Using a compare and contrast format, this report provides an update to the article “Report On The State Of Health Of The Scottish Terrier” written by Susan Martin for the 1995 survey. Additional reports may be commissioned by the STCA Health Trust to look further into the survey data in the hopes of developing a complete understanding of the health of our breed.

The Data Transformation Process

As was the case in 1995, every member of the Scottish Terrier Club of America (STCA), U.S., Canadian, received a copy of the 2005 Health Survey. The Health Trust sent 50 sets of the survey forms to each regional club for distribution to non-STCA members. These local clubs were also encouraged to have members give copies to puppy customers, grooming customers and anyone they knew who owned a Scottie. The 2005 Health Survey forms were also posted on the STCA Website where anyone could download a complete set of forms and instructions.

Similar to the process used in 1995, everyone was instructed to send their completed survey forms to Leah Deckner who was designated as the blind recipient for all survey responses. In an effort to maintain complete privacy, Leah stripped the envelope and any incidental material from each survey. Groups of survey forms were then boxed and mailed to Jim Orsborn. Upon receipt, each stack of survey forms was numbered and prepared for processing.

[Ed. Because each survey response was totally anonymous, it is not possible to track any problems by geographical distribution. However, because a unique record number has been assigned to each set of survey forms it may be possible to correlate some Health and Litter Survey data with information on the General Information forms (e.g. litters by STCA Members versus non-members). However, this does NOT mean that it will be possible to link any survey data to either kennel names or to individuals submitting the survey data.]

All of the survey responses were recorded in a database program, called FileMaker Pro, which is a full functioned, relational database application. For this project, FileMaker’s biggest advantage was the ease with which the user interface (data entry pages) can be designed so that they mimic each of the survey forms. Data transcription errors have hopefully been minimized because both the paper and the computer input forms were almost identical. Figure 1 below shows an example of how closely the data entry form for the General Information survey resembles the actual survey form.

Transcribing the Health and Disease Survey forms involved a unique set of challenges beyond the obvious difficulty of reading and interpreting the handwritten inputs. The full database file turned over to the Health Trust includes each response as transcribed from the original forms. In order to provide an initial report on the data, the data needed to be organized into categories. Working with Dr. Marcia Dawson, who helped develop the Disease and Illness list which accompanied the 2005 Survey, each response was assigned to one of these categories. The complete data set clearly identifies the original response and the illness category code that it was assigned to. It was impossible to fit some problems into an established category, those problems have been listed as “unclassified” in the following analysis.

Introduction

The number of responses to the 2005 Health Survey was roughly equivalent to the response to the 1995 survey. Table 1 below provides a high level summary of the records that are included in the database delivered to the Health Trust. Specifically, surveys were received from 487 different individuals, but 7 of them involved either Litter or Health and Disease surveys that did not have an associated General Information form, so there are 7 blank entries in this portion of the database. Although there were a total of 203 Reproductive Information forms recorded in the database, there are 20 of these forms that have a litter count of zero, meaning that these individuals are not really Scottie breeders with experience pertinent to the other areas of the form. And finally, there were Litter survey forms received from 73 different sources, but 5 of these sources had all of the litters they submitted eliminated from the survey because the whelp date that they provided was outside on the two year window specified in the survey instructions.

Owner/Breeder Survey

The Owner/Breeder Survey actually spans two survey forms; the General Information form and the Reproductive Information form. The following tables are grouped into categories of similar questions.

General Information Survey Data:

Table 2 shows a comparison between the 1995 and the 2005 survey in terms of the numbers of responses and some of the demographic type information. There were roughly the same number of responses to both the 1995 and the 2005 survey. Responses to the 2005 survey included 272 that indicated they were a member of the STCA and 243 that were a member of a Regional Scottish Terrier Club. Although it is not shown in the table, 171 of the responses were from individuals that are a member of both the STCA and a Regional Club. It should also be noted that 135 responses (27.7%) indicated that they were not a member of either the STCA or a regional club

Table 2 also compares years of experience and numbers of Scotties owner by each respondant. With roughly the same number of surveys being submitted, the 2005 data shows owner experience (e.g. an average of 21.1 years that they have owned Scotties) was up by 23% over the numbers reported in 1995. At the same time, the number of Scotties (e.g. an average of 2.8 Scotties per response) was down 9% overall and 12% in the average survey household. Future analysis of the survey data may choose to investigate some of these changing demographics and the impact that they may have on breed health and education objectives.

Table 3 shows the types of activities that individuals are participating in along with their Scotties. Similar data was not presented in the 1995 survey, so it is not possible to offer a comparison. In this instance, the data suggests that the vast majority of respondents consider their Scotties to be companions. Many of the “Other” activities also include non-AKC event activities such as Therapy Dog, walking and running companion, rescue and just plain “pet.” This may be an area where further analysis of the data using statistical techniques may be able to shed some additional light. Even knowing the spread and variation in STCA membership across the various activities could be interesting.

Table 4 provides some insight into the age statistics of our breed. While the number of dogs and the average number of dogs in each household are down slightly from 1995, there does not appear to be any information to suggest a change (either positively or negatively) in terms of the average lifespan of Scotties. I need to point out a significant problem, both with the design of this question and the analysis of the data. First, more than one respondent obviously had a problem with the question because they included the ages of living dogs in their response – it is my understanding that only deceased Scotties should be included in a lifespan analysis. Secondly, from a purely mathematical (or statistical) standpoint it is not proper to average a number that is already an average – the results of this calculation do not produce an answer with clear meaning.

[Ed.  In those cases, (where it was clearly obvious) the author did not record an answer that pertained to living dogs in the household. A low number (like 3 years) was included if it was related to the age at death of a Scottie. This is an example of where this low number (for one dog) was recorded as an equal to another household that responded with an answer of 10 years that represented many dogs.]

As an alternative to the General Survey question, a look at the Health and Disease data for deceased dogs provides a much more specific answer to the average lifespan question. The data shows a total of 266 deceased dogs, with an average lifespan of 10.7 years with maximum and minimum values of 17 and 0.8 years respectively.

Table 5 reports on the responses to two related questions on the survey. Both questions asked for information on whether individuals had either bred or owned Scotties in the past two years that exhibited six specific traits and genetic diseases. A comparison with data from the 1995 survey was not possible because that survey did not include a similar question. Furthermore, the numbers from the 2005 survey do not in all cases agree with the data obtained from the Health and Disease survey. Specifically, there were only 30 dogs with Scottie Cramp and 22 dogs with CA included in the more detailed Health survey. It is difficult to tell whether those individuals who answered this question included only dogs they owned in the last two years of if they may have included all dogs that they have ever owned.

Table 6 addresses the use of heartworm preventatives among Scottie owners. While the numbers of owners that reported using a monthly heartworm preventative appears to have increased, the usage among breeders with active breeding stock appears to have dropped.

Table 7 provides data on those diseases that respondents reported as their foremost concern; either among their own dogs or within the general Scottie population as a whole. The answers to these two survey questions were obviously based on opinion and not fact. The two answers often had some similarities, but overall they included some significant differences. In the first case, many of the issues listed in the first response were also listed by these owners in their responses to the Health and Disease Survey questions, so there was definitely some correlation between “My major health concerns” and the diseases that were reported for individual dogs in the health survey. I would also point out that an answer of  “Cancer, cancer, cancer” was counted only once in this section, while each dog with cancer in the health & disease section was counted individually.

Another difference between these two lists is the appearance of several non disease issues in the list of major Scottie health issues. Specifically, there were references to the STCA standard and various breeding practices as being a major health issue.

Table 8 presents summary data from the Reproductive Information survey data. As indicated, there are 183 surveys in the database with a response that the individual had actually bred at least one litter during the survey period. Numerous respondents submitted blank forms, and they were not recorded in the database. Others indicated that they were not breeders and their forms were not recorded either. There were however 20 forms that contained some data that has been included in the database. However a look at the data suggests that they were really not active Scottie breeders because they did not produce any Scottie litters during the two year survey period. Although these surveys may be useful for some types of analysis, they should not be included in the analysis of the items reported in this table.

The data in Table 8 shows that the number of responses as well as the total number of litters and puppies produced have all declined since the 1995 survey. On the other hand, the survey appears to suggest that the breeders who are producing Scottie puppies are having litters of about the same size (avg. 4 puppies per litter) as was reported in 1995.

Table 9 reports on the numbers of Stud dogs and Brood Bitches owned by survey respondents. Just as the number of litters is down from 1995, so are the numbers of Stud dogs and Brood bitches.

Table 10 presents a comparison of data from 1995 and 2005 on how early bitches are bred, how many litters they have and an indication of how many C-Section deliveries are typically encountered. The average values in the table would be best interpreted as the average experience of these owners, and not necessarily the average situation with our bitches; as we know how many breeders responded to the question, but nothing about the number of Scotties that are involved. The other point is that the numbers and the frequency of C-Sections would appear to be lower on the 2005 survey, but the 34% rate seems high and it probably represents a significant health and financial concern for some.

Note: The age values in Table 10 are in years.

Tables 11 and 12 provide some insight into breeding issues that respondents have noted with their Brood bitches. Overall, these issues all appear to be declining.

Table 13 shows data from the two surveys in the area of Brood Bitch fertility (e.g. age of onset of their first season and the average frequency with which they have seasons). As with other areas of the survey that deal with average values, these are equally suspect. Future revisions of the Health Survey should consider asking for more specific data to include information on the numbers of dogs covered by each response to this type of question.

Note: The age values in Table 13 are in months.

Table 14 presents data on how people help their bitches in whelp and some average numbers pertaining to spay and neuter opinions. With respect to helping their bitches in whelp, the majority of the responses indicated that owners do provide some sort of assistance. The detailed survey data has more information on specific answers provided by each respondent, but this table offers some general information. The majority (74%) of those responses that said they offer help, answered the second question by providing details of the “self help” (e.g. non-professional) ways that they support the bitch. These comments ranged from offering moral support, to helping pull puppies, to specifics like cutting cords and helping puppies begin to breathe. Fewer responses (only about 15%) indicated that they rely strictly on professional services like a veterinarian or other trained staff.

Two different sets of numbers are shown for the average age at which people spay or neuter their breeding stock. Basically the first (lower age) value includes all of the responses for anyone that filled out the survey form. When looking at the survey data it was noteworthy that several responses had average ages in the 1 and 2 year range. If an animal is spayed or neutered at this age, it is questionable whether or not the animal was ever really part of a breeding program. So the second set of numbers excluded these low value responses from the calculations and therefore came up with a higher age. Again, these single responses from each survey have no data to indicate how many dogs are included in each answer. So it is really not proper to average these numbers. The best that can be said is that the average response offered by the survey respondents was that they spayed or neutered their breeding stock at these ages.

The final set of questions on the Reproductive Information survey form dealt with the three whelping problems. In all cases, the numbers of “Yes” responses was down over the previous survey. The 2005 data provides some insight into the variety of experience with each question because the table shows not only the number of “Yes” answers, but also the percentage of “Yes” answers to the total number of both “Yes” and “No” answers. (E.g. there were 113 Yes answers to the Stillborn question, but there were also 67 “No” responses. So the Yes answer represented 62% of all responses.

The Litter Survey has typically involved the fewest number of responses, with only about 15% of the survey respondents turning in a Litter Survey form.. This was again the case in 2005 with only 73 respondents submitting a survey form at all. Keep in mind that the survey instructions indicated that only litters born during the two year period immediately preceding the survey date would be considered. The following data therefore clearly shows which litters have been included in the survey analysis.

Litter Survey Data:

Table 17 provides data on the distribution of puppies in those litters that met the eligibility criteria. The first portion addresses puppies by sex and coat color. The totals by sex show a nearly equal number of males and females. The coat colors showed a predominance of Black over the other colors. It should also be noted that all references to a black brindle, red brindle, etc. were recorded as brindle and not black.

Many respondents did not clearly understand how to handle the stillborn birth and post delivery death counts. If there was no other information on the survey, the data was recorded exactly as presented. However, there were several cases where the data was adjusted to fit the following guidelines. Sex and coat color numbers for each litter were recorded for all live births. Puppies that did not survive the birth process were counted as stillborn births. The number of puppies conceived and carried by the bitch during gestation would be the sum of these two numbers. On the other hand, if a puppy died after birth, but during the first 12 weeks of life, it should be included in the live birth counts. Using these definitions, there were 616 full term puppies delivered in the 158 eligible litters included in the survey. Of these 616 pups, 57 (or 9.2%) were delivered stillborn and could not be resuscitated. After delivery, there were 46 pups that died during the first 12 week period.

Table 18 goes into some details concerning the puppies that died within 12 weeks as well as the ones that were reported to have a disease or illness. The respondents did not always record a cause of death for each one, nor did they provide a complete list of illnesses. So the following table lists what appear to be the most prevalent answers.

The Health and Disease Survey was by far the largest and most complex portion of the survey. Respondents were asked to report data on both living and deceased Scotties and to report on both healthy (no diseases) and diseased dogs. The same form was to be used for all responses.

Table 19 shows that 450 surveys were received representing 1,407 dogs; for an average of 3 dogs per survey. The table also shows the age of the oldest dog and the average age of all dogs in the survey.

The final database contains at least one record for every http://clubs.akc.org/stca/HHhttp:/ dog in the survey. In some cases, the number of illnesses that were reported exceeded four, so the additional data is recorded as a second record. Up to 4 illnesses are recorded in each record.

There was also some confusion about how to use the “status” codes (e.g. N, NT, S, …), so for consistency across all of the records a decision was made to record only one status code per dog (not one for each illness). So where multiple status codes were offered, the single most restrictive code was used. In most cases, it was not possible to determine which illness may have cause death, so again nothing should be implied as to the cause of death when multiple illnesses were listed. Each illness does have a separate “Age of onset” and “Diagnosed by” entry in the database.

Health and Disease Survey Data:

Table 20 offers some summary information about the dogs included in the Health and Disease survey database. The first section shows the spread of coat colors across dogs and bitches. Noteworthy is that black is the most prevalent coat color and there are more bitches than dogs in the survey.

Table 20 also provides a summary of the number of healthy and diseased dogs by sex and their current living or deceased status. As can be seen, over 80% of the dogs in the database are still living. Over half of these living dogs were reported to have no health issues.

One of the major accomplishments of the 1995 Health Survey was to produce a listing of genetic traits and diseases and then use the survey data to help make a prediction of the frequency and carrier rates for each of these diseases. Table 21 offers a review of the 1995 data along with new numbers from the 2005 survey data. The 2005 survey data includes much more information, because this table lists only those diseases and genetic traits that showed up on both surveys.

Dr. George A. Padgett, DVM was the one that helped compile and calculate the original statistics. The data and his methods were based on the Hardy-Weinberg Law was also published in his book titled; Control of Canine Genetic Diseases. The data in table 21 is based on this same approach and provides very similar data.

The right hand column in Table 21 indicates how some of the carrier frequencies may have fluctuated up or down between the two surveys. Before anyone tries to put too much importance on these fluctuations in the numbers let me paraphrase a couple of comments from Dr. Padgett’s book.

Surveys are not accurate.
Data is not always correct.
Modes of inheritance are not always known.
Hardy-Weinberg does not really apply.
Guesstimates are not absolute numbers,
They are just the best numbers we have today!

[Ed. The 1995 Survey report did not include an analysis of the formula used by Dr. Padgett to calculate his Guesstimate of Carrier Frequency values.  However a plot of the data reveals the basis for his values and permits us to make new guesstimates based on the new data from the 2005 survey. Appendix 2 shows plots of the data from both surveys and confirms that they are both based on the same analysis.]

Table 22 offers some insight into the most frequently reported illnesses. The table lists any illness that had 20 or more occurrences in the database. You should ask, exactly how did all of the diseases that were reported get sorted? Many of the common diseases like TCC, Cushings and hypothyroid problems were pretty easy to identify and sort into these lists. But the data contained hundreds of alternative names, similar names and unrecognized names for reported illnesses.

To sort out all of these reported illnesses, the Disease and Illness index that was distributed along with the survey was used as a starting point. Each item on the list was assigned a unique three digit code that can be easily sorted by the computer. Each reported illness was then assigned to one of these illness codes. After attempting to assign codes to as many reported illnesses as possible, the complete list of illnesses and the coded index was reviewed by Dr. Marcia Dawson, DVM. Working with Dr. Dawson a few new illness codes were identified that needed to be added to the index. Dr. Dawson also provided invaluable assistance because she verified that all of the reported illnesses had been assigned to an appropriate illness code. The database file contains a complete list of the illness codes that were used as well as the original illness data from each survey form. Table 22 is therefore a report on the most frequently assigned illness codes.

In the 1995 survey analysis, Sue Martin noted that several of the related illness categories might be combined together, and that this would change the order of the most frequent illnesses. Using the 2005 data, similar results can be noted.

• Allergies: Combining the 5 related Allergy codes and the general “Skin” code would result in a total of 95 occurrences and raise this to the number 2 health issue.
• Periodontal: There were separate codes for periodontal disease and gingivitis, which if combined would result in 38 occurrences and raise this issue from number 12 to number 6 on the list.
• Temperament: There were three codes dealing with temperament; Aggression(g), Fearfulness, and Instability that when combined would total 31 and put this in the list of top ten items.

Table 23 addresses the variety of cancers that were noted in the 2005 survey. There were over 30 different codes dealing with very specific cancers, general cancers, and abnormal tumors or growths. If all of these codes are combined together the count would be over 250, so instead, table 23 offers a listing of the top 10 cancers reported in descending order that were noted in the survey data.

The 1995 Health Survey results were documented by Susan Martin, who worked in collaboration with Dr. Padgett, in a series of Bagpiper articles that formed the bases for several other studies.  Because many of the 2005 survey questions were so similar, it was only appropriate that this report should follow the same format. The following links to the 1995 Health Survey reports are offered as additional background for anyone that may be interested.

1995 Health Survey Report  This is a scanned copy of report in PDF.

The nature of many surveys and the reports on their results is that they tend to be biased, either in terms of the questions used or the interpretation of the answers.  The author hopes that this report on the 2005 Health Survey offers "Just The Facts" and that any interpretations have been left to the reader or future authors.

The following list of Illness Codes were used in preparation of this survey report. The list is pages long, and was prepared with the assistance of the Health Trust and Dr. Marcia Dawson.

Code		Illness
000		None
010		---  Behavior
011		Aggression(g)
012		Fearfulness
013		Instability (Erratic, Unpredictable)
020		---  Birth Defects/ neonatal disorders
021		Cleft Palate/Lip
022		Open Fontanelle
023		Hydrocephalus
024		Anasarca (Water Baby)(g)
025		Joint Or Limb Deformity
026		Anorectal Defects(g)
027		Shistosomus Reflexus(g)
028		Fetal Resorption
029		Still Born Puppies
02A		Fading Puppies
02B		Swimmer
02C		Flat Chest
030		---  Blood disorder
031		Von Willebrand's Disease (Vwd) (g)
032		Factor IX Hemophilia B (Christmas Disease) (g)
033		Thrombopathia(g)
034		Polycythemia(g)
040		---  Endocrine
041		Hypothyroidism(g)
042		Hyperthyrodism
043		Addisons Disease
044		Cushings Disease
045		Pancreatitis
046		Diabetes Mellitus
047		Other Endocrine
050		---  Eye
051		Eyelid/Eyelash Problems
052		Frequent Eye Infections
053		Lens Luxation(g)
054		Glaucoma
055		Cataracts(g)
056		Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) (g)
057		Blocked Nasolacrimal (Tear) Ducts
058		Corneal Dystrophy (Fatty Deposits On Cornea)
059		Iris Freckling/ Iris Pigment Remnant
05A		Persistent Papillary Membrane(PPM) (g)
05B		(SARDS) (g)
05C		Dry Eye
060		---  Gastrointestinal system
061		Pica(g)
062		Megaesophagus(G)
063		Gastritis (Chronic)
064		Inflammatory Bowel Disease
065		Colitis (Chronic)
066		Intestinal Blockage Requiring Surgery
067		Exocrine Pancreatic Disease (Epi, Etc) (g)
070		---  Hearing and balance
071		Aural Hematomas(g)
072		Ear Infections (Chronic)
073		Deafness (birth Or juvenile)
074		Deafness (Old age)
075		Vestibular Disease ( Inner Ear Disease) (g)
080		---  Cancer
090		---  Blood and lymphatic system
091		Lymphosarcoma (delete?)
092		Leukemia
093		Myeloma
100		---  Bone
101		Osteosarcoma
102		Fibrosarcoma
103		Chondrosarcoma
110		---  Gastrointestinal tumor
111		Lymphosarcoma
112		Hemangiosarcoma
113		Carcinoma
120		---  Mammary tumor
121		Adenocarcinoma
122		Adenoma
130		---  Nasal cavity
131		Carcinoma
132		Sarcoma
140		---  OraL Cavity
141		Melanoma
142		Squamous Cell Carcinoma
143		Fibrosarcoma
144		Epulis(g)
150		---  Skin
151		Mast Cell Tumor
152		Melanoma
153		T-Cell Lymphoma
154		Histiocytoma (Benign)
155		Lipoma/Liposarcoma
160		---  spleen
161		Hemangiosarcoma
162		Hemangioma
170		---  Urinary Tract
171		TCC Of Bladder, Urethra
172		Kidney Carcinoma
173		Prostate Cancer
180		---  Other tumors -
181		Other Cancer, Liver
182		Other Cancer, Lung
183		Other Cancer, Endocrine
184		Other Cancer, Skin
185		Other Cancer, Brain
186		Other Cancer, Pancreas
190		---  Heart
191		Pulmonary Stenosis(g)
192		Subaortic Stenosis (SAS) (g)
193		Patent Ductus Arterosis (PDA) (g)
194		Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD) (g)
195		Vascular Ring Anomaly(g)
196		Cardiomyopathy(g)
197		Congestive Heart Disease
198		Heart Murmur
199		Enlarged Heart
200		---  IMMUNE SYSTEM
201		Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia(g)
202		Immune Mediated Thrombocytopenia(g)
203		Systemic Lupus Erythematosis (Sle) (g)
204		Rheumatoid Arthritis(g)
205		Polyarthritis(g)
206		Erythema Multiforme(g)
207		Pemphigus Complex(g)
208		Myositis(g)
209		Vaccine Reaction / Failure
20A		Drug Reaction
20B		Anaphylaxis
20C		Stomatitis
20D		Demodectic Mange(in Skin)
210		---  Infectious disease
211		Systemic Infections (Viral, Bacterial, Fungal, Etc)
213		Protozoal - Coccidia, Ciardia, Neospora
214		Worms - Round, Whip, Hook, Tape
215		Ectoparasite - Sarcoptes, Cheyletiella
216		Ear Mites (Chronic Infestation)
217		Fleas (Chronic Infestation)
218		Heartworm
219		Lyme Disease
21A		Parvo
220		---  Liver
221		Copper Toxicosis (Confirmed) (g)
222		Chronic Active Hepatitis(g)
223		Elevated Liver Enzymes (Idiopathic) (g)
224		Protosystemic Shunt
225		Liver Failure
226		Gall Bladder Disease
230		---  Neurological system
231		Scottie Cramp
232		Seizure Disorders ( Epilepsy, Etc)
233		Cerebellar Abiotrophy
234		Spinal Cord/Disk Disease
235		Vertebral Malformation
236		Myasthenia Gravis(g)
237		Tremors
238		Abnormal gait
240		---  Nose or oral cavity
241		Sinusitis / Rhinits (Chronic)
242		Nosebleeds (Chronic)
243		Gingivitis
244		Stomatitis
245		Periodontal Disease With Tooth Loss
246		Failure Of Eruption Of Adult Teeth
247		Overshot / Undershot Bite/Wry Mouth
248		Tonsillitis
250		---  Respiratory system
251		Chronic Cough
252		Pneumonia (Bacterial, Viral, Fungal)
253		Allergy (COPD, Asthma, Etc)
254		Lung Parasite (Fluke, Etc)
260		---  Reproduction system
261		Pyometriis
262		Cystic Ovaries
263		Poor Libido / Low Sperm Counts
264		Hypogonadism
265		Prostatic Disease (BPH, Abscess, Cysts, Etc)
266		Cryptorchidism
267		Monorchidism
268		Uterine Disorders
270		---  Skeletal (bone and joint)
271		Kinked Tails
272		Hip Dysplasia(g)
273		Legg-Calve-Perthes Disease(g)
274		Elbow Dysplasia(g)
275		Arthritis
276		Patellar Luxation(g)
277		Cruciate Ligament Rupture
278		Achondroplasia(g)
279		Craniomandibular Osteopathy (Cmo) (g)
27A		Osteochondritis Dissecans (Ocd) (g)
280		---  Skin
281		Allergies-Pruritis(g)
282		Allergies- Grass/Weeds Seasonal
283		Allergies_ Fleas/ Insect Bites
284		Allergies- Food
285		Allergies- Unknown cause
286		Hot Spots /Infections Chronic
287		Atopic Dermatitis (g)
288		Primary Seborrhea (g)
289		Demodectic Mange
28A		Sebaceous Adenitis(g)
28B		Sebaceous Cysts
28C		Cyclic Follicular Dysplasia(g)
28D		Nail/Foot Pad Disorders
290		---  Tissue deformities
291		Hernia - umbilical
292		Hernia - inguinal
293		Hernia - scrotal
300		---  Trauma (accidents, toxicity, poisons)
310		---  Obesity
320		---  Urinary system
321		Cystinuria (g)
322		Urolithiasis (Bladder, Kidney Stones) (g)
323		Cystitis (Chronic Infection Of Bladder)
324		Urinary Infections, frequent
325		Kidney Disease/ Failure
999		Miscellaneous - OTHER

Figure 1.  Plot of Data from 1995 Survey.

Figure 2.  Plot of .Data from 2005 Survey.

Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of the Guesstimate of Carrier Frequency values versus the Frequency of Occurrence data as documented in the report on the 1995 survey. This plot is essentially the Hardy-Weinberg Law in graphical form. Figure 2 shows a similar scatter plot of the numbers documented in this report on the 2005 survey.

Figure 3.

This figure confirms that the values used in both reports are consistent with each other.