Breeders - pedigree studying
- Thread starter AdrianneIsabel
- Start date
Well, most of my dogs are linebred so I tend to see the same dog two or three times in the pedigree. For this reason- I would tend to stay away from pedigrees with dogs who I really don't like. I guess the way I see it, it depends on WHY I don't like the dog. Is the dog within my type, but just badly built? If so- probably wouldn't bother me- structure is pretty easy to fix. If it was a situation where I didn't like the dog because it was totally different from my type (I.E. Australian show lines), I probably wouldn't breed to the dog, because I would be concerned about bringing up a type that I didn't want.
However, if the dog was *really* far back, it probably wouldn't bother me. I mean like 7+ generations back, and the closer generations would have to be correct in my eyes.
However, if the dog was *really* far back, it probably wouldn't bother me. I mean like 7+ generations back, and the closer generations would have to be correct in my eyes.
It also depends on how tightly the particular dog was line bred.
Say I had a bitch who I want to breed.
When looking at the stud dog's pedigree I want to see what dogs are most influential. How many times a particular dog is in his pedigree, if any of those dogs are in my bitch's pedigree. What those dogs temperaments and health testing looked like, and what kind of things they were known to produce or bring into the line.
It's not really a cut and dried deal. I'd have to look back, but there was a sheltie breeder who harped on "tail male" or "tail female" lines meaning and top and bottom lines of your pedigree often held the most influential dogs, and the dogs who appeared more towards the middle weren't quite as prolific. The idea being, that if your bitch has a dog towards the middle that you love, breed to a male who has the same dog in their pedigree and can bring that to the outside.
I don't know how much sense that makes without a visual.
I spend my time studying dogs I like. What I like about them, what they throw in litters, temperaments, working ability, biddability, health, etc. Then I would choose a stud based on what I like about HIM as well as the other dogs in the pedigree. You line breed to keep what you like, you outcross to get what you want and bring it in.
Basically, I wouldn't let a single dog in a pedigree sway me away from breeding to a particular stud, unless the dog I dislike is in there maybe 3 times. And then, I'd hope my research would be able to pick out what I didn't like about the dog, and how much of that quality had been passed down to the stud, then I still might consider him for an outcross breeding, and take the offspring of that litter back to more tightly linebred stuff that I liked.
Say I had a bitch who I want to breed.
When looking at the stud dog's pedigree I want to see what dogs are most influential. How many times a particular dog is in his pedigree, if any of those dogs are in my bitch's pedigree. What those dogs temperaments and health testing looked like, and what kind of things they were known to produce or bring into the line.
It's not really a cut and dried deal. I'd have to look back, but there was a sheltie breeder who harped on "tail male" or "tail female" lines meaning and top and bottom lines of your pedigree often held the most influential dogs, and the dogs who appeared more towards the middle weren't quite as prolific. The idea being, that if your bitch has a dog towards the middle that you love, breed to a male who has the same dog in their pedigree and can bring that to the outside.
I don't know how much sense that makes without a visual.
I spend my time studying dogs I like. What I like about them, what they throw in litters, temperaments, working ability, biddability, health, etc. Then I would choose a stud based on what I like about HIM as well as the other dogs in the pedigree. You line breed to keep what you like, you outcross to get what you want and bring it in.
Basically, I wouldn't let a single dog in a pedigree sway me away from breeding to a particular stud, unless the dog I dislike is in there maybe 3 times. And then, I'd hope my research would be able to pick out what I didn't like about the dog, and how much of that quality had been passed down to the stud, then I still might consider him for an outcross breeding, and take the offspring of that litter back to more tightly linebred stuff that I liked.
Thanks, that helps some. FWIW I'm referring to one single dog, not line breeding.
Reason being I have seen a few breedings when matching pedigrees people have said, oh they share joe (4th generation) this will be a great breeding (when the rest of the ped is unique). Or, oh they share Sally (3rd generation), this may not be the best fit she was a dog that tended to be blahblahblah.
I am having trouble comparing unique pedigrees they may share on dog here or there and what value to assign.
Reason being I have seen a few breedings when matching pedigrees people have said, oh they share joe (4th generation) this will be a great breeding (when the rest of the ped is unique). Or, oh they share Sally (3rd generation), this may not be the best fit she was a dog that tended to be blahblahblah.
I am having trouble comparing unique pedigrees they may share on dog here or there and what value to assign.
I probably wouldn't assign any significance to it, especially if you're talking two or three generations back.
ETA: What makes or breaks how much a sire will influence your litter is how tight his pedigree is and how stamped those qualities are (through generations of linebreeding). If the pedigree is all willy nilly for both sire and dam having just one or two 3rd and 4th generation dogs in common will not necessarily guarantee you anything. Which is why they say outcrosses are crapshoots.
ETA: What makes or breaks how much a sire will influence your litter is how tight his pedigree is and how stamped those qualities are (through generations of linebreeding). If the pedigree is all willy nilly for both sire and dam having just one or two 3rd and 4th generation dogs in common will not necessarily guarantee you anything. Which is why they say outcrosses are crapshoots.
Last edited:
It depends. There are some traits I want to breed away from, and some I want to reinforce.
For example, there's a line that produces really substantial dogs that are built like French brick $&!* houses. That line is a good thing to have some of because it can really increase the bone and substance when used judiciously. It's not something I want too much of though, because they also have a tendency to be coarse. I wouldn't double up on something like that unless my line was getting too refined and needed another infusion of it.
Same thing with health issues. Sometimes a sire will be used a lot, then die of osteo at age nine or so. The best you can do in those situations is be aware of the issue and carefully breed away from the problem. I would definitely reject a stud if his pedigree caused a doubling up on a dog like that.
If they just shared a grandsire, it'd have to be a really phenomenal dog that was an amazing producer and there'd have to be not many other good options. My preference is for phenotypic outcross vs. linebreeding.
For example, there's a line that produces really substantial dogs that are built like French brick $&!* houses. That line is a good thing to have some of because it can really increase the bone and substance when used judiciously. It's not something I want too much of though, because they also have a tendency to be coarse. I wouldn't double up on something like that unless my line was getting too refined and needed another infusion of it.
Same thing with health issues. Sometimes a sire will be used a lot, then die of osteo at age nine or so. The best you can do in those situations is be aware of the issue and carefully breed away from the problem. I would definitely reject a stud if his pedigree caused a doubling up on a dog like that.
If they just shared a grandsire, it'd have to be a really phenomenal dog that was an amazing producer and there'd have to be not many other good options. My preference is for phenotypic outcross vs. linebreeding.
This is sometimes true, but not always. If you breed a linebred dog to a dog with a looser pedigree, the linebred look will probably come through.
Some individual sires are extremely prepotent even without the linebreeding though, and really stamp their traits not only on their get but on the grands and great grands as well. The only way to figure that out is by combing through pedigrees, and looking not only at them, but their siblings, aunts, uncles, puppies, half siblings, etc. etc. to see how consistent they are.
Kaia is an outcross, and her dad's pedigree is a loose phenotypic outcross type pedigree. He and his siblings all produce beautifully and consistently. Kaia was outcrossed again, and had a very consistent litter. There are some lines behind her that I wouldn't mind bringing back in at some point, but not directly through her. Maybe through a grandpuppy.
We're looking hard at four different studs right now. Three very different pedigrees, all three very different from hers, and it's so freaking hard to decide. I WANT ALL THE PUPPIES. lol. I've compiled photo spreadsheets of them and their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, get, grand puppies, nieces, nephews, etc. and those lines are the best most consistently high quality producers of what I'm looking for.
Some individual sires are extremely prepotent even without the linebreeding though, and really stamp their traits not only on their get but on the grands and great grands as well. The only way to figure that out is by combing through pedigrees, and looking not only at them, but their siblings, aunts, uncles, puppies, half siblings, etc. etc. to see how consistent they are.
Kaia is an outcross, and her dad's pedigree is a loose phenotypic outcross type pedigree. He and his siblings all produce beautifully and consistently. Kaia was outcrossed again, and had a very consistent litter. There are some lines behind her that I wouldn't mind bringing back in at some point, but not directly through her. Maybe through a grandpuppy.
We're looking hard at four different studs right now. Three very different pedigrees, all three very different from hers, and it's so freaking hard to decide. I WANT ALL THE PUPPIES. lol. I've compiled photo spreadsheets of them and their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, get, grand puppies, nieces, nephews, etc. and those lines are the best most consistently high quality producers of what I'm looking for.
What they do now is much more important to me than anything else. I want to see parents, siblings or previous offspring if I can.
I think that is the where any breeding should start. You can make an honest assessment on what IS there and what you are working with. Start studying paper and you start to insert what "should" be there and you come up with a less than honest assessment of your dog.
But after that, If there was 1 dog 3 generations back and the dog in front of me had very similar traits and was breeding to another dog that shared 1 ancestor, then I'd feel a bit better about things. 4th less, and 5th even less. But I think my decision at that point would be more about the dogs in front of me than anything on paper with only 1 dog concerned.
However, if I had a line of dogs that shared similar backgrounds with a couple dogs and I was familiar with those dogs and those dogs all had similar traits to those 4 and 5 generations back, I'd feel pretty good about the breeding. It shows that the traits being selected for are showing up generations down the road in subsequent sons/daughters, grandkids, great grandkids etc.
Now how much is the "original"? what does it matter if the son, grandson, great granddaughter have the same genes and same expression of those genes to pass on? But it does show consistency and I do think that is important.
I think that is the where any breeding should start. You can make an honest assessment on what IS there and what you are working with. Start studying paper and you start to insert what "should" be there and you come up with a less than honest assessment of your dog.
But after that, If there was 1 dog 3 generations back and the dog in front of me had very similar traits and was breeding to another dog that shared 1 ancestor, then I'd feel a bit better about things. 4th less, and 5th even less. But I think my decision at that point would be more about the dogs in front of me than anything on paper with only 1 dog concerned.
However, if I had a line of dogs that shared similar backgrounds with a couple dogs and I was familiar with those dogs and those dogs all had similar traits to those 4 and 5 generations back, I'd feel pretty good about the breeding. It shows that the traits being selected for are showing up generations down the road in subsequent sons/daughters, grandkids, great grandkids etc.
Now how much is the "original"? what does it matter if the son, grandson, great granddaughter have the same genes and same expression of those genes to pass on? But it does show consistency and I do think that is important.
If it's in the pedigree only once, and more than 3 generations back, it's influence is likely to be negligible. Unless there's a trait that dog is very prepotent for. Even then, it's probably going to be dependent on what it's breeding into.
The dog I used on Tully, I considered an outcross, though they did share an ancestor about 5 generations back. He was actually behind Tully a few times, but behind Swampy only once. He did have a reasonable amount of influence, due to being behind Tully multiple times, but his influence probably wasn't increased much by the one solitary appearance in Swampy's pedigree.
The dog I used on Tully, I considered an outcross, though they did share an ancestor about 5 generations back. He was actually behind Tully a few times, but behind Swampy only once. He did have a reasonable amount of influence, due to being behind Tully multiple times, but his influence probably wasn't increased much by the one solitary appearance in Swampy's pedigree.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 166
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think there's a site where you can find the inbreeding coefficient. I don't remember what it is now, but you could probably google it.
Miz Naughty is an "outcross" although that term is inaccurate because in purebreds you're working with a closed gene pool in most cases. What I mean by that is there is no overlapping of ancestors.
Lil Sis is in the same boat to a certain extent. Her dad is linebred and has the same dogs in his pedigree a few times, but Miz Naughty of course is not and does not.
I personally do not have a problem with line breeding. It's a tool just like any other and must be used responsibly.
Miz Naughty is an "outcross" although that term is inaccurate because in purebreds you're working with a closed gene pool in most cases. What I mean by that is there is no overlapping of ancestors.
Lil Sis is in the same boat to a certain extent. Her dad is linebred and has the same dogs in his pedigree a few times, but Miz Naughty of course is not and does not.
I personally do not have a problem with line breeding. It's a tool just like any other and must be used responsibly.
I did a COI for each of my dogs once. Tully, who was pretty much inbred was 25%, the same as a full sibling breeding. (her parents were half-sibs, and their parents were half-sibs. Bred to the dog I mentioned, with one common dog back 5 generations, the COI of that litter was 1.36%. The loose line-breeding I did for the next generation produced a COI of 1.56%.
Those numbers might be a little higher if I'd inputted more than 6 generations back, but not by much, since there's so little influence that far back.
Just for amusing reference (well, it amuses me), my father's COI is 1.95%. He's more tightly line-bred than my dogs. Which is probably true of most people, if you go back more than a few generations, to a time when travel was difficult. The area my dad was from was pretty backwards.
This is the site I used:
http://www.czerwonytrop.com/inb/index.php?full=ok =en
It's kind of fun.
Those numbers might be a little higher if I'd inputted more than 6 generations back, but not by much, since there's so little influence that far back.
Just for amusing reference (well, it amuses me), my father's COI is 1.95%. He's more tightly line-bred than my dogs. Which is probably true of most people, if you go back more than a few generations, to a time when travel was difficult. The area my dad was from was pretty backwards.
This is the site I used:
http://www.czerwonytrop.com/inb/index.php?full=ok =en
It's kind of fun.
My mentor told me that when you're researching a breeding, you should always look at the extended family and their strengths/faults. This includes the pet quality animals too. She said that you're not breeding to the stud, you're breeding to the entire pedigree and anything that shows up in siblings nieces nephews aunts and uncles has the potential to show up in your litter too. Just think of how many times children look like their aunts and uncles vs. their parents.
It's something that really stuck with me. She bred borzoi for over 40 years with a huge amount of success in the show ring and field. She's also a fantastic resource because she's aware of health issues and movement problems in specific dogs and lines that you can't see by looking at pictures.
It's something that really stuck with me. She bred borzoi for over 40 years with a huge amount of success in the show ring and field. She's also a fantastic resource because she's aware of health issues and movement problems in specific dogs and lines that you can't see by looking at pictures.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 834
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
I take a lot of this into consideration with the Beauceron, although I'm still heavily "new" and still learning, I'll say right now as an example to the question that there is a male who I never want in my pedigrees period! Most of his offspring I've been able to research thoroughly have had some problem or another, the least is skin allergies, going up to producing several autoimmune puppies, and joint problems, and even one case of a very rare juvenile cancer (if you can get the dog past puppyhood with it, it's usually cured). I will not have him in my pedigrees, and some of these affected dogs have him in their pedigrees a ways back but are doubled on both sides.
This to me is why pedigree research is so very important, it's not just the little things like nit-picking white patches or short tails or wavy coats, potentially bigger issues for the future that could severely impact the next generation including health and temperament is very important and usually you can find the source of these problems when you have a good set of pedigree records.
Another example, using Enda, she has a bitch in her pedigree who I've found consistently produces shoddy temperaments (where I place blame for her noise sensitivity), if I bred her I would most certainly NOT line breed on that side of her pedigree, nor would I wish to line breed on a particular kennel that is found within that side of the pedigree either (less than acceptable temperaments, and less than stellar hip rating with a history of higher dysplasia incidents), I would say that with the popularity of that kennel (usually more so in show lines) that the least amount I would go with is ONE individual no less than 4 generations back if I had to, unlike the overall defective sire I mentioned before who I would not want to see in a pedigree at all.
This to me is why pedigree research is so very important, it's not just the little things like nit-picking white patches or short tails or wavy coats, potentially bigger issues for the future that could severely impact the next generation including health and temperament is very important and usually you can find the source of these problems when you have a good set of pedigree records.
Another example, using Enda, she has a bitch in her pedigree who I've found consistently produces shoddy temperaments (where I place blame for her noise sensitivity), if I bred her I would most certainly NOT line breed on that side of her pedigree, nor would I wish to line breed on a particular kennel that is found within that side of the pedigree either (less than acceptable temperaments, and less than stellar hip rating with a history of higher dysplasia incidents), I would say that with the popularity of that kennel (usually more so in show lines) that the least amount I would go with is ONE individual no less than 4 generations back if I had to, unlike the overall defective sire I mentioned before who I would not want to see in a pedigree at all.