home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Tattoo  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  |           SHOP-UKFacebook
Login  |    |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  |  Ask the Vet    Help  print pedigree    
Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Library  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

    Sponsored by:-   Rapidvite

The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.

Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.

In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingAdoptionBettingTalkLogin to post
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
Do you need advice on how to train a greyhound?

18-8% the magic numberpage  1 2 3 

Edward (ted) Howard
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 946
Dogs 16 / Races 0

11 Apr 2019 11:32


 (1)
 (0)


I have seen this on another thread and was wondering why they think this. Cheers Ted.


Tony Digiorgio
(Verified User)
Posts 761
Dogs 25 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 09:14


 (0)
 (1)


edward (ted) howard wrote:

I have seen this on another thread and was wondering why they think this. Cheers Ted.

Ryan should be able to tell you Ted.



Ryan Vanderwert
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3964
Dogs 4 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 10:44


 (1)
 (1)


edward (ted) howard wrote:

I have seen this on another thread and was wondering why they think this. Cheers Ted.

Hi Ted,

I do know how the 18.8 % is derived..............the first generation BMO/Outlandish in this example CLICK HERE each of those is worth 50%.

The 2nd gen, 4 dogs each worth 25%
The 3rd gen, 8 dogs each worth 12.5%
The 4th gen, 16 dogs each worth 6.25%

Therefore in this case Awesome Assassin & Brett Lee in the 3rd(12.5%) & 4th gen(6.25%) = 18.75% rounded off to 18.8% each

So any dog duplicated in the 3rd & 4th gen of any pedigree wld equal 18.8% in the blood quota table.

I wldn't mind it included in a pedigree but it's not something I wld consider ultra important to have. and vastly different to the percentages I talk about. You're not alone in wanting to know why Ted. Cheers.




Mark Staines
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3414
Dogs 68 / Races 14

12 Apr 2019 12:18


 (2)
 (0)


CLICK HERE CLICK HERE CLICK HERE


Edward (ted) Howard
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 946
Dogs 16 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 13:13


 (1)
 (0)


That's one of the reasons I asked as my bitch comes up 18-8 to Gable Dodge 18-8 Just the Best when mated to Zinzan Brooke and I could do with a lot of magic at the moment.Thanks for replys fellas I appreciate it.


Mark Staines
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3414
Dogs 68 / Races 14

12 Apr 2019 13:19


 (1)
 (0)


CLICK HERE

Another flying machine that just smashed the Clock at Geelong !!!!!!


Edward (ted) Howard
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 946
Dogs 16 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 13:40


 (3)
 (0)


So basically what it is is a 3x4 matchup thanks fellas.



Kevin Wright
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4937
Dogs 1 / Races 1

12 Apr 2019 20:13


 (1)
 (0)


edward (ted) howard wrote:

So basically what it is is a 3x4 matchup thanks fellas.


3x4 gives your 18,8
3x3 gives you 25%
2x3 gives you 37.5 %
Here is a example of inbreeding
CLICK HERE


Tony Digiorgio
(Verified User)
Posts 761
Dogs 25 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 22:33


 (0)
 (0)


Ryan Vanderwert wrote:

edward (ted) howard wrote:

I have seen this on another thread and was wondering why they think this. Cheers Ted.

Hi Ted,

I do know how the 18.8 % is derived..............the first generation BMO/Outlandish in this example CLICK HERE each of those is worth 50%.

The 2nd gen, 4 dogs each worth 25%
The 3rd gen, 8 dogs each worth 12.5%
The 4th gen, 16 dogs each worth 6.25%

Therefore in this case Awesome Assassin & Brett Lee in the 3rd(12.5%) & 4th gen(6.25%) = 18.75% rounded off to 18.8% each

So any dog duplicated in the 3rd & 4th gen of any pedigree wld equal 18.8% in the blood quota table.

I wldn't mind it included in a pedigree but it's not something I wld consider ultra important to have. and vastly different to the percentages I talk about. You're not alone in wanting to know why Ted. Cheers.

Ryan,

Can you explain why there are dogs with the 18.8% factor running last at Mudgee, Wauchope and Pott's Park?


Tony Digiorgio
(Verified User)
Posts 761
Dogs 25 / Races 0

12 Apr 2019 22:37


 (0)
 (0)


Here are a few examples you may want to comment on as well: -

CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE


Mark Staines
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3414
Dogs 68 / Races 14

12 Apr 2019 22:46


 (1)
 (0)


CLICK HERE CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE CLICK HERE


Michael Barry
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7028
Dogs 26 / Races 9

13 Apr 2019 02:10


 (1)
 (0)


CLICK HERE


Edward (ted) Howard
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 946
Dogs 16 / Races 0

13 Apr 2019 05:40


 (2)
 (0)


Tony don't understand comment on Ryan as he just answered my question and wasn't for or against and there are people who like 3x4 breeding. Cheers ted.


Graeme Beasley
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3189
Dogs 27 / Races 5

13 Apr 2019 06:31


 (4)
 (0)


The 18.8% thing isn't magic, it's just good breeding practice. Generally speaking, at 18.8% an ancestor would have enough influence to be a significant factor in a pedigree but not enough to be a genuine risk of bringing in unwanted recessive genes, ie, inbreeding.

Of course, just because an ancestor is sitting at 18.8% on paper doesn't necessarily mean he's 18.8% of a current dog's true makeup - his genes may have all been bred out by then. It's one reason why 'on paper' (theory) breeders usually don't breed much of note.



Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7182
Dogs 173 / Races 66

13 Apr 2019 10:15


 (2)
 (0)


edward (ted) howard wrote:

Tony don't understand comment on Ryan as he just answered my question and wasn't for or against and there are people who like 3x4 breeding. Cheers ted.


That's because it's a loaded question, Ted. Something only a foolhardy person would consider offering.
Ignore & more on.


Michael Barry
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7028
Dogs 26 / Races 9

13 Apr 2019 10:31


 (1)
 (0)


this looks interesting CLICK HERE


Michael Barry
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7028
Dogs 26 / Races 9

13 Apr 2019 10:35


 (1)
 (0)


another one CLICK HERE



Richard Gray
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2119
Dogs 11 / Races 9

13 Apr 2019 10:47


 (3)
 (0)


SO,,, looking over all the samples given,, it reverts back to.. They can either run or they can't.. regardless of %
(just saying)

Rich.



Mark Staines
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3414
Dogs 68 / Races 14

13 Apr 2019 10:56


 (1)
 (0)


Well i would say 18.8% is a lot more relevant than a nick in x or y path 10 generations back in a pedigree that's for sure !!!!!!


Tony Digiorgio
(Verified User)
Posts 761
Dogs 25 / Races 0

13 Apr 2019 11:19


 (2)
 (0)


Richard Gray wrote:

SO,,, looking over all the samples given,, it reverts back to.. They can either run or they can't.. regardless of %
(just saying)

Rich.

Amen.

posts 44page  1 2 3