Eloise's xrays to OFA?

[amyk]

I'm curious, now that Eloise has been diagnosed with severe hip dysplasia, would it be helpful to send her xrays to the OFFA.org site? I know that usually dogs that aren't going to be bred aren't really sent to OFA, but is the goal of OFA to get as many dogs on there as possible, regardless of whether they will be bred or not? Like won't it be helpful for others planning to breed to her relations, to know there is dysplasia in the line.

I don't often see dysplastic dogs listed on the site, why is that? Occasionally, but not often. Is it just that the cost is prohibitive?

What does it cost to send them there and is it hard to do? Thanks!

 

[Leslie]

If they use the OFA as a database for all newfs, I'm sure the statistics would be highly skewed for the reason you stated above. Most people don't OFA their dogs unless they plan on breeding them. Our breeder asked us if we would for her records but I'm sure very few require it.

It's not cost prohibitive to register with OFA. We just did Mac's and it was $30 for hip/elbow and $15 for patella. The x-rays themselves might be considered costly but the total was a tad under $200. As for being hard to do, our vet x-rayed him with a digital machine, made us sign a paper and pay some $$ and the rest he took care of. All we had to do was show up with the dog and pay some money.

I'm sorry Eloise has HD but, as everyone says, dogs don't walk on their x-rays.

 

[Capri]

Please do send it there, it's very important information for all breeders to know as much a possible. Looking and knowing a dogs background and siblings' health results is MORE valuable than knowing just the ones that you're about to use.
It IS a HUGE problem (though getting slightly better) that people who have dogs with bad hips, don't even bother to send them there for various reasons.
There are even some breeders that try to convince the pup owners not to send the bad results, only the good ones...

 

[M & M's Mom Linda]

Amy...we are not breeding Max but I am sending the results of everything...good or bad to OFA. We will do the same with Marcus. I agree with Bettina...I think that knowledge is so valuble. We just sent in bloodwork to the Newf DNA data base also, the more Newfs they have the stronger the reasons to help eradicate problems.

 

[janices]

There's breeders that don't require it and there's the 'breeder code of silence'. Good article: http://www.caninechronicle.com/features/misc/milton_404.html

 

[ardeagold]

If you want to send them to OFA for the database, yet not have them published, you can do that too.

There's a box you check to have them openly published if she "fails" (which she no doubt will given the HD). If you don't check the box on the paperwork, they don't make the results public (nothing will show on the website), but they have the information for breed statistics in their database.

One reason for having them published is so that breeders can see and research the problems in the line. That's important if a breeder is intending to breed to someone in Eloise's family.

Of course, that's where the code of silence would come in. Some breeders don't want it to be openly known that their line has a genetic problem, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of researching lines through OFA, doesn't it??

Without all results being made public, it's difficult to figure out where the problems really lie. Therefore, things like SAS keep popping up down the line even tho you'll hear people say "but the parents were clear!". Obviously somebody wasn't clear, somewhere in that line.

Of course if OFA required ALL results be made public, then there would be a lot fewer who even have the data (films, echos, etc) sent in. So, it's a catch 22 for breeders.

I'm sorry about Eloise's results, but I know you'll learn all you can about keeping her healthy and comfortable....and happily mobile!!

PS.....Janice....very good article!!

[ 05-28-2007, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Ardeagold ]

 

[Bluedog]

Oops...was typing the same time as Ardeagold and others...so nevermind. They pretty much covered what I typed.

[ 05-28-2007, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Bluedog ]

 

[Ginny]

IMHO, that optional checking of the box about posting results needs to be eliminated. In order to benefit our breed, we need as much info. as is possible. Knowledge is power.

I'd send them in and have them published.

Another thing you and ALL should consider is having blood sent to the OFA blood repository to be used for research on the genetics of our breed's health issues. I did it with Kramer. The kit was $25, my vet drew the blood for free, and then I overnighted it for about $15. A bargain considering all the good that can come from it.

[ 05-28-2007, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Ginny ]

 

[KatieB]

Amy we don't plan to use Murphy as a stud in any way, however, we are required (per our contract) to have his OFA's sent in when he si 2 years old. His breeder requires it of all her puppy owners regardless of whether the dog is for pet or show. bella's breeder also requires it even if we never show or breed her. I think it's wonderful to look at the offspring produced that aren't being bred as sometimes that tells you a lot more about the lines than just seeing the few who were great show and breeding dogs. If 9 out of ten have dysplasia etc. and all you see is that one good dog then you don't get a clear image of the lines. So I would definitely send them in. It may not make your breeder happy or she may care more about improving the lines and want to have that information available.

 

[Sherrie]

I wish all ofa tests were required to be published. Even a dog that is not going to be bred will add to the knowdledge of that gene pool. It is pretty telling though when you see a 4 year old dog listed with one clearance and the others missing. Also a popular stud that you know is being heavily bred and few offspring are being listed and this stud has been bred for over 5 years.
This code of silence is not in the best interest of the breed.
Sherrie

 

[amyk]

It seems like that article is really true. I hate to think that this happens in newfoundlands, it's such a disservice to the breed. I hope there comes a time when the health of the dog comes before the beauty contest.

I don't really see a point to putting the info into the data base but not publishing it? Who does that help at all? The statistics? Who cares about statistics?

I remember reading an article in the Newf Annual about a breeder that considers the genetic component in everything. And they stopped breeding to outside dogs for the most part because they couldn't guarantee their genetic information like they could with their own dogs. It just seemed so logical to me, and yet the article made it seem like this breeder was in the minority??? It's really so sad.

 

[Ginny]

we are required (per our contract) to have his OFA's sent in when he si 2 years old. His breeder requires it of all her puppy owners regardless of whether the dog is for pet or show.

There are a few Newf breeders that do this also. Susan from Nuvo is one of them. I think it's great, but does cut out a number of prospective owners from buying a dog from a breeder who requires it. As far as I'm concerned, a buyer who won't do it, isn't one I'd want to sell to.

 

[Blacknewfs]

This is an important discussion - thanks for starting it Amy.

The article Janice posted is a good one.

 

[Ivoryudx]

As everyone else has posted, it is a good thing to send in ALL test results to the OFA and have them published, but here is another way to look at it, if your not a breeder.......

The next time your looking for a puppy, you check the OFA database, and look for test results from people just like you, who are not breeders, but who chose to publish bad & good results. It might help you make a decision about a certain line of dogs that your considering giving your heart to.

 

[camel24j]

i didnt think of that my vets when they did the xrays on simba did the ofa becuse it was a little cheaper but they didnt send them in. i think i will talk with them and see if i cant get another xray when he is older and have them send them in. he has hp too.

 

[ardeagold]

Another thing you and ALL should consider is having blood sent to the OFA blood repository to be used for research on the genetics of our breed's health issues. I did it with Kramer. The kit was $25, my vet drew the blood for free, and then I overnighted it for about $15. A bargain considering all the good that can come from it.

Ginny...now you don't have to send bloodwork. You can get a cheek swab DNA kit and send it in.

One question about the OFA's that are required by breeders (per the above posts). Do they want the results published, or not? That's what makes the difference from a research perspective, for breeders and prospective owners.

 

[Bluedog]

I don't think it's the cheek swab DNA that Ginny is talking about. It's for the DNA data bank, not for Cystinuria testing (cheek swab), and I believe you do send in a blood sample for the DNA data bank. I think Patty Mc Dowell has posted about this on Newf-L several times, asking that all newf owners and breeders participate.

I have seen some breeders posting abnormal results of late to meet CHIC guidelines. All results of the required clearances, whether passing or abnormal must be published to qualify for CHIC. Will take some time and convincing before more breeders follow suit.

[ 05-29-2007, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Bluedog ]

 

[Angela]

I think they were doing DNA bloodwork at the National in Boulder this year.
I know that the friends I went with took their 2 bitches for cystinuria cheekswabs and then to have blood taken.

 

[Sound Bay Newfs]

Originally posted by Bluedog:
I don't think it's the cheek swab DNA that Ginny is talking about. It's for the DNA data bank, not for Cystinuria testing, and believe you do send in a blood sample for that.

You don't need to send a blood sample for cystenuria testing, just the cheek swab.

 

[Bluedog]

I know that Lynn. I was referring to the DNA data bank for the blood draw with the word "that". Bad sentence structure, sorry. I edited my post to clarify.

[ 05-29-2007, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Bluedog ]