I know of a litter, from all reputable people within this specific breed, where the stud dog is 16 months. Mother is 3. This seems quite young to me for a stud dog?

There are a few reasons for using a dog this young, and unless it's a breed like cavaliers where you would ideally want the sire to be as old as possible (and still healthy) I don't think it's a problem :-)

For example if the dog is the last of his line, and that was the line you particularly wanted with this bitch, you would use him now rather than wait 6 months and what if he gets run over in that time. Or the bitch is 3 now, in some breeds quite old for a first litter, better to mate now than wait 6 months for her sake.

Of course a bitch needs to be mentally mature to raise a litter, a dog only needs to be capable of mating to sire one. In breeds that require hip scoring then he has to be over a year but in other breeds just mature enough to see the finished article and decide you still want to use him.

I don't know how you can do a proper evaluation of a dog's temperament and health until it is mature so in my large breed I wouldn't want the sire of my pup to be younger than 3 (preferably older and proven but of course every dog has to start somewhere lol).

Agreed, all else being equal you'd want to use a sire who already had stock in the ring, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use a young dog and there may be very good reasons to do so. Basically Inka I wouldn't worry about it, if these are reputable people in their breed as you say I'm sure they have a good reason for mating this pair :-)

> There are a few reasons for using a dog this young, and unless it's a breed like cavaliers where you would ideally want the sire to be as old as possible (and still healthy)

Ive just used two old codgers ( well into veteran) and both bitches missed :-(

> the stud dog is 16 months. ...This seems quite young to me for a stud dog?

Not all dogs will perform to order if they are not allowed to obey their instincts while still quite young. I think this is an unintended consequence of people having the best of intentions.

Thank you! I did find it hard to believe thered' be something amiss as they are reputable people but i was curious :) Didn't want to ask them in case it seemed like i was implying they WERE doing something wrong.

You could always be polite and still ask why they used him so young. There could be a very good reason, like he is going abroad for a while, or the bitch is getting too old for a litter next season. Just drop it in casually in a conversation. ;-)

In my breed the rule seems to be let them sire a litter at 8 or 9 months old so they get the hang of it then nothing else till after a year old so as to not burn him out, my lads didn't get that opportunity[youngster nearly got his Mum when he was 7 months old, if it had been my other bitch I would have let him carry on] so need alot of supervision to get the job done, one lad hasn't sired a litter yet and only mated the once and the other one sired the litter I lost last year from the bitch who had had 4 phantoms in the past.

Most breeders would like to prove a potential stud dog at around this age, as often males that don't get the opportunity to mate a bitch until much older can be a little slow to get the hang of things.

A young male like this will overcome lack of technique with youthful enthusiasm.

The dog is old enough in most breeds to have been hip scored and the results back, and for eye tests etc.

After this even if it is some years before he has the opportunity to mate again, the male is likely to perform reliably.

In my numerically small breed a number of great dogs have never sired a litter as they did not have the opportunity to mate a bitch until they were 6 plus.  Often in such a breed the available bitches of similar age may be too closely related.

It can also be a good idea in breeds with late onset conditions but to maximise fertility to use a young male on an older bitch and vice versa.  At least once side has proved to be free from the issue.

If a bitch is older and a lovely young male appears on the scene, the breeder can't afford to wait until he is older.

I will have the opposite problem.  I had wanted to use a particular male on one of my girls for her last litter in about 18 months, but she had a hard time with the whelping of the  litter she had in May, so I kept a bitch pup and hope to mate him to the daughter.  Problem is the male is already 7 years old so I hope he is still fertile in 2 years time.  Males in my bred often go years between litters, and with male fertility there is an element of use it or loose it.

Using a dog at stud for the first time when they are only 16 months is perfectly normal in Chihuahuas.

I know people who use large breed dogs at stud as soon as they turn 12 months, some even sooner and then get health tests done after :-(

A lot can go wrong between 12mths and 24mths, i've had a dog be diagnosed with OCD in his shoulder at 16 months which had to be operated on, now say he had been used before this there is a high chance it could of been passed down the generations. From this I won't even consider a dog younger than 2, as by then all issues should of manifested themselves if they are there and also temperament should be stable then..And you know what you have in front of you.

I have seen some stunning dogs at 12 months and then by the time they are 3 my god what a turn off they turned into.. I don't honestly believe you know what you have at a young age with a large breed dog!! JMHO x

> i've had a dog be diagnosed with OCD in his shoulder at 16 months which had to be operated on,

but did this dog have a normal elbow score when scored at a year?

No dog should be used whatever it's age until the basic and breed specific health tests are done and results known so in practical terms as all breeds can sufffer fromt HD so should be hip scored, it is likely to be 14 months.

Yup he was scored at a year and his elbows were zero on both sides.. But it was his shoulder with it not his elbows. Hips also done and good scores too.. Nothing to say that he had any problems prior to this, no lameness, nothing...

This is why if you feel the need to breed from a young bitch or dog it is a good idea to use an older mate, to halve the risk.  Anmy breedign is a risk assessment. 

Of course it is a bit breed dependent as a small breed can be fully skeletally mature at a year, and a large one not until three.

For my breeds, I would want the sire to be older if possible, for reasons of longevity.

Ideally he would be experienced and older though, so I accept at some point he'd have to sire a litter whilst younger - to have that experience!

> I accept at some point he'd have to sire a litter whilst younger - to have that experience!

Exactly someone has to take a chance on using a dog for the first time.

> A lot can go wrong between 12mths and 24mths

It certainly can, which is why I believe a male should be a minimum of 2 & preferably older (3 or 4) before being used.

> It certainly can, which is why I believe a male should be a minimum of 2 & preferably older (3 or 4) before being used.

With one of my breeds if this was routinely the case we would severely limit the number of dogs who could be used.  Even leaving till 18 months many are reluctant to mate a bitch.  To get an affective stud dog many, many of them need to have a first bitch at about 12 months or just a little over if possible.  The later it is delayed the less likely it is they will manage or even show much interest.

I too have tried using a very polite gentleman of a dog in my breed on two of my bitches as an older dog, complete disaster.  he had managed to mate a bitch he knew well basically by spending the whole season with her I think, and a litter of two resulted.

I tried him on a young bitch and next season her mother.  He was utterly clueless and on both occasions would not mate them until they had gone over, so no pups resulted.  Such a shame.

He lived the other end of the country too.

For me, the dog's working ability would always be the most important thing and no dogs have proven themselves at 16months old.  More like 2 yrs minimum - even then it would be unusual - usually 3+ years.

I would not want to breed for appearance/conformation only, since that is meaningless without proven working ability.

> that is meaningless without proven working ability.

true for working breeds, or those that are still allowed to do their original job in the UK. 

The majority of breeds are now bred purely as companions, so the priorities would be temperament, health and breed conformation.

Agreed, yes.

>> that is meaningless without proven working ability.
> true for working breeds, or those that are still allowed to do their original job in the UK. 
>
> The majority of breeds are now bred purely as companions, so the priorities would be temperament, health and breed conformation.

Yes you are correct but I still think a dog should have proved himself in his chosen sport(work, show, race, obed, agil) which would be 3 years+.
It looks to me that some dont bother with that choice & use a puppy to sire a litter, it just goes against my principles.

>I still think a dog should have proved himself in his chosen sport(work, show, race, obed, agil)

A CC and 2 RCCs by 12 months is fairly good proof of show quality ... ;-)

> Yes you are correct but I still think a dog should have proved himself in his chosen sport(work, show, race, obed, agil) which would be 3 years+.
> It looks to me that some dont bother with that choice & use a puppy to sire a litter, it just goes against my principles.

So what would your suggestion be in a toy breed which seems to lose interest in mating for a first time when it becomes mature?  Surely restricting the choice of studs to only those very few who will actually perform the act for a first time at 3 would be very undesirable for a breed's gene poll and way forward?  It is often not possible to mate a dog early enough, and the liklehood of geting pups from him goes down with every month, so it seems.  I have a stunning 2 year old dog who mated his first bitch at 18 months, it is a nightmare persuading him into a mating and a lot of assistance is needed, even with the most obliging bitch.  I used a 3-4 year old dog for the first time a couple of years ago and managed to get a mating by pure luck, he has been reluctant to the point of refusing with any subsequent bitches.  My boys who have been used at  12 months have gone on to become willing and able studs.  In many  toy breed you get a pretty good idea at a year old about what the dog will look like at maturity, and of course of temperament too.  Can also get quite a few show wins under their belts too!  Not being working breeds they can only prove ability to be lapdogs, which they do without problem, however by 12 months we can have a pretty good idea if they will go on to be effective agility dogs too, even though too young to compete.

This is one of those "rules" which is very much breed dependent I think.

I think that you've just proved Gwen that it's all down to experience and knowledge in your breed.  What's right for one may not be right for another and it's wrong for anyone to pass judgement without experience.

There are some who have been involved with their breed for 20 years but have closed ears and eyes, learned nothing but think they know everything.
Others, conversly, go into a breed, speak to the right experienced people desperately wanting to learn and soak up information like a sponge!  In 5 years they can have wise heads on their shoulders. :)

>So what would your suggestion be in a toy breed which seems to lose interest in mating for a first time when it becomes mature? 

Perhaps only using older studs in the first place would mean that only those dogs interested in mating when mature would be able to be used.  Selectively, the desire to mate when mature would then be bred into the breed - rather than bred out.  Just as it's important to use dogs physically capable of a natural mating, I'd say it's important to use dogs who, when mature adults, still have the desire to mate.

>Surely restricting the choice of studs to only those very few who will actually perform the act for a first time at 3 would be very undesirable for a breed's gene poll and way forward?

It depends on how wide the gene pool is of the breed concerned.

It's a shame young studs can't mate without there being the fear of pregnancy as that would be the best result all round - they get to practise mating, but don't create pups until older and proven.  When are they going to invent the doggie pill??

>however by 12 months we can have a pretty good idea if they will go on to be effective agility dogs too, even though too young to compete.

With all due respect, you can't know a dog's ability when it is unproven.  What you've said here, is like me saying 'I know my dog would be titled in the show ring, so I'm going to breed her without showing her'.  Quite rightly, that would be said to be inadvisable - no one is a good judge of their own dog, and that is so much more true when you're talking about performance and not conformation.  Because you're talking about abstract qualities and things you can't see by looking at a dog.  You can only know if a dog will be 'effective' at any sport by competing in that sport - you might have a hunch or a hope based on the dog's personality, but remains completely unproven and undetermined and no more than that, without working the dog.  I think show breeders often don't realise quite that the same things apply when looking at breeding a dog for performance.

I do think that every dog can be 'worked' - perhaps not doing what it was originally bred for - but in obedience, agility, working trials, flyball, rally and more.  Regardless of the breed I owned, I would not want to be breeding a dog purely on the basis of what it achieves in the show ring. 

I think a lot of us look at more than just the dog itself and often will use a dog for it's bloodlines more than itself.

This is often the case with a dog imported chosen as a puppy what your really going for is the pedigree.

That is why sometimes not very stellar dogs are great producers, you have to look long term.  In both my overseas forays I probably did not end up with what I wanted, but have had to take what I got to utilise new blood and breed for what I do want out of it.

That said I too have made up a champion at 14 months, it is more usual in my breed for dogs to gain titles at 3 - 5, and some have gained them as late as 10 years, but you certainly should be able to assess a dogs potential by a year knowing it;'s bloodlines and how they continue to develop.  Our breed are fully mature at about 4, and I'd say the males are in their prime at 4 -7, but you'd be a fool to wait that long to breed from one for the first time, for a start it wouldn't allow you to see the results fully until the dog was no longer productive.

I believe that repro specialist maintain the best quality semen comes from young dogs, and ideally semen for freezing should be collected when the dog is around two years of age.

A similar situation exists with bitches, reproductively a bitches uterus is old at 4+, as it sustains damage from each and every season, and from a purely reproductive stance a bitch should be bred from young, in quick succession, to minimise the number of seasons damaging the uterine lining.

We of course accept that compromised fertility as a price worth paying for welfare reasons, and other health reasons.

To be fair a dogs show record has little bearing on how likely it is to be used, (an experienced breeder can assess the dogs qualities themselves as long as they have a chance to see and handle him) more to the point is will it fit into a breeding program based on it's qualities to complement the bitches physically and bloodlines and not be too closely related.

I'm sure a gundog handler can gauge a dogs working ability wit hour it having to have won at trials.  Many real working dogs never compete be they gundogs or sheepdogs.  They will of course only be used by those who have been able to assess/seen their ability.

> It's a shame young studs can't mate without there being the fear of pregnancy as that would be the best result all round - they get to practise mating, but don't create pups until older and proven.  When are they going to invent the doggie pill??

In a toy breed, where using only health tested dogs over the age of 2.5years is strongly recommended, this can and is causing a few problems with lack of libido in older dogs.
In the USA it is common to 'collect' from their dogs for AI....using this method for potential young dogs it may solve the problem by simulating a mating without a risky litter..

I have certainly read that those who use AI routinely, even side by side with both dog and bitch on the premises (primarily they claim for health reasons like Brucellosis).

It seems these boys are taught to perform for the owners, who use a glove to stimulate them on a regular basis, this often is done to clear the tubes so the collection for AI is better containing less rubbish.

It certainly does not teach a dog to court/mate a bitch and to assess correct timing, so not something I'd be happy with, a dog merely reacting to stimulus and the sight of the 'glove'.

Some of them proudly state they have never had a natural breeding.  Some proudly say they C section all their bitches electively for convenience and to maximise survival of puppies.  They thought our KC's two section rule is ridiculous and old fashioned!!!

I'd hate the breeding process to be reduced totally to a clinical one, bit like all the AI'd turkeys and cows who never see a bull.

I'm going to slightly disagree with you on this one JG ;-). I've seen youngsters do well, very well in fact and be made up before they are 18months and at that time were worthy, I have then seen dogs grow on and up that have achieved this and tbh are nothing special once fully mature and don't generally do well... It's another side to it I guess..... There are some fabulous youngsters about which do grow on very well and some which don't and like wise some rather awkward youngsters who turn into swans, some do not...
It is each to their own and each breed clearly differs and requirements for each litter will differ...
All swings and roundabouts on this subject and it's a case of that one size doesn't always fit all :-)

It doesn't mean that it's the best dog in the world, but it means that it's done better in the ring than most ever do so certainly shouldn't be written off just because its young. :-)

I meant simulating a mating with an in season bitch but not actually allowing him to inseminate the bitch.
It would put paid to those who disagree with the advice to not use young dogs, claiming that they wont be able to perform later.

I read that debate on FB and my US friends know that my opinion is natural mating, whelping and rearing but it doesnt address the fact that we are being discouraged to let young dogs prove themselves. A practical solution needs to be found to close this loophole.

>I'm sure a gundog handler can gauge a dogs working ability wit hour it having to have won at trials.  Many real working dogs never compete be they gundogs or sheepdogs.  They will of course only be used by those who have been able to assess/seen their ability.

I'm very very cautious about anyone who claims they can do.  It is a short run from 'I know my dog is good enough', to everyone breeding all and sundry without any pretence at testing or trialling or assessment at all. 

No, the only way to be sure that your dog makes the cut is to compete or test that dog to ensure it is of sufficient quality to breed from.  It simply can't be done any other way.  As a puppy buyer I would not rely on someone's say-so that their dog is good enough - I would want to see the results.

Granted, there are different standards for different breeds - for a minority breed to even be placed is an achievement in itself - whereas a lab would need to achieve far more to be a worthy prospect.  But although the standards may differ, the gist is the same:  Prove before you breed.

>No, the only way to be sure that your dog makes the cut is to compete or test that dog to ensure it is of sufficient quality to breed from.

Actually, real working can be far better proof than organised trials and competitions. Many working gundogs do just that - they work flushing or picking up on rough shoots countrywide but will never ever be competed.

> Actually, real working can be far better proof than organised trials and competitions

especially if the potential buyer of puppies wants a steady all round working dog/companion, not a highly driven trials dog.

Same with sheepdogs I would think, many more simply work for their owners than ever compete surely.

We have to remember that even the top winning dog in any arena will not reproduce those qualities in all their offspring, (probably an averagely good one with a pedigree full of good dogs will reproduce more reliably the qualities wanted) it simply increases the chances of getting what you want in a percentage of the puppies, which you will be evaluating for homes at a very young age.  Now those pups should be destined for permanent loving homes regardless of how well they turn out.

Sadly in all canine competitive spheres there are those who will 'get' rid' of anything not meeting their needs.  The dog does not come first, it's purpose does.  As a breeder I do not want to sell to such homes, as unless your selling an already proven/trained adult there are no guarantees, and even then not as the ability of the trainer/handler (and the rapport they have with that dog) can make all the difference, especially in performance spheres..

As badger baiting is illegal I can't really go sending my dachsies down a badger set, if how they treat the local cats is anything to go by I am sure they would be game.

In the US a pup can reach champ status at 6 months old over a few weekends of back to back shows, thankfully ours have to be over 12 months old before they can be made up regardless of how many CC's they get in that first 6 months of showing.

>With one of my breeds if this was routinely the case we would severely limit the number of dogs who could be used.  Even leaving till 18 months many are reluctant to mate a bitch.

Is this tendancy within your breed something that breeders are attempting to address and breed away from?

>Actually, real working can be far better proof than organised trials and competitions. Many working gundogs do just that - they work flushing or picking up on rough shoots countrywide but will never ever be competed.

That is not sufficient and is not adequate proof that a dog can work.  If you saw some of the atrocious dogs on many of the shoots I work on, you'd know why.  Any dog can work on a shoot and some of them are not even gundogs.  I've seen terriers and a bichon in the beating line. 

>especially if the potential buyer of puppies wants a steady all round working dog/companion, not a highly driven trials dog.

Then they should be buying from show lines, not working lines.  Working lines are there for just that - to work.  They should also consider why they want this breed, if they don't want all the characteristics which come with it.  There are many breeds of dog and if one with the *correct* working abilities is not wanted by them, instead of looking for a specimen with less working ability - which the breed is supposed to have - they should look at other breeds.

>As a breeder I do not want to sell to such homes, as unless your selling an already proven/trained adult there are no guarantees, and even then not as the ability of the trainer/handler (and the rapport they have with that dog) can make all the difference, especially in performance spheres..

If a dog is bought as a trials prospect but doesn't make the grade, it is often better for all concerned - including the dog - that it is rehomed with the help of the breeder to a pet home where it will be well loved, or - as is more often the case - moved on to a working home (ie - on a shoot) which is not a competition home.

>As badger baiting is illegal I can't really go sending my dachsies down a badger set, if how they treat the local cats is anything to go by I am sure they would be game.

No, this is the same attitude as 'I can judge which young dogs would be good agility dogs, I don't need to compete with them'.  You simply can't tell.  But there are ways you can work your dogs which are not badger baiting.  You would then still be breeding for better intelligence, better physical endurance, better focus and trainability and all the rest of it.

>Is this tendancy within your breed something that breeders are attempting to address and breed away from?

My thoughts exactly Stooge.

>That is not sufficient and is not adequate proof that a dog can work.

On the contrary, that's real gundog work, not false set-up trials and competitions. Trials winners tend to be far too 'hot' for proper steady work.

>On the contrary, that's real gundog work, not false set-up trials and competitions. Trials winners tend to be far too 'hot' for proper steady work.

JG, please you don't understand - with all due respect!  How many trials have you competed in?

What is 'false' about trials?  They are real shooting events, where dogs must walk at heel off lead for literally hours, with no commands permitted, only occasionally being sent for retrieves.  If they are not steady and if they make a squeak of noise, they are eliminated immediately.  NOthing is 'set up'.  The birds are wild, just as they are on a shoot.  No one knows what is going to happen.

I have seen dogs breaking stays on every shoot Ive been on, running in on birds.  I have seen dogs unable to walk at heel and truly appalling standards.

Sorry, but only tested, trialled and assessed dogs can be proper breeding prospects - except in exceptional circumstances.  (Ie their genes are needed for some other more urgent reason.)  Any Tom, Dick or Harry (dog equivalent) can work on a shoot.  It is no testament to a dog's ability.

>How many trials have you competed in?

I don't compete in trials, but have taken part in shoots, and seen the difference between the regular workers and the dogs which have done trials; they're often the ones that are asked to keep the dogs back because they're OTT.

Please can we keep this thread on topic - it seems to be straying somewhat away from the original subject matter ;-) Differences between trialling dogs and "regular working" dogs are best discussed on a new thread, thanks.

Sorry Jane, will try not to stray. 

The topic is relevant though, because I think stud dogs should be assessed before breeding - in terms of performance attributes as much as conformation - and assessment for performance can't be done before a dog is 2+ yrs old, frequently older.  And by 'assessment', I really mean 'assessment' and (in my sport) not just joining your nearest random shoot and turning up to let your dog run awol with others.  Not all shoots are run this badly, but many many are.  So, I accept it is a little specific in that we're talking about the subject in application to a subgroup of dogs (gundogs), but it's still relevant.

There is frequently no difference between 'regular working' gundogs and 'trialled' dogs in terms of their pedigrees, so I'm not sure why JG is trying to make a distinction.  If you look on the pedigree of any working bred dog, you are highly likely to find several FTChs there.  The only difference is that field titled dogs have been assessed.  Any dog asked to be kept back or put on the lead would be eliminated from a trial instantly.  They will not successfully compete:  Case in point for the need of assessment before determining breeding potential.

JG is getting working tests (false, set up scenarios, low standards, anyone can compete) mixed up with trials (realistic shooting situations, very competitive to even compete in).  She also has referred to 'beating' as 'flushing', so TBH, appears not to know this subject well enough to comment on it.

To get back to the subject, I do wish that more show-orientated breeders would try to achieve things with their dogs' minds and not just their bodies - and that takes time, more time than showing alone.

> I do wish that more show-orientated breeders would try to achieve things with their dogs' minds and not just their bodies - and that takes time, more time than showing alone.

Not everyone has the time, or the inclination, but there are a number of gundog breeders that care enough about working ability to factor it in in some way.  Some will go the whole hog and work their dogs as well as show them, some will take care to place some of their breeding in working homes and maintain an active interest, others will be very influenced by working ability when choosing a stud dog, some will do basic training with every one of their dogs and put on events for their owners to give it a try.

Many of us that own this type of dog will have more than a passing interest in its inherit ability and will find ways to engage their brains and harness their instincts when exercising.  I've done enough training days with mine to identify their aptitude and an experienced gundog trainer would be able to set up situations to easily assess a stud dogs natural working ability if considering him for stud duty.  I don't breed but I want brains and good conformation from the parents of any puppy I choose.

Recommended reading: I have a fabulous old book written in the 1950's by Lorna, Countess Howe titled The Labrador Retriever.  It's an excellent book and a fascinating insight to this breed from one of it's major contributors (Banchory) who both worked and showed her dogs.  Much of it is relevant to other gundog breeds too.

>JG is getting working tests (false, set up scenarios, low standards, anyone can compete) mixed up with trials (realistic shooting situations, very competitive to even compete in).  She also has referred to 'beating' as 'flushing', so TBH, appears not to know this subject well enough to comment on it.

Completely untrue; I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Beaters beat, the dogs flush. However I'll abide by Jane's request and not take this any further here.

>I've done enough training days with mine to identify their aptitude and an experienced gundog trainer would be able to set up situations to easily assess a stud dogs natural working ability if considering him for stud duty.

Exactly right.