When is a dog considered a good producer?

I think your estimates of %'s are a little on the high side, 7 out of 10 times your gonna get bulldogs when you breed bulldogs? Historical ducumentation will prove this wrong 99.99% of the time.

If you breed a stud to 3 different bitches and produce 3 or more ch's in each litter ( 3 Rom litters) you would be the best breeder with the best stud dog of all time and people would refer to you as the new God, they would write books about this new God and the whole economic structure of earth as we know it would change. Pigs would begin to fly and hell would freeze over while the rest of the world would spend most of their time collecting golden eggs while doing backflips and blowing bubbles out of their ass.

I'll take the $10,000 bet, but we need to set a timeline. how does 9 years sound, thats 3 years to win 9 times out of 3 different litters from the same male, and another 3 years to prove offspring off of those winners. You can use any male you like, you can purchase the dogs or breed them yourself, you can breed said dog to any other bloodline even 3 sisters if you choose. That will give you 3 more years to show the grandkids, Does that sound fair? No disrespect intended Crush but you just took a bet you can't win and have layed the groundwork for the rest of this board to evaluate your opinions on. Like I said before, someday you will get it and when you do you will look back at your current opinion humbled and wonder why you didn't see it sooner.

NGK

 

haunch was bred less and produced better while cuda produced a high percentage of good dogs before goin to victor and his production took ahit

 

U are beating a dead horse wit me on production of cuda!!...cuda production can't fukk wit lukane production!!....I already did a poll on this a few years bacc on here about the samething we are talking about!!..it was a runaway wit lukane!!...my partner own two dogs straight off lukane, monsters!!...I also had to friends to buy dogs off cuda, garbage!!!...haunch produced good to but cuda is nowhere on a radar vs lukane production!!..that's my opinion thou!!

 

Crush, I am a second generation breeder, I try to speak from experience, both mine and my fathers. I would say 3rd generation but my grandfather only dabbled in breeding off and on and he died before I was born. What you described in your example (that you used to try and prove a point to me) has never happened and will never happen. For a dog to have a ROM litter once in his life is amazing, to have 3 ROM litters in only 3 breedings would be a miracle from god. Is this sinking in yet?

NGK

 

U trying to put tek in the game now!!..u are trying to worm ur way up out of it but I'm not going to let u do it!!..let's just say out of three litters u have 3 2x in each one of them or Fukkit let's just say 3 1x in each one of them!!...and I'm still standing by wat I said!!...

 

I have no idea what "put tek in the game now" means so i'll leave that alone...

How am I trying to worm my way up out of it, and could we continue in english please, worm my way up out of what? You started with 9 ch's, turned it into 9 wins, I took your $10,000 bet and now you have pulled out of the bet, it seems to me that it is you who is worming your way, to where I do not know.

You stated in a previous post on this thread that you knew dogmen in your area and if I were to state my opinions to them that you (after smoking drugs) would laugh at me...

My advise to you is to stop smoking drugs and pick some of those "dogmens" brains so as to try and find a better understanding than the one you currently have.

About the $10,000, if you make a bet in the dogworld with dogmen and can't put up you have to pay a forfeit, now 10% sounds reasonable so how do you wish to pay your forfeit? I prefer cash but a tellers check will do, lol.

NGK

 

ngk it takes 4 ch's for a stud to make rom . 3 for the bitch to make rom .

 

man that's good question when it come to breeding and producing the only way you can see that is to know how the dog is breed and see what has been working with that cross and what % of each parent how produce winners and how many litters from each breeding some lines have shown to be able to produce better when crossed back into itself be it thru line-breeding or in-breeding YOU have to see for yourself what will or can work for u AND YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT A GOOD PRODUCER IS cause some of the genius's might say that BITCH or that STUD can't produce shit so it's up to u to prove them RIGHT or WRONG then just KEEP IT MOVING

 

I don't think u can understand or comprehend!..go bacc and read wat the bet is !!...u just keep on breeding for producers and see where that get u!!

 

Yes I know old goat, if a female has 3 ch in 1 litter it is refered to as a ROM litter by many.

Has anyone ever seen a male who was able to make 3 different bitches ROM in one litter?

NGK

 

I didn't expect you to keep your word on any bet Crush hence I was poking a little fun at you and for that im sorry...

Go back to the begining of this thread and re-read what I have said.

1st a dog must perform well to be bred.

2nd a dog must produce well to continue to be bred.

3rd a dog must beable to produce offspring that themselves are able to produce both performance dogs as well as dogs with the ability to produce as good or better than themselves.

I can't make it more plain than that, don't let your stubborness or ego blind your ability to see what is infront of you. Sometimes its better to admit your wrong rather than walk down the same path blindly forever.

NGK

 

here is wat i think is a super producer and yes i am biast never the less. what i stated in my previus post fits this rom dog. nelis Rom was bred to Tug rom 3 times and tug was bred to nelis sire ch spike 1 time. tug produced a total of i belive 23 pups if my memory sirvs me right.
20 of them where shown and 75% of them proved to be as game as they come.
Nelis was bred to 10 bitches produced 7 ch ofspring , but chek this out this . here is where its getting intresting .

When nelis rom was bred BACK to his ch daughter he produced 2 ROM sons east end kennels CH Neilson ROM and sprinvew,s poppye ROM.
both males bred 10 bitches in between them out producing there sire producing 2 GRCH between them and plenty ch dogs.
out producing there sire, this made Nelis ROM a even ""beter"" producer as he not only produced 7 ch ofspring in 10 litters he also produced 2 ROM sons that out produced him when inbred on him ""Thuse this make sense""????? ..........
when Nelis ROM was bred back to a littermate sister of the 2 rom sons called Nipper he produced a bitch called Flakey who was send to the usa to beat and quit the mother of GRCH Banjo and GRCH BB red called Betty Jo.. Flakey was a triple inbred duaghter of Nelis rom who himself was 75% inbred dog. Flakey(send over under the name Joleen) in teory would have been as least disireble show dog as can be yet she did her job.

Nelis pre-potentional quality made him as far as im consirned the european dibo!!. iven today his stamp on the dogs in his famely is present..
his famely produced more then 35 CH dogs 3 GRCH 4 ROM dogs and countless w,pretty impressif knowing that his famely at any given time never had more then 25/35 dogs in total in diferend hands!!! over a cours of 30 years....
Thats what i call a producer..
another one of those kind of dogs was STB Dylan altho he never got the ROM status he did produced a awesome legasy of dogs bred tru varius bloodlines, he stil puts his mark out in ofspring that rize up with his genes.. today....
every dog can produce winners, not alot of dogs can produce winners long afther they are dead. and show up tru the generations as if they where direct sons of these studs by putting there mark on them thru there strong gene pool..

 

Amateur at the Apollo here but can't you breed for both producer's and winner's at the same time? Why would you need to breed one or the other when you can breed for both?

 

You should always breed for both sadieblues, thats the point ive been trying to make this whole thread. I think that if you only breed for performance you are more likely to outcross the blood as outcross breeding tends to increase size and vigor. Many lines that were considered the best in the old circles slowly disapeared because of loose breeding (outcross breeding) as each generation became less and less prepotent thus lowering percentages. Men like Maurice Carver were known to change pedigrees on his breedings and he sold dogs of the greatest quality in his time. The reason he changed the peds was so that his opposition wasn`t able to see his formula for success, why... because he knew that he was going to produce winning dogs and he also knew that the odds of those dogs producing winning dogs was decreased by his outcross breeding which he did to produce winners with hybrid vigor and size but decreased prepotency. Simply put the men who purchased dogs from Maurice would have to return to his yard to purchace more at a later date. The men who had success breeding Carver dogs after his passing were the men that read the dogs and not the pedigrees, they based their breeding on a phenotype not on a piece of paper with false names on it.

NGK

 

I agree with that Sir I believe a game dog should also be able to produce game dogs that doesn't mean the dog has to be a super producer but should at least be able to produce something. I realize there were dog's who couldn't cut it in the box but could produce outstanding dogs regardless of what they were bred to but really I don't think that was very common practice as some people try to make it sound. A good producer should also be a good performer and be able to push those qualities into the offspring. I think producing and performance should go hand in hand and that's just my opinion.

 

Thank You benthere that makes sense to me .....

 

I agree with that opinion and it is spot on, can you imagine having a yardfull of outcross dogs who can perform but not produce? What would be the point in that, its like keeping old worn out tires in a pile next to your trailer for 20 years as an eyesore, lol.

A fella up here ill call the englishman bought out a couple of yards when they came up for sale many years ago. In one yard was 3 types of dogs, small gamedogs, huge weightpull dogs, and a cross between the 2 types. In the other yard was all gamedogs of medium size. All together there were 8-10 different bloodlines on the englishmans yard (including what he already had which were also gamedogs). For about 12 years the englishman had great success with his "Battle Crossed" dogs and won quite a few matches, even against upper level competition from the south. The englishman began to think he was the next big thing and began to breed his crosses together and sell them for a pretty penny to alot of people, new and old alike. The new fellas bet big on these dogs because they had stacked pedigrees, 2xw here and ch there, online his peds said "soon to be ROM", it only stood to reason that these new additions would be better than the ones before them but all was not as it seemed. Because of the outcrossing the breedings lacked one critical thing and that was consistancy, what was once like shooting fish in a barrel was now like bobbing for fish. 1 in 10 was the new basis for the new 10% winning bloodline and POOF, they vanished into thin air one day, as did the englishman.

Now heres a fact that can not be disputed, before the englishman bought out the 1st yard the original breeder of the smaller gamedogs re-aquired 3 linebred dogs from his stock and for a very fair price I might add. He matched the male twice, winning both, he matched one of the females once winning that battle in almost 2 hours, he bred the other female (untouched) back to her uncle and produced 5 wins out of 4 pups. When these 3 were bred back to their family all produced good dogs who have gone on to produce dogs as good or even better than themselves. The common genes that they share is what carries their prepotency to produce through, generation after generation they are destined to produce because they were bred for both Ability and Prepotency.

NGK

 

Thank You NGK for sharing your experience and insight here with me.