I didn't read the studies, and that article suitably acknowledged that their validity is up for debate. But, that being said, it's really interesting that there seems to be some hard evidence now that shows what many of us owners have guessed was the case for a while now: OFA is no silver bullet.
Is there a suitable replacement for OFA? While it is not 100% or from the looks of it even close... it does give buyers a little piece of mind that the breeder went through the effort.
My next question is why is PennHIp not taken over as a replacement? I think the big key factor is the word "interpet" - how much grey area is there when reading those hip xrays? If they are missing up to 80%, you would think there would be more of a backlash from breeders.
@*JackBurton* - What is the incentive for breeders to backlash against OFA? From the sounds of the article, the OFA results are skewed towards "false negative" errors, as in they evaluate dogs as clear when they are in fact dysplastic at some level. This means that breeders get really bad cases of HD screened out and the rest are left up to them to determine how to handle. They retain more control over their breeding programs because it's easier to get the dogs the little piece of paper they need to have face validity. The fact that OFA isn't as accurate a test as it should be isn't hurting breeders at all, so there's no reason for them to be upset about it. They still get their certifications so puppy buyers will feel more comfortable.
As someone who is increasingly interested (ok, I'll admit it, obsessed) with working dogs, a piece of paper certifying an aspect of health is meaningless compared to knowledge of the longevity and workability of other dogs in those lines. Honestly, what could be a better "test" for health than if a dog can work effectively into its senior years?
I have done both OFA and Penn-hip on my dogs. I believe Penn hip is a better more "scientific" study to determine the absence of disease. That said Penn hip is much more expensive than OFA, and probably the reason it has not become the gold standard.
Comments
As someone who is increasingly interested (ok, I'll admit it, obsessed) with working dogs, a piece of paper certifying an aspect of health is meaningless compared to knowledge of the longevity and workability of other dogs in those lines. Honestly, what could be a better "test" for health than if a dog can work effectively into its senior years?