Go Pitbull Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I started this to not hijack the Lycon one.


Where do you think the value of a pedigree starts and stops? IMO its 8 genereations. I dont think much of anything is contributed past that to the current dog other than history.

So that being said how would you feel about a dog that has 100% without a doubt Amstaff blood/Staff blood 8-10 generations back. IF one had a dog like that and had 8 subsequent generations of true and pure APBT what would you think? I mean in the begining before records were kept who knew what a dog was or where it was going?

Without a doubt my Falin dogs have TNT blood which has some AKC dogs in it. However once it is past 8 generations how valid is it. Other than to show consistency in breeding, ie linebreeding vs scatterbred, but genetically speaking I think there is little contributed.

I honestly belive and if I had the time and space would love to do this, but I believe that if I took APBT X? from the dog pound and bred it to APBT Y? from the dog pound and recorded said breeding and then bred APBT X? to APBT Z? fro, the dog pound and line bred close and pure from there forward for 8 generations, culled hard that you could end up with a good sound APBT.

I will say that alot would depend on what you started with. It would be imperitive that you built your foundation well.

This brings me to the point about the TNT line, were the Amstaff/Staff dogs used in the past of the line good dogs or culls. Were they comformationally correct? Were they sound dogs. From what I have seen they were and they were athletic and driven dogs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MY MIKADO

·
The M.F. Problem
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
My opinion is 8 generations back as well, but I don't foreget the fact that a genetic flaw and or trait could arise in any dog..... Of course genration by generation defects become weaker. NOT saying that AmStadd is a genetic defect, please don't misunderstand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
NOne taken man I know where you are coming from. I think this could be a good topic!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
I'm not a fan of paper breeding i prefer performance breeding,but i understand the need and desire to know what your dogs made of as well as the historical relivance i guess thats the importance of a pedigree.
but i think that anything past the 4th generation is pretty much bred out if your goal is focusing on another trait other than what the prior dogs in said pedigree were built on.
unless of course your dogs are a continueance of the past,then your just dealing with other peoples stuff and possably your own spin on it,which is great as well.
did that make sense?
 

·
The M.F. Problem
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
I read a quote lastnight on a kennels page that said something like if the dog looks good on paper it'd better look better on all fours... I like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
This brings me to the point about the TNT line, were the Amstaff/Staff dogs used in the past of the line good dogs or culls. Were they comformationally correct? Were they sound dogs. From what I have seen they were and they were athletic and driven dogs?
were they conformationally correct,I'd say yes and no,i think they were performance bred first and some were bigger than the norm.
dogs like turtle buster and kingfish had staff and were good dogs,some of the watch dog stuff was bigger.
were there any culls?thats purely a opinion thing and who am i to say?
they produced for sure and I'm positive some were not all they were cracked up to be and some were probably more than they ever were given credit.
definitely most were sound dogs,my only doubt is the heritage of the early watchdog blood.Ive seen that as much as tnts known for blue dogs there also alot of black dogs produced,probably as a result of performance breeding over color selection,jmo.
great thread by the way.
 

·
The M.F. Problem
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
I'm not a fan of paper breeding i prefer performance breeding,but i understand the need and desire to know what your dogs made of as well as the historical relivance i guess thats the importance of a pedigree.
but i think that anything past the 4th generation is pretty much bred out if your goal is focusing on another trait other than what the prior dogs in said pedigree were built on.
unless of course your dogs are a continueance of the past,then your just dealing with other peoples stuff and possably your own spin on it,which is great as well.
did that make sense?
It makes perfect sense, if you're not preserving then you should be bettering... does that about some it up?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Cane I agree that 4 generations is a much more accurate and contributing source. I just think that NOTHING past 8 is relevant at all

Just some food for thought, do you know how many possible contributing dogs are possible in 4 generations? 32!!!!

8 generations is 512!! 512 possible contributors. If a 1/4 is lost from each contributing dog every generation, there isnt much there after 8 especially if its not tightly bred. That means that a dog 8 generations back IF it contributes at all would be contributing, 1/256th of its genetic makeup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddoggy

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
no,I'm not good at math,but i think your dogs can speak for themself.
but i do understand the need to defend the line you've chosen to work with,especialy when its constantly being attacked.and my watchdog theory is just that,its not written in stone or the most common theory,its based on contrasting and comparing performance ab stock against dogs like Beelzebub and other bigger blue watchdog stock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
fine dogs,it cant be argued,i always thought rebal had good confrimation,for a bigger dog.
and when i say bigger i mean hes small by todays standard but his chain weight was plumbers alligators pit weight sooo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Yeah he is a little tall but put together well. Now that he is 5 his chain weight is about56-58lbs. He comes in at 55lbs when conditioned for shows.
 

·
Courage
Joined
·
3,052 Posts
I will say that alot would depend on what you started with. It would be imperitive that you built your foundation well.
That would be hard to do with pound dogs because you couldn't see enough to pick two. But I believe you could do it with regular old byb dogs. Good thread.

Just read the other thread...
What's it really matter if what you are doing is producing good dogs? How they are bred is how they are bred and if your making good dogs, it must be decent blood right? That's how I'd look at it. The proof is in the pudding.
 

·
Dare to dance the tide
Joined
·
12,401 Posts
WOW I can't believe this topic is up I was just thinking about this stuff yesterday.

I think that yes you could take two pound dogs that were conformationally correct and sound and had the drive you desired and you could produce well breed dogs. Yes you would have to cull but how did any line really get started. I would say though you would have to prove this two dogs which is hard to since to compete one must register their dog that was the part that stumped me yesterday ow would get past that?
 

·
Dare to dance the tide
Joined
·
12,401 Posts
Oh I forgot to mention I think anything past 8 generations is not important and for the qualities you are looking for you wouldn't get much from any dog past the fourth or fifth generation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
to answer your question about tnt dogs being amstaff yeah they are highly infuanced by amstaff. and they were good amstaff All of wich i believe to be prefomance i have do some research on my dogs that are (tnt) that goes back to (Watchdog) (ELI) and (Bourdouex)sp if you look at the pedigree of blues alot of the amstaff influance is from gr ch dogs and the history of the non amstaff are great box records. so personaly within the last 7 generations bred back to tnt and what made tnt tnt i think they are good conoformation and very driven. but im bias.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top