Hey, I'm just playin' around..... -- The Bulldawg BBQ Flamefest

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:10:52 01/18/03 Sat
Author: SD
Subject: Hey, I'm just playin' around.....
In reply to: Boxer Person 's message, "SD...who started this?" on 08:34:23 01/18/03 Sat

it's not like I'm using up valuable space here ;-)

Oh, and to answer your question as to whether or not OFA offers accurate breed statistics overall and compared to PennHip? I don't believe that OFA is entirely accurate. Especially in breeds where there are a limited number of x-rays read such as in Pitbulls. What, 260 some x-rays submitted over a 20 year period compared to how many thousands and thousands of pitsbulls that were born and lived during that period? I would tend to take more stock in breeds that have a higher number of evaluations done such as in the 100's per year.

And then I'm sure OFA's data is *somewhat* skewed since it is a voluntary program. If it can be determined by your veterinarian that your dog IS dysplastic why waste the money on having it verified by OFA? Because of that, I'd have to assume that the rate given for most breeds is actually higher than reported by OFA statistics. Now, the good news is that there a lot of breeds that have been able to lower the rate of HD and I do believe that it can be attributed to utilizing OFA. Take Bernese Mountain dogs as an example. Up to 1980, 566 Berners were evaluated and had a dismal rate of HD of 33%. In the 1987 - 1988 time frame, 700 were evaluated and the rate was 22.5%. By the 1994-1995 period, the rate fell to 15.6% out of 812 being sent to OFA. That's pretty impressive even taking into account there were surely some that were sent in for evaluation because the owner already determined HD was present.

Compare OFA to PennHip's breed statistics? Sorry, but I'm not aware of any meaningful breed statistics from PennHip. Isn't the jury still out on PennHip's distraction index? Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing PEnnHip and really, since I no longer breed, have any experience with it. I have read that it tends to have more false positives than OFA does but wouldn't you rather have the false positive than a false negative? It also offers the advantage of being able to perform the procedure a hell of a lot sooner than using OFA's 2year-old requirement. *IF* I were still breeding I think I'd use PennHip on promising young dogs instead of getting a preliminary OFA at one year of age and then get an OFA at 2 years of age. Nuttin' wrong with covering all bases until the meaningful data can be obtained to compare the both.

Bottom line is that either one or both should be done on any dog that is considered for breeding. THe need for OFA was impressed upon us by our mentors clear back in 1978 even though our breed had a low rate of 3% and is down to a 1.2% affected rate in 1994-95. OFA was the only game in town at that time but now why not take advantage of both?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Well dang... -- Boxer Person, 11:40:20 01/18/03 Sat
Reiterating........ -- OldDog1, 08:21:19 01/19/03 Sun