@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
OFA Fanconi Results
-
Thanks Pat Myran will be used for breeding but not before he´s 2 yrs old atleast and has passed his thyroid,eye´s and hip´s etc….And proven himself worthy to be a stud dog.
In that case I would not be very concerned about doing it…. I would wait for the direct test....
-
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'd be the first to admit that stats isn't my forte, but I wanted to be sure I understood what you were referring to, whether it was the lexicon (i.e., "EACH pup") or the punnet square percentages (i.e., 25%/50%/25%) or the odds of pairing a carrier to a carrier?
In regard to the % of Affecteds on the database, it is WAY OFF compared to the number of affecteds out there. I know of at least a dozen affecteds, if not close to two dozen, that are NOT on the database. Many have samples in the CPP, but just not on the database. Having them in the database does not assist in the researchers finding the gene. It just tells everyone who the affecteds are, or are not.
What can people do beyond submitting samples in the CPP to assist researchers?
It basically gives others a reason to point fingers. Been there, done that.
It's unfortunate when people feel the need to point fingers, especially for a situation where, up until the recent past, it has not been possible for anyone to determine with absolute certainty the presence of the gene in any of their dogs. All of our energies should be focused on the future for a solution to the greatest threat to our beloved breed.
For those affecteds that I know of that don't have samples in…
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I am tired of trying to advocate to these people for health research...
I've even given their names and contact info to Jon Curby in hopes he could twist their arm. I doubt it. Those kind of folks find it easier to hide their head in the sand and deal with it themselves.I certainly hope none of these people you are referring to are breeders. I can somewhat sympathize with that feeling as my wife and I have found it frustrating at times as a foster family to try to advise a couple of adopting families to get their B tested for a medical condition (ex: hypo after dog showed extreme weight gain).
Best of luck on your Hofer boy's linkage test results.
Thanks very much. I am hoping that Buddy was lucky enough to dodge the bullet.
-
Many are breeders, some even would be considered "responsible" if you were to ask others…. There are some breeders that say the Fanconi test is a "fraud".... there are still breeders that say "not in my lines".... but do not test... there are ones that have affected that will not send in blood so that we can get the direct test...
As far as pointing fingers...yes there are some, but I have to say, a lot less then I expected.... maybe because it is an open data base, so what is the point and also that many that "used" to be the ones pointing fingers now are dealing with the reality of carriers and affected Basenjis....
I wish they would make OFA for hips open also... so that people that hide bad hips couldn't.... and I know of two such breeders.... -
Geez Pat - I've been trying for years to hide hips - would actually like to do something about the spare tire around my middle and then there are those wrinkles…... Oh you meant dog hips - me bad!
-
I can´t see any gain in hiding results or breeding inadequate dog´s one day it will bite you in the rump ;)I´m not a breeder but my logic say´s there is no shortcut to success.
-
I can´t see any gain in hiding results or breeding inadequate dog´s one day it will bite you in the rump ;)I´m not a breeder but my logic say´s there is no shortcut to success.
I agree, but there are people out there that don't believe that… even to the point of breeding Basenjis with bad hips... their reason/excuse??? OFA doesn't know what they are looking at... "my Vet" thinks they are fine... Sigh....
-
I do have an odd OFA story though - I had 2 males done at the same time. The vet and I laughed that you could put one over the other and it looked like one dog. Didn't matter whose was on top.
I got the results on one but not the other - I waited and waited and finally called and got the lecture of different people reading etc etc etc. I suggested that they might want to check in the dogs folder where I did get results and sure enought there were the films - unread. So I did get them read. Now keep in mind these films were about as exactly the same as they could be. One had one rating and one the other - to this day - I don't know which films were read or how hips that were so alike that it looked like one x-ray could have different ratings.
Any process that requires human decision making is subject to human falicies however that is not an excuse not to do whatever we can to ensure producing healthy animals.
-
Many are breeders, some even would be considered "responsible" if you were to ask others…. There are some breeders that say the Fanconi test is a "fraud".... there are still breeders that say "not in my lines".... but do not test... there are ones that have affected that will not send in blood so that we can get the direct test...
As far as pointing fingers...yes there are some, but I have to say, a lot less then I expected.... maybe because it is an open data base, so what is the point and also that many that "used" to be the ones pointing fingers now are dealing with the reality of carriers and affected Basenjis....
I wish they would make OFA for hips open also... so that people that hide bad hips couldn't.... and I know of two such breeders....I wish we had a DNA test with an open data base for hip dysplasia as well…so we wouldn't have to be guessing as to how it is inherited and have finger pointing and gossip regarding breeding decisions.
Personally, I try to stay away from finger pointing completely. Breeders all make choices...and it is easy for someone to say "well, I would never do that!" when that particular issue hasn't touched their program. Even if I intensly disagree with a particular breeding, I don't assume that I know what a breeder is thinking, and the thoughts that went into the decisions that they have made. If it is important to me, I will ask the breeder directly, instead of making assumptions based on second or third hand information.
I tend to think that bad breeding decisions tend to be self-correcting, as Myran stated. You can't hide bad genes for very long.
Regardless...innuendo and rumoring only make things more confusing for the average joe trying to find a responsible breeder. Responsible breeders make choices about risk in all facets of breeding. When we don't know how a disease is inherited, it makes the risk much greater...but most breeders don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water' to coin an oft used phrase. 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.
-
Well put… Andrea... especially your last note "Skewered and slandered by their peers....
And you are right, most bad decisions are self correcting, but at what price? Especially with something like Hips... this particular breeder is local to where I live, so I have intimate knowledge of this particular dog...
-
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...
