@tuts - Hello tuts, note that the test recommend by OFA comes from the Basenji Club of America as recommended tests and for OFA this will determine if done that Basenji will get a CHIC rating. Note however this does not mean that they were clear, just means that they were tested. Some are test that need to be done yearly. Breed parent clubs for all breeds determine what tests need to be done
Tilly's Fanconi Test Results
-
And the more results that are in the database, the more information breeders have when thinking about breeding… regardless if you have pet pup... and never want to breed... it is the results that help the people that are breeding...
As I noted before...there were many that said "not in my line" as far as Fanconi, only to find out with the test that 90% of their dogs were carriers... so when breeding, they "dodged" Fanconi.. but what about that one person that might have bred to one of their dogs with another carrier?... and pop up with an affected?.... It is a credit to the breed for all those that have tested... and IMO... a cop out for those that do not test... the price of the cheek swab and test is reasonable for the future of our breed. (OK off the soapbox....)
-
I should have explained that WELKS (West of England Ladies Kennel Society) is our first outdoor championship show of the year.
Most of the breeders in the UK are now testing, some are not convinced, it is a shame because it is decreasing the gene pool. Out of five litters this year only two sires used, in such a small numerical breed it can't be good for the future.
Before the testing one of our breeders used an affected bitch to a carrier? dog (I don't see him on the data bank, so assume he isn't tested, this was one of the other litters sired by Tilly's dad), no-one was at fault there was no way of knowing, all of the offspring at this time to my knowledge appear fit and healthy, without testing the dogs we would have no idea there was a problem. I think that if it happened now there would be a lot of unhappy people pointing fingers.
-
It is a credit to the breed for all those that have tested… and IMO... a cop out for those that do not test... the price of the cheek swab and test is reasonable for the future of our breed. (OK off the soapbox....)
Go ahead Pat… stand up there and keep it warm for me!
Most of the breeders in the UK are now testing, some are not convinced, it is a shame because it is decreasing the gene pool. Out of five litters this year only two sires used, in such a small numerical breed it can't be good for the future.
Were those two sires tested as clear? An you are right… using only the same dogs in a small local/gene pool, it just gives way to a soon-to-occur bottleneck.
Before the testing one of our breeders used an affected bitch to a carrier? dog (I don't see him on the data bank, so assume he isn't tested, this was one of the other litters sired by Tilly's dad), no-one was at fault there was no way of knowing, all of the offspring at this time to my knowledge appear fit and healthy, without testing the dogs we would have no idea there was a problem. I think that if it happened now there would be a lot of unhappy people pointing fingers.
If this was before testing… how were they to know?
You have to keep in mind in the years preceding the linkage test, many dogs, did not start to spill until well into their veteran years.
I know lots of people like to think they know the health of all the dogs they have produced and I hear it all the time.
But people move, things happen, you lose touch.I am confused as above you mentioned another litter sired by Tilly's dad was to an affected. Was this at the same time as the litter that produced Tilly, or well-before the linkage test [meaning that the resulting pups are more than 20 months old]?
Don't cover your eyes, it IS happening now! There IS finger-pointing.
And quite frankly, these folks DESERVE to have fingers pointed at them!
Just ignoring it leads them to belive that what they are doing is OKAY and it is not okay in any way.I, for one, would not feel any guilt at the finger-pointing when there isn't a reason for these people to be breeding so irresponsibly.
-
There was no fault in the mating I mentioned as there was no test, Tilly is from a repeat mating from another litter produced at the time. I don't think at the time of Tilly's litter any of the previous pups from either litter had been tested, they were both lovely litters, all looking healthy, (and still looking healthy) I suppose that they thought there was no problem, they hadn't previously seen fanconi in their lines, they were sadly wrong, this is why nobody can say for sure their line is clear if none of them are tested.
Fanconi must start somewhere, are any of the dogs that have been imported from Africa coming back as carriers or affected? Or has this just mutated over the generations?
-
I don't see that there is any answer to those who breed without testing although of course that is their choice. No doubt when one of their breeding is tested and diagnosed they regret and blame themselves for not testing. But that doesn't help the people who have have been sold one of their pups who is diagnosed. In that case it's wiser to buy offspring from tested parents nowadays. I can't quite remember exactly when linked marker testing was known to be available here but I know litters have been bred since then.
Actually I've found that many people, including breeders do not really care about the breed as such. There are so many I've spoken to who really know very little and imagine that the breed started with them! - in fact a breeder once said to me that he didn't care about the past only from the time he started breeding.
Interesting to know that a symptom just crops up seemingly out of the blue - does any one know if research has been done on this? Eg. is there a common trigger? As I said before its strange to me that more research hasn't been done when Fanconi Syndrome would appear to be so rife.
Incidentally, since finding so much information on this site, I'm going through carrier's ,affected etc. pedigrees to check whether there is a common ancestor. Fairly easy here as I keep detailed pedigrees (and have done so since I learned to write!} also zande pedigree database is exceedingly helpful and saves my updating no end of time (all praise to that site).
Khanis, - WELKS is one of our champ shows but entries have traditionally been marginally lower than most of the others. We have very few entries at shows now - not even as much as 40 at many of our Champ shows. Club Champ shows are marginally better. You can see therefore, how easy it is to unearth information and how difficult it is to hide it!! I can't remember what our latest registration figure was but it was very low. There are a few breeders who breed every year but the Basenji, as I wrote before, is not, thankfully a commercial breed.
When I have bred (stopped now owing to age) it was mainly to keep the line going - I hold the oldest affix in the ring although it is one I have inherited from one of my mentors.
I do think though that testing is increasing here and I'm really quite sure that when the definitive test is established we will find that most breeders will automatically test their litters. What does concern me a bit is that some who test now seem to think that once they have had a clear litter they need not test any longer.
Comments gratefully invited.
Tanza - re pet pups, there is always the chance that accidental matings occur. That raises another question, if you know, - have there been cases of Fanconi being inherited in a mixed litter? -
Sorry I posted the last not having realised there is a next page so I have repeated what Moetmum said.
Moetmum - I think we might be now getting into a diffiult realm here because of the only recent advent of the test - I don't feel that we should talk about specific breeders who can be easily identified, without them being on this site and able to answer back. Just a comment and I don't mean to offend.
Re imported African dogs - I believe that all the recently imported dogs were tested free of Fanconi but the rest of the forum from the USA will be able to confirm this. I don't somehow think that it came with the very early dogs but as the mutation can occur through stress it's a perfectly valid theory that uprooting them from their forests and shipping them here could have caused such stress and hence subsequent mutation. Personally because of my experience, I assume that it cropped up later than this but you never know!!! -
There was Fanconi in the early Basenjis, it just did not have a name then and no protocol for treatment… In talking to breeders here in the US, it was just known as the kidney problem... And it has been in the US since Basenjis were introduced, as I have been told by older breeders. Of course without a name or records, one would not really know....
The newer Afs that have been introduced, the ones tested have tested clear.
-
Lukuru Amisi tested IND.
-
-
Interesting to know that a symptom just crops up seemingly out of the blue - does any one know if research has been done on this? Eg. is there a common trigger?
Though it may seem to us that the symptoms just crop up out of the blue in reality that is not what happens. The changes in the kidney start happening long before there are symptoms that are visible in the outward behavior or condition of the dog. As I stated before, many of the changes occur that effect blood chemistry that only specialized equipment can detect.
-
Though it may seem to us that the symptoms just crop up out of the blue in reality that is not what happens. The changes in the kidney start happening long before there are symptoms that are visible in the outward behavior or condition of the dog. As I stated before, many of the changes occur that effect blood chemistry that only specialized equipment can detect.
That is one of the fundamental challenges in veterinary medicine. Since animals cannot talk, they can't tell us when something is 'off' and frequently things are not noticed until the situation is pretty far along, because until the behavior or outward appearance is affected, we cannot know anything is even wrong.
My hat always goes off to the veterinarians who diagnose conditions based on such tiny amounts of information and subtle clues. Of course credit also often goes to observant owners who pay close attention to the patterns of their own animals, and note any deviance from those patterns.
-
I don't see that there is any answer to those who breed without testing although of course that is their choice. No doubt when one of their breeding is tested and diagnosed they regret and blame themselves for not testing. But that doesn't help the people who have have been sold one of their pups who is diagnosed. In that case it's wiser to buy offspring from tested parents nowadays. I can't quite remember exactly when linked marker testing was known to be available here but I know litters have been bred since then.
The test [as a number of us have indicated] has been available TO EVERYONE IN THE WORLD since July 2007. This test has never been limited to the USA. Sally Wallis, Zande, submitted quite a few samples that summer [in the first few months of the test availability]. So did Tamsala, Baagna, Zordia, Old Legend's, Faraoland, Tambuzi, Mzalia and more.
Actually I've found that many people, including breeders do not really care about the breed as such. There are so many I've spoken to who really know very little and imagine that the breed started with them! - in fact a breeder once said to me that he didn't care about the past only from the time he started breeding.
I've never heard of a breeder that intimated something such as this, but now with the test available to us, the past incidences of Fanconi is not relevant. Just the results of the sire/dam of each litter.
Interesting to know that a symptom just crops up seemingly out of the blue - does any one know if research has been done on this? Eg. is there a common trigger? As I said before its strange to me that more research hasn't been done when Fanconi Syndrome would appear to be so rife.
Incidentally, since finding so much information on this site, I'm going through carrier's ,affected etc. pedigrees to check whether there is a common ancestor. Fairly easy here as I keep detailed pedigrees (and have done so since I learned to write!} also zande pedigree database is exceedingly helpful and saves my updating no end of time (all praise to that site).I really don't under stand why you feel there should be MORE research on Fanconi Syndrome. I truly would be interested int he $$$ amount that has been used up through the test development. But, that is aside from the years of Dr. Bovee and his years in PA studying fanconi syndrome.
We arne't talking the past 10 years. We are talking a good 30 years… is that not considered a lengthy amount of research?I do not buy the environmental bit at all. If that were the case, why would folks such as Cecelia Wozniak, Carol Webb, and Julie/Kathy Jones have been plagued with fanconi? We are talking completely different areas of the country... and a variety of bloodlines. And clean set-ups. I have heard too much that it is how they were raised... sorry, I can thinkm of some skanky set-ups and those folks would never be considered ones to have kept their dogs in an ill manner.
When I have bred (stopped now owing to age) it was mainly to keep the line going - I hold the oldest affix in the ring although it is one I have inherited from one of my mentors.
And what is the kennel name? How long have YOU been using it? We don't really inherit kennel names here. Everyone has their own. Folks like Kari/Sally, me/my Mom [Connie] share the same kennel names, as we are family.
I do think though that testing is increasing here and I'm really quite sure that when the definitive test is established we will find that most breeders will automatically test their litters. What does concern me a bit is that some who test now seem to think that once they have had a clear litter they need not test any longer.
Testing won't increase if folks continue to deny it's existence or how imperative it is to the longevity of the breed. The results thus far on OFA is more than enough to show that it is everywhere… regardless of what folks want to believe.
The linkage test is pretty darned accurate. You can't count the ones that we know can't be the samples of the correct dogs [ie., Medjai's sire CANNOT be a fanconi clear since he is Affected and he has been re-tested, Thanks Michael for proving the accuracy of the test].
I would bet that the owner of Medjai's sire will have no part in getting that dog tested… as for now he can say all his dogs are FAnconi clear... yet we know that is NOT true... Medjai's results tell us that!Those of us testing diligently are testing [when the need will be prior to breeding] even from clear to clear parents.
-
I just I am not understanding why you would think that symptoms just "appear"? Spilling sugar in the urine is the first outward sign of Fanconi… however as already stated, things obviously on the inside have begun to change...
And I too would much rather put money and study into finding the next DNA marker, like for PRA.. then to waste time wondering about Fanconi... since we have a test now, what good would learning more about it be? Especially when it can be wiped out (provided people are responsible and test before breeding) in a couple of years...
-
As a complete novice to the breed, i can only go on my instincts here. There is a test available for Fanconi, eyes, hips, so why doesn't everyone feel it's in the best interest of the breed and owners of course, to have all the available testing done. Both parents of Milo have been tested, we wouldn't have chanced it otherwise knowing it could be done. Makes sense and we at least have an idea of what could happen with Milo. Before the testing was available, i can't and wouldn't comment on. But now there's no excuse surely.
Theresa
-
Khanis - I suppose yes, more research would be very expensive. I know that the 2 UK kennels you mention were among the earlier testers but couldn't remember just when. Thank you. I was under the impression, mistakenly obviously that the test wasn't available here straight away. It seems to me from your comments that we probably don't have proportionately as many breeders denying Fanconi as you do - could be wrong. Probably because it is a small number and so peer pressure is very strong. It seems to have been accepted fairly easily. I suppose you will always get different opinions.
I don't know the dog you speak of.
Nothing to do with Fanconi but you asked. - usually when an old affix holder dies one of our clubs pay to have it protected. In my case the original holder was one of my two mentors (looked on me and mine as her family) and for many years asked me to take on her affix after her death (I was breeding her lines) and I complied. Dogs that I bred previous to that were registered without an affix so that I could take on hers. She registered it in 1942 and showed continuously until her last illness. Although no longer breeding I still show the dogs that I have (the youngest are now 5) - Ama, one of my 14year olds (15 in July}was at a show in April and strode round the ring like a dog much younger than his years - I was very proud of him, as you can imagine! -
I just I am not understanding why you would think that symptoms just "appear"? Spilling sugar in the urine is the first outward sign of Fanconi… however as already stated, things obviously on the inside have begun to change...
Visible symptoms for EVERY disease/disorder just "appear" at some point.
Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. :rolleyes: -
Tanza - re symptoms, I thought that this was so because of what was said earlier about them appearing at any moment in time. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I think I should give up this discussion as I seem to be saying too much. I must let others have a turn. Its a pity we can't all get together and have a face to face chat but this is obviously the next best thing. -
It seems to me from your comments that we probably don't have proportionately as many breeders denying Fanconi as you do - could be wrong. Probably because it is a small number and so peer pressure is very strong. It seems to have been accepted fairly easily. I suppose you will always get different opinions.
I interpret the lower testing rate in the UK to be just the opposite of what you are saying. I would think that you have a larger portion of breeders denying the possibility of Fanconi in their lines than in the US. I think in the US people are testing because they are seeing that the gene is widespread and has hit many kennels even those who have not seen cases of Fanconi. Many were sitting on ticking time bombs so to speak where slowly more and more of their breeding stock were carriers.
Truly if you don't test then you don't know and breeders who breed litters out of untested stock and sell the pups are setting up those new owners for potential heartbreak. No matter how much one thinks their line is clear there is no excuse for not testing.
-
It was also brought up in another post about accidental litters. For me, I will not have two intact carriers of opposite sex in my house. It just isn't worth the risk. Since we can collect and freeze semen, that gives breeders the option of keeping carrier males for future use without keeping them intact and running the risk of an accidental breeding. I know other people who work together in breeding programs where one person will keep the males and another will keep the females so there are options.
-
Khanis - I suppose yes, more research would be very expensive. I know that the 2 UK kennels you mention were among the earlier testers but couldn't remember just when. Thank you. I was under the impression, mistakenly obviously that the test wasn't available here straight away. It seems to me from your comments that we probably don't have proportionately as many breeders denying Fanconi as you do - could be wrong. Probably because it is a small number and so peer pressure is very strong. It seems to have been accepted fairly easily. I suppose you will always get different opinions.
Seriously… do you realize how much 30+ years of fanconi research has brought us??? When I was a little girl, basenjis had kidney problems and died of it. Then not too much later, it bacame known to us as Fanconi Syndrome.
I would equated the willingness to test in the US to be the willingness to learn more about our own bloodlines and the future of our breeding program and the breed in general.
I find it odd tha tyou have had basenjis so long and did not know of the test when it came about. It was very wide spread with knowledge of it throughout the world, not just the US.
Nothing to do with Fanconi but you asked. - usually when an old affix holder dies one of our clubs pay to have it protected. In my case the original holder was one of my two mentors (looked on me and mine as her family) and for many years asked me to take on her affix after her death (I was breeding her lines) and I complied. Dogs that I bred previous to that were registered without an affix so that I could take on hers. She registered it in 1942 and showed continuously until her last illness. Although no longer breeding I still show the dogs that I have (the youngest are now 5) - Ama, one of my 14year olds (15 in July}was at a show in April and strode round the ring like a dog much younger than his years - I was very proud of him, as you can imagine!
Hmmm.. I guess I look at it more that I have spent years in the breed and my kennel name shows going back through pedigrees.
When someone takes over a kennel name, that does not show their time in the breed… our kennel name will go down with my children and further if they choose... but so far my Mom started in basenjis in the 60s and we are both active breeders with the same kennel name, Khani's.
I did ask... what was the kennel name you use?
I get the feeling you do not want to tell us.
I am not the only one wondering [but one of the few that would mention it], as we are curious of your dog's ancestry.I interpret the lower testing rate in the UK to be just the opposite of what you are saying. I would think that you have a larger portion of breeders denying the possibility of Fanconi in their lines than in the US. I think in the US people are testing because they are seeing that the gene is widespread and has hit many kennels even those who have not seen cases of Fanconi. Many were sitting on ticking time bombs so to speak where slowly more and more of their breeding stock were carriers.
I agree 100% Lisa!
Truly if you don't test then you don't know and breeders who breed litters out of untested stock and sell the pups are setting up those new owners for potential heartbreak. No matter how much one thinks their line is clear there is no excuse for not testing.
Testing is the ONLY way to know what you have, in regard to any health issue that has the possibility of cropping up.
The choice to NOT test just leads others to believe that one is trying ot hide something. Regardless if that is the case or not, that is the outward appearance.
