SV á'Stamp Program Has A Problem - Page 2

There have ALWAYS been problems with the 'a'-stamp scheme, even without going into alleged corruption. To me. the ONLY thing that saved the 'a'-stamp was introduction of the ZWs - but there are so many "guesses" in the data on which the ZW calculations are based (plus the many poor hipped dogs that get xrayed unofficially at 11 months old then disappear without ever troubling the SV's official radiographers) that the ZW figures must be taken with a grain of salt.

In about 1988-83 Dr Malcolm Willis took the head radiologist of the BVA (some name like "Prof. Latham") to Germany, where Professor Brass brought out the plates of each 'a'-stamped export to Britain to be read the BIF-scoring (named after the Breed Improvement Foundation that had initiated it) way that MEASURES 9 aspects per hip then scales 8 of the aspects from 0 to 6, the other aspect from 0 to 5. Which gives a possible total of 0 to 53 per hip and 0 to 106 per pooch.

'a'-#	'a'-category	translation	BIF average	BIF range
'a'-1	'a'-n	'a'-normal	2.86	0 to 10
'a'-2	'a'-fn	'a'-near normal	4.14	0 to 15
'a'-3	'a'-nz	'a'-still permissible	7.79	1 to 25
'a'-4	---	fail	unknown, but BIFs up to 106
'a'-5	---	fail
'a'-6	'a'-ausland	Foreign pass

The table Dr Willis published, showing the average score within each 'a'-stamp, and the HUGELY over-lapping best-to-worst BIF-range within the 4 categories, should tell you an important problem with 'a'-stamps - one of the same two problems with all the limited-categories schemes such as those operated by the FCI and the OFA.

Those interested in seeing the criteria and the way a BIF-scoring certificate is set out can go to:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjDnPb_0tTPAhVO8mMKHaqQB6UQFggcMAA&url=https://www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Canine_Health_Schemes/Interpretation-and-_use-of-BVA-KC_Hip-Scores(1).pdf&usg=AFQjCNHSqQMFOsTfz4G--y3BhWlM401ePw&cad=rja

The most intense use of the BIF-scores is is the Progeny Analyses done by the GSDCAustralia, which also created its own "A"-stamp, plus initiated the elbow-scoring scheme for which it issues a "Z"-stamp.
The criteria for its "A"-stamp are that
#1: no aspect of either hip may exceed 3
#2: neither hip's total may exceed 8

- which means that no GSD with an Australian "A"-stamp can have a total worse than 16 - a lot better than the BIF 25 that at least one of the German 'a'-stamped GSDs exported to Britain turned out to be.

Lol...only the Australians and Brits can come up with a great hip rating system. I mean...look at their history of breeding dogs, they're definitely the ones to go to for anything dog related.

Since the rating is out of 106, a difference of 9, or about 10% it shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of the hip or the dog's value to a breeding program or ability as a working dog. The assumption that Australia/Brittain is so much better at this because their system supposedly eliminates certain dogs from getting passing hip ratings is comical. The system you described is still subjective and leaves room for error and difference in opinion on scores of measurements.

Australian A-stamp…right up there with the Australian/New Zealand breed survey.

Um, Bav, for a good many of the early years the UK WAS the go-to place for 'dog breeding'. (Even without mentioning the US S/L peoples' subsequent fascination with putting three pounds of extra coat on every breed.)

The point about the UK's BVA/KC hip scoring scheme is that it is supposed to: A) reduce the reliance on chance, when owners actively Xray & have stock scored; B) establish a 'mean' as guidance to those breeders so that they at least use the better-hipped animals. The scheme has never claimed to be a cure for HD, it has never claimed that it will eliminate all risk of HD.
The results speak for themselves: if you study the progeny information on the tables we have been writing about, with TIG & Alamance on the other thred, then the results in score levels of dogs born to lower scoring sires & dams, the sheer numbers of the offspring with better (lower) scores indicates that only breeding with dogs scored below the Breed Mean will significantly and consistently reduce the numbers of affected dogs. And that is even without knowing ALL of the dogs used / produced, because some still do not Xray, or do not provide & record their results, or do not abide by the results, for whatever reason.

I don't know that the UK scheme is claimed to be 'better' than other countries schemes, where those even exist. I do know that I find it clearer and therefore easier to use than anyone else's version, but to each their own.

Your "established mean" is still subjective based on who's doing the grading and who is taking the x-ray which affects the positioning and will affect grading. Having a number just makes people feel better and more scientific, when at the end of the day you're coming up with the same result +/- a few dogs here and there.

The 25 that Kiwi pointed out...is an NZ dog. There are constant discussions going on about the NZ rating and how it relates to OFA. Some will go fair, others will go mild. 9 points of a difference seems extremely minuscule in the grand scheme of the breed.

The "approximate correlation" table they provide looks to say that the rating is more stringent than what OFA or SV is, but without hard data and real comparisons (comparing BIF score to OFA rating) there is no way to know how exact the table is. The questions will always arise between the NZ/fair/mild/14-36 when you're looking at various testing systems.

And no, sorry, Kiwi Boy clearly stated in his post how the UK system is better than the SV a-stamp system. Just look at the first sentence in his post. Claiming corruption as if corruption and lying doesn't exist in the UK or Australia. Yeah...I'm sure the ethics and morals of the breeders over there are so much better than everywhere else in the world...oh wait, check the last thread I had going with Kiwi where he failed to mention the HUGE differences between the requirements for the breed survey. Just "happened" to leave that out right?

While you are not entirely wrong about the "+ / -" difference, BW, again I point out that it is not claimed the UK scheme is a 'cure'. And whatever Les claims for the NZ system, even if it is based in the UK one, I am telling you they should be thought of as TWO distinct versions, and WE do not claim it as "the best". I was trying to get the two 'un lumped together' in your mind. And therefore your posts.

If I were you I would re-read Les's post ^^^, as I cannot see WhereTF you gleaned your conclusion, from what Les actually says, AT ALL.

 

This thred isn't actually about the relative merits of the various countries' schemes; it is about someone relying on the German A stamp and then discovering a flaw with results in their dog.  This is indeed nothing new - though I acknowledge to Susie that it is not all that common, and usually is dealt with professionally when it does occur.  Not always, however - we had a famous case in the 80s, that Les part-references (I don't think you and he are talking about the same dog here !), and as I recall it took the SV quite some time to even admit the possibility it was wrong, let alone make any amends.  If a dog is exported partly dependent on the strength of test results that then prove distinctly false, that is terrible for the buyer/importer of the dog; and  can amount to a scam.

Hund...it's amazing how subjective and blind you can be. His first paragraph rips apart the SV a-stamp system, calling it full of corruption and then while trying to give some merit to the ZW score, still points out where it lacks. Yet in the paragraphs after he talks about how amazing the BIF system is and how a vet 40 years ago proved how inaccurate the SV a-stamps were compared to this new scoring system.

With every system there's room for inaccuracy and corruption. A lot of borderline hips/elbows can go either way based on the opinion of the person doing the grading. No matter how you want to break down the grading...the scoring will always be subjective. The borderline dogs will always be questioned. I had a dog just go from being fair at 2 years old to good at 3 after a re submission of new films to OFA. It happens.

Also...the OPs post is completely lacking any REAL information. "Some dogs with known good hips have recently been returned from the SV dysplastic." How were the hips "known" to be good without a rating? Just by looking at the x-ray? A vet? A random person on the internet? Who told the owner the hips were good and then they came back from the SV dysplastic?

I've heard some stories of NZ hips coming back good, fair, or mild when sent to the OFA. Very few good and most of the time they're either fair or mild depending on the case. Without real information there's no way to truly know which rating agency is off.

That isn't quite what he said ... I think you want to see more in it, and so you see what you see. And make 2 + 2 add to 10, in the process.
But there's no point in arguing with you, ever, is there ?

There you go...resort to responding without actually providing any real information. It helps let people know that you have nothing left to offer and can't disprove anything I said.

By the way: yes it WAS a "noch zugelassen" dog, (careful with initials here, when also referring to a New Zealander !), or at least that is what the SV finally admitted it SHOULD have been, if I remember rightly. Somehow those two little initials got omitted at point of sale. Irrespective of the pros and cons of any of the schemes, perhaps if I quote you what Dr Willis actually wrote about the british version you will get a better grasp of why I prefer the Hip Scheme in the UK (taking into account that it is now quite well used by the GSD community at large, and that the evaluators are specialists, which does not always seem true of those used by other countries / bodies):

"If HD is to be reduced then it is obvious that there has to be coordinated effort. No single kennel however large can hope to achieve success on its own, especially if as is almost inevitable it uses animals from outside its own breeding programme. All schemes that have been set up are attempts to evaluate a breed or breeds and then in some way or other to make those data available. Ideas such as using only normal animals are without foundation. ... The polygenic nature of HD means that normal to normal will not always produce normals, any more than dysplastic to dysplastic will always produce dysplastics. However, the fact that HD is about 30%-50% heritable means that selection programmes will work and that the better the parental stock used the better the chances of success."

"In making a mating breeders should mate compensatorarily and set limits above which they will simply not use animals. The GSD Breed Council in Britain has set the recommended use of no sires above a total score of 20 or bitches over 25 *, but certainly these limits should not be mated together, and both are higher than many breeders would actually use. In using young sires/dams their own data together with litter and parental/grandparent data should be considered but once reliable progeny data becomes available these should be used in preference to the dogs' own data. A sire with a poor hip progeny test should be considered poor even if he himself has a good hip result."

* - This was written in the 1990s, it surely says something that the GSD 'mean'/ breed usage figure has now dropped to 12  here (2014) ?

"Success will ensue in direct proportion to the degree to which breeders try to build up good hip pedigrees.  Success will be speeded if Kennel Clubs give support.  In Britain the KC gives tacit support, but in reality does nothing to encourage use of the scheme since there are no registration limits.  This is a pity because at a time when too many dogs are bred and media publicity is generally adverse"  [nothing's changed there, then !] "much prestige and better publicity might result from KC support for improving hip status."  [I think the KC thinks that because it has its name on the BVA scheme and the mean is going down, that is all it needs to do to say it is being supportive.] "The procedure would be simple. Initially all that would be required would be for the KC to insist that before a litter could be registered both parents must be openly hip scored.  At first there would be no need to set score limits because merely getting stock scored would be a step forward. In time, breeders with poor scoring stock would find their market diminished and they would either have to give up breeding or improve parental hip status.  The effect on hip status of the progeny would be spectacular; rapid progress would result.  Eventually limits to parental status could be set because by then no self-respecting breeder would dream of using high(ish) scorers."

Well, Malcolm with benefit of hind sight, seems a bit naive, there.  The KC did not take the hint, indeed it is still resisting anything that pins Registration ability on a medical test result.  Even their own super-breeders scheme, the ABS, where all recommended health tests have to be taken, puts no limits on actually registering puppies.  But we have kind of got there without them, at least in the S/L area of breeders.  But as you can tell, its NOTHING like being under the SV !

BW, I started typing THAT ^^^ out a long time before your last post appeared !