# Would you breed



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

To a really spooky dog if he was out of good strong linebred lines and he was accessible to you for breeding. Would you prefer to breed to a solid champion brother?


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

If the dogs are brothers, you still have a chance of producing spooky puppies even if you breed to the one that doesn't show spookiness.

I can't say what I would do because there are so many other factors


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

What do you mean by champion?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren, titled in a working venue.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is the deal and it is something I don't normally share. It is also something I would have never noticed had I conditioned puppies from the get go so they "all" came like "normal" puppies are expected to.

I have talked about two 10th generation crosses that I am going to concentrate on because out of 70 to 80 litters, these are the only crosses that produced "all" confident pups with no handling before 4 weeks. These two crosses, which is interesting in itself, are the same cross with two pairs of bro/sisters. One bro to the others sister and the same in reverse. Four litters to date and not a spooky pup in the lot. I have put together three sisters on each side of these crosses so what I have is Odin/Goldie/Jenny/Jessie for one cross and the other is Wild Bill/Cassidy/Tootsie/Greta. Odin and all three of his girls have produced and Wild Bill and Cassidy have produced. Odin is the only really solid dog, Goldie has come around but is marginal, all the other are as spooky as march hares, but the pups are phenomenal. Now all these spooky dogs came from solid parents on both sides but a percentage of their litters where spooky even though they were solid as rocks. Great looking dogs but spooky. I can't touch them without cornering them. I never would have gotten to see this and realise what I was seeing if I handled the pups.

Another interesting thing is two half brothers that live on top of their dog houses. Not even one of either of their offspring jumps up on a dog house but vitually all their grandpups live on top of their dog houses. The grand kids are offspring of both 1/2 brothers crossed back to the other half brothers offspring....none of which ever got on a dog house.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don,

I can tell you that handling does not mask a genetic spook. I've seen them occur in two of my friendsl litters and all the daily handling from day one didn't change the fact that they were people and environmental spooks. In their own/breeder environment and with the breeder they were fine--i.e. manageable. They couldn't go anywhere else and deal and they couldn't deal effectively with other people. I'm one of those that handles the pups from the time the sac is off and do weekly evaluations which includes time away from the litter and exposure to different environments around my house. It has never changed my ranked order for the puppies which I do at 3, 5 and 7 weeks. I just won't use what I call a genetic spook for breeding. That's rule #1. Rule #2, if either of the breeding partners is less than ideal, my vote is for the male. I'd go with the solid brother. 

Following the breedings is hard for me without drawing it out and certainly how you have inbred on certain traits could factor into the decision. It would all depend on how dominant your confidence is. Which generations had the spooks. Are you again breeding good 10th generation back to weaker? I assumed all of the 10th generation were sound so if you were just using these dogs, its breeding confidence to confidence. I noticed on one of your other posts that you indicated that you hadn't really been able to control expression of confidence, genetically. But,here it indicates that by using breeding partners with less than ideal temperament, you are in fact selecting against it or polluting your gene pool--relying on doubling on the confidence where you have it. ??? So lets say you got away with it with the first cross. Its hard to know phenotype vs genotype and with the next cross, the spooky gene could take over. Given that you know its already there and just goes underground, I would just use the confident pups for breeding. It would be interesting to know what percentage of spooky from spooky + spooky, spooky + confident,, confident+ confident, to narrow down which pairs/crosses/pedigrees produced the greater percentageof confident. Confident pups from litters with the highest number of confident pups with confident parents, would be the first choice--I would think. 

I would love to see marked pedigrees with assesments of the dogs and what they produced as a study tool. If you go to http://www.dogwise.com, there is a very interesting book: Working Dogs: An Attempt To Produce A strain Of GSD Which Combines Working Ability And Beauty Of Conformation. Authors: Elliot Humphrey and Lucien Warner (1934).

Terrasita


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"Spooky" is one of the real turnoffs for me. I'f I see one spooky pup in a litter I'll pass on the rest. That's even withoout the thought of breeding. 
Just one of my quirks!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita, I spent most of 18 years breeding the most confident to the most confident and got a percentage of less confident. Less confident dogs either stand fast or run from you but many of those come around with attention. But, they have already displayed the fact they have not got the same confidence. The parents of these dogs are dead confident dogs so were the grandparents and so forth, they are still spooks. Yet, they produce 100% confidence. I have bred the 10th gen pups that are confident to a less confident bitch and the #'s were still better than earlier crosses with confident dogs. This may be another phenomenon like the 9th generation and the inbred depression. I bred Wild Bill and Jessie(full bother sister) together both spooks and I feel like the pied piper with 90% of them but they don't have as many generations behind them. Terrasita, these dogs are with their breeder and I can't catch them much less take them somewhere else to act spooky. I do know what you mean as far as handling them because I started out handling the pups like everyone else. It still masks the marginal pups. If they are outright spooky, yes, it will show anyway. If you are really curious about what i am talking about. Let your next litter be born outside and don't handle them until they are on their feet and mobile. Then see how many come running to you as opposed to how many decide flight is the best option. I know you won't do it but think about that. Oh I better explain this better. Go ahead and see what sex they are and take pictures if you want, that would hardly be considered Handling in regards to conditioning. The close the whelping box up and leave them alone. They won't all come running to you like people have come to expect pups to do.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita said



> I assumed all of the 10th generation were sound so if you were just using these dogs, its breeding confidence to confidence.


Even breeding confident to confident pups, the likelyhood of all pups being confident is should be highly unlikely since one or both parents is not confident. Breeding confident to confident has never produced 100% confident pups even when all the grandparents and so forth preceeding them have been confident. I original bred two unconfident dogs after studying all the pedigrees and they just seemed like the best cross considering they all carry pretty much the same genetics. I would say the practice of just breeding to the solid dog is pretty questionable since, regardless how good they are at anything has little value when it comes to picking the top producer. Of course people themselve feel better going to the obviously better dog. This is not saying the top dog can't also be the best producer or at least throw "some" solid dogs". It seems throwing a few solid dogs in a litter keeps his standing as a top producer in peoples eyes.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Go ahead and see what sex they are and take pictures if you want, that would hardly be considered Handling in regards to conditioning. The close the whelping box up and leave them alone.


I found out the hard way in grad school there is indeed a handling effect even doing it once. They think what happens is when you pick up the mouse pups to sex them or weigh them or whatever, when you put them back in the box or cage, the mom will groom and lick the pups more (probably due to the smell and/or their ultrasonic vocalizations), which changes their physiology. This was the scientific basis to start of the "Superdog" project. So in grad school, if I ever had to pick up one mouse pup for any reason, all of them had to be picked up. Otherwise the litter would have to be scrapped because they wouldn't be "the same." :-?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don:

Even if you wait to 4-4.5 weeks, you are still within the critical periods for human socialization, so I understand what you are saying. You'll first see some temperament changes that will give you a clue about the mental packet when the eyes open and they then have some vision, hearing and sense of smell. Your 4-4.5 week mark is interesting to me when I think of my last litter. I leased a bitch that isn't the gold mine of my foundation bitch in temperament, but could bring in some desired traits. One of the bitch puppies I really liked up to 4.5 weeks and then she changed. For one that started out the strongest in how I ranked them {almost equal to the #1}, she became the weakest. I always say that with continued development of the nervous system, the earlier evaluations may change. No amount of handling and environment exposure made her stronger. She's not a genetic spook and she certainly has a lot of stock talent but she's weak environmentally and with people. I'll have to take her out and about for a retest to see if she has gotten any better. Her sister has intense stock attraction, brains and does well interacting with strange dogs and people but she is still nervy. All my handling and she still can't settle when I pick her up. So for me, the handling and exposure are actually tests. Mr. Ehret had a chart in a post detailing his puppy testing. I do the same thing, only its in a composition notebook. It really just tells you what you have and how to place the puppies. It doesn't change what they genetically bring to the table. Some environmental things you can do some conditioning with and even people but the breeder knows where the weaknesses are. 

The book I mentioned actually points to some of the phenomenon that you've seen. Generally, they discuss sound sensitivity and body/touch sensitivty and how it transmits genetically. One of the points they brought up to with this breeding project was that they could make certain decisions, like you, because they knew their gene pool. When you are breeding to outside dogs [like me], you don't have that history so its even more of a gamble. I know of an entire line of dogs that is dominant for producing either fluffy brained dogs or outright genetic spooks. So within an inbred gene pool and you know how certain traits transmit genetically, you are playing with a better deck. 

What I'm trying to figure out is when you bred confident to confident, did your percentage of confident amongst the pups increase or was it just inconsistent? The working BC people will say that they don't select for general temperament, just stock work traits. Do the pups that don't come up to you at 4 weeks, hunt okay? I'm also curious how you test for hunting ability [age, situation, etc.] and are there trainability factors. Also [I know this is a lot], when you are inbreeding, are you concentrating the blood of certain dogs and do you do the coefficient stuff. I've been trying to get my hands on anything over the years that dealt with establishing working traits in a breeding program. The GSD program I mentioned looked at: sound sensitivity, body/touch sensitivity, tracking, willingness/trainability, aggression [willingness to bite humans which was affected by maturity] and retrieving was something separate altogether. I've been curious what you look at for traits in the hunting context.

Again, thanks for the education. Most of what I have been able to find out in terms of inbreeding to establish a line was done so much for conformation traits, it didn't have any value in looking at how the mental package is produced.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita, you had mentioned breeding genetically confident pulps to genetically confiident pups. Of course from a scientific approach, that is the way it should work but there is room, as it is highly unlikely to produce 100%, for some variability. The fact that such seemingly poor specimens, can consistently throw such confident offspring, is totally contradictory of any genetic understanding. It should not produce 100% of any one thing in the first place and especially not confidence. I have had a lot of time to think about this since I did notice what was happening as it took place. There is only one logical explanation how this can be happening in spite of what should be happening. I really not here to disprove any theories or scientific assumptions. It just is what it is, not what I can perceive it to be or wish it were. It really does not matter "why" it happened from any scientific standpoint. That it is happening is what counts in the real world. I would say that the only logical explanation is that it is another unexplained phenomenon. =D>

Couldn't help myself but that isn't really what it is. I bet Daryl has a good idea where this may go.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I found out the hard way in grad school there is indeed a handling effect even doing it once. They think what happens is when you pick up the mouse pups to sex them or weigh them or whatever, when you put them back in the box or cage, the mom will groom and lick the pups more (probably due to the smell and/or their ultrasonic vocalizations), which changes their physiology. This was the scientific basis to start of the "Superdog" project. So in grad school, if I ever had to pick up one mouse pup for any reason, all of them had to be picked up. Otherwise the litter would have to be scrapped because they wouldn't be "the same." :-?


Is that supposed to have some relevance to handling a 1 day old pup for a couple of minutes Maren? Mice are sexually mature at what, 4 weeks and the average lifespan is what, 2 years. I suspect there is a lot of difference between mice and pups at 1 day.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Yes. Puppies and mouse pups are actually not too dissimilar points in neonatal development at birth. Regardless of lifespan or sexual development, both are born helpless and hairless and lack thermoregulatory and full neurological development of all their pain receptors. Mouse pups are weaned at 3-4 weeks and dog puppies are weaned at 5-6. Interestingly, mice and dogs are actually more alike in that period than much closer related species, like rabbits (altricial young) and hares (precocial young).

The reason they started the early neurological stimulation program in dogs in the first place was because of the physiological benefits seen in mice, rats, and rabbits. This originally started because researchers noticed differences in separating the pups from the mom for just a minute or two to sex and wean them. It doesn't matter if they are held for a minute or half an hour. Length isn't quite so critical as just the fact you're doing it and if you do it to one of your pups in an experiment, you have to do it to all for control (when I mean "you" I mean "you" if you were a researcher trying to control variables).


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don,

I don't think you would get 100% from breeding only the confident pups, necessarily. You might would weed out the genetic spooks though. I think you would always have some variability because what we collectively refer to as temperament encompasses many traits and as you have indicated, certain traits may be suppressed, but they aren't eliminated. I had assumed you had culled the 4.5 week runaways. It defies theory but one has to keep in mind that Menelian genetics began with plants and there is that idea of polygenic traits and good old mutation. Its why breeding is an art, not science. And then you have the lab rats. Even with my training, I constantly say, dogs aren't lab rats. Nor do I believe in pure science. Laboratory science is highly manipulative and depends on the person manipulating the variables. Its not as objective as the scientists would like you to believe. 

That you could get confident pups from non-confident parents [degree?] somewhat defies several theories both genetic and environmental. [ But it also depends on what "confidence" includes beyond which pups readily come up to you when you open the box]. How often have we said that a spooky mama dog is bound to raise spooky puppies because they will emulate her spookiness even if they were genetically otherwise. However, that said we all know the prepotent dogs or so called dominant producers. I was wondering if you were breeding on certain foundation dogs and whether your confidence line up could be based on the concentration of dogs or a particular group of dogs. Figuring out the why may provide some key information for reproducing it. I don't really care that it doesn't follow the so called theories.

Years ago, a buddy of mine drug me to a Amish puppy mill. He had a row of USDA regulation cages down the center of the room. He opened the top of it and out popped the head of a drop dead corgi bitch. He then began lifting out puppies. There were seven in all. Estimating from my litters, they looked more like my 3 week old puppies instead of 7 week old puppies. When they put them on the floor, most of them just laid there like beached whales, Within a couple of minutes, one of the males, found his legs and began coming towards each of us seeking interaction. I moved around, made a couple of noises and watched him. Didn't phase him. He continued to meet and greet while the littermates were more in a frozen state. I told the friend of mine--"take him and lets go." She responded that I hadn't even handled any of them or done my usual puppy tests. I told her, no need. If she was bound and determined to do something stupid <vbg>, take the puppy that was sound DESPITE the adverse conditions because he obviously genetically had it together. When I first read about your first interaction with your puppies it reminded me of this, so no matter how warm and fuzzy I am, I don't doubt your method.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita, have you seen the pedigree posted at
http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f34/newest-addition-3456/
That is the last 4 generations of an 11th gen pup. It looks pretty much the same in the preceeding4 or 5 generations with more variability in the first couple. The sire on the top of the ped. is a 10th gen pup out of one of the crosses.

I believe, from what I see, had I picked spooky dogs all along, I could now produce 100% spooky litters. Maren is going to love this but I believe what is being seen is another level of homozygosity. That is the only thing that can account for the total contradiction of genetic protocol. While it is not based on scientific speculation, it is what it is and it doesn't really matter why in the real world does it. 

Maren, in the previous thread I had a question regarding the possibility of very inbred dogs having a stronger immune system, as opposed to a depressed one, if their environment required it for survival. I am curious because I had a bout with parvo recently which I mentioned. The 12 week old pups were sick as dogs and all but two made it. I had a litter of 3 week old pups in the same yard at the time. The sick pups would sleep next to the wire with the 3 week olds. I had noticed that non of the pups ever got sick until several weeks after they quit nursing. I gave the younger pups the first vaccination when mom quit feeding them at 7 1/2 weeks. I gave them the second at 10 1/2 weeks. I now let them roam freely in the contaminated yard since they have had the second shot. I don't think they will get sick and if they do, it won't amount to much. Why am I doing this? Because spraying 100's of gallons of bleach did not solve the problem and eradicate the parvo, so, if I can get by by the dogs being impervious to it, it can die out on it's own over time. In have reinstalled misters in the new kennel just in case I am wrong also.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Okay, starting with the top half and looking at confidence only. CC-completely confident; cc--total spook that didn't resolve by adulthood; Cc--not a unresolved spook but not completely confident either. How would you assess Winchester, Annie-O, Bailey, Molly Dolly Varden [outcross?], Critter's Ramblin Reflection, Titan, Madison, Hunter, Cassidy, Curly Bil and Magnum.

Next, for Hunter, Maddison, Titan, Bailey, Cassidy, Curly Bil, and Magnum, what was the breakdown amongst the litter makes in terms of #CC, #cc and #Cc? 

Finally, with Gunfighter, did you get all CC or a mixture of CC and Cc?


Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

All the dogs mentioned were CC except for Curly Bil and Cassidy which are spooks. I no longer have Curly and Wild Bill is his brother and also replaced him. Hunter and Maddison were solid and still are but produce 1/3 spooks.
Gunfighter was CC but his mom Snake is cc and he was an only child.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita, all this figuring is for naught. If confidence always produced confidence and such, every one would be breeding litters full of top dogs. Believe me when I say that when I saw the confidence in the 10th generation pups I was a bit more than startled. It just did not figure. From a genetic standpoint, it still doesn't.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Ohhh, I don't know, it makes me wonder how so called homozygous certain traits can be and in a gene pool such as yours how looking at the population as a whole instead of just sire/dam transmission to the pups influences the outcome. I'm curious whether you got more spooks out of Bailey bred to Titan vs. Hunter/Madison? 



Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I would say the spooks were close to even in those two crosses. Maybe a slight bit more on the Hunter Maddison cross because they threw bigger litters.

One of the 10th generation litters is the one I just started letting out of the pen today because the got their 2nd shots Friday. I had them out for an hour or so this evening and I sat off to the side in the yard with them....and just watched them. I sat on the ground for the interaction. First off they went wild and then, methodically started wandering around then yard, checking it out. They paraded over to see me in twos and threes. I noticed something that literally blew me away. Every last one of those pups was carrying a stick in it's mouth as the walked around the yard. This is a trait exclusive to Titan, their grandfather. He does it to this day at close to seven. He always carries a stick around. I kid you not, to see all 9 pups strutting around the yard carring sticks was almost more than I could handle. They were not playing with the sticks, just carrying them. The only difference in phenotype is the size and some have longer hair than the others but the coloring and marking is the same. They could be divided in to the short coats and the longer coats. Two groups. I noticed Odin and Goldie had two distinct looks also but each type was the same.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I ****ing love this shit.:-D Too bad I have been too busy the last couple of days, this was a good example of breeding styles clashing. Don, you are giving out too many secrets man ! ! ! ! 

Producing litters does not make you a breeder for sure. You are proving that BIGTIME here.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Actually, its not breeding styles clashing but discussing a particular breeding style and what it produces. We have a guy that has come out for club training that has working terriers and like Don, has inbred with a vengeance. However, selecting for hunting and that killer instinct and culling the rest, he produced puppies that he describes as so aggressive, they try to kill each other by the time they are 5 weeks old. Dealing with an inbred population [10 generations] is a whole other ballgame with its own set of rules as far as what you get. 

Intense inbreeding isn't new. Just about every breed out there was established that way. What's been interesting about Don's is what he has in phenotype is one thing and it doesn't necessarily predict genotype or what he gets in the puppies.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What is interesting Jeff is that noting that all of one of these crosses all stay on top of their dog houses, while another all carry sticks in there mouths down to the last one of them, went totally unnoticed. It is significant that whole litters have the same exact traits in a particular litter but the trait varies from litter to litter. Everyone is till trying to make sense of the spooky dogs breeding solid dogs. I found it a bit spooky myself when, the first time they were turned loose in the yard at 10 weeks, I looked up and saw a stick in every mouth. It is enough to blow your mind.
I could call UC Davis and ask them if they want to see what homozygous is in dogs. They wouldn't. They think they already know it. 

The full brother/sister cross I did. I still have three of the pups.They may have a compromised immune system but every one of them had parvo, didn't see a vet, and I am still feeding them. What makes it worse is that after 20 years of looking at pups and knowing who was who, these three pups can be sitting right in front of me and I can't tell who is who and they have never been bred for appearance.
Homozygosity may have it's drawbacks in the wild but the reality is it isn't a bad thing in domestic dogs. If it is, why are they trying to clone dogs and people.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a picture of some of the 10th generation pups from a 10 week old litter. This is their second day out of the kennel they have been raised in because the yard had some parvo pups in it recently and I wanted them to have their second shots. This is what they are like not being handled for the first four weeks and very little interaction for the next six weeks other than pat's on the head and picking them up for 30 seconds or so once and a while. The whole litter is like this but the rest are off exploring. I can pick any of these pups up anytime I want. This is the litter that all carries sticks. This litter is from a solid male and a female I can't touch.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: "Spooky" is one of the real turnoffs for me. I'f I see one spooky pup in a litter I'll pass on the rest. That's even withoout the thought of breeding. 
Just one of my quirks!

Where do you think sharp comes from?????? LOL

Don, those are some good looking pups for sure. It is very hard for mainstream breeders to go "against the grain", as so many no breeders (read buyers)are so sure that they know what is right. The internet has made a lot of "experts" over the years whose information is based only on what they have read. It is a shame, as I was really interested in a mother son cross that was anounced, but never happened. THAT one made me really curious. I thought some good stuff would have came from that.

I remember lamenting years ago how many dogs that were taken out of the gene pool because of slight HD, when EVERYTHING else about the dog was soooooo nice. Dumb assses:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I have been training with Buko a lot lately, and will be attempting to get his three by the end of Dec.

I do get real curious about these pups of yours, so quit the pictures LOL normally I don't get that way. #-o


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This stuff fascinates me too Jeff. I can understand others have some trouble getting their minds around it. I did too but I have over two years and several litters of basically the smae cross with different sisters. What the real question is....If sppoks can throiw 100% solid dogs, can they also throw 100% spooks. I suspect it is a level of homozygosity that is over riding the natural progression of genetics, as we see it of course, so it might be possible that I could see a litter of spooks out of one of the younger sisters not yet bred...and I suspect it would, likewise, be the whole litter.
Likewise, consider this. If the spooks are capable of throwing 100% solid dogs, that tells me that the genetics is completely set in the spooky dogs generatioin but is not expressed. The questions are endless....and no one really knows the answers. I don't particularily care either but, knowing a few of the answers may give me an idea if I should expect a litter of spooks. It may have been a stroke of luck that I liked the 10thy gen pups so much and well enough to collect numerous siblings to breed. Six solid litters(three each way) from these dogs says more than what breeding one sister could ever tell anyone.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don:

When you look at Gunfighter's [11th] pedigree he is out of one solid dog [Magnum] and one spooky dog [Snake-dam]. My understanding from your earlier posts is that your two sets are Odin--Jenny, Jessie, Goldie and Wild Bill---Cassidy, Tootsie, Greta. It seemed from your earlier post also that you were replacing Curly Bill with his brother Wild Bill and that Wild Bill was a stable dog; i.e. the question would you breed to a stable dog or his spooky brother if there was solid linebreeding??? My impression is that you are breeding solid males to spooky bitches so its not two spooky parents producing 100% solid litters, judging how they first interact with you in their own physical environment. Who is the sire and dam of the little guys in the picture?

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don:
> 
> When you look at Gunfighter's [11th] pedigree he is out of one solid dog [Magnum] and one spooky dog [Snake-dam]. My understanding from your earlier posts is that your two sets are Odin--Jenny, Jessie, Goldie and Wild Bill---Cassidy, Tootsie, Greta. It seemed from your earlier post also that you were replacing Curly Bill with his brother Wild Bill and that Wild Bill was a stable dog; i.e. the question would you breed to a stable dog or his spooky brother if there was solid linebreeding??? My impression is that you are breeding solid males to spooky bitches so its not two spooky parents producing 100% solid litters, judging how they first interact with you in their own physical environment. Who is the sire and dam of the little guys in the picture?
> 
> Terrasita


Wild Bill is as spooky as Curly Bil. I use Wild Bill with Cassidy and they are both spooky. Magnum is out of this cross as is Natasha. As a matter of fact, Cassidy just whelped last night. 8 girls and a boy. Now is when I get to see if it made any difference getting rid of Curly Bil and substituting his brother. I don't think it will have any affect on the outcome but, we will have to wait and see.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

So just for clarification, Magnum, Natasha and their other littermates [total #], all confident out of two spooky parents [Curly Bill & Cassidy]? How many litters out of the 10th generation sets have you had?

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This is the 5th that just hit the ground Terrasita. The question on this one is will switching the brothers make any difference. One of the big differences is the litters have gone to an average of about 9 to 12 pups and they are all strong pups again with a 10 % or less loss ratio as opposed to 60% to 80%.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: "Spooky" is one of the real turnoffs for me. I'f I see one spooky pup in a litter I'll pass on the rest. That's even withoout the thought of breeding.
> Just one of my quirks!
> 
> Where do you think sharp comes from?????? LOL
> ...


Jef, this is where the definition of spook comes into play for me. I see a big difference between sharp and spooky. If I were looking for a sharp dog it would be one quick to alert and move forward with confident aggression. My older GSD has a sharp side that can easily be tapped into. He's never shown any avoidance or spooky behaviour in his 4 1/2 yrs. A spooky dog is going to turn tail and beat feet. At best it will just avoid situations. 
Maybe this is why I gave up on the two Mals I tried. In drive they were nice dogs. Out of drive they were G&S dogs. 
I do agree on the HD thing. I think there are other genes that allow a dog to "overlook" hip problems. If we could find that magic # those dogs would add a lot to the breeding programs.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

When I have found a dog that is my definition of sharp, I have found that there are spooks in the litter.

I like the way it looks, but it is such a fine line, and doesn't produce itself.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here are one of the tests I put them thru. These are 10 week olds that are out of their kennel for the first time last Tues because of the parvo in the yard. This is the first time they have been on an elevated surface(28").
If they won't come to me at 4 weeks, they aren going to jump off the platform either. Tails all straight up, and they actually jump instead of try to slide down the side. Every one in the litter jumped right off. Disclaimer" Don't you folks at home try this with your pups.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I'd have to re-read all the posts, but what are the grandparents of these pups like? In many litters I've seen the grandparents have as much or more influence then the parents. My litters aren't even close to as inbred as yours, so I've only seen the "grandparent expression" in some of the pups, and different grandparents at that. But I'm curious if you are getting solid pups out of spooks because the grandparents were solid? Eventually it would be interesting to know if you breed these solid pups, will they tend to throw solid, or will they throw spooks?

I like the doghouse thing, I've done that with pups before but on a horse feed trough that I turned upside down. It's interesting watching who just banzaii's off the side, who thinks about it then hops off, and who just stays up there and cries. And then after they have done it once, who will do it a second time, and is there any change in their reaction to it. People are funny, I have a video on the web of a litter of pups chasing my son up some strairs, someone actually posted a comment about what a bad idea that was because of the strain it was putting on their hips. It's puppies running up stairs, if that's going to cause HD, I'd like to know that, so I can weed those dogs out.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Kadi, I figured I may get a comment or two about the pups joints, yadda yadda. That's why I put the last blurb in there.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: I have a video on the web of a litter of pups chasing my son up some strairs, someone actually posted a comment about what a bad idea that was because of the strain it was putting on their hips.

Obviously people have no idea where the strain would actually be occuring with that comment.

Don, WTF ???? How dare you jump puppies before they are 3 years old. LOL This is all shit that show people started to defend the crap they were producing, to give a reason why "YOU" ****ed up the puppy, and it has been repeated ad nauseum until it is taken as fact.

It is like the poor new people that want to exersize their dog, but all they get as advice is crap. Wait till this closes, wait till this happens, and the poor dog breaks anyway, because it was so out of shape.](*,)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don,

Does Magnum, Bailey, and Madison hunt. Also, have you started Gunfighter yet?

Terrasita


----------



## Meena Moitra (Jul 11, 2008)

Don, is this your way of suggesting pups are agility prospects?
All in good fun. And it is always terrific to see Airedale puppy exhuberence!


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> Don, WTF ???? How dare you jump puppies before they are 3 years old.


I know, its all my fault that Cujos hips are terrible  If I had gotten a house with no stairs he'd have perfect hips today. ****.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

My favorite WTF of all time was when they lowered the jumps at AKC trials stating that too many dogs were getting hurt. No one mentioned, (more like no one listened) that the dogs were getting hurt through unsafe application (read "forgot") of tape on mats. 

Then all the blue hairs went around and said that the jumps were much safer, bla bla bla.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

They use mats!!! Must be an indoor thing. LOL


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> My favorite WTF of all time was when they lowered the jumps at AKC trials stating that too many dogs were getting hurt. No one mentioned, (more like no one listened) that the dogs were getting hurt through unsafe application (read "forgot") of tape on mats.
> 
> Then all the blue hairs went around and said that the jumps were much safer, bla bla bla.


 
Not to mention the out of condition couch potatoes trying to jump. When I went back into the AKC ob ring a couple of yrs ago I wasn't aware of the changes. Blew my mind when they said I only had to jump 26" with my 25 1 1/2" dog. Used to be they jumped 1 1/2 time their withers. 

Don, inside, with air conditioning and heaven forbid if one of our bite trained dogs got to close to their furbabies. I've had a couple of folks ask the judge to rearange the sits and downs cause they didn't want their babies to be so close to biting dogs. :roll: Request denied! :lol: 
I came back in from the out of sight sits and downs once and the Terv next to my dog had gotten up, moved in front of my dog and layed back down with his tail touching my dog's face. My dog didn't move an inch but all I heard about was how "that Terv didn't know how lucky he was to get away with that". :-& :-&


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

oh lucky Terv!!! i take it it was Thunder who didn't chew it up?? GOOD Thunder!!! what do you do to deal w/these breed registeries??


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don, they had mats so the dog didn't have to walk on the concrete, I guess.

I watched a lot of dogs take good spills when the mat skidded out from under them on jumps, and on recalls. God forbid if your dog had a good recall. THe jumps had mats on both sides. ](*,)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Here is the deal and it is something I don't normally share. It is also something I would have never noticed had I conditioned puppies from the get go so they "all" came like "normal" puppies are expected to.
> 
> I have talked about two 10th generation crosses that I am going to concentrate on because out of 70 to 80 litters, these are the only crosses that produced "all" confident pups with no handling before 4 weeks. These two crosses, which is interesting in itself, are the same cross with two pairs of bro/sisters. One bro to the others sister and the same in reverse. Four litters to date and not a spooky pup in the lot. I have put together three sisters on each side of these crosses so what I have is Odin/Goldie/Jenny/Jessie for one cross and the other is Wild Bill/Cassidy/Tootsie/Greta. Odin and all three of his girls have produced and Wild Bill and Cassidy have produced. Odin is the only really solid dog, Goldie has come around but is marginal, all the other are as spooky as march hares, but the pups are phenomenal. Now all these spooky dogs came from solid parents on both sides but a percentage of their litters where spooky even though they were solid as rocks. Great looking dogs but spooky. I can't touch them without cornering them. I never would have gotten to see this and realise what I was seeing if I handled the pups.
> 
> Another interesting thing is two half brothers that live on top of their dog houses. Not even one of either of their offspring jumps up on a dog house but vitually all their grandpups live on top of their dog houses. The grand kids are offspring of both 1/2 brothers crossed back to the other half brothers offspring....none of which ever got on a dog house.


Here is the way I see what has happened. Environmental causes are out because there are just to many litters, as a matter of fact, all the litters were raised exactly the same in identical whelping boxes. All were exposed to the same environment and evaluated before they were exposed to more than a few feet around the front of the whelping box. Genetically, it doesn't stand to reason that two parents that act, actually more feral than spooky, would be capable of throwing 100% solid pups since in all the previous litters to the last 4, solid parents could never throw 100% solid pups. In going back and looking for what was different in the last 4 litters, I realized there was a major difference, It is also the reason why the solid parents could never throw 100% solid litters even as close as they are bred. Going back to what I have mentioned in the past, the tighter the dogs were bred, the more severe the losses but they still threw litters of 8 to 14 pups normally Every litter had stillborn pups in it and normally they took an exorbitant amount of time for the bitch to pass. These litters took 1 1/2 days to 2 days to whelp. Then pup following those stillborn pups were likely affected and acted more feral or spooky possibly from a lack of oxygen, stress or another factor. If this were the case, these spooky pups would in fact have the same genetic makeup as the solid pups but suffered some damage from the extended time in delivery. All four of the 100% litters were whelped extremely fast with no dead pups. One litter of 11 was on the ground in 3 1/2 hrs...all born alive and healthy. A litter of 14 was on the ground in 4 1/2 hrs....all alive and healthy. These litters came about after the inbred depressed litters had passed. The spookiness was not genetic so the dogs are as fully capable of producing solid litters as the solid dogs are. As tight as the dogs are bred, the solid dogs would have thrown solid litters all along except for the length of time whelping. Now I am curious about the breed as a whole because spookiness could almost be considered a breed trait it is seemingly so common. One has to wonder if there is a high incidence of problem births in show dogs due to poor breeding practices of show type airedales.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don, you are making the "genetic" people cry here, all their notions on breeding are getting thrown out the window. LOL Put this out in a book, maybe we will get something going here in the states LOL

You made some really good points here, I wonder if any other (non puppy mill) breeders have had any kind of observations like this. Then again, why would they, they probably don't breed anytrhing but outcross.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Don, you are making the "genetic" people cry here, all their notions on breeding are getting thrown out the window. LOL Put this out in a book, maybe we will get something going here in the states LOL
> 
> You made some really good points here, I wonder if any other (non puppy mill) breeders have had any kind of observations like this. Then again, why would they, they probably don't breed anytrhing but outcross.


Jeff, the first cross I saw the 100% in, the pups are now 2 1/2 years old. One can guess, imagine, breed mice and form opinions based on weak evidence, I could have done this 2 1/2 years ago and may have to some extent but, the fact was, there was not yet a pattern of evidence. It is tough to make a pattern out of one, possibly random breeding. You need something to base valid opinions on. Why is the 9th generation and the loss of inbred depression reduced to "two good old boys that inbreed discussing things over a cold one" by the scientific world. I understand they have seen this phenomenon in mice at the 7th generation I believe. You would think from a scientific standpoint it would be important. Why is it played down....possibly because it disproves to much that they have claimed as fact. Who knows, who cares. I would be curios as to how they would explain the 20 % survival rate of not long ago to 100% now since the dogs were tightened every time. I am sure they would think of something but they should at least touch a pup that is inbred depressed before they qualify them as experts in the field.

The same can be said for the pups I have raised in the yard with parvo. At three weeks of age these pups had older pups deathly ill laying on the other side of the wire but touching them. I went over and over what was the same and what was different over the years that had parvo. Never lost a pup through many years and suddenly lost them on occasion. Once the patterns of similarity and patterns of difference were established, some of the shot schedules were changed and some mechanical changes to specific yards and we are good to go. Of course it did help that the pups are highly resistant to parvo....probably because they are tightly inbred.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Jeff, the first cross I saw the 100% in, the pups are now 2 1/2 years old. One can guess, imagine, breed mice and form opinions based on weak evidence, I could have done this 2 1/2 years ago and may have to some extent but, the fact was, there was not yet a pattern of evidence. It is tough to make a pattern out of one, possibly random breeding. You need something to base valid opinions on. Why is the 9th generation and the loss of inbred depression reduced to "*two good old boys that inbreed discussing things over a cold one" by the scientific world.* I understand they have seen this phenomenon in mice at the 7th generation I believe. You would think from a scientific standpoint it would be important. Why is it played down....possibly because it disproves to much that they have claimed as fact. Who knows, who cares. I would be curios as to how they would explain the 20 % survival rate of not long ago to 100% now since the dogs were tightened every time. I am sure they would think of something but they should at least touch a pup that is inbred depressed before they qualify them as experts in the field.



Very simple, Don. I can tell that many lay folks are downright scared of science like it's an evil entity. But that's not what the scientific method is all about. What it is all about is using good statistics (the simpler the better), big sample sizes, a good control group(s), as few of variables as possible, good experimental design, and a peer reviewed and refereed format to have evidence to make claims. Otherwise, it's just wizardry, as my epidemiology professor would say. This used to happen all the time in medicine (both human and animal) that people with lots of degrees would say "well, in my experience..." Unfortunately, as I've said before, "in my experience" is not evidence based medicine or science. Sorry. Basically what you have in your example are incomplete case studies. Complete case studies are interesting and can be published in some of the peer reviewed biomedical literature, but it is becoming less and less frequent. It is the lowest on the rung of the evidence based medicine ladder. 

I'd imagine that part of the reason that either scientists or veterinary or human doctors would sound dismissive is that do you guys realize how many crazy things that we hear from clients that their breeders tell them to do "based on my experience?" It may have been total coincidence. They may be onto something. But until there are good solid statistical work done, we just don't know and making claims on small sample sizes is just not sound. When I say this, it's not personal, it's just that it's just speculation. Which is okay, cause everyone is allowed to speculate. But the problem is not so much what you are presenting, but how you are presenting your experiences that others may take as universal truth. Just my perception. :-k

And this outlook of mine isn't limited to inbreeding. There's a lot of other "wizardry" within holistic and/or homeopathic medicine that is unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean it's "wrong," it just means it is unsubstantiated. But as someone trained as a scientist and someone being trained in medicine, that just won't always fly with me. Especially when it's something that could be critical to a patient's health, like various misconceptions about dogs and raw feeding, for instance (ex: freezing kills bacteria, dogs are carnivores, by-products and grains are universally bad, etc etc etc). Same kind of deal. I don't mind answering questions, but I'm growing a bit weary of the same old thing.





> The same can be said for the pups I have raised in the yard with parvo. At three weeks of age these pups had older pups deathly ill laying on the other side of the wire but touching them. I went over and over what was the same and what was different over the years that had parvo. Never lost a pup through many years and suddenly lost them on occasion. Once the patterns of similarity and patterns of difference were established, some of the shot schedules were changed and some mechanical changes to specific yards and we are good to go. *Of course it did help that the pups are highly resistant to parvo....probably because they are tightly inbred*.


Here's the deal with the parvo issue. I remember asking you on the other thread about their history, but I don't think you specified their age. No, inbreeding has nothing to do with their "immunity" to parvo. This is why you need to know the science before you make claims, scientific or otherwise. 

They likely weren't affected because if their mom still had good antibodies that she passed to them in utero and in the colostrum in the early milk, 3 week old pups would still be protected. Horses and cattle, because they have a non-invasive placenta, get little to no maternal antibodies in utero and MUST get it in the colostrum (as everyone who raises cattle and horses knows). Humans don't need it as much (which is why human babies can survive on formula, though this is not preferred) because we have a highly invasive placenta (along with rodents), so we get ours mostly from the communication of the placenta. Dogs and cats are in between horses and cattle versus humans and rodents so they get it both ways.

Moving on, the maternal antibodies interfere with the pup's ability to mount a proper vaccine response. Until they go away, the pup is typically protected from disease (but not infection). They don't usually wane until at least 6-8 weeks and sometimes as late as 20 weeks. This is why we are not typically vaccinating for parvo until 7-8 weeks anymore as a general rule because by 6 weeks, only a third of the pups have lost enough of the maternal antibodies for the vaccine to do anything. This is also why they get a booster shot at a year old to make sure they are covered in case there's an outlier who keeps on having maternal antibody present past the time of the last vaccination since most vax protocols have them stop at 12 or 16 weeks. 

I think (but don't know for sure) that this is the same reason that even if you do a 3 year rabies, in most states and areas, you're supposed to get it by 12 to 16 weeks (I chose not in my own pup due to his vaccination reaction to a modified live vaccine until he was 7 months old, but anywho). They make you do it again a year later for that same reason: they want to make sure there actually was the pup's own immune response to the vaccine and no interference by mom's antibodies. Add in the body's immune system does not respond to a killed vaccine like rabies as robustly as it does with a modified live (which is why adjuvant is added to make the immune system more angry), and this is why you have to do it at around 4ish months, 1 year 4 months, and then every 3 or whatever after that. Make sense?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> And this outlook of mine isn't limited to inbreeding. There's a lot of other "wizardry" within holistic and/or homeopathic medicine that is unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean it's "wrong," it just means it is unsubstantiated. But as someone trained as a scientist and someone being trained in medicine, that just won't always fly with me. Especially when it's something that could be critical to a patient's health, like various misconceptions about dogs and raw feeding, for instance (ex: freezing kills bacteria, dogs are carnivores, by-products and grains are universally bad, etc etc etc). ....


Homeopathy in particular (IMO) is loaded with unsubstantiated claims. So much so that I hate to use _holistic_ and _homeopathic _as almost interchangeable terms. Considering the entire patient when treating a disease is so not the same thing as treating a disease with tiny doses of drugs that produce the symptoms of the disease. The terms have become confused, probably because some holistic MDs and DVMs are also homeopaths.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> ... various misconceptions about dogs and raw feeding, for instance (ex: freezing kills bacteria, dogs are carnivores, by-products and grains are universally bad, etc etc etc).


These misconceptions are probably more along the lines of "a little knowledge" than anecdotal evidence, I'd say, though, wouldn't you?

Bits of information about the omnivore scavenger dog being designed to get the bulk of its protein from meat, about what might be included in some by-products, and about the problems in a daily forever diet for dogs that's based on grains -- are simply the "little bit of knowledge" that turns into a "dangerous thing."


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Well, it's partially knowledge and partially "well, I've fed raw for x number of months/years/whatever with no veggies or tripe and _in my experience_, my dogs have been fine because clearly, dogs are carnivores." A little of column A, a little of column B, someone makes a website on it that is often cited when one does a search on raw diets, and all the sudden, it's what everyone follows without thinking whether it makes sense or not. I talked extensively with Dr. Sean Delaney, who is the president elect of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition and also the chief medical officer of Natura, about that on our tour of their manufacturing facility in Nebraska. He was quite interested to hear my reasoning behind what I feed. In addition, a group of holistic nutrition oriented vets may be getting together some numbers in the near future on retrospective studies on those sorts of issues. I can't wait! \\/


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> I don't mind answering questions, but I'm growing a bit weary of the same old thing.


Ok, you made an open statement that inbreeding compromises an dogs immune system. If a population of inbred dogs was brought up in a pathogen friendly environement, is it possible that the inbred population would have to develope a stronger immune system than that of dogs that are raised in a pathogen unfriendly environment?

Maren, while you grow weary of the comments I make, you glibly say that the lions in Ngorongoro crater are dying from a blackfly infestation due to inbreeding and a general lack of immunity. You fail to point out animals die all over the world due to blackflies that are not inbred. But you made your point....inbreeding is bad.

You say inbreeding compromises the immune system Then later you say everyones dogs have a compromised immune system as they have all been inbred. But, you made your point again....inbreeding is bad.


Do you really see your open ended comments as something that has solid scientific merit. They have no more merit than what I am saying. Your intentions are to make inbreeding look evil, mine, while it doesn't make inbreeding look good by any means with a 20% survival over a number of years, is an attempt to give a more acurrate picture than what you are. I can do that realistically because I have done what I am talking about, science hasn't.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Well, it's partially knowledge and partially "well, I've fed raw for x number of months/years/whatever with no veggies or tripe and _in my experience_, my dogs have been fine because clearly, dogs are carnivores." ....


Yes, the prey-model folks have annoyed the heck out of me at times, too. :lol:



Maren Bell Jones said:


> In addition, a group of holistic nutrition oriented vets may be getting together some numbers in the near future on retrospective studies on those sorts of issues. I can't wait!....


Me too, me too!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

In regards to my assessment of what I figure is going on with the dogs. From a scientific standpoint, can you offer a better or more plausible scenario? I seriously doubt you can because this is what I do and I am better than fair at figuring out the whys and what fors., but, scientifically, you may be able to fill in the blank places regarding an extended length of time being born. Would or could the be impairment caused? Possibly what from. You have to realize, this is information you may have that I think is important. This is your field and this I won't question.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Going back to what I have mentioned in the past, the tighter the dogs were bred, the more severe the losses but they still threw litters of 8 to 14 pups normally Every litter had stillborn pups in it and normally they took an exorbitant amount of time for the bitch to pass. These litters took 1 1/2 days to 2 days to whelp. Then pup following those stillborn pups were likely affected and acted more feral or spooky possibly from a lack of oxygen, stress or another factor. If this were the case, these spooky pups would in fact have the same genetic makeup as the solid pups but suffered some damage from the extended time in delivery. All four of the 100% litters were whelped extremely fast with no dead pups. One litter of 11 was on the ground in 3 1/2 hrs...all born alive and healthy. A litter of 14 was on the ground in 4 1/2 hrs....all alive and healthy. These litters came about after the inbred depressed litters had passed. The spookiness was not genetic so the dogs are as fully capable of producing solid litters as the solid dogs are. As tight as the dogs are bred, the solid dogs would have thrown solid litters all along except for the length of time whelping. Now I am curious about the breed as a whole because spookiness could almost be considered a breed trait it is seemingly so common. One has to wonder if there is a high incidence of problem births in show dogs due to poor breeding practices of show type airedales.





Don Turnipseed said:


> In regards to my assessment of what I figure is going on with the dogs. From a scientific standpoint, can you offer a better or more plausible scenario? I seriously doubt you can because this is what I do and I am better than fair at figuring out the whys and what fors., but, scientifically, you may be able to fill in the blank places regarding an extended length of time being born. Would or could the be impairment caused? Possibly what from. You have to realize, this is information you may have that I think is important. This is your field and this I won't question.



Don, I have a simpleton question to clarify the hypothesis (for me). You are saying that problem (slow) births might be a factor in the commonness of spookiness in the breed?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Don, I have a simpleton question to clarify the hypothesis (for me). You are saying that problem (slow) births might be a factor in the commonness of spookiness in the breed?


Connie, I would say with my dogs for sure. As for the breed, I don't know. Just a thought since spookieness is a common trait. A few of my dogs dogs act more feral rather than spooky. They are feral acting around people but nothing else about them is less than confident. A good percentage of show dogs are spooky about a lot of things. For instance, if they walk into a kitchen and a broom is on the wrong side of the doorway, they will jump halfway across the kitchen. I supect it is more poor selection than what I see in my dogs. But, it is a thought.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maybe we can try this one for about the fourth time.



> I don't mind answering questions, but I'm growing a bit weary of the same old thing.


Ok, you made an open statement that inbreeding compromises an dogs immune system. If a population of inbred dogs was brought up in a pathogen rich environment, is it possible and even more likely, that the inbred population would have to develop a stronger immune system to survive as compared to dogs raised in a more sterile environments such as inside the house.

This question has been skirted about 3 other times but, what I am seeing is that inbreeding is being portrayed as the sole reason for having a compromised immune system. We have already established that "any dog" can develop a compromised immune system. I would think that environment also plays a tremendous role in the immune system. 

I think I could safely say that raising dogs in the more sterile environment of a house is going to create an over all weaker immune system than that of a tighter bred line that is allowed to run free and go through garbage cans on a daily basis. With this in mind, I would be justified in saying that raising dogs in the house compromises a dogs immune system. Another one might be that giving vaccinations has compromised "all" dogs "natural" immune systems. Would that be a good assumption? Just curious as to where the line is drawn.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Getting back to what I am seeing as the cause of the spooky dogs. I really tried to make the cause, a higher level of homozygosity, work but I just couldn't get all the parts to fit. This was my assumption after the first litter 2 1/2 years ago. There was also a possiblity it was actually the two crosses responsible so I now, in the last 2 1/2 years have two sets of 3 sisters each and I really only needed one because the first possibility was off base. On the other hand, had I not had them, I could not have come to any conslusion. Kind of a Catch 22.

It has always been the accepted fact that inbreeding creates squirrelly dogs. Personally, I would have to question the validity to that "assumption". While, they are spooky and it is a result of the process of inbreeding, the pups I am seeing now are phenomenal across the board but you have to get past the inbred depression. This may be a moot point because no one is up to 20years of heavy in breeding. It may give lighter linebreeding more credence but, even after 20 years of that you have the time in and possibly not gone as far dog wise. In the end, people will breed whichever way they believe is right. Some tight, some not tight, but, in the end, it is the variations of breeding styles and purposes that will keep the breeds strong. Since they are not alowed to run free, they obviously can't create any diversity on their own.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don, I worked a t a research facility for a dog food company and they bred dogs very tightly. I was seeing the 17th generation dogs, and while they were smaller than what I was used to seeing in the breed, they did not have any significant weakness in the immune system that I could find when I was looking through previous data trying to figure out why they had 17 gen dogs and they were not 1 eyed monsters. Unfortunately, the notes were scattered, and not of much interest, other than what increasing this or that in the formula would do for the dogspups/seniors ect.

From a scientific standpoint, I cannot see anyone giving a researcher money to breed to see what happens with extensive inbreeding, nor would I trust a researcher to be able to come up with any "real life" conclusions, as I doubt that they would know what they were doing other than inbreeding in general. However, since there are always ways of getting grants, perhaps that is what I will look into in the future. I am sure that some company would be interested in learning the truth. LOL

With todays sensitive pants outlook on everything, and how "mean" it is to own dogs, it is really nice to find someone that can lay it all out there and let the world look at what they are doing....contrary to what is the accepted practice. When you can just let the chips fall where they may with the puppies, I am seeing even more than before how people are breeding for money. This thread has given me an aweful lot to think about, and produced a liot of good discussions with some of my non internet dog friends

Now, as far as food goes, I have seen dogs fed pretty much nothing of value and the dogs were probably not on the top of my list of great looking dogs, but lived halfway through their teens. The advantage and big draw of the raw diet is the pretty eyes and coat, and energy, and all this can be duplicated by giving the dog a fat supplement (raw fat) THere is no magic there, as I have said over and over that dry dog food can not normally get to the consumer fast enough and the fats go rancid. 

We fed the dogs out of freshly made batches of food that were no more than a day or two old at the most. If you could see how great the dogs looked, you would see why I am unimpressed with a raw diet.


As far as the spookiness goes, with the way most dogs are bred, you pretty much no nothing about who contributed what in traditional breeding, and I do not think that people would make the conection to slow births. Hell, how many people would make the connection to bad hips from the mother stepping on them ??????? I know that HD as a whole just makes me crazy to think about to the point where I am just in avoidance with the whole thing.

This is where experience plays a much bigger part than what is told to people on the "internet". With public opinion being so that breeders risk a bad reputation by breeding more than a few a year, this just makes it messier. Then you add outcrossing and linebreeding......but not really, and for example Mals, the amount of BS that is in the pedigree........bad hips..Well who the **** would want to deal with all that ? ? ?:lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff said:
"The advantage and big draw of the raw diet is the pretty eyes and coat, and energy, and all this can be duplicated by giving the dog a fat supplement (raw fat) THere is no magic there, as I have said over and over that dry dog food can not normally get to the consumer fast enough and the fats go rancid."

There's a chunk of fact right there.

The role of fresh fat in the diet is underrated. And the opposite (bad) role of the probably-rancid fat in kibble is also not considered enough.

I'd guess that a lot of kibble goes into the bag already rancid, though, as opposed to going rancid in transit, because of the use of (among other sources) old restaurant frying fats.

And back to breeding ....



ETA: I don't think, though, that adding fresh fat corrects all of the kibble problems... one of which being that the kibble still has the rancid (or at the very least, altered by cooking) fat. :lol:


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

I used one manufactured dog food back in the day, it was called Kobuk and was in meal form, we got it out of Alaska and it was good but it would go bad in the summer because of it's fish and fat content.

They also sold fat in tubs, it was snowy white and we fed it like ice cream scoops. It was kinda tasty.

If you eat Mutuk, whale fat, in any quantity it will put you to sleep like Nyquil...useless info but true.

Back to breeding :-#


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ok, you made an open statement that inbreeding compromises an dogs immune system. If a population of inbred dogs was brought up in a pathogen friendly environement, is it possible that the inbred population would have to develope a stronger immune system than that of dogs that are raised in a pathogen unfriendly environment?
> 
> ...
> 
> You say inbreeding compromises the immune system Then later you say everyones dogs have a compromised immune system as they have all been inbred. But, you made your point again....inbreeding is bad.


I realize this doesn't answer the question, but before interest is totally lost, I figured I'd "bump" it up.



> "Associative overdominance is the term used to describe the fitness difference between heterozygotes and homozygotes at a neutral locus. Since the locus itself is typically a noncoding portion of DNA being used as a molecular marker in the study (for example, microsatellite loci), differences in genotype do not directly contribute to fitness. The correlation between heterozygosity at neutral loci and the fitness of an individual can come about because the marker loci are directly linked to loci that do directly affect fitness (‘local effects’) or heterozygosity at these markers can correlate with fitness because they accurately reflect genomic heterozygosity (‘general’ or ‘genome-wide effects’). The latter occurs because individuals within the population vary in their inbreeding levels. Kaeuffer et al. (2006) suggest that their results are more likely to be due to local than general effects, but admit that there is no concrete way to test this. The inability to discriminate between these two hypotheses is not, in my opinion, of great concern as ultimately all genome-wide effects must have a local cause. *The real question is whether inbreeding depression is due to increased homozygosity at a few loci with large effect or a large number of loci with small effect."*
> 
> Natural selection and genetic diversity


text by D.H. Reed


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

So here natural selection culls the weak and the stronger individuals remain more heterozygous? Thus, the degree of homozygosity varies within the litter and those that have higher homozygosity are presumed weaker [physically] and succumb to environmental stresses either in utero or post delivery. I thought earlier that with an inbred program such as Don's, one would have to look at what now known more as population genetics. Here, like what Don has observed, you see initial decline [judged by the actual number of the population and presumedly due to the struggle with inbreeding depression], then an increase of strength with cycles between the two thereafter [Don has an 11 generation singleton]. They seem to start leading towards what ifs and assumptions at that point in coming up with justifications for the cycle; i.e. food limitation. I guess you would have to see this in terms of a wild population vs. a captive/domestic population to really determine if its really what happens externally post delivery or something else.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Interesting read Daryl. I'll have to read it a number of times over the next month to get the full gist of it. LOL. I cannot answer your question. I try to ignore discussions on wild population genetics and bottlenecks because it has so little bearing on, say, my breeding. I find the topic fasinating when looking at the plains animals of Africa for instance. My small population of inbred dogs is fed, has a place to sleep etc, etc. It has no competition and will survive unless I quit feeding it......much unlike a wild population. I kind of looked at the inbred depression as a cleansing of the weak, and, over time, there was only the strongest left in one sense. When this point is reached. An unrelated outcross is the only thing that can improve on what is there for the F1. After that, everthing starts moving back to average. I simply can't answer the question. I don't think those that did the study can either. Ok, I'll say it. LOL I am not sure what they are even talking about or why it matters. I personally quit trying to follow formulas and such and just watched the dogs. It is a tough thing to explain for sure.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I often wonder if the wording that geneticists use is just a cover up so that they SEEM to know what is going on, yet, the reality is just mumbo jumbo, and they partied on the grant money. Remember when whats her face was trying to figure out what the mix breed was and they sent back all these nutty breeds ? ? ? ? ? #-o I don't mean that in a mean way, there, sensitive people, just can't think of the name.=; Easy now.

Thats when I figured out they were full of shit. They just didn't think anyone would figure them out and call them on their bullshit. LOL


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I often wonder if the wording that geneticists use is just a cover up so that they SEEM to know what is going on, yet, the reality is just mumbo jumbo, and they partied on the grant money. Remember when whats her face was trying to figure out what the mix breed was and they sent back all these nutty breeds ? ? ? ? ? #-o I don't mean that in a mean way, there, sensitive people, just can't think of the name.=; Easy now.
> 
> Thats when I figured out they were full of shit. They just didn't think anyone would figure them out and call them on their bullshit. LOL


How do I get some of that money?

I remember that funny breed analysis. That was a for-pay scam. Maybe scam is too harsh, but that's what I think about offering to analyze breeds for $$ when you have only SOME in your bank. (I mean, theoretically, a dog who's mainly X breed with a teeny bit of Y is going to show "He's a Y" if X is not one of the breeds they can ID.)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Not sure how you get money for stuff like that, I think you need to be connected somehow with a school of higher learning and have appropriate credentials in genetics.......which with some of the shit these people are coming up with, I think we all are qualified, just got to write the BS in the correct manner.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Not sure how you get money for stuff like that, .... I think we all are qualified, just got to write the BS in the correct manner.


So like the famous and oft-quoted "2008-2009 WDF Study" and we all split the grant?


----------



## Gloria Maxwell (Oct 28, 2007)

After 40 plus yrs. of breeding. It is simple. Each egg and
sperm carry so many indiv. genes. pup 1, has all solid genes. pup2,drew one spooky gene, may or may not be spooky. Is spooky dominate or recessive? pup3, received two spooky genes. Spooky period. It is like drawing marbles out of a hat. I would not breed to any line that I knew had spooks. Solid or not. Solid can still have spookie genes and produce it. Do lots of research and go see ofspring yourself.
Gloria Maxwell


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don't know if you read the whole thread, but Don linebreeds pretty tightly. I am not sure how you breed, but I would bet it is nothing like what he does. When you breed this way, most of the general outcross breeding rules do not apply, such as spookiness, and of course there is always what catagory bla bla bla

Out of curiousity, how do you breed????? And how many litters of what breed ? ? ? ? And lastly, don't read anything into it, I am curious as to how your "style" for lack of a better word has worked out for you. THis is where most breeders fail for me, as I ususally come to the conclusion that they have a 1 litter plan, and not a 20 years down the line plan.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So here natural selection culls the weak and the stronger individuals remain more heterozygous?


Not necessarily, heterozygous genes can "cover up" recessives that will eventually present problems.

"individuals with very high inbreeding coefficients may actually be fitter than individuals with lower inbreeding coefficients."
*An investigation of inbreeding depression and purging in captive pedigreed populations*
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v98/n3/pdf/6800923a.pdf
"A population that has been in captivity for many generations may have purged its genetic load resulting in fitness initially decreasing but then increasing with inbreeding coefficient. Such a relationship might mask the effects of inbreeding depression if they were exhibited only in the earlier part of the pedigree"

At conclusion, the study "indicates that a strategy of deliberate inbreeding would be inadvisable", (perhaps pending "further study" (grant money)).


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Out of curiousity, how do you breed????? And how many litters of what breed ? ? ? ? And lastly, don't read anything into it, I am curious as to how your "style" for lack of a better word has worked out for you. THis is where most breeders fail for me, as I ususally come to the conclusion that they have a 1 litter plan, and not a 20 years down the line plan.


You're right, I don't breed anything like Don, but I'm not afraid to. Trouble is, acquiring breeding dogs that satisfy my standards. I've barely begun, and I can't always get my partner to agree with my plans. We are currently producing two or three litters a year, and progress will remain slow at that pace, especially in today's economy. I don't literally cull, except by working requirements and health clearances placed on the pups for future breeding of registrable litters. I'm pretty sure I'm in it for the long-haul, but I might switch to gsd-mixes if I'm unhappy with the progress.


----------

