Stud Dogs

[neil cooney 10,416]

pups not around long enough to be named?

proper terrier men then.

I think Bryan you'll find that these so called terrier men are fictional.

[CorkyJohn 808]

& heres me thinking chocolate terriers should be proven by 12weeks old...,

[VOON 1,317]

Post on another forum on filial degeneration...

 

One of the historical breeders who has always been of particular interest to me was D.A McClintock of Oklahoma. As far as I have been able to ascertain, McClintock never matched a dog; yet, his accomplishments as a breeder were extraordinary, and his line of dogs was in particular demand by the dog men of his day. He wrote a number of articles for his contemporary dog magazines, and they make fascinating and instructive reading even today. For example, in one article Mr McClintock begins by apologizing for a lack of formal education, then goes on to explain filial degeneration, a concept that even bedevils scientists!

Filial degeneration refers to the tendency of the offspring of any breeding stock to revert to the average of the race or strain. Thus, if the two top dogs in the country are bred together, their offspring have only a remote chance of being as good as either parent.

Similarly, in humans, if two geniuses marry and have children, the chances of their producing another genius are also remote. The genes are jumbled, and the tendency is to revert back toward the average. Filial degeneration has also been called the “drag of the race”; however, the same process also works the other way. If two morons marry and have children, chances are their offspring will not be like them. Also, if we breed two “curs” of a good strain together, we have a chance of getting some game pups. There have been some “aces” that came from such breedings. Tudor’s “Black Demon” is just one such example. (Now that does not mean that it is alright to breed curs! Please read on before jumping to that conclusion!)

Dog men have often been perplexed by the fact that certain outstanding dogs would not produce when used at stud. The reason, very likely, was that the dogs were not representative of their ancestry. (They were like a good looking girl springing from a long line of homely ancestors. The girl may be good looking herself, but her progeny will likely revert back to the average of her “line”!)

That is why it is important to study the pedigree of the animals we are breeding. Just because a dog is good himself does not mean that he will produce good pups. While it is true that some Pit Bull who are not game themselves are good producers, I agree with Pat Patrick that this little fact has all-too-often been used as an excuse for breeding to a cur. Whenever we breed to a cur, we are throwing the “wrong” genes back into the hopper to be once again jumbled, and while we may get good results in the first generation, eventually there will be the devil to pay!

Anyway, the question is how do we get around this filial degeneration which looms as such a great obstacle to what we are trying to accomplish. Well the answer is to breed to a quality line and to work to raise the average of the line. That means never breeding to curs and always using quality individuals. Yes, I know that means extensive use of inbreeding, and inbreeding is a bi bugaboo to many individuals. However modern geneticists have dispelled many of the old wives’ tales about inbreeding, and we need not worry about using it to our hearts content - as long as we are careful to cull out the undesirable traits! It is generally believed that inbreeding causes a decrease in fertility and size; however, hardnosed selectivity can nullify even these effects. Hybrid vigour is a famous phenomenon that is characterized by increased size and vigour in the offspring. However, geneticists have demonstrated highly inbred lines in which the selectivity of stock had been so stringent that the lines actually lost vigour when crossed with any other!

Now, gameness very likely consists of a number of different genes that work together to produce the trait. Unfortunately, there are probably a number of genes that nullify or modify the effect of the desired genes. (That’s the way things usually work genetically, but of course, no real research has been done on gameness!) So our main task in breeding is to purify our strain of those unwanted genes. This takes many generations, and all our work is un-done when some yahoo breeds to a dog whose gameness is suspect. We also always take a chance when we outcross to another strain because we may be throwing into the hopper some of the genes that will modify the effect of the pattern of genes that produces gameness in our stock. However in my opinion, it is better to breed “best to best” than to stay within a strain but not be sufficiently selective.

 

To sum up:

(1.) Genetics is nearly purely statistics, predictable in only large numbers. Breeding dogs is like rolling dice in that we are jumbling the genes and seeing how they come out on each “throw”. We gain an edge by limiting the possible combinations.

(2.) Inbreeding enables us to overcome the effect of filial degeneration by reducing the variety of genes so that we have a better chance of matching desirable genes.

(3.) Breeding “best to best” is difficult to fault; however, if this is done without regard to strain, results will be less consistent. A greater strain gives us greater uniformity.

(4.) The emphasis should always be on the quality, regardless of the breeding model you use (for example: best to best, inbreeding, outbreeding or whatever). Selectivity is the single most important factor in breeding.

[marshman 7,757]

Good read !

[Bosun11 537]

Cracking stuff Voon, makes bloody good sense and a interesting read too.

[harvey d 43]

the last line sums it for me, good read

[Griz 89]

Vonn your spot on with your prespective on breeding for quality workers.....I do tho think that the human element involved often messes up things. Judgements are made about bringing on and working various dogs that may eventually be used for breeding. Everyones yard stick is not always the same when it comes to proving a dogs worth. One person is satisfied after a single season of only a few shallow digs, while another won't be happy until several seasons and many challenging places have been logged.....Considering the many variable views from different dog owners , even with the best of intentions and the same goal, results many times will be quite different.............Vonn, I've read McClinocks writings and have several 16 generation pedigrees that demonstrate his philosophy on breeding.As I recall Bob Hemphill and George Wallace used similar dogs at that time, and that the dogs bred by them were the best in the fifties.

[Odin 183]

Good read that

[Guest alcapone]

Intresting read indeed,but we must not forget its HIS opinion....however il go with line breeding and inbreeding any day over best to best. If breeding was so straight forward we'd all have a yard full of legends would'nt we?

[spook123 82]

cud not have put it better alcapone

[Comrade 45]

cud not have put it better alcapone

[VOON 1,317]

Vonn your spot on with your prespective on breeding for quality workers.....I do tho think that the human element involved often messes up things. Judgements are made about bringing on and working various dogs that may eventually be used for breeding. Everyones yard stick is not always the same when it comes to proving a dogs worth. One person is satisfied after a single season of only a few shallow digs, while another won't be happy until several seasons and many challenging places have been logged.....Considering the many variable views from different dog owners , even with the best of intentions and the same goal, results many times will be quite different.............Vonn, I've read McClinocks writings and have several 16 generation pedigrees that demonstrate his philosophy on breeding.As I recall Bob Hemphill and George Wallace used similar dogs at that time, and that the dogs bred by them were the best in the fifties.

 

Good points Griz

[VOON 1,317]

Intresting read indeed,but we must not forget its HIS opinion....however il go with line breeding and inbreeding any day over best to best. If breeding was so straight forward we'd all have a yard full of legends would'nt we?

I think that's what he advocates Al, but with selectivity, no kennel blindness or breeding for breedings shake just to keep a line going, by definition best to best should be selective.

[gasman 53]

What does breeding bull dogs have in common with breeding earth dogs? Do they go to ground? Do they breed for nose / find, and one of the most important traits TRAVEL(when in the ground) 3 of the most important qualities that imakes a terrier a terrier.

Edited June 13, 2014 by gasman

[Guest alcapone]

What does breeding bull dogs have in common with breeding earth dogs? Do they go to ground? Do they breed for nose / find, and one of the most important traits TRAVEL(when in the ground) 3 of the most important qualities that imakes a terrier a terrier.

We are both looking for the "game gene"