The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Genetic Disease - would you?

5K views 42 replies 17 participants last post by  Chiilaa 
#1 ·
I just wanted to spark a general discussion about genetic disease and at what point do you consider it unethical to breed a certain animal? HYPP, HERDA, SIDS, Lethal White - there are so many to name, and what is acceptable for breeding and what is not?

For example, lethal white - it's so difficult to determine being as it's a color before it's really a "disease". Is it ethical to breed a frame horse to a non-frame horse, knowing the foal may inherit frame and could potentially pass it on one day? Or is it a shame to lose such beautifully marked horses when they CAN be responsibly bred?

Another example, someone recently imported a gorgeous Arabian stallion into our community. Back when I was still considering maybe breeding Zierra, I perked up for months before he arrived. When he finally arrived, it was revealed he was a CA carrier - a horrible, deadly neurological disease in Arabs. His owner did the responsible thing and stated NO Arab mare would be bred to him without CA negative testing, but is it ethical to breed him at all? For me, as a horse owner, I wouldn't even breed a non-carrier to him - for fear somewhere down the road, someone gets ahold of the potentially carrier foal, doesn't know a think about CA and breeds a CA positive foal because some disreputable breeder didn't bother testing their stallion or insisting CA negative only mares be bred to him.

But isn't it the same with lethal white? Shouldn't I also refuse to ever breed a frame carrier for fear someone will breed that horse and produce a lethal white?

And of course you have the discussion on HYPP, where even carriers are affected by this horrible disease.

What are the ethical grounds? What are YOUR opinions on genetic disease, how far should we go to eliminate it completely from our animals?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I just wanted to spark a general discussion about genetic disease and at what point do you consider it unethical to breed a certain animal? HYPP, HERDA, SIDS, Lethal White - there are so many to name, and what is acceptable for breeding and what is not?

For example, lethal white - it's so difficult to determine being as it's a color before it's really a "disease". Is it ethical to breed a frame horse to a non-frame horse, knowing the foal may inherit frame and could potentially pass it on one day? Or is it a shame to lose such beautifully marked horses when they CAN be responsibly bred?

I have to admit I do not fully understand this particular genetical malfunction, BUT if I understand correctly there is a test and breeding can be done safely. If that is true then I think safe breeding should be allowed but only after testing. If that's not true then I think it's quite a risk.

Another example, someone recently imported a gorgeous Arabian stallion into our community. Back when I was still considering maybe breeding Zierra, I perked up for months before he arrived. When he finally arrived, it was revealed he was a CA carrier - a horrible, deadly neurological disease in Arabs. His owner did the responsible thing and stated NO Arab mare would be bred to him without CA negative testing, but is it ethical to breed him at all? For me, as a horse owner, I wouldn't even breed a non-carrier to him - for fear somewhere down the road, someone gets ahold of the potentially carrier foal, doesn't know a think about CA and breeds a CA positive foal because some disreputable breeder didn't bother testing their stallion or insisting CA negative only mares be bred to him.
Can't talk to this one, not educated enough.

But isn't it the same with lethal white? Shouldn't I also refuse to ever breed a frame carrier for fear someone will breed that horse and produce a lethal white?

And of course you have the discussion on HYPP, where even carriers are affected by this horrible disease.
This disease is an easy one. Only breed if the horse is tested NN. With the new rule changes we should see this disease start to dominish and probably drop way down within the next 15 years. (I don't think the harshest rules take effect until about 2020.

What are the ethical grounds? What are YOUR opinions on genetic disease, how far should we go to eliminate it completely from our animals?
Is there a test for HERDA?
 
#7 ·
Yes, a horse can be normal (N/N), carrier (N/HRD) and affected (HRD/HRD). I do believe, like most diseases, HERDA only affects affected horses and carriers are not physically affected.
Thank you.
 
#5 ·
Easy question for me to answer, as I am black and white on this issue.

I do not believe in knowingly breeding an animal, whether afflicted itself or a carrier, that has the potential of perpetuating a genetic disorder, and yes that includes H/N horses, HERDA carriers, SCIDS carriers and others. I don't condemn those that do (in the case of carriers), but to me personally, it is irresponsible. If a genetic issue can be eliminated by breeding it out, it should be...
 
#8 ·
They say that hetero HERDA horses have increased joint elasticity and some kind of excess cartilage as opposed to bone. Which gives them an advantage in cutting. But does it have negative effects as well? More research needs to be done, I'd say.

Would I breed an HYPP positive horse? Absolutely not. Wouldn't own one, either.

I wouldn't breed a PSSM positive horse, either. More people need to know about that disease and start testing. It's far more prevalent than people realize.

Would I breed a HERDA or OLWS carrier? Depends. I'd be far more likely to do the second than the first.

When you get right down to it, is it ethical to breed grays, with the risk of melanoma? Is it ethical to breed Appaloosas, with uveitis and nightblindness and increased risk of skin cancer?
 
#9 ·
I'm a (darn can't think of the word) Hard liner on this one, even though my actual experience with any of these conditions is zero.

To me with the ease and falling costs of genetic testing it should be easy, take HYPP as one example, take genetic material from foals and send them in with the registration papers, if they test negative sned them approved for breeding papers, if they test positive then stamp the papers not approved for breeding, any offspring will not be eligible for registration.

You wont wipe out the disease there will be the unethical and the byb;s who will breed anyway, but if you can't produce registrable foals then you remove the temptation to breed entirely without regard to the risk.

I know this wont be popular, but I would argue it would go a long way to wiping out these conditions over time.

The OLWS thing, I just don't get
 
#11 ·
All frame overo horses are carriers--heterozygous--for the lethal white gene. It is what causes their coloration. Some horses who do not appear visually to be frame overos also carry the gene.

If you breed two carriers together, there is a 25% chance that the foal will inherit two copies of the gene. The foal will be born solid white, or close to it, and will have an improperly formed gastrointestinal tract. It will begin to show symptoms of colic shortly after birth due to this defect, and will get progressively worse and die within a few days if it is not humanely euthanized first. There is no treatment or cure for a lethal white foal.

Horses with only one copy of the frame gene, however, are healthy, and frequently beautifully colored. There is no risk in breeding a carrier to a non-carrier.
 
#12 ·
IMHO, the only one that is acceptable to breed is a frame carrier and that's because it is a color first and, with proper knowledge and preparation, the OLWS foals are completely preventable. However, with many of the others, even breeding a carrier to a non-carrier has the possibility of ending up with a carrier foal and that is not okay.
 
#14 ·
IMHO, the only one that is acceptable to breed is a frame carrier and that's because it is a color first and, with proper knowledge and preparation, the OLWS foals are completely preventable. However, with many of the others, even breeding a carrier to a non-carrier has the possibility of ending up with a carrier foal and that is not okay.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. A frame overo can beget a frame overo just as a HERDA or HYPP or SCID carrier can beget carriers, and all three diseases can be avoided in exactly the same way as OLWS can - by not breeding a carrier to a carrier. Run by me again why there is a distinction between frame overo and the others - I may be missing something...
 
#13 ·
In my opinion..... Good Lord, we have the power to wipe out entire diseases COMPLETELY if we simply stop breeding horses that are carriers for it. HyPP would be wiped out in a generation. How amazing is that? That an awful, 100% preventable disease could be eliminated?
For diseases such as OLWS, I think emphasis is about responsible breeding. You don't take anyone's word for a negative result; you test yourself to be 100% certain that you will not get a LW foal. Again, preventable.
I guess the bottom like is responsible breeding.
Personally - I wouldn't own, let alone breed, a HERDA or HyPP horse. As for OLWS, its exactly as I stated above - if I were ever to breed that type of horse I would make sure that both animals were negative - if I didn't own one, I would ask for a certified true copy of the test results.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#15 ·
I guess that's ultimately my question - why would it be ok to breed an OLWS carrier, and yet not a HERDA carrier for example? If through proper responsible breeding of ensuring only non-carriers were bred to carriers, isn't it the same thing in the end?

I suppose it boils down to would our opinions change if HERDA (or any other disease that does not physically affect carriers) was attached to a pretty color? If HERDA carriers were brindle, would it be ok to breed non-carriers to carriers just to get that brindle coloring?

I ask only because I feel the exact same way - if I wanted to breed Jynx and she was frame, I would ensure she was bred to a non-frame stallion. Which means a good chance her foal will be a frame carrier. And yet I immediately wrote off the CA carrier Arab stallion for Zierra. Why would I do this? Both conditions produce affected horses that are guaranteed to die. Both foals I bred could be carriers of a horrible condition. So why does the "pretty color" make me think it's ok?
 
#18 ·

I ask only because I feel the exact same way - if I wanted to breed Jynx and she was frame, I would ensure she was bred to a non-frame stallion. Which means a good chance her foal will be a frame carrier. And yet I immediately wrote off the CA carrier Arab stallion for Zierra. Why would I do this? Both conditions produce affected horses that are guaranteed to die. Both foals I bred could be carriers of a horrible condition. So why does the "pretty color" make me think it's ok?
If the foal tested positive for frame and you later sold it, you could tell the new owner and then any breeding decisions would be on their heads. After all, every time you sell a horse you take the risk that the buyer will turn out to be a jerk.

Personally I would be quite happy if frame were deleted from the gene pool since I think it's ugly... but I don't think many people share that opinion LOL.
 
#17 ·
I don't really have a deeper process behind that reasoning, that's just how I feel. I guess I am mostly thinking of HYPP because that's what I have the most knowledge of and many of those horses that are simply carriers (N/H) are also symptomatic and sometimes suffer for years before dying.

That being said, I don't feel strongly one way or the other in regards to frame. I don't have a problem with breeding carriers so long as it is done responsibly to prevent an OLWS foal, but I also wouldn't cry foul if the bigwigs decided to eradicate the gene completely either.
 
#19 ·
The thing is, the risk of producing a frame carrier, that someone down the line breeds to another frame, gets a lethal white...OK, they're irresponsible, and a horse suffers. Or you could produce a non-disease carrier, and sell it, and they breed it, produce a healthy baby, and starve/beat/neglect the foal to death. Or whatever. You can't control what other people do. Only YOU can do the responsible thing--which may very well be to simply not breed at all, in many cases. Educate the new owner, by all means, but don't expect to be held accountable if they do something stupid. It's tragic, but it's not YOUR fault if you did all you could to prevent something bad from happening, including checking out and approving the home.

When it comes to genetic diseases, is there a difference between OLWS, HERDA, CA, SCID, etc.? *I* tend to think there is, but as a Paint fancier, perhaps I'm just biased. In the case of HERDA, as I said before, there likely is some difference between carriers and the general population, that gives them an advantage at cutting. IF this is the case, and IF there are NO negative side effects, I think it is ethical to continue to breed carriers to non-carriers ONLY. I don't know how you could enforce this through the registry, but it needs to be the case. Now, since HERDA in its homozygous form is extremely painful and debilitating, it ranks up there as one of the worst genetic diseases, and on the flip of the coin, perhaps that is the reason not to breed carriers at all. I'm torn.

For SCID, CA, GBED, and the like, there is absolutely no advantage for heterozygotes, and very bad outcomes for homozygotes. I see absolutely no reason to breed these horses, except perhaps in the case of a truly exceptional individual, which should of course only be bred to non-carriers, and only the non-carrier offspring of this mating should be allowed to further reproduce. You could eliminate these diseases in two generations.

When it comes to frame, there IS and advantage for heterozygotes--not to the horse, of course, but to people, because it is an attractive, flashy color. There is no reason, ever, PERIOD, to breed frame to frame, but as a lover of this color, I'd hate to see it die out. Breeding carrier to non-carrier is risk free. Irresponsible people will always exist. See first paragraph of this post. Again, only very good individuals should be bred, but this is really true of any horse.

If we say that frames should not be bred, again, then I'd have to argue that we should not breed Appaloosas or grays, for their color, while "pretty" to our eye, comes with a slew of problems for the horse...
 
#20 ·
I'm not sure that is a valid analogy. Color related issues with Appies are a far cry from SCIDS, HERDA, HYPP, or OLWS.

In any case, what you, and all of us really in our olwn ways, are saying is whether for performance or color, we are perpetuating deadly genetic defects for our own selfish human reasons. I'm not condemning that - everyone has the right to do as they chose, and none of us make exactly the same decisions. ButI will pose a question - rhetorical if you like... Is it hypocritical for a person that knowingly perpetuates one of these defects to consider themselves stewards of their horses or their breed, or otherwise invision themselves as acting in the best interest of the animals, or do we accept the rationalization that always accompanies the defense and just look the other way?

Again, I am not condemning anyone at all, and I pose the question not to be critical but to stimulate thought. It's the age old debate about what constitutes use and where is the line in the sand drawn that separates use from abuse...
 
#21 ·
In some ways, Face, I'd argue that breeding Apps is WORSE than breeding frames, because frame "carriers" are perfectly healthy animals, while App "carriers" are frequently plagued by eye and skin issues. And gray "carriers" are prone to cancer.

Is a disease that causes death, or more commonly, humane euthanasia, within 24 hours really worse than one that causes a lifetime of eye inflammation, pain, and eventual blindness?

To answer your "rhetorical" question, how many people really are looking exclusively in the best interest of the animal? Even highly ethical breeders temper this with the needs/desires of humans. We breed them for our use and pleasure, after all.
 
#22 ·
Here's my reasoning: OLWS does not affect a horse (to my knowledge) unless they happen to carry two copies of the gene, which is recessive, and then the horse dies in utero or shortly after birth. To my knowledge (and I admit I may be wrong, as I am not terribly familiar with OLWS) is that a horse that is a carrier isn't affected by any adverse health problems. Unlike HyPP, where even an N/H horse (only one copy of the gene) can show symptoms of HyPP and it has health risks.
Just my two cents' worth, and I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#23 ·
Here's my reasoning: OLWS does not affect a horse (to my knowledge) unless they happen to carry two copies of the gene, which is recessive, and then the horse dies in utero or shortly after birth. To my knowledge (and I admit I may be wrong, as I am not terribly familiar with OLWS) is that a horse that is a carrier isn't affected by any adverse health problems. Unlike HyPP, where even an N/H horse (only one copy of the gene) can show symptoms of HyPP and it has health risks.
Just my two cents' worth, and I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
Posted via Mobile Device
That would be correct...
 
#27 ·
So that's my reasoning for not being 110% against breeding OWLS horses - no health effects other than when a foal has two copies of the gene - precautions NEED to be taken though, as LW syndrome is completely preventable.
Posted via Mobile Device
Ok so do you feel the same way about HERDA or SIDS or CA for example? All are diseases with no adverse side effects to carriers, only affected horses.

It's completely fine if you are, I mean, logically you should be either ok with carrier horses of any genetic disease that doesn't harm it or against it all. It just seems many/most people are against all carriers and yet ok with frame overos (I am in this boat before giving it any thought) and it's just questionable where the ethical difference is.
 
#25 ·
Olws is not carried by all overo horses, nor is it limited to only overos. By my research at least. It is possible to ethically breed two overos with no chance of an Olws foal.
I think that no genetic, testable disease should be bred, really. It's to the point where its either eradicated or left in the equine population forever with all of these diseases.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#33 · (Edited)
Olws is not carried by all overo horses, nor is it limited to only overos.

This is part of the reason why LW foals keep being born. As it is used in the US, the term "overo" refers to several genes, one of which is the gene that causes LW. Using inaccurate terms causes people to misjudge when they could get an LW foal. Is it really too much to ask for the APHA to get their patterns straight?
 
#28 ·
Here's why I think there is a difference between lethal white and HYPP, HERDA, etc.

If I go out an buy a frame overo horse, it will be healthy even though it is a carrier. Because if it were a lethal white, it would be dead already.

But if I go out and buy a QH, I don't know if the horse has HERDA or HYPP just by looking at it. That horse could have the disease itself (not just be a carrier) and an irresponsible breeder could sell it to the general public.

Frame holds responsiblity to the breeder or they could end up with a dead foal. But HERDA and HYPP horses could be out amongst us like time bombs waiting to go off.

I really don't think HERDA and HYPP carriers should be bred. Maybe if they were the last horses on the planet or something, but they are not. I think there are a lot of really nice Quarter Horses that are from the same bloodlines that are NOT carriers, so why don't we breed them instead?

Frames overos I think are awesome. Does that make me discriminatory? Maybe. But I don't have to worry about buying a lethal white. I do have to worry about HYPP and HERDA. (Can't comment on SCIDS as I don't know much about it).
 
#31 ·
But if I go out and buy a QH, I don't know if the horse has HERDA or HYPP just by looking at it. That horse could have the disease itself (not just be a carrier) and an irresponsible breeder could sell it to the general public.
Incorrect, HERDA is exactly like OLWS or virtually any other disease except HYPP. I do believe HYPP is the only disease that physically affects carriers as well. And I think that MOST people are in agreement it's completely unethical to breed anything but N/N horses for HYPP due to the devastating consequences.

And frame can easily (and often does) hide on solid horses, as well as loudly colored horses. My Paint mare doesn't have any obvious history of frame whatsoever, but due to her excessive white, I will definitely have her tested for it if she's ever sold. Most people don't deliberately breed frame to frame knowing the consequences - 25% chance is a HUGE risk after investing so much time and money into a pregnancy. The vast majority of lethal white foals are from people breeding horses who don't look like they could possibly have frame and finding out the hard way.

In fact, frame is almost worst because people don't view it as a genetic disease and therefore are very lax on having their solid Paint horses color tested. At least if your horse has a visible history of HERDA for example, you know to get it checked. Frame can hide for generations and spring up out of absolutely nowhere.
 
#30 ·
Trailhorserider, I think part of the problem is that you can not *always* tell a frame horse from another visually. There are some frame horses that can "hide" it, much like the other diseases.

I think this is a case where a few spoil a good thing for many. BYBs cannot be trusted not to breed an OLWS foal out of ignorance and refusing to test. So I think that carriers should not be bred to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the number of frame horses that wind up in the wrong hands. Most BYBs will also not be willing to pay a vet to humanely euthanize an OLWS foal.

While frame is a lovely colour, I don't think any colour is worth a deadly disease - particularly since there are so many other patterns that are similar and don't carry that weight with them.

I'm biased, however - I don't care for any of the paint patterns and certainly do not have a discerning eye for the patterns, so maybe the others aren't as similar as I think they are.

So I guess I would say I'm against breeding all carriers of those kinds of disorders - at least until someone eliminates back yard breeding worldwide.
 
#34 ·
I doubt the Paint registry getting it's patterns right will make a significant influence, mostly because most horses have multiple patterns, not just one. So unless the registry starts making DNA testing mandatory for frame (which it probably should be), it wouldn't help a ton if a horse was listed as solid or even sabino and in fact was also hiding frame. Accurate descriptions only help to a certain point.
 
#35 ·
Article

Overo Lethal White Syndrome (OLWS) is a condition that occurs in newborn foals. The condition is genetic, caused by a recessive gene, and both parents must carry a copy of the gene for a foal to be born with this defect.

OLWS is emotionally injurious and often financially devastating for small breeders because it is always fatal.
 
#37 ·
There are too many abbreviations here. I have been enjoying reading everybody's opinions, but I have had to look half the stuff up. If you put the whole word, it would bring me more knowledge, probably everybody else too.
About appaloosas. I have a 24 year old appaloosa that was given to me 10 years ago or so. She has never had any skin problems, eye problems, or health problems of any kind. She is gentle and good with children. She is also sound, in good physical condition, and rides well except for being a bit lazy. What is the deal with saying apps are not ok?
 
#40 ·
About appaloosas. I have a 24 year old appaloosa that was given to me 10 years ago or so. She has never had any skin problems, eye problems, or health problems of any kind. She is gentle and good with children. She is also sound, in good physical condition, and rides well except for being a bit lazy. What is the deal with saying apps are not ok?
Appys have a higher incidence of ERU (Equine Recurrent Uveitis), which is commonly called moon blindness, than other breeds. Homogynous Appys, specifically true fewspots and snowcaps, are thought to have ERU 100% of the time. Obviously not all Appys have ERU, and it comes in degrees - in other words there are mild cases of little consequence and then more serious cases, although most horses function reasonably well with it. As to the skin disorders Bubba mentioned, the increased incidence of skin disorders in Appys is due to some of them having pink skin and most having mottled skin, of which some is pink. But there is no evidence that I am aware of that Appys have any higher incidence of skin issues than any other horses that have pink skin, nor is there any evidence it is genetically linked other than the color of the skin.

I've had Appys for 30 years, and bred them for 20, and like you have never had any issues with either ERU or skin problems, although they can have mild ERU and you might not even be aware of it. I do expect my personal horse Casper to have some skin issues at some point as his whole head is pink skinned, but he is coming 12 now and no issues so far.

Hope that helps...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top