# Percentage of Dogs that are Breed Worthy?



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

This question came up in another thread, and I didn't want it to get lost. It is an interesting question.



Hunter Jack said:


> I'll try asking a different way.
> 
> What percentage of a breeders dogs (regardless of their end use) wind up being good enough to actually want to use for breeding.


----------



## ponyfarm (Apr 11, 2010)

10%! Just repeating what a very famous breeder of labs told me!


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I wonder if they are breed worthy or actually used in breeding.

When I was researching breeders to purchase the dog I have now most breeder sites did not carry but a few males and or females.

So it seems breeders are working from a select and small group of dogs.

There are many heated discussions on the forum about breed standard but most of them are probably only understood in depth by a very few.

I love to hear from the breeders because they have a tremendous amount of knowledge about genetics and the breed in general.

Even though they may differ in focus they are the hope of the breed.

For those of us who merely own these fantastic dogs our hope for the breed lies with them and the dogs they choose to breed.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

There is probably no way to get a handle on a figure because of all of the varying reasons that motivate breeders. Just from comments and positions on this forum my opinion is as follows;
1) Very few breeders have the proper priorities in place to foundation their breeding
2) Very few breeders have the knowledge of bloodlines and genetics to be breeding
3) Very few people understand/recognize the most important traits of the breed, thus are ill equipped to make the compensations necessary to keep balance and utility in the breed
4) Too many breeders allow what they personally like in the breed have more importance than what they may need in their breeding program
5) The devlopment of specialization lines have rendered many many dogs as not breedworthy because the breeders did not know when to stop or when to revitalize with genetic diversity
All of these things have greatly decreased the number of dogs that are breedworthy, though I think the bigger problem is the breeders and not the dogs. Some dogs today are so genetically compromised that you cannot use that dog for breeding if you want to maintain the core principles of the breed. This aspect was not done by BYB, nonetheless what is created must fall into the unbreedworthy catergory because of the genetics and performance.
These are just my thoughts and I couldn't hazard a guess on the percentage.


----------



## Uniballer (Mar 12, 2002)

As usual, Cliffson1 makes excellent points.

For males we should probably be shooting for the top 1% of qualified (i.e. titled, rated, health certified) animals. That would still provide plenty of genetic diversity while being far enough up the bell curve to improve the breed. The problem becomes who defines which animals are in that top 1%, and what criteria are used to put them there. This is what the German breed survey system is supposed to do, but there are certainly varied opinions on how well it is working.

For bitches lets just stipulate for now that all qualified (i.e. titled, rated, health certified) animals are acceptable.


----------



## Danielle609 (Jun 18, 2011)

I think that there are probably a lot of "breed worthy" dogs that are not bred, and too many dogs that are being bred that are not "breed worthy". I don't think there is a way to put a percentage on it. Of course I am a newb to all of this...just my 2cents  But I don't think every breed worthy dog should be bred. Just like having a DSLR camera does not make you a professional photographer, having a "breed worthy" dog shouldn't necessarily make you a breeder.


----------



## ponyfarm (Apr 11, 2010)

cliffson1 said:


> There is probably no way to get a handle on a figure because of all of the varying reasons that motivate breeders. Just from comments and positions on this forum my opinion is as follows;
> 1) Very few breeders have the proper priorities in place to foundation their breeding
> 2) Very few breeders have the knowledge of bloodlines and genetics to be breeding
> 3) Very few people understand/recognize the most important traits of the breed, thus are ill equipped to make the compensations necessary to keep balance and utility in the breed
> ...


Ok, so, like my breeder/judge friend said...less than 10% are quality enough to be bred!


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

If we're talking truly exceptional animals that should be bred, I'd agree that the 10% guess is probably about right. Now, if talking dogs who are technically breed worthy in terms of titles, health certs, no disqualifying faults, etc... then the number would be higher. But just because a dog has breed worthy credentials doesn't mean it really IS something that should be bred. Likewise, there are undoubtedly a lot of dogs out there without all of those credentials for one reason or another, that would have a lot to offer as breeding dogs. And obviously if talking dogs who get bred, whether they should or not, again even higher yet.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think there are a lot of dogs being bred that shouldn't be, and I've also seen some really exceptional dogs placed in pet type homes or in working/competitive homes that never breed. For all we complain about over breeding and people breeding simply based on papers and titles, I often wonder how many truly great dogs never reach their full potential or are passed over for breeding for any number of reasons...


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Does anyone have an idea of the actual number of GSDs bred a year? Would that be helpful in determining a percentage? 
1. AKC numbers
2. Mill registries
3. Estimate of non-registered litters
Or any other? 

I do believe if those 5 things were met we would have a great bunch of dogs, but they would not be coming out of our ears. Never going to happen because of greed, but nice to think about!


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

I think in the spirit of understanding that we are not all going to agree on what is breed-worthy. It would be interesting to hear from those that breed and keep track of the dogs they produce a rough estimate of how many of those are breeding potential. (I say potential because some may not be owned by people who get OFAs or titles which are requirements for many breeders) Maybe two numbers ones that you know are breed worthy and ones you suspect are but are missing something like hip check or title.

10% was mentioned. Any other input?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I have to ask this, and I'm sure it isn't going to help me win any popularity contests. I'm not sure exactly how to word it with out offending any breeders on this forum, and it certainly isn't geared to a specific breeder. I have no personal knowledge of any specific breeder's programs. 

If a breeder's program is geared to stay within the breed standard, isn't the only way it can be truly measured would be to compete within the Conformation show ring against other dogs who are supposed to be representing the breed standard? And even then, it would become entangled within the politics of the Judges and their opinion on the breed standard?

And taking it a step further, if I were to title my dog in anything outside of the conformation ring - how much weight is carried having a dog that is within the breed standard? What difference would it make if I am not competing against another dog, but only against myself (and dog) to earn the title? Why would having a dog within breed standard matter to me? It will make no difference to my title if my dog is within breed standard. 

I'm not speaking of the obvious here. Say, if I had a dog that was over sized, it might not be as competitive in the agility ring. 

I understand that a breeder should _want_ to stay within breed standard. But to what end? The color of the dog isn't going to make a better dog, or the length of their hair, or their size.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think this has already been addressed in the other thread. The standard is NOT just size and color. NO dog is perfect, NO dog is THE standard. All dogs have faults. Why is being, say, half an inch over/under _more_ of a fault than, say, having a jumpy temperament? There is a LOT of emphasis on breed standard but some of these posts seem to assume that the "standard" only refers to height, weight, and other aesthetic aspects. What about temperament, drive, threshold, the working abilities of the dog? IMO, form should and does follow function. If any part of the standard is given more emphasis it should be the work and the temperament.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Liesje said:


> I think there are a lot of dogs being bred that shouldn't be, and I've also seen some really exceptional dogs placed in pet type homes or in working/competitive homes that never breed. For all we complain about over breeding and people breeding simply based on papers and titles, I often wonder how many truly great dogs never reach their full potential or are passed over for breeding for any number of reasons...


This is kind of what started me wondering. 

So as a non breeder I'm guessing that you who breed must need to have a very specific direction to your programs, and the selection process must be difficult.

If for example you want to use a pup from one of your own lines how and at what age are you able to determine which pup.

Jean, I read an estimate that about 50,000 GSD's are registered with AKC in a year. Since many dogs are not registered my guess is that is a drop in the bucket compared to how many are out there.

Cliffson. I like your posts because you have an incredible amount of knowledge. So much so that I only understand some of it but that's o.k.because thank the Lord I'm not trying to be a breeder.

My goal here is knowledge and understanding.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

The *standard* of any breed is the **goal** in which to breed.....period.
That *standard* consists of temperament AND structural form.
We stray away with "what if's" and "how about's"......the bottom line is...there *is* a standard for each and every breed.....*purposely* breeding outside the breed guidelines OR with no *regard* for the guidelines set forth for the breed.....is reckless breeding.
Not all dogs/puppies born will conform to the "ideal" written perception of the breed....
Our *goals* as breeders should be to produce the best dogs/puppies that we can.
We need to hold *temperament *above all,....but also not become blind to the rest.

When we *pick* and *choose *what *parts* of the standards (of any breed) ..we will follow or hold important........that breed will absolutely meet it's demise.
...this is just my opinion...


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Lies makes very good points about what the standard represents. Points I think often are overlooked and misunderstood.

The standard represents the IDEAL. No dog is perfect and meets that ideal in every respect. Therefore no dog meets the standard. All have faults and deviations from that ideal. Therefore, in the most simplistic terms I can think of, first each breeder needs to determine what for them represents an acceptable deviation in any given dog, and thus it is breed worthy, and what represents an unacceptable deviation, making the dog not breed worthy. Few are the areas where any one deviation can be so significant as to eliminate a dog entirely, so this must be done by looking at the total dog and summing the parts. It more comes down to making a list of the good and bad points about a dog, weighing the importance of each, and then deciding if the good far outweighs the bad. And then once that is determined, looking for breeding partners that are a good match in terms of bringing both complimentary factors that will enhance the goods, and compensatory factors that will minimize the bad. And being aware that not everything is going to be "fixed" in one generation, or 2 generations or even 3 generations. The breeder has to prioritize, and have a long term plan working toward that goal. And then be able to adjust it as time goes on because as forward strides are made in some respects, new things will crop up causing backward strides in others.  No breeder gets to the end and produces perfection. It doesn't exist. Rather, breeding is a journey toward coming as close as one can to that goal.

Then there are other factors too. The standard represents not just ideal physical structure and characteristics, but also lays out the temperamental characteristics that are ideal to the breed. Far too many breeders focus on one, but not the other. And of course individual interpretations of the standard can vary widely. Someone mentioned conformation showing as a means of telling how well a dog lives up to the standard. As far as the structural part of the standard, theoretically this is true. However it does nothing to test the temperament side. But beyond that, clearly there are huge differences in how the standard is interpreted in the different conformation venues. Look at a successful AKC show dog, and successful SV show dog, and frankly they look nothing alike. The AKC Grand Victor supposedly is the closest to the structural ideal... but so is the SV VA1 dog at the Sieger show. Why do they look so different? The written standards of the two organizations are almost identical. There are very few and very minor differences in how the standards are written or illustrated. But how they are interpreted and thus put into place by judges and exhibitors are clearly worlds apart.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Bouncing off of other statements, is it fair to say that breed worthy isn't about just one dog,_ it's how the genes mesh between two dogs? _

This would explain why two "great" dogs might produce horrible progeny. Because although two dogs are breed worthy in their own right, they aren't necessarily a good match?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Hunter Jack said:


> This is kind of what started me wondering.
> 
> So as a non breeder I'm guessing that you who breed must need to have a very specific direction to your programs, and the selection process must be difficult.
> 
> ...


So maybe 75-100,000 new GSDs a year? I think that helps to know if you are going to say a percentage. Or maybe I'm thinking like a monkey who never liked stats.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Bouncing off of other statements, is it fair to say that breed worthy isn't about just one dog,_ it's how the genes mesh between two dogs? _
> 
> This would explain why two "great" dogs might produce horrible progeny. Because although two dogs are breed worthy in their own right, they aren't necessarily a good match?


Absolutely.
Looking at any individual dog only gives it's phenotype. There are many genes that while hidden in that dog, may be thrown into offspring. This is why researching pedigrees and bloodlines and close relatives is important, as it provides clues as to what those hidden genes are and gives the breeder a better understanding of the dog's likely genotype.

Though it's still far from an exact science. More a really educated guess. And even with all the research in the world the results aren't completely predictable and sometimes there are surprises and picking what would appear to be a great match doesn't always turn out that way.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Bouncing off of other statements, is it fair to say that breed worthy isn't about just one dog,_ it's how the genes mesh between two dogs? _
> 
> This would explain why two "great" dogs might produce horrible progeny. Because although two dogs are breed worthy in their own right, they aren't necessarily a good match?


To me, "breed worthy" means that they can or will be breed. That doesn't mean that the dog is perfect, but lacks any major faults that would exclude him/her from breeding.

It is obvious that breeders do not agree on what makes a dog breed worthy, or what constitues a major fault.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Liesje said:


> I think there are a lot of dogs being bred that shouldn't be, and I've also seen some really exceptional dogs placed in pet type homes or in working/competitive homes that never breed. For all we complain about over breeding and people breeding simply based on papers and titles, I often wonder how many truly great dogs never reach their full potential or are passed over for breeding for any number of reasons...


That's what I was going to say. I guess you can never really know the actual percentage of breedworthiness, unless you took every single dog that did not have a disqualifying fault, and put 110% into training, showing, and titling.

My guess would be that, as it stands, show lines have a better percentage on paper. It seems German showline people are a lot more likely to show, train, and title their dogs, so that they get the coveted breeding rights. My guess is that working lines are more likely to go into real-life work, like police, SAR, etc. and not bother with showing or titling in sport. I could be wrong about that.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Free...what are *coveted breeding rights?*for SL breeders?......there are no prerequisites for breeding and registering puppies in the USA.(AKC)..they only need to be from "papered pure bred parents"....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Chris explained perfectly what I was trying to say!

I'm getting a tattoo today derived from Linda Shaw's illustrated standard


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> Free...what are *coveted breeding rights?*for SL breeders?......there are no prerequisites for breeding and registering puppies in the USA.(AKC)..they only need to be from "papered pure bred parents"....


I meant breeders who are pursuing the German method. AKC breeding is a whole 'nuther story.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

But there are just as many WL breeders pursuing the "German method"....?
They title, show and compete with their dogs also.....they just "choose" to compete seriously in sport instead of the conformation ring.
Both SL & WL breeders have dogs that do real life work....I don't think "titles" or "venues" make dogs any better than what they were actually born being.
Following a prerequisite for breeding is a "choice" in the USA.....
Breeders have goals for themselves & their dogs, and pursue them in particular forms...like ..OB, Schutzhund, SAR, PoliceK9, Service Dogs, Herding, Agility...etc..etc...
I don't think being a WL or SL matters....it's what the "dogs" themselves should be capable of.
*Not harping...just voicing an opinion*


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> So maybe 75-100,000 new GSDs a year? I think that helps to know if you are going to say a percentage. Or maybe I'm thinking like a monkey who never liked stats.


Well I worked in the engineering dept. in Aerospace for many years and we used stats to give us rough estimates.

So if there are roughly 75-to 100,000 or so GSD's bred in the U.S. every year even using 10% that might be good enough to actually breed from seems high to me.

It's hard for me to imagine 7,500 to 10,000 dogs that will add to the breed.

Thanks, 
Lies, Jean, Chris, Cliff, Robin and I know there are many others because it helps those of us who have these dogs to understand what all goes into the process.

What I like best in my own dog is his temperament,and he has great nerve.
He has great energy but is is super mellow. I'm less interested in cosmetics.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Oh - I don't know the process of breeding - just like to have the information on hand to try to understand.  But thanks for the thanks to all - that's nice.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Uniballer said:


> For bitches lets just stipulate for now that all qualified (i.e. titled, rated, health certified) animals are acceptable.


I disagree. IMO we should hold just as high a standard for our females. Great dogs come from great females.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> I don't think "titles" or "venues" make dogs any better than what they were actually born being.


Totally agree, which is why it's practically impossible to guess what the actual percentage of "breedworthy" dogs are.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

lhczth said:


> I disagree. IMO we should hold just as high a standard for our females. Great dogs come from great females.


I agree that females should be good representatives of the breed, but a female can only impact the breed by maybe 60 puppies, where a dog can produce that many a month or more, and can produce for many more years. Where a female can jump through all the hoops and have all the bells and all the whistles, and come up with NO puppies. 

You can have a dog with all the clearances, survey, shows, and titles that simply does not reproduce itself well at all.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I brought up percentages that could qualify to be used for breeding.

Some of the discussions on breeding are hard to understand because I don't think the terminology used means the same to everyone.

Regardless of what kind of breeder there are differences in the dogs produced.

Dogs may miss the standard in many ways and should not be bred.
Some may miss but in minor ways, e.g. too short. What about them?
Some may meet the standard but not necessarily add anything. Should they be bred?
Then there may be outstanding dogs who could and maybe should be bred but may be purchased for other reasons or uses.

So It seems like those that are left that both could and should be bred are a small percent.

I guess then that it's individual breeders who are minding the store. How they see this is critically important to the breed as a whole.


----------



## Uniballer (Mar 12, 2002)

lhczth said:


> I disagree. IMO we should hold just as high a standard for our females. Great dogs come from great females.


I agree that only the best females should be bred. But you can't breed only the top 1% of females because they can't produce enough puppies to sustain the breed. The math is simple. I'm pretty sure you need to breed the top 5% at least. And, quite frankly, I'll bet there aren't 2000 bitches in the USA with working titles, conformation ratings, and health checks, the basic qualifications IMO.


----------



## ponyfarm (Apr 11, 2010)

You could just look at a really, really good breeder and then see how many they produce that actually they would breed, of the dogs they produced. Probably a very few. That percentage would probably stand true for the breed as a whole.

I have friends that breed Welsh ponies and it is a once in a lifetime to breed one that would be worthy to actually stand at stud.

The conundrum is that everyone has their own idea of what is good speciman of a GSD. In Welsh ponies its a smaller, much smaller group of people and they keep a tight rein on whats produced.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

ponyfarm said:


> *You could just look at a really, really good breeder and then see how many they produce that actually they would breed, of the dogs they produced. Probably a very few. That percentage would probably stand true for the breed as a whole*.
> 
> I have friends that breed Welsh ponies and it is a once in a lifetime to breed one that would be worthy to actually stand at stud.
> 
> The conundrum is that everyone has their own idea of what is good speciman of a GSD. In Welsh ponies its a smaller, much smaller group of people and they keep a tight rein on whats produced.


But how? I am sorry, but if the very best breeders produce a litter with attention to every detail, genetics, titles, conformation, nutrition, age, health screening, health history. And they keep 2 pups out of ten, and sell another two puppies as show/breeding prospects. And the remaining six pups are sold to pet homes. 

Let's say that each of these puppies actually DO reach maturity without dropping out of the program. That would be a 40% success rate, or 20% that the breeder has kept for their own breeding program and has found to be breedworthy. 

But how in the world would that be 40 or even 20% across the board??? 

As cliffson said, most people out there breeding dogs are lacking somewhere. They are not paying attention to genetics or health history or proper conformation or proper temperament, or they are seriously flawed in what they believe is proper. How can these people produce the same percentage of breedworthy progeny than those individuals who DO pay attention to all the details???

My guess is the vast majority of breeders have no business breeding and are breeding dogs that have no business being bred. For every person out their covering a portion of most of the bases, there are probably a hundred that haven't a clue. 

if you breed two dogs together who are not breedworthy, the chances are astronomically against you creating a single puppy that IS breedworthy. 

But then who determines breedworthiness? If the BYB with the father/daughter pair of 115 pound dogs determines for himself which of his dogs are breedworthy, then maybe it is true that you can just take a really good breeder and use their ratio across the board.


----------

