"Proven producer" - Page 2

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

jc.carroll

by jc.carroll on 25 June 2008 - 14:06

>The genetics are there, he contributes just as much as the bitch No one is disputing that. I don't view this as much as a genetic debate; more a discussion about terms and what they mean when we see/hear them used. If we were to branch into a genetic comparison, I think that would merit it's own thread. I'm not saying the male doesn't contribute genetically, because obviously he does. But again -what- he contributes seems of less relevance when using the term "proven producer" than the fact that he can contribute... at least to fathering a litter. "Produces notable offspring such as..." would be more meaningful than simply "proven producer." Especially if you're offering a male for sale/stud you'd want to play up the quality of his progeny from several litters/females, rather than just the fact he can produce. I've heard of crypt/monorchids that can produce offspring. Obviously the genetic contributions would be seriously skewed on allowing the breeding of Mr. One-Nut; but the fact that he could be honestly (if unethically) defined as a "proven producer" remains. "Proven producer" is to dogs what "runs great but needs work" is to used cars.





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top