Pet Economics 101 PennHIP vs. OFA: Better medicine vs. better marketing

It’s like VHS over Betamax, the US standard microchips vs. the world’s ISO, the PC’s dominance over the Macs’ operating system, the Kwerty keyboard over other more intuitive models…

Though you may disagree with me on some of the above examples, the history of technological standards is littered with ways in which arguably far better models lost out over their lesser rivals. And it usually comes down to marketing.

Sometimes it means getting government to buy into one standard over the other, distributing your model at a low cost to a high-use industry (reference porn and VHS) or shouldering out competitors with disingenuous practices (á la AVID microchips). Sometimes it’s just a matter of marketing-dedicated dollars and a nimble marketing arm (Microsoft vs. Mac).

Where am I going with this? For those of you whose breeds are predisposed to hip dysplasia, you might know that the OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals) and PennHIP models represent rival technologies for assessing dog hips. You should also know that I consider the PennHIP model superior.

No, it’s not because I went to the University of Pennsylvania and had this method drummed into me (indeed, they did almost no chest-beating on this issue while I was there). And it’s not because Dr. Gail Smith, the veterinary surgeon originator of the PennHIP approach, was a popular prof there.

Nope. It’s because I believe that any rational person who would compare the two technologies would be hard-pressed to side with the OFA method. Here’s why:

1-Objectivity

PennHIP patients’ X-rays are assessed via objective measurements while the OFA X-rays are graded by a small panel of radiologists based on subjective impressions of the dogs’ individual hip conformation.

2-Evidence-based

PennHIP requires any veterinarian who undertakes this method to have his or her X-rays included in a database of cases, regardless of hip quality. This improves not only the value of the database but its value to dogs at large for its more accurate representation of the real incidence of hip disease. Result accuracy for individual dogs are continually refined as more enter the database.

The OFA’s approach effectively allows veterinarians to select the best images or decline to submit poor quality hips for evaluation, thus skewing their database towards better hips. This selection bias renders this database somewhat useless.

3-Early prediction of future disease

The OFA method does not purport to accurately predict future disease. Moreover, it cannot be undertaken until an animal is two years old and well into its breeding years. This means that many dogs will enter the show ring before its hips are evaluated, thus increasing the chance that poor hips will enter the genetic pool through award-based incentives.

PennHIP can be employed as early as 16 weeks for an accurate prediction of future changes to the hips. Therein lies its most valuable asset: its ability to eliminate hip dysplasia entirely from the genetic pool if everyone used this method on their pre-pubescent dogs.

But PennHIP does have some downsides and detractions. Here’s a run-down of these:

1-Access

OFA can be used by any veterinarian with an X-ray machine while PennHIP vets must be certified after completing a one to two day course. In my area (Miami) only one vet is certified. I counted about 25 PennHIP veterinarians in the whole state of Florida.

2-Expense

OFA requires a simple fee for evaluation and certification on one X-ray. If the hips are judged obviously poor by the general practitioner veterinarian taking the X-ray, many elect not to send in the film and incur an additional expense. Many vets don’t sedate or anesthetize for this X-ray (though I do).

PennHIP requires the dog’s owner to commit to the entire service: anesthesia, three X-rays and the evaluation fee. Tack on any additional fees to reimburse the veterinarian for his or her certification status and you’ve got a pricier procedure, sometimes two to three times what OFA costs.

3-Anesthesia

I’ve already mentioned this one but it deserves a special mention for those who choose to limit their dogs’ anesthetic experiences. While I would not undertake OFA X-rays without anesthesia or sedation, many vets do. Dog owners unwilling to have their dogs anesthetized can usually find veterinarians to perform drug-free OFA X-rays. Not so for PennHIP.

4-Pain

OFA says PennHIP causes pain while the animal’s limbs are submitted to the more natural weight-bearing position required for these X-rays. But PennHIP denies this, citing only a handful of cases where patients were more than minimally lame for a day or more (with no lasting discomfort for any). I can’t vouch for this, but I will attest to having some OFA patients experience some discomfort after their X-rays if their hips were poor.

(To check out what the different styles of X-ray positioning looks like, check out this previous post of mine.)

For me, it seems the OFA procedure is so inferior a method that if we were comparing treatment regimens instead of diagnostics, there would be little doubt that the newer, pricier model would have been overwhelmingly accepted years ago as the ideal alternative. But it’s not.

Hip replacements over FHOs, TPLOs over extra-capsular repairs, cyclosporine instead of perianal fistula surgery, hyposensitization over serial steroid therapy…

These are some off-the-top-of-my-head examples of where more expensive therapeutic regimens won out in favor of far less effective methods. In fact, it would be fair to say that NOT offering the more effective choice in these cases could be construed as malpractice…or at least as depriving clients of their right to informed consent.

Not so with PennHIP. The minimal access clients have to this superior diagnostic tool (at least in my area) means that veterinarians are justified in ignoring its clear superiority in favor of the more accessible, less expensive alternative.

If I were to give Dr. Gail Smith some unsolicited advice for his PennHIP program, from one marketing-minded veterinarian to another, I’d…

1-infuse his not-for-profit program with enough emergency donor cash to increase the marketing and distribution of his course.

2-I’d reduce the barriers to entry for veterinarians (like me) who want to play but find few opportunities to do so at my local conferences.

3-I’d minimize the evaluation cost for each patient submission.

4-I’d market my method to savvy pet health insurance providers who have incentives to better understand the hip risk each patient faces.

5-I’d make sure every veterinary student left vet school knowing which method was best. After all, when even Penn vets like me leave school with a fuzzy idea as to whether PennHIP is really superior or not, you can’t expect veterinary graduates of other programs to know any better.

6-I’d enlist breed clubs, have a presence at major dog shows and write articles for pet owner publications (and blogs like this one) to raise demand for the service at it's source: responsible dog owners.

These are just a few broad ideas. Sounds to me as if Dr. Smith could use a few students from across the street at Wharton to help bang out his plan. Maybe one of these days he’ll take some serious steps to keep PennHIP from going the way of the Betamax. I really wish he would. Our dogs deserve better.

OK, so PennHIP vs. OFA…what do you do?

January 11th, 2009

Add Comment31 Comments

I like PennHIP. I think both have their uses though.

I have two breeds, one a toy breed with a very very low incidence of HD. Legg-Calves-Perthes is more a concern. for them, PennHIP is not especially useful. I film them at a year, just in office, to rule out LCP, then at two I do OFA hips and elbows. My two adult girls both received excellent ratings on hips and elbow normal. They also had patellas done at one year, CERF (and they're due again, sigh), cardiac and thyroid. Both were CHG screened as non-carriers at about 12 weeks old.

My other breed has a very high incidence of HD. I will be doing PennHIP on all pups at around 5-6 months. At that age any retained puppy teeth etc.. can be taken out. I'll use the results to make decisions about their short term status. Whether they stay long enough to be filmed for OFA will depend on the results of other screening tests, including a brand new genetic screening test for high urate output (not an endemic breed issue, thankfully, and this way we can nip it in the bud) developed at UCD.

Whee! My check book is gonna be thin...

JenniferJ January 11th, 2009 01:34:42 PM

Very interesting! Thanks for the post! I haven't though much about hips in general; I don't breed and don't plan to, and with a corgi-mutt, I'm more concerned about her back anyway.

I am curious about the throway comment about AVID chips. What did they do? And (I suppose I could google it, but) does that mean AVID are more common?

Crystal January 11th, 2009 04:07:13 PM

JenniferJ, you are the type of breeder we need more of in this country! I am impressed! Can I ask what breeds you have?

Sassy January 11th, 2009 05:40:17 PM

PennHip doesn't provide a searchable database do they? As a puppy-buyer and not breeder, that searchable database on the OFA's website was extremely helpful to me.

Katie January 11th, 2009 05:46:50 PM

I've chimed in on this issue before in length. I'm so for PennHIP and against OFA, it's not even close. The FACT that OFA can be manipulated with a cooperative vet and repeat tests that just might give different results (even for the exact same x-rays) means that it's a failed test.

In my short time in the dog show world I personally witnessed a breeder at an eye clinic get a so-so result on their dogs throw away the mail in certification forms instead of report the results. I wonder if that breeder ever told a single future puppy buyer that their Champion mother has questionable eye issues. Somehow I doubt it.

When there exists the ability to game the system, some breeders (those with the most to lose) will game the system. That is even worse than ignorance, it's essentially fraud or at least a good dose of deceit. There are simply too many points along the way which allow OFA to be manipulated.

Plus, the results don’t mean anything. How much better is Excellent than Fair? Should you breed Fair? What about Excellent to Poor? You just can’t answer any questions with OFA. And it’s hard to decide what is worthy to breed. Well, my engineering degree taught me that you should only buy more information if the results of that test will help you make a better decision.

You wouldn’t use an 8-ball to see if you were pregnant. Well, OFA isn’t much better. While it is an evaluation based upon observation of a trained professional, it just doesn’t convey a lot of information about the chances of future disease.

The best part about PennHIP is the potential for multi-generational number crunching which will show not only what the odds are of an individual with a hip score of __ getting HD at some point in the future, one day, if not already, we might get an excellent chart of what two hip scores bred together are likely to produce.

And even for the non-mathematically enthused out there, you have to admit that it’s a lot easier to make a decision based upon 40% chance of HD vs. 12% chance of HD, versus “Excellent” and “Fair.” I know what 40% means, I have no idea what Fair means.

A “D” is a passing grade in some families, but not mine. And frankly, a “C” is pretty unacceptable. Who really knows what those grades mean at your school, or for your goals.

OFA is like your GPA, but PennHIP is like your SAT/ACT score. One is in many ways subjective and prone to manipulation, the other is a universal standard that is fairly delivered across the board and allows you to compare two people from different areas.

Christopher January 11th, 2009 06:10:03 PM

From a scientific viewpoint it is clear that PennHip is a clear, measurement and OFA is the averaged opinion of 3 vets (I don't think they have to be board certified radiologist to interpret? ) I have always been confused as to why it has been considered the gold seal of approval for breeding dogs.

I do use OFA Cardio Certification, although I think of it as just a screening not a “certification”, my “One day of feel good” – as I drive home from the Cardiologist I can smile and feel warm and fuzzy knowing that my dog has a super great heart….today. DCM and other heart ailments have sudden onset so the screening really does nothing more than give me a warm fuzzy for the day and it does of course assists me in breeding decisions.

I know this will sound really snotty but I have contention with breeders who advertise how wonderful they are and how wonderful their dogs are because they have had all the OFA tests done so therefore puppy buyers can rest assured that puppies from them will never have any health problems, false security. I think this is somewhat deceptive and does nothing to educate puppy buyers on the real health challenges in that breed and the level of responsibility that puppy buyers have in properly rearing a puppy. This is not meant towards anyone on this site and I support testing and those who do it but..I don't know does anyone know what I mean by that ?

Now having said that, I do test my dogs; Cardio with a Cardiologists sometimes submit to OFA (if there is a clinic going on), Thyroid I send blood directly to UC Davis for the Total T panel with cholesterol yearly, Radiographs I do with my veterinarian which we review – I don’t send OFA for joints in, it is just to ridiculous to support. I am beginning to lean towards PennHip…still researching. With my breed (Neapolitan Mastiff) it is pretty freakin apparent when joints are bad by utilizing visual function form, palpitation and radiographs. I also yearly screen for infectious diseases which are known to be prevalent in our breed such as Leishmania Infantum, Ehrlichiosis etc… and I submit to research projects regularly . I also microchip AVID Eurochip every puppy and I am registered as the implanter.

Of course I want to have the healthiest most beautiful, happiest puppies in the world I do my best to test breeding stock, adhere to my standard and rear them all as holistically as possible. Does every single puppy I produce turn out perfect, no of course not but I do have a very high percentage of excellent puppies. I don’t think any breeder “wishes” to produce bad puppies but good breeders do recognize that sometimes it happens and then the tough choices…choices that I think Americans don’t want to talk about, know about or admit. At the very least those tough choices involve not breeding the stud you spent 5k importing in again and spaying/neutering all offspring…. Wow that was like a dollars worth and I think only two cents is allowed ? LOL

jenniferJ - I know what you mean ;) We have a breeder clinic coming in March I am putting away all the xtr cash !

Great post, wondering what you think Dr. K is the minimum tests a breeder should do on breeding stock besides PENNhip?

LC January 11th, 2009 06:15:45 PM

Side note: I am a member of my breeds health committee, we are looking into CHIC inclusion we MUST either select OFA or PennHip for screening in order for participants to receive CHIC numbers...if we select PennHip there will be an additional $20 fee for the participant to receive their CHIC number that is in addition to all the other costs..almost a penalty if we choose Pennhip instead of their preferred OFA ;( I think we are leaning towards Pennhip regardless....just thought that was interesting

LC January 11th, 2009 06:36:35 PM

LC-

your concerns with the validity of tests as predictors are why I L-O-V-E the simplicity of genetic screening. But not everything is an on/off switch. HD being the poster child for that IMO.

And I do think being what we generally would classify as a responsible breeder is very important to the improvement of dogs and breeds health wise. I consider every puppy I breed to be family for life. I want them and their owners to be happy. And I will hear, in detail, about any and all problems they suffer, large or small and I stand behind them for life. So there is huge incentive there for me to try to breed healthy, mentally and physically sound dogs. If they walk out of your life forever at 9 weeks, then who cares? I BEG people to not purchase from out of state web-millers almost daily, no matter what the contract says, they will lose no sleep and getting any justice for sickly dogs or owners is nigh impossible.

And I feel your pain on the import. In the past two years I have altered and placed a 1 year old import bitch (elongated soft palate) a two year old show bitch (patella) and a three year old champion male (hemi-vertebrae) They'll all live good comfy lives, none were symptomatic except the palate which was resected when she got spayed. but they were a very large investment of time money and emotion.

BTW, CHIC is a collaborative effort of AKC and OFA which may explain why the fee for PennHIP

Sassy-

I have toy fox terriers and bulldogs. Toy fox are a generally very healthy breed but have a worryingly small gene pool so catching problems early, and eventually re-opening the stud book, are paramount to keeping them that way.

Bulldogs. There has been a paradigm shift, only in the past 5 years or so, amongst many of what I would call the core breeders in bulldogs (those who are members of the parent club and are non-commercial breeders ) in the U.S. to reject the long standing mantras of "that is how they are" and "it's just part of the breed". And oh, yes, there are still others who need a sharp smack about the head :-(. But health testing is fast becoming a major topic of discussion on the lists and more breeders and breeder judges are shying away from extreme and overdone examples of the breed.

We have screening registries in development or planning stages, (fingers crossed), for trachea size and upper airway. We also have more owners participating in performance sports including agility. Worth watching, bulldogs go around like they are in a pinball game and really enjoy it.

Unfortunately, the huge rise in demand for bulldogs means that probably 9 of every 10 bulldogs, or more, being bred are coming from strictly for profit or backyard breeding situations, where NO screening for either temperament or health is being conducted and these breeders often operate on the principle of more wrinkles, more bulk etc... is what sells. Dr Khuly, as you are no doubt well aware, Florida has way more than it's fair share of really horrid bulldog breeders. There are literally only 3-4 people in the whole state I would even consider referring someone to and they of course don't breed very often.

Regrettably, the person wanting a puppy N-O-W cares more about availability and coat color than patella, cardiac, trachea, hip scores or eye clearances.

For toy fox terriers, of course, it's the other problem. The public wants itty-bitty teacups, and itty-bitty teacups don't whelp well, amongst many other problems! I could sell a million 2-3 pound tfts (I have one litter of tfts a year btw) But my dogs are in the 6-8 pound range. I cannot tell you how many times someone has told me "that's just too big!" Oy.

It's all frustrating. The other night the Dogs 101 program on Animal Planet even stated that bulldogs will have tight nares as a matter of course. Ughh. The most weighty part of the bulldog standard in the U.S. says nose large and broad and nostrils large and WIDE OPEN. It's incredibly frustrating as the public has accepted the idea that if they get one, it'll be a decrepit wreck. If the average puppy buyer could be educated to demand and expect a healthy pet, it would benefit ALL breeds.

Because my veterinarian is far more likely to come in contact with the average pet owner/breeder, or potential buyer, than I, I've given him print outs on recommended health testing etc... to give to his clients. The bulldog club is hoping to take this national, including getting ads in some of the national dog magazines which carry a lot of puppy ads. Sometimes you feel like your just pushing that boulder up the hill but I figure every little bit helps.

JenniferJ January 11th, 2009 08:38:30 PM

As a "consumer", I was quite frustrated with the PennHIP search I did. The database of certified vets is not maintained. Two of the offices I called had no clue what a PennHIP was. With one of those, the vet listed was no longer there and hadn't been for some time.

I don't plan on breeding Mike but I do need to know how his hips are due to his future as a working dog. I dislike the OFA basically because of the rating system. Good? Fair? Why not Pass or Fail? Because they can't say that with certainty, that's why.

PaulaO January 11th, 2009 08:58:21 PM

OFA is pointless.

A while back, I took a little Frenchie bitch in for her OFA exam. We sent the films in, and, when the results came back, were pleased to see she'd rated an 'excellent' - the very first ever in the history of our breed, at that time! Then came the bad news - we'd xrayed her one month early, so her OFA evaluation was only a *prelim*. It wouldn't be her official rating.

One month later, I had her xrays re done, and re submitted. This time? Her results came back as *fair*.

From excellent, to fair - in one month, on the same bitch. When I freaked out and had the two sets of xrays sent for individual evaluation to U of Guelph, the evaluating vet stated he could see no apparent differences between the two sets of xrays. Her OVC evaluation, btw, was a 'pass' (OVC only rates 'pass' or 'fail'). It was explained to me that the difference was quite simple - two different sets of vets, with two different opinions, gave two different OFA ratings.

I now do either PennHip or, more usually, OVC. I just can't take OFA seriously any more.

FrogDogz January 11th, 2009 09:00:37 PM

PennHIP needs to provide an open registry with a searchable database.

And access to detailed breed stats to breed clubs and researchers.

Just a median and a range doesn't allow for much meaningful scrutiny of a population.

In my breed, the median keeps shifting downward (to tighter scores) much faster than "genetic improvement" could account for.

This is because breeders whose lines get good PennHIP scores continue to use PennHIP.

And breeders whose lines get poor PennHIP scores stop using it. Thus the illusion of change. We have a very small population and a tight community, so it's not hard to figure out what is happening.

Also, the advice to only breed animals in the tightest half of the population betrays a pathetic ignorance of population genetics and conservation breeding. It may apply to a few breeds that have very large populations and endemic dysplasia, but is ridiculous and harmful when applied to rare breeds, rare bloodlines within breeds, and breeds that have low incidence of dysplasia (e.g. sighthounds, show collies). Knocking out half your breeding pool based on one metric is suicide for most breeds; doing so every generation, regardless of progress, is fast suicide. If the breed has multiple health issues to consider, you could extinguish it in a generation or two with this kind of "caution."

If I was breeding hip joints, sure. But I breed dogs.

As for the 24 month mark being a disadvantage of OFA -- I think it does a service by at least suggesting that people should not be making puppies from puppies.

I have seen some breeders who use PennHIP trend towards breeding them at a year. Because the hips are okay, right? So it's all good. NO -- It is not.

H. Houlahan January 11th, 2009 09:28:11 PM

I'm sorry but unsurprised that people would use PennHIP to justify breeding puppies.

I'd personally like to see the minimum age for sires and in dams producing registerable litters in most registries be raised. Significantly.

That goes for conformation titles too. I feel that allowing puppies to become champions promotes overdone and exaggerated dogs as there is pressure to finish them young.

I have a nothing under two policy, but the guy down the street can breed his 8 month old bitch to his 7 month old male and register the litter with most registration bodies.

When I am looking for a new line or dog to bring in, you'll find me ringside watching the veterans class, not the puppies! Give me a grizzled but sound old guy over this months boy-toy any day. A pretty teenager may fall to pieces, a sound, bright eyed 9-12 year old has already proved he can go the distance.

This year I purchased frozen semen from a lovely and sound 10 year old. I may not use it for a good long time, but this dog, visiting from South America, is the sort of dog I want living and growing old at my place. Unsurprisingly his dam is still alive and thriving at 13 and his sire just passed at 14+

JenniferJ January 11th, 2009 09:52:54 PM

I was going to get my pibble a full compliment of breed appropriate heart/vision/joint tests, not because I plan to breed him - he's neutered, but because I was training him as a service dog and it's best practice for service dogs because of the hard work they do. He's washed out as a service dog, so I think I'm going to settle for the hip and elbow x-rays he had at 18 months (when he was neutered) that were evaluated by an experienced vet and a boarded veterinary radiologist, both of whom I trust very much. At any rate, for hips, I know PennHip is better, but I was leaning toward OFA as elbows are more of a concern in pibbles (some breeders apparently do elbows and not hips) and you can have OFA hips and elbows for just a little more than just OFA elbows if you do them at the same time.

Juli January 11th, 2009 11:08:23 PM

I think PennHip is the better test, but there are a lot of problems with how they share the information. Their website hasn't been updated in years as far as I can see. There is very little information on how to interpret the results (there needs to be more than just breed the best half of the population as one poster pointed out here). I've found a lot of people are confused by the test and the lack of pass and fail ratings. I don't criticize the test for that reason, but I do criticise it for not having the materials to teach people how to understand it. For example a 40% rating does not mean the dog has a 40% chance of developing dysplasia, as one poster here thinks. It means the dog falls in the 40th percentile within the breed, in other words, 60% of the PennHipped dogs in that breed have better hips and 39% have worse hips

What I like about PennHip:

Not subjective (though I've heard there is still variability in the scores, especially as more vets have been certified - some are better at it than others, and some may pass the certification, but get less precise as time passes, especially if they don't do a lot of them).

All dogs tested are included in the database, but this doesn't help a lot unless it is widely used.

Ability to test a puppy early - not for the purpose of breeding them young, but to decide which puppy to keep. It is heartbreaking, not to mention expensive, to keep a dog for two years, maybe show them, and then find out they you can't breed him or her.

However, there is a very serious flaw to how the system is administered. The database needs to be open. Knowing the results for as many dogs in a pedigree, and siblings and half-siblings is very important to a breeder. That is at least partially available in the OFA database, but not at all in the PennHip database, which severely limits its usefulness to a breeder. The OFA database lists the names of all dogs with fair and above scores. It also lists the names of dogs that didn't pass if the owner gives permission (I do, since I think truly open databases are what we should be aiming for).

The expense of PennHip is also a very limiting factor. I know breeders who pay to have every dog they produce x-rayed (it's in the contract with puppy-buyers), but PennHip is too expensive to do this unless you are very rich.

Linda H January 11th, 2009 11:38:36 PM

Linda,

You can turn any PennHIP score (the important one is the DI, not the percentile score) into a percentage chance of developing HD. I _know_ that the score they give you also shows your dog's percentile ranking. I also know that you can cross reference the DI to give you a likelyhood of disease expression.

Click on "Breed Specific DJD Probability Based on DI" on their website. You can see an example chart.

On a side note, their website hasn't really been updated in like 10 years... they do mention "recent" news from 1998. Yeah, certainly losing the marketing war.

And, you don't HAVE to only breed top 50% dogs.... but it's a matter of statistics that if you want to improve the breed wide hip health, breed more above average than you do below average. If you are so lucky as to have a breed with excellent hips, breeding more dogs who score below 50% than dogs above 50% is going to lower the breed wide average. But it might not produce a lot more HD.

That's the nice thing about PennHIP... if your goals are breed wide or personal, you have more information, and that information can be turned into other information. "Excellent" isn't very valuable.

Dr. K, Why don't you give your old prof a call and ask what's up with geriatric website and anemic marketing. See if he can't get some students to publish a bunch more data (like have breed specific DI->DJD charts on the website!).

Christopher January 12th, 2009 02:58:09 AM

Really interesting discussion. Here's what I'm learning:

1) Responsible breeders value a diagnostic "certifying" organization that can share information more openly for greater transparency/utility. There exists some resentment when it comes to fees for incomplete access.

2) There is selection bias for PennHIP, too, so that long as more than one certifying body exists there will continue to be discrepancies in each database (though less for PennHIP due to its mandatory reporting approach).

3) Some breeders continue to use the OFA database, despite its extreme bias. Its accessibility alone helps make it the preferred standard.

4) Breeders value an organization that can offer multiple tests for a more complete understanding of their pets' genetic predispositions and reduced fees on add-on tests.

Any others I missed?

Dr. Patty Khuly January 12th, 2009 10:11:51 AM

As to the Avid microchip "throwaway" issue, I actually added it in as a "teaser" for today's post on microchip scanners. Stay tuned. It'll be up in a mere couple of hours if my schedule allows.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 12th, 2009 10:13:34 AM

Christopher, the DJD Probability Based on DI is breed specific and they only show 4 breeds on their website. Do they send charts out for other breeds when you get your results? I don't remember receiving one for my breed the last time I had a PennHIP done.

Dr K, if you are planning to contact Dr Smith about their marketing problems, you could add the need for more educational materials on their website, esp some aimed at breeders and written in plain English explaining how to interpret the results and how to use them in making breeding decisions.

The primary failing is the lack of an open, searchable database with the ability to look for siblings, half-siblings, and offspring. If they are concerned that people will avoid using it because bad results will be visible, perhaps they could only display results that fall in the top 50th percentile for the breed, unless the owner gives permission for displaying a poorer result (I'm a programmer and I know this could be done dynamically, even allowing for a changing median).

I'm not sure resentment for incomplete access is the word, maybe frustration. A breeder needs to know more than the results for the individual they plan to breed. They want to know the results on as many close relatives as possible. Suppose you want to breed to one of two sires. Both scored .45 on PennHIP (and that's a pretty good score for the breed). One comes from a litter in which his was the best score (and one or two were dysplastic). The other comes from a litter in which his was the poorest score. I would prefer to breed to the second one and would probably rule out the first one all-together as a breeding prospect.

Christopher again, In my short time in the dog show world I personally witnessed a breeder at an eye clinic get a so-so result on their dogs throw away the mail in certification forms instead of report the results. I wonder if that breeder ever told a single future puppy buyer that their Champion mother has questionable eye issues. Somehow I doubt it.

I don't know about your breed, but in mine, if I saw a breeder do this I would assume he/she had decided not to breed the dog based on the so-so result and wasn't going to pay the additional amount to register the results

Linda H January 12th, 2009 05:56:19 PM

5) There needs to be an owners/buyers association as a counter-balance to the AKC and other breeder run organizations.

(That would be what I would add.)

PS: I wouldn't mind being turned into a Green wafer if it wouldn't poison someone. :)

PJBoosinger January 13th, 2009 02:41:03 AM

Well, I have two teenage bulldogs set for PennHIP on Feb 3rd along with OFA trachea films. They've already had preliminary patella and cardiac. CERF will be done in May. Because they are going to be out, they will have a full exam of their upper-airways done too.

They are both very active, athletic pups with plenty of stamina, so I suspect they will do well on the trachea films and airway exam. Hips are always a crapshoot as they have so much muscle mass over the hip joint they can compensate for laxity.

Should be interesting

JenniferJ January 15th, 2009 03:43:24 PM

The early evaluation available with PennHIP is invaluable to our breeding program. We breed hunting GSP's and we expect not only tight hips, but exceptional hunting skill. This isn't something we can redily judge at eight weeks.

The pup we kept from our last litter tested in the 20th percentile, despite having parents both in the 100th percentile. Since our breed has gernally good hips, her score of .49 means she likely has a less than 10% chance of developing CHD. However, we won't breed that. We've spayed and sold her as a started dog to folks who fully understand her hip evaluation. They see it as a benefit to them, with a puppy, you buy pray the tight hips of the parents were passed on, but you can't know it for a fact.

The comment that the percentile doesn't mean much is a little misleading. For our GSP's I kind of agree, but the median DI is .35. We seek for our breeding program dogs with DI's of .30 or less. If the median ever creeps to .25, we will likely stick to our .30 standard.

My wife breeds Pembroke Welsh Corgis. Our foundation bitch has a DI of .46 (loosest hip). If she was a GSP, we'd spay her. She's in the 100th percentile for her breed. We have a male GSP, and we'd prefer to have no intact dogs, but his .19/.19 is also in the 100th percentile. He remains intact because he's at the top and our evaluation isn't finished. We'd have neutered him if he'd been merely in the 80th percentile (.29). We feel his percentile score make keeping an intact male in the house worth the risk we run of accidental matings.

Here's my blog post on what happens at a PennHIP exam. http://blog.marshfieldkennel.com/2008/10/22/what-happens-at-a-pennhip-exam.aspx

The cost of the PennHIP test is NOTHING compared to keeping, training and becoming emotionally attached to your dog for two years (then getting an exam that basically only tells you if your dog is dysplastic at that moment).

It is amazing that PennHIP asks you to sign off on the open database, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

As for CERF results, we do them regularly, but never pay the extra money to have them published. Our results have always been perfect. Seems silly to spend the extra money when we can just show the puppy buyer's the actual form with the actual signature on it.

Dr. K, Don't they usually do the PennHIP training at the big veterinarian conference in Orlando every year? Otherwise, a trip to VEGAS!