Well dang... -- 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: 11:40:20 01/18/03 Sat
Author: Boxer Person
Subject: Well dang...
In reply to: SD 's message, "Hey, I'm just playin' around....." on 10:10:52 01/18/03 Sat

I might as well just go on and have a great Saturday. You've left me little here to argue about. LOL!!! Excellent post. :)

You get the stat of your dog against the breed on the report itself. But it is up against a median value based on the dogs tested up until that time so it fluxuates depending on the time performed and the new dogs added. It can never be considered a fixed value. The holder of the report has to realize that it will change the second another member of the breed is added.

Sample Report

Of course the same limitations are present that you mentioned for OFA. The more of a breed that is tested, the more accurate and less variable the view.

Many breed clubs are allowing breeders to voluntarily submit OFA and PennHip reports for an in club db or in various health studies. But I think until (as many groups in the UK and Europe, even some in the US are doing) it becomes a requirement to submit health test results on dogs that club members intend to breed or have bred over a multi-generational period, we are going to continue to see skewed results and are not going to see significant impact in many breeds. Course Padgett basically said that too a while back...nothing original about it.

And huge yes, I would much rather receive a false positive rather than a false negative!!! Absolutely.

Again, good, good post.

> 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:

Reiterating........ -- OldDog1, 08:21:19 01/19/03 Sun