If breeder is doing a riskier breeding regarding a health issue, they are obligated to put the health of the brood bitch first, to diligently test and cull (thru neuter) offspring, and to let prosepctive puppy buyers know of the risks…but IMO not obligated to be skewered and slandered by their peers.
This is a good quote and I think the biggest problem that I have with breeders who choose to do risky breedings is when they are not honest with the prospective puppy buyers about the risks of the breeding. I have seen some scary pedigrees with not just high risk of 1 disease but multiple and the puppy buyers are not informed about the risk or have been told it "is no big deal".
Actually, if you want to get technical, these are not really accurate.
For example, when you breed a carrier to a carrier, you do not get the above percentages….
what should be known is that EACH pup has 25% chance of being clear, 25% chance of being affected, and a 50% chance of being a carrier.
That is quite different than how it is stated above.
I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.
I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.
Theoretically, a litter from two carriers could end up with all clear or all carrier, or all affected…however, the odds are against that. The laws of probability lean, on average, towards the 25/25/50 percentage mix.
Theoretically, a litter from two carriers could end up with all clear or all carrier, or all affected…however, the odds are against that. The laws of probability lean, on average, towards the 25/25/50 percentage mix.
And why Carrier to Carrier breedings should never happen….. The fact that you can produce an affected should stop anyone from doing a Carrier to Carrier....
And why Carrier to Carrier breedings should never happen….. The fact that you can produce an affected should stop anyone from doing a Carrier to Carrier....
That's absolutely right…I cannot fathom why anyone would even risk a form of genetic "Russian roulette" when it comes to the future health of our beloved breed?
Now that there's the linked DNA test, NO ONE has ANY excuse for breeding ANY basenji without first getting them tested, any more than one having a valid excuse to put a 1-bullet loaded revolver to their head.
That's absolutely right…I cannot fathom why anyone would even risk a form of genetic "Russian roulette" when it comes to the future health of our beloved breed?
Now that there's the linked DNA test, NO ONE has ANY excuse for breeding ANY basenji without first getting them tested, any more than one having a valid excuse to put a 1-bullet loaded revolver to their head.
Exactly… and well put......
OK that said… that shouid NOT stop a carrier to clear... or even for the right reasons a Clear to an Affected... that would produce a carrier.... we need to consider the entire gene pool and not throw things out... we have the test... and even producing carriers... by breeding the next generation you can breed out of even the carrier status... but then again you need to understand that breeders need to be aware of the DNA status and keep in touch personally and with a contract their puppy buyers.
I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.
Was this litter bred before or after the DNA test was made available?
You know where I'm having trouble with this whole DNA thing is this - I have done so much pedigree research on so many dogs asking the questions digging through the rumors that when I see a dog that is 'clear' where I KNOW there is a lot of documented fanconi - I still couldn't bring myself to risk it.
For example when you look at Hip displasia - if EVERY puppy in 2 litters was x-rayed you would be better off to breed to the Fair puppy in the litter of Good/excellent than to breed to the Good puppy in the litter of poor or fail. Has to do with how that is passed on.
I think - even with the DNA for Fanconi - until we have some longitudinal data I would still err on the side of caution so would not consider breeding to a clear if I know there was a lot of fanconi behind him or her. That's just me - but I couldn't - at least in theory.
With over 1000 dogs now tested, there has not been a test result so far where a dog that has tested as an affected has produced a "clear". Just because a pedigree is loaded with Fanconi producers does not mean that it can not produce a clear but as was already posted in this thread the odds are not in your favor but it can still happen. When 2 carriers are bred together each puppy has a 1 in 4 chance of being clear. So far the results that have been posted to OFA are very much as one would expect. There are families of Fanconi producers that tested with many carriers, some affecteds, and some clears. This is exactly what would be expected from the punnet square predictions.
I agree Lisa, I too have not seen any results that are not expected… Documented Fanconi is not the same as have the gene to express it... and as pointed out Carrier to Carrier have a 1 in 4 of clear, 1 in 4 of affected and 2 in 4 of Carrier...
Was this litter bred before or after the DNA test was made available?
Before. Pups from that litter are now adult dogs.
