What Is A Reputable Breeder? - Page 5

a fair on a prelim should not be bred they have the highest rate of failure at 2 years old..an its been proven that fair throws a high rate of dysplasia.

Rainhaus, you said "To everyone that responded to the original poster.How many litters per year do you have?I'll bet no one answers that question.If you do I will be very suprised."  

Many of us answered your question on how many litters. 

You also said:  "I rarely breed.I have done just two test litters"  so please answer my question from above.  What is a test litter in your definition? 

bump so Rainhaus can answer my question.

Panzertoo, on what information did you base your statement - "it's proven that a fair throws a high rate of dysplasia"? 

 Actually it is not just the simple fact that a dog is fair that will give dysplasia.  One dog alone doesn't mean a thing.  You have to go see the siblings.

They say you better breed a dog that is fair even bordeline if it's sibling have all good hips.  You shouldn't breed a dog with a ratiing good if most of the siblings are fair or bordeline or dysplasic.  Your dog maybe perfect but carrying the gene that's why you have to look to the big picture (family)

I have a friend who had a wonderful dog (got many offer to sell) but she was bordeline.  They X-Rayed all the litter and she was the only one with the problem. They bred her and she never gave one case of fair or bordeline. All good Hips.

Genetic is so complicated!!

July,

I don't want to sound nasty, but this dog should have never been bred. Just because the siblings were alright and none of her offspring had problems does not mean anything. HD is a multigenetic problem. Obviously, she received some defective genes which she passed on. It might not affect her children, but breeding is thinking in multiple generations. What about the grandchildren and great-grandchildren?

That is why I would never ever buy a puppy or dog which does not come from survey and performance breedings. I have been on both sides: As a first time puppy owner, my girl had severe hip dysplasia (yes, she came from a wellknown kennel in Germany out of performance bred parents. So, it happens in these litters too, just less) and as a breeder. A couple of my puppies had to be replaced. Although the owners were satisfied with their replacements, it still made me as a compassionate humanbeing feel awful about it and I kept thinking that maybe, I could have done something different. So, there should never be an excuse to breed dysplastic or "borderline" dogs, regardless of what other assets they might have. In Germany, your friend as a breeder would have been held liable for any medical costs occured if one of the offspring would have had HD. This is covered by German Consumer Protection Law. Just one of the reasons that German breeders would never breed these sub-standard litters. Of course, they exist there as well, but are usually truckloaded in from Eastern Europe. German border police could tell you horror stories.

Just my 2 cents.

Chris, what is your opinion on using NZ's for breeding?

Noch zugelassen = still permissable! That is the exact translation! We (not you and I - I mean in general) discussed that ad nauseum in the past. I have stated before that I just absolutely hate the definition and would like to see it changed. In addition, the SV should have more degrees in their hip grading system. Currently, they only have A1 (Normal), A2 (Fast normal - almost normal), A3 (noch zugelassen - still permissable), moderate HD and severe HD. The last two automatically include a breed book ban. Please note that there are no such things as borderline and mild HD. This would all fall somewhere between A3 and moderate HD. And that is crazy! That is why I would be an advocate that the SV changes their grading system. In addition, I don't like the definition of "almost normal" either. A couple of  my dogs have A2 hips which I do not have a problem with. There is often a fine line between A1 and A2, but I would wish for a better wording. In that respect, I prefer the OFA definitions.

So, to answer your general question: No, in general I would not use A3 dogs in my breeding program - unless (!!!!) I know the dog and know the xrays. For example, if one of my homebred dogs would come back as A3 and I felt that it was not warranted, I would protest it and request a new xray. This is very hard to do because the SV usually makes its decisions final. We did this one time with a female that we raised from puppyhood (not one of my own breedings though). The OFA had rated her prelim report as GOOD and the shocker was the SV-rating of A3 (same xray was sent to OFA and the SV). After pleading our case with the OFA written evaluation, we were offered on opportunity to re-xray her in Germany which we did. It was changed to A2 afterwards. So my advise to anybody using the A-stamp program like we do is to duplicate that xray and send it to OFA for a prelim report. That is the only way to make sure - that and proper positioning.

I could never weed out A3 dogs from our dogs' pedigrees but I do not feel comfortable using them directly. But there have been famous A3 dogs in the past who are present in the majority of our pedigrees. It takes a good breeder to carefully select matings. Nowadays, I rely a lot on ZWs.

 Silbersee,

You don't sound nasty!! I understand your point of view.  I would have question it a lot before doing it.  I do have report on her kids ( 6 of them already have had puppies) No sign of problems.  But they were all bred to OFA goods or excellent (three of them are actually excellent).

This bitch was really one in a million..they would have never done it with a average dog. 

I've never been one to get too hung up on hip ratings. There are times when the only difference between an OFA fair and a good, for example, is the quality of the film or the skill of the OFA readers. I know a number of people with different breeds, myself included, who have owned dogs that were rejected as mildy dysplastic with one xray, certified as good with another. That a big upgrade of 3 placings. I had it happen to 2 dogs I bred from the same litter. Mild HD one month, OFA good's the next. Same thing happened to a friend of mine. I know many others who have re-xrayed dogs they felt should have had a better rating and most times they got it the second time around. That  sort of stuff shakes my faith in OFA.  I do wish they had some sort of competition, then they may do a better job of training and selecting their readers.  I often wonder how many good dogs were trashed due to incorrect OFA/SV readings. I think you have a tougher organization to deal with when using SV. With OFA, all that is needed is another xray most times. It would be good to be able to see hip xrays on the dogs one would like to breed to.

I've always heard that an NZ is the equivalent of an OFA mild HD.  I'm pretty sure that comparison in made on the OFA website. Not correct?