When breeders ask which shepherd breeds carry the highest elbow dysplasia risk, they often expect a simple ranking. The reality is considerably more nuanced. OFA data spanning 1974-2024 shows German Shepherds at 19.8% affected, but this aggregate figure obscures dramatic variations between working lines and show lines, between American and European populations, and between decades as selective breeding programs have (or have not) made progress. Understanding these statistics requires examining methodology, acknowledging biases, and recognizing that prevalence varies not just by breed but by subpopulation within breeds.
Methodology: How These Numbers Are Calculated
The prevalence figures in this database derive from three primary sources: the OFA public database (accessed January 2024), BVA/KC published statistics (2023 annual report), and breed-specific registry publications from SV (German), KNPV (Dutch), and Scandinavian kennel clubs. Each source has distinct biases that affect interpretation.
Data Source Biases
OFA: Voluntary submission creates selection bias. Keller et al. (2011) estimated owners submit "Normal" results 3-4x more frequently than affected results. Raw OFA percentages underestimate true prevalence by 30-40%.
BVA/KC: Mandatory for KC Assured Breeders, reducing selection bias. However, UK population may not represent breed genetics globally.
SV (Germany): Mandatory for breeding stock in Schaeferhunde Verein. Most complete German Shepherd data, but "ED-frei" criteria slightly less stringent than OFA Normal.
Where possible, I have applied the Keller correction factor to OFA data and noted when figures represent raw versus adjusted prevalence. All calculations exclude dogs screened before 24 months of age to ensure skeletal maturity at evaluation.
German Shepherd: The Complicated Picture
The German Shepherd represents both the most-screened breed for elbow dysplasia and the most variable. OFA lists 19.8% affected across all evaluations (n=128,457), but this figure conflates populations with dramatically different genetic backgrounds and selection pressures.
| German Shepherd Population | ED Prevalence | Sample Size | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| OFA Overall (1974-2024) | 19.8% | 128,457 | OFA Database |
| OFA Adjusted (Keller correction) | ~28-32% | - | Calculated |
| SV Germany (2023) | 17.3% | 42,891 | SV Jahresbericht |
| BVA/KC (2023) | 22.1% | 3,847 | BVA Annual Statistics |
| American Show Lines | 24-28% | ~15,000 | AKC/OFA subset analysis |
| West German Working Lines | 14-18% | ~8,500 | SV Leistungszucht data |
| Czech/DDR Working Lines | 12-16% | ~3,200 | European registry aggregate |
Working line estimates derived from registry subsets with documented lineage; show line estimates from AKC-registered subset analysis
The persistent gap between American show lines (24-28% adjusted) and European working lines (12-18%) reflects different selection priorities over five decades. American show breeding emphasized angulation and movement, inadvertently selecting for structural traits associated with joint instability. German SV requirements for breeding approval (ZTP, Korung) include mandatory orthopedic screening that has maintained lower prevalence in the working population.
Temporal Trends
OFA data shows German Shepherd ED prevalence has remained essentially flat from 1990 (19.2%) to 2024 (19.8%), despite decades of screening. This suggests either insufficient selection pressure against affected dogs or that environmental factors (growth rate, nutrition) offset genetic progress. Swedish data shows more optimistic trends: 8.2% reduction over 15 years with mandatory screening and EBV-based selection.
Belgian Malinois: Rising Concern
The Belgian Malinois presents a concerning trend. OFA prevalence increased from 8.7% (2000-2009) to 12.4% (2014-2024) as breed popularity surged, particularly for protection sport and military/police applications. Rapid population expansion likely introduced genetic diversity without proportionate screening compliance.
| Belgian Shepherd Variety | ED Prevalence | Sample Size | Trend (10yr) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malinois (OFA Overall) | 12.4% | 18,923 | Increasing (+3.7%) |
| Malinois (KNPV Lines) | 8.2% | ~4,500 | Stable |
| Tervuren | 9.8% | 4,712 | Stable |
| Groenendael | 11.2% | 2,891 | Slight increase |
| Laekenois | 7.4% | 412 | Insufficient data |
The divergence between general Malinois population (12.4%) and KNPV working lines (8.2%) mirrors the German Shepherd pattern. Dutch KNPV trials require dogs to be certified free of significant orthopedic disease, creating selection pressure absent in sport or pet populations. Prospective Malinois buyers should specifically inquire about KNPV, Ring Sport, or police/military lineage screening history.
Dutch Shepherd: Underscreened but Concerning
The Dutch Shepherd remains underrepresented in OFA data (n=2,847), limiting statistical confidence. Available data suggests prevalence of 14.2%, higher than expected for a working breed, though this may reflect referral bias as Dutch Shepherds are often screened only when clinical signs prompt evaluation.
Breur et al. (2018) conducted the most comprehensive Dutch Shepherd study, examining 847 dogs through the Netherlands Kennel Club registry. They found 11.8% prevalence with significant variation between brindle (9.4%), gold brindle (14.2%), and silver brindle (13.7%) varieties, suggesting possible color-linked genetic factors or founder effects within color populations.
Other Herding Breeds: Comparative Data
| Breed | ED Prevalence | OFA Sample | Risk Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bernese Mountain Dog | 28.4% | 21,893 | High |
| Rottweiler | 38.1% | 89,234 | Very High |
| German Shepherd | 19.8% | 128,457 | High |
| Golden Retriever | 11.4% | 84,123 | Moderate |
| Labrador Retriever | 10.8% | 147,892 | Moderate |
| Belgian Malinois | 12.4% | 18,923 | Moderate |
| Australian Shepherd | 8.3% | 32,456 | Low-Moderate |
| Border Collie | 5.2% | 28,934 | Low |
| Australian Cattle Dog | 4.8% | 12,478 | Low |
| Shetland Sheepdog | 3.1% | 8,923 | Very Low |
OFA data through January 2024. Raw prevalence shown; adjusted estimates approximately 30-40% higher for voluntary-submission breeds.
Size Correlation
Body size correlates strongly with ED prevalence. Breeds over 30kg show 3-4x higher rates than breeds under 20kg. This likely reflects increased mechanical loading on growing joints during the rapid growth phase (4-8 months). Growth rate management through controlled nutrition may reduce risk in predisposed individuals.
White Swiss Shepherd: A Case Study in Founder Effects
The White Swiss Shepherd (Berger Blanc Suisse) provides an instructive example of founder effects in breed-specific prevalence. Derived from white-coated German Shepherds excluded from SV breeding, the initial Swiss population passed through a severe genetic bottleneck in the 1970s-1980s.
Early registry data showed ED prevalence of 24-28%, actually exceeding the parent German Shepherd population. However, the Swiss breed club implemented mandatory screening in 1991 with stringent breeding restrictions. By 2020, prevalence had decreased to 12.4% (FCI registry data, n=4,891), demonstrating that sustained selection pressure can produce measurable genetic progress within 6-8 generations.
Component-Specific Breed Variation
Not all elbow dysplasia is identical across breeds. The three ED components (FCP, OCD, UAP) show different prevalence patterns:
| Breed | FCP Predominant | OCD Predominant | UAP Predominant |
|---|---|---|---|
| German Shepherd | 45% | 15% | 40% |
| Labrador Retriever | 70% | 25% | 5% |
| Rottweiler | 75% | 20% | 5% |
| Bernese Mountain Dog | 60% | 35% | 5% |
| Belgian Malinois | 55% | 30% | 15% |
Based on surgical/arthroscopic confirmation data. Percentages indicate primary lesion when ED diagnosed.
The German Shepherd's unusually high UAP rate (40% of ED cases versus 5-15% in other breeds) likely relates to breed-specific skeletal development timing and the characteristically steep rear angulation that shifts weight-bearing anteriorly. This component distribution has implications for surgical planning and prognosis.
Related Database Resources
- Understanding ED Components - Why component distribution matters clinically
- Grading Systems - How different registries may affect reported prevalence
- Breeding Decisions - Using prevalence data in selection programs
- The Herding Gene - Genetic resources for herding breed health
Implications for Breed Selection
Prospective owners and breeders should interpret these statistics within context. A 20% breed prevalence does not mean a 20% chance that any individual dog will be affected, rather that 1 in 5 dogs from unscreened, random matings would be expected to develop radiographic evidence of ED. Selecting from parents with documented clear screening reduces individual risk substantially.
For breeds with high baseline prevalence (German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Bernese Mountain Dog), I recommend requiring screening documentation from both parents AND grandparents when possible. The polygenic nature of ED means that carrier status exists even in phenotypically normal dogs, and pedigree depth provides better genetic estimates than individual screening alone.