Jamie Nial· Registered
My wisdom one was very accurate.I knew what made up my pup roughly and i guessed all but two in the dna makeup one on the dams side and one on the sires , It doesn’t recognise the xl bully as a breed ,but it recognises the breeds that make up the xl ,which I knew ,and so predicted what would come back. everything they predicted is pretty much there eye colour,coat length and colour . Predicted weight is on course although they gave a range of 22-34 kgs so gave themselves margin for error …. gene for extra bulk and muscle on back seems to be there ? as well which they showed as is the low shed gene , and his coat is showing that already . If I didn’t have a clue before hand then I’d have been more sceptical, but knowing roughly in advance and then finding out the breeding was nice to clarify it and interesting , I feel I know more about my boy and his traits are bang on for his breedsI will second that Embarks health testing piece can be great data, but they aren't super rigorous regarding genetic markers for breeds and my personal opinion is that they use that more as a marketing tool to get people to spend money and essentially fund their research projects. I don't hold it against them, I just wouldn't trust the breed data. Plenty of folks around can tell you stories of littermates whose breeds come back different from each other. Bull breeds in particular are tricky and a lot of folks are discovering that nearly everything comes back American Bully these days. My dog was tested several years back before they added American Bully and so shows 3 breeds, but every close relative that pops up in recent years is designated an Ambully and like you see with Ambullies, it is a massive range of phenotypes that probably have a slew of completely different breeds in them (some more bulldoggy, some more mastiff type) and despite this they all are identifiably the "same breed" according to Embark. I have heard Wisdom is a bit more rigorous regarding breed, but with all these tests, their data is only as good as the initial data set used to define the genetic markers and so without an exhaustive collection of DNA for each breed, it should be taken with a grain of salt.