This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jantie on 07 October 2009 - 07:10
Giving/quoting a ZW to dogs that have NO progeny is ridiculous.
One should not even mention these phoney numbers as they mean absolutely nothing.
I was very surprised to see Fred mention them, and so many too! He knows that the SV-breed value assessment which is currently used is absolutely unworthy of the name, he also knows that the dogs selected for VA-placings are "babies" that have not proved anything apart from looking like Rex. One has absolutely no clue about what their potential for/in breeding will be, so why place them way up in front?
Of COURSE the ZW is low, it can only rise when the X-ray results come in, so why bother to use it for young dogs.
It is very misleading for people later checking these numbers: "Hey Look here! In these impressions from Fred, XYZ has a ZW of 74!!"
It doesn't mention the date of birth three years ago alongside!! So NO single pups has been x-rayed yet, and the dog is being crowned for passing so many good qualities to his pups!? I don't think so!
Fred should not have waved around with these ZW-flags. If he wishes to use these numbers, he should also add how many pups of that particular dog have already been screened, and how many of them have HD1-hips. Now THAT would tell us something.
Sorry Rik!
One should not even mention these phoney numbers as they mean absolutely nothing.
I was very surprised to see Fred mention them, and so many too! He knows that the SV-breed value assessment which is currently used is absolutely unworthy of the name, he also knows that the dogs selected for VA-placings are "babies" that have not proved anything apart from looking like Rex. One has absolutely no clue about what their potential for/in breeding will be, so why place them way up in front?
Of COURSE the ZW is low, it can only rise when the X-ray results come in, so why bother to use it for young dogs.
It is very misleading for people later checking these numbers: "Hey Look here! In these impressions from Fred, XYZ has a ZW of 74!!"
It doesn't mention the date of birth three years ago alongside!! So NO single pups has been x-rayed yet, and the dog is being crowned for passing so many good qualities to his pups!? I don't think so!
Fred should not have waved around with these ZW-flags. If he wishes to use these numbers, he should also add how many pups of that particular dog have already been screened, and how many of them have HD1-hips. Now THAT would tell us something.
Sorry Rik!
by duke1965 on 08 October 2009 - 03:10
jantie I think your kinda missing the point on zw
its important to know of a dog,s genetic enviroment ,concerning hips, so to speak BEFORE breeding
afterwards is easy , if many progeny is bad , the harm is already done
more important is what is being done with ZW
I have the impression that workinglinebreeders look more for a low ZW than SL breeders
its important to know of a dog,s genetic enviroment ,concerning hips, so to speak BEFORE breeding
afterwards is easy , if many progeny is bad , the harm is already done
more important is what is being done with ZW
I have the impression that workinglinebreeders look more for a low ZW than SL breeders
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top