Drahthaar with Hip Displasia "and others"
Bill Koob
At 09:37 AM 11/1/96 -0500, you wrote: Todd++
>
>True Drahthaars are registered with the Verein Deutsch-Drahthaar. AKC
>and FDSB dogs are properly called 'German Wirehaired Pointers'. In the
>past few years, Drahthaars have enjoyed a 98% testing rate for hip
>displasia, and as such have cut it's incidence drastically.
>
I suspect most people like myself who have had this bad news do not
forward the xrays because of the thought of throwing good money after bad.
My breed has had similar results as you quote for Drahthaars, but that does
not mean there are not significant HD problems for any breed. The proof
comes at about three years, when the dog has to perform in difficult hunting
conditions. Many of us buy with a guarantee, but this is insignificant,
when looking at the hours and money spent on training the dog, not to
mention the
emotional attachment that most of us develop for the beast.
I fully support Chris's insistence on no posting of pups for sale without
the OAF results of the family tree; eventhough, this is no guarantee that
pup will not come up with HD. My pups parents where H.D. free.
Some breeders claim a Fair rating is ok. What do you think. I have several
dogs that I wish were fair.
Stu West
Bill Koob wrote:
> Some breeders claim a Fair rating is ok. What do you think. I have several
> dogs that I wish were fair.
I have bred fair BUT only under duress: extremely high performance
UNAVAILABLE from any other alternative. It just doesn't make sense.
Theoretically fair should be ok given the double humped camel that the
bell curve will throw, but why take a chance with the pups below the
lower hump???
Stu WEst
Alma Bottom POinting Labs
www.pointing-lab.com
Todd Hedenstrom
Bill Koob wrote:
> I suspect most people like myself who have had this bad news do not
> forward the xrays because of the thought of throwing good money after bad.
This is an extremely selfish and narrow view, which in the end hurts the
breed. Heres' why- the *only way* a breed's incidence of HD is known is
through the statistics compiled by the OFA and other HD registries. If
you have a displastic dog, and don't let the breeder and OFA know, then
you're skewing the results of the database, which leads to false
conclusions about the results of various breeding practices. OFA is
what, 25 bucks? Don't you think you could put $25 toward the betterment
of your breed?
One reason I really like PennHIP is that they *require* all shots taken
by the vet to be sent in, no questions asked, no options. This means
their database will be more valid than will OFA's given a few years for
it to be more widely used.
As for Drahthaars, it's much easier to control such things in a tightly
controlled breeding program- our breedwarden can tell you *precisely*
how many dogs have been bred in a year, *precisely* how many pups were
produced, and *precisely* what the displasia incidence for the breed
is. That's a luxury that comes with the sometimes annoying controls,
one of the things that makes the extra trouble worthwhile.
> My breed has had similar results as you quote for Drahthaars, but that does
> not mean there are not significant HD problems for any breed. The proof
> comes at about three years, when the dog has to perform in difficult hunting
> conditions.
I hear a lot from a *lot* of Drahthaar folks, and so far haven't run
across a severely displastic Drahthaar. One reason I questioned the
breed name is that many GWP people misuse the word 'Drahthaar', and if
there's *really* a displastic Drahthaar, I'd like to know about it.
Most specifically, I'd like to guarantee that the breeder hears about
it- all too often they don't.
> Some breeders claim a Fair rating is ok. What do you think. I have several
> dogs that I wish were fair.
Our registry actually uses a different 'scale', because our films are
evaluated in Germany- ours is HD-free, HD-borderline, HD-1, HD-2, HD-3.
This compares I suppose to OFA ratings of excellent, good, fair, mild,
and severe. I would not personally breed an HD-1 dog, unless the dog
was the most amazing, incredible, and downright astounding dog to hit
the planet in the past 10 years in every other category. There are too
many other fine dogs out there (especially in the AKC GWPs, as thier
gene pool is so much larger) to risk compounding a problem.
Look at it this way- you may have one dog with displasia, but you think
you'll breed, because you want a pup from your dog. This is a nice
sentiment, but you breed and get six pups, five of which you place.
Three of those owners breed, and make 20 more pups. This goes on and
on, and before long you've distributed possibly poor genetics to a whole
raft of dogs. It's much more difficult to remove problems such as
displasia, than it is to find another dog who's got a good personality
and points birds. People who breed "to get a pup from my dog" amaze me
in thier ignorance of the damage they can cause.
This probably doesn't answer the question about breeding 'fair' dogs,
but I really can't give a straight answer, as the question doesn't
relate to my breed. I've never had a displastic dog, but I can tell you
this- I would *never* breed a displastic dog, nor would I *ever* breed
without having done x-rays. It's probably tough to have a good friend
in a dog, and wish to breed, but that's the wrong reason. A person who
breeds for himself is a fool. An ethical breeder is one who breeds with
an eye toward improving the breed.
--
Todd++;
vom Dixie Drahthaars
http:/www.drahthaar.com/
Stu West
Folks--
There really isn't any reason to require pics to be registered. I won't
register bad hips on dogs that I buy because I don't want dogs
registered with AKC to show up on my record...
All that has tohappen to eliminate the chd problem is for people NOT to
buy dogs without registered parents. Pretty simple. Not OFA's fault if
you buy a bad dog. It's your problem.
Also pics aren't going to solve the problem for several (5?)
gnereations. We've just got to stop buying/breeding unregistered dogs.
Stu WEst
Alma Bottom POintng Labs
www.pointng-lab.com
Todd Hedenstrom
Thomas MacClanahan wrote:
> >There really isn't any reason to require pics to be registered. I won't
> >register bad hips on dogs that I buy because I don't want dogs
> >registered with AKC to show up on my record...
> Are you saying you don't want to have anything to do with an AKC registered
> dog (which is how I initially read it)?
>
> Or are you saying that, in some way if you register a dog with OFA that data
> will be included in the AKC database regardless if the dog is AKC registered
> (how I read it the second time through)?
I think he's trying to say that if he OFAs dogs he's purchased, rather
than bred himself, he won't OFA because he's afraid that they'll put his
kennel name on dogs that may come out displastic, and that this will
somehow smear the reputation of his kennel, even though he had no
control over the breeding of those dogs.
However, he's got it all confused- the AKC doesn't register kennels with
displasia information, they're just beginning to put OFA numbers on
pedigrees. If a dog gets a bad rating, it just doesn't get a number,
it's not listed in the New York Times as defective. Also, how difficult
is it to tell someone that the dog without the OFA number was one you
purchased, not bred, and that's why the dog is neutered rather than part
of the breeding program?
A breeder's reputation is not going to be ruined because he's purchased
dogs that turn out to be displastic. However, refusing to OFA stock
that you've purchased for your breeding program, on the off chance it
may be displastic, in a kind of 'out of sight, out of mind' routine
*will* wreck a reputation. Case in point- my first hunting dog was a
GWP from a local breeder down here- he pitched a fit when I OFA'd the
dog, as he was worried I'd find displasia, and that would ruin his
perfect record of no displastic dogs. The reason he'd had none??
Simple- he never tested. For the record, my dog was *not* displastic,
but I learned quite a bit about breeders from that experience.
--
Todd++
vom Dixie Drahthaars
Paul Morrison
In a message dated 96-11-01 14:49:33 EST, you write:
<< Bill Koob wrote:
> I suspect most people like myself who have had this bad news do not
> forward the xrays because of the thought of throwing good money after bad.
This is an extremely selfish and narrow view, which in the end hurts the
breed. Heres' why- the *only way* a breed's incidence of HD is known is
through the statistics compiled by the OFA and other HD registries. If
you have a displastic dog, and don't let the breeder and OFA know, then
you're skewing the results of the database, which leads to false
conclusions about the results of various breeding practices. OFA is
what, 25 bucks? Don't you think you could put $25 toward the betterment
of your breed?
>>
Right on Todd, anyone not willing to put up another $25 to report results to
the OFA is acting very selfishly and not looking out for the breed. Then
again, maybe they just don't understand how these statistics can help
breeders down the road. While not a supporter of PENN Hip, I like the fact
that all x-rays get added to the database. OFA
should do the same.
Paul Morrison
prm...@aol.com
Stu West
Tom--
I agree with all that you write.
I was ony reacting to the presumption that because Penn is an auto
reeporting registry, it must be better.
It's not yet just because of the lack of data behind it, for a start.
Mere reportage won't do much except confuse the public as to who was
responsible forthe breeding.
I have a Penn analyst who shoots my pups for me off record. I, like
everyone else, have a base rate of CHD (2% in my kennel) The last thing
that I need is for some idiot who has no idea what a polygenetic trait
is, OR HOW LONG IT TOOK THE GERMANS TO REMOVE CHD FROM THE SHEPARD, and
how much dedication it takes to clena up a line, making some sophmoric
judgment about my breeding on the basis of a limited education.
Penn will be good, maybe better than OFA. But it will be 20 years
before we can even compare the two systems.
The point is to be assiduous in clenaing your own line. What I resent
is that if I own a pup, MY NAME IS REPORTED when that pup is found to be
chd. I didn't even breed it. But it's public record. I think they will
get sued. Maybe soon.
Stu WEst
Thomas MacClanahan
Stu wrote:
>
>Folks--
>
>There really isn't any reason to require pics to be registered. I won't
>register bad hips on dogs that I buy because I don't want dogs
>registered with AKC to show up on my record...
>
>buy dogs without registered parents. Pretty simple. Not OFA's fault if
>you buy a bad dog. It's your problem.
>
>Also pics aren't going to solve the problem for several (5?)
>gnereations. We've just got to stop buying/breeding unregistered dogs.
???? I'm really confused as to what you are trying to say here Stu!
Could you clarify it a little?
Are you saying you don't want to have anything to do with an AKC registered
dog (which is how I initially read it)?
Or are you saying that, in some way if you register a dog with OFA that data
will be included in the AKC database regardless if the dog is AKC registered
(how I read it the second time through)?
Or that you equate AKC registered dogs as being CHD free (another way I
interpreted it)?
Any any case, I'd disagree with any of those assumptions. AKC registration
does NOT insure dysplasia free dogs! Far from it. A very small percentage of
AKC registered and breeding dogs are even examined for dysplasia by OFA. In
my breed (Chessies) it is less than 20 percent.
OFA excellent parents will not insure dysplasia free offspring. It is
possible to get a dysplastic dog from a litter from 2 ofa excellent dogs.
AKC requires the dog to be 2 years old before it can be fully evaluated for
hip rating. AKC requires all dogs to be registered by (approx) 1 year of
age. So you can not wait for OFA results on a dog before deciding whether to
AKC register or not.
Now if you say you are breeding a litter from parents who can document 5
generations of OFA good or better, then your chances of producing dysplasia
are very small. But it is still possible. Dysplasia is a polygenic trait.
It requires the right combination of several genes in order to manifest
itself. So as an analogy, even if you throw all the face cards out of a
deck, you can still get a blackjack with a 10 - ace combination. The odds are
much less, but it is still possible.
Tom
Wendy8806
>AKC requires the dog to be 2 years old before it can be fully evaluated
for
>hip rating.
It is OFA that requires the dog be 2 years of age, not AKC. Actually, OFA
will do a preliminary x-ray before age 2., but will not "certify" the dog
until age 2 or above. Also, you do not "register" your dogs with OFA. OFA
is not a dog registry, it evaluates hip x-rays. In addition, OFA does not
publish the names of dogs, owners or breeders who do NOT pass OFA. Another
point, AKC will no longer publish OFA #'s on pedigrees unless the dog is
permanently identified (tatoo or microchip).
Its interesting to note, that the U.K. does not rate dogs as pass/fail.
They grade all dogs on a scale, 1-5 for example, as the dog compares to
other members of its breed. This is important especially in breeds with
small gene pools.
Wendy Abelman
Wenmark Gordons
Linda H.
Stu West wrote:
> I have a Penn analyst who shoots my pups for me off record.
I am very disturbed to hear this. My understanding of PennHip is that
when a vet receives the training to do it they pledge to send all
xrays in to PennHip. Your vet is being dishonest if he is doing
this. Also, there is no reason for it. PennHip requires all evaluations
to be reported for addition to their database, but they give you several
options about how public you want the results to be. You can choose to
have the results completely anonymous, public only if results are
good, or public regardless of outcome. But whichever way you go,
the results go into the databases for research, and that is valuable.
Negative publicity thru AKC registration is also an invalid reason
to avoid OFA. Only passing evaluations are reported by OFA, so if
the dog fails, that info will not be available thru the AKC registration.
Also AKC reistration info includes the breeders name as well as the
owner.
> I, like
> everyone else, have a base rate of CHD (2% in my kennel) The last thing
> that I need is for some idiot who has no idea what a polygenetic trait
> is, OR HOW LONG IT TOOK THE GERMANS TO REMOVE CHD FROM THE SHEPARD, and
> how much dedication it takes to clena up a line, making some sophmoric
> judgment about my breeding on the basis of a limited education.
Personally, in an ideal world, I think all xrays and evaluations taken
anywhere, anytime should be public knowledge. If that were the case
(pipe dream, I know) I'll bet we would make a lot better progress against
the disease. And everyone would develop a better understanding of it.
> The point is to be assiduous in clenaing your own line. What I resent
> is that if I own a pup, MY NAME IS REPORTED when that pup is found to be
> chd. I didn't even breed it. But it's public record. I think they will
> get sued. Maybe soon.
Neither OFA or PennHip will report your name as breeder, or even owner,
of a dysplastic pup if you don't want them to. Good for you that you
are diligent about cleaning up your own line, but I'll bet you could
do it even more successfully if you had good information about any
outside animal you were condsidering breeding to, including complete
info about ancestors, siblings, and other offspring.
Linda
Thomas MacClanahan
Stu wrote:
>
>I was ony reacting to the presumption that because Penn is an auto
>reeporting registry, it must be better.
>
>It's not yet just because of the lack of data behind it, for a start.
<<snip>>
>Penn will be good, maybe better than OFA. But it will be 20 years
>before we can even compare the two systems.
Ah, I agree. My understanding of the PennHip method is that the
number reported merely represents the percentile in which your dog
falls in comparison to their data base on your breed. So if you have a
breed such as St. Bernards for example, where the incidence of CHD is
extremely high, then a high rating will not necessarily say that the
dog is CHD free but merely that it is better than most others of that
breed. So as you say, the Penn method may be actually better than OFA,
but the time that will be required to accumulate enough data to make it
really meaningful may be as you state be at least 20 years.
>
>The point is to be assiduous in clenaing your own line. What I resent
>is that if I own a pup, MY NAME IS REPORTED when that pup is found to
be
>chd. I didn't even breed it. But it's public record.
As far as reporting findings, AKC has ruled that it will no longer
include OFA data in its database for any dog that was not tattooed,
chipped or DNA tested at time of OFA or CERF exam. It will continue to
report this data in the Awards catalogue until 1998 and then will
discontinue reporting any data for non tattoed, chipped or DNA
identified dogs.
My understanding is that OFA is going to continue its reporting scheme
where dysplastic dogs are NOT identified. And to my knowledge, PennHip
data will not yet be included on any AKC form or database. Please
correct me if I am wrong. As in all actuality, I would like to seem a
listing of all CHD positive dogs and all dogs that have PRA, cataracts,
etc. With recessive genes, it is much easier working backward from
known positives than trying to guess as to who carriers may be in the
OFA and CERF certified population based upon rumors and hearsay.
Tom
Todd Hedenstrom
Linda H. wrote:
> Stu West wrote:
>
> > I have a Penn analyst who shoots my pups for me off record.
>
> I am very disturbed to hear this. My understanding of PennHip is that
> when a vet receives the training to do it they pledge to send all
> xrays in to PennHip. Your vet is being dishonest if he is doing
> this.
Don't sweat it, Linda- at best Stu is confused again, at worst he's
blowing smoke. First of all, there's no 'Penn analysts' in this country
shooting films. The PennHIP folks do the analysis, veterinarians
trained to use the fixtures and take the x-rays do the shots- two
different groups of people. PennHIP is a very scientific method that
the average joe-off-the-street veterinarian *cannot* do by looking at
hip films- it's done by measuring the films very carefully.
What he's probably got going is the same thing many other selfish, cheap
people do- they get thier local vet to shoot some OFA distention shots,
then they look at them and if they're obviously displastic, they don't
send in the films.
> Neither OFA or PennHip will report your name as breeder, or even owner,
> of a dysplastic pup if you don't want them to. Good for you that you
> are diligent about cleaning up your own line, but I'll bet you could
> do it even more successfully if you had good information about any
> outside animal you were condsidering breeding to, including complete
> info about ancestors, siblings, and other offspring.
Completely true- the fact that Stu obviously doesn't know how OFA
reporting works tells volumes about him as a breeder. I'm not saying
that he's a *bad* breeder, but he's got a lot of learning to do before
I'd call him a *good* one.
--
Todd++;
vom Dixie Drahthaars
http:/www.drahthaar.com/
Stu West
>
> > Neither OFA or PennHip will report your name as breeder, or even owner,
> > of a dysplastic pup if you don't want them to. Good for you that you
> > are diligent about cleaning up your own line, but I'll bet you could
> > do it even more successfully if you had good information about any
> > outside animal you were condsidering breeding to, including complete
> > info about ancestors, siblings, and other offspring.
>
> Completely true- the fact that Stu obviously doesn't know how OFA
> reporting works tells volumes about him as a breeder. I'm not saying
> that he's a *bad* breeder, but he's got a lot of learning to do before
> I'd call him a *good* one.
>
> --
> Todd++;
> vom Dixie Drahthaars
Hate to disappoint you toad, but you are quoting from someone else
again. Shoot straighter on your next witch hunt.
Stu
> http:/www.drahthaar.com/
Todd Hedenstrom
Stu West wrote:
> Hate to disappoint you toad, but you are quoting from someone else
> again. Shoot straighter on your next witch hunt.
I don't know whether to just pity you, or fear that there's a lot more
like you out there.
I quoted the writer I replied to, Stu. I wasn't speaking to you at the
time. Now I am, and you'll see that I quoted *you*. Here's a little
Usenet/Mailing list information you're obviously lacking about cites.
First, here's the example section from my post that you're all upset
about:
---begin example---
Linda H. wrote:
> Stu West wrote:
>
> > I have a Penn analyst who shoots my pups for me off record.
>
> I am very disturbed to hear this. My understanding of PennHip is that
> when a vet receives the training to do it they pledge to send all
---end example---
Notice the first line? It says 'Linda H. wrote'. That means that
everything below this with a single '>' character will be from Linda's
post. In her post, you were cited- your words will show up with *two*
'>' characters, like in the line where you admit that you attempt to
bypass ethical CHD procedures in the above cite. Got it now?
However, let's get back to the point you're trying to pull in this last
post- that you really do know what you're talking about as regards OFA
reporting. I'm going to pull a cite from a post of *YOURS* a few days
back- try to keep up:
Stu West wrote:
> What I resent is that if I own a pup, MY NAME IS REPORTED when that pup
> is found to be chd. I didn't even breed it. But it's public record.
> I think they will get sued. Maybe soon.
Ya see, you're *dead wrong* on this point. As my Good Deed for the Day
(besides voting Republican, that is), I'm going to let you in on
something that several others have already attempted to make you
understand: if you have a dog OFA'd, and it turns out to not pass the
certification (I believe 'fair' or better), then the only thing that
happens is that the dog is *not* issued a number. THERE IS NO PUBLIC
REPORTING OF CHD-POSITIVE DOGS, STU!!! Your name is not reported, your
phone is not bugged, and no, they didn't plant a tranciever in your
penis when you were being circumcised, either.
Get over your paranoia, and start helping your breed. And oh yeah- get
a book on how to understand email posting procedures.
--
Todd++;
vom Dixie Drahthaars
http:/www.drahthaar.com/
Bill & Nancy Martin
Stu West wrote:
>
> >
> > > Neither OFA or PennHip will report your name as breeder, or even owner,
> > > of a dysplastic pup if you don't want them to. Good for you that you
> > > are diligent about cleaning up your own line, but I'll bet you could
> > > do it even more successfully if you had good information about any
> > > outside animal you were condsidering breeding to, including complete
> > > info about ancestors, siblings, and other offspring.
> >
> > Completely true- the fact that Stu obviously doesn't know how OFA
> > reporting works tells volumes about him as a breeder. I'm not saying
> > that he's a *bad* breeder, but he's got a lot of learning to do before
> > I'd call him a *good* one.
> >
> > Todd++;
> > vom Dixie Drahthaars
>
> again. Shoot straighter on your next witch hunt.
>
> > http:/www.drahthaar.com/
I VERY seldom post anything here,but I learn an awful lot from this
list.I would appreciate that if you and Todd want to have a pissing match
can you please do it somewhere else such as private e-mail. Thanks a lot
Bill Martin
mar...@powerweb.net
Karen Lagerberg
At 12:21 PM 11/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Stu West wrote:
>
>> Hate to disappoint you toad, but you are quoting from someone else
>> again. Shoot straighter on your next witch hunt.
>
>like you out there.
>
>I quoted the writer I replied to, Stu. I wasn't speaking to you at the
>time. Now I am, and you'll see that I quoted *you*. Here's a little
>Usenet/Mailing list information you're obviously lacking about cites.
>First, here's the example section from my post that you're all upset
>about:
>
>---begin example---
>
>Linda H. wrote:
>> Stu West wrote:
>>
>> > I have a Penn analyst who shoots my pups for me off record.
>>
>> I am very disturbed to hear this. My understanding of PennHip is that
>> when a vet receives the training to do it they pledge to send all
>
>---end example---
information was very interesting and I look forward to more constructive
talks on the matter because I think it is important to all breeds but,
please quit your squabbles and digs at each other on the discussion lists, I
for one and sick of hearing them, do it in private.
KAren
Karen Lagerberg
Sea Grant Program Associate
Ottawa County MSU Extension
333 Clinton
Grand Haven, MI 49417
616-846-8250 (Voice)
616-846-0655 (Fax)
------------------------
Stu West
Todd-
Don't know how carefully you are reading the copy on this ,but I was
refering (mistakenly, I now understand) to Penn scores and not to OFA
scores. I spend between $2000 and $4000 PER YEAR on xrays and OFA's.
God, I hope I'm not wasting my money. We xray at 6, 12, 24,36, 48 and
96 months on our prime stock. We don't even start a pup until the doc
tells us it looks good. My reader is about 50% better than Columbia.
Let me restate that: Columbia has re ranked one of my dogs on his
complaint only. NO RESUBMISSION...
I stick by what I wrote and YOU missed the >> and credited me with a
responders comments. Wish I had the time to look it all up and post it.
Stu
Stu West
Bill & Nancy Martin wrote:
>
> Stu West wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Neither OFA or PennHip will report your name as breeder, or even owner,
> > > > of a dysplastic pup if you don't want them to. Good for you that you
> > > > are diligent about cleaning up your own line, but I'll bet you could
> > > > do it even more successfully if you had good information about any
> > > > outside animal you were condsidering breeding to, including complete
> > > > info about ancestors, siblings, and other offspring.
> > >
> > > Completely true- the fact that Stu obviously doesn't know how OFA
> > > reporting works tells volumes about him as a breeder. I'm not saying
> > > that he's a *bad* breeder, but he's got a lot of learning to do before
> > > I'd call him a *good* one.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd++;
> > > vom Dixie Drahthaars
> >
> > again. Shoot straighter on your next witch hunt.
> >
> > > http:/www.drahthaar.com/
>
> I VERY seldom post anything here,but I learn an awful lot from this
> list.I would appreciate that if you and Todd want to have a pissing match
> can you please do it somewhere else such as private e-mail. Thanks a lot
>
> Bill Martin
Stu
Robin Nuttall
Bill Koob wrote:
> Some breeders claim a Fair rating is ok. What do you think. I have several
> dogs that I wish were fair.
It is important to remember that OFA Fair is NOT dysplastic. There are 7
OFA grades. I'm not quoting here, just doing this off the top of my
head, but I think I've got the wording right.
Excellent: excellent hip conformation compared to others of the same
breed
Good: good hip conformation compared with others of the same breed
Fair: slightly less good conformation than other members of the breed,
but not dysplastic.
Borderline: Not clear, recommend re-testing in 6 months
Mild: mild hip changes due to HD
Moderate: moderate hip changes due to HD
Severe: severe hip changes due to HD
The OFA says that a Fair dog whose littermates are all Good or Excellent
is a better breeding prospect than an Excellent dog who has dysplastic
littermates. People keep forgetting that *sibling* incidence of HD is
extremely important to know when making breeding decisions. A dog can
come from generations of Excellent parents, but if the siblings of the
parents had HD, the possibility is strong that HD is still being carried
in the line--hence the dysplastic puppy that shows up in these kinds of
breedings.
In any breeding, evaluate the pedigree both horizontally and vertically,
look at the norm for your breed, strive constantly for hip improvements
while preserving type and drive, and breed the best to the best.
If I were breeding
--
Robin, Jasper and Dreamer
robin_...@muccmail.missouri.edu
(my opinions are strictly my own!)
Doberman page:
http://www.hsc.missouri.edu/people/robin/
Jon Booker
A participant of rec.hunting.dogs wrote:
> The OFA says that a Fair dog whose littermates are all Good or Excellent
> is a better breeding prospect than an Excellent dog who has dysplastic
> littermates. People keep forgetting that *sibling* incidence of HD is
> extremely important to know when making breeding decisions. A dog can
> come from generations of Excellent parents, but if the siblings of the
> parents had HD, the possibility is strong that HD is still being carried
> in the line--hence the dysplastic puppy that shows up in these kinds of
> breedings.
>
> In any breeding, evaluate the pedigree both horizontally and vertically,
> look at the norm for your breed, strive constantly for hip improvements
> while preserving type and drive, and breed the best to the best.
To all who may read this posting:
What good is an OFA rating if "the proof is in the pudding". If there
isn't a good correlation between a hip rating and the potential for
producing dysplastic pups, what good is the rating? How can you breed
"the best to the best" ; what criterion determines "best": ( OFA
rating?). Also, if breeding "best to best" is voluntary, the rate of CHD
in a breed is only going to improve very slowly (my opinion). Evaluating
a pedigree horizontally would be very difficult for a breeder, and even
harder for a puppy buyer.
I agree that the true measure of the success of a breeding (as far as
hips are concerned) is whether the pups eventually develop CHD, but if
you need to know the hip status of all of the siblings of a mating, this
means that the OFA rating had little predictive value. (Perhaps someone
who reads this posting can give me an idea of how good the correlation
between OFA ratings of dam and sire, and the incidence of dysplasia in
resulting litters.)
If a breeder doesn't know the hip status of all of the pups he has
produced, he may not make the right decisions as far as choosing dams
and sires. This would also make it necessary for breeders to hold off on
a second breeding using the same dam and sire for at least two years
until all of the littermates are screened for dysplasia (is this
likely?.)
As a potential buyer of a pup, what good is looking at the OFA
information on a pedigree ? It would seem to me that knowing the hip
status of previous litters having the same parents would be much more
useful. Unfortunately this information does not show up on any standard
pedigree that I know of.
My purpose for making this posting is not to offend anyone, it is to
express my frustration at this situation. I don't think that breeders
are getting the information they need in order to improve this problem.
The only way things are going to get significantly better is for a more
predictive hip rating to be developed. I don't think OFA is good enough,
and I don't know if PennHIP is the answer either. Another problem with
these methods is their cost, any new screening method is going to have
to be cheaper and easier. The best answer would seem to be to develop a
genetic test, but before this can happen it will be necessary to
identify the defective genes (not likely to happen any time in the near
future). Until this happens I would encourage breeders to determine the
OFA and PennHIP status of their breeding stock (this would be somewhat
less expensive if you have the PennHIP vet shoot an extra film using
standard OFA positioning). Perhaps PennHIP is more predictive; the
database needs to grow. Another thing that must happen, is for hip
status and other relevant health information to eventually become
mandatory on all pedigrees (not likely to happen any time in the near
future). Once a predictive rating is found, then it will be possible to
Todd Hedenstrom
[this is a few days old, as I was in South Dakota all last week thinning
out thier pheasant population]
Bill & Nancy Martin wrote:
> I VERY seldom post anything here,but I learn an awful lot from this
> list. I would appreciate that if you and Todd want to have a pissing match
> can you please do it somewhere else such as private e-mail. Thanks a lot
Bill, this is far from a 'pissing match'. Stu has posted information
that is *completely wrong* to this newsgroup/list, and I've just
corrected it. Neither OFA *nor* PennHIP will list a breeder as having a
CHD-positive dog- hell, PennHIP doesn't even rate dogs as affected, they
just give DI numbers, and a ranking of where your dog stands vs. the
others of it's breed. It's my feeling that *not* correcting such false
information can only lead to more people avoiding the kind of
data-gathering that is our only hope for the eventual elimination of
CHD.
Stu's felt the need to claim I misquoted him- fine, he can do that, but
he's wrong, just as he was about the PennHIP stuff. The quotation stuff
is piddly, it's only important to him I guess, that's why he's not man
enough to say 'oops' instead of coming up with some 'too busy' excuse on
that subject.
No, a 'pissing match' would be me pointing out that he's taken what most
serious Labrador people consider a breed fault, and parlaying that into
a whole new breed. I haven't done that- I'll leave that to the Lab
folks. :) :)
--
Todd++
vom Dixie Drahthaars
Stu West
Todd Hedenstrom wrote:
>
> No, a 'pissing match' would be me pointing out that he's taken what most
> serious Labrador people consider a breed fault, and parlaying that into
> a whole new breed. I haven't done that- I'll leave that to the Lab
> folks. :) :)
Now, we get to the heart of the matter...
Stu West
Folks--
I want to thank RObin for her erudite response re CHD. I was very
accurate to my understanding of the genetics (and once again, my back
ground is in the mathematics of gfenetics not the biology, read DNA)
One Question for discussion:
Robin worte:
> However, you are correct in saying that there will *never* be true
> elimination of HD from any line until a DNA test is perfected.
It's my understanding that even with top DNA testing there will never be
complete elimination of CHD. I think it's somewhat like the pointing
genes that we *triggered* by attribute-to-attribute breeding, i.e. the
gene recededs to a limen level, seemingly having atrophied BUT DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR. of course this is somewhat academic if the occurance is
below 1%, but it can raise it's ugly head IF we don't keep up a quality
testing program.
If I'm off base here maybe Dick Halstead could write a bit onthis for
us.
Stu West
Alma bottom Pionting Labs
http://www.pointing-lab.com
Robin Nuttall
Jon Booker wrote:
> What good is an OFA rating if "the proof is in the pudding". If there
> isn't a good correlation between a hip rating and the potential for
> producing dysplastic pups, what good is the rating? How can you breed
> "the best to the best" ; what criterion determines "best": ( OFA
> rating?). Also, if breeding "best to best" is voluntary, the rate of CHD
> in a breed is only going to improve very slowly (my opinion).
Actually, breeding according to OFA guidelines has drastically improved
the incidence of HD in some breeds. In the past 20 years dobermans have
reduced the incidence of HD by as much as 70%. Portuguese Water Dogs
have about the same reduction. This is a *major* reduction in any group.
Evaluating
> a pedigree horizontally would be very difficult for a breeder, and even
> harder for a puppy buyer.
It *would* be hard for a puppy buyer. But more and more educated
breeders are asking *all* puppy buyers to OFA, whether or not the puppy
will ever be bred. This gives them the horizontal data they need. And
they can pass that info on to the buyer. Buyers are usually quite
willing to fulfill the breeder's request, because it tells them that
their dog is healthy, regardless of whether it will be used for work or
bred.
>
> I agree that the true measure of the success of a breeding (as far as
> hips are concerned) is whether the pups eventually develop CHD, but if
> you need to know the hip status of all of the siblings of a mating, this
> means that the OFA rating had little predictive value.
No, this is incorrect. You are thinking of this as "either/or" instead
of "both." The incidence of HD is more likely to be less from 2
Excellent parents. However, if a puppy turns up with HD out of that
litter, it is fairly likely that one of the littermates in the ancestry
has HD. You need to look at both, not *just* vertically or *just*
horizontally.
> If a breeder doesn't know the hip status of all of the pups he has
> produced, he may not make the right decisions as far as choosing dams
> and sires. This would also make it necessary for breeders to hold off on
> a second breeding using the same dam and sire for at least two years
> until all of the littermates are screened for dysplasia (is this
> likely?.)
>
Nope, you are incorrect here too. Both OFA and Penn Hip offer
preliminary evaluations as early as 4 months of age. With OFA, these
prelims are 90-95% accurate when re-evaluated at 24 months of age. You
could prelim the puppies at say, 6 months of age, and have a very good
idea of whether or not you are on the right track with the breeding in
plenty of time for a repeat in 1 year.
> As a potential buyer of a pup, what good is looking at the OFA
> information on a pedigree ? It would seem to me that knowing the hip
> status of previous litters having the same parents would be much more
> useful. Unfortunately this information does not show up on any standard
> pedigree that I know of.
Remember, BOTH vertical and horizontal are important. Looking at the
pedigree of dam/sire/grandparents, etc. gives you a good indication of
the hip health. It just isn't the *only* indication. Remember, ALL hip
evaluations are phenotypic only. They look at the individual dog, not at
his genes and what he carries.
>
> My purpose for making this posting is not to offend anyone, it is to
> express my frustration at this situation. I don't think that breeders
> are getting the information they need in order to improve this problem.
The problem *is* improving, when breeders use the information wisely.
However, you are correct in saying that there will *never* be true
elimination of HD from any line until a DNA test is perfected. And even
then, breeders will have to continue to take hip health into
consideration against other factors such as hunting ability. If we got a
DNA test tomorrow and immediatly neutered all Carrier animals, we would
have some breeds which would totally disappear or fundamentally change
in type and character. It will take slow breeding away from those dogs
by dedicated breeders to eliminate this disease.
Jon McAnulty
> Stu West wrote:
>One Question for discussion:
>>Robin wrote:
>> However, you are correct in saying that there will *never* be true
>> elimination of HD from any line until a DNA test is perfected.
>It's my understanding that even with top DNA testing there will never be
>complete elimination of CHD. I think it's somewhat like the pointing
>genes that we *triggered* by attribute-to-attribute breeding, i.e. the
>gene recededs to a limen level, seemingly having atrophied BUT DOES NOT
>DISAPPEAR. of course this is somewhat academic if the occurance is
>below 1%, but it can raise it's ugly head IF we don't keep up a quality
>testing program.
This is not exactly correct. HD is currently considered to be a polygenic or
quantitative trait. This means that it is likely that more than one or many
genes are involved in the production of a dysplastic dog. Genetic testing is
usually targeted at specific mutations in a single gene. When the mutations
are identified then there is usually knowledge of how much expression that
gene is likely to have based on prior knowledge of the biological behavior
of the disease traits (ie. cystic fibrosis gene and the number of inherited
copies of this particular gene in people). With a polygenic trait there is no
single mutation to test for and therefore nothing to identify (at least by
current knowledge standards) through genetic testing (I won't get into the
theory of RFLP analysis). Thus, the identification of dysplasia is through the
phenotype expression in the individual dogs. This means if the hips look
dysplastic then they are dysplastic. Its a descriptive diagnosis of an
heritable defect.
This is where OFA and PennHip come in. These are methods developed for
characterizing the level of abnormality of the hip joint. Hip dysplasia is a
malformation or conformational defect of the hip joints. Outward signs
(pain) of hip dysplasia are due to inflammation of the joints, which can be
exacerbated by exercise, and the development of arthritic changes due to
chronic inflammation. The underlying hypothesis of how inflammation is
generated in the dysplastic hip joint is based on laxity, or looseness of fit
of the pelvic and femoral components of the hip joint. When the hip is tightly
fitting then it is less prone to inflammation from wear and tear of daily use.
The fit or laxity of the hip has primarily been evaluated using two methods,
conformational assessment and distraction, both of which are done through
radiographs. OFA ratings are based on conformational assessments. The dog is
positioned in a standard position and the hip evaluated for shape (ie. depth
of acetabulum, shape of femoral head, congruency, coverage of femoral head,
etc, etc.) and for evidence of secondary changes of dysplasia (arthritis). One
problem with this method is that the standard position is unnatural and may
artificially produce some tightening of the joint when the films are taken,
thus reducing the subluxation that may be observed. In addition, the
conformational changes can be subtle and evaluation is subjective to a
degree. PennHip holds the legs in a relatively normal position and puts a
distractive force on the femurs, thus demonstrating the amount of laxity in
the joint. It is a much more objectively quantitative rather than a subjective
assessment technique.
The importance of these tests lie in their ability to identify dogs with
dysplasia-related traits (ie. those contributing to hip laxity) which
predispose to arthritis. OFA looks entirely at bone changes and shape and is
not well suited to soft tissue (ligament) assessments except in the more
severely affected dogs. PennHip assesses laxity and therefore this assessment
includes all structures which contribute to the stability of the hip (except
for muscles which are relaxed because the films are taken under anesthesia).
Overall, the PennHip test is, IMO, a more rigorous test for dysplasia-related
traits (based on a hip laxity hypothesis) than the OFA assessment.
The value of these tests to a breeder is in their sensitivity to detect
dysplasia-related traits which can be used to cull dogs from breeding
lines. In the absence of any test, only the most severely affected are not
used for breeding. This resulted in relatively high incidences of HD in the
past. With the use of the OFA testing by responsible breeders the incidence of
HD was considerably reduced but that reduction has been leveled off for some
time now. It now requires great effort for minimal further gains with this
method. This leveling off of the incidence of HD is likely related to the
sensitivity of the OFA assessment technique. Basically, we have hit the wall
where this method is able to further effectively identify and cull the
majority of carriers of the dysplasia-producing traits. PennHip is a more
sensitive and realistic test of laxity and has a high likelihood of better
identifying carriers of traits which will produce dysplasia. This higher
sensitivity can result in culling of some dogs that a breeder may not want to
lose and which look OK on OFA testing (testing which may be used to justify
their further breeding use). Thus, there is some resistance to this method.
The other problem with acceptance of PennHip is the lack of clear guidelines
on which dogs to breed. You get a distractive index and it is up to you to
decide on how rigorous you will be in your selective breeding program. These
factors need to be worked out within each breed based on the incidence of hip
dysplasia in the breed and the available gene pool (ie. rare or unusual breeds
may not have the luxury of being as selective due to limited available
breeders).
I hope this may help some and not be too obvious for others. I do not breed
dogs. However, my own opinion is that if I were to do so in a serious way it
would be PennHip evaluation all the way for me.
J.F. McAnulty DVM, MS, PhD
Assistant Professor of Surgery
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of Wisconsin
Ken Brate
I have been following this thread for some time and what seems to be
lacking so far are some of the historical facts surrounding PennHipp and
it's comparison to OFA.
PennHip is based on work done by Dr.Gail Smith et al first published in
the American Journal of Veterinary Research in July 1993. In a survey of
142 dogs (105 of which were GS's) they found that of the dogs that had a
DI of >.3 at 4 months of age 77.8% developed degenerative joint disease
(DJD) by 24 mths. of age. (DI or Distraction Index is a measure of the
laxity or looseness of the hip joint. A DI of 0.0 is a tight hip and a
DI of 1.0 is a completely loose hip.) Dr. Smith's conclusion that the DI
was the most "importmant and reliable phenotpic factor for determining
the susceptibility of hips to DJD" was challenged by a number of people.
Even Dr. Smith noted that there was a need for further "...appropriate,
well-controlled investigations" and "However, until the heritability of
passive hip laxity is scientifically established, clinical use of this
method as a breeding criterion remains investigatonal"
In a further study reported in the AJVR in December 1993 by Dr. Lust et
al (Dr. Smith was one of the co-authors) tried to duplicate the findings
of the July study. 42 Labrador Retriever puppies were followed from the
age of 4 mths to 24 mths. A DI of < .4 predicted normal hips at 24 mths
in 88% of cases while a DI of >= .4 predicted CHD in only 57% of cases.
In this study the authors concluded a DI of .4 was "..not sufficiently
reliable basis for clinical diagnosis of CHD." and "..distraction
indexes between 0.4 and 0.7 and at either 4 or 8 months of age were not
associated strongly enough with evidence of predicting, on an individual
basis, the outcome for dysplastic hip conformation when dogs were
older."
In December 1993 ICG announced PennHip, hardly enough time to conduct
further "approprate, well-controlled investigations" or establish
scientifically the "heritability of passive hip laxity".
Note, PennHip is based on one feature, DI, or hip laxity. Also note that
in the controlled study 43% of the dogs with a DI of >.4 DID NOT DEVELOP
DJD IE.. DID NOT BECOME DYSPLASTIC.
Now, compare the above 182 dogs to OFA. OFA had in, 1993, more than
475,000 evaluations on record. OFA evaluations predict the lifetime hip
conformation correctly more than 95% of the time. Further, a study
conducted on 3369 dogs from 25 different breeds with 20 or more
Prelim/Evaluations between 1983-1989 showed that the correlation between
Prelim and Evaluation was 88.9% (ie.. the prelim was correct 88,9% of
the time.) Please note that this data seemed to be breed specific ie.
the correlation varies breed to breed from 100% in Welsh Springer
Spaniels to 71.4% in Chesapeake Bay Retrievers.
The idea of the use of joint laxity as an early predictor of CHD has
been around for a long time. It has been long recognized that it (joint
laxity) may play an important roll in the development of hip dysplasia,
but it is not the only factor and it is clear that the pathologic
evidence necessary to determine what happens in hips that are lax but do
not develop DJD, or vice versa, remains unknown. The diagnosis of hip
dysplasia requires the evaluation of a number of factors ("ie. depth of
the acetabulum, shape of the femoral head, congruency, coverage of the
femoral head, etc,etc..") and cannot be made based only on one feature.
Any system that uses a single, unproven factor with unknown heritability
to determine hip status and breeding potential must be suspect.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the method PennHip uses to
evaluate the dogs carries some risk, mainly to "younger" dogs. PennHip
uses stress radiography where a force is applied to lever, or force the
femoral head from the hip socket.(I have seen this method portrayed as
"more natural" than OFA's standard position!!)Some studies report a risk
of injury from this type of procedure.
Given all of the above, I cannot understand how or why anyone would
promote PennHip as a "superior" predictor of hip conformation/breeding
potential. While on an individual mating basis OFA cannot, with 100%
accuracy, predict the hip conformation of the get at least it has a
sound scientific basis from which to base breeding decisions. Telling me
my dog has a DI of .45 and is in the 80th percentle for it's breed when
that does not predict it's ultimate hip conformation or it's ability to
produce the desired hip conformation in it's get seems to me to be less
than usless, it is misleading. It seems to me that we are being asked to
fund ICG's research without the benefit of any meaningfull return.
Ken Brate
Breeder of Gordons for 14 years
OFA liaison GSCA
Ted Stucka
A couple of weeks ago somebody said David Bennett's article on VitaminC
and Hip Dysplasia in "Seminars in Vet. Med. and Surgery '87 2 (2):152-7
May answered a lot of questions. Well I read it and now my question is
how did he get it published?
He took 64 references and did something with all of them. We jump
from pigs, to chicks, to maybe dogs and come up with some incredible
conclusions. Cross species comparisions are very shakey unless one can
prove the metabolism of the drug is the same and the biological needs of
both species is the same.
WHO EVER posted the article please contact me. The only conclusion I
got out of the article is
"it has been shown that rapid growth caused by overfeeding increased the
incidence and severity of hip dysplasia,and it could be argue that the
morde rapid the growth outpaces the availability of nutritional factors
such as vitamins. Certainly a Vit C deficiency could produce laxity of
hip joints but it is difficult to accept an effect only on the hip joints
without other signs of scurvy being present."
WHY??????? There are lots of examples of this in biology.
I'm not convinced either way. Just have lots of questions.
ted
stu...@umdnj.edu
PS If David Bennet is reading this please do not take offense. I have
many questions on how you (or your editor) made your conclusions. When
puzzled I tend to be a bit blunt. I'm trying to get the Belfield and
Riser articles to see the original work.
jjfla...@aol.com
Ken,
Thnak you for such a sane and super overview.
Jane Flanagan
Jaci Brittanys