Exclusively Setters

Home for Irish Setter Lovers Around the World

As an interim measure until the official register provided by the Kennel Club is fully up and running, the SEISC has decided to offer an opportunity for owners to post their recent PRA rcd4 DNA test results.
This will be on our PRA rcd4 page.
This is available to all owners worldwide not just SEISC members and will be in a similar format to that already used by the Kennel Club.

For further details please see the Club website www.seisc.co.uk.


Listing will be available sometime today - slight kink in my "html"  !!

Views: 61962

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rosie, unfortunately the Dutch club is the only overseas breed club that is actually posting rcd-4 test results online so until breed or kennel clubs across the world decide to recognise and adopt this test the SEISC is the only UK club providing a much appreciated service.  Perhaps our breed clubs should have all come together but they didn't.  It is unseemly to criticise the SEISC for stepping up to the mark.

The purpose of the test is indeed to provide breeders with the necessary tool to ensure their litters have no affected cases.  But breeders are far from rushing into looking down lists to find any old clear dog.  They are sitting back and taking stock and making decisions on the future of their breeding programmes.  In many cases they are looking to overseas dogs. As our kennel club will never provide them with the necessary information on anything other than UK KC ATC registered dogs where do you suggest breeders go? 

I agree with Susan on this one and  personally feel your comments are out of order.

Hello Eva,

Please note the Belgian Club is also posting rcd-4 test result online. Please see our website on www.irishsetterclub.be

Thank you Jean,,,,,,,,,,that is good news!!!

thank your for information! great help for all breeders!

I have been away for a few days, and have come back to see that someone has condemned the SEISC for publishing the results, or have I misinterpreted this. The KC have only published the results that have been sent to them by the AHT and this seems to be very behind the rest of us and give a very bias view of what is going on...the KC will hopefully catch up with the SEISC, and when you consider that the results that are shown on the SEISC site are only ''voluntary'' one wonders just how many others are out there..that are not so good..but eventually they will be ALL published and we can then see just how widespread this problem is....lets face it, if we hadn't started this now, maybe left it for another few years...we would definitely be in a very bad state with our breed...(I will also add, again, that this is not life threatening, but it is one problem that can be eradicated very easily in just a couple of generations, and should be. Then we can get down and start on other worse problems)

As for a Witch Hunt...I can't see that anyone has ever said that people should be condemned for their breeding policy before the testing...NO ONE WAS TO BLAME lets keep this in perspective...but breeding programs should now be very carefully chosen to keep the carrier status down..we should also not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater...there are a lot of good dogs out there that have the carrier status these dogs should be used to start with...because we do not want to go down the road of diminishing the gene pool any more than it already has...

Mel I agree with what you have said..Thank you SEISC for going to the trouble to publish this, and nothing is published without the certificate that comes with the results, unless it was a test case....and when it was a test case you do not get a certificate...

As for blood against swabs...difficult one....this is all done on trust...and if you 'cheat' then you are only fooling yourself..so hopefully no one will be fooling themselves..Or foolish enough to go down that road.

But please don't soot the messenger, we should be thanking the SEISC for their hard work. And keep up the sterling work, SEISC...

Rosie, with respect to the CLAD test I don't think your statement is quite correct.  The Swedish DNA test was most robust and in fact many UK breeders were sending their blood samples to Sweden rather than to the AHT because they were concerned firstly with the time it was taking for results to come back (particularly pertinent when testing litters) and secondly with the cost, which was twice that of the Swedish tests.  Furthermore, generally there was greater trust in the accuracy of the Swedish tests, sorry to say.

Whereas I am not certain that all previsously tested dogs were retested I do know that it was a specific batch of tests that were proved to be contaminated and it was only that batch which came back with revised results.  In fact in the light of this incident and to show good faith the AHT tested the subsequent litter of at least one breeder I know without charge.

With respect to the present DNA testing it is not the time the AHT is taking in sending back individual results which is frustrating everyone but the time it is taking to forward the information onto the KC for publication on their website.  You might think that three months would be sufficient for both bodies to get their act together.

Camilla, this is not intirely correct. It is true that the official breed club has taken no action regard PRA RCD4 (as far as I know), but as for the Swedish Kennel Club they always publish any test results regarding eye problems as a general, even if it is not part of a health/breeding program for a particular breed. However, the fact is that they do not accept any DNA tests that are not made from blood samples. Therefore the current tests done on cheek swabs will not ever be registered, unless they change their point of view.
I think the Swedish Kennel Club have a point about only accepting blood samples. The AHT seem to be increasingly accepting swabs. While I'm sure almost everybody submitting swabs for DNA testing is honest and the swab is from the dog it says it is from , it does leave open the possibility of taking a swab from another dog . At least with taking a blood sample, that means a trip to a vet, where the microchip of the dog can also be checked and verified. We have to have microchips verified for hip scoring and eye testing  , KC/BVA requirement or the results dont get listed, why not also for other DNA testing?
Yes, I think this is the reason for the current policy - also that they do not consider the swab tests reliable enough.
I also wonder about whether swab tests are 100% reliable. Purely anecdotal, but I get the impression that countries where CLAD testing was by swab found fewer CLAD carriers? Thats just raising a query, not making an assertion
I took DNA kit to the vet and prepared swabs at her office and she signed in my form as well so even swabs could be taken after microchip verification...
I did the swab test at my Vets(microchip checked also!) and I think perhaps this should be insisted on by the AHT to stop any possible cheating!!




© 2024   Created by Gene.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service