# Goldendoodle genetics?



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

I was searching the ebay classifieds and saw an ad for F3b Goldendoodles.... can someone explain what the F3b means?


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

An F1 Labradoodle = Poodle crossed with a Labrador Retriever. 
F2 = F1 Labradoodle crossed with F1 Labradoodle 
F3 = F2 Labradoodle crossed with F2 Labradoodle etc 
When mixing generations, you add one to the lower generation parent, ie F4 cross F1 = F2, or F3 cross F2 = F3 etc 
F1B, F2B, F3B etc just means a backcross to one of the parent breeds, usually the poodle, thus F3B = F3 Labradoodle cross Poodle

if that makes any sense. Basically one parent is a labradoodle the other a poodle.


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

MoosMom said:


> An F1 Labradoodle = Poodle crossed with a Labrador Retriever.
> F2 = F1 Labradoodle crossed with F1 Labradoodle
> F3 = F2 Labradoodle crossed with F2 Labradoodle etc
> When mixing generations, you add one to the lower generation parent, ie F4 cross F1 = F2, or F3 cross F2 = F3 etc
> ...


Oh, I get it. Now I understand why these dogs are so much more expensive than the other "doodles" posted on there.


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

I wouldn't pay that for a mixed a dog. You can get one at the shelter for a fraction of the cost!


----------



## Selah Cowgirl (Nov 14, 2009)

I knew a family with a chocolate doodle (f4) the breeder had been breeding for many years, had a type and a standard for himself. All his personal dogs hunted and were awesome in the field. The pup was just as nice. I am not saying that the pup did any better then a well bred poodle, but the breeder knew what he was doing for sure.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

MoosMom said:


> I wouldn't pay that for a mixed a dog. You can get one at the shelter for a fraction of the cost!



I would pay that much for these mutts! lots of health testing throughout the pedigree and with the parents. I would like some temperament testing but these breeders seem well versed in breeding companion dogs.

If you can find a mutt in the shelter with as much health testing as these, wow where do you live?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Selah Cowgirl said:


> I knew a family with a chocolate doodle (f4) the breeder had been breeding for many years, had a type and a standard for himself. All his personal dogs hunted and were awesome in the field. The pup was just as nice. I am not saying that the pup did any better then a well bred poodle, but the breeder knew what he was doing for sure.


That dog looks an awful lot like a Pudel Pointer. GWPs look similar as do Griffs. Since neither Labs or Poodles are natural pointers, I suspect it is a breed other than 'Doodle. There are "pointing Labs", but thay are not common, and most are no more than adequate pointers. 

Whatever else he may be, he's a good lookin' dog. I'd take one of those.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> That dog looks an awful lot like a Pudel Pointer. GWPs look similar as do Griffs. Since neither Labs or Poodles are natural pointers, I suspect it is a breed other than 'Doodle. There are "pointing Labs", but thay are not common, and most are no more than adequate pointers.
> 
> Whatever else he may be, he's a good lookin' dog. I'd take one of those.


That photo is selha's signature pic not part of her post.


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

Keechak said:


> I would pay that much for these mutts! lots of health testing throughout the pedigree and with the parents. I would like some temperament testing but these breeders seem well versed in breeding companion dogs.
> 
> If you can find a mutt in the shelter with as much health testing as these, wow where do you live?


That's what I was thinking when I read all of the OFA testing and stuff that they have done. These people obviously know what they are doing, much more so than almost all of the other "doodle" breeders! Like the, "I have a 'purebred' Lab and a 'purebred' Poodle... lets make Labradoodles and sell them!" 

*sigh*


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

marsha=whitie said:


> Oh, I get it. Now I understand why these dogs are so much more expensive than the other "doodles" posted on there.


That's way too many F's for me to keep track of, I prefer pointing and retreiving dogs bred the old fashion way. GSP's to GSP's Lab's to Lab's so and so forth.


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

Keechak said:


> I would pay that much for these mutts! lots of health testing throughout the pedigree and with the parents. I would like some temperament testing but these breeders seem well versed in breeding companion dogs.
> 
> If you can find a mutt in the shelter with as much health testing as these, wow where do you live?



Sorry, just wouldn't pay that much for a mixed, un-papered dog with no show prospects. Kudos to them for all their testing. I can pay 1,200 for a pure bred mal with papers and CH parents with prospects if that's what I chose to do. Unless I am so out of the loop and suddenly the labradoodle/goldendoodle crowd is about to get their "breed" AKC recognized. Then ya..maybe.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MoosMom said:


> Sorry, just wouldn't pay that much for a mixed, un-papered dog with no show prospects. Kudos to them for all their testing. I can pay 1,200 for a pure bred mal with papers and CH parents with prospects if that's what I chose to do. Unless I am so out of the loop and suddenly the labradoodle/goldendoodle crowd is about to get their "breed" AKC recognized. Then ya..maybe.


If you were looking to show, then obviously a mix wouldn't be your thing. If I were looking for a pet, I'm sure that in most breeds I could expect to pay $1200 for a pet-quality pup from health-tested parents. As long as a breeder is being responsible in every way, I don't really care WHAT they're breeding.


----------



## Selah Cowgirl (Nov 14, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> That dog looks an awful lot like a Pudel Pointer. GWPs look similar as do Griffs. Since neither Labs or Poodles are natural pointers, I suspect it is a breed other than 'Doodle. There are "pointing Labs", but thay are not common, and most are no more than adequate pointers.
> 
> Whatever else he may be, he's a good lookin' dog. I'd take one of those.


The dog in the picture is my boy Luke, a Griff, great dogs! I don't think I will ever be without one.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> If you were looking to show, then obviously a mix wouldn't be your thing. If I were looking for a pet, I'm sure that in most breeds I could expect to pay $1200 for a pet-quality pup from health-tested parents. As long as a breeder is being responsible in every way, I don't really care WHAT they're breeding.


In all honesty i wouldn't pay 1,200 dollars for ANY dog. I could get myself a nice full bred health tested working dog for 600
I truly don't believe you can breed any mutt responsibly with the exception of mutts bred for a purpose (other than being a companion) Labradoodles, and goldendoodles make good hunting dogs and labradoodles make good therapy dogs Catahoula bull dogs make great hog dogs....

But there is no reason to mix any two breeds of dogs attach 'doodle' to the end of it and sell it for a fortune.
People breeding jugs, puggles, moxipoos, there's really no reason for it, and i can't consider any of them "responsible".
There are tons of problems just mixing two breeds of dogs together (behavior wise) esspecially two breeds that were bred for two completely different purposes.

Of course this is just my opinion.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> In all honesty i wouldn't pay 1,200 dollars for ANY dog. I could get myself a nice full bred health tested working dog for 600
> I truly don't believe you can breed any mutt responsibly with the exception of mutts bred for a purpose *(other than being a companion)* Labradoodles, and goldendoodles make good hunting dogs and labradoodles make good therapy dogs Catahoula bull dogs make great hog dogs....
> 
> But there is no reason to mix any two breeds of dogs attach 'doodle' to the end of it and sell it for a fortune.
> ...


You think companionship is a bad reason to breed dogs? I admit I prefer a working dog myself and there are plenty of well bred hunting mutts out there that i have no problem with mixing breeds as long as it's done for a purpose, INCLUDING companionship, and done with the best interest of the puppies in mind and not the pocketbooks. 

What's in a name, as long as the breeder is doing eveything else right who cares what they call their dogs?
and I really don't see how AKC registering a dog suddenly makes it ok to buy and breed.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> In all honesty i wouldn't pay 1,200 dollars for ANY dog. I could get myself a nice full bred health tested working dog for 600
> I truly don't believe you can breed any mutt responsibly with the exception of mutts bred for a purpose (other than being a companion) Labradoodles, and goldendoodles make good hunting dogs and labradoodles make good therapy dogs Catahoula bull dogs make great hog dogs....
> 
> But there is no reason to mix any two breeds of dogs attach 'doodle' to the end of it and sell it for a fortune.
> ...


Breeding Oodles, Doodles, and Orkies for the sake of filling the pocketbook doesn't appeal to me, either. But neither does breeding less-than-stellar GSDs, labradors, chihuahuas, or any other purebred for that matter. I've met some BYB'ed GSD's that were so insane and nuts I don't think they've ever in their whole lives had 4 feet on the floor at the same time, BYB'ed labs and rotties who were crippled with dysplasia by 6-8 months old because Betty the Breeder couldn't be bothered health testing the parents. A friend of mine got a "cheap" rottie out of the paper for 75 bucks. Very sweet pup, but she was euthanized at 6 months old because her hips were so bad she could barely walk. 
I know quite a few goldendoodles (they are a lot more popular than labradoodles in my area). 90% of the dogs are what I would consider absolutely (temperamentally) bombproof. A few of them are therapy dogs. I know quite a few doodles that are pretty awesome dogs. (One doodle who moved away about a year ago I still miss; I considered him to be the most stable dog I've ever met.) That said, I've met show dogs and working dogs and "show line" PB dogs that I wouldn't give (general) you a red cent for. (Just to prove I'm not a breed snob, I've met a few papillons ((my breed)) that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, lol). 
It's not a purebred vs. mixed argument for me anymore. I'd rather see someone breeding doodles that were healthy, sound and SANE than breeding purebreds that were aggressive, sharp, fear-biters, with zero concern about health.



MoosMom said:


> Sorry, just wouldn't pay that much for a mixed, un-papered dog with no show prospects. Kudos to them for all their testing. I can pay 1,200 for a pure bred mal with papers and CH parents with prospects if that's what I chose to do. *Unless I am so out of the loop and suddenly the labradoodle/goldendoodle crowd is about to get their "breed" AKC recognized*. Then ya..maybe.


Probably not now, but they've caught on and gotten quite a following that I wouldn't be surprised if they did in the future.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

If I want a mutt/mixed breed I will got to a shelter(I would also go to a shelter for a purebred).


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

MoosMom said:


> Unless I am so out of the loop and suddenly the labradoodle/goldendoodle crowd is about to get their "breed" AKC recognized..


No, I don't think so. They have a long way to go for this. First they have to breed true, and they have a VERY VERY LONG WAY TO GO on this first and most important aspect.

Next they must have a national club and keep stud book records for a certain period of time, along with holding shows. I doubt there is ever a labradoodle COA. JMO of course.......


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

There are Australian Labradoodles which are a real breed which has been breeding true for 20 some years has a national breed club, holds shows, and they are seeking recognition with the ANKC. However that is a different pedigree from most labradoodles you'll find in the USA


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Breeding Oodles, Doodles, and Orkies for the sake of filling the pocketbook doesn't appeal to me, either. But neither does breeding less-than-stellar GSDs, labradors, chihuahuas, or any other purebred for that matter. I've met some BYB'ed GSD's that were so insane and nuts I don't think they've ever in their whole lives had 4 feet on the floor at the same time, BYB'ed labs and rotties who were crippled with dysplasia by 6-8 months old because Betty the Breeder couldn't be bothered health testing the parents. A friend of mine got a "cheap" rottie out of the paper for 75 bucks. Very sweet pup, but she was euthanized at 6 months old because her hips were so bad she could barely walk.
> I know quite a few goldendoodles (they are a lot more popular than labradoodles in my area). 90% of the dogs are what I would consider absolutely (temperamentally) bombproof. A few of them are therapy dogs. I know quite a few doodles that are pretty awesome dogs. (One doodle who moved away about a year ago I still miss; I considered him to be the most stable dog I've ever met.) That said, I've met show dogs and working dogs and "show line" PB dogs that I wouldn't give (general) you a red cent for. (Just to prove I'm not a breed snob, I've met a few papillons ((my breed)) that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, lol).
> It's not a purebred vs. mixed argument for me anymore. I'd rather see someone breeding doodles that were healthy, sound and SANE than breeding purebreds that were aggressive, sharp, fear-biters, with zero concern about health.
> 
> ...



i DON'T like byb of any kind, and i said before i have no problem breeding mutt dogs for a purpose,(ex the therapy dogs which i mentioned in my first post)...But breeding mutts for the sole reason of getting money and producing pets is irresponsible, if you want a pet mutt go to the shelter or a kennel that breeds dogs for a purpose and get one that's pet quality (because there is going to be one in every litter)
To breed dogs just to make pets, is in my opinion irresponsible, regardless of the animals temperament.



Keechak said:


> You think companionship is a bad reason to breed dogs? I admit I prefer a working dog myself and there are plenty of well bred hunting mutts out there that i have no problem with mixing breeds as long as it's done for a purpose, INCLUDING companionship, and done with the best interest of the puppies in mind and not the pocketbooks.
> 
> What's in a name, as long as the breeder is doing eveything else right who cares what they call their dogs?
> and I really don't see how AKC registering a dog suddenly makes it ok to buy and breed.


Yes i do, Breeding just to produce pets is in my opinion irresponsible there are plenty of pet quality dogs in shelters and plenty of pet quality pups produced from working/show kennels.

I don't care what anyone calls the breed, i care about what they are doing with their dogs. 

I never mentioned anything about the AKC.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Most dogs in the U.S. are pets. Almost all, really. You could argue just as well that it's irresponsible to produce drivey working dogs when there aren't very many homes suited to drivey working dogs. It's a purpose, one just as "honorable" (or whatever you want to say that breeding for show or sports could be) as breeding for any other reason.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> i DON'T like byb of any kind, and i said before i have no problem breeding mutt dogs for a purpose,(ex the therapy dogs which i mentioned in my first post)...But breeding mutts for the sole reason of getting money and producing pets is irresponsible, if you want a pet mutt go to the shelter or a kennel that breeds dogs for a purpose and get one that's pet quality (because there is going to be one in every litter)
> To breed dogs just to make pets, is in my opinion irresponsible, regardless of the animals temperament.
> 
> 
> ...


Why is companionship not a valid purpose? and don't say "because there are already too many pet dogs" I could argue the same thing for hunting dogs and say "there are already so many labradors and poodles and goldens in shelters who needs more dogs bred for hunting?" but of course I know thats silly. If you are serious about hunting you wouldn't go to the shelter and HOPE to get a dog with good instinct and good health. So why should a family who wants a companion have too settle for that gamble of bad health? I think it's apsolutly terrible for a family only wanting a pet to go to a working breeder and HOPE to get the least driven and laziest puppy, I have personally seen that happen and the puppy grew up to be high drive and they got rid of it because even tho it was the "pet quality" of the litter it grew up to be one of the highest quality for hunting and the family couldn't handle it. If the family had gone with a puppy who's pedigree was full of dogs bred specifically for companionship the puppy would have been much more likely to stay low drive and calm as an adult. Or maybe your one of those people who think people who only want a pet shouldn't get a dog, that dogs should only be owned by the performance and working people.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Regardless of whether a breeder is breeding a mixed breed or a purebred, it's irresponsible if the sole purpose of breeding is to make money. I'm not saying a breeder shouldn't make some money but, in terms of a purebred breeder, their main purpose should be to maintain or improve the standard and ensure the health of future generations of their breed. And whether the dog's purpose is for companionship or hunting or skijoring, the well being of the dog should be everyone's goal. I don't think going to a breeder for a pet is a bad thing; why wouldn't you want a healthy, well-raised dog in your home? Adopting an animal with no known history could be risky (as well as rewarding) so some people prefer to play it safe so to speak. Of course, it would be nice if there were no pets in shelters. I don't think it's fair to judge someone because they don't get their pets from an animal shelter. Personally, no offence, I'm not sure why you would want to use an animal in order to kill another one. Unfortunately, in today's society where immediate gratification rules, people will continue to buy puppies from pet stores and bybs. When that stops, the number of animals in shelters will most likely diminish significantly. 

There is a new show on CMT called Pick a Puppy. Each episode focuses on a family who is looking for a puppy and they go to 3 breeders of 3 different breeds. I thought it would be a good way to show people to go to a breeder. However, people are picking mixed breed breeders too. One person even said she was looking for a mixed breed because she heard they were calmer. This show is sponsored heavily by Petsmart. It's these types of misconceptions that will land dogs in shelters. 

IMO, don't only target the breeders of mixed breeds, target all breeders who don't give a crap about their dogs and just want money.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I would even go so far to say that, considering the current dog demographics, it would be more ethical to breed toward the purpose of producing an agreeable pet (of course, this varies for everyone, but probably most people want a pet who would be content without hours of daily exercise and who wouldn't become neurotic without a "job to do"), and placing the drivier pups in working homes, rather than the other way around. Far fewer dogs in shelters that way.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Most dogs in the U.S. are pets. Almost all, really. You could argue just as well that it's irresponsible to produce drivey working dogs when there aren't very many homes suited to drivey working dogs. It's a purpose, one just as "honorable" (or whatever you want to say that breeding for show or sports could be) as breeding for any other reason.





> I would even go so far to say that, considering the current dog demographics, it would be more ethical to breed toward the purpose of producing an agreeable pet (of course, this varies for everyone, but probably most people want a pet who would be content without hours of daily exercise and who wouldn't become neurotic without a "job to do"), and placing the drivier pups in working homes, rather than the other way around. Far fewer dogs in shelters that way.


ummm...bull. seriously. and hypocritical much? saying that it's perfectly responsible to produce pet dogs by arguing that it's irresponsible to produce working dogs?

fallacious.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ummm...bull. seriously. and hypocritical much? saying that it's perfectly responsible to produce pet dogs by arguing that it's irresponsible to produce working dogs?
> 
> fallacious.


Sure. Hyperbole for emphasis. I just said it COULD be argued that way. So, prove me wrong. Why, in your opinion, is it better to breed for drive and working ability and send the less-drivey pups to pet homes (and if were done this way, demand would greatly exceed supply) than to breed for pet suitability and send the more-drivey pups to working homes (of which there aren't very many)? Tradition? Explain.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ummm...bull. seriously. and hypocritical much? saying that it's perfectly responsible to produce pet dogs by arguing that it's irresponsible to produce working dogs?
> 
> fallacious.


I agree with Zim on this, if there is a job for a dog there should be a breeding program in place SPECIFICALLY for that job weather it be companionship, hunting, hog dogs, herding, sledding, ect.

Police forces shouldn't have to go to a litter of German shepherd puppies from low drive "pet bred" parents and hope they get the throwback drivy puppy. And a family looking for a pet shouldn't have to go to a high drive police dog breeder and hope to findthe throwback lazy calm puppy. 
There is just way too much gambling going on with that method and the dogs lives are the things being gambled.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Keechak said:


> I agree with Zim on this, if there is a job for a dog there should be a breeding program in place SPECIFICALLY for that job weather it be companionship, hunting, hog dogs, herding, sledding, ect.
> 
> Police forces shouldn't have to go to a litter of German shepherd puppies from low drive "pet bred" parents and hope they get the throwback drivy puppy. And a family looking for a pet shouldn't have to go to a high drive police dog breeder and hope to findthe throwback lazy calm puppy.
> There is just way too much gambling going on with that method and the dogs lives are the things being gambled.


 Sure, but there will always be washouts--pups from litters bred for specific purposes who will not be good at that specific purpose, and they need to go somewhere. Considering there are MANY pet homes available, and so few true working homes available, why not breed toward the pet angle, and send the "washouts" to the working homes? Makes more sense.

I think police dogs come from their own lines, like guide dogs. I don't think they just pop down to the local GSD breeder and pick out the toughest pup.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

There are more working and sporting homes than you relize Willowy(tho you are right that "Pets" are the leader in the USA), almost all my dog friends offline work their dogs and buy from working breeders. And no a working person shouldn't have to find that "washout pup" A working owner has just as much rights as a pet owner to find the perfect bloodline for their purpose.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If a "washout" pet pup is just as drivey as one from working lines, what's the difference?

And what's to be done with the "washouts", then?

(Note: I do not believe that working breeders should stop breeding for their purposes. My point is that all purposes are equal, providing the breeder is responsible. Just playing devil's advocate here)


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

responces in bold



Willowy said:


> If a "washout" pet pup is just as drivey as one from working lines, what's the difference? *They are not advertised as working dogs and so working people can't find them. And you wouldn't know they are the washout untill after they hit sexual maturity when the drive and energy kicks in and by that time precious training time has been lost because the "pet" breeder didn't intend for this washout pup to be a hunting dog and didn't start the training. At least with a working bred litter someone will have a better chance of picking a puppy that turns out to be working quality, and if they go with an older puppy it is likly to have started training already.*
> 
> And what's to be done with the "washouts", then? *find an active pet home, I can think of plenty of people here that have high energy high drive dogs who even tho they don't work or do performance their dogs are still in a good home becuase the owner is an active hiker or runner.*
> 
> (Note: I do not believe that working breeders should stop breeding for their purposes. My point is that all purposes are equal, providing the breeder is responsible. Just playing devil's advocate here) *I understand, my responces should also be read as calm and calculated responces as your questions are calm and calculated questions.*


----------



## Sighthounds4me (Nov 7, 2010)

nm... my points have all been covered.


----------



## BraveheartDogs (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> 90% of the dogs are what I would consider absolutely (temperamentally) bombproof. A few of them are therapy dogs. I know quite a few doodles that are pretty awesome dogs.


I get a ton of poodle mixes in my classes. These are dogs that were bred on purpose and purchased on purpose, usually because people thought they wouldn't shed (which many of them do). What I find is that they are generally very sweet in temperament but very challenging for clients to live with. There is a trend (at least in my area) of the Lab/Poodle mixes and Golden/Poodle mixes of being extremely high energy, very mouthy, extremely vocal and a lot of pica (object eating) to a point that they are very challenging for new dog owners (which many of them are). I have known some that came from the Australian breeding program and didn't see a big change in temperament. Several of them have turned out to be nice, even wonderful dogs, but it was a LOT of work getting them there. I actually think that breeding for good companions should be paramount because they will all (should be) companions as well as whatever else they do (conformation, working, etc) but I just haven't seen these mixes be better than the purebreds of either side of the pedigree.


----------

