# "Great sires" littermate



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

How many have or would take a chance on breeding to one of the "great sire's" litter mates. Obviously the genetics are there but maybe the littermate doesn't have the titles or maybe never been titled.
I agree that the exact combination of genes will vary from pup to pup but it sees to me the odds could be good.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I would, if the dog passed all my criteria as a stud dog. Lack of titles may just mean lack of an owner willing or able to get those titles. That littermate might even be the better of the 2 dogs as a producer, but not given the chance because he didn't have the titles to make his pups marketable.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

''Great sires'' also can have female littermates - having a really good female is just as important and it is nice to see how the litter produces as a whole. You get some litters that are all over good dogs and good producers of nice dogs.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

I will, but only if the whole litter was consistent and healthy.same reasons as Kadi.


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree with Kadi & Selena. Curiously I was wondering myself why some people choose to breed to the latest great working titled dog? I personally believe the genetics have to be there & the rest is training. I also think what I see for generations (consistency) is more important. What Selena says speaks volumes. I have major concerns when I see pups all looking different. if you study pedigrees you will see the brother of a famous dog producing as well if not better; but as Lynn said the female is integral & I personally look at that line the hardest. JMHO


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

All good answers in particular choosing the female sibling. I've always felt that had a bigger influence then the sire. JMHO since I'm not a breeder.
Obviously those that do breed for the betterment of the dog don't allow just any female to be bred from their studs just for the sake of money. 
If I had a good male I certainly would select a female that would enhance what I was looking for.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> All good answers in particular choosing the female sibling.


I found this interesting but can't think of any instances where the males and females are both good producers. Do you guys have any examples?


----------



## Dana McMahan (Apr 5, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> I found this interesting but can't think of any instances where the males and females are both good producers. Do you guys have any examples?


Rottweilers.... O litter vom Hause Neubrand. Orlando was a top dog and top producer as was his sister Oxana and littermate brother Odin. 

Face/Falco vd Teufelsbrucke were both very good producers. 

I'm not as familiar with malinois pedigrees.... but Feist/Fauxtois have both produced well for LdS and are litter mates.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Dana McMahan said:


> Rottweilers.... O litter vom Hause Neubrand. Orlando was a top dog and top producer as was his sister Oxana and littermate brother Odin.
> 
> Face/Falco vd Teufelsbrucke were both very good producers.
> 
> I'm not as familiar with malinois pedigrees.... but Feist/Fauxtois have both produced well for LdS and are litter mates.


Oh sorry. I should have specified working dogs.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> I found this interesting but can't think of any instances where the males and females are both good producers. Do you guys have any examples?



Javir and Jilnannah vom Talka Marda?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> I found this interesting but can't think of any instances where the males and females are both good producers. Do you guys have any examples?


I don't follow pedigrees that much. Part of the reason I asked the question. 
That would make a great combination......if it worked out. I guess that's the key with any breeding. :lol:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> I found this interesting but can't think of any instances where the males and females are both good producers. Do you guys have any examples?


Wouldn't be a long list. Slovak line german shepherd "D-litter" Va Pe would qualify, IMO.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm finding fairly decent uniformity, but on average my stud produces more amazing females than males. Perhaps this tilt in balance could be explained by the X chromosome, which NONE of his sons, but ALL of his daughters would inherit from him.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> Oh sorry. I should have specified working dogs.


lolz


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

off the top of my head the A litters of de Sauvage Chasseur Alpah and Assina ...and Aika and A' desert der Sonne Entgegen


----------



## Paul R. Konschak (Jun 10, 2010)

A, B, C, and F vom Roten Falken, G vom bosen Buben, and a Von der Wautz for a few


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Paul good choice...g litter of the von bosen Buben w/ gero,gismo and gina... I often look at thier littermates form the B litter von der Bosen Nachbarschaft with Barry and Butsch.


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

"R" litter Calvaire aux Acacias. Rodin, Rocksyde, Ramses... I think were/are all good producing males. Not sure if one any more so or less than the other. Females in the litter also. I've heard from a source that Turcodos van de Duvetorre's brother (don't recall the name) was a waaaaaaaaay stronger producer than Turcodos himself. It is possible to get good producing littermates. Like others have already mentioned there are many cases of this. And also, the female is important in the equation.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I'm finding fairly decent uniformity, but on average my stud produces more amazing females than males. Perhaps this tilt in balance could be explained by the X chromosome, which NONE of his sons, but ALL of his daughters would inherit from him.


No possible dam input? Define "amazing."


T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm on my phone right now so this will be brief, but I was not commenting on either the sire or the dam, but the uniformity of the litter, and the definite difference between male and females. It takes BOTH parents to produce good consistency, and the sex genes will constitute a difference in the group.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Were Max and Manus Tiekerhook littermates?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes, they were littermates.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Yes, they were littermates.


 Which one was the better producer... I assume Max?


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

Genetics being what it is, there is no good way to predict the production of a dog that is a littermate to a great one. In the horse world, where a horse can breed for twenty years or more, there are numerous examples where a full brother, even though some were great performing horses in their own right, didn't produce as well as some. Smart Little Lena had at least two full brothers who fell into obscurity while SLL's offspring won millions. There are also at least two or three CLONES of him(genetically identical) that to the best of my knowledge have produced nothing yet. The cutting horse world's biggest sire High Brow Cat has produced winners of about $50 million while his full brother isn't in the top 200 producers. The gist of this is that despite genetic science being what it is, it's still something of an art as well, and a lot of luck. There are no guarantees with regard to breeding, just educated guesses. One thing to remember is that an animal draws from all its descendants, so the better they are bred, farther back in the pedigree the better the odds, often the animal that is the better individual may not be as strong a breeder. I don't know a scientific way to put it, but there are also some who breed so strong that their offspring are immediately identifiable, they look, act alike. Others don't. After all the analyzing and talk in the world, breeding is still a gamble, and is one of the reasons I'd rather go pick out one after they are born. You can see what you've got instead of guessing/hoping. Someone has to breed them however.


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

High Brow Cat produces down hill horses. They win lots but I wouldnt own one. Hate down hill horses.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

Honestly though, whether dogs or horses, it is about producing good ones. I spent thursday evening on a daughter of Smooth as a Cat. Most of the Cat's are very trainable. Potential is always a wonderful thing, but trainability makes it come together whether, dog, horse, or human. Think Darryl Strawberry, potential for the hall of fame, reality is that his mind made him unworthy of the effort to train him. There are dogs and horses, and lots of people the same way.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I have an article somewhere from earlier this year, the three clones owned by a ranch in South Dakota if I remember right, and still young.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

I think there are five clones, and they are at least 5 yr old, so old enough to breed. I believe all are owned by Tommy Manion and Hanes Chatham, who owned Smart Little Lena. A year or so ago, Phil Rapp had two of them at his place, shortly after their three year old year, it was said they weren't going to show them. If Phil Rapp had them and they weren't showing them, they aren't capable of winning.

When it's all said and done, breeding to a littermate/full brother of a great animal is better than breeding to a complete nothing, but there are no guarantees in breeding anything. There are still females involved too, and unfortunately, that is sometimes the downfall.


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

back to dogs. Would you breed to a son of said great sire or would you breed to the sire? What if the son of is better than all the other sons by far? (diffrent mothers but closely related?)


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

For me the sire almost every time....


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

All depends on the female you bring to him. Better or worse, each dog is_ inarguably different_, so that one might be more appropriate for each situation. For example, you might go to Ellute with one female to produce pups of one purpose, and might go to his brother Vito with another female to produce pups of another purpose. Ellute and Vito's sire Tom might be more ideal in a totally different situation with specifically different breeding aims.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Daniel Lybbert said:


> back to dogs. Would you breed to a son of said great sire or would you breed to the sire? What if the son of is better than all the other sons by far? (diffrent mothers but closely related?)



No guarantee the son can produce what you want. "If" that son has it then it's a good indication of what the sire can produce.
Breed to the sire!


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> All depends on the female you bring to him. Better or worse, each dog is_ inarguably different_, so that one might be more appropriate for each situation. For example, you might go to Ellute with one female to produce pups of one purpose, and might go to his brother Vito with another female to produce pups of another purpose. Ellute and Vito's sire Tom might be more ideal in a totally different situation with specifically different breeding aims.


I concur. Honestly, I tend to find the original line of questioning or thought process in breeding a bit short sighted and far too basic to be productive. I would rather suggest that one utilizes the best dog available to them which most completely compliments the specimen they are looking to breed from. 

Theoretically, the type of dog you end up breeding to or from should be the type of dog you start out with. I've never really understood the concept of breeding for "better". It just seems so random and not surprisingly a contributing factor for why only a small portion of breeders are successful at what they do.

Starting with the best dogs you can find and not compromising along the way is one of the better ways to ensure you keep your program and goals in check.

I have a feeling that people might protest this line of thinking by suggesting this is unrealistic. I'm not looking to argue that point. It's possible and probably is one of the best ways to stack the odds in your favor in order to accomplish what you desire to within a breeding program.


----------

