Any update ?
Tilly's Fanconi Test Results
-
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. -
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.Kathy, you are absolutely correct. When dogs are missing health information on their OFA pages it always leaves one wondering, "Why?" It is even OFA's own recommendation that when an animal is missing data to assume the worst in how you consider its status for breeding decisions. Having the Fanconi results in an Open database has, IMO, been eye opening and is very revealing about breeders.
-
Lisa,
How about the breeders that have tested so little over the years they have been in basenjis… but jumped on the fanconi testing bandwagon?
When folks come to my house to see pups/dogs, I suggest seeing other breeders, asking about their dogs, and ask about health-testing... not JUST fanconi testing. And not to take the they only test because they have problems with it
Just think to yourself and wonder why do THEY not test??
Usually it is becuase they just do not want to spend the money on it, as that means a cut in profits.
The only other reasoning could be becuase they don't want something to be found.It can be noticed that we are testing for more stuff now than we were 10+ years ago... we've just been adding more and more to the plate.... just to know what is there. Hopefully we don't find something... but we would never know if we did NOT test!
-
Can i just say, it has been SO interesting reading all of this, and very educational
I personally can see no reason not to test for fanconi before breeding. Theres is a relatively cheap and non-invasive test available so i cant understand why breeders would not be making the most of it.
We have the same problem in my other breed, pugs. The breed is plagued with hemivertebra (a spinal deformity that can leave the dogs paralysed), my very first pug Delilah has it and it is a constant worry, at the back of your mind the whole time as I never know when i might find her unable to walk. There is no test for it as such (so in reality, basenji breeders are much more fortunate!) but you can x ray for the problem and then you should take any affected dogs out of the breeding programmes. But it is not happening and i see puppies in the ring now and you can tell that they have it from the way they move and hold themselves. Breeders STILL deny that hemivertebra is not a problem in the breed (we have even been accused of lying about my pug having it!!!!!!) and a worryingly large number still refuse to x ray for it… And its not the breeders that will get the heartache, its the owners.
I personally believe, as a breeder of other breeds, that it is the breeders responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that they are producing healthy puppies and if there are tests available they should be using them
-
How about the breeders that have tested so little over the years they have been in basenjis… but jumped on the fanconi testing bandwagon?
I know. Don't forget the ones that seem to think that as long as the dog is Fanconi Clear we should just forget about the pedigree that is loaded for PRA, HD, etc. There are also those out there that test but don't seem to use the information to make better breeding choices.
Jess, you are right, by having an open database and discussing what is out there we are doing better than some other breeds. It is good to see that overall the trend is toward more testing in basenjis and many breeders are trying to be proactive instead of reactive. We still have a ways to go yet but it does look like we are moving in the right direction overall.
-
Well i've found the discussion really good. Loads of sound advice and information you couldn't get any other way. The forum is ideal for anyone who either has Basenjis or is thinking of getting one.
Theresa
-
Ive just replied to Ivoss and Khanis posts and it has disappeared - don't know just what I've done!
Here goes again.
Ivoss - my meaning was the opposite. I have just checked out the proportion of breeders here that are testing from the most recent Ch show (today) practically 70% are testing -I don't think I said that fewer are testing previously but was making the point that a smaller proportion do not test here and I am under the impression that it is a better proportion than the US (no criticism). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Two good ideas of yours to avoid the possibility of 'accidents'.
Khanis - no I am not hiding my kennel name on the contrary, I'm proud of it!- I think that the UK members of the site know it. Antefaa is my affix. I just didn't think that people would be interested and it wasn't really a topic for a fanconi thread. I have been continually involved and besotted with Basenjis since 1942 when I haunted the leading Basenji Kennel of the time, forever asking questions (I guess I haven't changed much, huh?!!). I was far too young to even think about breeding then and started after I had raised 4 children some years ago. I fostered (or persuaded my parents to foster ) Basenjis the whole of that time. At the request of the then holder of the affix whose lines I used and on whose principles I bred, I didn't take on my own affix. Yes, I could have held it in partnership but that wasn't necessary.
You're surprised that I had forgotten the date when testing began here but that was merely my failing short term memory!! Sorry!
Yes there is progress in that there is now a linked marker test but I would have liked to have seen more! After all we still have Fanconi and still do not have the definitive test. I would have liked to have seen more progress, but I'm certainly not putting that forward as a criticism, I hope you're not taking it as such? It is my opinion only but all praise for what has been done so far. -
If you go by show catalogs, I think you would find in the US the numbers are much higher than 70%. Show breeders are not the ones who are not testing in the US. We have a much larger population of BYB and puppymill breeders who are not involved in the basenji community. That is where we see the large numbers of untested dogs.
-
If you go by show catalogs, I think you would find in the US the numbers are much higher than 70%. Show breeders are not the ones who are not testing in the US. We have a much larger population of BYB and puppymill breeders who are not involved in the basenji community. That is where we see the large numbers of untested dogs.
I was thinking the same thing, Lisa. I can't think of anyone I know that isn't using the test. I would say 100% of the showing population….and pretty close to 100% of the BCOA membership.....
-
Ivoss and Quercus
That is very good news. From the comments made on the site I had'nt understood that. We are definitely behind the USA then. As I mentioned previously, we hardly ever get puppy mill breeders of Basenjis in this country, thankfully, as they are not really a commercial breed here and there are many more lucrative breeds. - Practically all the current interest here is in the show ring although of course their puppies also go to non showing homes. It seems that we haven't appreciated the difference between our two countries in that respect. On the occasions when 'unknown' people breed, it soon becomes known within the breed. Because of the smallness of the UIK and the scarcity of Basenjis it is extremely difficult to deliberately hide the fact of Basenji births. I appreciate how lucky we are in that way.
Personally when I used to breed I placed a breeding restriction on all puppies which I could lift if necesaary. In the last few years we did have a case of somebody who bred from an unregistered imported bitch but the lady needed to ask advice and so was helped to place puppies. The person who advised them has kept in touch with this breeder and the owners of the dogs.
I have said it before but I am really pleased that I have been introduced to this site - I can appreciate now how the worries about Fanconi Syndrome are such a major topic in the USA. -
Fanconi should be a major topic all over the world, as Basenjis all over the world have been tested to be affected or tested to be carriers or are already affected (from those who have tested)… along with all other health testing
-
Yes there is progress in that there is now a linked marker test but I would have liked to have seen more! After all we still have Fanconi and still do not have the definitive test. I would have liked to have seen more progress, but I'm certainly not putting that forward as a criticism, I hope you're not taking it as such? It is my opinion only but all praise for what has been done so far.
Sorry, but I think that there has beena world of research and I truly never believed that there wouldf be a fanconi test in MY lifetime…
so I am overjoyed that there is one now!This is BEYOND what I would consider progress... this is a freakin miracle!
