This is a placeholder text
Group text
by BlackthornGSD on 14 December 2010 - 14:12
The dog, Bady, has no linebreeding--pretty much a total outcross--I would not have thought he'd be prepotent in his production. Do you believe the further back linebreeding has much influence on a stud dog's ability to produce himself?
by Prager on 14 December 2010 - 16:12
Thank you guys.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
by TingiesandTails on 14 December 2010 - 16:12
www.working-dog.eu/zucht_ansehen.php
by Bob McKown on 14 December 2010 - 16:12
V Eliot von Prevent has been making some very good breeding's and several of the litter owners I,ve talked to love the out come.
Also think about this, the stud is still only half the equation. A male can only be a good producer if breed to a quality Bitch.
by Prager on 14 December 2010 - 17:12
It depends on dominance of such dog on which the linebreeding is done. I am using it often with hips. If we have bad hips dog way back and the influence continues until today and if we can follow it like a red line through the pedigrees than yes linebreeding even if way back on such trait is going to influence current production of hips. ( This is not what I am saying about Bady who has Klara 1x in 6th generation and her influence in subsequent generation is 0. It is just a general example.) On the other hand if we have dominant dog like Ingo v Rudingen and he appears 4x or 5x times in the background of Bady and the dogs from the progeny are selected based on his dominant traits then yes the linebreeding on this dog will influence it.
Also
Dog does not need to have linebreeding in order to produce himself .
Dog will produce himself if his genes are dominant.
And if he /she is a result of strong type breeding. ( All or many dogs are specific type) That is the case of Bady who is a result of such breeding of high driven dogs.
Also if you line breed breed within a male blood line you may get dog who will produce himself.
I am talking anout this last point on my forum.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
by Prager on 14 December 2010 - 17:12
by ziegenfarm on 14 December 2010 - 18:12
pjp
by darylehret on 14 December 2010 - 18:12
molly, I don't see the "same toplines" as you mention. They each appear very different to me, and I'm no conformation geek. The Bosco shadowing is obvious and inarguably photoshopped, but as Hans says the depth of field can explain the blurry-ness. I myself prefer the greatest depth of field possible in all of my photos, but a majority of photogrophers in the postproduction process may prefer to artificially blur photos go give the appearance of a decreased depth of field, in order to highlight the eye's attention on the subject.
The smears you think you see along edges though, are often due to poorly applied compression algorithms used when an image is saved in jpeg file format. The blocky artifacts or pixelated spots along edges are also the result of careless compression. I see no irrefutable evidence of altered toplines that would cause me to make accusations like you're making.
by eichenluft on 14 December 2010 - 18:12
Take the pictures Daryl, copy and paste them into a photoshop program, and zoom in. You will see the differences in the toplines, and backs of the necks, and places where the dog has hair (natural, not photoshopped) and then no hair (photoshopped) as well as "fill ins" obvious to fill in grey areas to improve the pigment via photoshop - and the fake shadows, and fake toplines.
Just look again, You will see for yourself. Some are more evident than others (some are well-done, some are not) but these photos are almost always photoshopped in some way to enhance the look of the dog and hide slight faults, or even just to smooth out the lines for a more pleasing advertising of a stud dog.
molly
by BlackthornGSD on 14 December 2010 - 19:12
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
