# Breeding a bitch with fair hips



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

I'm just curious if under any circumstances, you would breed a bitch you owned with fair hips?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> I'm just curious if under any circumstances, you would breed a bitch you owned with fair hips?


Is she a cull, common, above average or excellent bitch?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

The geneticists tell us that a dog with a "fair" grade and several siblings, all of whom passed OFA, is a better breeding candidate than a dog with an "excellent" grade, some of whose siblings failed OFA. That is, the first dog is likely to throw better hips on average than the second.

Amy Dahl


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

yep!

Here is a quote off the OFA website:

_Do not ignore the dog with a fair hip evaluation. The dog is still within normal limits. For example; a dog with fair hips but with a strong hip background and over 75% of its brothers and sisters being normal is a good breeding prospect._


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Hey Patrick all of steves dogs(if he is even refering to one of them) are very nice hard charging dogs and not Cull dogs at all.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Steve Hester said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just curious if under any circumstances, you would breed a bitch you owned with fair hips?
> ...


My biased opinion is that she is definitely above average, but that's with a lousy trainer, me. If she was with a really good trainer, she would probably be excellent.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I would not unless I had evaluations on most of the dog's siblings and parents suggesting that the rating was an aberration. Obviously if the dog were champion quality, that might override my concerns, but there are too many really good dogs with excellent or good hip and well documented family trees with good hips to bother breeding those without.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*fair hips*

What okvet said--fair, good, excellent are ALL normal.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I would if she was and FC or AFC. I've never had a Fair, but if I did I would get a second opinion, especially if everyone else you could trace in the pedigree had good or excellent hips. If the hips were still Fair, I probably would not breed unless she was FT titled.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> I would if she was and FC or AFC. I've never had a Fair, but if I did I would get a second opinion, especially if everyone else you could trace in the pedigree had good or excellent hips. If the hips were still Fair, I probably would not breed unless she was FT titled.



ILLOGICAL It's bad unless it's okay.


----------



## Dan&amp;Guinness (Jun 6, 2006)

I have an "Excellent" out of a "fair" x "excellent" breeding. 

Repeat breeding - ALL pups who were rated tested "good" with the exceptrion of my "excellent" and 1 other "excellent".


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> ErinsEdge said:
> 
> 
> > I would if she was and FC or AFC. I've never had a Fair, but if I did I would get a second opinion, especially if everyone else you could trace in the pedigree had good or excellent hips. If the hips were still Fair, I probably would not breed unless she was FT titled.
> ...


To you maybe, but statiscally it has worked for me more than 25 years. If there were a talented FC/AFC bitch with Fair hips, I doubt that the buyers would not be willing to take the risk, and chances are they would not be advertised.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Hester said:
> ...



Then I would have zero hesitation in breeding her to another fine animal....I personally get worn out with people discussing clearances without performance. Like my buddy says "CAN THAT DOG HUNT?"


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

This discussion reminds me of a panel discussion I participated in at Colorado State U. a few years ago. The subject was fertility in beef cattle and the generally accepted standard is that a cow should have a calf every 12 months or less to be economically acceptable. A purebred Hereford breeder on our panel stated that he gave his cows a little longer (18 months) because he had so much more money tied up in each cow. We had audience participation and a commercial cattleman in the audience stood up and asked, "Why should we buy our seedstock from you when your standards are lower than ours?" The purebred breeder didn't have an answer for him.

If you are going to breed a bitch with Fair hips it doesn't matter if she is a FC-AFC or a brood bitch. It's either right or its wrong. Just saying.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

The overall dog is what is important - not just one clearance. So performance should play a part in this decision along with all of the other things that make up that bitch. What about all of the other health factors? What about disposition? What about all of those training tendencies that are inherited? Being an FC/AFC is not in the realm of many dog people so other accomplishments may be considered instead.

No dog is perfect so you have to pick and choose what flaws/imperfections are least objectionable to you.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I agree with SueLab but also believe that it is essential to consider what is known about the hips in the dog's pedigree. If there is no history for the pedigree, or if the history indicates recurring hip problems, I would consider the fair rating to be a disqualification from breeding in almost every case.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

*Re: fair hips*



Tom Watson said:


> What okvet said--fair, good, excellent are ALL normal.


Exactly! They are all normal ratings because not one of them means dysplastic in the least. OFA even explains that on their site. However, once again some have taken a wonderful tool and used it as an excuse for a witch hunt.

I totally agree with Suelab about considering the overall dog. That's the concept my breeder has always taught me to live by.

Steve, if your bitch has a strong family tree (meaning there isn't a history of dysplasia) and has proven herself (i.e. titled in some fashion), I wouldn't hesistate. Just make sure you take the information OFA provided you and make the best breeding decision possible. That's really what it's all about. After that, it's all a crapshoot anyway- since we're dealing with animals and not paper.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> I would consider the fair rating to be a disqualification from breeding in almost every case.


Jeff,

I'm just wondering why you disqualify fair hips? 

Tom


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2007)

Of course we would breed a bitch with OFA Fair hips, provided she met our general breeding criteria. Do you all have an understanding of how subjective OFA ratings are? 

What if you called Dr. Keller and asked what the three vets' ratings were of said bitch's hips. One rated her Good, the other two Fair. Then what would you say? What if one rated her Excellent, the other two Fair. THEN what would you say (besides "huh?" :wink: )?

Now if this were a discussion about breeding a bitch who rated in the PennHip 20th percentile, it might be a different story.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

twall said:


> YardleyLabs said:
> 
> 
> > I would consider the fair rating to be a disqualification from breeding in almost every case.
> ...


I actually said I would disqualify her if the family tree hip history were unknown or evidenced a pattern of problems. 

My reasoning is based on my observation that lines with fair hips also seem to have a higher incidence of dysplastic hips. In addition, it appears to me that when a dog with a family tree history of weak hips is introduced into lines with great hips that weak hips seem to crop up over the next several generations. I cannot put statistics on this, just my impressions from studying the OFA data for a lot of different lines.

Given that, I'm very hesitant in breeding where hips are at all open to question. Part of the reason is that OFA xrays done at age 2 only tell you that the dog is not dysplastic yet; they do not tell you how likely the dog is to become dysplastic as it ages.

I would feel better in those instances if I also had PennHIP scores since those seem to be less subject to variable interpretation based on the skill of the radiologist. PennHIP uses the guideline of only breeding dogs in the top 50% of the population. However, the likelihood of having a dog develop dysplasia later in life starts becoming significant for an even greater percentage of the population -- possibly 60%. For that reason, I tend to look for PennHIP scores in the top 30% of the population, which would actually exclude many dogs with OFA Good hips (my three females range from 80th percentile to 90+ percentile).

The counter to that are all the considerations other than hips that should go into a decision to breed or not breed. Performance is clearly critical. Propensity to develop cruciate or back problems, or other similar problems also needs to be considered. 

I sometimes wonder if we will discover that dogs with the tightest hip joints are also the most likely to have ligament problems. Despite that, I tend to figure that if a dog does not seem to come from a superior background with respect to hips, there is no reason to breed it unless there are other characteristics that outweigh that negative.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Excepting an injury, I wonder how likely it is for the acceptable ratings (fair, good, excellent) to change overtime? It seems logical that those ratings should change but I do know of a field dog that was competing until 8-9 years old. His owner shot new hip xrays and there was no change in the rating. Is he the norm or is he the exception? Has anyone else ever reshot the OFA for a rating when their dog retired? If so, what were the results?


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Ditto, OKVET.

tt


----------



## Wildfowl Adventures (Aug 11, 2004)

I recently had my 10 yo male at the vet. He was pretty sick and they weren't sure what was wrong with him. It turns out that he had a testicular infection and had to be neutered. After they put him under for the surgery, they did several x-rays. The vet called me after the surgery and said that everything went fine and as a side note he told me that he could not believe how good his hips looked. Said that they were the best he had seen in a working retriver of his age. Guess what his rating was at 2 yo....FAIR....I told the vet that and he couldn't believe it.

This vet was trained at the University of Missouri....


----------



## Bill Schuna (Mar 11, 2004)

I'm with Nancy. I'd get a second opinion.

I have a little spreadsheet from OFA that relates to hips in Labradors.

Excellent to Excellent

Good to Good

Fair to Excellent .......I'm sure you get the drift.

According to the study in (n=1023) of a fair dam bred to a excellent sire 90.6% (927 dogs) had normal hips and 9.4% (96 dogs) were dysplastic.

A fair dam bred to a good sire (n=3746) 86.6% (3244 dogs) had normal hips and 13.4% (502 dogs) were dysplastic.

A fair dam bred to a fair sire (n=560) 82.3% (461 dogs) had normal hips and 17.7% (99 dogs) were dysplastic.

In statistics sample size is everything. The sample sizes for good to good are much larger like 36,000+. With good bred to good (n=36432) 90.4% (32,945 dogs) had normal hips and 9.6% (3487 dogs) were dysplastic. Kind of looks like the fair dam bred to an excellent sire right? 

If somone else has seen this data and thinks I'm interpreting it wrong, by all means, please let me know.

Bill


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I think vets that do it with an awake dog have better results also then vets that sedate them as they tend to pull too hard or rotate too much.Thats why Dr ED is one of the best.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> It seems logical that those ratings should change but I do know of a field dog that was competing until 8-9 years old. His owner shot new hip xrays and there was no change in the rating. Is he the norm or is he the exception? Has anyone else ever reshot the OFA for a rating when their dog retired? If so, what were the results?


I know Mary Tatum follows her dogs with xrays and Boss's rating I believe actually improved in later years but I don't think this is the norm. I have been told by the powers that probably know best that a Fair at 2 years may not get a number later on and I am assuming they know from experience.
I think breeders should be able to analyze the whole individual as a breeding prospect and that you can't compare an FC/AFC to a "common" brood bitch. Get real.


----------



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

I agree with Melanie, reading of OFA xrays are soo subjective to the people reading them. I have personally had issues with the reading , and re-sending of xrays. I have had friends who have had moderate HD ratings, and only to send them back in to get a Good,, after she was already spayed. I had a friend who had a borderline, and it was redone to come back again,"good". i would not disregard an other excellent dog on the basis of an excellent, good, or fair rating. Just my humble opinion,maria


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*Breeding Fair Hips?*

Actual OFA/PennHIP comparisons:

Male, 6-1/2 yrs old: OFA "mild" dysplastic; PennHIP .46/.50 (no DJD present per both OFA & PH) (xrayed simply to get "family profile")
Why no DJD at this age? OFA's answer: "Something else in his rear-end conformation must be keeping the hip joint stable." No indication what that "something else" might possibly be.

Female, 2 yrs old: OFA "excellent"; PennHIP .50/.50

Other actual "discrepancies" between the two "expert" opinions:
Male: OFA "fair"; PH .40/.40
Female littersisters:
OFA "fair"; PH .48/.52 (24 mos)
(bred to a "fair" sire, she is the dam of the "Exc" noted above)
OFA "good"; PH .48/.52 (36 mos)

I don't believe that OFA alone is sufficient for accurate dx.

Gerry


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Similar results for my three girls:

3 year old female, OFA Excellent, PennHIP .22/.22, >90th percentile (sire and dam OFA Excellent)

3 year old female, OFA Good, PennHIP .30/.39, 80th percentile (sire OFA Fair with excellent history, Dam OFA Good with excellent history)

6 month old female, No OFA, PennHip .29/.30, 90th percentile (sire and dam OFA Excellent)

OFA stats indicate that about 16% of labs qualify as Excellent and 12% dysplastic.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Regarding your OFA site and the data achieved, why do not breeders strongly suggest all grades/scores of resultant progeny to be included.

There seems to be lack of elbow results, is this simply most do not xray for such?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Breeding With Fair Hips*

I'm wondering how many of you have a dog that has Risky Business Ruby in its pedigree??

Ruby was displastic and was bred anyway because she was so good in the field. Her retrieving abilities so far outweighed the displaysia that her owners bred her anyway. If I'm not mistaken (perhaps Dr. Ed can jump in here), but she was bilaterally displastic.

A sound breeding program with an objective for outstanding performance in competition will often take calculated risks that the offspring will be so accomplished and talented, that if some pups are affected, it is considered minimal in comparison to the ones that are dominating field trials.

It's very easy for someone who has a set of goals and objectives that are not driven by competition to denigrate those who have different ones. For those of us who strive to have a competitive all-age dog for field trials that actually has a chance of winning several trials annually and qualifying for a couple of nationals each year, the criteria is different from someone who wants a companion or hunting buddy--or even a dog that competes against the standards at the various hunt test venues. 

My advice to anyone who chooses to listen, is choose your own criteria for raising, buying, or otherwise obtaining your next puppy or older dog. But...don't try to impose your ideas of what to do and not to do on the rest of the dog world. Just because something is all-important to you, it may NOT be that important to someone else in the overall scheme of things.

Oh, and as for a title as the criteria for breeding a dog with "Fair" hips. We should remember that Super Powder was one of the most prolific sires in his day and still takes up a lot of space on extended pedigrees. He was not titled.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Breeding With Fair Hips*



Vicki Worthington said:


> We should remember that Super Powder was one of the most prolific sires in his day and still takes up a lot of space on extended pedigrees. He was not titled.


and he did not have an OFA number because he was dysplastic (unilaterally I was told)


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Good post Vicki.

Angie


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Very nice post Vicki.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

*Re: Breeding With Fair Hips*

The bio on Ruby on Working Retriever states that Ruby was bred in 1975. The OFA statistics on their web site begins in 1974. Since I have only been involved in retrievers since the mid-80's, at the time of this well-known breeding, it appears OFA testing was in its infancy. Was acceptance and participation of the OFA program by field competitors and breeders of performance retrievers immediate? Had retriever hip status been evaluated privately by competitors and breeders prior to the OFA program before breeding decisions were made?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Breeding With Fair Hips*



frontier said:


> The bio on Ruby on Working Retriever states that Ruby was bred in 1975. The OFA statistics on their web site begins in 1974. Since I have only been involved in retrievers since the mid-80's, at the time of this well-known breeding, it appears OFA testing was in its infancy. Was acceptance and participation of the OFA program by field competitors and breeders of performance retrievers immediate? Had retriever hip status been evaluated privately by competitors and breeders prior to the OFA program before breeding decisions were made?


OFA was formed in 1966 and John Olin (Winchester Western and Nilo Kennel) was the driving force.

Some of Olin's dogs had early OFA numbers as did Super Chief.

Ruby was bred once, in 1980, to Honcho which resulted in FC-AFC Trumarc's Hot Pursuit and FC-AFC Risky Business Gem owned by Clint Swingle. Both Percy and Gem were OFA good. As I recall there were only 5 in the litter, 2 males (one of which was mildly dysplastic in one hip) and 3 females who were all OFA certified.

Most breeders were submitting their dogs for OFA certification beginning in the late 1960s, prior to that it was a crap shoot.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

ED what kind of dog was Percy,He is all Beverly talks about,he sounds like one heck of an animal.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

*Re: Breeding With Fair Hips*



Vicki Worthington said:


> ....My advice to anyone who chooses to listen, is choose your own criteria for raising, buying, or otherwise obtaining your next puppy or older dog. But...don't try to impose your ideas of what to do and not to do on the rest of the dog world. Just because something is all-important to you, it may NOT be that important to someone else in the overall scheme of things....


No argument with that view, I share it for the most part myself. The problem comes even among those of us who buy pups with the idea of competitive AA work is that we do not have the benefit of the history of the dogs that the breeders or stud owners may have relative to the risks they may have taken unless the breeder is willing to indicate those risks. The pup buyer also may not know the prior results of past breedings of the sire/dam being considered or necessarily the likelihood of simliar issues being expressed in the pups the breeder is offering for sale & the buyer might buy. Unless the breeder & stud owner are forthcoming (truthful, honest & upfront) with that information, the pup buyer may well make a decision on titles alone, with an assumption that is inaccurate - or worse avoid a proven performer because of some inaccurate rumor. It is one thing to say don't impose your views on the rest of the dog world, but that is exactly what a breeder or stud owner is doing when they offer their services or pups for sale to the public yet is not forthcoming about potential issues of which they are aware. I just believe the prospective pup buyer should have the benefit of what the breeder & stud owners knows & suspects relative to the pups offered for sale. Then both the breeder & the pup buyer have the full picture, both the potential rewards & risks.


----------

