I've always maintained the opinion that they are two completely different things and shouldn't be intertwined in the minds of Dogmen. And I just read a different thread where Jack says the same thing basically. But what's funny is I always hear guys say they wanna breed to a ch or gr ch or the Gamest one on the planet instead of looking for a proven producer or taking an educated gamble on breeding to one that hasn't been bred as much and see if you can make something new happen.
I made dozens and dozens of "educated guesses" ... all throughout my breeding career ... based on what I KNEW about the dogs I was feeding, and their ancestors, over EVER breeding to some "famous Champion" (or producer) on somebody else's yard ... and I always got flack from so-called "hardcore dogmen" all over the place for not breeding to "proven winners."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise
And the funniest thing was, I *always* produced more winners per year, and better percentages per year, every year, than every nay-sayer who ever ran his mouth at me :lol:
Jack
I just made what I consider to be a nice breeding but only time will tell, unlike you I don't have the luxury of having stud dog so I found one that "I" like
Nothing wrong with that ... back in 1992, when I didn't have a stud dog anymore, I made a breeding to an outside stud myself ... and his name was Ch Hammer ... I bred him to my Miss Trinx bitch.
Turned out to be a pretty important litter for me :D
1992. I remember that. Damn I feel old
I always went to the producer it made sense to me. Alot of folks ran to the Champion i would track the dog who produced said Ch with the simple logic of hell he produced a Ch. Having good brood stock is one of the major things to have to be able to maintain a competitive yard, without good brood you ll never get great performers. Yis Ole Man
I wouldn't breed to a dog that doesn't physically exhibit the traits I am looking for... unless of course I have decades of experience with the same exact dogs. I don't care if it has produced previously, that doesn't mean it will produce the same results when being bred to my bitch unless the previous females were bred vert similar to mine. I also do not necessarily believe in breeding to the dog that produced the good dog over the good dog himself for the fact that the sire only provided that good dog with half of his genes. The good dog himself is the only animal that can give you 100% of his genes in the offspring. his father only accounts for 50% of his genetic makeup. weather that 50% is dominate of not in the dog is another story. This is just how I look at it if Looking for a dog or a stud, when you don't have the experience with those dogs. If you have extensive knowledge on the blood it changes everything. but if I don't know shit about those dogs then I want to see the traits I'm hoping will get passed.. so I'm looking for a performer.
Just because a dog is good doesn't mean it will throw good genes ... and the last part = the strength of family breeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Absolutely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Have you ever heard of recessive genes? Just because a dog doesn't "physically express" the trait itself, doesn't mean the trait isn't present, nor does it mean the trait can't be passed on ...
Little Tater was an average plug, yet he threw the great Gr Ch Buck.
Awesome Baby was a cold, useless bitch ... and yet she out-produced every single Champion bitch in the history of the sport, except Honeybunch, and Awesome Baby was not bred as much as Honeybunch.
True. And that works both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Me personally, if I don't know shit about the blood, then I won't breed to that dog AT ALL ... regardless if he's good or bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Dogs that can fight are a dime a dozen. Dogs that can produce prepotently, and transgenerationally, are much rarer. There are a HELLUVA lot more Champions than there are ROMs ... let alone dogs that are prepotent enough to form core foundation stock ...
Only if I know the blood (or, at least, the percentage/styles of the animal itself, plus its littermates), and know that these dogs are truly strong genetically, would I ever consider adding that blood to what I am feeding.
Jack
Well said Jack, the ROM list is peanuts compared to the winners list. That is why they're called brood "stock" & also the reason producers hold more value than winners whether your talking cash value or yard/family value over time, the hardest ones to come by are solid consistent producers.
what I mean by the good dog can pass 100% of his genes is basically that if I want a Michael Jordan clone ima breed to Michael Jordan himself and line breed on him and not his daddy cuz his daddy and mom both contributed Halfs. MJ is the whole thing, he is the only one that can pass what his mother AND father gave to him. slight misunderstanding maybe I worded it wrong. but the problem with recessive traits is that if my bitch ain't carrying those recessive traits also they are just gonna stay dormant. I'm gonna have a sire that carries the traits I want without exhibiting it and a bunch of pups just like him. Unless they are closely related sire and dam and possess the same traits. that's why I said if I had extensive knowledge on the family things may be different. but everybody don't start out knowing it all, if they did there would be no discussion here lol.