Myra, that is true, however there may still be some genetic tendency working. Back in the 1980s we fed Science Diet exclusively for a year. We never had any problems with rough coat or anything like it. I changed from Science Diet after a year because of other things that I didn't like about it. That isn't to say that Ethoxyquin wasn't the culprit in your case; it very well may have been.
There is a lot that we don't know about what causes certain things like why one person can smoke for 10 years and develop cancer and emphysema while another person can smoke for 60 years and die of something totally unrelated. I have studied schizophrenia lately in psychology class and it is an illness that has both environmental and genetic factors. Identical twins have concordance rates of around 48% while the probability in the general population is 1% to 1.5%. The illness has some genetic basis, but since half of the identical twins do not develop the disease, then there must be some environmental factor involved. This is substantiated by the fact that about 17% of fraternal twins develop schizophrenia. (same environment, different genes) I would tend to believe that you had something other than or in addition to genetics going here due to the oddities in the whelping. Sometimes, there is no cut and died answer. All the best, Susan Cochran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Myra Savant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [CKCS-L] Rough coat > Liz's response here is especially meaningful to me. We've always fed a raw > diet supplemented with a little kibble. About 4 months ago, another breeder > recommended a really good chewy that her dogs were enjoying a lot. So...we > bought a box of 100 of them and they are all around our dog room. Guess > which bitch had one in her mouth constantly? Also, being our alpha bitch, > when she gets a chewy, she keeps it. Guess who had one in her mouth every > night at bedtime and got tucked down for the night with it in her mouth? I > called several companies yesterday to find out what preservative they > use....and guess what? Ethoxyquin! The brand of kibble we use doesn't have > it. The only thing we've brought in different in 4 years has been those > chewies and Lexie goes battie over them. Interestingly enough, the other > breeder who recommended them to us recently had a litter...a repeat breeding > with first litter normal...the second litter had 3 cleft palates out of 5 > pups. Sometimes things look genetic on the surface, but are, in fact, > environmental. Myra > > > >From: Elizabeth Spalding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel List > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [CKCS-L] Rough coat > >Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 22:10:01 EDT > > > >Dear List, > > > >I wish the discussion of roughcoats could involve a great many more people > >and a great many more anecedotes! It sounds like a cop-out even to > >consider > >blaming the problem on anything BUT genetics, yet I think we must consider > >the possibility that the condition may be due to something, probably a > >chemical something, affecting the ability of the bitch to develop a normal > >foetus. As I wrote to Myra, before I realized that this has again become a > >subject on which we're still at the speculation stage, there were several > >things which made me feel certain it was not simply a genetically recessive > >fault. First, the breeders in Britain from whom I had bought my dogs had > >(in > >the early 80's) never seen a roughcoat. Of course (there's an answer for > >everything) in that case we had to wonder whether, because of overshot > >mouths > >and smaller size than their siblings, the puppies were not all that healthy > >and were just written off as fading pups -- a helpful catch-all for > >neonatal > >problems in those days. I believe the breeders then who said they'd not > >seen > >it, and I do still. Second, there was no consistency whatever in the > >lines, > >or the breeding whether it be tight or totally out, between the litters > >which > >contained a roughcoat and those which didn't. I had a total of about > >eight, > >but at that time other breeders were having them too, and we were really > >worried about our breeding stock, specially as there seemed no connection > >to > >any illness or anything that might have gone on while the bitch was in > >whelp. > > > >Then came the article/letter/write-ups from the long-time Massachusetts > >collie breeder and her vet, who were suddenly seeing all the roughcoat > >problems we were dealing with, and had figured out the ONLY thing that was > >different since the problems started was the food which that breeder was > >using, which was preserved with, among other things, the additive > >Ethoxyquin. > > (Ethoxyquin had first been developed as a rubber stabilizer, then briefly > >used as an insecticide, and finally discovered to preserve shelf life an > >extra six months, It was poured into cattle food, and subsequently the > >cattle were used in dog food, which was given another boost of Ethoxyquin, > >and somewhere along the line it was discovered that canines were > >particularly > >sensitive to it.) And finally, how else to account for the fact that when > >the article appeared, we'd just had two litters with a roughcoat in each, > >so > >we changed foods, bred the same two bitches back to the same two dogs six > >months later, had two healthy, easy litters, one of four and one of five, > >AND, most convincing of all, never saw another roughcoat after that? > >(Also, > >I might add, if it had no bearing on the case, why did so many foods all of > >a > >sudden start being labeled "contains no Ethoxyquin"?) > > > >I think Myra's point about thalidomide, and other chemical additives, is > >very > >well taken. It would be lovely if we could get certain, proven answers to > >this sort of question, but we can't and all there is to be done is to > >listen > >to everyone's experience and hope somewhere along the way there will be > >some > >sort of solution. For me, several years of roughcoats suddenly ending upon > >changing the dogs' food, along with the same thing happening for other > >breeders, seemed pretty conclusive. For years it also seemed too good to be > >true, and I held my breath with every litter, waiting for the axe to fall. > >(Talk about tempting providence.........) But something has changed, and > >the > >only obvious cause is the food -- I can't think it's due to the fact that > >every generation is just that much further away from the dogs who first > >produced roughcoats because they are still in the pedigrees, and I've bred > >closer in some instances since the roughcoats than I was doing when they > >were > >appearing. > > > >I do know that there were several law suits brought by people in other > >breeds, of which I could never find out the results, which makes me wonder > >if > >they weren't settled on condition that nothing be said publicly -- > >otherwise > >why the silence? > > > >Perhaps today's roughcoats have nothing whatever to do with the earlier > >ones, > >but it seemed worth bringing it up since in my case there was just no other > >conclusive answer. Possibly there's some other additive today, or some > >chemical used to treat the newer foods, which could have the same effect. > >Or > >possibly it IS genetic, and by sheer good luck the gene just got lost > >somewhere along the way in my dogs. There was never any question of > >breeding > >from a roughcoat, though if we'd approached it "scientifically" that's > >probably exactly what should have been done. But there wasn't much sense > >in > >producing more problems when the condition seemed so random and all we > >wanted > >to do was to get away from it. However, as I said to Myra, in spite of > >their > >health problems it was almost as if those puppies had something to make up > >for them, for they were invariably the happiest, smartest, and most > >responsive babies of any litter they appeared in. > > > >I certainly hope the problem disappears again, whether or not we ever find > >out the reason for it. But I also remember with the great joy our funny > >puppies with their paw-in-the-light-socket appearance, whokept us laughing > >at > >their antics for the better part of 15 years. > > > >========================================================= > >"Magic Commands": > >to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL > >to start it up gain click here: > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL > > > > E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. > >Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html > > > >All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author. > > > > > Myra Savant Gardengate Cavaliers > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > ========================================================= > "Magic Commands": > to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL > to start it up gain click here: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL > > E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. > Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html > > All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author. ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
