Smooth x Smooth breedings

Just want to get everybody's views on smooth x smooth breedings? Is there any advantages to this? Or is it better to do smooth x rough breedings?

Also: do you struggle more to sell smooths then roughs? As in SA people are not to keen on smooths, though I love them. Mostly people do rough x rough in this country, but I know you get a better coat by doing rough x smooth, every other generation (at least). But when, and why would you do smooth x smooth?

I have an option to get an imported smooth, and obviously I can use this stud on my rough and my smooth bitch, I'm just not convinced that a smooth x smooth breeding will have any benifits, and I'm concerned about selling a totally smooth litter.

Anybody with some advise?

here i am!

this is my kind of topic?

i have smooths only! and i breed smooth on smooth

i was told that 2 smooths dont produce decent puppies im not so sure about this myself!!!

i do think you need to throw a rough in every so often to keep the coat nice and plush and im told if you dont the coat becomes thin and wirey - something mine are not!!!!

i have never had a problem selling puppies and i do have a waiting list! i did worry when i got a throw back rough though and selling that one!

the thing to remember is 2 smooths dont always produce smooth puppies !

ive had a litter of ten produce 3 roughs both parents were smooth

ive had a litter of 3 and 2 were rough again smooth parents ( different parents to above)

i personally prefer the smooth coated st bernards !!! but thats just me!

for me i do smooth on smooth matings to produce what i think are lovely true smooths, of course i know i have to use roughs at times and i plan to use a rough on a bitch soon however its not something i would do as often if there were more smooth studs about! im using him as i like him- if i found a smooth i liked as much i would use a smooth

so im told you can do 2 generations of smooth on smooth and then must use a rough - i havent got far enough to experiment!

Personally I preffer the smooths just because (in my opinion) they are a bit more robust/jumpy/lively then the roughts, but the MAIN attraction is the ease of maintenance, and ofcourse the heat where I life.

Because I'm on a farm, you can imagine the high maintenance on roughs with not only grass seads, but sand/soil and the heat. You HAVE to bath the roughs almost every week to keep the coats perfect, and that's not always possible.

Back to the breeding:
The rough throughback is obviously a possibility as this gene would be in the line. BUT a breeder once explained to me that a rough from a smooth x smooth breeding isn't really a rough, but a faulty smooth. He went on about the genetics behind it etc, and I didn't really get that.

Does someone know? As far as I gathered the rough coat on such a dog is not the same as on a true rough, but since I've never seen /feel that, I won't know.

The roughs you got: was the parents form a mixed pair (rough x smooth) or smooth x smooth? And was that throughbacks the only ones or do you normally get both form smooth x smooth breedings?

ok so ..............


the dam was smooth out of a smooth dam and rough sire and the sire was smooth out of a smooth dam and a rough sire

they produced 7 smooths and 3 roughs - there are 2 of the roughs that are really rough and one that is mid rough!


then on a different litter the same as above for the parents

howver they produced 2 roughs and a smooth- the roughs are really rough and it was evident early on they were roughs!


the same bitch as above was put to a different dog ( smooth ) and produced 5 very smooth coated puppies!


i dont think it really counts as a fault as such- but if it does there nice little faults!!!!


i am lazy and i like my house clean- the smooth coat makes so much sence for up keep!

cheri

Cheri

You make me laugh!!! I suppose I'm also lazy then -BUt I preffer to call it -practical!. Though I have to say that my smooth when shedding, shed ALOT... I cannot beliefe a short haired dog can have so much hair. Dont' know of other 'smooth' breeds that shed so much. But atleast it's once of, and finished!

I know I'm being a pain, but you don't happen to have some pics of your 'smooth' roughs? And I'm especially interested in the halfway one? Trying to figure out how such a dog will look? Is the hair lenght just longer then a smooth but shorter then a rough, or is it that the dog has less dense coat or what?

I will go do my homework regaring a faulty smooth coat... Mabe we can make some sense of that!

D

if you go to www.fairviewstbernards.co.uk

look on the "our boy" page its down the page is two puppies one rough one smooth both from smooth matings!

also in show results/ dogs we have bred " baby daisy" ourfairviews sweet as honey is pictured shes what i would call erm... a short coated rough!

your description of a roughcoated smooth is good! As that's exactly what I would've called it. But not bad looking I must say. But smooth? No! Rough? no! rough-smooth! Yes!!!

I managed to find the info I was looking for, and I'll copy the interesting parts. This was posted by Mr HAG Kranz (my mentor) on a forum in 2001 (I don't think that forum exists anymore -it was run by Johanna from the Templum Kennels in Ohio).

[color=brown]"[color=brown]Some smooth coat dogs that are bred from smooth coat dogs give longer coats. coats that are not Typical for smooths, but not typical rough coat either. This is also gone to over type in breeding of smooths, which should be considered disqualifying fault due to coat textures if we want to be very harsh.
Like the years when the roughs and roughs were bred there coat would end up going into major curls on the coat. The breeders then would bring in a smooth coat to correct the coat in the breeding... remember the norm was every 3rd generation a smooth should have been bred into the bloodline.
Interesting to note -and this is not on record, because of registration purposes- the dogs that showed this problem from smooth to smooth breedings: breeders would breed a mastiff in the bloodline of this faulty smooth... for the sole pupose to correct the TYPE... like they did with the roughs with the smoothes to retain the TYPE.
So from the smooth coat the term short haired came into play, because of the crossing of the mastiff. But in actual fact this is also incorrect of type. [b]The genuine smooth coat should have a condensed coat of about 3 inches in length or 3 and ½ [/color] inches in lenghts, and should not differ to the roughs lenght[/b]. Thus the textures are the only real differance. On the roughs x roughs breedings it can happen that the coat can become longer and through the longer lenght of coat , certain curls do take place in its lenght... though waving coats are NOT curly coats, but is the indication of the crossing of the Newfoundland. The black on the coat is expectable because of the Newfoundland, but too much black that smudges the brown of the coat is also incorrect and is considered not desireble because the coat is leaning more towards the newfoundland then to the Saint. The Mastiff and Newfouondlands' inflence to the breed has helped to create the mantle dogs. If we look back in history, we would notice the dogs were mainly splash coats and many had half masks or pure white dogs at times. The genotypes and the pheno types have changed because of the influen of the two indirect breeds namely the Masitff and the Newfoundland.

Now we go to the system of the rouch form 2 smooth parents. In our minds we would find it qoute logical to understand that some breeders register these dogs as rough, because they are not showing the typical sighn of the short coat texture. Yet, if you look at these dogs the coat isnt' smooth or rough, but the breeder will tell you the dog is a smooth or a rough. But if we have 2 smoohtes in the ring that indicate the same thing, we should rather be aware of these things and consider it being a faulty smooth, then giving the credentials to the rough in these situations.

Interesting to note that the crossing of the smoothes that time to the Mastiff -a different temperament also derived and we would find that hte dogs that came from this type of breeding were more aggresive (spicy) then the roughs. We sat thus also with to temperaments -rough being more 'easy going' and the smooths that are more spicy. This is related to the influence of the mastiffs and the Newfoundlands. these breedings were never recorded but done with other dogs names used to retain the registration and pedigree. These Saint x Mastiff dogs were hidden away and used by breeders on a discreet system.

Real true smooth x smooth bloodlines have been deminishing. Look back in pedigrees today, and ask yourself who has a line of 4 generations or true smooht breedings??? When I mean true smooht breedings it indicate nou roughs are in the pedigree. The real smooth Saint is dying, and the demand or foughs is greater then anytime in the history."[/color]

This was just very interesting to read this again.. I remembered parts of this. But I also realised again that there's a real temperament difference between rough and smooths. It wasn't my imagination!

This also explains why we don't see alot of chocklate brown (dark brown) in smooths, but you do get that in the roughs. (And that's probably why I looove smooths with the 'differant' coloring though be it not 'correct"

there are no chocolate colours in any of mine- dora is more a red and diesel is the lightest at close to sandy colour!

also here the puppies are not registered as roughs or smooths just as st bernards!

cheri

I sometimes think it might be a good thing if it was possible to register dogs as smooth or rough, as then one would be able to tell 'true' smooth lines.

I only saw 'chocklate' or 'dark' smooths at some kennels in the states, but in retrospeckt I'm wondering now if it wasn't perhaps 'faulty' smooths. Thus, they 'look' smooth, but is probably roughs?

But knowing the 'genetics' behind the coloring, I suppose the 'odds' of having a smooth in darker coloring won't be great!

mine seem to be a shade lighter than their parents each time with exception of the "rough smooths"

cirtainly never darker than their parents!?