This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Blitzen on 27 November 2012 - 22:11
Fair enough, Gustav. We live in different dog cultures. Where I am no one trusts anyone else and everything must be proven. Most educated buyers insist on OFA certs as a minimum. Maybe the Czech world is populated by more honest breeders?
by joanro on 27 November 2012 - 22:11
"they are from different litters and no common parents in the pedigrees." So which is it ....no common parents or Furo? Also, how do you become an expert in telling anyone to be ware of any dog in a ped ? How many dogs have you bred and what is the hip status of ALL their progeny? Any documentation to back any thing up would be of interest.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
by hexe on 27 November 2012 - 23:11
"...is linebred 2-3..."
And therein is the seed of the problem. I intentionally left the dog's name off, because it doesn't really matter--the risk that comes with such a linebreeding is there no matter which dog is 2/3 in the pedigree.
"Linebreeding" is in-breeding, just removed a bit farther back in the family than father/daughter [offspring would be 1/2], mother/son [offspring 2/1] or siblings [offspring 2,2/2,2]. There are legitimate reasons why many states don't allow first or second cousins to marry one another...no such laws when it comes to animals, though.
The pros for inbreeding and linebreeding is that you concentrate the genetics for your desirable traits, some of which may be recessive genes that you'd really like each parent to have a copy of; you have a better shot at getting a consistent phenotype through linebreeding than through outcrossing.
The cons for inbreeding and linebreeding is that you concentrate the genetics for your undersireable traits, some of which may be recessive genes that you'd really like NEITHER parent have a copy of.
The quickest way to find out exactly what genetic faults lie within one's lines is to inbreed, because it will amplify the expression the faults and flaws hiding in the DNA; that can produce some terrible consequences, though, such as puppies born with severe physical defects [malformed limbs or organs, for example] or temperament issues [such as dangerously fearful] which would not only render an affected pup of no use for working, showing and breeding, but may also make the pup unsuitable for placement as a pet.
Breeders typically don't want to have to put down puppies, though, and so generally very little true in-breeding is done [at least not intentionally] unless the breeder is prepared for everything it's possible such a pairing would create and has suitable homes available for these pups. Instead, various levels of linebreeding is the more common choice, though more of it is seen in the showlines than in the working lines--it's difficult to find vast numbers of European showline GSDs who have absolutely no linebreeding in the first five generations behind them, but such working line dogs are pretty typical [but getting less so].
Linebreeding 2/3 on any single dog means the breeder is amplifying the specific genetics of that particular dog, reducing the options for genetic combinations that would be available to puppies born from a breeding that's 3/5 on the same dog. What's bad as well as what's good has better odds of pairing up in the 2/3 bred litter, because there are mores copies of that dog's genes in the mixing bowl. Unfortunately, Chrissy's Kaizer did not have a good day at the craps table on the day the gene pairing took place in his little developing embryo world, and he got the 'dice' for malformed jaw as well as malformed hips. On the other hand, I don't know how his siblings fared; they very well could all have gotten a better mixture of the genetics, and have normal bites and normal hips, or they could have gotten just a raw deal from nature as Kaizer. Breeding is not an exact science...at least not yet, and I don't know that I look forward to the day it becomes so, because I fear what will happen to the individuality of personality, of intelligence, the sense of humor that some dogs have where their brother or sister is serious as an executioner. I like that each dog is their own self, y'know?
And therein is the seed of the problem. I intentionally left the dog's name off, because it doesn't really matter--the risk that comes with such a linebreeding is there no matter which dog is 2/3 in the pedigree.
"Linebreeding" is in-breeding, just removed a bit farther back in the family than father/daughter [offspring would be 1/2], mother/son [offspring 2/1] or siblings [offspring 2,2/2,2]. There are legitimate reasons why many states don't allow first or second cousins to marry one another...no such laws when it comes to animals, though.
The pros for inbreeding and linebreeding is that you concentrate the genetics for your desirable traits, some of which may be recessive genes that you'd really like each parent to have a copy of; you have a better shot at getting a consistent phenotype through linebreeding than through outcrossing.
The cons for inbreeding and linebreeding is that you concentrate the genetics for your undersireable traits, some of which may be recessive genes that you'd really like NEITHER parent have a copy of.
The quickest way to find out exactly what genetic faults lie within one's lines is to inbreed, because it will amplify the expression the faults and flaws hiding in the DNA; that can produce some terrible consequences, though, such as puppies born with severe physical defects [malformed limbs or organs, for example] or temperament issues [such as dangerously fearful] which would not only render an affected pup of no use for working, showing and breeding, but may also make the pup unsuitable for placement as a pet.
Breeders typically don't want to have to put down puppies, though, and so generally very little true in-breeding is done [at least not intentionally] unless the breeder is prepared for everything it's possible such a pairing would create and has suitable homes available for these pups. Instead, various levels of linebreeding is the more common choice, though more of it is seen in the showlines than in the working lines--it's difficult to find vast numbers of European showline GSDs who have absolutely no linebreeding in the first five generations behind them, but such working line dogs are pretty typical [but getting less so].
Linebreeding 2/3 on any single dog means the breeder is amplifying the specific genetics of that particular dog, reducing the options for genetic combinations that would be available to puppies born from a breeding that's 3/5 on the same dog. What's bad as well as what's good has better odds of pairing up in the 2/3 bred litter, because there are mores copies of that dog's genes in the mixing bowl. Unfortunately, Chrissy's Kaizer did not have a good day at the craps table on the day the gene pairing took place in his little developing embryo world, and he got the 'dice' for malformed jaw as well as malformed hips. On the other hand, I don't know how his siblings fared; they very well could all have gotten a better mixture of the genetics, and have normal bites and normal hips, or they could have gotten just a raw deal from nature as Kaizer. Breeding is not an exact science...at least not yet, and I don't know that I look forward to the day it becomes so, because I fear what will happen to the individuality of personality, of intelligence, the sense of humor that some dogs have where their brother or sister is serious as an executioner. I like that each dog is their own self, y'know?
by joanro on 27 November 2012 - 23:11
FWIW, are there any other dogs besides Furo in the pedigrees of the two dogs you don't know owned by two different people you don't know, and their dogs are not related (but both have Furo behind them :-/ ) and you KNOW have bad hips ?
by Gustav on 28 November 2012 - 00:11
Cool Blitzen, I don't think that Czech breeders are any different from German or American....I have used the same approach with German dogs and American dogs in years past....I rely on knowledgable breeders that I know more so than primarily empirical evidence, but I don't down other ways of achieving success, I just get riled when people try to advance theories that a specific way is the ONLY way when I know better. That's why I am curious as to how some will answer my scenario posted early, consistent with the absolute opinions I have heard voiced. When opinions are applied to real situations, (maybe I'm off), I would expect them to make sense and the opinions to be strengthen by the scenario. I'm sure you have had success your way!
by Jenni78 on 28 November 2012 - 01:11
???
Aadilah, what "change" have I made? I felt horrible for Chrissy and Kaiser. What does that situation have to do with anything?
Aadilah, what "change" have I made? I felt horrible for Chrissy and Kaiser. What does that situation have to do with anything?
by guddu on 28 November 2012 - 01:11
Different arguments are being made.
1. I wont buy from a breeder who cant read the X-rays.
2. I know how to read X-rays, so I dont need to send them for OFA.
Nothing wrong with the above 2 arguments.
3. X-rays can be misinterpreted due to poor positioning, mood, training of radiologist, other biases etc. So its not worth getting them done.
The third argument, however contradicts argument 2, since all the biases in point 3, also apply to point 2.
The reason for getting them OFA:d is for research, and impartial documentation. Like a referee in a football game, the referee is impartial on almost all occasions, but occasionally makes a mistake. That is however, not a reason to do away with referees, IMVHO.
1. I wont buy from a breeder who cant read the X-rays.
2. I know how to read X-rays, so I dont need to send them for OFA.
Nothing wrong with the above 2 arguments.
3. X-rays can be misinterpreted due to poor positioning, mood, training of radiologist, other biases etc. So its not worth getting them done.
The third argument, however contradicts argument 2, since all the biases in point 3, also apply to point 2.
The reason for getting them OFA:d is for research, and impartial documentation. Like a referee in a football game, the referee is impartial on almost all occasions, but occasionally makes a mistake. That is however, not a reason to do away with referees, IMVHO.
by joanro on 28 November 2012 - 01:11
Guddu, good point :)
by Blitzen on 28 November 2012 - 01:11
I didn't breed much, Gustav. Could not stand trying to find the right homes for the puppies and wasn't good at vetting buyers. Got about 25% of them back. One day I looked out my kitchen window and said - damn....where the hell did all those dogs come from? I had 15 plus at the time. Decided right then and there that I was done breeding; when I wanted another dog I would buy one 
. That has worked well for me; I don't need to be the breeder of record, it was just a nice dream. I now leave that to those who enjoy it, it wasn't for me.
. That has worked well for me; I don't need to be the breeder of record, it was just a nice dream. I now leave that to those who enjoy it, it wasn't for me.by Gustav on 28 November 2012 - 03:11
I feel ya Blitzen, I have not bred a litter since 2008, and seriously doubt that I will again. I do get a new puppy every year for past 7 or 8 years. From Europe, Canada, US, Slovakia, Czech Rep., etc. all have had functional hips, which for me is, they are acceptable for Law Enforcement work.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top