Pippin and Bindi's results

[nomrbddgs]

Add to this that Robyn has been, and started, her breeding line with the whole intention of health. Not just Fanconi, but also eyes, hips, IPSID, etc. Sugar eyes have also been tested-when she tested two months ago she came back with one strand iris to iris. At the vet last week, no strand is visible. While the gentleman testing expected to see PPM, (his comment was 'all Basenji's get PPM'), the vet (he is Egyptian and has seen quite a few of these dogs) was more than pleased with all results back. We also X-rayed hips and he thought they were very good. This is what I mean when I say I expected nothing less from this line. This is just my opinion based on why I chose Robyn as a breeder, she has VERY carefully over the years assessed all options. Not that there are not other breeders who do this-there are plenty. But I also do NOT have any problems working with Robyn. Again this is IMO.

[LiveWWSD]

Congrats Robyn. Always good to hear more clear results for good breeding stock.

[JazzysMom]

@BasenjiDiva:

I don't think the comment was meant to be a flip remark that might cast any shadow on other breeders. All of us feel a pang of pain for those who get the dreaded "probably affected" result. But, In this case, a good number of the Sherwood dogs have been tested and I think all have been clear, so it would be appropriate to say it was an expected result. If it was the first results for the Sherwood dogs, I think Robyn would be the first to say that she was only cautiously optimistic until the results started coming in.

I do wholeheartedly ditto the Congratutions on the GREAT news.

Pat

I didn't take it as a flip remark.
I was merely baffled as to why someone would have "expectations" of a line that heretofore had not been tested.

I know that a family history clear of dogs with Fanconi is no guarantee that a particular breeding won't produce it – not talking about tested dogs here, just the visible history that was available prior to testing -- so didn't understand how anyone would have an expectation of any sort from a particular line.

{I think I stated that as clear as mud }

[JazzysMom]

@nomrbddgs:

Add to this that Robyn has been, and started, her breeding line with the whole intention of health. Not just Fanconi, but also eyes, hips, IPSID, etc. Sugar eyes have also been tested-when she tested two months ago she came back with one strand iris to iris. At the vet last week, no strand is visible. While the gentleman testing expected to see PPM, (his comment was 'all Basenji's get PPM'), the vet (he is Egyptian and has seen quite a few of these dogs) was more than pleased with all results back. We also X-rayed hips and he thought they were very good. This is what I mean when I say I expected nothing less from this line. This is just my opinion based on why I chose Robyn as a breeder, she has VERY carefully over the years assessed all options. Not that there are not other breeders who do this-there are plenty. But I also do NOT have any problems working with Robyn. Again this is IMO.

I'm a little confused –Did my question in any way appear to be doubting Robyn's breeding practices? That was -- I thought clearly -- not my intent at all. I have no doubt that Robyn is a fine breeder.

It was just a question about expectations of Fanconi. Testing eyes, hips, etc. has nothing to do with Fanconi, so I don't get how being sure those tests are done would give any expectation that Fanconi wouldn't be in the line.

There are quality breeders who choose dogs carefully and who have done all the necessary testing, who have bred successfully for years with no sign of Fanconi, who have been hit with dogs coming back testing as carriers or affected.

Honestly, it was just a QUESTION regarding WHERE the expectation for FANCONI CLEAR would come from when there had been no prior testing available because even an apparently "clean" family {based on known history, not testing} can produce Fanconi carriers and even affecteds.

[lvoss]

@JazzysMom:

I know that a family history clear of dogs with Fanconi is no guarantee that a particular breeding won't produce it – not talking about tested dogs here, just the visible history that was available prior to testing -- so didn't understand how anyone would have an expectation of any sort from a particular line.

Pippin is the 4th sibling to be tested from this particular breeding, the other 3 have all been tested as Clear and the the dam is tested as Clear so really her result is not a surprise. Bindi's pedigree has a high number of these siblings in so again, it is no big surprise. I think that it is fair to say that it was the expected outcome even though not every dog was tested in the pedigree.

I have to say that most of the Fanconi results that have been published in the OFA database have not been surprising based on the risk in the pedigrees. The thing was that we could only use statistics to estimate risk which is not the same as being able to garuntee the gene was not there.

Which is the same boat we are still in with the other diseases that Arlene listed. Though breeding without a gene test means a breeder will have to do risk assessment and then take a gamble, they can stack the odds in their favor by not only testing their direct breeding stock but also gathering as much information as possible about as many relatives as possible. A breeder who only concerns themselves with horizontal pedigrees for health are putting themselves in a position where they are much more likely to be surprised.

[BasenjiDiva]

@JazzysMom:

I didn't take it as a flip remark.
I was merely baffled as to why someone would have "expectations" of a line that heretofore had not been tested.

I know that a family history clear of dogs with Fanconi is no guarantee that a particular breeding won't produce it – not talking about tested dogs here, just the visible history that was available prior to testing -- so didn't understand how anyone would have an expectation of any sort from a particular line.

{I think I stated that as clear as mud }

LOL…I'm having the same problem. I know what I mean but don't seem to be able to get out of the mud when I try to explain. "Flip" wasn't really the word I wanted there but I couldn't and still can't think of another word that is better.

Anyway..I'll also try to explain myself in a little less muddy way: I wasn't saying that it was an expected test result based on the health history of Robyn's dogs. What I meant was: Prior to getting the "Clear" Fanconi result on Pippin and Bindi, at least 6 other Sherwood dogs actually tested "Clear" for Fanconi this year on this new test. So Bindi and Pippin were Sherwood dogs #7 and #8 to be tested. Since the first 6 were "clear" it was an expected result that #'s 7 and 8 would also test as being clear. Since many of them, if not most have some shared parents, for the first 6 to test as "clear" and #'s 7 and 8 to test as "affected" would be a surprise. So..it was an expected result for one of Robyn's dogs.

I just have a hard time explaining some things in writing....must be because I can't use my hands while I'm talking.

Pat

[JazzysMom]

@BasenjiDiva:

LOL…I'm having the same problem. I know what I mean but don't seem to be able to get out of the mud when I try to explain. "Flip" wasn't really the word I wanted there but I couldn't and still can't think of another word that is better.

Anyway..I'll also try to explain myself in a little less muddy way: I wasn't saying that it was an expected test result based on the health history of Robyn's dogs. What I meant was: Prior to getting the "Clear" Fanconi result on Pippin and Bindi, at least 6 other Sherwood dogs actually tested "Clear" for Fanconi this year on this new test. So Bindi and Pippin were Sherwood dogs #7 and #8 to be tested. Since the first 6 were "clear" it was an expected result that #'s 7 and 8 would also test as being clear. Since many of them, if not most have some shared parents, for the first 6 to test as "clear" and #'s 7 and 8 to test as "affected" would be a surprise. So..it was an expected result for one of Robyn's dogs.

I just have a hard time explaining some things in writing....must be because I can't use my hands while I'm talking.

Pat

Gotcha; thanks.

And yes, the hands…. they do come in mighty handy in a conversation.

[Andrew]

I'm going to offer a simple congrats & hope I don't stick my foot in my mouth… heehee :p

[Rivermoon]

Congrats on the results!

[sharronhurlbut]

Nice to hear good news.
Kudos for the dogs, breeder and owners…it has to give them peace.