Reiterating........ -- 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: 08:21:19 01/19/03 Sun
Author: OldDog1
Subject: Reiterating........
In reply to: SD 's message, "Hey, I'm just playin' around....." on 10:10:52 01/18/03 Sat

mited 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?

Once again , and as I have *repeatedly * told Pwimmy and others , H/D screening is in it's infancy within the breed.

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.
>

Yeah? And? The above is nothing more than basic statistics , larger sample , more data etc.

But given the current sociopolitical climate and the presence of anit breed whacks like Pwimmy, wweeellll lets
just say I'm not all alone in not sending info on my dogs
where it ends up in a database.

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.

Only up to the point that PennHip came on the scene. But yes even a monkey can agree that screening for h/d is rather
a necessity and has had a beneficial effect wherever utilised.

But once again that's rather a ....DDUUUH isn't it?

>
>Compare OFA to PennHip's breed statistics? Sorry, but
>I'm not aware of any meaningful breed statistics from
>PennHip.

Sooner or later there will be , whether there will be
collected data on the APBT remains to be seen.

Isn't the jury still out on PennHip's
>distraction index? Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing
>PEnnHip and really, I have read that it tends to have
>more false positives than OFA does

Yes and yes. However data is data , right? Want to eliminate a given syndrome? Collect as much data as possible
and weed out the carriers of said syndrome.

However note that care should be taken in sampling for said data. For example given the small sample within this breed , if one suddenly added twenty weightpull dogs who
"failed" screening procedures to that sample even though all twenty had their hips ruined by being pulled too hard , too early for too long it could skew the sample.

ANd before you ask , yes some folks pull too early , after all you don't have a 14 year old doing max deadlifts , squats or power cleans , right? Same principle , *zero*
difference.But then I've seen more than one sheepdog ruined by being put to work on tough stock too early , especially
soft dogs on rough beef. Bossy whacks the dog once and the dog is ruined.But I digress.

but wouldn't you
>rather have the false positive than a false negative?

Agreed.....

>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.
>

Pretty close to what I've done for a long time , depending
of course on how far I have to drive to get to a vet I trust
for the procedure and interpretation. And *always* get a second opinion on films , if the initial vet objects , find a new vet.

>Bottom line is that either one or both >should< be done
>on any dog that is considered for breeding.

WRONG.100% in error. That word you utilised should be spelled as follows..........A N Y............

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.

Now extrapolate and understand where the process is
within this breed , as I have clearly and repeatedly stated
screening is still within in it's infancy within the breed
just as it is with other breeds.

And I lot of us are rather sick of ypping from berks like Pwimmy who have zero idea of what's actually going on within the breed.

Now do you have any other idea what the *other* health
screens are that one should clear prior to breeding ? Quite willing to discuss those to.

OldDog1

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