Genetic Deceptions - written by Tina M. Barber

by Tina M. Barber

February 2008

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 facts.

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.

c. 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!

For 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?

If you 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 misleading!

So let's take a moment to take a SERIOUS look at what an ISSR breeder has
access to!

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 - 8/23/91

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 Zion.

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 Dominants and 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

importantly, what the littermates carried -- both good & bad!! This helps the breeder to make the best breeding choices for future generations!

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 HEALTH 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 reports!!

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!
Correct ISSR data  Silly sliver nonsense

 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 SELECTIVE BREEDING!

One final comment, that you all need to reflect on:


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 deck!  

"Shiloh" Shepherd Fraud! Don't Let the Frauds fool you!

 Originally published by Tina M. Barber February 2008

Powered by WebRing.