Hi, I’m researching a few breeds before getting our next dog and obviously I keep an eye on the parents hip scores. I know each breed has its median score for the breed and that’s helpful for a breeder making choices for their breeding program and not all breeds have the luxury of low scores and genetic diversity etc. And I’m aware there is a big environmental component in puppy upbringing/development as well.
But what figure is useful for a puppy purchaser trying to work out the likelihood of my puppy developing hip dysplasia?
I suppose I’m asking what number starts to indicate an actual increased risk regardless of breed average, is it more than 6, more than 10, more than 15? At what point does the parents score start to raise some concerns for that litter?
I hope I’ve explained that sort of clearly :D?

The average score across all breeds is 19-point-something, so say 20. Anything under that is considered to be generally acceptable - the OFA system of scoring has 19 to 25 being 'Borderline HD'. This comparison chart will make it a bit clearer. A balanced score in each hip (5:5 for instance) is a better sign of the hereditary condition, with an unbalanced score (3:7 for example) would indicate more environmental factors.

It depends on what breed you're talking about...?

The averages are quite breed specific.

I'm with 1234 on this. So a score of 20 for instance in my breed and say many of the gundogs like a
Labs I wouldn't be happy with that. Around the total of 10 is max I would want however some breeds 20 is more the norm, with that I wouldn't want the breed if high scores are the norm

There's so many in and outs to this, but I think Jeangenie explained it well - any dog with a score of 19 or under is not likely to have a problem. A score of 19 does not indicate HD. That doesn't mean we should breed from a dog scoring 19, but this is where the individual breeds come into it. (The UK system really gives a better picture than others as it is more exact in what we as owners are told.)

Going through the 15 year results of BVA hip scoring up to and including 2019 (2020 will have had very few obviously and this is the latest release I could find) I worked on the assumption that I mentioned in another thread; if only a very small number of a breed have been hip scored then it does not give us a true picture as in breeds not normally hip scored, those with problems are most likely to be scored without it meaning that the breed as a whole has a problem -especially if the breed is not rare. If only taking into account breeds where at least 45 dogs were scored in those 15 years (i.e. roughly 3 per year which is still a very low number) then that only leaves TWO breeds with a median of above 19; the Otterhound and the Sussex Spaniel. The majority of the rest are around 8-14. Of course, the picture may still not be true due to some people not sending the x-rays off for scoring if they look bad (which is a shame). I.e. the breed differences are not huge except for the two breeds mentioned. Otterhounds have varied between a score of 8 at the lowest and 105 at the highest, with the 15 year median being 23; 134 dogs scored. Clearly dogs with good hips do exist, but it can't be easy to have a vulnerable breed (just 7 pups registered in 2020) and try to keep it going - it's not a breed I know anything whatsoever about I have to add. The Sussex Spaniel has had scores of 8 to 85 so again, lower scores exist but also a vulnerable breed, 15 year median is 41 (107 dogs scored) which to me feels very uncomfortable indeed -again I know nothing about the breed. 44 pups registered in 2020.

A score of 19 does not indicate HD

Are you meaning a dog with a score of 19 doesn't have HD?

Surely medically that is incorrect, a score of 0 indicates HD free, otherwise breeders would be able to state dogs with scores of 1 to 19 are HD free.

I was involved in preparing a defence in a civil law action, in which a puppy purchaser claimed the breeder shouldn't have bred from a male with a score of 2(two) because his pup had been diagnosed with HD, his expert witness was the late Malcolm Willis, The puppy owner's case was that the breeder knew he was breeding from a known HD effected dog(the dam had a 0 hip Score) & was solely responsible for the puppy's hip status & Dr Willis supported this because he considered HD to be solely genetic. The breeder successfully defended himself & the case was thrown out, especially as Dr Willis had written several articles & books, which described HD as a polygenetc condition with environs also playing a part in it's cause.

>Are you meaning a dog with a score of 19 doesn't have HD?

No, it means that a dog with a score 19 is clinically average for the species, but is unlikely to suffer medical problems from the degree of the condition unless that score is the total of 2 very unbalanced scores, such as 3:16. (This is where the UK scoring system is much more helpful in assessing hips.)

Thank you this is very helpful

And thank you all for your replies

Yes I understand that what are ‘good’ scores is relative to breeds and therefore some breeds carry a higher risk of HD but I suppose what I’m trying to gauge is at what point, for my individual puppy that I choose is there a number that I should be worried about.

So for example if I was choosing between two litters and the breeds average is something like 14
Litter A - perfect in all respects as to timing, price, location etc BUT Dads hip score is 13 (mum is 8)
Litter B - both parents have lower hip scores (e.g mum 7 and dad 9 or mum 4 dad 2) BUT it’s further to travel, costs more and the timing of the puppy coming to us isn’t as ideal but still doable
All other health tests being equal, do these sorts of margins really make much difference in the chances of a puppy developing HD?
Obviously lower is better and more relevant in a breeding program, but does any hip score under 20 mean a dog is unlikely to develop HD?
Hope that makes sense, thank

Personally I’d go for the more inconvenient litter with the lower scores, but full disclosure, I’ve had a Lab with bad hips that I got from untested parents (I didn’t know any better at the time). It was heartbreaking to see her all excited for a walk only to give up and want to go home halfway down the road.

I’ve also currently got a papillon that had bilateral patella luxation corrected with surgery last year. His parents weren’t scored but I was assured that neither parent nor their lines had any problems with patellas. I will insist on 0/0 parents for my next pup - no guarantee of course, but the risk is lower.

No, it means that a dog with a score 19 is clinically average for the species

Surely that is the clinical average for scored dogs not the whole species. There have been no studies of HD in the feral dog population.

Breeders have to look at what the parent(s)have produced in the past, plus their parents & grandparents etc for at least 5 if not more generations. Some dogs(sire/dam)actually produce equivalent or lower scoring offspring, as do some whole bloodlines, as the norm.

However most breeders don't take into consideration "hip improvers" & only look at their dogs scores, which leads to such very slow progress in reducing the incidence of painful poor hips in dogs.

I personally would not breed from a dog with a score in the upper teens.I also assess hips as early as possible to hopefully protect a puppy's hips from environs damage if they are not within the normal parameters

> All other health tests being equal, do these sorts of margins really make much difference in the chances of a puppy developing HD?

I would say not.

However, that assuming that all else is equal and that you've also looked at the EBV, or relatives hip scores too. The litter that is more convenient for you has both parents under the breed average then I'd say that was fine, unless there are  a pile of relatives, grandparents, siblings of parents etc that have higher scores.

>Surely that is the clinical average for scored dogs not the whole species. There have been no studies of HD in the feral dog population.

It's the average of a sample size of over half a million individuals of all shapes and sizes, so statistically is considered meaningful and comprehensive.

It should be possible to produce a rapid improvement in hip scores if that was the only thing that you concentrated on. Whether the resulting animals would remain excellent specimens of the breed would be quite a different thing. You can't use a formula to breed sound dogs, the skill is in keeping temperament, overall balance and breed features whilst continuing to see improvements in those health test results. What Mother Nature has been keeping hidden from us can be surprising. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

If you are basing it on just a point or two on a hip score, then I would start looking at other factors as well. What are all of the other health test results? how will the puppies be raised? what are previous litters from the parents like etc.

I think build, conformation size makes a difference.

I'd consider a dog in the teens as perfectly acceptable in my breed.

When we started scoring our breed,  mid teens was the norm.

My first champion bitch,  renowned for hwr movement,  and still sound and taking the same excersise as my others to the day before her dearh at 15 and 5 months. 

No sign of arthritis or stiffness scored 14.

Her daughter lived 2 months less,  still sound,  but slightly less strong drive in last months acored 15.

Her daughter started moving  wide after lockdown at 12 1/2, but turned out to be splenic cancer causing restricted gait,  she scored 11, lovely mover.

My current oldie goes for long walks,  3 - 5 miles,  but is a bit like Bambi on ice age 15 and 3 months,  has muscle wastage,  but a score of 12.

There's  a difference between radigraphic perfection and functional health.

If only dogs acoring below the breed mean arw bred from your narrowing the gene pool too far,  especially  as hip status us only partially inherited.

Personally I’d go for the more inconvenient litter with the lower scores, but full disclosure, I’ve had a Lab with bad hips that I got from untested parents (I didn’t know any better at the time). It was heartbreaking to see her all excited for a walk only to give up and want to go home halfway down the road.

Presumably you didn't have her scored? Chances are her scores would have been very high, as severe problems only tend to affect high scores. This is why we hip score, of course (I personally know of dogs in my breed that had severe problems at 7 months of age, parents were not scored) -but when you are talking low scores and where the difference is just 2-3 points or so, it's not enough to discard a litter as a prospective buyer, if everything else is fine. I can't remember who first said it, but "A dog is more than a pair of hips" -you need the full picture. And if we were not in the UK, we would not even know if a dog was 11 or 18 in total as we'd only be given a letter or description. And that's quite a big difference. Again, I think our system is a lot more informative.

I've had a number of dogs scoring between a total of 8 and a total of 13, and there has been no difference whatsoever in how they aged - I dare say they all developed a bit of arthritis in older age but nowhere near enough to cause a problem or to need any form of treatment. I've also had a Golden Retriever who scored 96, he started showing problems aged 6 and obviously needed medication and the day came when he couldn't cope with his bad hips any longer -he was 13.

Inheritance is only a part of it as we know, which makes it harder. There have been a few times when I have had to seriously consider whether a dog should be bred from or not, when the scores were 12 or 13 and in one case a stud dog who was 14. The breed median is 9, although when I started breeding it was 11. A mating between a 12 and a 13 produced an 11 and a 10 -rest of litter not scored. The 14 stud dog to a 9 bitch produced a 9 and a 10. And parents of 12 and 11 produced one who scored 13 and one who scored 8 -and I own both these littermates so know their upbringing was the same. The only difference -the 13 was x-rayed at my normal vets, the 8 at a specialist hip and elbow scoring clinic, so it could be a positioning issue even.

As for my Golden with 96, he came from a father of 12 and a mother of 60. I believed the breeder who said "the sire is a known hip improver". I learned that lesson!

>There's  a difference between radigraphic perfection and functional health.
>If only dogs acoring below the breed mean arw bred from your narrowing the gene pool too far,  especially  as hip status us only partially inherited.

Absolutely spot on.

Both litters have acceptable hip scores - not knowing the breed, do they need elbows scored as well?  Eye tests etc?
I would also look at the Grandparents of both litters to make a better judgement.
If possible I would visit both litters and assess the conditions pups are being raised in and probably more important, how well you get on with the breeder.  I feel this is a very important part of getting a puppy.  You need to feel comfortable to be able to contact them for help and advice in the years to come.

Also, HD is only partly genetic - careful exercise, good diet etc all play an important part.  Ask the breeder what they're feeing pups on.  Ask lots of questions - it's what us as breeders like!

Thank you all for your posts, it definitely helps me get a better perspective on how much significance the hip score has