Doberman Forum : Doberman Breed Dog Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about breeding type to type versus breeding pedigree to pedigree (of course, given ALL other considerations [like health] are properly investigated as well). Personally, I am a believer in breeding type to type, the only reason being I am a more visual type of person and can actually see the major contributors on both sides of the equation. The gal I was talking to believes that pedigree to pedigree is just a good as breeding type to type, I don't know so much about this as you could have two different types of dogs and I would think this would possibly throw any probable consistency in the litter to the wind. Breeders: Thoughts? Experiences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
I would never breed any animal simply because their pedigree was sharp. I know plenty of horses with really nice papers that arent worth a s**t. Then again, there are some papered animals with less-than-stunning pedigrees and amazing conformation and ability. I definitely say judge the animal before judging the paperwork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Apparently I am not being clear enough. I am talking about those who choose to breed their QUALITY, JUDGED animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Then my answer is still the same and it goes for most types of "showable" animals.
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about breeding type to type versus breeding pedigree to pedigree (of course, given ALL other considerations [like health] are properly investigated as well). Personally, I am a believer in breeding type to type, the only reason being I am a more visual type of person and can actually see the major contributors on both sides of the equation. The gal I was talking to believes that pedigree to pedigree is just a good as breeding type to type, I don't know so much about this as you could have two different types of dogs and I would think this would possibly throw any probable consistency in the litter to the wind. Breeders: Thoughts? Experiences?
I think they're both of equal importance. You've got to know where you've been to know where you're going. But to avoid doubling up on unwanted traits, you've got to pay attention to phenotype.

BTW, there are different styles of dog, but there's only one "type" That's defined in the standard: square, balanced front and rear, symetrical, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Thanks, I guess my terminology would be off. I looked it up (thanks Cheryl) and Phenotype is what I am meaning to be talking about. So, would you place equal importance on phenotype and pedigree? Or would there be one that would weigh over the other when it comes to the final nuances of that breeding decision? Or does it really matter? Or would it be case by case subjective?

Really, what is the big deal? Or is there even a big deal? I am just trying to understand this a bit better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Then my answer is still the same and it goes for most types of "showable" animals.
So what exactly did I say that offends you so much you feel the need to respond in the manner you are responding? I get it, you wouldn't breed. Good for you, I am not planning on breeding either. However, I would like to LEARN about breeding and how responsible people make those decisions. It helps me to better understand the breed and it also helps to understand some of the conversations I follow from time to time when speaking with the doberman fancy.
 

·
Extraordimary
Joined
·
4,976 Posts
So, would you place equal importance on phenotype and pedigree?
I think it always depends on what you're trying to do, where you're trying to go, what you want to improve ...

Ideally, the phenotype you are looking for would be strong in the pedigree you're considering. I don't know why anyone would expect to get a particular phenotype from a pedigree that wasn't strong in that area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
So what exactly did I say that offends you so much you feel the need to respond in the manner you are responding? I get it, you wouldn't breed. Good for you, I am not planning on breeding either. However, I would like to LEARN about breeding and how responsible people make those decisions. It helps me to better understand the breed and it also helps to understand some of the conversations I follow from time to time when speaking with the doberman fancy.
I am sorry but I suppose the Internet is a hard place to read people when they type words. I meant no disrespect and I assure you I did not type those words with a harsh tone. That was not my intent. I tend to speak directly, choose my words as carefully as I can, and say what I mean. That's all that I meant. Nothing towards you at all.:emo11:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sundobe

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
And I wasnt saying you should or should not. I was just giving you my opinion about pedigree vs. type. Thats all.
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
So what exactly did I say that offends you so much you feel the need to respond in the manner you are responding? I get it, you wouldn't breed. Good for you, I am not planning on breeding either. However, I would like to LEARN about breeding and how responsible people make those decisions. It helps me to better understand the breed and it also helps to understand some of the conversations I follow from time to time when speaking with the doberman fancy.
I'm not really sure why you're jumping on him so much..his original post provided some good points that should be considered, that might make for good discussion. Nor did I find anything he said particularly rude.

He said: " I would never breed any animal simply because their pedigree was sharp. I know plenty of horses with really nice papers that arent worth a s**t. "

I agree with this 100%. There's been many an animal with a stellar pedigree that didn't wind up with an abundance of virtues. So the first thing that should always be done is look at the animal in question and see if it's worth breeding. Every other consideration comes after that.

He continued:
"Then again, there are some papered animals with less-than-stunning pedigrees and amazing conformation and ability. I definitely say judge the animal before judging the paperwork."

While I think the animal is the first thing that has to be considered, I don't think you can ignore the paperwork. The "amazing" animal with a less-than-stunning pedigree rarely is able to reproduce their quality.

There are never any guarantees-but the best chance you have of producing quality offspring is to breed two complimentary animals, both of them having pedigrees packed full of animals who not only were of good quality themselves, but had the ability to produce well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,037 Posts
I would think they would be of equal importance in your planning a breeding. I don't see how you could consider one without the other. Maybe I'm not getting what you are saying. You might give some on one or the other to get to your goal, but they are still of equal importance overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
I apologize. I of course interpreted what he was saying in a totally different way, to me it sounded crass. That was how I interpreted it anyway. On rereading the post a few times I understand where I would have heard this wrong. Again, I am sorry.

I also thought I had covered this in my original post, but it sounds like I am the only one who sees it. Originally all I wanted to discuss was type vs. pedigree when it came to breeding decisions, given ALL other parts to the equation had been duly considered. I am also hearing that no one else saw or heard that in my original post so I also apologize for my poor communication.

I thought it was a honest question, I really didn't intend for it to be anything else. :( Sorry.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
675 Posts
I saw or heard it in your original post.


I apologize. I of course interpreted what he was saying in a totally different way, to me it sounded crass. That was how I interpreted it anyway. I see I heard this wrong. Again, I am sorry.

I also thought I had covered this in my original post, but it sounds like I am the only one who sees it. Originally all I wanted to discuss was type vs. pedigree when it came to breeding decisions, given ALL other parts to the equation had been duly considered. I am also hearing that no one else saw or heard that in my original post so I also apologize for my poor communication.

I thought it was a honest question, I really didn't intend for it to be anything else. :( Sorry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,861 Posts
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about breeding type to type versus breeding pedigree to pedigree (of course, given ALL other considerations [like health] are properly investigated as well). Personally, I am a believer in breeding type to type, the only reason being I am a more visual type of person and can actually see the major contributors on both sides of the equation. The gal I was talking to believes that pedigree to pedigree is just a good as breeding type to type, I don't know so much about this as you could have two different types of dogs and I would think this would possibly throw any probable consistency in the litter to the wind. Breeders: Thoughts? Experiences?
I think that for people who don't have decades in the breed and have not seem much of what came before a dog - the "type" would naturally tend to be more important than pedigree. However, I think that is a mistake that a lot of people make in every breed.......... and I'm speaking as a novice who is contemplating breeding my first litter later this year.

I'm trying to find both type AND pedigree........... and it ain't easy - LOL! Even with both, it is still a bit of a crap shoot to see what you will get.

I also agree that you can have a golden pedigree, but if that particular dog is not an excellent example of the breed, I'd pass them by. Sometimes the more popular (read shown more) brother is the one who gets the bitches, while another brother may not have the flash that won, but does have a good solid standard form........... they may actually produce better than the flashy one.

All I can say is that I spend a lot of time researching pedigrees on DobeQuest and my only lament is that so many dogs don't have a picture on it......... makes me nuts!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sundobe

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,715 Posts
For me as a breeder it's just not that simple. I don't follow any sort of "blueprint" for the "correct" way to breed. There are countless considerations, it's just not that black and white.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,614 Posts
Thanks, I guess my terminology would be off. I looked it up (thanks Cheryl) and Phenotype is what I am meaning to be talking about. So, would you place equal importance on phenotype and pedigree? Or would there be one that would weigh over the other when it comes to the final nuances of that breeding decision? Or does it really matter? Or would it be case by case subjective?

Really, what is the big deal? Or is there even a big deal? I am just trying to understand this a bit better.
SunDobe,

One of the problems I have with the idea of looking at phenotype and choosing breeding pairs according to that is that it is not uncommon to have a dog who is phenotypically what you might choose for your bitch but whose pedigree is full of flaws that should make you stop and think many times about using that particular dog. I can name a good many dogs (and for that matter bitches) who reproduce the faults of their pedigrees--and if you only looked at phenotype you'd be wondering where in the heck the wispy rear and goose rump came from.

I think you need to look at both. And frankly most of the novice breeders don't have enough knowlege to know what a good pedigree looks like. A lot of the time they don't know the dogs even one generation back so while they may have seen the dam and possibly the sire they have no clue about the grandparents.

IF I bred (and I don't--I go and buy the dogs I have--I choose them with both pedigree and parental phenotype in mind) I would want complimentary pedigrees and complimentary good points in the sire and dam with (hopefully) the incorrect things on one parent being supported by correct structure on the other parent.

I don't think you can get the best out of your breeding by not looking at both pedigree and phenotype.
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
SunDobe,

One of the problems I have with the idea of looking at phenotype and choosing breeding pairs according to that is that it is not uncommon to have a dog who is phenotypically what you might choose for your bitch but whose pedigree is full of flaws that should make you stop and think many times about using that particular dog. I can name a good many dogs (and for that matter bitches) who reproduce the faults of their pedigrees--and if you only looked at phenotype you'd be wondering where in the heck the wispy rear and goose rump came from.

.
Exactly. In many cases, phenotype and genotype are two different things.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top