Body Proportions... what is correct for Bernese?

1/20/2017

Very few references are made as to the proportions of the Bernese Mountain Dog in any of the Standards compared to other breeds. Yet two references are made that inherently affect the overall silhouette of the Dog and therefore affect ones ability to easily recognise a dog as a Bernese.

One refers to the height at withers of the dog verses body length (from point of shoulder to buttock), which should be at a ratio of 9:10.
The other is the length of leg (ground to the elbow) vs the height at withers. This should be at a ratio of 1:2. Notice I didn't say that body depth is equal to the length of leg, as this in some cases is not true. The depth of body at brisket must be equal to OR GREATER than the length of leg.

What does this all mean and what impact does it have for our breed...?
The body proportions of 9:10 are important as it differentiates our breed from others such as the Newfoundland (which can be longer in body). It is a signature of our breed and has been widely ignored in many peoples breeding over the years.
This could be due to alternative priorities in breeding, such as trying to lessen the incidence of health issues such as cancer.
Or perhaps another explanation is this... have you ever heard it said "it is OK for bitches to be a little longer, allows for more puppies etc". In my mind this is an 'old wives tale' and is far from the truth. No where in any standard does it give this allowance. Also, does it not make sense that longer bitches will breed longer dogs. The cycle is self perpetuating and hence the reason why many of our quality dogs are longer in body or shorter in leg than is ideal.
Another plausible explanation as to why Bernese are becoming longer in body and shorter in leg, is the modern trend within the dog show world for a dog that can race around the ring with an extended gait. Bernese should be shown at a 'Slow Trot". This is for good reason. A squarer dog is unable to move at an overly fast pace without crabbing or altering the movement in some negative way. Please breeders, only breed true to type and resist the trends which will pass in time.
Apart from being a defining part of our breed (adding to 'Type') there is also a very practical reason for our breed to have squarer body proportions. When looking at draft breeds in Horses (such as the Clydesdale), they are required to be shorter coupled and therefore squarer in body proportions for the reasons of strength when pulling large loads. Bernese are a general purpose farm dog, their job was one of varying capacities on the farm. Their demeanour was not to be cumbersome and they had to have a sensible working mentality. Whilst they weren't a dedicated draft breed, they were regularly used for this purpose and any weakness that would have inhibited it's usefulness as a draft breed, would have been bred against. Overly long bodied dogs would not have served its purpose as a draft breed.
Once you are governed by these body proportions with a draft purpose for the breed, it makes sense to then to breed within this framework, a dog that is moderate in angulation with well let down hocks. I will leave this for a separate discussion as I could write paragraphs on this also.
(Please note... any photos being used are to display the points being made in that blog only. In no way are my comments to be reflection of the dog overall, or the breeders efforts to improve the breed.)

In summary...

Correct body proprty of 9:10.

Another dog that is displaying the correct proportions in body height to length 9:10 ratio.

4 Comments

Nancy Melone

1/20/2017 10:34:04 pm

Nice educational commentary. Need some AKC judges to see this.

Also, need commentary on how judges can reveal poor fronts. Handlers here got furious when a judge at a major show with top dogs asked for a U in the lead and insisted on a slow trot. Revealed front issues in some top dogs. Results did not please these handlers but the judge was spot on.

Also curious about the prospect of a dominant short coat gene? Where are the old fashioned wavy manes of a decade ago? Not to be seen. Betting there is a dominant short coat gene lurking somewhere...curious minds want to know. Any clues?

Fran Brown

1/21/2017 01:12:56 am

Where does it say short hocks? hocks are well let down. Draft horses, if one wants to compare have long hocks for more stable rear. Short hocks, such as a sight hound are useful on a much lighter made dog. The short hock breeds are running breeds.
Also, square dogs such as a Doberman (a trotting breed) do not crab or over reach if made well. (angles front and rear are equal) Where does it say that a BMD should be 9/10. The original standard in the USA says Body "rather short than long. :compact. well ribbed up". Someone along the line decided to add the 9/10 ratio.
Also, a BMD should have the ability to trot at any speed if made well. If pulling a cart, the rate of movement is different than agilty or herding or conformation ring. Being adamant about a 'slow trot' is to say the BMD should not move at a medium or faster trot? This is not to say the breed should move at any particular speed. Usually the individual dog paces itself to what they feel comfortable with. To slow them down or speed them up is not allowing them to move as it is comfortable in that particular body. Just saying -food for thought.

Ben Taylor link

1/21/2017 10:07:29 pm

Hi Fran,
Thanks for commenting, I really appreciate and value your opinion.
Interesting what you say about the Clydesdale placement of the hock joint? As you are right in saying that in their standard it does indicate it is desirable to have hocks that are not as well let down? It states..."There should be a good length from the point of the hock to the ground". Different than I anticipated for a draft breed. I would imagine this has to do with the mechanics of muscular attachment within the rear assembly to gain the most power and drive. My comparison to the draft breeds was more in relation to being shorter coupled and well ribbed back.
In my opinion other breeds such as the Doberman and Boxer have also been bred to extreme. Traditionally they would not have had such extreme rear angulation, long second thighs with their rear pasterns placed as far back as they are to have them perpendicular to the ground. For them to cover the ground without interference, they too have been bred to have corrective measures such as elliptical rear movement, none of which is correct for a Bernese. Another way of having a relatively "Square Dog" that can move at a great pace is for them be overly elevated in movement, that moves at a Flying Trot. It is my opinion again that this is not true to type and is not in keeping with our Breeds traditions. A Bernese gait should have as much contact as possible with the ground and not have wasted gait that has no purpose nor benefit. For this to happen, a slow trot is of benefit. The AKC standard words it well..."The natural working gait of the Bernese Mountain Dog is a slow trot.... but is capable of great speed."
On the other point you mention, perhaps someone did add the 9:10 ratio over time? But perhaps this was because people needed a physical measurement as a reminder because "rather short than long" was open to too much interpretation. It makes me think that perhaps this issue within our breed, of overly long dogs, has been around a lot longer than I thought.
I am unsure that I mentioned Short Hocks? There is no such thing. Short rear pasterns...yes? Or perhaps well let down hocks. But not Short Hocks.
I definitely think Bernese should be moved at a slow trot for showing purposes. There is no benefit in my mind to going fast just for the sake of it. If the dog is built correctly and closely to standard, this is the ideal pace to be shown at.
I am intrigued in your thoughts Fran about the standard and it mentioning "well let down hocks". What are your thoughts and feeling regarding this. What benefit do you see in having this trait? I notice that you say running breeds must have well let down hocks. Does this have a relevance for our breed that you know of?

Joanne Gerow

1/22/2017 05:00:10 am

AKC standard is vague for both the Newfoundland and the Bernese Mountain Dog. Both standards call for "slightly longer than tall". Although the BMD standard does not make specific reference to the body/leg ratio, the Newfoundland standard indicates the distance from elbow to ground should be 1/2 the dog's height. While the 9:10 ratio is accepted, I think it's inclusion into the standard gives a more definitive model to follow. Although the natural working gait of the Bernese is a slow trot, they are also called upon for speed to accomplish farm tasks. Their front tracking actually changes to converging to facilitate the increase in speed. I feel there are different factors contributing to the appearance of a "long body". If you follow the principle of elbow to ground being half of the height of the dog, it is much easier to define where the conformational issues come from. For example, if you have a dog that is 50/50 in height/elbow, it is much easier to identify a dog with too much length of body. However, if you have a dog that is, maybe 40 percent at the elbow, the illusion of excessive length of body is evident. However, the issue may not truly be "too long", it is more likely there is not enough leg under the dog! So in order to use the 9:10 ratio, it is imperative to be attentive the elbow/height ratio first. I don't think anyone starts out with a goal to breed a dog of excessive length. I think we move forward with the hopes of wrangling the fault in the future by breeding down the length, as with any other fault. No dog is perfect and we all compromise in different places to move forward. However, I do agree it is something we must pay attention to and clarity in the standard (AKC) is pivotal to comprehension of proper proportions...which brings me to "Ideal Bone/Substance"!

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Body Proportions... what is correct for Bernese?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories