What a hip score certifies
BVA/KC numbers, FCI grades, OFA ratings: what a hip score actually records, why two systems say the same thing differently, and what stays off the page.
Signed from the field · Joan Merrit · checked by Ellis Ward · 591 words
Of all the documents a serious litter carries, the hip score is the most cited and the most misunderstood. Three systems dominate the paperwork, and they say the same thing in three dialects.
What the table can certify is described in ordinary words at a veterinary practice's plain pages, the sort of record the score sheet belongs to.
The three dialects
The BVA/KC scheme, run by the British Veterinary Association with the Kennel Club, scores each hip on nine radiographic criteria, zero to 53 per hip, for a total up to 106: lower is better, and the breed's published mean gives context to the number. The FCI grades read A to E, where A is free of dysplasia signs and E the worst. The OFA, the North American registry, issues ratings from Excellent down to Severely Dysplastic, decided by panel review of a film. Each system records the radiographic appearance of the hips on one film, submitted at a minimum age, read by named specialists.
What the score actually certifies
The score certifies the film. That is the whole of it, and it is not a small thing: it certifies that a dog was radiographed at a documented age, that the film was read under a scheme's protocol, and that the resulting number or grade was entered in a checkable record. It is the difference between "the breeder says the hips are fine" and a dated, third-party measurement.
What the score does not certify
The score does not certify the dog's hips forever, the puppies' hips at all, or the dog's freedom from every joint condition. Hip dysplasia is partly heritable and partly not: nutrition, growth rate, exercise and luck all have votes. A good score shifts the odds in the litter's favour; it is a better bet, not a guarantee. Nor does the score certify elbows, eyes or the DNA panel; each of those is a separate document, and a listing that shows one score as if it were the whole file is asking the record to carry more than it can.
Reading a listing
The practical read is simple: which scheme, what score, which dog, and when. A serious litter shows both parents' scores with the scheme named, and the numbers make sense inside that scheme's scale and the breed's published means. An unnamed score, or a score quoted without the dog's registered name beside it, is decoration rather than record.
The elbows beside the hips
The file rarely stops at hips, because the breed's orthopaedic record does not. Elbow dysplasia is scored under the same families of schemes, graded on its own scale, and a serious litter shows both documents for both parents. The elbow grade is read the same way as the hip score: a dated radiographic opinion, submitted under a protocol, entered in a checkable record. It certifies the films, and nothing more, which is exactly its value.
The buyer's read on the whole orthopaedic page is a completeness check: two parents, two systems of joints, named schemes, real numbers. When a listing says health tested without saying which tests and which results, the phrase is doing the work of the missing documents. The record never needs adjectives; it needs specifics, and the specifics are short enough to fit in a single line per parent. A seller who knows the numbers will quote them.
The mended sentence
The loose sentence says the hips are certified. The mended sentence says a film was scored, on a day, under a scheme, to a number anyone can check. That is enough, and it is worth more than the bigger claim, because it is true.
