American Akita's build

Akita1986Akita1986
edited February 2012 in Akita (秋田犬)
I have a question regarding the build of AAs. I've seen many AAs online and from dog owners and I know that they're bigger than the JAs. I've noticed however that some look very stocky and some are very lean, almost like German Shepherds. I was wondering...is this due to diet/exercise/lifestyle? Or does it have to do with genetics/breeding? Thanks.
«1

Comments

  • PoetikDragonPoetikDragon
    A proper AA should not be lanky, lean, or have a "snipey" head. Like the JA they should be roughly square, with females slightly longer than they are tall. Within every breed there are dogs who are closer and further (sometimes much further!) from the breed's standard. Sometimes it's just a fluke of genetics, other times is a result of irresponsible people breeding poor quality dogs together just to sell pedigreed puppies.
  • jellyfishjellyfish
    I think the answer to your question also lies in the "nature vs. nurture" aspect.

    When a puppy is growing, that pup is already genetically predisposed to be a certain height and build, but good eats and lifestyle will help them be at their full potential.

    Take for example the American Akita. The breed is desired to be dog with a lot of "bone", referencing thick and stocky legs, which is a genetic thing. I come to this conclusion because feeding your dog absurd amounts of food, (even though the dog might happily accept), will just make the dog fat and unhealthy, not giving them "bone" in their legs. However, by feeding them nutritious food growing up, the can grow into their full potential, which is whatever their wonderful genetics dictate. Hooray! :)

    Or at least, this is my understanding.

  • shibamistressshibamistress
    I think Poeticdragon answered the question pretty well. The breed standard suggest they should be square, that they are bred to be a heavy boned dog, not lean like a GSD. Stocky legs for sure--we joked that my AA had "stalks" instead of legs as a puppy because they were straight up and down from his feet on up!

    If they are well bred, they are supposed to be taller and heavier than JAs. My 2 year old male is about 120 pounds.
  • SangmortSangmort
    Personally, I haven't seen any "lean" AAs, JAs yes, but not AAs. All the AAs I have seen have been very "stocky" & well, "built" for lack of a better word. ~
  • AsheakaAsheaka
    @Akita1986 - Well, the American Akita does have German Shepherd in its genes. I don't know about the build, but you can definitely see it in the face.
  • Brego_mellon_ninBrego_mellon_nin
    The american akita should not be lean and GSD-ish, but there are very big differences between the bloodlines. Some breeders, even though they try to stick quite close to the breed standard, prefer some features over other, and tend to breed for that, so they kinda create their own "type". Here in Europe we have a lot of different lines, and it's very confusing. We have fx one line that is very correct in conformation, but not always great in movement, and we have other lines that are the other way around. Then there's some I feel is going towards a whole different type of dog, where they have wrinkles in the forehead and much more bearlike. It's truly a jungle out there!!
  • *JackBurton**JackBurton*
    Actually the breed standard suggest that they are slightly longer than they are tall.

    AKC -"Body--Longer than high, as to 10 is to 9 in males; 11 to 9 in bitches. Measurement from the point of the sternum to the point of buttocks"

    FCI - "MPORTANT PROPORTIONS :
    The ratio of height at withers to length of body is 9 to 10 in males and 9 to 11 in bitches."

    You can have smaller American Akitas as the breed takes into account the influences of the other dogs. You also need to consider here in the US the effect of blending. Historically you have this "akitas had been drastically reduced in number and existed as three distinct types : 1) Matagi Akitas 2) Fighting Akitas 3) Shepherd Akitas." But per the standard the goal is to "strive" for a dog that is "Large-sized dog, sturdily built, well balanced, with much substance and heavy bone."

    I agree with Brego, that more and more AA are starting to look very very sloppy.
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    @Sean....ha, math fail on my part again! I was picturing what I meant with the Akitas (instead of looking at the standards which might have involved even more math fail for me), and I realize now I was picturing rectangle (ie slightly longer than tall), not square. D'oh!

    I disagree about the GSD in the face, and am kind of impatient with the "it's in their genes." Yes, but way way back in dog generations, and they should not resemble GSDs at all. A GSD style head is not a sign of a well bred AA in my mind. Most have short muzzles, with a rather pronounced stop, and they don't look like GSDs at all. When I see those AAs that look like that, I think of them as I do my snipey, lean Shiba girl: not well bred.

    And while some AA do look like this, I actually think there are less of these, rather than more. When I first had an AA in the 90s, she was an example of the lean version (from a byb--I didn't know better then). I saw a lot of them. Now I see way more well bred AAs that are really good examples of the breed, and I think the breed is improving overall. Of course, I'm also mostly looking at dogs from very good breeders, so.....
  • jellyfishjellyfish
    @shibamistress why are you not thrilled about the idea of "it's their genes"? I would think it would be because every physical trait is backed by a gene, even if the dog is poorly bred or has a breeder who did their research. I mean, I could be wrong and misreading, that is why I am interested in asking :)
  • *JackBurton**JackBurton*
    A thought, based on no facts what so ever so be warned ok :)... Would the fact that the GSD was introduced in the late 30s early 40s and was quickly and widely used to hide Akita have an effect on why it is still around? Most mixing with the mastiff, tosa, yadda yadda was done before they outlawed dog fighting. However the GSD would be only be 60-70 years ago.

  • PoetikDragonPoetikDragon
    American Akitas AND Japanese Akitas have GSDs in their background. The cross breeding in WWII occurred before the Japanese began restoring/recreating the JA. LookIng at how well the JA removed that influence, I see no reason that the AA should look like a GSD either.
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    Yeah, I probably didn't explain myself well. the "but it's in their genes" has been used by people who try to justify a nonstandard Akita type, and I get impatient with that, because as noted above, the influence has been removed long ago, and should not show up in Akitas now. So I'm reacting to people (not necessarily here!) who say "oh but they are 'mixed' with GSD of course they can look like them." Neither JAs nor AAs should look like GSDs now, as that influence was many, many, many generations past!
  • jellyfishjellyfish
    oooh okay! I understand what you mean now and I totally agree with that! :)
  • Akita1986Akita1986
    Good points.

    Here's what I mean. Look at this AA Akita (). It almost looks like a mini bear. And this AA Akita () is leaner. Is that genetic? Or lifestyle? I love AA's, but I prefer the leaner looking ones...not the bearish ones.
  • PoetikDragonPoetikDragon
    If you want to see what is considered the correct build for an AA, check out the breed judging videos from the Westminster show. You'll get to see a lot of very correct American Akitas that way.

    I think the Akita in your first video is a bit overweight. The second video looks young - they're typically very lanky for the first two years, especially the males.

    The build of a dog is genetic, but is also influenced by environmental factors.
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    I agree--look at some of the Westminster show judging for AAs to get a better sense of what they look like. Of these two, they both look typical to me, though it's kind of hard to tell about the first one--his legs look short, but it could be because he's standing in sand.

    The second one looks young. They bulk up a bit more as they get older.
  • lwrothlwroth
    I think a lot of show Akitas I see photos of are too square, too short legged, and too heavy. They aren't supposed to be square or short legged; I suppose their weight's more a matter of taste so long as they aren't grossly over- or underweight. The Japanese standards at the time Akitas sought AKC registration after being in the Miscellaneous class called for "heavy bone" in the Akita, but *in relation* to the bone of the other native Japanese breeds.

    As for genes coming from other breeds, the influence of that should be long gone: if you look at registries like the Kennel Club in England that have allowed a cross to another breed, the third generation after that is accepted as purebred. I've read that the Dalmatian-English pointer backcross to breed out a health defect in the Dalmatian was 31/32 Dalmatian after the fourth backcross. In 1981, these dogs were registered by the AKC as Dalmatians, but the parent club changed its views and didn't allow them until a membership vote was taken in 2006, favoring registration of these dogs, and the offspring of the backcrosses were again AKC registered in 2011.
  • *JackBurton**JackBurton*
    Linda are you sure about that. The requirements for Japanese Akita Inu in the Kennel Club has these as their requirements:

    Breed Name   Japanese Akita Inu
    Group              Utility
    Register          Breed register without CC status
    Effective date  1 January 2006
     
    Eligibility          A dog will be eligible for the register if:
    a. all ancestors in a three generation pedigree are registered with the Japanese Kennel Club as a Japanese Akita Inu or trace all their ancestry back to such dogs. OR
    b. all ancestors in a three generation pedigree were registered as a Japanese Akita Inu within a register created by an FCI Kennel Club since their recognition in October 1998. OR
    c. it has a three generation pedigree which is a combination of the above, provided all 8 great-grandparents are either as specified in a or b. If a dog does not comply with the above, but there are exceptional circumstances, an application can be made to the committee
    Interim Breed Standard
    Upon acceptance of the above, an Interim Breed Standard for the Japanese Akita Inu, based on that of the country of origin, will be produced by 1 January 2006.

    I don't really see how you can cross post 2006. I'm a little confused.
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    Well, she was talking about dalmatians, not JAs, so now I'm even more confused.
  • *JackBurton**JackBurton*
    I'm equally as lost. you're not alone.
  • sukoshi_momsukoshi_mom
    I think lwroth was pointing out that out crosses are rather quickly absorbed into the genetic pool of a breed within a relatively short time frame, i.e. 3 generations for example, by backcrossing.

    Here (again) is the link to the Dalmatian Heritage Project:

    http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    That's how I read it originally, and thought the dalmations were just an example of how quickly out crosses were absorbed. And that's what I meant, way back in this thread, when I said I was impatient about some people (not on this forum) acting like Akitas were some sort of "cross breed" because way back when they had other breeds included.

  • lwrothlwroth
    Sorry for the confusion; I was not talking about any Akita crossing; I was thinking of the discussions about, and perhaps reality of, saving some of the native English terrier breeds with minuscule number of dogs by crossbreeding to a similar terrier and the resulting offspring would be registered by the English kennel club as purebreds of the original breed. I think it will vein the future of purebred dogs as their genetic diversity dwindles.
  • PoetikDragonPoetikDragon
    edited March 2012
    I think as a theoretical practice, it would be nice to be able to cross to other breeds in order to bring in traits for the genetic viability of a breed. The closed genepools of purebred dogs has really only come about in the past two centuries, yet we have breeds which have been around for 10x as long. Our dogs are suffering because of it. However, in practice I think it is too dangerous to be left in the hands of the average layperson and is just a huge can of worms we don't want opened. I frankly would not trust breeder Joe to know when to cross breed dogs in "my" breed and with which dogs/breeds to cross to and which pups to select or cull as future progenitors of the breed; nor would Joe trust me with the same.
  • lwrothlwroth
    Wow! My proofreading skills have taken a nosedive. In my post about, I should have said, "resulting offspring *in the third generation* would be registered...." Also "I think it will *be in* the future of purebred dogs...." These crosses aren't in the hands of average laypersons or breeder Joes: breed clubs with the help of canine geneticists determine what would be a beneficial cross, and before any down-the-line offspring could be registered as the original breed, they'd have to be like the original breed in appearance and probably in other traits. But then there's the bobtailed Boxer crosses, now registered as Boxers I believe: the person who did the cross was a canine geneticist. And "aren't in the hands of average laypersons" except for those people who cross for their own purposes, without caring if the dogs would be in the future of a particular breed.
  • PoetikDragonPoetikDragon
    edited March 2012
    I don't think every breed club is so lucky to have a geneticist or three as an officer or board member. Moreover, the dogs still belong to breeder Joe, not the club itself. The politics would turn very ugly very quickly if the breed club started saying who could (or must!) breed their dogs to whom...

    I don't think its a bad idea, just not a very feasible one given the nature of the game.
  • lwrothlwroth
    I don't think there'd ever be a question of forcing people to breed in a certain way. Clubs can hire geneticists, not necessarily have them on board. I haven't read much about such cross breeding programs to introduce new genetics into a breed, but I'll try to find something. There are usually dedicated people who want to help a breed improve in health matters. And clubs determine standards, at least for registries like AKC, so clubs would have the final say on any such program.
  • hotarujishinhotarujishin
    Chinooks can be cross bred to a dog breed in the breed's background and in 5 gens, it is accepting by UKC as "pure". I think it's a sensible way to improve the health. Unfortunately,
    there are many neophytes and secrets.
  • KitagrlKitagrl
    Resurrecting this discussion, I guess....I find it interesting. Seems like within the AA breed there are a lot more variations than you find within the JA breed. I prefer AA over JA (personal opinion) and have only owned AA. You have some akitas who look very "shepherdy" with ears that are too long and muzzles that are too snipey. Some akitas' legs are too long. Some akitas are bred at the bottom end of the breed standard for weight, but others are far too heavy and/or overweight for breed standard. I guess people just really breed what they personally like. I prefer the show quality ones with the shorter muzzles...not too fat, with a nice plush coat. I've seen some whose heads are almost too large....but others, even in the show ring, that too me, their muzzle is not blunt enough. My own AA will be on the low end of standard both in height and weight, but his personality is probably better than your average bred AA. I notice mine at a year old already seems *not lanky* which to me tells me that once his chest fills out later on, he will have pretty short legs (unless legs can grow in height past a year old). Mine will also not have the "optimal" head size and shape in my opinion, but at maturity it will probably be close. But my idea of "optimal" is not other people's, I find...some people just LOVE the longer eared, shepherdy ones (which mine is probably slightly that way, but not drastically so). I just can't figure out how so many variations came into the breed, except just breeders who personally prefer different characteristics.
  • shibamistressshibamistress
    I think that's what we were saying earlier: sure, you may see the lanky GSD type, but that doesn't mean they're a good example of the breed. I mean, look at Shibas, and you'll see quite a huge range of looks, but the rangy Shibas with bigger ears are almost always puppy mill or byb dogs (they are so easy to spot), which suggests to me that it may in fact have less to do with the GSD genes way back when, rather than just careless breeding and not actually trying to conform to breed standards. Years ago I had one of those lanky, more GSD looking Akitas too, that I bought from a byb. A more careful breeder would cull a dog from the program if it really didn't fit in with the standard, instead of just breeding anyway.

    Breeders shouldn't be ignoring the breed standards because they prefer longer ears, or whatever. I mean, a good breeder will like a certain look, perhaps, and try to work toward that, but if isn't in the breed standard, they shouldn't be doing it. (I'm thinking of how a Shiba breeder told me she liked a more full chest on Shibas then the standard allowed so she was breeding for that. I don't think that's a good choice).

    And yeah, you see people showing some dogs you really wonder about. One year I saw more than one dog with micro in the show ring at an Akita speciality show. :(
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024