This message is from: Marsha Jo Hannah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Michael Bickman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted/wrote: > > > culling out any one trait can have unforseen genetic > > consequences, which may not become apparent for many generations. > > IMHO, it's safer NOT to funnel everyone down the same path. > > Would this apply even to cryptorchirds and parrot mouths? Wouldn't > it be safer to do what can be done to prevent such genetic > deformities from being introduced into the gene pool?
The scientist in me believes that the correct answer is "I don't know". No one does, until either the horse genome is completely mapped (including all the non-expressed recessives, and all the traits on all the genes), or we try the experiment. And, if the result of the experiment is OOPS! (like the calm = piebald foxes), then what? However, my pragmatic side thinks that cryptorchidism is probably a "safe target" for inspection and culling. Detection is easy---almost any lay person can figure out where to look, and can count to two. On this issue, I'd be mostly concerned with how the rule is implemented. If it is merely decreed that all stallions must immediately be inspected, period, paragraph, there will likely be "political" problems. I'd rather see it start out educational---an article in the Herald on how this trait causes problems, and why it needs to be kept out of the breed. Then, a reminder that stallions are supposed to have a vet certificate on file. And, a suggestion that mare owners inquire about the certification status of stallions they're interested in using. Give people a chance to buy into the idea, rather than have it abruptly descend from On High! And, give Mike time to work out a sensible way to get the paperwork done! Parrot mouth is a tougher issue. There is a continuum from obviously awful mouth conformation to absolutely perfect bite, which means that there would have to be a threshold set. If a given horse's teeth are perfect, no problem---but hardly anything about horses is absolutely perfect! One problem here is that inspectors need to know HOW to look at the teeth---my amateur try at it (previously documented here) was obviously wrong. Do our Evaluators know the technique---I certainly hope so, but perhaps some of our evaluators-in-training can address what they've been taught about how to check teeth. Do all vets know the technique? A decade ago, I might have answered "of course!", but I have unfortunately had a proof-by-example that there exist multiple general practitioner vets who think they know more about dentistry than they really do. Suppose an animal fails the test due to poor dental maintenance by his owner (past or present)---what allowances are there for a retest after a dentist has had a chance to rectify the problem? Or, what to do about horses that probably wouldn't have passed "naturally", but do pass after dentists "fixed" their mouths? Or ones that have cribbed enough to wear their teeth to the point that the threshold can't be applied? Nope, I think that REGULATING parrot mouth has the potential to cause more political problems than it solves. The breed standard currently sets out ideals, and gives indications of how much to fault varying degrees of malocclusion. IMHO, this issue is definitely a candidate for education, again thru articles in the Herald. It'd also be useful to do a survey. Pick some large herd or gathering, and document their mouth conformations. Is this really a problem that needs solving, or are we merely creating paperwork? Marsha Jo Hannah Murphy must have been a horseman-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] anything that can go wrong, will! 15 mi SW of Roseburg, Oregon
