I got my permanent OFA report back in 9 days from the date OFA received my x-rays. My girl was 4 years, and elbows rated Normal, but hips rated MD (subluxation)

I will call OFA Monday to see the opinion of the 3 supposed vets that are/were supposed to evaluate permanent hip x-rays.

This was her first set of x-rays; One hips look very good, the other one possible fair. nothing like the OFA MD hip graphs indicated on their website.

I am not a new breeder, I have been breeding 12+

OFA is supposed to be a hip scheme that illimiates HD, but it does not. On their website, they say that HD is hereditary. If so, why is HD still popping up when the pedigree are Good vertically & horizontally.

I hate the OFA hip scheme.

OFA is inferrior compared to New Zealand Hip Scheme Program.

Crazy

Penn HIP!!!!!

try it to improve your dogs' hips

I have not had any dog pass OFA in over a year. They have all failed with Mild HD due to subluxation. I have one girl who I am leasing back. I had her done through PennHIP before I sold her. The person who bought her didn't redo her through OFA. I'm not worried about it. I am very nervous about all of my dogs hips now because of my luck with OFA. Previously my dogs came back as good and excellents. It has really made me question my breeding program.

Penn Hip
Dr.s are trained in the procedure and placement
The measurements are what they are , NO subjectivity (sp) there
They do an Extended view also, which is what OFA uses and look for DJD also

OFA
Any Dr can do, and many do not take the best view possible
No science to looking at the hip, just three vets giving an opinion

I know Penn Hip is more expensive, but you get what you pay for. I have used Penn Hip for 8 years and seen improvement in breeding tight hips.

Where can one get Pennhip done????

http://www.pennhip.org/locatevet.html

Does make you wonder ! I went for years with very good hips and using the same lines. Now, I agree, hard to get excellants or goods. And I have seen the subluxation word a few to many times of late ? Hate it.

If breeding tight hips is your goal, then you have the right tool and approach. If the goal is better overall hip conformation, femoral neck angle, acetabular depth, etc., then some of the other systems are a better fit. Laxity and DJD are just two pieces of the overall hip jigsaw puzzle. You can have tight hips that still would never be evaluated as "excellent". It is important to choose the right tool for your goal.

I am not a PennHip fan. If I had a hip problem w/ laxity being an issue w/ DJD present at 2yrs in my dogs/line, then I'd probably consider utilizing this tool but I don't and laxity is not the only factor in grading hips, which is what PennHip does.

I want the whole hip conformation graded for my breeding program~

I don't consider OFA grading scheme to be inferior at all~

Whatever you choose in keeping your program as sound as you can, be happy with your choice and over time you will have pretty consistent results and a high % of soundness in your program.

I think you misunderstand. PennHIP contends that laxity is the best predictor or development of hips problems, regardless of specific problem. The fact that hips are lax allows the problems to develop. They do not say that laxity itself is the problem.

You can't have tight hips if the structure is not good. Good bone structure alone, however, is not enough to guarantee no DJD over time.

You are correct. That is what "they" say. That does not make it a fact. Research by Michigan State University has shown that reduced femoral neck angle, shallow acetabula and other factors can also predict poor hip development in young dogs that show minimal laxity. Read all of the research, not just that published by PennHIP. You have to decide what sort of hip you want and use the tool that will give you the best outcomes.

My OFA reports have been improving over the past three generations.

First generation - OFA Good
Second generation - OFA Good
Third generation - OFA Excellent

I have never done Penn Hip but I cannot complain (so far).

I really do review the prior clearances when choosing a stud dog for my OFA good bitch. We will see what happens the next time.

Keep in mind that when OFA looks at an individual dog's hip x-ray, they are seeing ONLY the Phenotype of that dog. Not the genotype.

You can have an OFA Excellent dog with poor hip genotype that will produce more bad hips. You can have an OFA Fair dog with good hip genotype that will produce better than itself.

Let's add to that, while OFA states HD is hereditary, it is not a single autosomal inheritance. It is polygenetic. So, it may be 4 or 6 or 10 genes that control the inheritance.

I don't think it is an inferior scheme, I think it is slightly flawed because it is run by people, and people aren't infalible.

Having said that, I've used it for over 29 years and will continue to do so.

One minor point, when I started in Labs there was a MUCH higher incidence of HD, like 21% affected. It is less than half that now. If you look at dogs back then to now, we have also increased the muscleature and amount of second thigh. This, I am sure, balances the added bone we have now and generally makes for sounder rears. You might have someone whose opinion you value, evaluate your dogs' rear construction for these flaws... JMO.

Best regards,

Leslee Pope
Huntcrest

Penn HIP does still look for degeneration when they look at the hip extended view (OFA equivilant). If there is DJD present, they will report it.

The incidences of CHD have sadly NOT improved over the years with the OFA method. If someone takes their dog into the vet's office to have it x-rayed and they do not like what they see (the vet thinks the hips look poor), they do not HAVE to submit those x-rays to OFA. So there in lies a bias that OFA is not able to include many poor hip evauluations in the statistics.

Studies show that the only change we've seen in the numbers is a slight increase in numbers of dog's grading excellent. The number grading affected have not improved, and that's even with not all the affected ones being submitted for evaluation.

I understand why people are hesitant to have their dog's evaluated when they are clearly abnormal or consent to display abnormal results on the database. But that's another reason why we do not see the TRUE numbers of affected cases.

I don't know how you can construe (or misconstrue) the published figures to arrive at this conclusion. It is completely false and you should be very careful making such obviously untrue statements.



Again, this is completely false and has no basis in facts. If you really want to use "statistics", then get them right. This link is to the hip trends of some representative breeds over a 25-year time span.
http://offa.org/hipstatbreed.html?view=2

Looking at some of the breeds that have a high number of submissions, dysplasia is down in Rottweilers by over 31%. The rate in OES and Berners has been reduced by more than half and by more than a third in Australian Shepherds and Newfoundlands. In addition, the percentage of excellents has been increased by 82% (Australian Shepherds) to over 500% (Berners). These are the real statistics.

Just posting that the use of OFA evaluations in making breeding choices is of no value does not make it true! As I keep saying, get the facts. People can and should read the numbers for themselves to find the simple truth. The numbers don't lie - unlike some people who post on this forum

You dont have to submit an OFA xray. So those that do not come out good don't submit. Of course you would see an increase in good results if only good xrays get submitted.

And the reason you see an increase in good scores is because there are more good hips being produced because of using certified healthy hips. Sure, the bad x-rays aren't being submitted, but there are more healthy hips being produced, therefore the stats go up, becuse they ARE being submitted.

It does work.

No way to know. The data is not collected in a systematic way.

This has not changed from the inception of OFA. The really bad hips were traditionally not submitted by most vets, so are not a factor in the evaluation percentages for those films that ARE submitted. What this means is that of the reasonably decent x-rays submitted, more of them pass and more are of excellent quality.

I can say from personal knowledge that OFA has been used effectively for over 40 years to improve the hip outcomes for many breeds. A few breeds have been rescued from terrible hip genetics through consistent use of OFA criteria by concerned breeders. It seems to be popular these days to "knock" the older, established methods and tools. Those of us who were around when OFA started have experienced the very real difference it has made in soundness and health for our dogs. Perhaps that is why we tend to take the derogatory comments and untruths about OFA sort of personally

Garbage in, garbage out.

If you don't send in all xrays, pass or fail then what is OFA doing for the breed? I never see the prelimary fails or fail on final that pass preliminaries on OFA. What is the need to breed so young without final clearances, boys or girls.

In the past 4 years I've heard of more passes on hips and especially elbows than in the years prior. Maybe I'm just not hearing about the fails.

I guess it's who you know and what their kennels are producing or what the breeders with fails want to share wtih others.

Has anyone else noticed that the heavily muscled girls & boys are more difficult to place properly? OFA still rates them instead of saying "resubmit in 6 months." I've seen xrays where the legs are not perpedicular because the vet can't get the dog into the proper position due to musculature. (Lets say, 180 degrees, North-South.)

Crappy placement seems to equal a crappy rating. There is a good link around that shows proper and incorrect placement by vets. I lost it when my harddrive crashed a few weeks ago, anyone have it? It's a good sight to compare your radiographs to.