|
THE ORIGINAL CLUB FOR THE BRITISH ISLES - MEMBERS OF THE WUSV
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
|
