Superb results! Understandably you are very happy as I am for Peggy and you! 🙂
Tilly's Fanconi Test Results
-
Just read about your results and would join the others in saying how sorry I am.
Personally I do not agree with carriers being used as they will only produce more carriers!
The argument is used that good breed points will be lost but they are often lost any way - no guarantee that they will be passed on! 'Ss' law says they won't!Tilly is a lovely bitch - yes you were right about the results at WELKS she should have been 1st in her class. I will be very interested to read the judge's critique. The bitch was withdrawn because she had been frightened.
Best wishes for future successes.
A carrier bred to a clear will produce carriers AND clears…you could keep a clear and be done with carriers (by having them spayed or neutered) in one generation.
I can respect that you wouldn't want to use a carrier...but there is nothing wrong with breeders who do.
-
Everytime we choose not to use a dog diversity is lost in our genepool. We lose so much already due to things like popular sire syndrome it would IMO be catastrophic to the breed to further reduce diversity by eliminating all carriers simply because they are carriers. There are far more issues in the breed than just Fanconi and all bottlenecking for one reason or another will only help to express other issues in the breed like a rise in PRA, HD, Hypothyroidism, or some other condition that may currently be quite rare. It is better for the breed that the gene is eliminated over several generations.
-
Even though I am not a breeder, I totally agree with using carriers and even male affecteds bred to a clear. I rescue Bs and have had only a few affecteds but I have quite a few with different eye diseases, probably all of them genetic. I worry about the other diseases that will occur more frequently when one limits the breeding diversity!
As long as the breeder keeps track of the carriers and do not allow them to breed to another carrier and/or affected then I see no problem. I do know accidents and things happen though.
Owning and taking care of an affected is not the worst thing that could happen. I own one and she is doing great at 10 1/2.
-
And if you go to my website you all will see that I am planning a co-breeding this fall that will be Affected (via frozen since the male is deceased) to Clear… we thought long and hard about this... however, we are responsible and knowing that all will be carriers it is the breeders responsibility to make sure they know where all those pups are and what people are doing with them... same goes for any Carrier to Clear... some will be clear, some will be carriers.. it then becomes the breeders responsibility to make sure they know everything there is to know about the homes, the people, what is happening to those pups.... We are IMO, shooting ourselves in the foot to throw out Carriers and Affected males (especially ones that have been collected)... my personal opinion is I would never use an affected bitch, but to throw out these others is really to limit our already limited gene pool. We are doing this breeding because there is great temperament and the particular male has produced some very nice dogs, since he was used before 1. the Fanconi test and 2. Before he started spilling.... dogs that IMO we should not want to lose to the breed.... And the fact that Fanconi is a recessive gene, with responsible breeders we can eliminate over several generations.
And lvoss is so right... Fanconi is NOT the only problem our breed has... we need now as responsible breeder work towards elimination of those too.... Sometimes I just scratch my head seeing some breedings that the dogs are DNA for Fanconi and nothing else, yet you look at the pedigree and see Hip problems, eye problems, thyroid problems...etc.... and then people try and justify breeding those dogs regardless... to on top of that reduce the gene pool is just putting ourselves back to the HA days
-
We are very lucky to have good breeders working to improve the health of our beloved breed.
-
Dear All
Quercus,I totally agree that it is an individual thing - obviously breeders do have their own good reasons for using carriers, affecteds etc. and I'm certainly not saying they are wrong. - this is my personal opinion about not using carriers.
Tanza, I also agree that there is more to worry about than Fanconi which is not a very well researched syndrome in the UK. I strongly feel that the Basenji's kidney function needs research too but being a minority breed I know this will not come about.
I agree too that the gene pool is limited but interestingly when I asked Steve Gonto why he thought that we do not have a major Fanconi problem here (UK) he replied that it was because our gene pool was smaller!! Fortunately in the UK we do not have a lot of recognised problems but as I look at many of the dog's constructon I foresee some arising in the future.
Another problem we have here is that few suitable homes are available so that selling carriers of any disease could be difficult. I have kept all but one of my last litter because although there was, and is a good deal of interest I only found one person who was a suitable owner.
-
Another problem we have here is that few suitable homes are available so that selling carriers of any disease could be difficult. I have kept all but one of my last litter because although there was, and is a good deal of interest I only found one person who was a suitable owner.
Just curious…are you talking about a suitable owner for a basenji in general or a suitable owner for a carrier.
-
and I am very grateful to you for letting me have my wonderful little girl!!!
-
Dear All
Quercus,I totally agree that it is an individual thing - obviously breeders do have their own good reasons for using carriers, affecteds etc. and I'm certainly not saying they are wrong. - this is my personal opinion about not using carriers.
Tanza, I also agree that there is more to worry about than Fanconi which is not a very well researched syndrome in the UK. I strongly feel that the Basenji's kidney function needs research too but being a minority breed I know this will not come about.
I agree too that the gene pool is limited but interestingly when I asked Steve Gonto why he thought that we do not have a major Fanconi problem here (UK) he replied that it was because our gene pool was smaller!! Fortunately in the UK we do not have a lot of recognised problems but as I look at many of the dog's constructon I foresee some arising in the future.
Another problem we have here is that few suitable homes are available so that selling carriers of any disease could be difficult. I have kept all but one of my last litter because although there was, and is a good deal of interest I only found one person who was a suitable owner.
I totally disagree with your statement about not having a major Fanconi problem…. I think that UK has just dodged the bullet for years. Look how many that were tested from Europe have come back as Carriers or Affected?... In my opinion it was just a short matter of time before Fanconi exploded in the UK... And I am not so sure that the gene pool is smaller in the UK, but more that there are less Basenjis in general. And have people really talked about Fanconi affected dogs. You know when I got in the breed, I heard over and over from people in Europe, Fanconi is not a problem, same from Aussie breeders.... until the test came out... and then all these dogs started showing up as Carriers and/or Affecteds.
-
It would be interesting to know just how many dogs in the UK (of sufficient quality to be used at stud) have actually been tested as probably clear - I know of a few but so few people have actually tested their dogs how on earth can we make assumptions about how widespread Fanconi is in the UK?
Tilly's mother is of "british" bloodlines, and must be at least a carrier - so Fanconi is out there - its not just stemming from imported stock.
I dont wish to keep harking back to Dobermanns, but when Von Willebrands became a recognised issue back in the late 80's/early 90's, many uk breeders were convinced it all stemmed from a few US imports who sired affected pups - and totally denied that their lines could have anything to do with it. This of course was complete rubbish - british lines had to have the carriers there as well, and this proved to be the case as more people tested. No-one can be blamed for having these things crop up in their lines - thats life, things happen. But when a test becomes available (even if it is not a definitive test) then there is no excuse for not using whatever means available to help identify the status of breeding stock to ensure no Affecteds are produced.
To ignore carriers in a breeding programme would do a great disservice to the breed- especially in the UK where choices are limited to begin with.
-
Im sorry to hear your Tilly has come back as affected
-
On the OFA site you can sort pretty much any of the fields. So I would guess that UK registration numbers are unique, like AKC registration numbers? So you could sort the list and look that way, provided that people are using the correct registration numbers.
-
renaultf1 - I mean Basenjis in general!
Tanza - I respect what you say. Re gene pool and major problem in the UK- I was only quoting Dr Gonto in reply to a question asked of him. I recall he said he'd advised on 11 over several years.
As Elscodobermann said, until every breeder tests we don't know of how many affected dogs we have here.
I'm not sure of present testing but some people did test before the latest Gary Johnston linked marker. I can only recall a few having been suspected of having developed Fanconi. Those that now have their dogs tested are open about it but on the whole people here are not. I queried with OFA how long a line could just breed carriers. I have only bred for approx 30 years but I have carried on the lines of a breeder who started in the very early 40s - I do know that Fanconi was not diagnosed in her lines nor in mine. Not to say there couldn't have been carriers but statistically, I would have thought that at some point the syndrome would have occurred, although I could be wrong!
I should also add that I am not totally qualified to comment because I have not had my dogs tested for the linked marker. As I had bred my last litter (and don't intend to breed again),when the test was made available here, it doesn't seem necessary. Of course if any one decides they want to use my dog I would have him tested first and also his parents.
However because I care desperately about the breed and have devoted my life to it, it is all is of great concern to me. When it is your own dog diagnosed probably affected I do know how tragic it must be and I feel so desperately sorry for any one who it happens to.
We do have other major problems of course, mainly constructional I think.
Incidentally it seems to me that a great percentage of breeders in the USA do test - am I correct? Probably in years to come it will be the same here. Unforunately our KC are not keen to recognise the linked marker test.
Elscodobermann - I've just looked through the WELKS catalogue and of 10 Breeders there, 5 definitely do test and 2 definitely don't - the other 3, I'm not sure whether they do but they might. It's perhaps not as bad as one might think. Incidentaly I think Tilly's mother's pedigree does include imported stock but I don't think that's got anything to do with it -after all Fanconi Syndrome arises from a mutant gene - when you go down that road it's non-productive!
Tanza -This subject seems to attract many opinions which does mean that people do care which must be good for the future of our beloveds. -
I totally agree that people do care about the breed and that is a good thing, the fact that we can and do discuss openly is what IMO, makes our breed head and shoulders above many others.
In the US, many, many breeders are testing.. however there are most likely just as many Back Yard breeders, Puppy Mills, and even people that call themselves responsible that are not testing.
I am curious, about you not testing yours? Don't you want to know that status, regardless if you are going to breed anymore or not?
I think that many breeders all over the world started testing due to peer pressure… and found out that they indeed had carriers and/or affecteds. Honestly that was one of the things that many of us hoped for, that through peer pressure people would have to test.
-
I remember when I was new to the breed and had made a statement on an email list that Fanconi had been diagnosed in basenjis all over the world and having a breeder in a foreign country email me to tell me that there were no cases of Fanconi in her country, I was wrong and should learn to keep my mouth shut. Dr Gonto had people contact him from that country with cases, they were ostracized by other breeders in their country and if they made it public they were called liars. Even where the reaction was not as extreme as in that particular case, I do think that there has been something of a code of silence regarding Fanconi so it is hard to judge the incidence unless testing is being done.
-
Tanza - You are right about peer pressure - I have actually seen it here in the last few years - gradually people who at first didn't test followed the example of their fellow breeders and I can see that in the not too distant future the majority will test because they will want to use studs of breeders who insist that the bitch must be tested. In a small country like ours peer pressure is particularly effective.
You ask why I haven't tested my dogs - for several reasons really, but my dogs are fit and healthy and because I know my lines and a great deal of the dogs in them I have no cause to think that my basenjis are affected and so am not worried to that extent. If I thought that there was a possibility of them getting the syndrome and so could be forewarned of the necessity to treat them I would test. There is the possibility that we could have always had carriers through the generations and so if really necessary, as I said, I would do so. There are other quite personal reasons which I can't go into here.
We are very lucky here in that Puppy Farmers, as we call them do not trade in Basenjis as they are a non-commercial breed but do have the problems of irresponsible breeders.
When I re-read my answer as to why I don't test I realise that it could seem a strange answer to you, I hope not any how!!
Ivoss - its a little bit like that here but everyone is getting more relaxed about it now, thank goodness. I actually feared there would be a 'witch hunt' as I've seen that before in our breed about many other things!! There was quite a bit of anger about our Breed Council inviting Dr Gonto over to speak and many just refused to go to listen. Those of us who did go learned a great deal and I have tried to impress on the then 'antis' just how useful and informative his talk was.
Benkura - thank you as well, you have given her a lovely home. -
Personally I do not agree with carriers being used as they will only produce more carriers!
The argument is used that good breed points will be lost but they are often lost any way - no guarantee that they will be passed on! 'Ss' law says they won't!Using ONLY clears is a sure way to limit the already small gene pool and have other issues start to show up in vast numbers. This is a crazy way to think. Having lived with both Fanconi Affects AND blind dogs, I couldn't imagine purposely whittling the gene pool to near nothing.
A carrier bred to a clear will produce carriers AND clears…
*Although I'd love to believe this, it is what we WANT to happen,m but no it does not happen all the time. This should read breeding a carrier to a clear MAY produce clears.
Tanza, I also agree that there is more to worry about than Fanconi which is not a very well researched syndrome in the UK. I strongly feel that the Basenji's kidney function needs research too but being a minority breed I know this will not come about.
I am not sure how much you know about Fanconi Syndrome, or that it has been around for YEARS and YEARS. Research has been going on since the 1970s, so I think that is a pretty damned long time. I know the KC does things way differently than in the States, but I'd think that all the research done over here should be taken pretty seriously over there.
I agree too that the gene pool is limited but interestingly when I asked Steve Gonto why he thought that we do not have a major Fanconi problem here (UK) he replied that it was because our gene pool was smaller!! Fortunately in the UK we do not have a lot of recognised problems but as I look at many of the dog's constructon I foresee some arising in the future.
I can tell you right now there are more than that. I can also tell you that just because he says he's talked to 11 people… does that mean that is all there is? Heck no. I know of multiple people that were VERY put off by his rudeness in emails and will not deal with him in any way because of it. Sure, he knows Fanconi, but tact is not his forte.
Your gene pool may be smaller, but since we know of UK dogs impoted to the US that have produced it and tested as carriers tells us that the gene IS in the UK.I totally disagree with your statement about not having a major Fanconi problem…. I think that UK has just dodged the bullet for years. Look how many that were tested from Europe have come back as Carriers or Affected?... In my opinion it was just a short matter of time before Fanconi exploded in the UK... And I am not so sure that the gene pool is smaller in the UK, but more that there are less Basenjis in general. And have people really talked about Fanconi affected dogs. You know when I got in the breed, I heard over and over from people in Europe, Fanconi is not a problem, same from Aussie breeders.... until the test came out... and then all these dogs started showing up as Carriers and/or Affecteds.
C'mon Pat, if you don't test, you must NOT have it!! :eek:
Tanza - You are right about peer pressure - I have actually seen it here in the last few years - gradually people who at first didn't test followed the example of their fellow breeders and I can see that in the not too distant future the majority will test because they will want to use studs of breeders who insist that the bitch must be tested. In a small country like ours peer pressure is particularly effective.
You ask why I haven't tested my dogs - for several reasons really, but my dogs are fit and healthy and because I know my lines and a great deal of the dogs in them I have no cause to think that my basenjis are affected and so am not worried to that extent. If I thought that there was a possibility of them getting the syndrome and so could be forewarned of the necessity to treat them I would test. There is the possibility that we could have always had carriers through the generations and so if really necessary, as I said, I would do so. There are other quite personal reasons which I can't go into here.I have found over the past few years that Europeans are coming to the US for dogs as we are doing Fanconi Testing regularly.. and for any dog to have been whelped and tested Affected SINCE the test came about is utterly irresponsible by the breeders, regardless of who they are… unfortunately, it is still happening.
I still believe that until these breeders LIVE with a Fanconi Affected dog, they will not know how serious the issue can be.
-
*Although I'd love to believe this, it is what we WANT to happen,m but no it does not happen all the time. This should read breeding a carrier to a clear MAY produce clears.
.
Right, of course I should have said "may, or can" produce clears…of course with my luck, the whole litter would be carriers....no, wait....with my luck, the wrong test result would have been given to me, and my clear bitch would actually be a carrier....
-
Having been in the breed for a 'couple' of years - and also understanding scientific process terminology here is my thought(s).
UK and other European countries have maintained for years that they did not have fanconi, hip dysplasia etc etc (insert breed and insert disease). To disabuse everone of that 'myth' Gonto's once published that he had samples from every country that had basenjis - and all countries had it. He did not divulge names of animals, kennels or people as he had promised confidentiality - but he did say it was beyond the US.
When a scientist makes a statement about "gene pool too small to get it" I believe that is someone interpertation that is their understanding of what they think was said. What was likely said is that "your sample size is too small". which means there are not enough dogs collected to make a blanket statement of the prevalance of the disease.
One thing I have learned with working with my Portuguese Breed and breeders overseas is that they focus on something like "fit for purpose" Those who cannot do what the purpose is don't live (either because of natural result or are eliminated) - so how would you know what disease they carry. I have had tons of breeders tell me that the Podengo has no health issues - well guess what - in the small size they get legg calves PErth just like other small breeds - if they can't hunt rabbits in portugal however - they are killed. End of problem.
Now I'm hearing of some dogs with seizures - thyroid? or something else - who knows no one tests.
BUT I also remember one of the reasons our original gene pool got so small and interrelated in the US was by removing too many dogs from the gene pool with aggressive HA and PRA testing. I think it's smart to know - and smart to use that knowledge to improve the breeds health AND diverstiy.
-
My litter was carrier to clear (which was before testing was available) I had three carriers and one clear, I was unlucky, I know of a litter bred this year carrier to clear that had three clear and one carrier, one dog and two bitches, we can't afford to completely discount carriers (obviously only to clear), but I do believe that all of the pups should be tested and the prospective owners told of the results, now that the test is so much simpler and quicker it is much easier to do.
