HD questions - Page 1

Now that I have received the OFA reports on my three GSD's, after they became two years old, I have went back and researched their respective pedigrees and found a direct correlation to each of their reports, with the info available on this site (surprisingly, one of my dogs mother is V rated but does not have an HD result recorded on this site).  My dog that was judged as "good" has most of her ancestors as a1.  My girl that was judged as "moderate HD" has about 45-50 percent of ancestors who were fast normal or NZ.  My male who was judged as "borderline" (I believe that is equal to "fast normal"), has about 25 to 30 percent of his ancestors as either NZ or fast normal.

I know that some will argue that OFA is almost worthless.  I also know that some will say that it is foolish to ignore OFA results.  I know that a percentage of offspring from two dogs with excellent rated hips or offspring from two dogs rated as having "good" OFA hips, can have HD at various levels.  I also know that an argument can be made that the offspring from two dogs rated as NZ or even worse, can be rated as "normal".  I have read all of this.  Intelligent and knowledgeable dog people making arguments for strict adherence to "test" results and making arguments for not so strict adherence to test results.  I also have read here that if only dogs with excellent or good hips were bred, and no others, the gene pool be greatly reduced and cause problems in other areas.  Having said all of that, here are some questions that I hope can be clarified for me here.

Are the (percentage wise), working lines less likely or more likely to produce worse hip results than the show lines?

Can the other attributes of a GSD "overcome" bad hips when it comes to breeding potential, such as Jeck Noricum did?  Is it "possible" for a really great dog to overcome OFA "mild HD" or "moderate HD" results, in relation to breeding potential?

Finally, IF (yes, I know, if is a big word), but IF only GSD's with hips certified as good or excellent were the only dogs bred world wide, how bad would the breed be ten generations from now, in the other areas they are used for?  And, how much improvement would result in the area of HD?

DR&FNO:  I am wanting to do the same research you did.  In determining the %, how many generations did you go back?  Also, did you notice whether or not there was any correlation between the fast normals & NZ's scattered throughout the generations, or in the further back ones or close up?

Thanks,

Sue

I went back 7 generations.  I "lumped" the fast normals with the NZ's due to the fact it is generally acceptable to use both for breeding, if the dog has the other necessary attributes (usually just meaning titled).  As I stated earlier, there were a few on this database that did not have a hip certification listed.

In my opinion, disabling HD can be virtually eliminated in approximately 5 generations (sometimes three or four) if one only breeds OFA good or excelent hips.  An equivalent of this could be done in Germany and Europe with Xraying at 2 years old and older and only using "a normal". Better yet would be to use the OFA hip scheme or the BVA hip system at 2 years or older and select a high cutoff. Do right, what you found makes perfect sense based on well established genetic selection principals related to hips.

I don't think this stringent selection process I have proposed many times would harm the overall gene pool long term much if everyone used this method.  I think it would create more breeding diversity since more importance would be paid to less popular quality studs that have great hips. Perhaps working line studs with great hips and clean pedigrees would be used much more by showline kennels.  As far as Jeck, I would have liked to see his xrays at 2 or 3 years old and know what they looked like then.  It would be important to know how good his positioning was on his origibnal xrays. It isn't only hips that are a problems with the GSD, but elbows and many other serious health issues related to too much intensive line breeding such as EPI, thyroid deficiency, bleeding disorders, mega-esophagus, aortic arch stenosis, cardiac electrical disorders, myopathy of the spine with long and "dead appearing" tail, etc., etc. Carefull selection of studs and dams to eliminate and minimize these disorders would improve the breed, even if some mediocrity in confirmation was temporarily imposed.  And it would be nice to see an emphasis on eliminating roach backs, sickle-hocks, weak bone, splayed feet, lack of sex type, and excessive length. 

Yes, Preston, what you say makes sense, although it does sound like a boat load of tests that a potential dog would have to pass (along with the temperment, courage, endurance and other desired traits in this breed.  Also, of course, it will never happen.

I do have one more question.  If good or even excellent hip test results can be given to dogs from parents that were not good or excellent themselves, wouldn't the dog rated as good or excellent, and used for breeding, still carry the potential (I guess it would be called "genes") to pass on that trait down the road, thereby making your 5 generation (sometimes even 3 or 4) not realistic?  Not trying to start an argument, but just not "seeing" 5 generations as a real possibility, even IF it could be adhered to worldwide.

Having re-read your posting Preston, I see that you qualified it as "disabling HD".  I didn't catch that the first two times I read your post (I'm old, shoot me:).  Still, my last question is valid I believe.  What level of HD would qualify as "disabling"?  Would that be anything less than OFA good, SV a1?

DR&FNO:  I am noticing that the dogs in the beginning of the pedigree are almost all a1, but as I go back, the number of fast normals   jump in the 1980's  then become the majority in the dogs in my dogs pedigree in the 1970's, plus the NZ's increase as I go back too.  Was this the trend on any of your 3? 

Forgive me if this is a stupid question.  I'm a little goofy  because I made the mistake of thawing 55lbs of venison & lamb necks way too late & now I am trying to get them transfered to their individual bags & back into the dogs freezer before I go to sleep or they will be ruined!!!

Sue.  It does not seem that way with my pedigree research.  I find the percentages roughly the same throughout the years.  Is 55 lbs. how much you feed in one day?  wow, if so.  Although my Rott Clyde would put it away :), or die trying

tsttttt nOOOOOOOOOOOOO silly!!!  I put each neck in its own baggie then stick them back in his freezer & take one out every day.  He gets that for dinner & for breakfast he gets about 1/2 lb ground beef/bones/organs/innards/veg glop that I put his vitamins in.  He's 27in at the withers & 80 lbs and approx 18 months.

I knew that.  Thought you might have a dozen or so dogs though.  Clyde still would die trying to put all 55 lbs. away today, and then go steal the food from Bonnies dish