What would you rather have?

A consistent producer of decent dogs, or a sporadic producer of GREAT dogs?
Was just wondering what the answers would be.

 

Would have to take sporadic producers of great dogs simple because mediocre dogs shouldn't be bred in the first place. On the other hand I'm not a fan of puppies so I'd rather breed dogs who I think would produce at a high percentage that way I don't have to do a whole lot of breeding

 

I don't even know what I'd pick. The first option, you'd be okay but you'd never really go places with your yard... you would have "okay" dogs and that's that. The second option would probably get you farther but it would take a lot of breeding and culling, a lot of wasted money raising up dogs and not having them turn out.

 

its like asking would you like a million dollars every now and then or just a steady pay check that is decent lol.. really who aint gonna take the big one when its people who go through life never getting it.

 

either way, its completely hypothetical and way to hard to put into real life terms. cuz why would u ever keep breeding a dog if you infact knew it never had the potential to put a real good one on the ground? Sounds like wasted breedings to me or just low standards. Guess it depends ont he level of competition also... if you messin with the best then you can only accept the best from your stock imo

 

Lol. Yep I agree

 

The problem with that second option is that it costs a lot of time and money to wade through all those sub-par dogs... trying to find the few gems that you get.

 

i would go with the dog throwing great animals and take him to the best females available that should better the odds if i had three litters something should click so i would stay that rout

 

The first one because a sound decent average can be raised or lowered through variation , that puts it on the breeder and their understanding ……..the second one is hit and hope ,the product of chasing individuals that don’t breed true…but each to his own.

 

Consistancy is the key............having a great dam is more important. It would be where i would focus.

 

I'll take consistancy.There is always room to improve.

 

You dont think it would be easier to improve when you have some Great offspring?
How do you improve something that only produces average...its just producing itself.
the other animal is producing better at times

 

when breeeding you take a good game bitch and breed her to a good dog . this will add gameness . then you start picking from there . she produce consistent so you are going to get your better dogs if you cull right . the key is she is consistent . you add ability to it and then you have something to work with . if you breed 1 that only throughs 1 here and there you will be wasting alot of time .

 

depends what u like in a dog

 

If you got the space and time to keep them all intell you can cull the bad one's.Then you could end up with a good dog that dont produce well.
Consistent is always better for the long haul,if you got that then the great one's will come once and a while,or from bettering your breeding program.

 

CONSITENTCY iz 'GUD' wit ME;-)

SPORADIC? I think I will pass on dat... hehehe!

 

My consistent,decent dogs will provide me with a great dog that will produce great dogs,because they have the CONSITENTCY to reproduce them selves.

 

I still don't see why you would want to consistently get sub par dogs. In that situation consistency is a bad thing. If u use sub par stock you can expect sub par results.

 

i'll take those few great dogs, stick 'em together and go from there.

a dog throwing 2 decent dogs every litter is consistent.
a dog throwing 6 great dogs then 2 then 0 then 3 is sporadic.

you're gonna be culling and spending money whichever route you go. Give me those top shelf animals and you can have a yard full of "ok" bulldogs.

 

thats the way i see it naus id take my chances on great dogs if thats an option

they say best to best

if my best is great
and your best is good
well you tell me who has the upper hand