Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > The Breeding Ground


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-21-2006, 07:51 AM
Gempress Gempress is offline
Walks into Mordor
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidstaffs
But why on earth does a dog need to be titled to be bred from
1. It insures that the next generation of dog comes from the best-quality genes out there.

2. People tend to have a bit of a blind spot where their dogs are concerned. Everyone usually thinks that their dogs are wonderful. A title gives valid proof that the dog really is a wonderful specimen.

3. Breeding unsound examples of the breed causes problems. A good example of that is the German Shepherd. They are so widely popular, and so many dogs were bred, that the breed as a whole now suffers from temperament and a lot of physical problems. People who want a truly sound, healthy dog have to look far and wide to find one, even though there may be 10-15 litters advertised in the newspaper every day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-21-2006, 07:56 AM
solidstaffs solidstaffs is offline
Staffaholic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexus
By breeding dogs (any breed) that get titled, it is certain that the dog being bred is put together at the breed should be to properly function as it should.

Hypothetically, if a dog is bred that was never shown, yeah the owner can look at the dog, and say "Hey it's a dobe, looks fine to me", but form fits function, without being critiqued by that expert eye, they just can't know if the dog is built correctly or if there are pysical faults that will come out twice as faulty in a litter of pups, especially if the stud dog's owner feels the same way, and also breeds a faulty dog they feel is just fine.
I'm not doubting that a dog that has been made up, is a good specimen of the breed. What i am saying is that because a dog is a CH it does NOT mean that it will throw good pups. Some of the finest bred dogs in the UK have been bred from "non show" dogs You dont need a judge to tell you that you have a good dog/bitch if you are experienced enough to know what a good dog is. Just because a dog is a CH is NOT a reason for it to be used at stud because as i said there is no guarantee that he/she will throw good pups, especially if the dog/bitch it has been bred with doesn't compliment it There are far more important things to look for when breeding than wheter or not a dog is a CH
__________________


Floyds website

Solidstaffs forum
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-21-2006, 08:03 AM
solidstaffs solidstaffs is offline
Staffaholic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gempress
1. It insures that the next generation of dog comes from the best-quality genes out there.

2. People tend to have a bit of a blind spot where their dogs are concerned. Everyone usually thinks that their dogs are wonderful. A title gives valid proof that the dog really is a wonderful specimen.

3. Breeding unsound examples of the breed causes problems. A good example of that is the German Shepherd. They are so widely popular, and so many dogs were bred, that the breed as a whole now suffers from temperament and a lot of physical problems. People who want a truly sound, healthy dog have to look far and wide to find one, even though there may be 10-15 litters advertised in the newspaper every day.
1) No it doesn't it means the next generation has come from the best dogs that have been available for you to see The same CH dog could have a litter mate in a "non show" home that is equally as good if not better. Just because it never got made up (Maybe because the owner didn't fancy showing) Doesn't make it an inferior dog/bitch

2) I'm not saying ANY dog should be bred from, but breeding from Champion dogs DOES NOT guarantee you qualitly pups at all. You could have bred far better pups by using a "non show" dog

3) Again, i'm not saying all dogs should be bred from, but to narrow it down to find a CH dog to breed from in my opinion is rather ignorant and narrow minded. CH dogs do not always throw good pups. Just because someone doesn't show their dog, doesn't mean it is not a good example of the breed, and it certainly doesn't mean it will throw poorly bred pups
__________________


Floyds website

Solidstaffs forum
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-21-2006, 08:23 AM
RedyreRottweilers
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When looking at dogs to select for breeding, most of my mentors look first at type, temperament, and soundness. Titles come in at least 4th.

I do feel that titling a dog is IMPORTANT.

Titles don't make the dog, but they indicate several things:

The dog has competed against his peers and won
The dog's owner has competed with the dog against peers, and so likely has seen numerous examples of the breed, and thereby may be able to look at dogs with a more educated and impartial eye.

What should be evaluated when trying to decide whether or not to use a dog for breeding is WHAT, if ANYTHING, does this particular dog have to add of benefit to the gene pool, and next, how does the dog balance strengths and weaknesses of the opposite sex partner being considered.

JMO as always.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-21-2006, 08:45 AM
solidstaffs solidstaffs is offline
Staffaholic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 127
Default

Hi,

There is no doubt that some Champion dogs, have produced wonderful litters. That being said they have produced wonderful litters because the CH status has probably been overlooked and as you rightly say other factors have been top of the list when considering breeding. If you were thinking of breeding from your bitch for example.. You had the choice of 2 stud dogs, one a CH who had similar faults to your bitch and the chances are those faults would be highlighted in the pups you produced, OR a dog that had never been show, BUT would compliment your bitch perfectly. I would hope that you would choose the non show dog, and strive to produce quality pups, rather than having a pedigree that was good to look at.

A pedigree full of CH's does make good reading but it does NOT necessarily make good pups

Example.



Valglo Albertini

............ ...........CH Valglo Casanova at Crossguns (Breed record holder)

Valglo Valencia

Just because a dog is a CH doesn't mean it will throw CH puppies, and a dog without a show record will not produce inferior puppies, providing the right mate is used.
__________________


Floyds website

Solidstaffs forum
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-21-2006, 09:27 AM
RedyreRottweilers
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I want both a pedigree that is beautiful to look at, and breeding partners who are very good to excellent examples of their breed. I also examine parents and grand parents of the prospective partners carefully, and if I can get to one more generation, that's super.

Health testing background is also important to me.



The OFA http://www.offa.org is a wealth of information now that they have expanded their data base, and with the CHIC program.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-21-2006, 10:35 AM
moe moe is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 488
Default

I actually agree with solidstaffs on this, sometimes the sibling to a champ has more to offer,but because it hasnt been shown does not carry a title, I think it boils down to how well you know the breed, a very knowledgeable breeder will be able to assess wether a dog is worthy of breeding off, and so long as that dog has had all the relevant health test I see no problem in this. I have seen "champs" produce pigs, the champs themselves may be very nice dogs themselves. I think a good breeder should never be tunneled visioned and ONLY look to titled dogs. and popular stud dogs.

this is an interesting article too.

C.A. Sharp
Consider the hypothetical case of Old Blue, Malthound extraordinaire. Blue was perfect: Sound, healthy and smart. On week days he retrieved malt balls from dawn to dusk. On weekends he sparkled in malt field and obedience trials as well as conformation shows, where he baited to--you guessed it--malt balls.
Everybody had a good reason to breed to Blue, so everybody did. His descendants trotted in his paw-prints on down through their generations. Blue died full of years and full of honor. But what people didn't know was that Old Blue, good as he was, carried a few bad genes. They didn't affect him, nor the vast majority of his immediate descendants. To complicate the matter further, some of those bad genes were linked to genes for important Malthound traits.

A few Malthounds with problems started showing up. They seemed isolated, so everyone assumed it was "just one of those things." A few declared them "no big deal." Those individuals usually had affected dogs. All in all, folks carried on as usual.

Time passed. More problem dogs turned up. People made a point not to mention the problems to others because everyone knows the stud owner always blames the bitch for the bad tings and takes credit for the good. Stud owners knew it best to keep quiet so as not to borrow trouble. Overall, nobody did anything to get to the bottom of the problems, because if they were really significant, everybody would be talking about it, right?

Years passed. Old Blue had long since moldered in his grave. By now, everyone was having problems, from big ones like cataracts, epilepsy or thyroid disease to less specific things like poor-keepers, lack of mothering ability and short life-span. "Where can I go to get away from this?" breeders wondered. The answer was nowhere.

People became angry. "The responsible parties should be punished!" Breeders who felt their programs might be implicated stonewalled. Some quietly decided to shoot, shovel and shut-up. A few brave souls stood up and admitted their dogs had a problem and were hounded out of the breed.

The war raged on, with owners, breeders and rescue workers flinging accusations at each other. Meanwhile everybody carried on as always. After another decade or two the entire Malthound breed collapsed under the weight of its accumulated genetic debris and went extinct.

This drastic little fable is an exaggeration--but not much of one. Here's similar, though less drastic, example from real life: There once was a Quarter Horse stallion named Impressive. The name fit. He sired many foals who also exhibited his desired traits. But when they and their descendants were bred to each other, those offspring sometimes died. Impressive had been the carrier of a lethal single-gene recessive trait. No one knew it was there until they started in-breeding on him. The situation of a single sire having this kind of drastic genetic effect on a breed became known as the "Impressive Syndrome."

Many species and breeds of domestic animals, including dogs, have suffered "Impressive Syndromes" of their own. But cases like that of Impressive are only the tip of the iceberg. A single-gene recessive becomes obvious in just a few generations. But what about more complex traits?

This is not to say that those popular sires we so admire are bad breeding prospects. Their many excellent traits should be utilized, but even the best of them has genes for negative traits.

The problem is not the popular sires, but how we use them. For a century or more, in-breeding has been the name of the game. (For the purposes of this article, "in-breeding" refers to the breeding of dogs related to each other and therefore includes line-breeding.) By breeding related individuals, a breeder increased his odds of producing dogs homozygous for the traits he wanted. Homozygous individuals are much more likely to produce those traits in the next generation.

When a male exhibits a number of positive traits and then proves his ability to produce those traits he may become a popular sire, one that is used by almost everyone breeding during his lifetime, and maybe beyond, thanks to frozen semen.

Since the offspring and grand-offspring and so on are good, breeders start breeding them to each other. If the results continue to be good, additional back-crosses may be made for generations. Sometimes a sire will be so heavily used that, decades hence, breeders may not even be aware of how closely bred their animals are because the dog no longer appears on their pedigrees.

This is the case in Australian Shepherds. Most show-line Aussies trace back, repeatedly, to one or both of two full brothers: Wildhagen's Dutchman of Flintridge and Fieldmaster of Flintridge. These, products of a program of inbreeding, were quality individuals and top-producing sires. They are largely responsible for the over-all quality and uniformity we see in the breed ring today--a uniformity that did not exist before their birth nearly three decades ago.

Working lines have also seen prominent sires, but performance traits are far more complex, genetically and because of the significant impact of environment. They are therefore harder to fix. Performance breeders will in-breed, but are more likely to stress behavioral traits and general soundness than pedigree and conformational minutiae. The best working sires rarely become as ubiquitous as the best show-line sires.

Not every popular sire becomes so because of his ability to produce quality offspring. Some have won major events or are owned by individuals with a knack for promotion. Such dogs may prove to be wash-outs once their get is old enough to evaluate. But a lot of breeders have been using the animal for the few years it takes to figure that out, the damage may already have been done.

Use of even the best popular sires, by its very nature, limits the frequency of some genes in the breed gene pool while simultaneously increasing the frequency of others. Since sons and grandsons of popular sires tend to become popular sires the trend continues, resulting in further decrease and even extinction of some genes while others become homozygous throughout the breed. Some of these traits will be positive, but not all of them.

The owners of Old Blue, the Malthound in the opening fable, and those who owned his most immediate descendants had no idea what was happening under their noses. They were delighted to have superior studs and even more delighted to breed them to as many good bitches as possible.

Dog breeding and promoting is an expensive proposition. One usually winds up in the hole. But owning a popular sire can change that. The situation looks like a winner for everyone--the stud owner finds his financial burden reduced while breeders far and wide get to partake of his dog's golden genes.

No one breeding dogs wants to produce sick dogs. A small minority are callous and short-sighted enough to shrug genetic problems off as the price you pay to get winners, but even they do their best to avoid letting it come to general attention.

We need a total re-thinking of how we utilize stud animals. No single dog, no matter how superior, should dominate the gene pool of its breed. Owners of such sires should give serious consideration to limiting how often that dog is used, annually, through its lifetime and on into the future, if frozen semen is stored. The stud owner should also look not only at the quality of the bitches being presented, but their pedigrees. How much will the level of inbreeding be increased by a particular mating?

The bitch owner also needs to think twice about popular sires. If you breed to the stud of the moment and everyone else is doing the same, where will you go when it comes time to make an outcross?

Finally, the attitude toward genetic disease itself has to change. It must cease being everyone's dirty little secret. It must cease being a brick with which we bludgeon those with the honesty to admit it happened to them. It must become a topic of open, reasoned discussion so owner of stud and bitch alike can make informed breeding decisions. Unless breeders and owners re-think their long-term goals and how they react to hereditary problems, the situation will only get worse.





C.A. Sharp is editor of the "Double Helix Network News". This article appeared in Vol. IV, No. 3 (Summer 1998). It may be reprinted providing it is not altered and appropriate credit is given
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-21-2006, 02:10 PM
doberkim doberkim is offline
Naturally Natural
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,380
Default

solidstaffs and moe, what do you suggest people look for when determining who should be bred?
__________________

ARCHX Bowie's Semper Fidelis v DRU, VC CDX ASCA-CDX CDX-H RE RL1X RL2X RL3 ATT WAC TT CGC FFX-OG

Beja's Bombs Away v Bowie, CD ASCA-CD CD-H BN RN NA RL1 WAC ATT YTT PTT CGC

Bowie's Here Comes the Boom!


http://otchrah.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-21-2006, 03:54 PM
moe moe is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 488
Default

Well apart from the obvious things like conformationally correct, good temperment, if a working breed, then a good working attitude, Health tested and clear of known problems within their particular breed, each breed has a standard for that breed, the dog/bitch should match as close as possible to that standard. if they have been used before what have they produced, are they conformationally correct, good temperment etc. if a person is knowledgeable about their particular breed then, wether a dog is titled or not they "should" know if a particular dog meets the criteria. IMO.

Mo

edited to add, in the UK malamutes(my breed) have only this year been awarded CC's in the breed(you can now make up a champion) many of the malamutes although good specimens could not til this year be made up or get titled, if I was only looking at titled dogs to breed from then I would be in a right old pickle, or would have to use an overseas dog that has a title but may not be as good as a dog over in the UK that has not got a title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-21-2006, 05:58 PM
Lexus's Avatar
Lexus Lexus is offline
Big Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 166
Default

I understand the connection with Impressive and Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis Disease. There was no way of knowing of course the relation of Impressive to HYPP at the time of breedings. For all intensive purposes, Impressive was just that, an impressive stallion that was very well put together, and very worthy to pass on his genes. HYPP was not the result of inbreeding. "The original genetic defect causing HYPP was a natural mutation that occurred as part of the evolutionary process. The majority of such mutations, which are constantly occurring, are not compatible with survival. However, the genetic mutation causing HYPP produced a functional, yet altered, sodium ion channel. This gene mutation is not a product of inbreeding. The gene mutation causing HYPP inadvertently became widespread when breeders sought to produce horses with heavy musculature. "(from the UCDavis VGL)

HYPP was a fluke, and not related in my opinion to weather or not to breed dogs that are or aren't titled. Had Impressive not been a show stallion, and still been bred, he still would have passed on HYPP to future generations. Same with a dog that is deemed correct and not shown, but still breed, flukes can happen.

And no I did not say and am not saying that all CH titled dogs should be bred. What I am saying is that is a good basis for continuing the breed line with form fits function. In my ranking of importance, health testing comes first and formost.

I think that if a potential breeding animal can be evaluated by a, preferably several, trained expert eyes, and deemed excellent quality then that is a fair compromise too. And there in comes to breeding direct relations of championed dogs, or dogs that are well evaluated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site