Showlines and Workinglines are Genetically Different - Interesting Study - Page 12

Bubbabooboo funny stuff training and living condition alter genetics good one. The study is a good one and identifies many genetic differences, lets keep in mind every one, the study is not saying a SL is not a real German shepherd or not as good as a WL what they are saying and have evidence to prove is they are genetically different and to this I agree 100%

The study was crap!!  In science if you can measure something you do not use assumptions.  There are measures for so called working ability such as KNPV, MondioRing, and IPO.   There are measures for breed characteristics.  SV judges and does both of these as part of managing the largest GSD organization in the world many times over.  If a researcher would like to do this test correctly it would take years and many thousands of man hours and funds.  The researchers would need to determine which bloodlines represented each totally arbitrary group by using measures such as top dogs BSZS and BSP over a 25 year period.  Once these bloodlines were chosen there would need to be living representative sires and dams chosen from each group of bloodlines ( ie working and show).  The sires and dams from each group ( working and show) would need to be mated and puppies produced with which to conduct the testing.  The puppies would be chosen RANDOMLY from the litters of working and show groups (such as two puppies from each working and two from each show classified litter).  These two groups of puppies (working and conformation) would then be reared using the exact same conditions of food, environment and training from birth to approximately 3 years of age ( mature age for GSD ).  Puppies from both groups (working and show lines classified) would be evaluated for one sport which they had been trained for using identical training methods and systems.  As much as possible trainers would work with puppies from both working and show groups to eliminate trainer bias.  At both one year, two years, and at maturity each dog would be evaluated for breeding suitability and KoerKlasse using SV standards and judges.  As much as possible the same group of judges would evaluate both groups (working or show classified) to eliminate judge bias.  After all evaluations of 100 dogs in each group at 3 years of age the scores for working (sport) and show (breeding/conformation) the array of scores for both sport or so called working characteristics (IPO, MR, KNPV) as well as breed suitability could be determined.  Genetic testing for characteristics would then be performed or could have been performed at an earlier age.  The results of these tests could then be arrayed against the score data and determine what if any genetic characteristics might be reflected in the scores observed.  These tests could be run for different sub populations such as Czech or other populations which for some time had selection based on different goals or sport or police work versus desirable breed characteristics.  What the study would show is that working or show ( breeding/conformation) ability would vary as much within the two groups (working and conformation) as between the two groups when all puppies produced in each group were randomly sampled, reared and trained using the same methods.  A graduate student plans to graduate in three years normally and the last 6 months to one year is used for writing and defending the doctoral dissertation.  The synopsis of the study presented on line was a shortcut study that could be done in the 1 1/2 years the student had to complete his/her dissertation research project.  The study that would be needed to bring some scientific validity to the subject (as written above) would be extremely costly and most senior researchers could predict the results in advance.  I would estimate 6-8 years to do the rearing, training, and testing of the test subjects (working/sport and breeding/conformation).  There might even be some genetic characteristics found that affected work/sport and breeding/conformation but it is extremely unlikely that those characteristics would favor one group or the other.

Each December issue of Zietung (SV magazine) contains the genetic map of Hauptzuchschau (show) and BSP (schh) entrants

Blitzen

Very interested in your explanation regarding the Fox Terrier, recently in my Country German Shepherd Long coats have been classified as a new Breed, not to be bred with stockcoats, and are able to be shown, but in their own classification.   Yet these newly registered Longcoats, are progeny from Stockcoats.   Their DNA  is the same.
I am bewildered as to why a Stockcoat can not be mated to a longcoat - they are both GSD end of story.  This is the rule in our Country stockcoat not to mated to longcoat Why is their something I am missing ??.

Also, when we show a GSD in all Breeds, the are classified in the Working Dog Class.  ANKC only recognisers GSD as Working Dog, and whether it is shown, or used as working dog, a working dog it is - never is it classified as GSD Show Dog.  I guess what I am trying to say, there is only one GSD, which goes back generations, until someone can show me that another breed has infiltrated the lines of today (and I don't me the wolf), to make our working dogs and show dogs genetically diffferent, I will believe they are as one.

Actually, what Blitzen thought happened to create the smooth and wire fox terriers was incorrect. She thought that another breed was introduced to get the wires. They were alway there in the breed, two varieties. A hundred years after AKC recognition, they became two separate breeds. Prior to splitting into two breeds, they could be bred and litters registered according to coat.

Never mind.
 

To try to separate long coated GSDs into a separate variety from the
Standard coats, and then not allow them to be inter-variety bred, is
to my mind sheer folly. Less than scrupulous people have, for many
years, sought to get more longcoats (because they sell).  In breeding
to increase from the normal 12-20% ratio, they have often used inferior
stock and / or disregarded health concerns eg epilepsy, just as has
been done for fancy colours.  Before everyone jumps on me again, I do
know this description does not fit EVERYBODY breeding specifically
for coats and colours;  but unfortunately the chances are high that
breeders of the near-ancestors of your own dogs DID.  This means 
that the  overall quality of dogs is damaged, as it is whenever someone
goes the route of just breeding for one feature over all others.  It reduces
the available gene pool.

I believe this was why the Belgian fanciers got so hot under the collar
when the UK Kennel Club stopped inter variety matings;  there had
always been quite a bit of crossing over in those 4 varieties, and to
suddenly have them declared as no longer one breed, and not to be
mixed, went down like a lead balloon with most.

Don't know which country the OP is talking about ?

Speaking of other breeds affected by these sort of things, it is apparently
the case that in Chinese Crested  'they' CANNOT ban inter-variety matings
because if you keep breeding hairless to hairless - or powder puff to powder
puff - only,  lethal genes appear.  I don't think we have THAT problem with
Shepherds, but it makes ya think !

Dog breed info center Is wrong, Blitzen. The Fox Terrier breed did not come from a mixture of hounds. The now extinct White English Terrier is it's foundation ,not hounds. The White English had rough and smooths.

Did the foundation GSD's carry the longcoat gene? Did the foundation breeders use longcoats in their breeding programs? Or, like the Wirehaired Fox Terrier, were they considered the same breed although another breed had been introduced in order to produce longcoats? Were longcoats desired by shepherds?

 

I deleted that, Joanro. before you responded. I don't want to get started on that again. That is the information on the net provided by Fox Terrier breeders. If it's not correct, you might want to let them know. Thanks.