PRACTICAL GENETICS

Tina M. Barber
Shiloh Shepherds
5015 Shearing Road
Gainesville. NY 14066

Published in the GSQ in 1979

Much has been written about the science and art of Genetics. Lots of money has been spent on experiments to prove this theory or that theory concerning the inheritance of certain traits in animals. Unfortunately, most of this scientific work is wrapped in a cloud of big words and college laboratories. It certainly would be nice to cut through some of the haze and shed some practical light on this fascinating subject. In fact, for dog breeders a basic understanding of the subject of Genetics is not only interesting, it is essential.

Let’s start at the beginning, and cover a few basic concepts and definitions. There are a few terms which you need to know in order to link the scientific information with observations made during the actual breeding of dogs. When I refer to ‘actual breeding of dogs’, I'm speaking of my own observations which span more than 20 years of breeding German Shepherds and evaluating over 2000 puppies. Later in the article, I’ll cover actual breeding experiences.

When animals mate, the resulting offspring receives half its genetic makeup from each parent. This genetic material may be viewed as a string of physical and temperamental characteristics which, once combined with the corresponding string from the other parent, make up a brand new individual. This sounds simple enough, especially since animals have been doing it for many years without our help. If we simply pick and choose our Champions, and breed them with Champions, we’ll get Champions, right? Not necessarily! In fact, without carefully analyzing some hidden characteristics of the parents, Champions or not, we are likely to get disappointing results.

These ‘strings of characteristics’ I mentioned may be thought of as boxcars on a train, with each boxcar carrying a single row of crayons of various colors. The boxcars may be called chromosomes and the crayons inside the boxcars the genes. The genes are the part responsible for the final characteristics, good or bad, of the puppy. The chromosomes carry these characteristics from generation to generation.

The crayons (genes) from the stud arrive in the dam in a single line of boxcars (chromosomes). At that time, they pair up with the dam’s corresponding line of boxcars, and form a double line, like two trains of equal length sitting on parallel tracks, side by side. To complicate things there is not only a corresponding boxcar from each parent, but a corresponding crayon. Each crayon from each parent matches with one from the other parent, forming a very large number of crayon pairs. Each pair of crayons is responsible for a certain characteristic of the puppy (coat color, height. etc). The puppy has this pair for life, and it can’t be changed. To further complicate things these crayons come in two sizes: full length and half length! And in a rainbow of colors!

Time to dig into those basic concepts. Each animal has an outward appearance, a certain temperament and other physical characteristics. This is called the animal’s Phenotype (pronounced FEEN-O-TYPE). This outward appearance is due to the interaction of the crayons in pairs. These crayons may be in pairs of two shorts, two longs, or a short and a long. The short crayons make up the ‘recessive’ characteristics and the long crayons, the ‘dominant’ characteristics. If a pair is made up of two longs, they will usually be crayons of the same color, and the puppy will exhibit the characteristics of that particular color crayon. If the pair is made up of two short crayons, they will usually be crayons of the same color, and the puppy will exhibit that characteristic. The fun starts when the puppy inherits a short (recessive) crayon from one parent and a long (dominant) crayon from the other, making a pair with one long and one short. These are always crayons of different colors. The resulting puppy does NOT normally show a characteristic which is between the ‘long’ and the ‘short’ crayon. For example, an aggressive dog bred to a coward will not produce a ‘medium’ temperament. A tall dog bred to a short dog does not necessarily produce a ‘medium’ height. Many factors are at work here, and the offspring resulting from the breeding cannot be expected to be a mixture of the two parents.

Assigning some colors to these crayons may help. One possible color combination for this pair are: two blues, two greens, or a green and a blue. Let’s say the long crayon is blue in color for this particular pair, and the short one is green. Assume, for the sake of the example that this crayon pair controls whether the dog has three or four legs. A combination of two blues provides a puppy with four legs. A pair of greens provides a puppy with only three legs. The pair consisting of one blue crayon and one green crayon looks like it produces a pup with three legs and a stump, but not so! The blue crayon totally overpowers (dominates) the green crayon in the pair, and the puppy grows four legs, exactly like the pup with the ‘pure’ combination of two blue crayons! To the observer, the pups each have four normal legs. There is no outward way to tell the puppy with the ‘pure’ four legs (two blues) from the one carrying the ‘factor’ for three legs! This actual genetic makeup of the pup is called the Genotype (pronounced JEAN-O-TYPE). In this case, we have three possible genetic combinations, or genotypes: blue/blue, green/green, and green/blue, and only two possible physical appearances, or phenotypes of those combinations: normal four-legged dogs, and abnormal ones with only three legs.

So what is the big deal? If you want a puppy with four normal legs, and you get a puppy with four legs, you have what you want, right? Not if you intend to breed! Assuming you want to breed one of these dogs I’ve been describing, and further assuming you want to produce puppies with four legs, you would rather have the dog without the short green crayon in the pair, even though his four legs look exactly the same as the blue/blue dog. Although our example puppy has two parallel trains of boxcars for his life, only one or the other individual train is passed on to his sons and daughters. Each parent contributes one train (half the genetic makeup) to the next generation, producing puppies with two full, parallel trains. Due to this, there’s a 50-50 chance he will pass that short green crayon on to the next generation, increasing the chance that the undesirable ‘three-leg factor’ will pop up in the future. Of the two described with four normal legs, your best bet is the one with two blues. Since he will pass one or the other of those blue crayons on to future generations, and since the blue crayon is dominant, all future pups will have four normal legs, whether or not they inherit a short green crayon from the other parent!

We are talking about the ‘Recessive Gene Pool’ in bloodline. The above example is simplified for the purpose of illustrating the procedure involved in Dominant-Recessive transfer of genetic characteristics to following generations. Actually, the process is quite a bit more involved, but it all breaks down to the basic principles shown. There are factors hidden from view in all breeding stock. It is up to the breeder to understand those hidden, or recessive characteristics before breeding.

But how do you figure out what they are? If they are hidden from view, how do you determine the genetic makeup of an animal? Even the fanciest Genetics laboratory at the largest university in the country can’t look at an animal and determine its genotype! How are we, mere breeders of dogs, supposed to know? That is the basis of the next section.

First, it must be understood there is nothing certain in this business of breeding. The whole concept of genetic transfer of characteristics is based on the PROBABILITY that something will happen. Two poor specimens bred together may produce a champion: two champions may produce a mutt. We must swing the process in our favor, to increase the PROBABILITY that we will get what we want from the breeding of two dogs.

Before we start we must face a unique problem, one which does not usually face those college laboratory workers: the problem of working backward through a pedigree. In the laboratory, two animals are bred together, usually producing a fairly large number of offspring. Extremely detailed notes are kept, and all outward characteristics (phenotypes) of the offspring are tabulated. These offspring are then bred together in a random fashion, producing a very large number of babies. The same type of detailed notes and tabulations are prepared on the phenotypes of those offspring. If the number is not yet overwhelming, those offspring are again bred together in the same type of random fashion, producing zillions of offspring. All the data from all these breedings is available to the workers who bred the two original animals together. From this data, a very accurate picture of the genotypes of the original pair may be constructed based on the percentages of this or that physical characteristics in their offspring for the next several generations. This is fine if you are working in a laboratory with very small animals (like while mice or fruit-flies and you can house, feed. and examine all the offspring for the next several generations. It is not normally practical for dog breeders to do this.

As breeders, we must determine the genotype (or at least make an educated guess) of an animal which occupies the position of one individual out of the ‘zillions’ produced in the fourth or fifth generation after the original mating. We have a reverse problem from the laboratory. Where the laboratory workers know what all the offspring of a single pair look like, dog breeders only know what a pup’s ancestors look like. We can only speculate about the genotypes of our pup’s parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. If we make a breeding error, a hidden characteristic from the recessive gene pool in our stock may rise up when least expected. and produce undesirable results. That type of breeding error is usually costly in time, money, and quality of the breed, and must be avoided…but how?

The answer is to use the same technique as the old Riverboat Gamblers: stack the deck! Know the genotypes, or producing ability, of the past generations on the pedigree. This sounds like a simple statement of common sense, but is it really? Only if those past generations have been carefully controlled by 'inbreed’ or ‘linebreeding’ as we call it, and only if detailed records of other litters are available to you, the breeder. Just like the gambler, if you have a fairly good idea of the value of the next card to be dealt you stand a better chance of winning.

By understanding the basic dominant-recessive concepts of genetics, and with an adequate amount of homework, a breeder can make an educated guess concerning the PROBABILITY of a particular breeding resulting in a desirable phenotype. Though nothing is certain, it’s the best method there is for animal breeding, and can be quite precise if done correctly.

By using selective breeding within specific lines of stock animals, the breeder has a powerful tool at his disposal This tool permits him to see the expression of undesirable characteristics, and to remove (cull) them before they spread. By removing animals with these undesirable characteristics, the overall genotype of the breeding line is improved and strengthened. By carefully monitoring or prohibiting breeding to animals outside the bloodline, genes-- which may alter the ‘carefully stacked deck’ are blocked from entry. After a time, the undesirable factors can be eliminated, and a stable line results. The Quarter Horse is an example of this, and is a result of approximately 200 years of intensive linebreeding and culling. This may explain why many reputable dog breeders do not sell their best breeding stock except on co-ownerships. Control is the key.

Through linebreeding, desirable and undesirable characteristics become predictable, or rather the PROBABILITY of getting a certain trait (long coat, three legs, super intelligence, etc) becomes higher. Breeding stock carrying undesirable traits can then be avoided. and the overall bloodline becomes stronger in desirable traits. Eventually, the breeding stock becomes so strong in certain traits that breeding to inferior stock still produces a desirable phenotype. Since most physical and temperamental characteristics are controlled by the interaction of more than one pair of genes, this is a very difficult point to reach. This point, usually reached

through a combination of 5% luck and 95% labor over the years, is generally known as PREPOTENCY. The desirable factors of a stud or dam are passed along to a majority of their puppies due to the lack of recessive genes which control the undesirable traits. Everyone can think of a specific dog who passes a certain characteristic reliably to his or her pups, almost without regard to the quality of the other parent.

But this is an ideal point which is seldom reached in practice. We are still faced with the every-day routine of selecting breeding partners, and no breeding animal is prepotent in all characteristics. Let’s go back to the dominant-recessive problem and make an example of the three-legged dog mentioned earlier.

This example will show how a characteristic can stay hidden in a bloodline and pop up when least expected. With a little homework, however, the source can be found.

Take a look at chart #1. We are holding a pedigree for a three legged puppy. His parents both have four legs. His grandparents all have four legs. The first three-legged dog on the pedigree is located in the third generation! The factor skipped two complete generations and popped up in our puppy! If we do some homework, this can be explained.

Chart1.gif (9113 bytes)

 

Chart #2 has the basic, raw information about the litters. At first glance this doesn’t tell us much but by analyzing the performance of each breeding pair, we can make a pretty close guess about the genotypes of the parents and grandparents. This litter information is critical to a full understanding of the bloodline and its probable strengths and faults. Time spent gathering this type of information is time well spent.

 Chart2.gif (20705 bytes)

Chart #3 has the litter information broken down into probable genotypes. This is not magic but an educated guess. We’ll go through each pair from oldest breeding to youngest breeding, analyze each breeding pair based on their phenotypes and performance in the litter produced and cover the logic of deducing probable genotypes.

 

Pair #1 produced ten pups, all with 4 legs. The sire is probably pure (prepotent) in the 4-legged factor since, when bred to a 3-legged mate, all puppies had 4 legs. The dam, with 3 legs, certainly carries both ‘short green crayons’, and therefore shows the trait that goes with that: 3 legs. Remember that the 3-legged factor is recessive, and only shows up in the dog when both recessives are present at once. The ten pups, though they have four normal legs, are not prepotent like the sire, but now carry the 3-legged factor from the dam. It’s almost a sure bet that all ten pups from this breeding carry one long blue and one short green, and will pass one or the other on to future pups.

 

Pair #2 produced 8 pups, all with 4 legs. Things are not so sure here, since both dogs of pair #2 have four normal legs. These 8 pups may be pure (prepotent) in the 4-legged factor, or they may carry a 3-legged factor. It is likely that most of the litter is pure 4-leggedl. but not certain, since you know the factor is hiding in the bloodline somewhere. Future breedings will shed some more light on this pair.

 

 

Pair #3 produced a litter that was split evenly between 3-legged and 4-legged pups. This is quite revealing. Since the 3-legged factor is recessive, the sire of pair #3, though equipped with 4 legs, cannot be prepotent for 4 legs. The sire must be carrying the 3-legged factor. Any 4-legged pup from this breeding is most likely carrying the 3-legged factor. Any 3-legged pup is certainly carrying ‘two short green crayons’ which permit the recessive trait to appear.

Pair #4 is similar to Pair #2. All 10 pups have four legs, but there may be a 3-legged factor lurking in some of the pups. Since all the pups have four legs, one may be selected for breeding that carries the factor. This is another pair that requires a look into future breedings in order to make an educated guess at the genotypes.

Pair #5 produced all 4-legged pups. Since the original mating of Pair #1 produced puppies carrying the 3-legged factor, the sire of Pair #5 probably carries the factor. The dam is a different story. This dog was selected from the breeding of Pair #2. But since the mating of pair #5 produced no puppies with 3 legs, the dam is most likely prepotent in the 4-leg factor. Though some of the pups from the original breeding of Pair #2 may be carriers of the 3-leg factor, the pup selected as the dam of Pair #5 is probably not a carrier.

Pair #6 produced 8 pups with 4 legs and 2 pups with 3 legs. This tells quite a story about the pair, and provides some details on Pair #4. The sire of Pair #6 is similar to the sire of Pair #5: a highly likely carrier of the 3-leg factor. Even though he has four legs he is almost certainly not prepotent in the 4-leg factor. The dam of Pair #6 also seems to be guilty of carrying the 3-leg factor. By chance, the dam was selected from the litter for breeding, and happened to be one who carries the 3-leg factor.

Pair #7, a mating between animals with four normal legs produced a litter with some 3-legged puppies. This certainly resulted from both sire and dam carrying the 3-leg factor. Since each parent passes only one or the other crayon to the puppies, the genotypes of the litter could be blue/blue, blue green. or green/green. Blue/blue puppies and blue/green puppies look the same: four legs. Only the unfortunate ones which inherit a green from the sire and a green from the dam will have 3 legs. Our pup is one of those.

After studying these example pedigrees all this may look pretty simple. The basic concepts are simple and an understanding of them is crucial. You now can see how undesirable traits can be carried through a bloodline and jump out generations later when least expected. The probabilities of a characteristic showing up in a particular puppy can actually be calculated mathematically, but that’s outside the scope of this article. If actual breeding is so straightforward and easy to calculate, then why all the fuss?

Because it’s not so easy in actual practice. Although the basic concepts of inheritance hold true when talking about individual pairs of crayons, most characteristics are more complicated. Most of the time, more than one crayon pair is involved, and there are several different dominant (tall) crayons and several recessive (short) crayons, which may occur. There is often interaction between the different crayons controlling a trait that causes a totally different and unexpected phenotype to appear. Although it is possible to find certain characteristics that pass from generation to generation in a manner similar to the example of the 3-leg and 4-leg puppies, this is the exception. It is a constant task to analyze and select the best breeding partners in order to purify the bloodline and increase the probability of producing a consistent, quality puppy.

So, we are faced with some problems. To minimize outside influence and interference on our bloodline, we are restricting breeding to our own stock except in very rare instances. There are strong points we want to keep and weak points we want to get rid of. We do our homework, hope for the best, and then one day we find a Fantastic Champion in the whelping box, surrounded by his so-so littermates. It seems that some of our hard work has paid off! The 5% luck and 95% labor mentioned earlier finally produced what we want (see Chart #4). Since we own both the sire and dam, we just repeat the breeding and produce a hundred or so Fantastic Champions to fill the record books and put our kennel on the map once and for good! We finally hit the jackpot, right? Not so fast! Let’s not count our Champions before they are hatched!

Remember the luck factor? And remember the Fantastic Champion’s so-so littermates? It seems luck was certainly on our side there. A repeat breeding, though it may be worth a try, probably won’t produce another Fantastic champion. Let’s look at a technique, which will allow us to insert FC’s strong points into our bloodline, and possibly produce another FC! This may sound far-fetched, but we have done this at Shiloh Shepherds at least three times on two totally different bloodlines. This technique worked best with the particular bloodlines available to us. It serves to illustrate how a dog may be ‘recreated’ if the basic principles of heredity are understood, the breeding stock is available to you, and the time is available for breeding.

At first glance, it looks like we should breed FC to the best looking bitch we can find. Not so. Remember the dominant and recessive business? FC is probably carrying a truckload of recessive characteristics from his unimpressive parents or grandparents. Most of those characteristics are undesirable. If simply bred to a good-looking bitch, we would most likely end up with those undesirable characteristics in the puppies (maybe three legs!), and FC’s strong points would be lost or diluted. In this case, we use a technique normally reserved for experimental purposes to determine genotypes: the ‘back cross’.

 

 

Back crossing takes an offspring and breeds it back to its opposite sex parent. In this case, FC is bred to his dam. This may sound crazy, but we’ve done our homework. Chart #5 may be used for reference during this example. The dam’s sire was a super producer, i.e. prepotent in many areas. Even though the dam is plain, she inherited many strong factors from her sire. By breeding FC and his dam, we are likely to produce a litter, which exhibits a range of characteristics and qualities. Some puppies will be strong in desirable factors; Some will be real losers. We take the best female pup that resembles her sire (FC), and breed her to her sire’s sire or, if possible, to her ‘Looks Great’ Grandsire on her sire’s side, thus eliminating the undesirable characteristics of the ‘Pet Stock’ bitch. Once again. we select a bitch from that litter which shows the phenotype we desire (probably her Grandsire) and breed her to Super Producer on her dam’s side.

Chart 5.jpg

By this method, we have isolated and eliminated many of the recessive characteristics we don't want and intensified the traits we want as originally shown by Fantastic Champion. We have gone back into the bloodline on the dam’s side to intensify the positive characteristics of the dam’s sire 'Super Producer', and the dam’s grandsire ‘Super Stud’. By this time we should be producing a puppy which resembles FC. If not, we must start the process over again on FC’s sire’s side. Chart #6 shows the final product of this method.

By using Chart #5 as a guide, try extending the pedigree listed below, up to 8 generations. You will find that Super Champ shows up:

1 x in the 4th, 1 x in the 5th, 6 x in the 6th, 7x in the 7th, 5x in the 8th for a total of 20 times in 8 generations!

Even though it appears that Fantastic Champion is lost, we have not lost the characteristics we desire. By using FC as an indicator of the traits we want in our breeding stock, and isolating the side (dam or sire) which provided those traits, we were able to identify the weak points and pool the strong points, eventually resulting in a stud which was prepotent in the strong points. Our Fantastic champion was a throwback to his ‘Super Champ’ ancestors. Through this method, those qualities are now available to us for future breeding.

Through the process of inbreeding or heavy linebreeding we have been able to find the hidden recessive genes in our bloodline. Since inbreeding intensifies the faults as well as the virtues, we are able to put together a clear picture of the genetic makeup of our stock. For example, when we actually produced litter C (on chart #6) we found a recessive for weak pigment and straight fronts, which showed itself in a large number of pups. By using the best specimens, the faults were ‘hidden’ but were still present in the gene pool and might have appeared later. To solve this problem, and eliminate these undesirable recessives from our new stock, another breeding technique was used: Type Breeding.

Now for a few cautions. Never breed two dogs with an ‘open’ pedigree where all the dogs are unrelated and/or of different types. It’s similar to breeding a dog where all the ancestors come from different breeds of dogs. In other words, the results of such a breeding are unpredictable. Opposites may attract, but they don’t produce anything predictable.

Be sure you know the difference between ‘inherited’ and "acquired" characteristics. A dog does not 'inherit’ a UD degree. He acquired it through intensive training. The ability to learn, or the basic intelligence is ‘inherited’. A puppy who loses an eye due to an accident will still produce pups with two normal eyes. The injured eye is an ‘acquired’ (so to speak) trait. The dog’s coat color, basic bone structure, and basic temperament are examples of inherited characteristics, and may be passed along to future generations. The difference between inherited and acquired characteristics often becomes very blurred. Be certain you know the difference when evaluating breeding stock or selecting a puppy.

Have a specific Plan of Action when breeding. To use ‘hit or miss’ methods by breeding only to ‘good-looking’ stock is inviting heartbreak. A breeding program without a purpose is like a ship without a rudder or a builder without a blueprint. It is even more foolish to base a breeding on faulty logic and misinformation. For example, I have seen the mating of a SCH III and a champion in order to get the best of both! Such a breeding produces the best of neither, and usually is a disappointment.

Linebreeding has ancient roots. From the Bible, we learn that Abraham was commanded by God to practice inbreeding and linebreeding. Abraham married his half-sister and produced a son. Isaac. Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin, and through successive marriages between first cousins and other close relatives, the Jewish nation was formed on the Abraham-Isaac line.

We have covered quite a bit from crayons to back-crosses. I hope it is clear by now that this business of Genetics can be taken out of the laboratory and into the kennel. It’s not necessary to have two college degrees to use these ideas in a sound breeding program. All that’s necessary is basic understanding of the principles involved and a willingness to experiment and learn from successes and failures. I hope it is clear how a carefully controlled program of linebreeding can improve a breed, and how adequate homework on litters produced by certain pairs of breeding animals can be critical to your understanding of the recessive gene pool in a bloodline.

 

References:

PRINCIPLES OF GENETICS. Third Edition
By Eldon J. Gardner
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, NY (1968)

GENERAL ZOOLOGY
By Claude Villee, Warren F. Walker Jr., and Frederick E. Smith
W.B. Saunders Co.
Philadelphia, PA (1963)

ESSENTIALS OF BIOLOGY
By C. Leland Rodgers
Barrons Educational Series, Inc.
Woodbury, NY (1974)

The article you have just read was written back in '79. It was published in the German Shepherd Quarterly and later I made copies of those pages and used them in one of my Newsletters... and then again in one of our "best of the best" editions. Some of you have already read it, some may not have, either way.. .it’s time to STUDY IT!! Dana has also prepared some interesting facts for you (below) taken from old GSD books. I had planned to add a lot of "personal" data to this list, since I knew many of those dogs in a much more "intimate" way, but due to the lack of time it will have to wait for another lesson. I would really like to see you....FUTURE BREEDERS...SPEND SOME TIME GETTING MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE DOGS WE HAVE IN OUR PRESENT PEDIGREES!!!

 

"F" Litter of Arbywood (1957) A litter of 10, produced by the sable dam, had 6 champions: the dogs Fortune, Fels, Field Marshall, Ferd and Falko and the bitch Fashion. The first 3 all became ROM. The litter was very Troll like in some cases. particularly Falko, Fels and Ferd. Fortune (Select twice) was less so but a compact rather pale sable of less extreme angulations who produced Lance of Fran-Jo and thus revolutionized the breed in America.

Cobert’s Melissa (1967-77)

Substantial feminine brood bitch who produced well to

Lance in 4 litters as well as to other Lance descendants.

Some color paling, she also carried brown color factor of America’s leading brood bitches.

Cobert’s Reno of Lakeside (1970-85)

OFA hips, B/T, large shapely Lance son. Proportioned dog better shouldered than his father but with extreme hind angulation. Attractive masculine head. Widely used long life he gave his own (Lance) type with generally good dentition and ear carriage. Not really a pigment corrector. Produced long coats and cryptorchidism. One of top US sires of all time with 55 Am Chs to his credit. Amassed 2366 ROM points.

Eko-Lan’s Morgan (1967-79)

OFA hips. B/T large well proportioned substantial dog. Long in upper arm. Good hindquarters. Produced good pigment, good hips, size and moderate hind angulation.

Eko-Lan’s Paladen (1970-81)

OFA hips, B/T. large, balanced, masculine with high withers, good back and curved if shortish croup. Very Troll like. Great success as a sire but producing only moderate shoulders with limited fore chest. Gave good hips, no long coats but did produce blues and missing teeth.

Lance of Fran-Jo (1964-73)

OFA hips, B/fawn, missing 1 premolar. Rather erect dog with high withers but with a long steepish upper arm and long forelegs. Oversized, elegant with impeccable character. Good topline but perhaps excessively angulated behind. Good depth of chest, good middlepiece. Poor feet and pasterns. Had panosteitis in youth. Produced size and short backs with high withers. Rather extreme hind angulation. Some steep upper arms. Occasional white blaze on chest. Some wide set ears. Suggestion involvement with achalasia of the esophagus. Some paling colors. Seemed to blend very well with Bernd Kallengarten lines. Lance was the most influential dog in American history, his bloodlines dominating American breeding from the late 1960’s onwards. He had 59 American Champion offspring and very few champions will not be of Lance "blood".

"Z" Litter of Fran-Jo (1972)

2 ROM males: Zeto and Zeus of Fran-Jo. Zeus was unshown being allegedly a unilateral cryptorchid!. He gave early maturity, size and extreme hind angulation but go coups. Zeto was less extreme than Zeus and more of the Bernd type.

Cito vd Hermannschleuse (1952)

German import, grey sable. Medium sized, well pigmented, strong headed male with good shoulders, hind angulation, croup and long striding gait like his mother. Outstanding vigor and character. Gave cryptorchidism

Bill v Kleistweg (1953)

German import, B/T. Strongly built well proportioned with masculine head, good angulations. Produced missing teeth.

Lakeside’s Harrigan (1970-76)

OFA hips, B/T. Large top winning dog of the early 1970’s. Well proportioned but rather short in the upper arm and deep. Hind angulation not as good as some of this breeding. Temperament not ideal. Dark eyes, good movement. Some light colors and variable characters. Produced long coats and cryptorchidism, some weak ears.

Rikter v Liebstraum (1956)

B/T. Excellent type with balance, well developed forechest and brisket. Good head and expression. High withers. Good shoulder, good backline and croup. No mouth. Straight legs, good feet and pasterns. Moved well from side, some toeing in.

Troll v Richterbach (1953-63)

German import, B/T Large powerful masculine. Large thin ears. Firm body slightly steep in upper arms but well angulated rear. Good topline and croup. Outreaching gait. Big feet with weakish pasterns. Produced size sometimes to excess, dilution color and cryptorchidism. More extreme hindquarters than he himself possessed. The problem and the weak pasterns and poor feet have come through him.

Wotan v Richterbach

German import. Large of good type. Good shoulders and hind angulation. Poor tail set. Rich pigment. Some tendency to roach. Carried blue.

"K" litter of Waldesruh (1966)

[Kelly, Korporal] Import litter, sables. From this source can come some pale colors and a tendency to looseness as well as open feet. Some wide set and weak ear.

Axel vd Deininghauserheide (1946)

Immo v Hasenfang x Helma v Hildegarsheim - Medium sized powerfully built with depth of chest but rather long back. Good angulations. Good working ability. He is of weak and largish ears and suspected of involvement with Von Wildenbrands Disease. Weak colors can come through this line, also blues. Sire of Troll is also behind Bernd v Kallengarten as well as Mutz. Quanto, Marko, and Dick v Adeloga.

Lido v Friedlichenheim (1949)

German import. Fred v Haus Brenner v Sonja vd Gnadentalermuhle. Produced cryptorchidism -- not widely used in USA despite German ring success.

Atlas v Piastendamm (1954)

German import, dark grey. Typical Ingo breeding. Strong head, slightly long body, well pigmented with good hind angulations. Produced cryptorchidism.

Questions and/or comments about this article? Send them to us and we will be happy to discuss them with you.

Genetics |Practical Genetics | Inbreeding--When is it too Much? | Coefficient of Inbreeding | Another Breeding Tool | Site Map |

 

This article, written by Tina M. Barber in 1979, is reprinted here with her exclusive permission and was
first published in the Shiloh Shepherd Learning Center in August 1998,

Shiloh Shepherd™ is a trademark of the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry.   All Pictures as well as all Articles written by Tina M. Barber  affiliated with this site are products and are secured by copyright and may not be used without written permission of Tina M. Barber.  Unless otherwise noted, Tina M. Barber is the sole author of all articles on this website.

Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to the webmaster.  
Copyright © 1998-2012  Tina M. Barber.  All rights reserved.
Last modified: Sunday July 20, 2014.