|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 18:00:49 GMT -5
OFA and Penn Hip x rays DO determine the health of the hips. Dogs Fair and Under cannot BE bred, in FCI working breed clubs.
Not all adhere to it, but those that do within the confines of the club protocols, the HD rate is not even on the radar for Kurzhaar, Drahthaar, PPs, Jagds, even GSDs (German Breed Clubs that is) as compared to their US brethren whcih requires no testing.
HD is NOT on the rise within these breeds and these breed clubs. None are AKC affiliated.
OFA X rays tell one what genetics he is working with...hence it provides more reliability in detecting prone genetic conditions if those with the condition are weeded out.
This is just plain common sense, Thistledale.
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 18:05:52 GMT -5
Study compares PennHIP vs OFA hip dysplasia tests Ben Williams
Responsible breeders are always trying to reduce the risk of hip dysplasia in their dogs\' blood lines.
One way to achieving this goal is to have an accurate test for susceptibility to this disease. A recent study attempted to look at the differences in the two most common tests.
Currently the test regarded as the \"gold standard\" used to determine a dog\'s susceptibility to hip dysplasia is the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals\' (OFA) hip joint scoring system. This system rates a dog\'s hip joint on a seven-point scoring system. The test relies on interpretation of a radiograph of the dog\'s hips, which are then assigned a score by three independent radiologists: Excellent, Good, Fair, Borderline, Mild, Moderate and Severe (Click here to read an explanation of each score).
Another, more recently developed test, is the University of Pennsylvania Hip Improvement Program (PennHIP) test. Unlike the OFA test, PennHIP requires the dog to be anesthetized. Three radiographs are taken to measure the hip joint laxity. A score between 0-1 is assigned, with 0 being very tight hips and 1 being very loose. The test is not pass-fail, and the score is actually based on a measurement of the hip’s distraction index (DI).
According to the organization, \"the DI is an indication of the ‘percent out of joint’ that the femoral head is displaced from the acetabulum.\" So a DI of 0.15 means the femoral head is 15 percent out of joint (a tight hip), and a DI of 0.77 means the head is 77 percent out of joint (a pretty loose hip). The index is measured using circular gauges that are placed over the films, and the final number reflects factors such as the size of the dog and how it compares to the rest of the population. This method generally defines a DI of ≥0.30 as \"osteoarthritis-susceptible,\" and a DI of ≤0.30 as \"osteoarthritis-non-susceptible.\"
A recent study compared the relationship between the OFA hip joint scores and the PennHIP distraction index values.
The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine, one of whom, Gail Smith, VMD, PhD, invented the PennHIP method. The study found that the PennHIP method was a more accurate indicator of dogs’ susceptibility to osteoarthritis.
\"Results suggested that OFA scoring of HE [hip joint-extended] radiographs underestimated susceptibility to osteoarthritis in dogs, which may impede progress in reducing or eliminating hip dysplasia through breeding,\" the study says.
The researchers looked at the differences in the OFA scores and the PennHIP DIs of radiographs of 439 dogs that were screened between 1987 and 2008. The specific results showed that:
* 14% of dogs had hip joints scored as excellent by OFA standards, but 52% (31/60) of those had a DI ≥0.30 (range, 0.14 to 0.61) * 82% of dogs with OFA-rated good hip joints had a DI ≥0.30 (range, 0.10 to 0.77) * 94% of dogs with OFA-rated fair hip joints had a DI ≥0.30 (range, 0.14 to 0.77) * Of all dogs with fair to excellent hip joints by OFA standards, 80% had a DI ≥0.30. * All dogs with OFA-rated borderline hip joints or mild, moderate, or severe hip dysplasia had a DI ≥0.30 (range, 0.30 to 0.83).
Specialist weighs in
Reproductive specialist Milan Hess, DVM, DACT, of Colorado Veterinary Specialists said her clinic performs OFA tests more often than PennHIP.
\"Breeders know what Excellent, Good or Fair means when discussing hip scores,\" Hess said. \"Breeders are typically not educated in distraction indices or in knowing how their dog\'s hips compared to the rest of the population can help them make objective breeding choices.
OFA evaluation does not require heavy sedation or general anesthesia and requires only one view. For these reasons, OFA evaluation is significantly less expensive than PennHIP evaluation. OFA does not require films to be submitted so breeders can elect not to submit films with obviously poor joint conformation. Finally, OFA evaluations tend to be easier to ‘pass’ than PennHip evaluations and many breeders are unfortunately more interested in passing the test than having an objective evaluation in which the result may not be as good.\"
While the conclusions of the study may seem foregone, Hess said the results published generally correlate with her experience with the two methods. However, she pointed out that the lack of improvement in dogs’ hips is not only the fault of the evaluation method.
\"As veterinarians, we need to encourage owners to submit films that will obviously not pass due to poor joint conformation AND make the results available to the public (there is a box on the OFA form the owner can initial if they wish to have non-passing results made public),\" Hess said. \" It does no good for a breeder to be using a dog with Excellent hips if they didn\'t know that 3 of the littermates were dysplastic. Used properly, OFA evaluations likely could be used to direct selection pressure to improve hip scores.\" The study, \"Evaluation of the relationship between Orthopedic Foundation for Animals’ hip joint scores and PennHIP distraction index values in dogs,\" was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) in September.
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 27, 2011 18:08:57 GMT -5
now I REALLY question your knowledge of inheritance...
HD is on the rise everywhere
go study the new FCI COI regs and get back to me when you have at least some idea of what we're talking about here
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 18:11:02 GMT -5
OFA is benficial to breeders that utilize it, and look at verticial pedigrees.
\'To properly use the OFA ratings, the breeder must know the OFA ratings for the Sire and Dam, for ALL of the siblings of both the Sire and Dam, for All four Grandparents, and ALL of the Grandparents\' siblings, for ALL eight Great-grandparents and for ALL of the Great-grandparents\' siblings. (Offered in FCI Breed Clubs)
These OFA ratings must then be placed in a \"vertical pedigree\" and calculated to determine whether or not a dog should be bred. Assuming that each animal is only bred once and each litter has 10 pups, that is a minimum of 140 dogs with OFA ratings that the breeder must have recorded.
What is important is that the mass quantity of dogs in that list be free of Hip Dysplasia.
Since Hip Dysplasia has both an nutritional and complex genetic components, it is very possible to have a dog with excellent hips whose entire genetic makeup is composed of dogs with horrible hips(and such a dog will throw pups with bad hips).
Its for that reason that any individual dog’s OFA rating is a worthless predictor of Hip Dysplasia and it is also the reason why it takes so much information to attempt to make the OFA protocol work. In fact, it requires such a large amount information to do the ratings properly that I doubt if ANY show breeder has successfully implemented the protocol. If you desire more information check out the following document on the OFA website BREEDERS GUIDE TO DATA. (http://www.offa.org/hovanart.pdf )
An acceptable OFA rating of the parents, the grandparents, the great-grandparents, the great-great-grandparents and to infinity, BY THEMSELVES, is almost worthless. What is important is the status of the siblings of the pup and the siblings of all these ancestors. The following is a quote from the OFA website. “For example; a dog with fair hips but with a strong hip background and over 75% of its brothers and sisters being normal is a good breeding prospect. A dog with excellent hips, but with a weak family background and less than 75% of its brothers and sisters being normal is a poor breeding prospect”. In other words, it possible to have an excellent rated dog that should NOT be used for breeding and at the same time have a dog with poor rated hips be a good choice for a breeder. From that statement alone it should be obvious the rating, by itself, is of no use to a potential puppy buyer. In the same vein, a rating is also useless to the breeder unless they implement the entire protocol.
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 18:16:08 GMT -5
This explains it well thistedale..
Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) works to combat hip dysplasia (HD), a terrible genetic disease. HD is known to cause various degrees of arthritis (degenerative joint disease) that can lead to pain, debilitation, and, eventually, euthanasia.
Breeders are currently required to evaluate the hips of all breeding stock and eliminate dysplastic dogs from the breeding programs. Many breeders, working to eliminate HD from their lines and from the breed, ask puppy buyers at the time of adoption to evaluate the hips of their new puppies at some point before two years. Many puppy owners fail to do so because they don’t understand the true nature of the disease, the importance of the data to a breeding program, or because they fear anesthesia. Let’s take a moment to address these issues.
HD is an inherited, genetic condition. An unfortunate myth in the dog world is that HD is caused by a combination of diet, environment, and genetics. In truth, “hip dysplasia is a multiple gene, inherited disease. Environmental factors, like high caloric diet during the rapid growth phase, may exacerbate changes in dysplastic hips but will not create hip dysplasia.”1 HD, the structural failure of the femoral head to seat into the hip socket, is programmed from birth- just as the color of your dogs face or the length of their tail.
The symptoms of HD may manifest faster due to trauma or improper diet, but trauma and diet don’t cause the genetic condition. HD is often present in years before symptoms appear and many owners are oblivious to the condition.
HD can be eliminated. Clubs who have recognized the dangers of HD and instituted breeding practices to eliminate unsound candidates, have found remarkable success. In twenty years, Breeders like the Leonbergers have reduced the incidence of HD in the breed to 10% and, at the same time, increased the occurrence of Excellent hips by over 60%.
In contrast, the St. Bernard, which is relatively unscreened for HD, suffers from nearly 50% hip dysplasia in the screened and submitted stock. 2 The incidence of HD in the St. Bernard may even be much higher. In order for breeders to make further progress, we need not only to screen for three generations of HD free dogs as we do now, but also know more about the genetics of breeding stock.
Breeders can only see half the genetic picture. Genes are like cards in a two-player game of “Go Fish”. Breeders try to do the best they can to know all the cards out there, but typically they can only see half the cards at play. Naturally, they end up doing a lot of educated guessing. When puppy owners perform health tests, including hip evaluations, they aren’t only easing their own minds, but they are giving their breeder a sneak peak at some of those unseen genes. The guidelines for us to further reduce HD are very clear, but breeders need your help to follow the OFA’s recommendations for breeders:
What we see isn’t always what we get. Illustrating how important litter screenings are, OFA evidence clearly demonstrates that a dog with fair hips and a strongly normal hip background is typically a far superior candidate to a dog with excellent hips, but a weak hip background. 3 A breeder without information on brother and sisters and/or offspring isn’t able to fully evaluate the “genetic health” of their dog’s hips and can only go on hip rating and muscular traits. One animal’s hip rating is only half the picture; breeders must know the whole picture. They are counting on you for help to make this breed as sound as possible.
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 27, 2011 18:17:39 GMT -5
I'll give it to ya straight, point blank, K
the incidence of HD is like 1000% higher now, that it was BEFORE OFA was even founded
IOW breeding xray to xray simply does not work
like I said in the first place, you go ahead buy/breed/train/whatever all the FCI you want; just don't expect me to buy your culls
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 18:31:54 GMT -5
The incidence rate of HD among Hunting Breeds and breed clubs, is non existant..
If I get you the figures, will you concede my point that testing and breeding with Xray exams leads to an extremely low HD incidence rate?
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 27, 2011 20:00:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 20:36:52 GMT -5
You havent read a Darn thing I wrote.
I am referencing Euro FCI Hunting Breed clubs (VDD, VDK, VPP etc).
They have just about Extinguished all incidents of Hip dysplasia. This includes the Pudelpointer, Drahthaar, Jagd and Kurzhaar.
NOT US Counterparts which are NOT tested or Other breeds like Labs, the most popular dog in America.
US Breed clubs have NO mandatory Hip testing, or ANY testing at all to breed, hence the HD rate IS through the roof.
You can go on and on, but you wont make a damn bit of sense.
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 27, 2011 20:55:15 GMT -5
This includes the Pudelpointer, Drahthaar, Jagd and Kurzhaar frankly I'm skeptical, but whatever please get back to me when FCI/OFA eradicates HD in AT
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 20:57:42 GMT -5
I will bet you a case of beer that the German FCI Airedale Breed club has a much lower incidence HD rate of it there, than here in the USA Breed Club which does not test.
Im not sure if it is mandatory or not with the AD club there, but I KNOW it is for Sporting hunt breeds there. And it is damn near wiped out as to be extinct.
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 27, 2011 21:26:43 GMT -5
I'm not here to educate you as to the inherited health of the german AT type, K
again, if german/FCI imports are your thing, by all means have at it
and again, I strongly suggest you educate yourself about the new FCI COI regulations
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Jul 27, 2011 21:32:39 GMT -5
Dont need you to.
The Breed clubs in FCI administer to the Breed and breeders.
Technically it is voluntary, but most clubsadhere to some sort of QC or Quality control, which you despise so much.
I dont know anything of the German Airedale FCI clubs in Germany and E Europe but I know that theyre working instincts are far more developed than here.
Most ADs here couldnt track, hunt or bite their way out of a paper bag and I say this sadly. I would like to see keener instincts in these dogs.
|
|
|
Post by theresa on Jul 28, 2011 10:57:59 GMT -5
Its always interesting to read conversations on health screenings between two people that have little to no actual time in the breeding game. This is not meant as an insult, but an observation, as I have seen this dialog before - many times, over the years, in many breeds. The initial question - why are other breeds successful at retrieving? - was answered quite well over a year ago by The Don. Next question: The issue is ... Do you think titling dogs as proof of minimum standards including hip screening is both respectable and necessary for the safekeeping of the breeds work ability? My answer: Yes and No. Yes, its the politically respectable thing to do - particularly in today's environment with technology opening doors for us, particularly for new breeders. And, while many might knock the old timers who came before us and bred with nary an xray, those same 'breeding blind' old timers preserved the breeds for us to succeed or fail with today. A lot can be said for successful experience, and a successful old timer's hand and eye can often go much farther than a breeding made on paper that by logic, testing and design 'should' produce success once it hits the ground. As echoed elsewhere, titles - both inside and out - can be staged and faked, can be conditioned for a particular venue/environment, so while titles are nice they are not the be all /end all - this for some of us. I am not saying titles mean absolutely nothing - titles are politically respectable, and it takes work to obtain those titles, and the dogs and handlers who earn those titles have got something going for them for sure. I just am saying a title doesn't = genetics. So what IS necessary for the safekeeping of any breed's working ability? It all boils down to its breeders, and the passion and vision of those breeders. That may seem contradictory as many working dog handlers are consumers - they don't breed, as breeding is a life consuming passion when done right; their passion is working their dogs so they purchase dogs with the hope that working ability they thought they saw in a pup comes true upon maturity. Its a gamble, some lose and some win. And I suspect because many have lost on that gamble, they try to come up with ways to make their next consumer purchase a sure thing - make breeders breed for X, Y, and Z so the gamble and risk is gone when they go to purchase their next working dog, they have a sure thing because of X,Y,Z now - JMHO. The best formula for a 'sure thing' is to find a breeder who produces dogs that mesh with what your vision of a well bred working whatever should be. Its still no guarantee, but it IS working with a stacked deck [and if that ain't good enough, take X, Y and Z and go breed your own! ] I do think that the watered down show fluff is a necessary evil. Don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to see any dog bred for beauty to have required health testing prior to being bred. I would even go so far as to require GSD's to be able to turn corners without falling over [sad but true, at one UKC show all the white shepherds nearly tipped over when they had to turn a corner in the ring - when they did make the turn and were coming at you, they were so narrow they about disappeared! But I digress...] I do think that MOST dogs in homes today are in PET homes, and true, working temperaments are not suited for generic consumption - while the show fluff is bred for generic consumer consumption.
|
|
|
Post by thistlesdale on Jul 28, 2011 12:10:12 GMT -5
having bred enough litters now to know most of the breeds dirty little secrets, I definitely want to see working AT bred like those deckers ("in development")
kennel club populations weren't sustainable BEFORE COI regs
if I can't produce healthy, long lived AT, I'll quit the breed
never been a breed standard published that's worth a sick dog to me
|
|