[nq:2]Totally different genetics. Do you, "Sandy in OK" (Email Removed), "Sandy in

Rocky:

"Sandy in OK" (Email Removed) said in
[nq:2]Since the conversation was about white dogs, I thought it more on point.[/nq]
[nq:1]Totally different genetics. Do you know of any health issues or sensory defects common to white schnauzers?[/nq]
I know that it's totally different genetics. But, since the conversation was about white, and you have Aussies, a little lateral thinking led me to wonder about your opinion on merle- merle breeding.
Think of it as topic drift, a common occurrence in usenet.
[nq:2]So, since you're not big on conformation, why do you ... heard conformation-only Aussie breeders defend the practice of merle-merle breeding.[/nq]
[nq:1]You don't get more "flashy" dogs by breeding merle to merle (unless you are breeding dogs with really minimal or no trim - which conformation breeders generally are not)[/nq]
Then why is it that merle-merle breedings are almost exclusively done by conformation-only breeders?

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sandy in OK:

as simply as I can put it: they aren't. I wonder where you came by that information. I remember Walt Lamar back in the 70s talking about genetics and MxM breedings (which he had done) Alice's great grandmother who was a homozygous merle was working lines, bred by a HOF working kennel

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sandy in OK:

[nq:2]Totally different genetics. Do you know of any health issues or sensory defects common to white schnauzers?[/nq]
[nq:1]According to OFA statistics, the only disease that affects this breed is hips in 2.8% incidence in the breed of 36 total. How nice to not have to worry about health testing![/nq]
Of course 36 dogs isn't statistically significant. And one or 7 dogs even less so. I'd be concerned that with only 36 dogs, CHD is evident at all would make me think that testing might be a good thing. But the point is, apparently very few breeders (including those considered responsible) list their Miniature Schnauzers with OFA. Not just Skansen. Basically nobody. And pretty much everyone seems to want to ignore that fact. Should we infer that basically there are NO responsible breeders of Miniature Schnauzers?

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Rocky:

"Sandy in OK" (Email Removed) said in
[nq:2]Then why is it that merle-merle breedings are almost exclusively done by conformation-only breeders?[/nq]
[nq:1]as simply as I can put it: they aren't.[/nq]
Our experiences differ.

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Melinda Shore:

[nq:1]Of course 36 dogs isn't statistically significant.[/nq]
It depends on variability. If there is no variability then a sample size of one is "statistically significant" - in fact, you've got a confidence interval of 100%. If there's perfect randomness in the population (a flat curve) then you need a huge honkin' sample relative to the size of the population.
HTH!

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sandy in OK:

[nq:2]as simply as I can put it: they aren't.[/nq]
[nq:1]Our experiences differ.[/nq]
How far back does your experience in the breed go?

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sandy in OK:

[nq:2]Of course 36 dogs isn't statistically significant.[/nq]
[nq:1]It depends on variability. If there is no variability then a sample size of one is "statistically significant" - in ... in the population (a flat curve) then you need a huge honkin' sample relative to the size of the population.[/nq]
Ah. Good to know that there isn't any variation in Miniature Schnauzers.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Melinda Shore:

[nq:1]Ah. Good to know that there isn't any variation in Miniature Schnauzers.[/nq]
Intuition is frequently wrong, and it would be incorrect to draw any conclusions without knowing more about the data. Stating flat out "it's not statistically significant" doesn't debunk (not again!) anything but it does reveal that you don't know squat about statistics (this stuff is covered at the beginning of an introductory statistics course).

The state of public education in the US depresses the crap out of me.
Hip dysplasia used to be regarded as a serious problem in Siberian Huskies, as recently as 20 years ago. The Siberian community got religion about it, started testing
assiduously, and has knocked the incidence down so that it's quite uncommon. Breeders still test (and test and test and test), though.

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mary Healey:

[nq:1]I'd agree. And sometimes there appear to be no problems because there's not statistical data. For instance, while the miniature schnauzers appear to be 100% normal for all the tests except dysplasia, 100% of one dog is . . . what?[/nq]
Statistically insignificant.
[nq:1]Of course, mostly people (in my breed at least) tend to send in their "normals" The ACVO vet hands you ... xrays off to OFA. And if they do, they can request that a rating of dysplastic is not made public.[/nq]
Hence, the somewhat cynical approach of treating an absence of data as a Bad Sign Indeed.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: "Don't touch my bone" page 26

Related forum topics: