# OFA clearances and labs with field titles



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

I wouldn't assume that eye clearances are in place just because they aren't online to verify. It was only a short while ago that the GRCA added the recommendation that hearts and eyes should always be sent in to CERF or OFA... before that, it wasn't at all uncommon that the breeders had the paperwork but never bothered to send them in (some breeders are still guilty of that, I think). The same may be true for EIC. Those breeders may be doing the tests but aren't paying to register the results on a database (or at least not OFA). There is a website.... I will need to look up the name of it, it's something like fieldlabpedigree.com.... Where a lot of field minded folks seem to post their information. I wonder if you would find better info on these dogs there? I will jump back here once I figure out the name of the page. 

To clarify, I haven't read the lab code of ethics lately, so maybe they do recommend sending all results in to a database... But in my response I am assuming they don't. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

I was close. It is http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com They do list clearances on there. On the random dog I looked at (the featured stud dog) it listed eyes/CERF as "clear." That suggests to me that they haven't sent the paperwork in anywhere and someone interested in a pup would have to ask to see the paperwork. He does, though, have what appears to be an OFA number next to EIC - so it seems that his owner was a little inconsistent there (not knocking the owner, just observing). I'd be curious to know what it says for those heavily advertised dogs you are looking at. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I cruised around a bit on OFA looking at various kennel names and their clearances were down right spotty. I don't find that with field golden retrievers. I see occasionally a missing elbow, but not missing stuff like EIC! That's pretty major. I know awhile back golden retriever people were slow to adopt all 4 clearances. But we're in the same place in time as labs and they still aren't complying. Yes the owner may not submit the clearances, but over and over again. It wasn't just one breeder, it was many.

I want to commend golden retriever breeders for sticking to the plan of OFA clearances being in order. It's an expensive time consuming path the breeders went down and it's helping our breed.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The politics of the Labrador world are VERY different from those in the Golden world. 

If you want to start a war in a discussion with Lab folks, try saying something about Limited Registration.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

I can't find anything titled "Code of Ethics" at the Labrador Club page but did find this page titled "Breeding Your Labrador?" http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breeding+Your+Labrador? Here is an excerpt:


> Before opting to breed your Labrador, you should visit the following websites for important information on hereditary medical conditions that affect Labrador Retrievers and the proper clearances for both parents prior to breeding. At a minimum, responsible breeders will screen all of their breeding stock for these conditions.
> 
> These organizations have tests breeders use for screening:
> 
> ...


There is no direct recommendation or requirement that test results be published in a database. (For that matter, there's no mention of EIC. That makes me think I am missing something.... Is there a COE that I am not finding? )

By contrast, this is an excerpt from the GRCA COE:


> Hearts – a report from a Diplomat of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (Cardiology), at 12 months of age or older.  Report should be recorded in an approved online database as described above.
> Eyes – a report from a Diplomat of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmology. Examinations should be done within 12 months prior to a breeding, and  results should be recorded in an approved online database as described above.


I added the underline for emphasis. A few years back, before those underlined portions were added, it was very common practice for golden breeders to have the reports but never send them in to a database. That only changed because the GRCA changed their stance -- even if it was always the best practice to send it in, a good percentage of breeders didn't do so on any of their dogs. They would simply show the hard copies of the paperwork to those who were interested in getting a pup or breeding wo one of their dogs. It was common practice and it was largely accepted as being a standard practice. 

All that said, I agree with you that it would be best if all breeders got all results published in a verifiable database. I'm just not so sure it is fair to fault people if they are doing the tests and not submitting them if their breed club doesn't require or recommend they do so. Hopefully the lab club will follow the goldens' lead and move in that direction in the near future. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

The whole EIC thing is a big deal to eliminate it from the breeding pool. My show dog friends had a tough time breeding it out of their lines. I know there is a bigger split between show and field. But I had thought that the field lab people would be more proactive on health clearances than they are. 

I am aware breeders in the past were not interested in sharing results online in the past. One of my dog's grandparents are from a top show breeder who didn't post in the past. She now does. But all those previous generations are still not in the database.

I'm happy to not be in the lab world. Up here there are some huge fights over breeding EIC carriers. Yuck. EIC is nothing like ichthyosis.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

How long have they known about EIC and the testing for it? Not that it excuses those who don't do the testing...just curious.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

EIC testing is relatively new. There is also CNM testing as well.

The Lab world is still very much the wild wild west and most want to keep it that way.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Alaska7133 said:


> The whole EIC thing is a big deal to eliminate it from the breeding pool. My show dog friends had a tough time breeding it out of their lines. I know there is a bigger split between show and field. But I had thought that the field lab people would be more proactive on health clearances than they are.
> 
> I am aware breeders in the past were not interested in sharing results online in the past. One of my dog's grandparents are from a top show breeder who didn't post in the past. She now does. But all those previous generations are still not in the database.
> 
> I'm happy to not be in the lab world. Up here there are some huge fights over breeding EIC carriers. Yuck. EIC is nothing like ichthyosis.



I agree with you there too -- as ugly as some arguments may get with golden fanciers, I think we have it a lot better with the politics than lab folks do. I'm just don't necessarily think it is safe to assume that the field lab people aren't proactive. They may be perfectly proactive about screening and just lazy about submitting the results. (Have you looked up some of the dogs from your magazine on the hunting lab pedigree page? I am honestly curious whether that showed a different picture or not. If not, then ignore everything I've said -- you're right.)

Just like you mentioned about the owners of your dog's grandparents -- they didn't submit the results and nobody faulted them at the time for not doing so. I agree that it is a shame that there are such big gaps in the available information resulting from that type of behavior and I think if breeders had really thought about the future they might have seen that the trade off of those gaps was not worth the nominal amount of money they saved. But the bottom line is that if PU hadn't become such a growing and prevalent problem in goldens, it is very likely that the code of ethics would have gone unchanged and we still wouldn't be faulting breeders for not submitting heart and eye results. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here's some information: Exercised Induced Collapse | AKC Canine Health Foundation


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> The politics of the Labrador world are VERY different from those in the Golden world.
> 
> If you want to start a war in a discussion with Lab folks, try saying something about Limited Registration.



LOL, I have seen some of those discussions about limited registration on a different forum. You're not kidding -- people get really heated!

Julie and the boys


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Having just looked at the LRC site, The only health checks the recommend are OFA hips and Elbows, CERF for Eyes and the genetic test for PRA. 

That's it from the parent club. Anything over and above that is solely at the discretion of the breeder.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

eyes, hearts and DNA tests like EIC and CMN are not cleared through OFA, they are merely listed there if the owner chooses to send the results in. Don't assume they haven't been done.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I found this quite interesting in comparison to the goldens:

Spay & Neuter Effects - The Institute of Canine Biology

Despite of the neuter/spay it seems that in proportions the labs have less orthopedic disorders and cancer.


----------

