u/monsteradeliciosa11

I took my two miniature poodles yesterday to a veterinary opthalmologist for an ECVO exam. The vet commented on how big the optic nerve in my female was. Which freaked me out at first, I thought that she was saying that there was a problem. But no apparently it is because there is a eye condition in miniature poodles where the optic nerve is too small. So the vet was very happy to see a nice big optic nerve.

Both my dogs passed the test. Their eyes are perfect as far as the ECVO exam is concerned (plus DNA screening for PRA).

But since I am starting to breed I would like to educate myself more about ONH. My breeding dogs will always have a valid ECVO exam before mating but conditions that dont have a straight forward DNA testing for are more complicated and can pop up in litters even when both parents were screened for clinical signs.

I tried to google but I would really appreciate it if someone more experienced in navigating this type of literature could point me in the right direction.

Thank you in advance.

PS. For those who dont know, ECVO stands for European College of Veterinary Opthalmologists. They have a program, a standardised examination to screen breeding dogs for eye problems, both general ones and those common in their breed. Its valid for one year and is standard practice for responsible poodle breeding.

I am an autistic woman, I was only diagnosed in my 20s. I have university degrees, so despite the fact that I went through all of school without a diagnosis for my many neurodiversities, I did just fine education wise.

But, lately I have been thinking about why and how I chose what to study at university.

For some reason I started to think back to when I was at school, like 7 to 15 years old. About how I was convinced that I was terrible at certain subjects, and I don't just mean that I struggled, but rather I was convinced that I was literally irrevocably bad at math and grammar.

I believed that for a long time, and this had a huge influence on my studies and career.

But now that I think back, I realise that it wasn't that dramatic at all. I do have a very spikey cognitive profile, so I have very extreme strengths and extreme weaknesses. I could have benefited from more support, but I was never at risk of failing.

I was just below average and my teachers believed that I wasn't performing as well as I could be.

But I was genuinely convinced for decades that I couldn't do maths or languages. I am starting to suspect that the support I needed wasn't necessarily academic in nature but more about building a bit of resilience against failure, I couldn't handle it when something didn't come immediately naturally to me. Which set me up for a massive burnout as an adult.

So now I wonder, is this something that is more common with autistic students? Could this be related to our rigid way of thinking?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is exclusive to autism, just wondering if we are more likely to think like this.

This is for a creative writing project where a character is a vet.

What are some of the major debates in veterinary medicines or in your speciality of veterinary medicine (please specify which speciality).

I don't mean the kind of 'oh my god don't go to that vet because they do X in X way'. Or things that are more like conspiracy theories (like anti-vax) with very little scientific evidence.

But rather things where the data/publications is not giving clear answers. The kind of things that you could have a passionate debate about in the break room with a colleague but still feel comfortable letting that colleague treat your own animal.

I am curious, when you are picking varieties to add to your garden do you just buy whichever you like or do you try and coordinate with the colours that you already have?

I am just starting my garden. I have bought two varieties so far and they are freshly planted and small so they haven't bloomed yet. One is Aprikola and the other is a pink Annuschka. Now I am second guessing myself, wondering if the orange-ish colour of the Aprikola is going to look weird with the rich pink of the Annuschka.

I just really like colour. I have a white hydrangea so I don't want more white perinnials, therefore no white roses. But I am now starting to second guess whether its going to look really weird if there is just bunch of different colours everywhere in the garden.

So I have been listening to Jurassic park on audiobook and it has raised some questions in my mind. Primarily as to what dinosaur would be most likely to want to snuggle with me like a dog would.

But also what would it actually mean if the premise of the book, of the mosquitos in the amber, was actually true (I know that it isn't!).

I don't mean the question of 'could we clone them' but rather what would that DNA actually tell us?

So imagine that you have in front of you an intact DNA that was extracted from a mosquito trapped in amber. You don't know what creature the mosquite bit before it died. The only information you have at first is the dating of the amber that the mosquito came from and where it was found. But thats it.

For the this thought experiment lets say that the DNA came from a non-avian dinosaur, but you don't even know that at first.

What would the DNA actually tell us? would we even be able to match the DNA to a fossil?

Would we even be able to distinguish between a hadrosaurid DNA and a sauropod DNA?

I have seen so many posts on here where people thought that they were buying from a breeder who did full health testing and then it turns out that they only ever did genetic testing.

I wanted to give a breeders prespective on why a breeder might choose to do DNA tests but not the other tests that are recommended for their breed such as hips, elbows, knees, eyes or heart.

That is because the DNA test is the cheapest one to do!

Not necessarily the test itself, but rather because the DNA tests wont jeapordise your breeding plans and the investment that you have put into the potential breeding dog.

Because if the parents of your potential breeding dog were DNA tested you can more or less predict what the DNA results of that dog will be. If there is any doubt, you can do the DNA test when its still a puppy. If you don't get the result you want you can sell the puppy as a pet (if its from your own litter) or just not buy that specific puppy. Essentially, you can know what the DNA results will be long before you invest any time or effort into that dog.

Health tests for joints (hips, elbows, knees), eyes or heart (these are breed dependant) are the wild cards for breeders.

Because they are time sensitive and not always predictable! They can only be done once the dog is mature and some are even only valid for an x amount of time and need to be repeated.

You can buy puppy that comes from fully health tested parents, spend thousands and thousands on raising and competing with that puppy for two years. Then you test the joints and get a bad result. You can't use that dog for breeding and you either have to just stop breeding or start again with another puppy.

Essentially, the non-DNA health tests, makes dog breeding a much riskier 'investment'.

By doing only the DNA tests you eliminate that risk while also being able to make it look like you are breeding for health. That you are being selective when it comes to deciding what dog to breed from.

That is why a breeder who claims to test for over 100 genetic diseases (most of those will be irrelevant to their breed...) but doesn't do any other breed recommended tests such as hips or eyes, is not impressive at all.

Especially as a lot of the conditions that those tests look for, such as hip dysplasia or luxating patella, are extremely common in dogs.

These breeders are not ethical, they are just good advertisers and more concerned with how much they have invested in their breeding dogs than in producing healthy puppies.