Breeding OFA fair to fair - Page 1

I am looking at a specific male i like that is OFA 'fair"..... i hope to get some expert advise from breeders and not just a name calling affair....the question is that I noticed several of his breeding's in which the female was also ofa fair. In my mind this is not good and the male should only be breed to a bitch with ofa good/excellent  or with A hips....do you agree or not and why...Please intelligent reasoningsand opinions..

When looking at hips you have to look at the big picture. By that I mean... all of the littermates and what they have produced (taking into account what they were bred to), as well as the generational history.  In other words.... if all of the other litter mates to the "fair" dog are good or better,  that can look more promising.  But if the littermates are all fairs also, or if what the littermates are producing is not good then that is not a good sign.  In some cases it is better to breed to a "fair" than a good or excellent because if all of the rest of the litter turned out to be dysplastic or fair then the "good" or "excellent" is more of a fluke than something to bank on. The OFA site has a section for breeders that explains some of this type of thinking.

Debby

ebinezer052899@yahoo.com castlebrookshepherds.net/enter.html

I have a hip question, also. I think I understand that you must screen littermates, and progeny if possible, to get a better picture of what a sire ( or dam ) has produced; and that some sires who had good hips have not reproduced them, and vice versa....is hip deformity, or dysplasia controlled by a dominant or recessive gene, or does veterinary science really have any idea how hip formation is passed along?? Can poor hips be caused by position in the uterus? Or by enviromental stressors after birth? Or are hips really, a total crap shoot?? Just wondering, I can never really see a pattern in progeny from one sire to the next when I study them, in fact it sometimes seems to be almost a reverse ratio....makes me wonder....Thanks,  jackie osborne

Here's just a few of my observations cruching numbers in this statistical study...

Whether the sire or dam has the better hips, does not seem to significantly affect the outcome of the progeny's OFA rating.

Of all parents bred, roughly 15% were "Excellent, 15% Fair, and 4% Dysplastic.

66% of all the parents bred were OFA rated "Good", and compromise 88% of all the matings studied.

11.33% of the total progeny produced were rated "Dysplastic".  A "Good" rated parent produced 10.9% progeny with HD in the Total of all matches that parent was made with, and a "Dysplastic" parent produced 21.5% HD in the total sum of all its matings.

Stepping up one hip grade with one parent reduces HD by approximately 1/3rd.  For Example, breeding a OFA "Good" to "Fair" averages about 15% dysplastic progeny, whereas a "Good" to "Good" averages about 10% dysplastic progeny.  One grade "up" paired with one grade "down" roughly produces an equivalent % of dysplastic progeny.

To produce 10% or less progeny with HD, "Good" to "Good" should be the minimum standard, and if a parent with a "Fair" rating is bred, it should be to one of "Excellent" status to maintain this standard, otherwise breeding a "Fair" to "Good" will increase the number of dysplastic progeny by half as much, from 10% to 15%.

One "Dysplastic" parent bred to an "Excellent" one tends to produce 30% better than a "Fair" to "Fair" match, 14.2% with HD as opposed to 20.1%.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To learn more about "vertical" pedigree analysis (studying the sibling's hip productions) check out the following link

Collecting and utilizing phenotypic data to
minimize disease: A breeder’s practical guide
www.offa.org/hovanart.pdf

seems that this also follows some  of the data coming out of the SV,, where they stated that dysplaysia was more environmental then gentetic.  i know that a lot of people dont believe that (or maybe they dont want to) but numbers are numbers.

john

The data shows that patterns of heredity are clearly at play.  How much hereditary vs. environmental is up for debate, and really just depends on the environment for each dog.  Having too much protein in the diet during the early growth stages of the pup, jumping from heights, etc. can easily vary from situation to situation.  The hereditary part is mostly what the breeder can help control, and that's a complex matter in itself.  Hip dysplasia from that perspective is the result of polygenic traits, not simply a "single gene" or "double gene" locale in the chromosome.

I do not have a lot of faith in OFA ratings.  I prefer Pennhip, which measures the laxity in the joint AND gives a reading of dysplastic or not.  I have personally had dogs not do well on OFA and get an excellent  hip score with Pennhip only to repeat OFA and have wonderful results.  I have had dogs have really loose hips that showed dysplasia with Pennhip that received "OFA Good" ratings.  Pennhip looks at 3 different views and uses calculated measurements to give their reading and compares to the same breed, it is not subjective like OFA. 

With enough positioning, I think almost anything could pass OFA and if you CAN'T get a good picture, you don't have to send the films in.  WIth Pennhip, the positions are set, the vet has to be certified to do the procedure and once you begin, you HAVE to send the films in.  I think this gives the Pennhip program a truer picture of what the overal hip status is in each breed, seeing not only the hips that the vets THINK will pass, but seeing all of them that had the xrays taken.

I no longer OFA for hip scores, I only Pennhip due to the inconsistant results OFA returns.

With that being said, breeding 2 fairs in OFA together wouldn't scare me at all, knowing that tomorrow each of the 'fairs' could be good or excellent if they resubmitted the films and which panel of vets read the results.  I would be more interested in actual movement, balance and structure of the dogs under consideration. 

Susie Griffin
Indiana

Only 3.5% of GERMAN SHEPHERDS who were ofa'd were Excellent. That leaves 77.5% in the fair to good range.

As stated above it is important to look at the whole dog and what their other qualities are. 

It would generally be best to breed a dog with fair hips to one who has good or excellent hips.  

Interesting reading and I thank each of you for your very informative feedback. It always amazes me how much time and research some of you must do to obtain this much knowledge. I will save your posting so I can reference in the future.

regards,

dr

Good information here. Judging by my own experiences, generally, all things being equal, I would try to breed the best  hips to the best hips. I'd avoid dogs with moderately to severely dysplastic litters mates. If hip statistics for this breed were better, I'd also avoid dogs with mildy dysplastic littermates. The same for dogs out of parents with dysplastic litter mates. I'd also try to avoid a dog with a pedigree containing many NZ's or any at all in the first 2 generations. I'd think long and hard about using fast normals.

If possible, I'd try to see the xrays of the dogs rated fair. In some cases the only difference between an OFA fair and a good or a good and an excellent is the quality of the film and/or the positioning of the dog. I had 2 littermates fail to get OFA numbers - they were both rated "mildy dysplastic". The xraying vets and the owners thought the dogs were normal, so submitted new films and both received goods, an upgrade of 3 levels. I don't get too hung up on ratings anymore, but do feel they are an important part of the big picture assuming the quality of the film is good. I also strongly believe that dogs should always be anesthesized for hip xrays; it can make a  difference, I've seen it.

Frankly, I'm not big on blaming HD on the environment or food. I think it can exascerbate HD, but I do not think it can cause it. Others will disagree. In the scientific world, I think the jury is still out and no one knows for sure how large a factor environment plays. The SV says the environment is a very important contrubutor to the final hip status of GSD's, but their stats may be skewed by the use of NZ's. It would be interesting to me to  see if the SV stats improve  by banning the use of all NZ's. I'm sure someone is going to bring up Jeck, an NZ with a fabulous record of producing normal hips. If his stats truly reflect all the dogs he sired and their offspring, then I'd have to say it's impressvie, but Jeck is but one dog in millions., the odd dog out so to speak. Don't expect that from every NZ rated stud dog. It won't happen. The odds are you are not going to get rid of HD using NZ's.

Like ZW figures, the OFA numbers are skewed as they only reflect the hip status of dogs they have seen. Most do not send off xrays of dogs that are obviously dysplastic.  In a perfect world we would be able to report negative hip results with no fear of them being used against us. However, some dog breeders will use them in a negative way, so most don't advertise the HD they get and that's not in the best interests of the breed. It's important to know how many are in a litter and how many have been xrayed. I used a fair one time, he was bred to a good. There were 5  puppies, 3 were xrayed. 2 received excellents, one good. The dam of this litter had a very strong background of good hips as did the male. I might breed a fair x fair but only if I knew the status of the littermates of both dogs. If their littermates were  OFA good or better and there was no moderate or severe HD, I'd probably make that breeding.