HEres my new baby Mia: 3 month
And here's Sookie my sweet little girl that i lost
Hi there, hunting with basenjis, visiting Nocturnal
-
Double post, can't figure out how to delete!
-
This breed DOES HAVE HIP DYSPLASIA.
Any breeder NOT testing ALL breeding stock for Hip Dysplasia is NOT a reputable or repsonsible breeder.. PERIOD. -
If you have a 20 lb ur-dog with dysplastic hips, you are doing something seriously wrong. Start by evaluating your nutrition and exercise protocols.
-
Hip dysplasia certainly can have a genetic component, but environmental factors are significant in determining whether it will be expressed. Overfeeding is a biggie here! (horse breeders ran into similar problems when feed manufacturers started pushing food for early rapid growth. Suddenly an explosion of "contracted tendons" was running through barns that were using such food.)
-
Mixie, honest, CHD is not nutrition and exercise determined. How do I know this for a fact… ? YOU CAN ACCURATELY tell if a puppy has CHD at 5 mos of age with both OFA and PennHip. While you can obviously make worse, make symptomatic, with poor diet and obesity, it is absolutely genetic. Dogs who have good hips at a young age KEEP GOOD HIPS, across the board. So if diet and even obesity created hip dyplasia, sorry but you'd see a lot wider scale
A recent publication* compared the reliability of the preliminary evaluation hip grade phenotype with the 2 year old evaluation in dogs and there was 100% reliability for a preliminary grade of excellent being normal at 2 years of age (excellent, good, or fair).
There was 97.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of good being normal at 2 years of age,
and 76.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of fair being normal at 2 years of age.
Reliability of preliminary evaluations increased as age at the time of preliminary evaluation increased, regardless of whether dogs received a preliminary evaluation of normal hip conformation or HD.
For normal hip conformations, the reliability was 89.6% at 3-6 months,
93.8% at 7-12 months,
and 95.2% at 13-18 months. T
hese results suggest that preliminary evaluations of hip joint status in dogs are generally reliable. However, dogs that receive a preliminary evaluation of fair or mild hip joint conformation should be reevaluated at an older age (24 months).<<PennHip is highly accurate at only 16 wks.
I am a big believer in nutrition, don't get me wrong. But study after study after study has proven that CHD is genetic. Dogs on same diet, in controlled studies... CHD parents, one parent, no parent was the main predictor of puppies having CHD.
The "under 20 pounds" is simply misinformation. Although larger breeds absolutely have more symptoms due to weight on the hips. But no, it is not just dogs over 20 pounds. Then number 2 highest rate are tiny pugs. Under 20 pound Norfolk Terriers are 15th. Frenchies (28 is TOP weight, most closer to 20)... are 18th.
Breeders who lie and say no need to test are just lying... or seriously misinformed. Either way, not a breeder you want to use. And while under 4 percent of basenjis TESTED have chd, we are woefully under-tested.
-
It is definitely genetic. Its expression is also highly dependent on environmental factors. We've genotyped the whole sequence and pinpointed it as a polygenetic trait related to osteoarthritis: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013219
But the testing currently in use isn't genetic. It's qualitative and subjective. I've seen breeders shop for vets in order to get great ratings on dogs with terrible hips. I've also seen, in person, a vet manipulate bad hips to get a good film. Both methods of visual evaluation are highly subjective as currently operating. Furthermore, expression is only half the picture. I've seen dogs from long lines of well-rated and extremely athletic, functional, field-proven animals turn up dysplastic when fed and exercised incorrectly in a pet home… meaning dogs with excellent conformation and who is a more-than-sound mover with a long, long record of field functionality AND an excellent OFA rating may still carry the gene.
Just like "papers" are no guarantee of quality, an OFA score on the parents is no guarantee that your pup won't be dysplastic if you raise her with mediocre nutrition and conditioning.When the direct, genetic test becomes both widely available and reasonably priced, I will be all for its use. Until then, natural selection has done a great job building a balanced, functional animal here that, without the intervention of contemporary breeding practices, is perfectly functional as-is. It's not surprising (to me, anyway) that dogs which deviate greatly from a natural build also are significantly more likely to express CHD phenotypically. I am in no way claiming that the gene for CHD doesn't exist in basenjis. I am pointing out that a dog of this type and build does not express bad hips on any significant scale, and it's not something that I am even remotely concerned about.
Now, what I am concerned about, and what you are concerned about, may be two entirely different things. Some people are thrilled to pay thousands of dollars for a dog from breeding stock tested for everything under the sun, including conditions for which the breed is among the "least affected" among all dogs. For me, and my purposes, I know precisely what I want in a dog and what I expect of my breeder. It's by no means necessary for us to see eye-to-eye on those counts. But I am, personally, a little fed up with the divisions drawn between who is "reputable" and "responsible", and who is not. I'm not going to get political, here, because it's probably not the place for it, but if there's one thing I've learned in all the years I've been around dogs and dog people and the "dog fancy", it's that the only thing ten breeders can agree on is that the other nine are disreputable and irresponsible.
-
Just a little note on hips. I personally know of a dog (not saying the breed) that went "Top Dog in Canada" a number of years ago…....and when x-rayed, that dog had bad hips. He also had a fabulous, free gait, and remained sound, so go figure. (they re-did the x-rays a time or two, for conformation, and the breeder kept all breedings in house, to control and examine the offspring).
-
HD is in BASENJIS…. and it is genetic... for sure some "might" be from other causes, but it is something that any responsible breeder will test for BEFORE breed.
-
This thread got me curious, and I wondered what the incidence of HD is in Basenjis. I found this, although I haven't chased down verification, but it seems right to me: Basenjis are one of the least affected at 3.2% of those tested being dysplastic and 23.7% having an 'excellent' score. . Breeders undoubtedly should test, but I would be willing to roll the dice on those stats, especially if I had seen the sire and dam of the pup I was buying.
-
Right. HD is in Basenjis the same way that epilepsy is; roughly 3% across the board for all dogs. There is just flat-out no reason to insist that someone is a bad or irresponsible breeder for choosing not to bother with a highly subjective screening process for a condition that affects extremely few dogs in this breed. That is malicious BS.
tanza, your scare quotes suggest that you think the environmental issue is a minor one. CHD has a heritability of approximately 0.25-0.5. That means anywhere from 50-75% of CHD is environmental or cofactored with a polygenetic influence.
Whether or not a dog carrying the gene set actually expresses phenotypically with functionally dysplastic hips IS highly environmentally dependent. To repeat what I said above, the test we currently use IS NOT GENETIC. It does not screen for the GENES that cause CHD. It only screens for phenotypic presentation. That means there are a whole lot of dogs carrying the gene who come through with fine ratings, a relatively unknown percentage of dogs with "non-genetic" CHD, and means the test is largely useless; or rather, is only as useful as you trust your breeder and your breeder's vet… which brings us back to the rationale of rolling the dice on a breed with a nearly non-existent expression of the disease, visual evaluation of several generations of breeding stock, and a breeder with multiple decades worth of experience.
I keep my pups lean and slow-growing (following Baker Institute/Cornell protocol which demonstrated reduction of expression up to ~60%) on a prey-model raw diet of mostly grass-fed animals, preferentially heavy in cartilaginous parts, exercise judiciously, and again... it's very simply nothing that even remotely concerns me in this breed. Kidneys? Absolutely. Eyes? You betcha. Hips? No.Your rights and abilities to breed your dogs are being eroded very quickly by people who believe that ALL of you are "exploiters" and "abusers" and "puppy millers". Slandering each other like this, they're twenty or thirty years ahead of us in organization and cohesion of message. There are certainly welfare issues to consider, and hard lines to draw, but THIS is most definitely, abso-f*ing-lutely not one of them. Calling people names and casting aspersions on their character and motives because they choose not to test for something that almost never happens in this breed is ABSURD. It's petty and mean and self-destructive.
If you, as a breeder, choose to ofa/pennhip your dogs, that's peachy. If you choose to test for a billion other things that occur in .0-3% of the canine population, that's just peachy, too. I, as a buyer, am careful with my money and my purchasing choices to support breeding practices that most efficiently and effectively benefit the population as a whole. I would not pay an extra $500-1000 for a puppy because its parents were tested for a pile of stuff that has very little real-world benefit for my purposes. I think it's just fine if other people do; I'm pro-choice like that. I'm not going to go around slandering those breeders as "bad" or "irresponsible" for doing things differently than I prefer.
-
The percentage you quote is "of the ones" tested and since with Hip scores, it is the owners priviledge if "non" normal results are published or not and I know for a fact there are Basenjis with HD that are not public listed with OFA. Also there are ones done with PennHip that are also not part of any % given. As they say, if you don't test, you will never know…
I stated that responsible breeders test before breeding and that is my right and my opinion on what makes a responsible breeder. Hips, thyroid, Fanconi, along with DNA for PRA. Was this done by this breeder (DNA for PRA)?
-
This thread got me curious, and I wondered what the incidence of HD is in Basenjis. I found this, although I haven't chased down verification, but it seems right to me: Basenjis are one of the least affected at 3.2% of those tested being dysplastic and 23.7% having an 'excellent' score. . Breeders undoubtedly should test, but I would be willing to roll the dice on those stats, especially if I had seen the sire and dam of the pup I was buying.
You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know
-
You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know
Yes, I appreciate that. I also understand that anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but for what it is worth, I have never seen a Basenji with hip dysplasia, although I sure have seen lots of examples in other breeds. I tend to agree that x-ray evidence can be "fudged", and it will be a good thing when we have an actual genetic test for the condition.
Unfortunately, once you close registries and start breeding for show as opposed to performance, you are bound to encounter increasing problems with genetic deficiencies. Breeding away from certain traits can also have unintended consequences, particularly with conditions that are linked to desirable traits as well as the ones you are trying to erase. I sympathize with the Border Collie people who desperately did not want the breed recognized for bench showing. Who knows whether the Basenji that evolved over thousands of years will in the future retain any resemblance to the dogs imported from Africa? What changes will be rendered by breeding for show ring results, as opposed to being selected for hardiness and hunting ability? But now we are on to another topic!
-
You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know
With the completely subjective qualitative test we use now, even WHEN tested, you don't know; you are not testing for genetic markers.
Are we all clear on this? The test you are doing only shows if your dog has bad hips. It does not show if your dog will pass bad hips to offspring. In fact, more than half the time, YOU are giving bad hips to your dogs' offspring.
If we are going to continue talking about this, I need to be sure we all understand this. I come from a background working with dogs that DO have a very significant rate of CHD, and this is a subject that means a great deal to me. I don't want to come off like I'm being combative for the sake of being combative, here. Good hips are a BIG DEAL for working animals, and the people who taught me everything I know about dogs depend on their canine partners for their actual lives, in reality. Not just economically, I mean, actual life-or-death situations, where, if your dog is slow to the strike or his limb collapses under him, you might actually die. Structural soundness means 100% of everything to me. I want to be expressly clear that I care very, very much about how to breed and rear a dog with good biomechanics.The test we are currently using does not screen for genetics. It doesn't screen for functionality. Its results are certainly variable according to the skill and/or shadiness of your vet. We know that somewhere between half and three quarters of CHD is "caused", rather than bred. The <4% incidence rate in this breed is ABSOLUTELY within range of "environmental co-factors". Hell, ~3% is a reasonable margin of error, period.
Yes, it is certainly your "right" set your own standards for what YOU do, and what you advocate for. That certainly leaves plenty of room for my "right" to point out that some of your standards are unnecessary and may serve to bottleneck your gene pool in ways that are not beneficial. It's also most certainly my right to vote with my wallet for the practices I support. I do not MIND if someone wants to have their dogs' hips X-rayed. But really… put it in perspective. They did just fine for 13,000 years without first-world hobbyists x-raying their joints.
The dog fancy is dying from a thousand cuts right now, and most of those cuts come from you slashing at each other. If you want to retain the right to keep breeding your dogs, you are going to have to stop cutting each other down. I'm just a pet owner that wants to keep being able to buy dogs from practitioners I respect. I don't mind that you encourage people to do their very best to improve the health of their dogs, but I do mind when it stops being a reasoned choice and a discussion about allocation of resources, and starts being a weapon you use to attack each other.
-
I beg to differ with you mixie…. testing parents/greatparents/great grandparents will show if it is coming genetic line...
And I hold to my belief that if you don't test, you don't know... and that is not good for the breed. If you want to support a breeder that doesn't full test, that is your right. Is it right... nope, not in my opinion... if you CAN afford to breed and raise a litter you should be testing as much as you can, period
-
I beg to differ with you mixie…. testing parents/greatparents/great grandparents will show if it is coming genetic line...
You don't have to beg. I'm not stopping you from differing.
No, multi-generation testing doesn't demonstrate the presence of the genes. It shows that you have consistently bad hips. You could be feeding your dogs incorrectly, or conditioning them incorrectly, or they could be injuring themselves, or a combination of all of the above. A consistent environmental influence causing dysplastic hips looks exactly the same on film as a consistent genetic influence causing dysplastic hips. We even have evidence to show that pediatric alteration significantly impacts the CHD expression rate. So you could have generations of functionally clear dogs who are genetic carriers, sell most of your puppies on an early s/n contract, have a bunch of pups come up with joint mobility issues in early adulthood, and STILL have no idea whether it's genetic or environmental, or both.We are all free to hold onto whatever we like. But let's not get dramatic about it. You don't "full test". You don't test for a variety of things that have a 3/100 chance of occurring. I am not slandering you as an irresponsible breeder for not testing for every conceivable congenital issue under the sun. I'm not even slandering you for not testing for everything that happens at a >3% rate of expression.
I agree that it's nice if you can throw an endless fountain of play money at your hobby, for sure. That's great, and people should absolutely do the most and best they can. I am, personally, not of the opinion that only the leisurely wealthy should have the right to breed dogs, or own purpose-bred dogs, so if like most people you have a limited hobby budget to dedicate toward preserving a precious living relic, you could also put that money toward improving a variety of environmental factors which are at the VERY LEAST equal in influence to the polygenetic traits that we know about, particularly in a dog which, after 13,000 years of completely uncontrolled breeding, has a functional disease expression rate within a margin of error of zero.
-
Have to Laugh at your position on heath testing… the breed considers health testing before breeding.... and that is from Basenji Club of America. Glad that you are happy with your pup.. and hope that in the future that you will consider full health testing before breeding... and if not breeding, hope that you have a healthy dog and breed to a healthy dog that have been totally health tested.
I do not believe that it is "throwing" money away to health test before breeding...
-
Tanza, I can't tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, or if I'm not making myself clear, so I'm going to try one more time to lay my position on this out for you, and then be done with it.
There are some things for which we have excellent, effective testing available, which makes a significant difference to the health of your breeding program.
There are some things we have clumsy tests for; millions of dollars in biomedical research later, we have a better understanding of the diseases' heritability and causes of expression. Using these tests is a piece of the puzzle that should be used appropriately, when useful. They're not always useful, and sometimes their use can be detrimental.
One way over-testing for non-issues can be detrimental, is with a condition that MORE THAN HALF OF THE TIME is environmentally caused. Choosing to visually evaluate your dogs' hips is not a bad thing, per se. But it's not a big deal, either. And when you're working with a small gene pool and a closed studbook, without a significant reason for concern, culling your gene pool against something for which you have zero proof of genetic basis (since the test is not genetic), or even any tangible reason for concern on that count is not wise. But then, it's not wise to arbitrarily cull your limited gene pool for color, either, which you guys do.
I certainly didn't say "health testing" in general is a waste of money. I demanded to see the test results I cared about, and was pleased that she had done them before even knowing whether she was keeping Scout for her breeding program, or not.
What I said was that I don't know a lot of people these days with an endless fountain of disposable income for a hobby. Maybe you do. I am making very considered choices with my dog-buying-dollar, and so is Sarah, with her breed-preservation-dollar. Aside from the dogs, she also raises small-scale, free-range heritage ducks, turkeys, cattle, and sheep. She's been specifically working for genetic preservation of critically endangered livestock animals for more than thirty years as a member of the ALBC. She is thoughtful, experienced, practical, and has a great eye for a naturally balanced, functional animal. She does not ask a fortune for her dogs, and the money she does make goes toward an extremely thoughtful, hand-built breeding program.
I'm really disgusted at the tone, here. -
You made you position very clear and also your choice of breeders, I just happen to not agree that breeder is a responsible breeder. And this especially because they breed more than just one breed….
-
I think this goes under the heading of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". It depends on your perspective.
The one thing that is not in doubt is that you both have the best of intentions for the breed. I do applaud that Pat uses her dogs for coursing. Personally I don't give a fig for titles obtained in the breed ring, I've witnessed too much (admittedly in other breeds, but why would Basenjis be different?) to think that the best conformation always wins the prize. But it's hard to fake performance, and IMO all breeding stock should be tested that way before being used. Something like the criteria for warmblood horses.
Unnecessarily reducing the gene pool is another issue that deserves serious consideration. Many good and excellent rated hips have produced dysplasia in the breeds prone to it…...
