Hello all,
As a small time breeder who does not have a developed stud dog, what would be considered the advantages/disadvantages of choosing a potential stud who has had limited past breeding but seems to be quite developed on the training field or for real, (example Fetz- Will's dog), verses a dog that has a documented history with multiple progeny to evaluate.
Why do I ask? Well I'm in the process of searching for stud dogs and I want to make sure I'm looking at all variables when making my next choices.

Well, the immediate advantage of a stud that has proven to produce nice offspring is exactly that...that he's proven.

A dog can perform well and be a great dog but not able to reproduce himself well ( I think that Baskin is an example of that, sadly ).

The one thing that I'd like to see more of is the actual % of working offspring per litter produced by some of the biggest name studs. I have seen a fair amount of evidence that far too many breeders hide their overall "scrap out" % which askews the numbers of the success of the breedings.

Just my opinion, of course.

How does a stud become proven? Someone thinks that a dog is worth breeding to. So a promising dog needs to be bred to to find out if he's "proven". From what I've read and heard about Fetz, he would be an example of an excellent dog to "take a chance on" to see how he produces.
How many progeny are required to get a good feel on how a stud dog produces?

Hi Dave <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Every stud has to 'start somewhere' and someone has to be willing to take that chance...The problem is that most aren't willing...So we end up with the 'popular sire' syndrome...a small genetic pool yadda yadda yadda...

To me a 'good stud' is one that can at least reproduce himself or better yet (although rare)...outproduce himself. One which can also produce well with several female lines.

I don't think there is any real way that you just 'KNOW' a stud is going to be good unless he's tested in the production arena...But on the outside..I'd do my research on the specific pedigree...KNOW what's behind the two dogs considered for breeding...Is the stud a good reflection of that pedigree?...Have the potential stud's littermates done anything, been bred and produced anything noteworthy...what's the health in the lines like?

From what I've heard about Will's dog...just based on his character would prompt me to look deeper (with interest) at this dog as a potential stud.

Also...if a stud only has one or two litters on the ground and obviously they're too young to make an accurate assessment on their workability...I look at this aspect secondarily...Breeders do their best to place working and promising pups into very qualified homes...however, this doesn't always work out according to plan (for a variety of reasons--as well a certain number go into street work/non-sport homes...these we rarely if ever hear about no matter how good) and some VERY good pups end up with people who don't have nearly the qualifications that they initially boasted to have; and the pups never reach their genetic potential...This actually happens more often that not...So take this with a grain of salt...

Now if a breeder placed what they considered to be 'very promising pups' or his 'picks of a given litter(s) to people like Chris D....Ken H...Kevin S...Scott W...etc...and these pups couldn't do 'squat'...I would be reconsidering the stud's production ability...The results MATTER big time....as to WHERE the pups are placed. Even 'genetically brilliant' dogs aren't going to 'get there' on their own...

Again just some thoughts to ponder...

Brigita,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with what you've written and am quite interested in what you didn't write. You did not go on and on about titles that a stud must have to breed or specific competitions he must have been in and/or done well in to be breeding quality.
I agree that perhaps some of the best dogs are not the high end competition dogs. But it seems the only dogs being bred are the "popular" dogs which feeds the small genetic pool thing you mentioned. That is why I brought up a dog like Fetz. Not to say he is not on his way to a gloriuos competative career, but he is a dog people should look to as an example of a dog to "take a chance on" and breed to even though he may not have 30 litters to evaluate.

The only litter I've ever had was working terriers, but I think the principal is the same. In evaluating dogs produced by "such and such" stud dog, HUGE consideration has to be in knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the bitch he was bred to. This is a big reason one persons thought on a particular stud may be the total opposite of someone elses.
I've seen working terrier litters out of, what I consider top producers, turn out as nothing more than house pets when bred to certain bitches.