Should you?

His allergy won't affect him at all as long as he doesn't get any wheat. But wheat is in so many things, surely it's a pain for the owners to be so very cautious about his diet. His allergy isn't affecting his ring performance because he gets rushed to the vet's and given medication every time he gets into something containing wheat - if he didn't get this, he'd be hairless. :yikes:

It doesn't take much effort on the dog's part to win shows. I'm sure the owners keep him in great shape. My issue is that if it's a neverending hassle to keep the dog in good condition and keep it healthy, should it really be bred? When there are THOUSANDS of other marvelous Labrador studs out there without the serious allergy?

I understand that dogs aren't meant to eat wheat, I don't feed wheat to my dogs intentionally. However, merely as a pet owner, I like knowing that my dogs can grab bread crust that falls on the floor without being miserable later. I wouldn't buy a pup out of a dog or bitch with severe allergies just because it's something I do not want to deal with.

If the allergy effects the dog so bad it looses alot of hair unless taken to the vet the NO. From the sounds of your post its a big problem.
If its a mild allergy that mildly effects the dog its up to the breeder to wiegh that one out. I call that a breeder option.
Problem is with any known ailment is the probability of passing it on and coupling that with the female carrying that same genetic trait. Its a risk. You could end up with a litter of pups that have no problems with allergies and a whole litter who is extremely effected and passes that on. Its a shot in the dark really if you consider recessive and dominate genes.
Thank goodness none of my breeding stock has allergies.

Maybe you're too picky, but I think many aren't picky enough. Its not like we're breeding something back from the verge of extinction where we can't afford to pick and choose which individuals should procreate. IMO, you should breed to the best dog you can get. A severe allergy to a food ingredient may not be something that impacts a dog's quality of life, but it is a defect in my eyes.

This dog has been fed raw from day one. So his wheat allergy presented itself at 8 months when he ate a bread crust from the floor in the split second she was not looking. No one thought anything of it and left it. The next day he was whining and itching and was losing large localised patches of hair.

That does not sound like a aquired allergy to me.

I personally think anyone who breeds an unfit dog, finnished or not, is irresponsible. Surely carrying the cancer gene is not going to affect a dogs performance in the ring until later when he gets cancer? So by the same token should you breed a dog who you know carries the gene for cancer just because he does well in the ring?

I don't know who summer riot is but if his/her dog has wheat allergies he/she should not breed the dog. That is my opinion at least.

This is the key question...

I couldn't find anything really good to answer it, but found a slightly contradictory study done with Westies which said:
"There were no apparent correlations or significant differences found between serum IgE concentration as a puppy, parental history of skin disease, and subsequent emergence of clinical signs of atopic dermatitis."

...and a human study which showed that:
"allergic disorders are associated with a reduced risk of childhood [Leukaemia]. ...genetic and/or environmental factors that cause allergic disorders may also be protective..."

I'm sure that allergic response is somewhat heritable because it's an immune and digestive system issue. (That's why 'modern wheat' and 'modern milk' allergies are more common in human racial groups which have had a shorter history of exposure to these unusual foodstuffs.) I'm not sure how large this genetic effect is though, especially relative to the strong vaccine/food-induced environmental influences - and whether it's harmful or even perhaps a positive sign of robustness.

...so, I'm adding it to my (long) "Don't know but don't panic" list!

Del.

Personally, I would have to say a resounding NO... As others have mentioned there are limitless breedable dogs in this world, and with the invention of AI and frozen semen, I think that breeding from a dog with a fault is just unethical! I can only imagine the heartache for owners and dogs alike that first time they find out that a dog is allergic to something.

How do you begin to class what is a mild allergy and what is severe? Where do you draw the line? It seems a very grey area to me, and one not easy to determine! Faults are faults, plain and simple in my book.

Would I buy a pup from a breeder who admited her stock had allergies of any kind?! No.. I wouldn't, any more that I would buy a pup who's parents had a history of hip dysplacia or other genetic disorders!

Just my opinion.

I agree with you 100% Gustav. Why should a dog with one fault be bred and that is deemed ok by some people but then another dog with another fault and that is not ok?

Just because you know a show dog, or of one, with an allergy does not make it ethical to breed the dog.

I am suprised there is even a debate.

With how much people on here harp on about ethical breeding, and only breeding dogs which are 100%, I would have thought it was obvious.

Unfortunatley there is no dog that is 100%. When breeding you must try to better the breed. Every dog, even those that seem perfect have something that can be improved on.

I agree, J's Crew, but I think health is something that should be as close to 100% as possible in breeding animals. I consider allergies a defect, much like joint issues or heart problems. Some may be environmental, some genetic and whatever it is, there are enough dogs without this defect being bred, so why contribute more potentially unhealthy stock to the gene pool?

I fail to see how this is any different than mild CHD. It doesn't bother most pet dogs and can be controlled, so should affected dogs be allowed to reproduce?

Sorry, but until I see a study saying that allergies in dogs are purely environmental, I'm going to assume some of it is genetic. It's just not something I would want in my breeding program.

I completely agree. The health of an animal when considering breeding is VERY important. I didn't mean to imply that I think a breeding like this is ok. IMO, the cons would outweigh the pros.

You're right RD and you've changed my mind.

Cass.

I was reading a long commentary by a vet who says that allergies are mostly environmental, and they are signs of the immune system reaching its enviromental challenge threshold. Hence reactions to common foods can appear at age 60 (in humans) without precendent. If it were genetic, this could not happen.

I'm certain there's a genetic component as well - there must be... BUT the point which really made me sit up and listen is that he says the biggest mistake of all is to believe that there is something wrong with the animal's immune system when it reacts to expell a foreign substance from the body. There's nothing wrong at all, and in fact the opposite - it's doing its job well.

Hence it's worth thinking some more about I believe, and not merely concluding that this fine animal is 'flawed', and/or that the learned response of its immune system will be passed on.

I totally understand the caution though - I would be feeling the same way if it were my dog. But we may be misunderstanding the whole issue of what an allergy actually means.

Del.

So - based on that - would you breed, or not? Just out of curiosity

Hmmm...don't know, Dizzy. I would have to know the dog well myself to make that judgement - to figure out what's really going on with it genetically/healthwise...look at its heritage, siblings, diet, medical treatment, acute health status...and understand what "severe" really means and if that's a justified description... etc etc etc

If I was satisfied that there were no problems in the line/siblings, and the allergy seemed to be acquired in the normal fashion, then that's probably OK. If there are signs of wider problems, that's probably not OK.

Del.

I don't want to start anything, but I figured I'd give my 2 cents. That was a really good explaination RD.

But if you dropped a chicken leg, or a t-bone on the floor, and your dog grabbed it...it's life threatening. A bone could get stuck in the esophogus(sp?) or puncture the stomach wall! Bread is just as dangerous as a bone to this dog. A bone is just as easily dropped as a piece of bread.

I definately agree though, that there are much more fitting Labs out there to be bred.