Health Testing… Why Not ???
-
The one that comes to mind - to the best of my knowledge - should not have had anything to do with the reliability of the results (it was done in 2009 - 2 years after the start of public testing in 2007 when most kinks should have long been worked out).
Of course being 2 years after public testing began, I can not think of any legitimate reason for the need for research nor the need to keep it private, but then I am oftentimes guilty of giving too much information vs not enough. ;)
I'll see if I can find the reference I am thinking of and if so, will ask - assuming I did not already. Will have to look.
Are you talking about results that have come back "not matching" the parents results?… are you talking about the few dogs that came back as Affected but with their age and according to the owners are not spilling? Or are you referring to tests that were done in advance of the linkage test?
-
Are you talking about results that have come back "not matching" the parents results?… are you talking about the few dogs that came back as Affected but with their age and according to the owners are not spilling? Or are you referring to tests that were done in advance of the linkage test?
I am not talking about results that did not match the parents results. Nor am I talking about the DNA affecteds who are not spilling and I am not talking about tests done in advance to the linkage test. As stated - the tests I was recalling were done in 2009 - 2 years after the linkage test so I can not fathom why they were done for research purposes. I have found my public reference and I have contacted the OFA asking what the research was for exactly. Depending on the response depends on if I am able to share via this forum. If anyone is truly interested they can email me off forum and when/if I find out anything, I will let them know at that time (or I will be sure to let this thread know assuming I can).
Will be interesting to see if OFA is even willing to respond. If not, I tried.
-
Why would you ask OFA? They only publish the results? Why would you not go to Dr Johnson at U of Mo… or better yet, ask Jon?
And if it was around the time I am thinking of, there was some testing being done as part of the direct test?
-
Well doh! That's who I meant and that's who I am awaiting a reply from.
-
Exactly this. I, for example, don't agree with the whole "Dr. Dodds" testing, and I wouldn't be pleased if someone called me irresponsible for not doing 'her' tests. I have my questions about the elbows? I actually did X-ray Tillo's elbows, but only because he's active in agiliy and has to jump 'Large'. Is it known in the breed that there are dogs with ED? And I also don't really get the cardiac? Who judges them, a specialist or is every Vet ok?
Of course, I agree, if you want to breed responsible you have to know as much as possible.. The danger with doing all these test, is that we are going to exclude lots of dogs from the gene pool if they aren't 'perfect' on all the points.
I think there are also other things that need to be done to keep the breed as healthy as possible: a limit on the times to use a bitch and a dog in breeding, which leads to using more different dogs and bitches and a spreading of genes. We also need to watch out with inbreeding.
Janneke, I wasnt meaning to call you an irresponsible breeder, if you choose not to have your dogs tested for thyroid, by anyone else other than Dr Dodd's… Your choice completely...
What I was trying to say, was thyroid testing should be done prior to breeding, as it IS a disease that seems to be rearing its ugly head more and more... I personally want to see more than the basic "G.P.Vet" thyroid results, (usually T4 and TSH). Tis my choice thats all ;)... Down here, I need to send my Thyroid bloods out of Australia, to acheive the results for the tests I request, for my dogs... I chose Dr Dodds, after extensive research...
I personally havent heard of issues with elbows at all. (Remember Im VERY new to this breed !!!). Then again, my info is VERY limited, due to not being able to get this info from many breeders at all, (speaking about Australian breeders here), that I have asked... Hence my frustraton :mad:... I do elbows because I dont think the cost is prohibititive when getting hips done. Here in Aus, its law, (Im pretty sure), to have the dogs anaesthetised when getting H/E done... Why not do them, just in case !!!
Cardiac was suggested to me by a breeder here in Aus. I ummmed and ahhhed about this one, but decided to get my "G.P.Vet: to do a basic assessment, then if anything showed up, off to the Cardiac Specialist...
Patella's I chose to do because, after coming from the ACD's, I see B's as a small dog, with the chance of slipping patella's a higher possibility, due to their size, their incredible love for high speed action, and the B500 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess I shouldnt really have out the Cardiac and Patella's into that list. It will ALWAYS be part of my dogs assessment, but I see that maybe it could be considered a little OTT :)...
For me the more info I get about my dogs health, the more I am able to make the correct choices for MY breeding programme :)...
-
I am not a big Dodds fan, sorry. She finds thyroid that other labs agree isn't there. Use the OFA approved labs yet.
For the rest, agree or not, you test, you report and you do the tests. Otherwise you are not, imho, responsible. Nothing is hurt by doing fanconi, eyes, heart, hips, thryoid and H/E. I'd vote elbows and patellas, but wouldn't consider the breeder unethical to forego those. The rest are basic.
And imho, if they aren't reported to OFA or CERF, your dog failed or you didn't do them. I wish, like Germany, all results had to be reported. Of course unethical breeders can still pay local vet and just not DO them if suspect will fail, but it would help.At this stage I dont put my dogs results up on the OFA site, due to the expense. I have 4 B's, and climbing !!! I still need to do the whole lot of testing on both Vanda and Java, although both have had eyes done at 6-8 weeks… My dogs results are available to anyone who is interested and some of the results are on my website, in all their glory !!! The website isnt hugely up-to-date, but I hope to rectify that in the new year... My dogs havent failed, nor are they NOT done...
I should also say that we dont have OFA in Australia either... So the OFA Im talking about is the American one...
-
I am learning much via this discussion. Thanks for posting this question.
Me too :)…
-
Sorry, I meant for USA folks. :) Other countries have their own registries. But here, if your dogs are in OFA it allows generations of checking.
-
We dont have anything in Australia, that is anything like the OFA… Mores the pity though ;)
-
The one that comes to mind - to the best of my knowledge - should not have had anything to do with the reliability of the results (it was done in 2009 - 2 years after the start of public testing in 2007 when most kinks should have long been worked out).
Of course being 2 years after public testing began, I can not think of any legitimate reason for the need for research nor the need to keep it private, but then I am oftentimes guilty of giving too much information vs not enough. ;)
I'll see if I can find the reference I am thinking of and if so, will ask - assuming I did not already. Will have to look.
Hi Linda -
Not sure exactly what kind of situation you're talking about - so will give a general summary.
Fanconi research is continuing and we are still using research samples, and gather new samples. Work is primarily to develop a direct test (the current test is a linkage marker test for multiple markers) but also to keep an eye on performance and accuracy of the current test.
So getting new research samples in 2009, 2010, and 2011 is expected and needed.
Research uses validated dogs that are anomalous and verified affected dogs, usually using new testing technologies. Goal is to develop a direct test and, in the interim, if needed, to improve the existing test.
OFA is not funding the research and is not doing the research testing, so they can't tell you anything. OFA handles payment, reporting, and publication of results for the production test.
Samples ordered for research are handled separately from OFA samples and are not paid for. They are often blood samples, in some cases fresh blood only, but not always.
If you pay OFA to have your dog tested and sign a release form, his results will go into OFA's open database. If a research sample is tested, it will not.
For research samples, most I know of were either for known affecteds, to be used to refine the test, or retests to verify a test was of the right dog, or tests of a cluster of relatives to verify parentage where a parent is deceased and DNA is not on file.
I can't offhand think of cases where the production test would be done for research for anything except retesting a dog with an anomalous result. In that case, if the result was different, it would be corrected; if not, nothing would happen on the OFA side.
For Fanconi, in general, at this point, if Gary is testing a sample or samples for research, he is either using testing methodologies that are not in production (mostly working on getting a direct test) such as whole genome mapping or improved SNP chips, or he is verifying parentage, or he is retesting an anomalous sample to make sure the right dog was tested.
A fair bit of that is in the Health Committee report which is on the front page of www.basenji.org, click on annual meeting powerpoint and scroll down to the HC part.
I don't know if this answers your questions or not because I don't really have enough info to figure out the specific situation.
I can pretty much tell you, if it's a research sample, OFA probably knows absolutely nothing about it. They are not part of the research process right now for Fanconi. They are in the pay/test/report process for the validated Fanconi test already in production.
FYI, the Health Committee email list is open to any BCOA member and you can ask questions there at any time.
Lisa
