Dr Malcolm B
Willis
We have been scoring GSD
since mid 1978 so the scheme has been operating for
almost 22 years though most other breeds came in largely
in late 1983. For a long time the GSD ranked first in
numbers scored but it has now been ousted by the
Labrador and is going further behind each week as more
Labradors are being scored than GSD at a rate of about 2
of the former to each GSD.
Thus far we have
scored 30,451 GSD up to the last reading that I have
(16/08/00) whereas we have assessed 34,100 Labradors.
The GSD covers the full range from 0 to 106 with an
arithmetic mean of 18.65 which makes it 13th
worst breed (among 75 breeds with at least 40 scored).
Otterhounds with 114 dogs at 42.96 are the worst in
terms of high score. Progress is minimal but that is not
a reflection of the merits of the scheme but simply
illustrates that selection is not being practiced to any
degree. In countries where schemes involve compulsion
i.e. that one cannot breed from (and register) specific
levels of hip status (as in Scandinavia) or where there
is peer and club pressure such that untested dogs cannot
be shown (as with the SV) there is evidence of progress.
However in the UK and USA where breeders are free to do
as they please progress is not usually seen and there is
minimal advance. Nevertheless some 70+ % of GSD score 15
or better and thus would experience no problem with
their hips.
Kennels which stay out
of the scheme do not affect it but among scoring kennels
selective scoring has an adverse effect. This applies to
early (puppy) screening where poor ones are never scored
as well as failure to submit specific animals because
they look poor on X-ray. Some argue that it is
unimportant as long as these dogs are not bred from but
if poor dogs are deliberately not submitted the net
result is that specific sires (dams) may look better
than they are and this will affect German breeding
values as much as ours. In Germany up to a third of dogs
registered are hip graded but in Britain we are
operating at <10% in many breeds though BMD have scored
24% of all registrations since the breed started in 1969
and currently are closer to 30%.
In Newfoundlands
(2,574 scored) there is evidence of consistent progress
of about 0.73 points per year. This may seem small but
it means that the breed has declined from about 35 to 21
in 20 years. The rolling mean for Newfoundlands is 27.33
but that is a cumulative value as is the GSD mean of
18.65. Means by year of birth show the Newfoundland
progress.
If we regard HD as 40%
heritable, which it is in GSD and Newfoundlands among
others, and we had a breed mean of 20 and used parental
stock that averaged 9 then we would be using parents
that were 11 points (20-9) better than breed mean. Some
40% of this 11 would be transmitted (i.e. 4.4 points) so
the breed mean in the next generation would be 20-4.4 or
15.6. However a generation is about 5 years in dogs so
that progress per year would be 4.4/5 or 0.88 points
which is only slightly higher than Newfoundland actual
progress but better than GSD. Nevertheless it can be
seen that annual progress is not huge and cannot be
unless rigid selection criteria are enforced (and I am
not advocating that).
In GSD we have a
situation in which many breeders use scores higher than
breed mean and remember that the mean at which 50% of
the breed is obtained is about 4 points lower than the
18.65 or closer to 14 than 19. In addition sires that
are not good producers or average producers are often
widely used. I am not disputing the fact that features
other than hips must be considered and that there are
occasions when dogs that are not the best hip animals
may have to be used. Nevertheless, HD will only improve
by selection for it. Failure to select on a breed scale
is a feature of the breeders not the scheme. Most
breeders blame the tools but it is their use of the
tools which is at fault.
The SV has shown good
progress with their scheme but in 1998 I was talking to
a Dutch breed warden who pointed out that most Dutch GSD
breeders sent their hip plates to Germany because the
chance of a Normal (A) was higher than in Holland where
A's were handed out very sparingly. The number of
imports with "a" stamps which have had very high UK
scores is not legion but that they exist at all is cause
for alarm. The new breeding techniques will help but if
selective submission is used breeding values will
obviously be affected. Moreover breeding values with low
reliabilities (<80%) are not very meaningful.
The sire tables give
the sires (* indicates scored) and the number of progeny
scored along with the number of dams these progeny were
from. The best and worst progeny score are followed by
the mathematical average of the progeny. The percentage
of progeny in each score group is given and is rounded
to the nearest whole number so may not total exactly
100.
Select sires with
plenty of progeny for reliability and with low progeny
means and with high percentages in the 0-5, 6-10 and
even 0-20 categories and with low percentages above 20.
Deceased sires are not listed if I know that they are
dead.
M B Willis, 2000
Please click on the
following links to see the records
RECORDS OF SIRES WITH MORE THAN 20+ PROGENY
RECORDS OF SIRES WITH 10 TO 19 PROGENY
|