Offspring's Fanconi Results Question

[Basenjimamma]

What I meant with the statement that the genepool is small, is that if we only use probably clears for breeding then eventully inbreeding will become common, right? I also understand the fact that there are so many other things to deal with besides Fanconi and yes it would be detrimental to the breed to only breed away one ailment. How many (if at all possible to ballpark) pure Basenjis are there in Africa?

[lvoss]

I highly suggest reading Dr Jo Thompson's part of the the BCOA Petition to Open the Stud Book. I think it will answer some of your questions about imports and our genepool.

http://www.basenji.org/NativeStock/Application/BasenjiStudbookPetition.pdf

[tanza]

@Basenjimamma:

What I meant with the statement that the genepool is small, is that if we only use probably clears for breeding then eventully inbreeding will become common, right? I also understand the fact that there are so many other things to deal with besides Fanconi and yes it would be detrimental to the breed to only breed away one ailment. How many (if at all possible to ballpark) pure Basenjis are there in Africa?

No one would have any idea how many purebreds are in Africa, so can't really even begin to ballpark, IMO… remember when people have gone over, like Dr. Jo and Jon Curby (and they went to different parts).. they had to pick puppies that they believed represented the Basenji Standard and came from a remote enough area to consider these were not mix village dogs. There are some that have been brought back that IMO are truly only nice mixed village dogs and do not have Basenji type.

I also agree that we need to careful breed Fanconi out of our pedigrees... and until we have a direct test, continue to test and offspring will verify the test of the parents or show where there could have been errors made... And I totally disagree about using affecteds on clears.. I think we need to perserve all the lines we can of our breed...

[renaultf1]

I'm not sure if can take a guesstimate on number of basenjis in africa…for a couple of reasons...the area is extremely remote and as civilization and the war encroaches on the area, the numbers of what are considered real basenjis are lowering, I'm afraid. That is one reason there was an urgency about getting the stud book re-opened...the window of opportunity is closing.

[tanza]

@renaultf1:

Actually, that isn't right…I believe percentage wise of the basenjis that have been tested...the highest percentage are clears, followed by carriers, followed by affecteds. I'm sure Lisa or Pat will come on later with what those percentages are.

BCOA members have been going to the congo as recently as 2 years ago bringing back basenjis. The current state of affairs in the congo caused a recent trip to be postponed, I believe. Now that the stud book is re-opened, providing the situation in the congo improves, there will be more trips to bring more basenjis back. My understanding is that none of the basenjis (Avongara & Lukuru) that have been brought back from Africa have tested affected...I might be mistaken, but I think that all those that have been imported and tested have been clear. I remember hearing something about at least one Avongara developing PRA though...

Lisa & Pat will fill in the blanks I'm sure.

I believe there was one that as IND (between a Clear and Carrier). There is also some thyroid and hip issues with the Avongara's. Which is why testing is so important before breeding so that we know and understand possible health concerns

[renaultf1]

@tanza:

There are some that have been brought back that IMO are truly only nice mixed village dogs and do not have Basenji type.

I agree 100% percent…but none of the Dr. Jo & Jon Curby dogs fall into that category because those regions that they travel are really remote...the ones that look like mixes came from more civilized regions, like the Cameroon & Benin.

[tanza]

@renaultf1:

I agree 100% percent…but none of the Dr. Jo & Jon Curby dogs fall into that category because those regions that they travel are really remote...the ones that look like mixes came from more civilized regions, like the Cameroon & Benin.

I agree…

[renaultf1]

@tanza:

I believe there was one that as IND (between a Clear and Carrier). There is also some thyroid and hip issues with the Avongara's. Which is why testing is so important before breeding so that we know and understand possible health concerns

I knew you'd help with the answers! ;):D
Right…I forgot about the hip stuff I've heard about...hadn't heard about the thyroid issues - only the hips and the PRA.

[Basenjimamma]

Thanks guys I think I get the picture…better at least. I do realize the difficulty with going to africa and getting dogs..and they might not even be pure B's and of course also the fact that it is costly and it doesn't guarantee the health aspect of an import either.
Tanza when you wrote that you don't agree with the breeding of clears to affecteds, do you mean that you endorse it? I understand the point of hoping to make carriers but won't some of those puppies be affecteds?

Ivoss, thanks for the website recommendation, I will read up on it..that doesn't mean this blondie over here gets it still, but I will try.

[lvoss]

There are two new imports that have tested IND. Avongara Kitoko and Lukuru Amisi.

There are no recorded cases of PRA in the Avongaras from 87/88 and no PRA affected offspring of an Avongara parent.

There are cases verifiable in the OFA database of HD and hypothyroidism.

[lvoss]

@Basenjimamma:

Tanza when you wrote that you don't agree with the breeding of clears to affecteds, do you mean that you endorse it? I understand the point of hoping to make carriers but won't some of those puppies be affecteds?

No, there will be no Affected puppies in a Clear to Affected breeding. 100% of the puppies will be Carriers. Affected puppies cannot be produced from a Clear parent.

[tanza]

@Basenjimamma:

Thanks guys I think I get the picture…better at least. I do realize the difficulty with going to africa and getting dogs..and they might not even be pure B's and of course also the fact that it is costly and it doesn't guarantee the health aspect of an import either.
Tanza when you wrote that you don't agree with the breeding of clears to affecteds, do you mean that you endorse it? I understand the point of hoping to make carriers but won't some of those puppies be affecteds?

Ivoss, thanks for the website recommendation, I will read up on it..that doesn't mean this blondie over here gets it still, but I will try.

What I was saying was that I do NOT agree with NOT using Affected dogs on a Clear Bitch

I do "endorse" it (however I would never use an affected bitch only a dog and in this case it is with frozen semen collected before he was known to have Fanconi)… and in fact I am doing an affected to clear this fall.. and all will be carriers, none will be affected.

[renaultf1]

@lvoss:

There are two new imports that have tested IND. Avongara Kitoko and Lukuru Amisi.

There are no recorded cases of PRA in the Avongaras from 87/88 and no PRA affected offspring of an Avongara parent.

Interesting that 2 of the new imports are the ones that are IND…and both from somewhat different areas. It will be interesting if we get a direct test to see what they really test as...Clear or Carrier. I know in the meantime, they are considered carriers.

Good info about PRA...I remember why I thought that there was a case...I had heard about an eye test with an unexpected result (test was re-done with a more knowledgeable ophthalmologist and came back negative).

[Basenjimamma]

Ok, I got it. So basically the only way (as far as we know with the test available today) to get affecteds is if the "breeder" either don't test prior to breeding or breed affecteds and carriers together, and not using a clear in the mix.

[renaultf1]

@Basenjimamma:

Ok, I got it. So basically the only way (as far as we know with the test available today) to get affecteds is if the "breeder" either don't test prior to breeding or breed affecteds and carriers together, and not using a clear in the mix.

That's part of it…but carrier to carrier may also produce some affecteds. That is why the carrier to carrier and/or carrier to affected breedings should NEVER be done.

[lvoss]

Clear x Clear = All Clear
Clear x Carrier = Possibility of Carrier and Clear
Clear x Affected = All Carrier
Carrier x Carrier = possibility of Clear, Carrier, and Affected
Carrier x Affected = possibility of Carrier and Affected
Affected x Affected = all Affected

IND are treated as Carriers until we get a direct gene test.

Another possibility of producing affecteds is if the dog's test results were in error so the breeder did what should have been a safe breeding and later found out that the result was in error. This is one reason we keep encouraging testing even when parents have been tested. The more generational testing there is the more evidence that the results are correct.

[tanza]

@Basenjimamma:

Ok, I got it. So basically the only way (as far as we know with the test available today) to get affecteds is if the "breeder" either don't test prior to breeding or breed affecteds and carriers together, and not using a clear in the mix.

Right, Affecteds and Carriers and IND (between a Clear and a Carrier, so should be considered a Carrier) should only be bred to Clears, period

With the very, very few inconsistant results excluded, looking at the test results, what we are seeing is what we would expect to see, especially in looking at tested sires and dams and then their offspring.