Test results

[JayneMR]

Thank you both for responding,
i didnt mention CM os i had never heard of it, its only when you mentioned it i panicked...then Mike read the report from the vet and saw it mentioned. So when i read your response i mailed him, snd you saw his reply.
Charlies scratching really is mild and stops within seconds if i tell him to, if he chews his foot he again stops immediately and only does this not even once a day.
but we are going to our local vet with the report and cd,s and see what he advises..again thank you

[sins]

Hi Karlin,
This link is to an FCI newsletter which gives more details of the European EBV scheme.
http://www.dogdotcom.be/en/cavalier.aspx
They appear to be taking data on all health issues from DE/CC,eyes,hearts and of course SM.The proposals for standardisation of scans is addressed in there.
This isn't a "second scheme"...it an FCI endorsed scheme, we can't really expect FCI affiliated European kennel clubs/breed clubs to come under the umbrella of the English KC or their BVA schemes.European cavalier breeders have been very pro active with the SM issue and a lot of breeders who would have ardently supported the KC/BVA scheme initially,really think this European scheme can be made to fly.I think we've become used to the idea that the UK had a monopoly on cavalier health and health initiatives,but of course it isn't so.
Both EBV schemes have their flaws to be fair,scans and their interpretation can be very subjective and up until the BVA panel,a grading was an expression of the opinion of the specialist you chose to examine the scan.
I have no objection to sumbitting my scan reports and pedigrees to either the BVA or this "European one".If either one comes up with a robust EBV scheme which actually works,then that's great.
No point putting all the eggs in one basket..
Sins

[Karlin]

Agree that it would be great if someone came up with a scheme breeders would actually use. So far every scheme anyone has come up with seems eventually to be opposed when it is revealed that results will have to be transparent or that it will; actually cost something. I will be amazed if the European scheme can raise enough from breeders who already complain bitterly about paying for the BVA scheme, at a level that would sustain this one. But sure: I'd advocate submitting scans and test results, absolutely.

But I remain pretty sceptical of this scheme.

According to this newsletter this remains a private pilot scheme, not supported in any offocial way by the FCI that I can see (?), it is just mentioned in the newsletter as a private initiative:

The project can be considered as a pilot project. It is a private initiative set up by breeders from several countries working close together with Universities, genetic people, vets, judges etc.

Who thinks the UK has a monopoly on cavalier health projects? Many of the longest standing research projects are international. Much of Clare Rusbridge's work has been based on international collaboration with clubs and individuals in the UK, Canada, Holland, Ireland, South Africa, Finland and Australia in two different breeds with a high incidence of SM (just to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head).

Rupert's Fund has funded scans in at least three countries though it may well be several more by now. And the groups we work with -- For the Love of Ollie, Cavalier Collection and Cavalier Matters -- all have funded research in several countries, raising 5 figure sums in two separate countries, for projects in several countries. (I do not think the breed clubs in either of the same countries have given as much as these two funds from private, pet owning individuals towards SM research. I would love to see a challenge fund from the clubs to match these private funds!).

Several significant projects have come from and continue to be done in the US and Canada. Not from 'breeders taking the matter in their own hands' either but from breeders working with researchers and pet owners.

I absolutely mistrust several of the statements that have come from Belgium, on this project. The idea that pet buyers no longer have to worry their confused little heads because this private breeder-based initiative (warning! warning!) will mean they only have to look at a privately issued certificate for tests they never get any evidence for, is exactly NOT what puppy buyers should accept, ever.

The tone of the whole newsletter just about says everything though.

After the BBC programme “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” the canine world will never be the same again. The media and governments will continuously put demands on pedigree dog breeders and Clubs.

I and millins of others certainly hope so -- clubs and breeders should be held to account on breeding decisions and claims about their lines when there is the amount of knowledge about SM and MVD and their spread now. Hmmm though -- in what country on earth so far has the 'population been different' and therefore rate of affectedness been different? Answer: NONE. Cavaliers are all so closely connected. But nice to imply a loophole for less ethical breeders to claim they have less-affected populations.

Thanks to the scientists investigating the diseases we know more about the CKCS and its (hereditary) diseases than several other breeds. Sadly enough this made the CKCS an easy target for the media which had a devastating influence on the way people look at the CKCS.

Seriously? "Sadly enough"? Sad for the breeders and puppy sellers, perhaps, but not for openness in breeding practice, pressure being exerted to create a healthier cavalier, or awareness in the puppy buying public who still are routinely told 'there is no SM in my lines (or MVD)... by breeders who don't test. The number of breeders sites and breed club sites which have little to no information on SM or MVD is astonishing at this point. At least the UK club site does.

The reason that the Dutch clubs agreed to the SM scanning scheme is that they faced a court case that could have made this mandatory or severely limited breeding. It was not a sudden rush to help the breed centered in the club. The clubs had a good indication that their future was in trouble unless they took such a step.

When introducing EBV’s in a breed, there is always the risk that breeders will only use the dogs with the best EBV’s (= Champion culture). This will lead to exclusion of valuable dogs and finally result in narrowing the breeding pool with the famous bottleneck as a result.

The best line of all. "Champion culture"? And how is this remotely different from what most breeders do right now? How could knowing EBVs possibly, possibly make the situation worse than it is? Just how many current show dogs are from just ONE popular sire right now in the UK, for example?

It is odd that not once has the Belgian initiative ever mentioned that this approach for cavaliers was pioneered by UK researchers however and with scans from UK pet owners and breeders. Nor is there any attempt to link up with that scheme. Why? The problem however to my mind is not that a dog's EBV would not be published. It is that actual *test results* are not being revealed and that puppy buyers or one assumes, other breeders are supposed to just accept a piece of paper from this breeder-run project stating the equivalent of 'trust me'. No thanks.

The comments are not meant as criticisms for you to answer, Sins -- they are comments on why I personally don't like the way this scheme is being constructed, how it is being driven, or that results which should be transparent and open remain hidden.

I would love to see international, honest and transparent efforts that link up and don;t expect intelligent puppy buyers to accept some intermediary's piece of paper rather than being able to see documents for themselves.

I am glad to see there is a plan to have a standard for scans and interpretation!

[Sabby]

Thank you both for responding,
i didnt mention CM os i had never heard of it, its only when you mentioned it i panicked...then Mike read the report from the vet and saw it mentioned. So when i read your response i mailed him, snd you saw his reply.
Charlies scratching really is mild and stops within seconds if i tell him to, if he chews his foot he again stops immediately and only does this not even once a day.
but we are going to our local vet with the report and cd,s and see what he advises..again thank you

Just saw this today.

I have one Cavalier affected by SM and one affected by CM. Both are on medication. Sorry I don't want to put a downer on things I am just telling you what my dogs are like. And from knowing lots of people with SM/CM affected dogs it seems symtoms and severity differs very much from dog to dog. My CM dog is on 3x 100mg Gabapentin and also Zitac.

Both of my dogs scratch but my CM affected dog is far worse then the one with SM. The CM dog will start scratching badly if I don't give her medication on time sometimes the medication has to be even given an hour earlier. She really gets her paw behind the ear and scratches a funny sort of scratch. But if I tell her off she will stop. She would want to start again but when she looks at me and I say no she stop straight away. So all I am saying every dog is different. And please take into consideration change of weather and air pressure. My CM dog is far worse when the weather or air pressure changes rapidly.

[Margaret C]

The problem however to my mind is not that a dog's EBV would not be published. It is that actual *test results* are not being revealed and that puppy buyers or one assumes, other breeders are supposed to just accept a piece of paper from this breeder-run project stating the equivalent of 'trust me'. No thanks.

The comments are not meant as criticisms for you to answer, Sins -- they are comments on why I personally don't like the way this scheme is being constructed, how it is being driven, or that results which should be transparent and open remain hidden.

I can appreciate the fact that European breeders who cannot use the UK BVA/KC CMSM Scheme and submit the information to the UK EBV scheme may see the European EBVs as the best that they can do, and I applaud them for their initiative, but no UK breeder who is seriously concerned for their own cavaliers and are sincere in the wish to give the breed a healthier future, can justify using it instead of our own UK scheme.

We now have in place what a vocal group of anti-scanning breeders said they wanted; an official standardised BVA/KC MRI scheme with a panel of neurologists and an appeal system. Their bluff called, they are now promoting the European EBV scheme. Anything it seems to avoid publishing results.

For UK health representatives and regional club chairmen to promote European EBVs instead of using our own UK scheme must raise grave doubts as to their commitment to anything but their own self-interest.

If, like Sins, UK breeders want to support the European initiative as well as the superior and more advanced AHT EBV project then that would be great, it will after all not cost them a penny. That being so they will not need to worry that many breeders in Europe have expressed doubts that this scheme will ever take off because of lack of funding.

Even now there are very few breeders or organisations shown as sponsors, so just how this scheme is going to be funded is unclear. People have tried to get clarification on a number of the issues mentioned here but answers are not forthcoming.

The European EBV scheme newsletter states that they want breeders to select and send in "only official reports from competent veterinarian specialists"
Over the years the scanning process in the UK has been refined so that the MRIs sent to the UK EBVs mean they are comparing like to like. The scans are done in the same way, for the same time, to the same strength, with the dog placed in the same position.

If the AHT decided they could only use the standardised information that will be coming from the BVA/KC scheme, then how can a scheme based on breeder self-selection of results and a variety of certificates from many different countries give creditable results?

There are three reasons that would make the European EBVs attractive to some UK breeders.

1) It would save them £100 per breeding cavalier on the cost of scanning (One puppy sells for approximately £700 or more...........average litter size would be in the region of 3-4 puppies)

2) Their results would stay unpublished. No one will know if they are risking the health of their puppies by using cavalier parents that are too young for the scan to be meaningful, or even those affected with SM, (something that is being said about one current stud dog )

3) While results remain unpublished breeders can claim they have scanned their cavaliers and had good results when it is not true.

[sins]

It appears the KC will be publishing full screening results through the KC/BVA scheme, expected to commence from 24 September 2012 ..

Sins

[Margaret C]

It appears the KC will be publishing full screening results through the KC/BVA scheme, expected to commence from 24 September 2012 ..

Sins

Hello Sins,

That is marvellous news. Where did you see that?

[sins]

Saw it on a facebook group this morning.
The poster had received a communication from the KC indicating the start date.
Sins

[Margaret C]

I thought I would bump up this thread as there is more news about the European EBVs.

Although there is nothing shown on the seemingly defunct Cavalier Health Liaison Committee website, a new 'Cavaliers for Life' newsletter, dated December 2012 on:
http://www.cavaliers.be/newsite/popu...etter_2013.pdf suggests that the scheme has solved the funding problem.

I hear the criteria for accepting health certificates is going to be much more stringent than originally suggested. I will be interested to find out how they will resolve the problem of UK breeders choosing for themself which certificates to send in?

[Karlin]

Clicked through to the website for the project, and still find this very alarming:

Instead of copy health certificates, breeders will only need to show the potential puppy buyer a certificate:

Based on Scientific Research at Leuven University of available health data and current breeding advice, This puppy has been responsibly bred from the following : sire … x dam ……

What exactly will 'responsibly bred' actually MEAN? Will a buyer be reliably told, at what age? Or when the tests took place. Does 'responsibly bred' mean the dog was heart and eye tested, but not MRI'd? Or MRI'd but bred outside the MVD protocol (which means knowing the grandparents' heart health info, not just the parents')? Does it mean eyes and patellas and EFS/CC were done, but not MRIs? Does it mean the dogs were MRI'd, but years earlier or before age 2.5?

How will they verify the breeder didn't just test, but bred responsibly using MVD/SM protocols?

I'd also like to make sure there's some standard on the MRI grades too and a verification process. As there are some neurologists who oddly find their own pockets of clear of CM cavaliers, which other neurologists have not found -- I would want some kind of panel confirmation of a grade, not just acceptance of a report from someone who may be very poor at spotting CM.

This kind of panel adjudication is what so many UK (and US) breeders were rightly demanding -- and what was therefore included in the BVA scheme.