Brucellosis test and hound breeding??

[BCBeagles]

How many feel the brucellosis test is a must?

How many feel it is useless if you have healthy dogs involved?

Just asking opinions, all welcome!!!

[bluecollar beagler]

i know ive had vets look at me and tell me they hadnt seen cases of it in years but id rather be safe then sorry especially when its quality hounds involved.

[BCBeagles]

That is what I get as well. Just wanting opinions. Seems like a "fad", but I would love to see percentages as to what chance does a dog have it or pass it on.

I have been around hounds and breeding of hounds my entire life, no old timers did it. Seemed they just put ole Buck in with ole Sissy and later had pups. No issues.

[likeemfast]

We ALL at one time or another have had to take a hound to the vet, I probably have made a trip to the vet 2x in the past 5 years ............. with that being said there are guys on here that ALWAYS seem to have unhealthy hounds from the posts i have seen, for one reason or another. (I have my assumptions why) Ive had several champions over the years that we liked and purchased and there are many guys on here i would tell just bring Sissy over and throw her in with Buck. Me personally. i would use selective testing depending on who it is. JMO

[BCBeagles]

I don't disagree with that....good point.

Thanks Bruce!

[_luckyone]

Good topic. I'm curious as to how many people on here have had a dog test positive for it and after retesting, were truly positive? ?

[BCBeagles]

Paul you know our situation with that....lol.

FALSE positive on rapid test!!! Happens way too much and then send for a "send out" costing 50-100 bucks and comes back negative.
I feel it is much overrated, but that is just me.

[Casey Harner]

Just because vets haven't seen it for doesn't mean it hasn't disappeared completely. If I owned a stud that was being bred on a consistent basis, I'd want some proof that your bitch is clean.

[Schag]

To me, better safe than sorry.

But, here is the one thing that always gets me. The female "has" to be tested, but the male does not have to show proof in most cases. So, the male could be the carrier, and the female that went and was tested, will be the one infected. You never know when "Ol' Blue" is thrown in with Sally from down the road without Sally being tested.


I realize most stud owners periodically get there stud tested, but it would only take one time for a female who was not to infect.

Personally, I think the disease is rare. Again, better safe than sorry.

[BCBeagles]

Then I would want proof your stud is clean, he has the potential to be a carrier much more than my female. Simply by exposure alone, but dogs die in days that get it. This is not something they will recover from in a consistant manner.

She has never been bred and only gun hunted....make sense... chances of it being there are slim, very, very slim.

Just explaining my thoughts. I will continue to render the test overrated. JMO.

[Schag]

Then I would want proof your stud is clean, he has the potential to be a carrier much more than my female. Simply by exposure alone, but dogs die in days that get it. This is not something they will recover from in a consistant manner.

She has never been bred and only gun hunted....make sense... chances of it being there are slim, very, very slim.

Just explaining my thoughts. I will continue to render the test overrated. JMO.

Maybe you misread what I typed. That was the point I was getting at...the stud should be tested every time as well if it is that serious.

I should have said it would only take one time for a female that was not tested, to infect the male and then he goes on to spread the disease to your clean, tested, female.

[BCBeagles]

I agree, I understand what you said completely prior comments made it sound like the female has "more" of a chance...simply not true if the hound has been studded before.

No offense intended Jason....lol.

Bottom line, I find it overrated and a bit of a waste, but that is me.

[Schag]

No offense taken. I am actually agreeing with you, just not explaining myself too well. I tried to edit one of my posts.

[NeilKimbrel7]

I've often wondered the same thing. It is my opinion that it is not a problem today because of the testing before breeding. Ivr never heard of dogs dying within days of exposure. I always heard a symptom of brucelosis was females aborting pups in their 3rd trimester.

[gwyoung]

Jim, how would you know if a healthy dog was involved ? Brucellosis can produce absolutely no symptoms in a hound. A male can live for a normal lifespan without any symptoms. It is not a strictly sexually transmitted disease and many hounds infected will be infected by means other than breeding, though breeding with an infected animal is a great way of getting it, practically guaranteed. I would never breed a female to a male who's owner does not require a negative test from every female, or who does not have his male tested periodically. Bruce, as far as unhealthy hounds, you hit that on the head.99% of the hounds I own will live out their normal lifespan without seeing a vet, other than a rabies shot ( state law) Some folks always seem to have a problem, Mange, C-sections, losing weight, knots here and there, coughing, dying, hair falling off them, sores, etc: what the hell is up with all of that?