test litters??

[x11]

Lucy i think the goal is not an experiment for specific extreme traits it is a test to test the prevalence of recessive and unwanted traits - i think.

eg if the litter did not have a high rate of HD or any other nasty things the breeder can gain some confidence in their program, again i think this only.

[Lucy Dog]

Could be. I was just giving my perspective on what I thought you meant as a "test litter".

Still think a breeder should stand behind whatever they produce.

[x11]

agreed but if the breeder does not lie to customers and authentically "sures" up his line in the most direct way but is still conscious of marketing and customer perceptions are they not being reputable still?

hopefully science will catch up or dog breeders will catch up with science and such tests will be able to be performed with a simple blood test and computer anaysis or something.

[Lucy Dog]

Originally Posted by x11

agreed but if the breeder does not lie to customers and authentically "sures" up his line in the most direct way but is still conscious of marketing and customer perceptions are they not being reputable still?

I think it depends. If the litter turns out great than everyone's happy. The grey area is if/when there's tons of health or temperament issues from the inbreeding or whatever the experiment of the litter is. How does that reflect on the breeder's program if it never existed to the public? Where do they go from there? What happens if these people no longer want their puppies after all these issues start cropping up? What if it's a larger than expected litter and there's more puppies than people in agreement with this experiment - what happens to the other puppies?

So many variables to these experiments when it comes to the ethics of it.

Originally Posted by x11

hopefully science will catch up or dog breeders will catch up with science and such tests will be able to be performed with a simple blood test and computer anaysis or something.

So true. Us humans would probably benefit from this too, but that's a whole nother conversation..

[x11]

yeah getting into deeper waters and i dont swim real well. let us not forget tho that just about every nation has implemented (or tried) some form of eugenics program.

i think my questions here have been answered thanks for the opinions.

[Chris Wild]

I suppose it would depend on the purpose of the test litter and I think it a bit ridiculous for people to exclaim that they are horrified at the idea, or to jump to the conclusion that there is incest going on, without knowing the specifics.

Test breedings are not that rare. They are often done, including by many European kennels whose "official" breedings are to strict SV regulations. It takes much time and money to get a dog qualified to breed under those regulations and many don't want to put a couple years time and thousands of dollars into a dog only to find out on it's first mating that it can't get bred, can't whelp puppies, is a horrible mother, or produces poor traits in the pups and isn't a viable breeding candidate. So they will do a test breeding and sell the pups cheap without papers so that they can make sure that the dog is a sound breeding candidate before investing a boatload of time and money into getting it's qualifications to breed according to the rules.

And yes, some test breedings are done for a different reason, using close inbreeding to reveal any nasty hidden recessives that might be present.

Neither is inherently good or bad. The biggest question is whether or not the pups are dealt with and placed responsibly. If they are, no harm is done, and both tactics can strengthen a breeding program over the long haul if done responsibly.

[Liesje]

I'm with Chris, it is what it is. I guess I'd actually give the breeder some kudos for being honest and transparent about their purpose. I'm talking about "test" breeding, not inbreeding, FWIW. I don't really get not papering the dogs though, if they turn out nice perhaps the owners would want to show or compete with them but I guess that is between the breeder and the owners, none of my business.

I don't get why people are so horrified by this? Again I see breeders being held to double standards. They are supposed to have a magic crystal ball and know exactly what is being produced every time? How do you think we are able to make relatively accurate predictions in the first place? Because someone somewhere bred a combination and somehow the result has become common knowledge or shared among fanciers and competitors so that they can make better breeding decisions as a result. This stuff does not happen in a vacuum. There is always a risk and IMO, a good breeder is not just breeding stellar pups but putting their lines to the test and having a more complete understanding of how the genetics of their lines with interact with others.

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by Chris Wild

I suppose it would depend on the purpose of the test litter and I think it a bit ridiculous for people to exclaim that they are horrified at the idea, or to jump to the conclusion that there is incest going on, without knowing the specifics.

Test breedings are not that rare. They are often done, including by many European kennels whose "official" breedings are to strict SV regulations. It takes much time and money to get a dog qualified to breed under those regulations and many don't want to put a couple years time and thousands of dollars into a dog only to find out on it's first mating that it can't get bred, can't whelp puppies, is a horrible mother, or produces poor traits in the pups and isn't a viable breeding candidate. So they will do a test breeding and sell the pups cheap without papers so that they can make sure that the dog is a sound breeding candidate before investing a boatload of time and money into getting it's qualifications to breed according to the rules.

And yes, some test breedings are done for a different reason, using close inbreeding to reveal any nasty hidden recessives that might be present.

Neither is inherently good or bad. The biggest question is whether or not the pups are dealt with and placed responsibly. If they are, no harm is done, and both tactics can strengthen a breeding program over the long haul if done responsibly.

Agreed. And it's not only done with dogs and not shocking at all. As long as it's done responsibly, I don't really worry about it at all.

[martemchik]

I'm actually more interested in the "feedback" homes than anything else. What kinds of homes are these? I would have to believe that the best types of homes/owners to give feedback are the ones that are working/trialing/showing their dogs. These homes are usually deeply involved in the dog world and the biggest thing they need is papers. I'd imagine most of these homes don't have the time/money to raise another puppy that they aren't going to be moving forward with trialing.

I can't imagine that a breeder has 6-10 friends that are willing to take on a dog that doesn't have papers and do their venue of choice. I figure you'd end up selling these dogs to lower quality pet homes (possibly higher) but those homes probably don't have enought experience to give that much valuable feedback to the breeder.

BTW...people will be outraged at this. Nothing to do with inbreeding or what not, mostly to do with producing a litter of non-papered puppies sold for cheap to who knows who. What's the difference between a "reputable breeder" doing that or the guy down the street popping out puppies and selling them for $500 a piece? Adding more dogs to the population is already a hot button issue...and now you find out that even the people you think are doing it ethically might be doing something else behind closed doors.

And yes...responsibility is a huge issue when it comes to this, but its already a very blurry line of what's responsible and what isn't.

[carmspack]

AGREED "a good breeder is not just breeding stellar pups but putting their lines to the test and having a more complete understanding of how the genetics of their lines with interact with others. "