As a general rule for adult dogs B-size for dry food: around 1% of their bodyweight per day.
For puppies a bit more.
Also depends on their activity, temperature and the like.
Just check how close you are to this, and see how the body responds.
We have found that a little food extra or less can make a difference.
New Wellness Core
-
Sorry Pat. That is wrong. I talked to Jon Curby. The test is approx. 90-95% accurate. This is not a 100% test. There could still be a fanconi produced dog.
-
Wow I haven’t checked this thread in a while. Didn’t mean to cause any controversy…
You're right the protocol as it stands does not list a specific percentage associated with "high" protein. What I shared with the forum was from personal emails exchanged between Dr. Gonto and myself specifically about Tayda and her condition. And to be clear, her condition is:
- Diagnosed Fanconi
- BUN and Creatinine levels at the high end of normal range (not yet considered renal failure, we are hoping that by lowering the protein in her diet, these levels will come down. If that happens, I will be convinced that the high levels of protein in her previous diet were a large contributor)
So her treatment plan is somewhere in between the “traditional Fanconi” and the “modified for renal failure” plan…
I’m not trying to tell anyone what to feed or not feed their dogs. I was just sharing what I've learned in the last few weeks from Dr. Gonto as a result of Tayda's diagnosis. I was also surprised to hear his opinion about Wellness Core being too high in protein, and think it would be a good idea to specify in the protocol a certain percentage of protein that is recommended. But I have to say he is happy and willing to correspond with people about their basenjis and that to me is more valuable than anything else right now. Each dogs situation could be a little different depending on the results of their blood work and whats good for one dog is not necessarily good for another.
-
Sorry Pat. That is wrong. I talked to Jon Curby. The test is approx. 90-95% accurate. This is not a 100% test. There could still be a fanconi produced dog.
It is more then we had before and better the NOT testing.. and so far from the 2000+ tests there have not been any results that don't make sense… and the couple that were in question were re-run with the cheek swab to verify....
And in the end, I will take the 90-95% compared to not testing at all
-
I will too, just a caution to anyone who thinks it can't happen. It can. I hope it doesn't because then we would really start to question a lot of things and breedings we have done. For myself, the indeterminates don't make sense. That, to me, produces a margin of error I'm not comfortable with. So I, personally, use it only as another tool, much the same as a pedigree.
-
Wow I haven’t checked this thread in a while. Didn’t mean to cause any controversy…
You're right the protocol as it stands does not list a specific percentage associated with "high" protein. What I shared with the forum was from personal emails exchanged between Dr. Gonto and myself specifically about Tayda and her condition. And to be clear, her condition is:
- Diagnosed Fanconi
- BUN and Creatinine levels at the high end of normal range (not yet considered renal failure, we are hoping that by lowering the protein in her diet, these levels will come down. If that happens, I will be convinced that the high levels of protein in her previous diet were a large contributor)
So her treatment plan is somewhere in between the “traditional Fanconi” and the “modified for renal failure” plan…
I’m not trying to tell anyone what to feed or not feed their dogs. I was just sharing what I've learned in the last few weeks from Dr. Gonto as a result of Tayda's diagnosis. I was also surprised to hear his opinion about Wellness Core being too high in protein, and think it would be a good idea to specify in the protocol a certain percentage of protein that is recommended. But I have to say he is happy and willing to correspond with people about their basenjis and that to me is more valuable than anything else right now. Each dogs situation could be a little different depending on the results of their blood work and whats good for one dog is not necessarily good for another.
You might want to ask Dr. Gonto what he thinks of Azodyl. I have had good results from my elders with Kidney issues (due to old age)
http://www.vetoquinolusa.com/pages/pro_azodyl.html -
I will too, just a caution to anyone who thinks it can't happen. It can. I hope it doesn't because then we would really start to question a lot of things and breedings we have done. For myself, the indeterminates don't make sense. That, to me, produces a margin of error I'm not comfortable with. So I, personally, use it only as another tool, much the same as a pedigree.
Indeterminates as far as I am concerned are considered Carriers and should only be bred to Clears. This is also the recommedation of BCOA. Even if Indeterminates turn our to be affecteds, breeding to clear could produce Carriers, not affecteds
And while I also use both, I have far less faith in "pedigrees" depending on who the breeder is.
-
We'll have to disagree here. I only find this a tool and since I feel this is a recessive, it could pop up any time. You still have a 10% chance of a carrier or clear being an affected. True, the possibility is remote, but still a chance. There are many recessive genes that suddenly pop up 3,4,5 generations down the line. I still feel it gives a false sense of comfort.
-
I will too, just a caution to anyone who thinks it can't happen. It can. I hope it doesn't because then we would really start to question a lot of things and breedings we have done. For myself, the indeterminates don't make sense. That, to me, produces a margin of error I'm not comfortable with. So I, personally, use it only as another tool, much the same as a pedigree.
Because we are using a marker test and not a direct gene test we get Indeterminates. It is explained in the FAQ at http://www.basenjihealth.org The test uses three markers that surround the area on the chromosome where the gene is thought to be. Because of crossing over in Prophase I of meiosis where homologous chromosomes can exchange segments these markers can become separated making impossible to tell which imcomplete set of markers the gene is actually with.
There are a couple of other reasons that an IND result can crop up like mutation in the short repeating sequence that they use as a marker. The longer they are doing the test the better they will be able to gauge how often this may occur.
Right now the largest source of error is not in the test itself, it is the human factor. Actually, the most likely case of a breeder producing an affected from dogs that test results seem unable to do so is because one of the parents probably received a result in error. This is why it is critically important that the lab promptly notify any person whose dog was in a batch where a human error has occurred.
-
We'll have to disagree here. I only find this a tool and since I feel this is a recessive, it could pop up any time. You still have a 10% chance of a carrier or clear being an affected. True, the possibility is remote, but still a chance. There are many recessive genes that suddenly pop up 3,4,5 generations down the line. I still feel it gives a false sense of comfort.
When a test is available for a gene, a recessive does not pop up out of nowhere. The reason why recessive genes can surprise a breeder by showing up 3 or 4 generations down the line is because dogs who have 1 copy of the gene do not express the trait so it is masked until an offspring with 2 copies gene shows up.
I think that it is important that breeders do more than just test the dog they are going to breed and use that one result in isolation of any other information. As I stated in the above posts most of the errors that have occurred are human errors and they were caught because the results didn't make sense based on the results of parents or offspring. This is not the same as just looking at a pedigree, this is based on the test results of other dogs the result is not possible.
-
No not at all, I am the contoversy causer.:o Sorry I know I tend to stir things up. I was just extremly disconcerted because when I was waited for Kiora's test results I read the protocal and the other info around the web and I from what I read I felt confident that if Kiora was affected I wouldn't have to make a major change in her diet. I guess I didn't think that in 2003 25-30% protein was high. However it's not considered so anymore with more and more people, myself included are feeding grain free, low carb, high protein kibbles. So I would hope that there would be a revision soon to indicate what range of protein he reccomends.
Thank you Tayda_Lenny for helping to explain some things. Without your inside knowledge I would still be confused. I hope Tayda's levels improve on her new diet Innova Senior is one of the highest quality low protein foods around with real meat and easy to digest grains.
Tanza you are right with the new test there will be a significant decrease in Fanconi basenjis! Sadly there are still lots of BYB out there though. Alot of the people I know were shocked when I had Kiora spayed…including the man I adopted her from. Why didn't you breed her and make a profit they said. If that man hadn't have adopted her out to me she might have spent her days popping out "basenjipoos" or something.nomrbddgs Does that mean I should still Glucose test Kiora even though she tested clearon the DNA test?
-
I don't strip test mine. But, I based it on the pedigree as well. But this is my own personal choice. My point is just that I don't think anyone should be saying Fanconi is dead until we get a 100% test. This test, IMO, is still a great tool, as Pat and Lisa say, but it's still a probable test. If you don't know the background of the dog, don't trust the breeder, have started hearing things about the breeder and she won't answer questions, then I would be more concerned. But since she came back clear, personally I would probably not strip test. This is just my personal preference.
Lisa, I understood everything except the last sentence. It didn't make sense to me. Can you please rephrase that one. My thinking cap can't wrap its way around that.
There are also a lot of lines that are dying out that don't have the luxury of knowing the intricacies (?) of the pedigree. I have a Bluestones. Which came up quickly and is dying out quickly. dmccarty has a bluestones as well, I believe. Trying to get to some of the dogs is proving to be difficult because of the owner. I do have some methods in mind, but will have to wait till next year. This is where, I find, I really have to depend on the probable test. Hope this post makes sense.
-
What I mean is that when many people say they are studying the pedigree they are using anecdotal information from owners about whether a dog is ill or not. Because Fanconi is a recessive you can have generations of dogs that never become ill because they are carriers, have 1 copy of the gene, but they can produce the disease. In some lines where breeders successfully reduced the frequency of the gene they would have many generations with no affected then outcross to the general population where the gene frequency was much higher and it would show up.
The best way to catch potential errors with the DNA marker test is to test as much of the family as is available. The more generations that are tested with the test in the pedigree, the more likely any inconsistent results will show up. This means looking for results that can not be produced based on either parents or offspring. Like when my mom got Levi's result of Probably Affected when his dam had already tested Probably Clear. After submitting a new sample, and having that extracted and tested, Levi is Probably Clear. His sire has also tested Probably Clear so the only result that would make sense for Levi is Probably Clear. My mom would never have known Levi's result was in error if she hadn't had his dam's data.
In contrast, prior to the test being available it was not unheard of to hear a breeder say, well so and so only produced Fanconi with only one bitch so he's low risk 'cause its not like its in every litter. I know of at least one breeder who even with the test is continuing to breed with what is pretty much this attitude even with DNA marker results showing Probably Carrier.
-
I understand now. My thoughts run the same line. The families should be tested as much as possible. This gives a truer indication of who is carrier and the probabilites of such. Thanks for the clarification.
