Thread: What would you pay for a pup?

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

It is an in-arguable fact that heterosis masks genetic faults in a first cross. The cross of two very good fault free purebred lines will give very good results. But where are the fault free lines ? Greyhounds and Border Collies ?
None of this is 'Good theory' it is proven fact. Remember Gregor Mendel and his crosses of sweet peas from high school lessons. It has been know for a long time

It does not mask genetic faults completely , it gives the 50/50 offspring a reduced chance of genetic faults.. second paragraph ?

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/article...osiseffect.htm


However again I would say that getting health checks done by a vet and only breeding from dogs that are known to be free from any problems greatly reduces your chance of what happened to me with my first dog .

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

It does not mask genetic faults completely , it gives the 50/50 offspring a reduced chance of genetic faults.. second paragraph ?

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/article...osiseffect.htm


However again I would say that getting health checks done by a vet and only breeding from dogs that are known to be free from any problems greatly reduces your chance of what happened to me with my first dog .

The real work on breed crossing is done with plants and livestock esp pigs and chickens. The author of the article would perhaps benefit from reading some of this research.
Again I ask, which dog breeds are free of genetic faults ? Not many, so crossing to produce a more healthy longer lived utility animal is often a better path than breeding pure lines unless those lines are very very good and of a foundation stock standard. In livestock and plant breeding, very productive pure lines are maintained and used to cross and produce the plants and animals we consume as food.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

The real work on breed crossing is done with plants and livestock esp pigs and chickens. The author of the article would perhaps benefit from reading some of this research.
Again I ask, which dog breeds are free of genetic faults ? Not many, so crossing to produce a more healthy longer lived utility animal is often a better path than breeding pure lines unless those lines are very very good and of a foundation stock standard. In livestock and plant breeding, very productive pure lines are maintained and used to cross and produce the plants and animals we consume as food.

I think the author of the article I put up agrees with you and so do I that you are correct but "completely correct" ?

Which breeds of dogs are free of genetic faults ? None that I know of. The point I was trying to make was that with doing health checks on the dam and sire you can quite confidently [but not with 100% certainty] rule out many of the genetic faults from a potential pup purchase ?

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

I think the author of the article I put up agrees with you and so do I that you are correct but "completely correct" ?

Which breeds of dogs are free of genetic faults ? None that I know of. The point I was trying to make was that with doing health checks on the dam and sire you can quite confidently [but not with 100% certainty] rule out many of the genetic faults from a potential pup purchase ?

In relation to Robs bitch, as she is a crossbred anyway there is no 'papered pedigree' value in her. So breeding of her would in my opinion be best aimed to produce the best utility type of dog - healthy, vigorous, long lived etc. Back crossing to a Vizla will not do this but outcrossing to a third unrelated breed will. What the best cross would be is open to debate

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

In relation to Robs bitch, as she is a crossbred anyway there is no 'papered pedigree' value in her. So breeding of her would in my opinion be best aimed to produce the best utility type of dog - healthy, vigorous, long lived etc. Back crossing to a Vizla will not do this but outcrossing to a third unrelated breed will. What the best cross would be is open to debate

I would try and not get too involved with your version of breeding pedigree dogs, the best working stuff is usually inbred to hell and part of an ongoing programme a number of kennels are involved in, world wide. I will however put me pighunting hat on and in part agree with some of what you are saying, first x combines the best of both worlds within reason, however you can just as easily end up with rubbish… in most cases this is the case in my experience, adding a 3rd breed can produce better odds in my experience, the main issue is getting good examples of the purebred to work off.