirl47

martemchik said:


> So then I have a question...
> 
> The one dog in the liter that had it, would this mean both parents were carriers...does this mean somehow only one dog got both recessive genes and the others are now either non-carriers at all or carriers? Mathematically this doesn't make sense...how is it that one litter out of two carriers can have all pups affected and another litter only has one pup affected? Or do some of the other dogs probably have it just not at a level a novice person would ever notice? I'm comparing this to a litter mentioned earlier in a post.
> 
> I know there are a lot of questions in that paragraph, but I'd like to know what to expect from my boy, is it even worth it to figure out that he's a carrier? Or say I do get an offer for stud, do I disclose that his litter mate had megaE and he could possibly be a carrier, although there is a large chance he isn't a carrier?


Statistically speaking, when 2 carriers are bred together, 1/4 will actively have it, 1/2 will be carriers, 1/4 will be completely clear. Does this always happen? No. Nothing is ever for sure when breeding.

When a carrier is to a non-carrier, 1/2 will be clear, 1/2 will be carriers.

Now, as far as the litters where the majority have the mega e, the current belief is that one of the parents has the autosomal dominant gene. So far studies show this dog actually actively has the disease. The dog may not show a single symptom that is even really noticeable.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

That is a good question for a vet school - now, what I have read _conservatively_ recommends not breeding affected dogs or their siblings: Megaesophagus | Canine Inherited Disorders Database | University of Prince Edward Island because their research is older, I would either ask the vets working on these studies or maybe if your vet teaching hospital had anyone who was looking at this could be a secondary resource.


----------



## jaggirl47

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> That is a good question for a vet school - now, what I have read _conservatively_ recommends not breeding affected dogs or their siblings: Megaesophagus | Canine Inherited Disorders Database | University of Prince Edward Island because their research is older, I would either ask the vets working on these studies or maybe if your vet teaching hospital had anyone who was looking at this could be a secondary resource.


 
I asked Clemson and they agree, parents and siblings of the affected dogs should not be bred. Clemson is the one doing the genetic research for ME.


----------



## martemchik

jaggirl47 said:


> Now, as far as the litters where the majority have the mega e, the current belief is that one of the parents has the autosomal dominant gene. So far studies show this dog actually actively has the disease. The dog may not show a single symptom that is even really noticeable.


Going off of this...if the disease is autosomal dominant, it means there are no carriers, because the disease is technically there just not showing. Wouldn't that pretty much make it something that if it is in a popular bloodline of GSD it would be showing up in any/all dogs that have that are on that blood line?

Any one know if Clemson is still testing dogs for the gene? If I send in a swab from my boy and contact them would they be able to tell me anything?

I'm taking this full circle...should this now be something that is tested for? My dog has some pretty famous lines in him and if this is autosomal dominant, that would mean one of those lines gave this gene to him. Now, he doesn't have any signs that I know of, and neither do any of his other litter mates, but he should indeed be a carrier. Hypothetically...this could lead to a few puppies out of him having the extreme version of the disease, and the others all having it with no signs...this leads me to believe that this would me much more prevalent in GSDs with how closely bred many are.


----------



## Samba

It is Surely not autosomal dominant? It is recessive for sure. I know of animals who carry who have been bred extensively in American lines. If dominant then it goes undetected a lot!

Also, when breeding a carrier to a carrier it not at all true that half of pups will carry and half won't! The pups could all carry, no pups could carry or some percentage inbetween. There is no way to predict the number of affected offspring. The percent values apply to each puppy's "chances" of inheriting. It is a roll of the genetic dice for each individual pupper.


----------



## jaggirl47

martemchik said:


> Going off of this...if the disease is autosomal dominant, it means there are no carriers, because the disease is technically there just not showing. Wouldn't that pretty much make it something that if it is in a popular bloodline of GSD it would be showing up in any/all dogs that have that are on that blood line?
> 
> Any one know if Clemson is still testing dogs for the gene? If I send in a swab from my boy and contact them would they be able to tell me anything?
> 
> I'm taking this full circle...should this now be something that is tested for? My dog has some pretty famous lines in him and if this is autosomal dominant, that would mean one of those lines gave this gene to him. Now, he doesn't have any signs that I know of, and neither do any of his other litter mates, but he should indeed be a carrier. Hypothetically...this could lead to a few puppies out of him having the extreme version of the disease, and the others all having it with no signs...this leads me to believe that this would me much more prevalent in GSDs with how closely bred many are.


Not exactly correct. If a dog actively has the disease, with or without symptoms, the gene is autosomal dominant. It only takes the one parent to pass it then. One of the beliefs is that when it is passed by the automal dominant gene, more pups in the litter will have the active form of mega e.

If neither parent actively has the disease, then it takes both to be carriers in order to pass it on. This is when it is considered autosomal ressesive.

There is currently no test for this disease. Clemson is only taking DNA of GSD's under 1 year of age that have the primary idiopathic form and as many generations as possible from that breeding lineage itself.


----------



## martemchik

Alright...so then there are different ways of getting this genetic problem? It can be both dominant and recessive and the dog can get it either way? I'm trying to figure this out from a genetic stand point because of course a dog that has the dominant gene should never be bred, but one with a recessive version of the gene could be bred if that dog has something that is worth the risk of passing on the gene.


----------



## Chris Wild

jaggirl47 said:


> Not exactly correct. If a dog actively has the disease, with or without symptoms, the gene is autosomal dominant. It only takes the one parent to pass it then.
> 
> If neither parent actively has the disease, then it takes both to be carriers in order to pass it on. This is when it is considered autosomal ressesive.


That sounds like you're saying that in all dogs expressing the disorder that the gene is dominant, and if they aren't expressing it then it is recessive. That certainly isn't the case, nor does it make any sense from a genetics standpoint. Expression doesn't equal dominance, and lack of expression doesn't equal recessive. Dominance is a form if inheritance and a gene doesn't go from becoming recessive to becoming dominant. It is one or the other genetically.


----------



## jaggirl47

martemchik said:


> Alright...so then there are different ways of getting this genetic problem? It can be both dominant and recessive and the dog can get it either way? I'm trying to figure this out from a genetic stand point because of course a dog that has the dominant gene should never be bred, but one with a recessive version of the gene could be bred if that dog has something that is worth the risk of passing on the gene.


 
Yes, it can be passed one of 2 ways according to current research.

To me, neither should be bred once a mega e pup has been produced neither should be bred. There is no test so there is no way to know if you are breeding to a carrier or non carrier. Once a genetic test is formed, then that will make a difference.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> That sounds like you're saying that in all dogs expressing the disorder that the gene is dominant, and if they aren't expressing it then it is recessive. That certainly isn't the case, nor does it make any sense from a genetics standpoint. Expression doesn't equal dominance, and lack of expression doesn't equal recessive. Dominance is a form if inheritance and a gene doesn't go from becoming recessive to becoming dominant. It is one or the other genetically.


From the current studies, it shows GSD's can have either or. This has only been found in GSD's which is why the study is focusing on them. It is still in the infant stages and hopefully more info will come out soon.


----------



## selzer

It sounds like the current understanding of the problem and how it is passed down is uncertain. I don't know if we should strike every dog related to a dog with the problem until there is more certainty.


----------



## Chris Wild

I was thinking the same thing, Sue.....


----------



## martemchik

selzer said:


> It sounds like the current understanding of the problem and how it is passed down is uncertain. I don't know if we should strike every dog related to a dog with the problem until there is more certainty.


This is where I was headed with my line of questioning, and it seems like the only way to for sure know what's going on is to breed the dog. If a stud or a bitch produces high amounts of megaE dogs in their first litter, then they should not be bred, but assume the breeder doesn't believe its the dominant version and is just the recessive one, they can breed again with a different stud or bitch and not get any puppies with the disease. Now, if they breed and all the sudden you have the same issue, you know the dog in question has the dominant version.

It seems like the dominant version of the disease is much easier to cull. After 2 breedings there shouldn't be any questions if the dog has it. But the recessive form might not ever show up, if A) you're lucky to breed with a bitch without the recessive gene or B) by luck of the draw none of the puppies end up having two recessive genes.


----------



## jaggirl47

Honestly, that thought process bothers me. I don't like the thought that a dog who knowingly produced a severe genetic disorder being bred again. Maybe nothing will happen with the next breeding or the breeding after, but what about the next generation? Or the generation after? Why risk passing this gene on when it is known the dog does pass it?


----------



## Chris Wild

There are breeds where it's known to be recessive. There are breeds where it's known to be dominant. It sounds like what Kendra is saying is that they believe both forms exist in GSDs.

If that is the case, the dominant version would be very rare. And also very easy to eliminate. Dominant traits always are because they are expressed, not hidden. Recessives are much more tricky because they can be hidden for a long while. But at the same time, there is less frequency of occurrence.

It's good that research is being done into this, but I don't feel at this point there is any cause, or way, for breeders to do other than what they've already been doing. Which is to look at each situation individually, weigh the potential risks and rewards of the totality that the dog has to offer, and make the best decision they can. Avoid dogs or lines where there is a high incidence. Don't automatically throw out those where there may be an occasional, infrequent occurrence based on that alone. Look at the big picture and make good, careful, well thought out and well researched breeding choices.


----------



## Chris Wild

jaggirl47 said:


> Honestly, that thought process bothers me. I don't like the thought that a dog who knowingly produced a severe genetic disorder being bred again. Maybe nothing will happen with the next breeding or the breeding after, but what about the next generation? Or the generation after? Why risk passing this gene on when it is known the dog does pass it?


Because there are no perfect dogs. And there are certainly no perfect dogs with all perfect relatives. And while MegaE can be a heartbreaker for certain, that is not always the case. Nor is it something that is pandemic in this breed outside of a small population of bloodlines where it is already known to be an issue (such as the Seeing Eye's breeding program). It's really pretty infrequent. And as far as issues go, it pales in comparison to many other health, and certainly temperament, problems that plague the breed and are a much bigger issue for efforts to be focused on.

I'm not advocating automatically breeding a dog who'd produced a problem solely for the reason of seeing what happens next time. But I'd certainly never advocate automatically throwing out a dog, and it's whole bloodline, littermates, etc... based on this alone either.


----------



## Andaka

But what if that dog is OFA Excellent, SchH3, V rated, and produces one ME pup. What if that dog is OFA good, AKC Ch., GSDCA Select rated, CDX, and produces one ME pup? 

You are suggesting that another test breeding would be irresponsible when the experts cannot even decide how ME is genetically transmitted?


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> There are breeds where it's known to be recessive. There are breeds where it's known to be dominant. It sounds like what Kendra is saying is that they believe both forms exist in GSDs.
> 
> If that is the case, the dominant version would be very rare. And also very easy to eliminate. Dominant traits always are because they are expressed, not hidden. Recessives are much more tricky because they can be hidden for a long while. But at the same time, there is less frequency of occurrence.
> 
> It's good that research is being done into this, but I don't feel at this point there is any cause, or way, for breeders to do other than what they've already been doing. Which is to look at each situation individually, weigh the potential risks and rewards of the totality that the dog has to offer, and make the best decision they can. Avoid dogs or lines where there is a high incidence. Don't automatically throw out those where there may be an occasional, infrequent occurrence based on that alone. Look at the big picture and make good, careful, well thought out and well researched breeding choices.


This is a much better explanation of what I was trying to say. Thanks Chris. 

I am not sure yet how rare the dominant form is. I have been trying to get a hold of Dr Clark but she is out today. My curiosity with genetics makes me impatient. lol

As far as I know, only one breed has been found to pass it by a dominant gene only. All others it is recessive. The GSD, as has been said already, is the only dog that shows both variations.

One of the biggest problems with researching potential health issues in GSD's is the amount of culling that used to take place. Those pups never "existed" in the first place, if you get what I mean. It can make it very difficult to know what the lines actually have passed on.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> Because there are no perfect dogs. And there are certainly no perfect dogs with all perfect relatives. And while MegaE can be a heartbreaker for certain, that is not always the case. Nor is it something that is pandemic in this breed outside of a small population of bloodlines where it is already known to be an issue (such as the Seeing Eye's breeding program). It's really pretty infrequent. And as far as issues go, it pales in comparison to many other health, and certainly temperament, problems that plague the breed and are a much bigger issue for efforts to be focused on.
> 
> I'm not advocating automatically breeding a dog who'd produced a problem solely for the reason of seeing what happens next time. But I'd certainly never advocate automatically throwing out a dog, and it's whole bloodline, littermates, etc... based on this alone either.


Actually, it is a bit more common and in way more lines than you realize. I have managed to get a hold of a few pedigrees of affected dogs to compare the similarities. It's bigger than I realized and much bigger than most others realize.


----------



## Chris Wild

jaggirl47 said:


> One of the biggest problems with researching potential health issues in GSD's is the amount of culling that used to take place. Those pups never "existed" in the first place, if you get what I mean. It can make it very difficult to know what the lines actually have passed on.


That is true. Though at the same time that practice did remove many bad genes from the gene pool.

I'll be honest though, some of the thoughts and feelings touched upon in this thread also make it difficult to research problems... people are far less likely to openly share the bad as well as the good with other enthusiastss, including other breeders, when they know darn well that very often the information will be used against them. Sometimes unintentionally in the form of people genuinely wanting to help or protect others from heartache by getting the word out, but who don't have any understanding of what all goes into breeding or the dangers of over focus on any one particular trait. And sometimes intentionally by those who don't like them or who view them as competition. 

Either way breeders have learned, often the hard way, to be very careful with who they share this information with. People talk about the supposed "breeders code of silence", but don't ever think about what they are doing and saying that contributes to it. 

When statements along the lines that no dog who's ever produced a problem should be bred again, nor any littermate or sire or dam or other close relative bred because of it, and the implications are that anyone who would do so is irresponsible, greedy, etc.... it doesn't exactly encourage breeders to share those things. Not even with each other. And when breeders feel that they must keep quiet to prevent being crucified in the court of usually well meaning, but often very ignorant public opinion, everyone suffers; the breeders, the owners, and the breed itself.


----------



## jaggirl47

Andaka said:


> But what if that dog is OFA Excellent, SchH3, V rated, and produces one ME pup. What if that dog is OFA good, AKC Ch., GSDCA Select rated, CDX, and produces one ME pup?
> 
> You are suggesting that another test breeding would be irresponsible when the experts cannot even decide how ME is genetically transmitted?


 
How many studs are out there that fit this same example that have not passed an issue like this on? We constantly jump on new members interested in breeding that there are more than enough breeding dogs out there, but when it comes to a dog that has passed a genetic disease off it's automatically ok to continue? That seems a bit hypocritical to me. I'm not trying to be mean, hateful, or argumentative, but it really confuses me that one is ok but not the other.


----------



## Chris Wild

There may be a lot of studs with those credentials. There are very few that have the credentials AND the pedigree, traits, etc.. that a specific breeder is looking for for a specific bitch. Believe it or not, but while there are a lot of credentialed studs out there, there are very, very few options that are the right match for any one female and the goals of her owner. Ask any breeder that question, and they will tell you the same thing.


----------



## martemchik

I wasn't saying that you should do test breedings just to see what form the dog has, I was just making a hypothetical situation where a dog proves it is breed worthy (titles, health certs, ect) and this happens to occur.

Jaggirl...I think your research into pedigrees will lead you to see that although there are some lines/breeding programs that have this as an issue. You think its much more broad. Most of our dogs are related, be it 3, 4, 5 or more generations ago, GSDs in the same area or country are related. Its due to the fact that there is always the one male to breed to. So every decade hundreds and thousands of dogs are produced by the same dogs. If it was such a big issue, even the recessive gene would pop up a lot more often. When my pup was hit with the disorder, I had a hard time finding any information that wasn't just repetitive stuff copied onto different websites. 

I'm sure there are bloodlines known to carry this gene, but I'm in agreement with the few breeders that have posted on the thread, its just too small of an occurrence to completely remove dogs from breedings because they are related to a dog with megaE.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> That is true. Though at the same time that practice did remove many bad genes from the gene pool.
> 
> I'll be honest though, some of the thoughts and feelings touched upon in this thread also make it difficult to research problems... people are far less likely to openly share the bad as well as the good with other enthusiastss, including other breeders, when they know darn well that very often the information will be used against them. Sometimes unintentionally in the form of people genuinely wanting to help, or protect others from heartache by getting the word out but not knowing what all goes into breeding. And sometimes intentionally by those who don't like them or who view them as competition.
> 
> Either way, breeders have learned, often the hard way to be very careful with who they share this information with. People talk about the supposed "breeders code of silence", but don't ever think about what they are doing that contributes to it.
> 
> When statements along the lines that no dog who's ever produced a problem should be bred again, nor any littermate or sire or dam or other close relative bred because of it, and the implications are that anyone who would do so is irresponsible, greedy, etc.... it doesn't exactly encourage breeders to share those things. Not even with each other. And when breeders feel that they must keep quiet to prevent being crucified in the court of usually well meaning, but often very ignorant public opinion, everyone suffers; the breeders, the owners, and the breed itself.


 
Honestly, from a buyers perspective, I give way more respect to a breeder that admits and faces their breeding issue head on instead of trying to hide it. I'm not the only one. I can't tell you how many pm's I have received because of this thread from prospective buyers. They feel the same way I do.

Personally, I think the code of silence is complete BS and one of the main causes we have so many health issues in our breed currently.

As far as genetic issues, yes pretty much every line has some sort of an issue. We all pretty much know and understand this. On that point though, when you are know for a fact a dog has produced this but you are unable to test any potential mate for suitability, it seems too much of a risk to me.


----------



## robinhuerta

I really enjoyed reading this thread.
Chris.....I applaud you. I find myself agreeing with many of your comments and ideals, and you have an excellent way to put into "type" your thoughts.

Breeding is not easy...it's not supposed to be. 
Concerns face us with every litter born.....no breeder "wants" to consistently produce a problem or problems......especially when they build upon the puppies they produce.
But...if you (blindly) eradicate each dog from the breed gene pool, that has ever carried or produced a problem....there would be none left to breed from.
We do not make a breed stronger this way....we destroy it.
Breeding is like any form of science.......it is balances of trial and error....and we learn from it.
JMO


----------



## Chris Wild

Ok, so we throw out every dog who's produced MegaE, or has a first degree relative with it, from breeding.

But wait, there are a lot of health problems that are far more debilitating. And those issues no doubt have their own crusaders out there who want to eliminate all of those dogs and their relatives from breeding and will put crosshairs on any breeder who doesn't bow to that demand. 

So now we add HD, ED, DM, EPI, back problems, allergies and immune problems, digestive problems, and probably others I'm not thinking of off hand to the list. Any dog who's produced those, or who has a first degree relative with those, is now eliminated from breeding.

Of course, since nerve and temperament problems are a much bigger deal than health issues most of the time, considering they are equally heartbreaking and debilitating, usually much more difficult to manage and impossible to actually fix, not to mention can be potentially dangerous, those dogs have already been eliminated from breeding. Hopefully they were gotten rid of before the focus became health.

Any GSDs left? Probably not....


----------



## jaggirl47

Like I had written somewhere up there, I think the more breeders that admit to the issues and talk about and share these issues can better assist each other in minimizing these issues. I know admitting to an issue can cause a breeder to lose business, which I do not agree with. When they admit it and learn from it, it can only strengthen the breed.

That was one of the issues originally brought up in the thread. The owner of the dam admits it and is doing what they can to improve on it. The sire's owner didn't even want to acknowledge it and was trying to keep it quiet. That only causes more potential risks further down the road.

FYI- the stud owner is now acknowledging the mega e but I don't think they were given any choice.


----------



## Jack's Dad

I'm not a breeder but this is not really that complicated to me. 

Lets say you have a dog that has it "all" except for hips. You don't want to lose the "all" just because of the hip issue. So if you really understand pedigrees and bloodlines the way Chris, Robin and others do, you don't throw the baby out with the bath.

By selective breeding you can save the "all" and hopefully minimize or fix the hip issue. Like Chris said, there are all manner of issues that could present in what are otherwise great dogs.

Breeders who don't know what they are doing or don't care are a bigger problem and you won't get through to them anyway.


----------



## jaggirl47

Jack's Dad said:


> I'm not a breeder but this is not really that complicated to me.
> 
> Lets say you have a dog that has it "all" except for hips. You don't want to lose the "all" just because of the hip issue. So if you really understand pedigrees and bloodlines the way Chris, Robin and others do, you don't throw the baby out with the bath.
> 
> By selective breeding you can save the "all" and hopefully minimize or fix the hip issue. Like Chris said, there are all manner of issues that could present in what are otherwise great dogs.
> 
> Breeders who don't know what they are doing or don't care are a bigger problem and you won't get through to them anyway.


The big problem with this is the dogs do not get bred with the bad hips. The majority of breeders will place the dog and not add it to the breeding program. I already asked pretty much the same question but didn't get a response.


----------



## robinhuerta

I can totally understand the point of concern the OP has.....
Since any dog...(stud owner, brood owner ) can potentially produce a puppy with a defect or health concern....it is the responsibility of those involved with the breeding...to be aware of the "risks"....
But being aware of "risks" does not immediately mean.....omitting dogs from breeding. (It's all checks and balances).

I know as a breeder AND owner....I would much rather (if a potential problem) surfaces...it be with a dog/puppy that I have chosen to keep, than a dog/puppy that was sold/placed to someone else.
I would rather "suffer" the pain, tears and anguish...than to have someone else go through the torture.......as a breeder...I suffer twice as hard when it is happening to my puppy person....


----------



## Jack's Dad

jaggirl47 said:


> The big problem with this is the dogs do not get bred with the bad hips. The majority of breeders will place the dog and not add it to the breeding program. I already asked pretty much the same question but didn't get a response.


My example was overly simplistic. 

I think the idea I was trying to point out was expressed in much greater detail in another thread. By people who actually know what they are talking about. I think it was " Iceberg Breeders" or another like it.


----------



## Chris Wild

jaggirl47 said:


> The big problem with this is the dogs do not get bred with the bad hips. The majority of breeders will place the dog and not add it to the breeding program. I already asked pretty much the same question but didn't get a response.


I see several responses. The dog WITH MegaE (or bad hips) shouldn't be bred. No one is saying that it should.

But that is not the same as saying that the parents, littermates, etc... of that dog should never be bred again, and it's those related dogs, not the affected one, that seems to be the main topic of this thread.


----------



## jaggirl47

robinhuerta said:


> I can totally understand the point of concern the OP has.....
> Since any dog...(stud owner, brood owner ) can potentially produce a puppy with a defect or health concern....it is the responsibility of those involved with the breeding...to be aware of the "risks"....
> But being aware of "risks" does not immediately mean.....omitting dogs from breeding. (It's all checks and balances).
> 
> I know as a breeder AND owner....I would much rather (if a potential problem) surfaces...it be with a dog/puppy that I have chosen to keep, than a dog/puppy that was sold/placed to someone else.
> I would rather "suffer" the pain, tears and anguish...than to have someone else go through the torture.......as a breeder...I suffer twice as hard when it is happening to my puppy person....


 
One of the reasons I started this thread is not only would you breed the dogs again, but would you be honest to the owners of dogs you may want to breed to. I personally do not like the thought of breeding the dog again but I think it is much worse to hide the issue.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> I see several responses. The dog WITH MegaE (or bad hips) shouldn't be bred. No one is saying that it should.
> 
> But that is not the same as saying that the parents, littermates, etc... of that dog should never be bred again, and it's those related dogs, not the affected one, that seems to be the main topic of this thread.


 
Yep, that is the main topic.  I was answering what the guy wrote about breeding a dog that has the bad hips.


----------



## robinhuerta

When I use a stud dog.....USUALLY, I use a dog that I have seen progeny from....
If the dog is overseas...I ask a friend to help with research...
Breeders do "net-work" with other breeders......we do ask other breeders about the litters they may have had with a specific stud dog. *I have.*
Brood owners have their own first hand knowledge with the litters they have produced.

BUT...we also know...that there are always "risks" involved. We (breeders) do not purposely breed to or from dogs that are *known* to produce genetic problems.....over and over again.....That would be reckless, and financially/emotionally devastating...
Eradicating dogs from the breed because of "risks", or because they may have potentially produced a problem.......is completely different than removing a dog from breeding because of *know & proven* genetic producing problems.....

IE: HD dog from breeding....than a dog that had produced an HD dog.


----------



## martemchik

This discussion is making me think about dalmatians, and their breeders. Knowing that the dogs have such a chance of producing problems, they still breed the dogs. I know they don't breed the ones that are already blind/deaf, but its pretty much impossible to find a dalmatian that doesn't have a litter mate that's not blind or deaf. I think breeders need to reduce the risk of passing this trait, but it just doesn't seem like at this point there is enough knowledge about how it is passed. It's clear that its not as simple as carrier/carrier, and is more like the HD problem which is pretty much known to be uncertain and the best advice is "stack the deck by using two dogs with great hips" but those dogs also do produce okay hips and even bad hips.


----------



## robinhuerta

Also to add:
IF a potential problem arises...it is important to keep track of which bloodlines were combined, which individual dogs and which line breedings.
One dog can "carry" a problem because of another dog...generations back.
By not "combining" the same dogs or a past dog....can also be useful in omitting potential risks.
Breeding is much more involved than just the 2 dogs being bred......it really is all about checks and balances. One combined pedigree can work beautifully, while another of similar ancestors...not so much....simply because of one specific dog.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

jaggirl47 said:


> Honestly, that thought process bothers me. I don't like the thought that a dog who knowingly produced a severe genetic disorder being bred again. Maybe nothing will happen with the next breeding or the breeding after, but what about the next generation? Or the generation after? Why risk passing this gene on when it is known the dog does pass it?


First of all, the condition is NOT always severe. In fact I think one of the problems/issues is because for many many pups there are few or NO symptoms. So only VERY informed and responsible breeders would be suspicious and then pay for the barium test at the vets.

Even the Seeing Eye with my Elsa Rose thought only ONE of the pups in the litter of 7 had mega. But because they have $$$$ and do the barium test with their vet they went ahead and tested the entire litter to discover only then that THREE of the litter had mega. They know what to look for and only thought there was a chance the one male may have had it.

So for all the BYB or smaller breeders out there that have never heard of it, they'd have sold all the puppies in Elsa's litter with full registry and breeding ability and not known any better! So accidentally been continuing passing on the genes.

The other issue with immediately remove any dog from your breeding program associated with mega is that this isn't the only genetic condition in the breed. Between all the temperment and genetic issues that have to be avoided or bred to, hard decisions have to be made realizing that only 1/2 the genes will come from your dog. So if you have great hips/elbows/no allergies/great drives in your dogs but a CHANCE of mega rearing it's ugly head....

Will you stop breeding all your dogs with all the GREAT genetic factors you've worked thru and have to start all over with ALL the issues maybe cropping up?


----------



## robinhuerta

If every dog was removed from breeding that produced 1 genetic or health problem....there would be no dogs to breed period.
*No one should breed their dogs from any bloodline......*because **guaranteed** there is/are at least one dog from *both sides* (mother & father) of *every dog used* for breeding that* has produced* a genetic problem within the first 5 generations.......which would mean removal of said dog, along with parents & siblings from not only that particular breeding....but from prior breedings as well....because after all.....they are all related and carry similar genes.


----------



## jaggirl47

OK, another question for you guys.....

This same stud dog impregnated a female. The entire litter died but no reason was given. Then, his last litter produced mega e from a completely different female.

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## robinhuerta

When an entire litter dies....I would suspect the Herpes Virus as my first culprit.
The only way to know for sure....would be by performing necropsies on the entire litter.
I would not even begin to speculate anything else....until the virus was ruled out.
The stud dog would not be in question at that point...unless the necropsies proved that an "inherited disease or defect" was at fault.


----------



## jaggirl47

Robin, I should have clarified....the mega e litter, half of the litter was still born in addition to mega e. That is in addition to the other litter that all died.


----------



## robinhuerta

The one condition could have nothing to do with the other.....again, without a necropsy...no definite answer can be made.
*SUSPICIOUS...of course....and then YES....I would question, especially if the same female or male was used.*

But again....bacteria infections, under developed fetuses, viral infections...etc...can ALL play a park in stillborn pups.....along with infectious milk from the mother.
Speculation is all we can have....without necropsy results.


----------



## jaggirl47

Yes I know, it's all suspicion. Same sire, different dams. I wish necropsies were done but they weren't and noone will ever know.

I does make one question.


----------



## martemchik

If the male keeps producing megaE pups in every litter, I'd say he has the dominant version of the gene that causes the disease. At this point, the sire just shouldn't be bred. But what are you going to do about it? Even without mentioning the male and the owner's name, it sounds like you're dragging this guy through the mud. He's wrong to keep studding his dog, but 99% of the people out there wouldn't keep doing what he's doing. If the dog is constantly producing megaE pups, with different females, its clear that something else is going on.

I think in this case the male probably has megaE and it just isn't presenting itself...or it is and the owner is covering it up. The sire's owner is definitely not the most ethical person, but again, most people aren't like that. Yes, without more information no one can really say more about what is going on, but hopefully people will stop asking him to stud soon because they will hear about the kind of progeny he's producing. Natural market forces will cause him to stop breeding this male at some point.

At this point...its not even about megaE, its about ethical breeding practices. This one doesn't care at all, he'd breed this dog no matter what disease he was producing.


----------



## jaggirl47

martemchik said:


> If the male keeps producing megaE pups in every litter, I'd say he has the dominant version of the gene that causes the disease. At this point, the sire just shouldn't be bred. But what are you going to do about it? Even without mentioning the male and the owner's name, it sounds like you're dragging this guy through the mud. He's wrong to keep studding his dog, but 99% of the people out there wouldn't keep doing what he's doing. If the dog is constantly producing megaE pups, with different females, its clear that something else is going on.
> 
> I think in this case the male probably has megaE and it just isn't presenting itself...or it is and the owner is covering it up. The sire's owner is definitely not the most ethical person, but again, most people aren't like that. Yes, without more information no one can really say more about what is going on, but hopefully people will stop asking him to stud soon because they will hear about the kind of progeny he's producing. Natural market forces will cause him to stop breeding this male at some point.
> 
> At this point...its not even about megaE, its about ethical breeding practices. This one doesn't care at all, he'd breed this dog no matter what disease he was producing.


 
I wouldn't say I'm dragging this guy through the mud. Noone on here knows who he is as far as I know. I can tell you one thing, it is NOT my breeder. I am also not going to publicly post it.

As far as we know, this stud has only sired one litter with mega e. This same litter half of the pups were still born. One other litter the entire litter was lost. I honestly don't know if there are connections, but I truly believe it is unethical breeding.


----------



## Chris Wild

I would say that the sire having any contribution to stillborn pups, or a litter dying shortly after birth, is highly unlikely. The most likely causes would be environment, possibly a virus, or something with the dam rather than anything to do with the genetics of the sire. So whether sire or his owner are considered good or ethical or not, I really don't see how stillborn pups or a litter dying after birth could be laid on them.


----------



## jaggirl47

Chris Wild said:


> I would say that the sire having any contribution to stillborn pups, or a litter dying shortly after birth, is highly unlikely. The most likely causes would be environment, possibly a virus, or something with the dam rather than anything to do with the genetics of the sire. So whether sire or his owner are considered good or ethical or not, I really don't see how stillborn pups or a litter dying after birth could be laid on them.


 
Thanks CHris. I wasn't sure if they could have anything to do with each other or not. This is why I don't breed lol.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

jaggirl47 said:


> Thanks CHris. I wasn't sure if they could have anything to do with each other or not. This is why I don't breed lol.


Hey, this is just one of the billion reasons I'll never breed EVER EVER EVER!!!  

:wild:


----------



## robinhuerta

Also....a dog can produce a problem once...and never produce it again.
One can "have" a problem...and yet, never produce it....
This is how life is.
One must always look at things *eyes wide open*.

Breeding is complicated, it is heart wrenching, it is finacially and emotionally draining......but it is also rewarding and a passion for many of us.


----------



## onyx'girl

> Breeding is complicated, it is heart wrenching, it is finacially and emotionally draining......but it is also rewarding and a passion for many of us.


I'm so glad that the responsible breeders do what they do, and do it so well. 
Having a dog from a breeder that just put dogs together to make a litter and then one that is well bred from one that puts time, training, heart and soul into it shows in the dogs produced. 
Until I experienced one of each, I really don't know the difference.


----------



## LaRen616

Kendra, I am so very, very sorry for your loss. 

He was so young and adorable. 

RIP Zeus.


----------



## Lilie

Oh Kendra, my heart breaks for you. Big hugs to you.


----------



## jaggirl47

I value every minute I had with him and I know he is now in a much better place.

When I started this thread, it was for a purpose, to try to help me figure things out. I received an amazing, healthy puppy. Unfortunately, when he was 12 1/2 weeks old, he started to show symptoms of megaesophagus. That is when the vet diagnosed him with primary idiopathic megaesophagus.

My breeder, Chuck, did what I feel is extremely responsible. He pulled the Zeus' dam aside. There is not a genetic test yet, so there is no way of knowing who carries what, and he showed responsibility to lessen the chance of breeding it again. As much as I know it sucks for him, he showed a true sense of responsibility.

The owner of the sire is from a complete different kennel and is in no way owned by Chuck. The sire's owner has hid his head in the sand and is refusing to acknowledge or let potential dam owners know that a mega e dog was produced. This I feel is irresponsible breeding practices and risks more mega e dogs and carriers into the world. He has also cut off any and all contact with people who know anything about this.

When I read multiple times on this thread how megaesophagus is not a severe condition, it made me very angry. It is a severe condition. A very severe condition. Yes, maybe one or two have had some degree of experience, and thankfully it was extremely mild for you. Unless you have had to deal with severe megaesophagus, comments about "it's not that bad" should not be made. My Zeus was put to sleep yesterday because of this dreadful condition. He had a bad day and there was no way we could pull him out of it.

My breeder has been absolutely wonderful. This was my second dog from him. I have had some of the most outstanding breeder support I could ever ask for, not just in the bad times but the good as well. Chuck was there 100% after Leyna and still is to this day. He has been there through the entire megaesophagus journey and called every single day to see how Zeus was. He didn't have to do this but he did, all because he cares about and stands 100% behind every dog he produces.

I wouldn't change the circumstances for anything. I value each and every minute I had with Zeus. I don't regret telling Chuck we would do our best and try to give him a good life.

We will soon be getting a new pup from Chuck and I look forward to adding a new member once again to our household. Just like I will be going back to Chuck in a few more years for yet another dog. His breeder support has been amazing, through thick and thin, and every dog I get will come from him.


----------



## Heidigsd

I am so sorry  

RIP "Zeus"


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I am so very very sorry, poor you and poor Zeus, just devastating


----------



## NarysDad

Kendra, as I said during our phone calls that I would not comment on this thread I do feel that now is a great time to. We here at Shepherds By Design K-9 are truly sorry for all the pain we have brought to your family with Zeus's issues. It breaks my heart to see the pain you and your family are going thru and hope that this new pup will lessen the pain and bring much joy for you and your family


----------



## jaggirl47

NarysDad said:


> Kendra, as I said during our phone calls that I would not comment on this thread I do feel that now is a great time to. We here at Shepherds By Design K-9 are truly sorry for all the pain we have brought to your family with Zeus's issues. It breaks my heart to see the pain you and your family are going thru and hope that this new pup will lessen the pain and bring much joy for you and your family


 
Chuck, I don't blame you in any way, shape or form. You have been an amazing ally in this journey. My family is proud to own dogs that come from you and we will continue to have your dogs grace our home. Your outstanding support for all dogs we have received from you has been top notch and way more than we could have ever asked for. We will always have dogs from Shepherds By Design in our home, because of the outstanding support that has come from you as well as the amazing dogs you have already placed in our hearts.


----------



## wolfstraum

Just cross referencing some various threads on a couple of sites....apparently there is a litter bred 2-2 on the sire of the male producing mega E as cited here?????? Or did I misunderstand the posts/pedigrees????


Lee


----------



## jaggirl47

wolfstraum said:


> Just cross referencing some various threads on a couple of sites....apparently there is a litter bred 2-2 on the sire of the male producing mega E as cited here?????? Or did I misunderstand the posts/pedigrees????
> 
> 
> Lee


 
No, different threads Lee.  The breeding in question had no linebreeding.


----------



## Liesje

So sorry, Kendra. Mega-E NOT a serious condition?!?! IMO it doesn't get a lot more serious especially if it's severe.


----------



## jaggirl47

Liesje said:


> So sorry, Kendra. Mega-E NOT a serious condition?!?! IMO it doesn't get a lot more serious especially if it's severe.


 
It was mentioned a few times on this thread that it isn't severe. I have now had to deal with it and I know exactly how severe it is.

I just thank God I have had such amazing support from Chuck. We will actually be getting Zeus' full brother who is clear of ME.


----------



## cindy_s

Oh my.... I just read this. I'm SO sorry for your loss. I think maybe now some folks will understand your passion about this subject. 
I want to applaud SBD for truly being stand up breeders in all aspects of this whole thing.


----------



## jaggirl47

cindy_s said:


> Oh my.... I just read this. I'm SO sorry for your loss. I think maybe now some folks will understand your passion about this subject.
> I want to applaud SBD for truly being stand up breeders in all aspects of this whole thing.


 
It truly is a horrible condition.

I just am so thankful Chuck is such a stand up guy. If it wasn't for his support, I don't kow how I could have hung in there.


----------



## wolfstraum

jaggirl47 said:


> No, different threads Lee.  The breeding in question had no linebreeding.


I believe that a different member is getting a puppy that is 2-2 on the grandsire of your pup.....that is the comment I was making....Xavier Spartanville?????

Lee


----------



## jaggirl47

wolfstraum said:


> I believe that a different member is getting a puppy that is 2-2 on the grandsire of your pup.....that is the comment I was making....Xavier Spartanville?????
> 
> Lee


 
Ahh, gotcha. Yes.

As far as I know, Xavier has never produced this and my pup's sire is now getting sold to a different breeding home.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Liesje said:


> So sorry, Kendra. Mega-E NOT a serious condition?!?! IMO it doesn't get a lot more serious especially if it's severe.


WHOA there, mega can be horrible but by far and away isn't a death sentence for many dogs. You hear about the sickest dogs and nothing from owners like me.

This is my Elsa Rose, lived to 10 years old (and her 2 mega brothers lived longer). She was one of the top GSD's in agility and got her MACH Championship. She went into NYC after 9/11 and helped as a Therapy Dog for the families and workers. http://www.4gsd.net/therapydogs.html









This is my GloryB who is over 3 years old and working in Ex Agility and doing fine....









I've been on mega support sites for YEARS and know of people who have killed their *perfectly healthy mega pup* merely because of the fear people have put in them (vets too) saying your pup WILL die and WILL suffer and this is the kinder thing......

So what I know, really know from person experience now with TWO different mega dogs from completely different breeders is that the condition is NOT an instant death sentence and neither of my dogs are suffering cause I didn't kill them as puppys. 

Really, look at the photos. My dogs are just fine. The condition CAN be severe and puppies CAN be constantly sick and get pneumonia and/or not keep food down so they will be too ill to survive. But there appears to be a sliding scale that you can clearly see by looking at the puppy in front of you. If you can manage the condition and keep the puppy healthy and fit to the first year, you will probably have a normal adult dog.

If, instead, you get a puppy that you can't manage to keep food in, that just loses weight and is constantly ill, then those are the puppies with the worst prognosis. I'm sure this was the situation with Zeus and sorry he ended up so ill at the end....


----------



## jaggirl47

Actually, it was a bit of the opposite. Zeus was doing excellent, keeping food down and growing. He was pooping after every meal and was pretty much healthy minus the mega e.
Yesterday, Zeus had a bad day. Plain and simple. He started regurging and vomiting. We tried to keep him calm and give him meds and fluids, but it didn't stop. The vomiting caused him to start bleeding somewhere and it wasn't stopping. His heart started skipping beats and he was losing blood.
I am glad you got the lower end of the spectrum for mega e. You are lucky if it can be called that.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

jaggirl47 said:


> Actually, it was a bit of the opposite. Zeus was doing excellent, keeping food down and growing. He was pooping after every meal and was pretty much healthy minus the mega e.
> Yesterday, Zeus had a bad day. Plain and simple. *He started regurging and vomiting. We tried to keep him calm and give him meds and fluids, but it didn't stop. The vomiting caused him to start bleeding somewhere and it wasn't stopping. His heart started skipping beats and he was losing blood.*
> I am glad you got the lower end of the spectrum for mega e. You are lucky if it can be called that.


All I'm saying is that those symptoms are NOT just mega, something else was going on..

Clearly you made the right decision for your dog and your situation, I am not questioning that.

I just want it to be clear that what happened to you is NOT consistant with a pup just having mega. And I don't want more people killing their otherwise healthy pup in fear of something that may happen but probably will not.


----------



## Betty

I am so sorry about the loss of your wee one. What a heart breaker.


----------



## jaggirl47

MaggieRoseLee said:


> All I'm saying is that those symptoms are NOT just mega, something else was going on..
> 
> Clearly you made the right decision for your dog and your situation, I am not questioning that.
> 
> I just want it to be clear that what happened to you is NOT consistant with a pup just having mega. And I don't want more people killing their otherwise healthy pup in fear of something that may happen but probably will not.


 
Actually, it WAS the mega e that caused it. No other cause was found. The best guess is that the vomiting and regurge caused him to start bleeding somewhere, which is entirely possible and probable.

I honestly do not want people just to put down a dog with mega e either. It can be treatable and worked with, which is exactly what we tried to do with Zeus. If he had a greater than 10% chance to make it off of the OR table to try to stop the bleeding, it would have been done. He didn't have that chance.

He had gained a total of 6lbs in a week and a half and was growing very well after diagnosis. Unfortunately, his was severe and the bad day did him in.

Not every case of mega e is severe, just like not every case is genetic. However, when it is said mega e is not a serious condition it is not telling the entire truth.


----------



## Liesje

I know a dog with severe Mega-E that can't go a day keeping food down, constantly on meds for aspiration pneumonia, and suffers and also awful secondary condition. To me that is pretty severe especially when an owner who truly loves the dog and spends all their time and resources on special care and feeding admits that if they'd known the extent they would have never taken the dog.

It's like perianal fistulas...a dog could have one that gets treated and never have them again, or a dog can have them chronically and literally waste away to death.


----------



## robinhuerta

All illnesses that this and every other breed of dog can have,.... has it's mild and severe cases.
ALL CASES are hard on the owners, and on many of the breeders alike.
Some illnesses are manageable, some are not.

A breeders job is to know what is going on, look at all probabilities, and try to decipher : who/what/where the problem may have come from......not always does it mean the *direct parents* need to be culled from breeding.....and sometimes, it does.....every case will be different. JMO

I am very happy to hear that Chuck has been supportive through out this situation....but I would have expected nothing less of Chuck....he has a very good reputation.

I am very sorry for your loss, and I hope your new puppy brings you many years of joy!


----------



## Liesje

robinhuerta said:


> A breeders job is to know what is going on, look at all probabilities, and try to decipher : who/what/where the problem may have come from......not always does it mean the *direct parents* need to be culled from breeding.....


Totally agree. Nikon has a mega-E littermate and at one point I was seriously considering purchasing a puppy linebred on his sire. I do consider it a severe condition but not such that a single occurrence means the sire and dam have to be culled from breeding.


----------



## Jax08

Kendra - I have nothing to add to this thread but have read with interest.

I just want to say how very sorry I am, to you, your family and to SBD, for your loss. We all know you made the best decision possible for Zeus.


----------



## VonKromeHaus

So very sorry to hear this. Mega-E is a horrible disease that has variations in severity. I know of a case that was severe and the bitch had to be put to sleep. It sucks and is a horrible thing to go through.


----------



## jaggirl47

Robin, your first 3 sentences are exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for making it much more clear than I did. 

Lies, I have spoken to the owner of Nikon's littermate and she gave me some awesome advice. I thank her for stepping up like she did. I think some of her advice made it possible to have the amount of time we did have with Zeus.

Jax, thank you for your kind words. We would have fought but with him being so young he just didn't have the chance he would have if he was a bit older. We did fight as much as possible until his little body just gave out. It all happened so fast and was completely unexpected.

Krome, thank you as well. I am keeping in contact with some of the GSD owners from the mega e group. We have given each other words of encouragement and I am hoping to follow their progress with their pups. Many were the same age as Zeus.

Chuck has been fantastic. Not just with this issue but overall. This was our second pup from him. Even with Leyna we kept in contact on an almost weekly basis. He has always been there to answer any questions I have with anything. He has earned my permanent business, I can say that much.


----------



## cliffson1

This thread should really illustrate just how important it is for a breeder to be knowledgable about all aspects of the breed. With all the health concerns, temperament concerns, and different breeding goals, it requires due diligence to consistently produce good dogs. Chris and Robin,(among others), pretty much reflect my thoughts on health issues. Successful breeders cannot look at things from an owners perspective when it comes to breeding. Good breeders must arm themselves with knowledge, check their emotions, and make decisions based on the big picture more so than the isolated occurrence.( of course the more something occurs the less isolated it is and a change of approach has to be reflected). Their are some health concerns today that are synonymous with the breed, and their are some health concerns today that are the result of breeding practices. Either way, the educating of people like this thread is doing can only help the situation.
@ Jaggirl, sorry about Zeus!


----------



## twocows

Well, I must say, Mega E is not a good disease for a dog to endure. At least not to the degree our dog had. I purchased a German Shepherd working dog from Alemangsd's J-litter born July 6, 2015. The dam was whiskey von aleman and the sire was Ivan vom poppitz. My pup, Echo (Josie) suffered from the start with Mega E. We didn't understand why she continued throwing up everyday. As many as 7 times daily. Thinking it was her diet we changed her food many times. After researching we stumbled on Mega E, confirmed it with our doctor and proceeded to treat her by feeding her smaller meals three times a day in a Bailey chair where she sat for 35 minutes after each meal. She was able to attain a top weight of 53 pounds for a period of two months before her health again began to fail through suffering a developing a series of infections. After she recovered we scheduled a spading on July 3rd 2018. On Friday July 6th, her second birthday, she died. It was determined by Doctor Schaefer at Penn Vet, Philadelphia that she had gastroesophageal Intussusception and Aspiration Pneumonia i.e. her intestines and her esophagus had telescoped into one another causing a blockage not allowing any fluids or food to enter her stomach and she developed an infection of the lungs from fluid regurgitated from her esophagus. Sounds like fun doesn't it. Raul Aleman knew Whiskey carried the gene, I know this because he told me so, but didn't care.
i watched a working dog not be a working dog or even a regular dog because this disease restricted her from a full life. She also suffer deformities to her lungs and wind pipe. Still to this day, July 17, 2018, Raul Aleman of Alemangsd refused to restrict his dog from breeding. Do you want to chance the same fate to you dog?
Breeders have to be more responsible and breed better quality dogs. In my view, breeders of this type including Raul Aleman are not to be trusted.


----------

