My question is how much does genetics play in size? If I have a big bitch, does that mean when bred to males her size or bigger Im going to consistently get big dogs on average? she is around 48-50 on the chain, mayday bred bitch.
My question is how much does genetics play in size? If I have a big bitch, does that mean when bred to males her size or bigger Im going to consistently get big dogs on average? she is around 48-50 on the chain, mayday bred bitch.
Cross that bitch and you'll get bigger dogs. Inbred will create smaller dogs.
Inbreeding doesn't produce smaller dogs; breeding to small dogs is what produces small dogs. For example, these inbred dogs were actually larger than the dogs they were inbred on:Originally Posted by OGDOGG
- Silverback (a 36 lber) was triple-bred on Ch Hammer, who was a 32 lber.
- Cherry Coke (a 32 lber) was double-bred on Coca Cola, a 26-lber.
Although my dogs are small in general, what brought the size down "in general" wasn't any inbreeding I did, it was simply using small dogs to begin with, not my inbreeding. If Ch Hammer would have been a 45 (instead of a 32), and if Coca Cola would have been a 39 (instead of a 26), then my highly-inbred family of dogs would have been in the high-30s/mid-40s, rather than in the high-20s/mid-30s.
It was only because I selected small dogs to linebreed on to begin with that made my dogs small, not any inbreeding or linebreeding "by itself"
Actually, there are many highly-inbred strains that are still big in size ... Yellow dogs and OFRN dogs, for example, are all highly-inbred/linebred strains that still remain very large dogs in general.
Jack
LOL.....Thanks Jack. I don't understand what most don't get about such things.
I've fed the same line of dogs for 17 years. I typically get the average size of the family I breed. Males are 50-53Lbs and females are 40-45lbs. I get some bigger and some smaller, but I typically fall within the average.
Breed small dogs, get small dogs. Breed big dogs, get big dogs.
Breed good dogs and you'll get good ones. I know all the benefits with smaller dogs, but in the end size don't mean shit. I know smaller dogs are faster and usually is more entertaining. But to see catchweight dogs go at it for 2 hours is something rare and special to me. I can honestly say I will breed the best one i got no matter if he is a 60 lbs dog or a 30. Weights are out there, it' all about if you are willing to travel for it.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=11761
There are three in this litter all are bigger than average for the yard. Jimmy and Tardo the two males sit on the chain around 50 lbs. Their sister at about 40. Tarzan was about a 43, Cookiedoe probably a 34, Booty would be a 20 something if shaped, Jag was a 50. Got high hopes for this litter they are put together about as good as I could ask.
My last litter of dogs produced two pups who were the average of the line, and 2 others that are significantly larger than just about anything we have bred to in 22 years. My hunch is that the line is starting to overcome the tendency towards filial degeneration, and is actually increasing in vigor because of stringent selection and overall improvement of the line. The other possibility is the skip in generations that I have noticed in the line, and that these dogs are a direct throwback to something deeper than 5-6 generations before we were breeding them. These pups have a 44% Inbreeding Coefficient. The next mating I do, will have a 72% inbreeding coefficient. It will be interesting to see what percentage carry this new larger frame size that has cropped up.
good read it breaks down filial degeneration...
http://www.racingpigeonmall.com/loft...prepotent.html
If you breed her to another 50lb Mayday dog you can expect to get some horses out of that litter I personally don't prefer big catch weight dogs. I recently bred my small 32lb bitch to a big 50 plus pound Barracuda/Buck male and all the pups ended up falling between 40 and 45lb which was cool because once brought down in weight they will be right in the ball park im comfortable with. Now one thing i will say is that I have thought about breeding my bitch to a 31lb male but I was kind of skeptical because I didn't want to end up with a bunch of really tiny dogs lol. But I have seen dogs which seem to decrease in size with a certain degree of inbreeding Ch. Homie when bred to his daughter produced several tiny dogs and he sits around at 50 plus, Also I have noticed that Ch. Ranger dogs when inbred tight seem to throw small dogs and Ranger wasn't a small dog either, also the tight bred Gr. Ch AC stuff when inbred dogs seemed to decrease in size, although i know there are always exceptions and a lot depends on bloodlines and individual dogs, just sharing some of the examples i have seen. Ok enough of my rambling lol but i do agree with the general statement breed big dogs end up with big dogs breed small dogs end up with small dogs.
PS. I haven't been on in a while i would have liked to post the peds of the dogs mentioned seeing as how some of you may not be familiar with the dogs mentioned
One of the things I would like to clarify (and take issue with) in that article is the idea that traits inherited from distant ancestors are "always" calculated based on a fixed % of genes the individual receives as follows.
"50% from each parent
25% from each grandparent
12.5% from each great-grandparent, etc."
Many people act as if traits from distant ancestors "get diluted" with each successive generation, which is absolutely untrue. Take my dog Silverback for example: his 2 key traits (in my judgement) were his seal color and his ability to finish. Well, according to possible interpretations of the above theory, this trait would only come from 6.25% of his pedigree ... yet the reality was it was 100% expressed in him (including his seal color). As I wrote in the Avila's Ouch! thread, I explained how he affected Silverback's traits the way he did. So let's take a look at Silverback's pedigree and look at the percentages:
I have bred my own family of dogs for over 20 years, and I have bred more "linebred Ch Hammer dogs" than any man on the planet, and yet Silverback (although he was triple-bred Ch Hammer), carried almost zero traits of any Hammer dog I ever had. Instead of being a tough, game dog that would go all night and take a killing, Silverback would steamroll what he faced and be killing them almost as soon as the "release" happened. How could this be? Why was he so "different" from typical Hammer dogs, when he was the only triple-bred Hammer dog left alive on the planet?
Well, the the reason Silverback carried the unique (ultra-finishing) traits he did (as well as his seal color) was because of Jessop's Pitfall in the pedigree of Godzuki (aka: Mexican Pete's 410). Jessop's Pitfall was a relative of Gr Ch Zebo and Ozzie's Ch Homer. So, even though "on paper" Silverback only carried 6.25% Pitfall blood, the reality was HER TRAITS are what carried directly to him through whatever random genetic intangibles happen anytime the "genetic deck" is shuffled when you make a breeding.
The fact is, Silverback's seal color, his ultra-powerful backend, and his relentless desire to finish (as opposed to being a typical "game/tough" Hammer dog) were ALL carried directly from Jessop's Pitfall to Needham's Strega, then to Shaeffer's Godzuki (or 410), then to Raina, then to Ouch!, and finally onto Silverback. Therefore, the idea that the % of a dog's influence always divides "by half" in each successive generation is nonsense. Sometimes a dog's traits get passed on IN FULL in each generation.
Let's look at the seal color first. Seal is a derivative of black, and it can be created either via a seal dog or by breeding a chocolate to a buckskin dog. Well, Jessop's Pitfall was a seal dog and she passed on the seal color to Strega. Strega in turn produced the chocolate Godzuki (410), and then Godzuki produced the seal-clored Rueger and Raina when bred to Hammer. When the two seal littermates, Rueger and Raina, were bred together they produced chocolate Ouch! ... who (when bred to the buckskin Missy) produced the seal-colored Silverback.
The POINT is, it's not like the color seal/chocolate was "diluted by half" each time a new dog was bred to ... the fact is this color passed on IN FULL with each successive generation. Therefore, even though "on paper" Silverback is only 6.25% Pitfall, the fact is Silverback was 100% seal himself JUST LIKE JESSOP'S PITFALL WAS. Therefore, even though Silverback was a whopping 50% Ch Hammer "on paper" ... the reality was he was a Jessop's Pitfall dog in physical expression. When people really know their pedigrees, they realize that a certain dog "now" can be more influenced by some dog way back in their pedigree than by dogs that are "up close"
Now, regarding the finishing trait Silverback got from Pitfall, this trait must have been passed on recessively. Pitfall got these traits presumably from the Zebo-type blood behind her. And while she passed it on to Strega and Godzuki (410), it was lost in Ouch's parents Rueger and Raina (who were littermates). And yet, because these littermates were bred to each other to get Ouch!, this doubled-up on Mexican Pete's 410 (Godzuki), a badass bitch, allowing the recessive trait of relentless drive to come out again, because Mexican Pete's 410 (Godzuki) was on both sides of the pedigree (which is what any recessive trait needs in order to "come back" again). So, once again this relentless trait appeared in Ouch!.
Now, although Ouch! wasn't a true finisher, in that he didn't hit "kill spots" like Silverback, Ouch! did relentlessly drive-and-drive for the backend in his style (even though both his parents were head dogs). And when he was bred to Missy, that relentless drive passed onto Silverback, who just "knew where to go" to finish ... a trait that I attribute to only 6.25% of his pedigree that originated in the 5th generation of his pedigree.
Jack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote