Just wondering what age people think is best to start using a potential stud dog?  Age 2, 4, 6?  What health issues (if any) would you be cautious of at either end of the spectrum - a young stud versus an older dog.

Thanks :)

If appropriate for the breed, certainly not until all the things the breed suffers from, where applicable, have been tested and the dog found to be 'unaffected' - good hip and elbow scores etc.  

Many experienced breeders in my main breed actually use an intended stud dog for the first time at around a year (testing apart), on one of their own suitable bitches, not a maiden one either to see what he might throw.    And then he'd be put away (concentrate on a show career) until he's more mature.  Being allowed to mate younger rather than older should mean he's fit enough to be able to do the job!  It's something else that many males need to be trained for.   Which is why the first experience should be with a kind and accommodating bitch.

Many breeders don't let their stud dogs be used at public stud however and if they do, it's usually 'to approved bitches only' which means the owner knows that the mating should produce worth-while offspring.   If things go wrong, Sods Law it's always 'the stud dog's fault'    Remembering that the owner of the stud dog is 50% as responsible for any offspring he sires, as the owner of the bitch is.

When I had stud dogs, I turned away more enquiries, than I agreed to.   I certanly didn't want my hard work building up a recognisably good line,  wrecked by a mating to an unsuitable bitch or my stud dogs associated with poor offspring!

I think there are just too many different variables to have some kind of rule across multiple breeds.

The stud should obviously be fully-health tested, that goes without saying.  Older studs are actually a safer bet because if they have reached an older age with no significant health issues, then they will hopefully pass those genes on.  If you wait till they are too elderly however, you get reduced fertility (although not always).

The younger the stud, the less you know what you are getting - both in terms of health and also temperament.  In addition, being used at stud can change some dogs (not all) and it might be wise for a dog to have a stable personality as an adult dog before being used - rather than being used in the throes of adolescence when there can be so much turmoil around anyway.  In addition, any potential stud dog should be trying to prove themselves worthy of being a stud dog - and that typically takes time and isn't something you've achieved by the age of 12 months....

On the other hand, being used does ensure that a dog learns what to do and, when he is older, will be able to perform... He can also then be advertised as 'proven'....

So I don't think there are any rules really.  Personally, if I owned the stud, I would want to wait until preferably 3yo at a minimum and no maximum age.

Are you asking this for a reason, is there a dog you are considering standing at stud?

Very much depends on the breed I would suggest, depending on possible health conditions( e.g. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels current advice is not to be bred from before 2 1/2 years of age & the older the stud dog with a clear heart the better preferably over 5 years of age plus all the other tests both clinical & DNA being normal etc)

Difficult to generalise I know of several good producing BC/Working Sheepdog studs that weren't used until 4/5 years of age without a problem. Depends on the individual dog & his libido as well

A good part of knowing what you are going to get, if the dog involved is young and unproven, is down to having a good knowledge of those dogs in his background, from parents to grandparents (I tend to look a lot at the grandparents - even more than the parents) and so on back.  And also the bitch involved in terms of avoiding doubling up on faults.

I was asking out of curiousity.  I know of breeders who have used old dogs by AI, where there were no health issues present and others who have used young dogs, as young as 1 year old (which I personally think is too young as I also believe they need to mature first to see what their personality is really like)

Out of curiosity what would you consider old?

I would consider over 10 to be old.  In my breed that is an old dog.  But I can see the advantages, especially if no health issues have cropped up over the years, much more so than using a younger dog.  Just my opinion :)

> (which I personally think is too young as I also believe they need to mature first to see what their personality is really like)

I'd suggest that an experienced breeder (not one just starting out) would know exactly what the personality of those they breed are, by a year.  I knew from a very early age - that was part of which one(s) I decided to run on!!

Very occasionally a top dog in it's breed, will have a collection made and frozen so they could, in effect, be used long after they'd died.   There was a very famour Golden who was - Eng. CH. Camrose Cabus Christopher.

I think at one point, the KC had a cut off age re breeding stock - and I think it was 11 years.

As a behaviourist, I work with a lot of dogs which are fine until 1 year but whose temperaments change some time before 2 years old, during puberty and adolescence.

I should imagine virtually every golden in the uk will have Camrose Cabus in their pedigree if you go back far enough. All mine had and they were not related dogs.

Some friends who had bred, showed and judged Labrador’s for years had a particularly good male dog years ago and his semen was frozen and was used for a number of years offer his death, especially to Australia

Glad you wrote virtually as I know of several breeders who have/had no Camrose dogs in their lines, especially not Cabus Christopher though his MYKC available records show 151 litters there are probably more than this & these ethical breeders I know think that is way too many for any single dog that was born over 50 years ago & who has progeny registered in 2006. Not the best producer in terms of HD levels either

I think there has been some issues with temperament as well, whether he was directly responsible I don’t know.
I suspect working bred goldens are less likely to have him in their lines