In an article published on the sliver
site the author is attempting to provide John Q. Public with a "lesson"
regarding the use of the relatively new IC/RC programs. However,
anyone familiar with Dr. John Armstrong's
articles, as well as
Dr. Jerald Bell's
can tell you that these programs are not as simple as they appear.
Without sufficient knowledge of the actual ancestors, they can't provide
any kind of "instant" answers to anyone!
When I first discovered this
program, I was very excited
because I knew that I could use this tool quite
efficiently - only because
I knew all of the ancestors and most of the littermates in my breeding
stock! Without this knowledge, just looking at names and % numbers
wouldn't have told me anything!
Let's take a look at some simple
a. % of blood is listed at 50% for the
sire and dam, 25% for the grandparents and then reduced by 50% for each
succeeding generation. For example, with an outcrossed pedigree
you will see the third generation listed as 12.5%, etc. When
dealing with inbred dogs this picture changes drastically!
b. Even though you may be looking at a dog
(like Shiloh's Wolfin Sasquach, listed in the sample analysis) as having
a 24.22% factor (almost what you would expect from one of the 4
grandparents), that still doesn't mean that the pups will inherit his
good qualities, because, in this sample his genes are also being
counteracted by the aggressive and small boned Contessa as well as
several other dogs like her.
In my humble opinion, the entire article is more like a listing of
generic definitions, then a lesson that could actually teach someone how
to research the information they will need in order to properly analyze
a potential breeding!
example, the statement <<But a closer look shows a
large contribution from Shiloh's Wolfin Sasquatch (4th generation too).
So these are all dogs to investigate further.>> is interesting,
but what does it mean?
have never met Sasquach, or his littermates, nor seen any of the progeny
produced by them, how could you possibly "guess" at the potential genes
that he may have passed on? It's like looking at a deck of cards that is
laid out neatly - face down! That's why the article they wrote is so
So let's take a moment to take a SERIOUS look at what an ISSR breeder
The PER (Progeny
Evaluation Report) shows that he sired over a dozen litters of pups as follows:
Shiloh Lisa's Smoke-N-Megan -
2/28/91 and 1/9/92
Shiloh's Storm-N-Silver Wings -
8/11/91 and 12/22/92
Shiloh's Matoaka Pocahontas -
9/26/91 and 1/23/92
Shiloh's Kari's Steel Saber -
as well as a litter produced on
8/25/92 with Shiloh's Chinnell-Shalom and a litter produced on
10/14/92 with her sister Shiloh's the Whirlwind Jo'Leen as well as
single litters that were whelped out of Shiloh's Dear Abby on
5/25/91, Shiloh's I-of-the-Tigers whelped on 7/11/92, and Mountain
Snow of Zion whelped on 12/14/92.
I have summarized this list because of
its length, but ISSR breeders can order detailed reports that not only
list the litters produced, but also the PROGENY, along with all of the
dominants and recessive stats!
If you look at the box
on your left, it
shows the three litters produced by Shiloh's Wolfin Sasquach's
SISTER, K-Sura's Mistie Weather v Zion and Pinewood Lazarus Comforth
Since some of theses dogs are in your
ISSR pedigrees, I have chosen THIS example, but I can run a report on
any of the other Sasq littermates like Fisher's Cisco Kid Spectacular,
Rider's Torrey of Shiloh, JNK's Molly Our-Tribute To Shane and Max that
in turn produced dogs like Moriah-Zion-Indypen-dence Dawn (out of
Cisco), Thunder' N Torah of Zion (out of Torrey), and JNK's Golden
Nugget of Zion (out of Molly).
Every ISSR papered
Shiloh Shepherd must submit his/her hip report along with an
approved temperament test certificate and their
Recessives chart that lists at least 3 faults & 4
virtues that represent *that* dog as well as his/her
LITTERMATES!! When the final pedigree is published, this
information is included, so that the breeder can easily
"see" what the dog "looked like" (since the color, coat,
height, weight, etc. are clearly listed) and even more
the littermates carried -- both good & bad!! This helps the
breeder to make the best breeding choices for future
For example, if the
female they own has "hook tails" listed as a recessive, the
breeder can then choose a stud that does NOT carry THAT
recessive!! Like Dr. Padgett has taught, recessives happen
-- all dogs have some, but if you KNOW what they are you can
avoid DOUBLING on the SAME ones!!!! That's why the ISSR
process is so critical, and why the serious (ISSR) breeders
are getting such fantastic results!! It all revolves around
the LITTERMATES!! And not just your dog's littermates, but
other very close relatives have to be analyzed as well, like
the Sasquatch progeny examples listed above!!
Of course this also
helps us to track
DATA!! Just like I have explained many times in the past
... 2 OFA certified dogs can STILL produce CHD .... WHY?
Well, take some time to read my
The real Shiloh
Shepherds have awesome hips because my entire program has
been based on LMX
data since 1974!!!
Well, they may have the "names" of some of my dogs, but they don't know
much about them, so why should we expect them to research
anything about the outcrosses they are using.
They don't even know the right genealogy
behind Samson! ROTFLMAO! I am almost tempted to publish the correct
pedigree, but then the slivers would just jump in and steal it.
However, I can assure you that we have 36 documented generations in the
ISSR database - oh heck - I will ask Karen to put a blurry copy just so
that you can see that the slivers have no clue! Just look at what
they have been using!
In conclusion, the article says
<<Pedigree analysis reports are valuable tools
that can help give us a sense of which dogs will be the largest genetic
contributors to a litter. Once those individuals are identified, they
can be researched further to get a sense of what genes they do carry.>>
This is true but unless you can research
them further - you're just spitting in the wind!
The author keeps asking herself questions,
but I don't see any answers! If you asked me, I could tell you a lot
about these dogs...why I stopped using some of them and why we continued
to carry forth with some of their littermates instead. It's called
comment, that you all need to reflect on:
PARTIAL DATA WILL NEVER
PROVIDE YOU WITH ACCURATE COI/RC PERCENTAGES!
Take a look at this
report. Although we ran 32 generations, as you
can see only a total of 48,568 actually showed up (thankfully all they
could find/steal from our data.) That's how we know that they still
have missing dogs in their partial database. This COI came
out the closest to what was published in their "lesson", thus
showing that we have a much stronger database (783,563,143
ancestors) than the slivers ever had.
In other words, these folks are not playing with a full
published by Tina M. Barber February 2008