Dysplasia ???????? - Page 4

I think socket type is heritable just like other skeletal traits although I am not certain which lines correlate with deep vs shallow. Perhaps there has been a tendency for GSDs to be selected for shallower depth of hip joints because they can provide somewhat better range of motion in the rear. Top veterinary researchers are convinced that environement factors are important and explain up to about 50% of hip confirmation, but never overrie basic bone formation of the joint. There are three oversized American blooded male GSDs that I know of personally which have deep and perfect hip confirmation and have unbelievably extreme, but correct sidegait. And these dogs appear to produce the same. But they are not the type of GSD that I like in general because I prefer certain W. German bloodlines for a number of reasons. These dogs also have an extreme amount of rear muscle mass too, and long correctly sloping croups, not a coincidence in my opinion. It's always up to the breeder himself or herself to decide just how important clean joints are and how one will get them, because it can be done reliably through judicious selection of breeding stock.

Preston et al, What are your thoughts on using NZ's for breeding? Thanks.

Jantie, may I suggest that you expand your indepth research on HD and the SV to include information on how many of these dogs that are dysplastic radiographically are also so severely effected clinically that they need to be put down. You might take it a step farther and do some meaningful reasearch for recommendations for handling these dysplastic dogs so they can live a normal painfree life. I am especailly interested in what you can uncover regarding young dogs with unilateral HD and one mildly effected hip. Get back to us when you have the answers.

Blitzen, My gut reaction to nz is to run away. My assessment of the stats on the other hand is that very little difference exists between the offspring of nz parents and those of fn parents. It follows that if you consider fn good enough nz is nearly as good. I believe, however, that we should not be setting our sights on "good enough". This has been done by AKC breeders for years to the detriment of the breed. I strongly urge everyone to do their best to IMPROVE both the genetics of their stock and the individual manifestation by whatever means are at their disposal. HDZW and parental and sibling hip/elbow status should be selected for. Also very interesting and of considerable potential is Preston's post regarding socket depth. I personally consider nutrition to be extremely important, and would take NOTHING for granted. Best wishes, Jonah

I guess to really get a true picture of the influence of the NZ's on the breed one would need to get to get to the point that there are no NZ's in a 5 generation pedigree and, ideally none in any of the siblings of those dogs. I doubt there are any such pedigrees around. Not using mildy effected dogs seems to be working for some breeds by decreasing the number of dysplastics in each litter. When I first started breeding Malamutes, we could count on 25% of every litter not passing OFA. Now, after 30 some years of breeding only OFA stock, mostly goods and excellents, we rarely see any dysplastic dogs and those we do see are very mildly effected. My last litter was 7, all got OFA clearance; OFA good sire, excellent dam, 6 goods, 1 fair and previous litters all that were xrayed cleared except for 2, for a total of 42 puppies. Of course there are times that the rating depends on the quality of the film and/or the expretise of the readers. Some I know, including myself, have resubmitted xrays and received an upgrade form OFA. 2 of my own dogs went from mildy dysplastic to OFA good. I've read theories that GSD's are not benefitting from breeding only normals due to their rear structure, all the angualtion interferes somewhow. It's just a theory, I don't think it's been proven. Statistics are all well and good, but are often manipulated by the statistician in his or her favor. IMO an independent research minus the SV, the Penn Hip staff and the OFA would be more telling.

There is a common and deeply misguided view among those who do not understand GSD structure that first of all GSD's have bad hips in general, and second that their hip problems are related to their rear angulation. While neither of these is true, excessive hind angulation in the AKC breed causes them to have incorrect movement( in general) that is extremely loose, inefficient, and lacking power. The truth is that joint deformities occur in direct proportion to breed size and rate of growth. A GSD of correct construction has fluid movement of mechanical superiority to any other living thing. Jarring and waste are eliminated while muscle and angle of leverage are optimized to create an overall picture of effortless dynamic movement. Hind angulation is a function of bone length and ligamentation. It has nothing to do with the hip. I believe that breed differences are likely due more to differences in the size and dispersal of the population. The GSD has a population that numbers at least 6 figures, is spread throughout the world, and has thousands of breeders both registered and unregistered. I believe that the breed would benefit from a-normal only breed policy. However, that would be difficult to implement considering the number of otherwise excellent dogs that would be banned. We might be going in that direction with the zw program anyway. I know I set my target well below the mandated zw of <100.

I've been very diligent over the past 15 years about thoroughly checking OFA records, etc--going back several generations. Previous years, I relied on others for advice, naively believing people would never breed an unworthy dog. In these 15 years, I have managed to avoid HD, but did have an elbow problem with one dog (elbows weren't high on the check list years ago). Do I think my research helped? Hope so, but I'm not certain. Will I continue to check the stats on any future dogs? Of, course. But..., I can't help wondering. What if all the dogs with the low zw's are the only ones bred, and they have other major health issues? (There is no doubt in my mind that most breeders do not own up to health problems.) How does heart trouble, epilepsy, bloat, DM, etc. factor into the equation? Mild HD won't kill my dog, but a heart exploding will. If we start reducing the gene pool, are we actually doing a bigger disservice? I guess I'm questioning and wondering because I already see the interest in the test for long hair. If my concerns are unfounded, blast me for stupidity. I don't mind.

Everyone; I think that we all have read the statement by the S.V. "that one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater" regarding the use of dogs with a ZW that is well over 100. I don't need to make the rest of the statements, as I am sure that all here have read them. The question a few posts above concerning the use of NZ's for breeding is covered by the oft-quoted statment from the S.V.. There are a few NZ dogs with a score below 100, and I have seen at least one (1) VA-1 male whose score started at 86 and within less than two (2) years had climbed to 103 by the time his breeding career slowed. And that was but a short time ago. I think the ZW is a valuable tool for gathering and parsing statistics. And yes, we have seen NZ dogs who later passed as O.F.A. Good, and some who had their ZW lowered by several digits. So NZ does not necessarily mean the dog is dysplastic, and the hips may well become a2 or a1 at a later date if the S.V. allowed a retest (word?). The S.V. states much success in lowering what is nowadays called a4 and a5 levels of dysplasie from a double-digit percent rate to a single-digit percent rate. No doubt this lowering was achieved by examination of sireas and dams followed by selective breeding to weed out the worst offenders. Personally, I think that if one allows the currently-acceptable average ZW of slightly less than 100 to be their guide for the selection of a sire & dam, then the overall numbers will never improve past ZW 100, even if we continue this for the next one-hundred (100) more years. GIGO, essentially. If one sets for himself a lower threshold, say approaching 90, then one should have greater success. And of course this elimates a lot of dogs and bitches from use in a breeding programme that have otherwise excellent characteristics. The "bath water", if you will. Again, just my opinion-if the S.V. really wanted further progress from what it as already achieved through the use of the ZW, then it should urge tighter breeding controls and drop the acceptable ZW 100 average by perhaps one (1) point per year for the next ten (10) years and see whether there will be fewer a2's, a3', a4's, and a5's. A large undertaking I know, for by 2017 the average ZW could not exceed 90, and we know what that would cause today. Bob-O

Bob-O, Common belief is that joints do not improve as they age. Do You suppose those nz dogs that were later ofa normal had been misread or perhaps found a "friend" in the US? I agree with lowering the threshhold on zw. I think it will fall to us. If it is done enough on a voluntary basis I believe that those breeders who take charge will benefit with fewer problems and perhaps a better reputation. LMH, We are forced to make stringent choices regarding breedings. I don't know the exact stats, but by a rough estimate 10-15% of males are breedworthy (KKL1a) with something to offer to the breed. There is no legitimate reason to breed to average males (middle V's). Of that 10-15% only about 30% make my cut based on type, health issues, compatibility of genetics and structural components with a particular bitch, etc.. The end result is there are about 5 or 6 dogs in the US that I consider suitable for a particular bitch. There are many more excellent studs in Germany, but still only a small percentage will ever make the cut as we have a responsibility to do our very best.

JDH, I have often wondered about how an NZ joint becomes an O.F.A. "Good" after it was earlier evaluated by the S.V.. I agree that hips do not normally improve with age, so what happens? Are not the evaluators well trained on both sides of the Atlantic? I would certainly think their training and certification was 100% comparable. Perhaps the positioning was poor for the S.V. examination, or it was just the luck of the draw for that dog if the examining body tries to score within the normally appearing ratios of a1, a2, a3, a4, and a5, and since some had to be scored NZ, well this was that dog's unlucky day. I don't really believe that, and hope it is not true. We are talking about the hips of a dog, and not some widget that was just spit from a machine. I agree with you about breeders taking the first steps for overall improvement, but you and I know that unless the S.V. makes a worldwide mandate then a lot of high ZW breedings will continue, ones that maybe should not happen if the goal is to drop the average ZW progessively lower. The S.V. needs to see the ZW system as any other type of process control. Progressively meet the benchmark-then improve your goal. I remember another statement in their ZW publication (sic) "with this system you can mate a dog with a ZW of 125 to a bitch who has a ZW of 75" Yes, sure you can. But who of us is willing to take such a gamble? Not me. Bob-O