After LA last week, I am on a roll planning breedings for the fall. I thought I would share the process of pulling pedigrees and analyzing them for a standard pedigree run, not the long long deep dive I did for Josie a few days ago. Before I do a planned breeding, I like to have a document in each goat’s folder that gives me strengths and weaknesses. It starts with something like what follows and a summary spreadsheet like this:
Goose is a purebred Nubian doe, born January 30, 2023. She is a useful young doe. I like her. She’s productive, dairy, and has enough structure that I don’t want to go looking for a buck that changes everything about her. But she also has some very clear areas where the wrong buck could make the next generation weaker, not better.
Linear Appraisal
Goose’s 2026 Linear Appraisal score was 84 as a first-freshening doe. That puts her at the top end of Good Plus, just one point below Very Good.
I don’t read that as “almost good enough.” I read it as a young doe with a lot of useful pieces and a few areas that need a thoughtful mating. She’s not a doe I’m trying to reinvent. She’s a doe I’m trying to build from.
I kept her photos beside her LA scores while reading through the appraisal. Photos don’t replace Linear Appraisal, but they help connect the numbers to the goat. Her side-view photo is useful for looking at her balance, length of body, rump, rear legs, udder depth, and how the mammary system sits under her.
Her front-end photo helps me look at her shoulder assembly, chest floor, neck blending, and how she stands over her front legs.
Goose has a useful general structure. Her stature is
moderate, her strength and dairyness are balanced, and her rump is one of the
things I like best in her appraisal. She scored 33 in rump angle and 32 in rump
width. That gives me something to protect.
I don’t want a buck that narrows her daughters behind,
steepens the rump, or makes the mammary system more crowded. She has enough
width and shape there to work with, and I want to keep it.
Her rear legs are functional and moderate. She scored 25 in
rear legs side view, which is right in the middle of the scale, and her rear
leg category was Very Good. I’m not trying to “fix” her legs, but I still want
a buck that protects mobility, feet, and pastern strength. A dairy doe can have
a beautiful udder, but if she can’t move comfortably and hold herself together
over time, she’s not going to be a long-lived working doe.
The mammary system is where I’m pickier. Goose’s mammary
category was Very Good, so this is not a bad udder. But the individual traits
tell me where the mating needs to help.
Her fore udder attachment scored 16, and that is the first
thing I flag. A lower fore udder attachment score tells me I don’t want a buck
that is weak in fore udder attachment or comes from does with short, loose, or
poorly blended fore udders. I want more extension, smoother blending, and a
fore udder that carries forward and holds up as she ages.
Her rear udder height was 25, which is moderate. It’s not a
disaster score, but it isn’t adding extra height either. I’m looking for a buck
with a stronger pattern for rear udder height, especially one with daughters or
close female relatives showing high, well-attached rear udders.
Her rear udder arch was 36, and that’s one of her stronger
mammary traits. She has useful rear udder width and shape. I want to keep that.
A buck that improves fore udder but narrows the rear udder isn’t the right
match for her. Goose needs support and attachment without giving up the width
and capacity she already has.
Her medial suspensory ligament scored 24, which is close to
intermediate. Not a major weakness, but I’m not ignoring it
either. Since her fore udder attachment is the bigger concern, I want a buck
that strengthens udder support overall. Ideally, I want more medial definition
and stronger fore attachment together, not one at the expense of the other.
Her udder depth score was 31, which is useful for longevity.
She’s not showing as a doe with an udder hanging too low, and I want to protect
that. I’m careful with bucks from deep-uddered families, even if those families
milk hard. Milk is wonderful, but support is what keeps a doe going.
Her teat placement was 38 and teat diameter was 19. That
tells me I need to watch teat size and milkability when choosing a buck. I
don’t want to pair her with a buck known for tiny, awkward, or hard-to-milk
teats. She’s a milking girl so teat placement and diameter is definitely
important to me, to my old hands!
The LA takeaway is pretty straightforward: Goose has useful
structure and a mammary system worth building on, but the buck needs to improve
the front and support of the udder. I’m looking for more fore udder attachment,
more rear udder height, stronger medial support, and practical teat structure,
while protecting her rump width, rear udder arch, dairyness, udder depth, and
general usefulness.
Production and Components
Linear Appraisal tells me whether a doe has the structure
and mammary system to function over time. Production records tell me what the
family is putting in the pail. For breeding decisions, I want both.
Goose does not have an official milk test yet, so I can’t
treat her own production as DHI data. A doe milking well at home is useful
information, but it isn’t the same as a standardized record with components,
test days, lactation length, age adjustment, and an official production
evaluation behind it.
That said, Goose is currently milking about 7 pounds a day
as a first freshener. For a young doe, that’s encouraging. She isn’t just
a pretty udder with no function behind it.
I’m still being careful with that number. We don’t know her
full lactation length yet. We don’t know how persistent she’ll be. We don’t
have official butterfat or protein percentages from her. If she were able to
hold close to 7 pounds a day across a full 305-day lactation, that would
roughly equal 2,135 pounds of milk. That is not an official projection. It’s
just a simple way to understand the scale of what she’s doing right now.
The real questions are whether she holds production, how her
components test, and how her mammary system holds up over time.
When I look at her close family, the production picture is
more mixed than the type picture.
Goose’s dam, NC Buttermilk FMSB Dottie, has one lactation
listed. Dottie’s average standard milk is 927 pounds, with 31 pounds of fat and
26 pounds of protein. Her Milk PTA is -13, Fat PTA is -1.0, Protein PTA is
-0.7, and her percentile rank is 36. Reliability is low, so I’m not overstating
those numbers, but Dottie does not give Goose a strong production anchor on
paper. But, Dottie also only had one lactation milk test and did not complete
305 days. I knew her and I remember her to be a powerhouse in the pail. Still, we have to go with the numbers, especially over my own memory! I’ve said it before: start milk test, complete milk test. It not only skews your numbers if you don’t, and somewhere down the line someone is going to be reading your doe’s data just like I do.
Goose’s maternal granddam, NC Buttermilk SS Southern Bell,
is a very strong appraisal doe. She appraised 91 EEEE at 7-06, which tells me
she held her structure and mammary system into maturity. But her production
evaluation does not show recorded lactations in this dataset. Her Milk PTA is
-13, Fat PTA is -1.3, Protein PTA is -0.4, and her percentile rank is 37, also
with low reliability.
So Southern Bell is a useful type and longevity signal, but
not a production-record anchor. A doe can be excellent in type and still not
give us much official milk-record evidence.
T
he stronger production and component hints in the older shared ancestry come from animals like J-Nels Savannah’s Chili Pepper. She was an SGCH doe, appraised 91 EEVE, with PTI21 29 and PTI12 85. Her record also shows a positive protein predicted producing ability and a percentile rank of 44. That is useful background, but she is far enough back that I’m treating her as part of the family pattern, not as a direct guarantee of what Goose will transmit.
Here’s how I read Goose’s production picture: Goose herself
is milking strongly as a first freshener, but she does not yet have official
DHI data. Her close maternal family has much stronger type evidence than
production evidence. The broader pedigree has some production and component
signals, but the close evidence says I shouldn’t assume production is already
locked in. Goose doesn’t lack production potential. Her current milk volume says the opposite. It means the next buck should help secure that production genetically.
So, for Goose, I’m looking for a buck with stronger official
production support than her close maternal line shows. I want positive or
clearly favorable PTA milk, fat, and protein, with useful reliability. I also
want to see daughters or close female relatives that milk well while keeping
their mammary systems attached and functional.
Components are part of the value of the milk, not an extra
bonus. Butterfat and protein affect cheese yield, milk value, kid growth, and
the usefulness of the doe in a dairy herd. A doe can give a nice amount of milk
and still be less valuable if the components are weak. I need a buck for her
that can help keep or improve milk while also supporting fat and protein. But, of course, I don’t want to breed Goose to a buck who only makes prettier udders. I want a buck who can help make daughters that milk, hold their udders, and have enough component strength to be useful dairy goats over time.
Pedigree and Inbreeding
Goose’s pedigree shows she is 2.97% inbred. That’s actually pretty low inbreeding on average. Inbreeding concentrates genetics. It can increase predictability when the repeated animals are strong and consistent, but it can also magnify weaknesses if the same weaknesses are present in the family. The useful question is not “is there inbreeding?” The useful question is “what is being concentrated?”
Goose’s immediate pedigree already shows where the
concentration starts. On the sire side, she is by Fischer FF Finest Cashew
Ever, out of Fischer FF Dubonnet. On the dam side, she is out of NC Buttermilk
FMSB Dottie, whose sire is Redwood Hills Full Mascarpone and whose dam is NC
Buttermilk SS Southern Bell.
The first thing I notice is that Goose is not just “a Nubian
with some Kastdemur and J-Nels in the background.” Those names are doing real
work in the pedigree.
Her top inbreeding contributor is J-Nels RN Southern Salsa,
contributing 0.66% to her inbreeding. Other major contributors include Brown
Sugar’s Crown Ambassador, Kastdemur’s LE Renegade, Kastdemur’s MPR Liaison,
J-Nels Savannah’s Chili Pepper, Kastdemur’s LH Full Service, Kastdemur’s
Audacity, Sweet Harvest Show Time, and Kastdemur’s Crown Savannah.
That tells me the useful analysis should focus on the shared
families, especially the J-Nels, Kastdemur, and Brown Sugar cluster, not on
every old name pulled into the file set. Not like I did in a previous post on
Josie. I’ll probably never dive that deep again for my own sanity!
The very old ancestors are useful for historical context and
long-term line influence, but they shouldn’t dominate the interpretation. A
name from the 1960s or 1970s may help explain where a family came from, but it
does not automatically tell me what Goose is likely to produce today. For a
practical breeding decision, I care most about the ancestors that are close
enough, repeated enough, and documented enough to affect the next generation.
Close Female Line
Goose’s dam, NC Buttermilk FMSB Dottie, gives us one of the
clearest clues in the whole report. Dottie appraised FS82 (+V+A) at 4-02, had
one recorded lactation, and had PTI21 -22 and PTI12 -23. I’m not reading her as
a bad doe. I’m reading her honestly. She brings some useful pieces, especially
rump width and udder depth, but she also helps explain the mammary traits I’m
watching in Goose.
Dottie’s type profile includes positive signals for stature,
rump width, rear legs side view, udder depth, and medial suspensory ligament.
That lines up with some of what I like in Goose. Goose has useful rump scores,
and Dottie’s side may be helping hold some width and udder height above the
hock.
But Dottie also has the mammary issue I do not want to
double up on. Her fore udder attachment score was 12, and her fore udder
attachment PTA was -1.2. Goose’s fore udder attachment is 16, so that looks
like a real maternal-side pattern. Goose improved over Dottie, but she did not
escape the issue.
Dottie’s rear udder arch was also not strong. Her raw rear
udder arch score was 21, and her PTA was -0.7. Goose scored 36 in rear udder
arch, so Goose is much better there than her dam. That is encouraging, and it
may be coming from the sire side or from the broader pedigree. But because
Dottie was weak there, I’m not assuming Goose’s daughters will automatically
keep that rear udder width unless the buck protects it.
The biggest note in Dottie’s record is the miscellaneous
code: udder tilted, marked as affecting her score. That is the kind of note I need
to pay close attention to. It tells me the appraiser saw a mammary issue
significant enough to record. When I pair that with Dottie’s low fore udder
score and Goose’s lower fore udder score, the issue becomes much clearer.
Goose should not be bred to a buck with loose fore udders,
tilted udders in the female line, weak udder floors, or inconsistent mammary
balance.
Goose’s maternal granddam, NC Buttermilk SS Southern Bell,
gives a different kind of information. Southern Bell was a CH purebred Nubian
doe who appraised FS91 EEEE at 7-06. Her appraisal history is especially useful
because she moved from 83 at 2-06 to 87, 88, 90, and finally 91 at 7-06. That
is the kind of maturity curve I love seeing in a pedigree. But, if you’ve read
my blog, you know I am very partial to NC Buttermilk lines.
Southern Bell gives the maternal side some durability
credibility. She appears to have held structure and quality into maturity,
which helps when I’m asking whether Goose’s family can stay functional over
time.
But Southern Bell is not a production powerhouse signal in
this dataset. Her production evaluation shows 0 lactations, negative production
PTAs, and low reliability. So I’m using her as a type, maturity, and longevity
signal, not as a milk-record anchor.
Her type evaluation is more useful than her production
record. She had 5 appraisals, PTAFS 0.5, and reliability 53. Her trait profile
shows useful signals for rear legs side view, rear udder height, udder depth,
medial suspensory ligament, and teat diameter. Those are helpful pieces for
Goose, especially because Goose needs mammary support protected and
improved.
But Southern Bell does not solve the fore udder question.
Her fore udder attachment PTA is basically neutral, and her rear udder arch PTA
is slightly negative. So I’m not assuming this family automatically fixes fore
udder or rear udder width. Goose still needs a buck that is deliberate
on mammary attachment.
On the sire side, Fischer FF Dubonnet is another close doe worth noting. Dubonnet was a CH purebred Nubian doe, born in 2015, with FS90 VVEE at 3-00. That reinforces the fact that Goose has quality does close up on both sides. Southern Bell at 91 EEEE and Dubonnet at 90 VVEE help explain why Goose herself appraised with good general structure.
But Dubonnet also raises a caution. Her available type information points toward closer teat placement and narrower teat tendency. Goose scored 38 in teat placement and 19 in teat diameter, so I’m watching that. The line may be contributing practical teat concerns that need to be protected in the mating.
The close-female takeaway is this: Goose has strong appraised does close enough to matter, and those does support her general structure and type quality. But they do not erase the mammary details Goose needs improved.
Sire Side
Goose’s sire is Fischer FF Finest Cashew Ever, a purebred Nubian buck born in 2020. His ADGA Genetics page does not show LA, PTI, ETA, production evaluation, or type evaluation values. His own inbreeding is very low at 0.02%.
That is an interesting contrast to Goose’s dam side. Dottie, Mascarpone, and Southern Bell all carry more visible concentration, especially around Kastdemur, J-Nels, and Brown Sugar families. Cash still brings some of the same important names through his dam, Fischer FF Dubonnet.
Cash’s sire side is more Jacobs Pride and AZ Apache Valley, with Jacobs Pride Finest Pecan Ever as his sire and several Jacobs Pride animals stacked behind him. That gives Goose some different paternal-side material compared with the heavier Kastdemur and J-Nels influence on the dam side. This sire side may be helping keep Goose from being more tightly linebred
than she is.
But Cash’s dam side brings us right back into the shared Nubian cluster. Through Dubonnet we see Kastdemur’s King of the Hill, Kastdemur’s City Slicker, Kastdemur’s Sexinthecity, Kastdemur’s Audacity, J-Nels RN Southern Salsa, My Buddy’s SS King of Hearts, Ranch 39 Lillet Heart, and My Buddy’s DG Liquorice.
That is why I’m not calling Cash an unrelated outcross just because his own inbreeding is low. He is less concentrated as an individual, yes, but he still carries some of the same shared families that show up elsewhere in Goose’s pedigree. Cash probably contributed some useful balance by bringing in the Jacobs Pride side, but his record does not give enough direct proof to say he is a strong transmitter for mammary improvement, production, or type. I’m judging his influence mostly through his close relatives, especially Dubonnet, and through how Goose herself appraised.
So, I’m not assuming Goose’s sire side fixed the dam-side mammary pattern. Goose’s fore udder attachment is still lower, and that fits what we saw in Dottie. Goose did improve in some areas, especially rear udder arch, but she still needs a buck that is more deliberate on mammary attachment and support.
Shared Ancestry and Repeated Family Pattern
At this point, the repeated family pattern is clear. Goose carries a lot of type-heavy influence, especially through Kastdemur and J-Nels. The recurring names are not scattered randomly. We keep seeing J-Nels RN Southern Salsa, J-Nels Savannah’s Chili Pepper, Kastdemur’s LE Renegade, Kastdemur’s MPR Liaison, Kastdemur’s LH Full Service, Kastdemur’s Audacity, Brown Sugar’s Crown Ambassador, and related goats.
Southern Salsa is the hinge. He is Goose’s top individual inbreeding contributor and also the sire of Southern Bell. His own record shows FS84 (+VV) at 4-01, 13.17% inbred, and daughter/appraisal data from multiple herds, with 4 daughters, 10 appraisals, average final score 84.8, PTAFS 0.5, and reliability 53.
That is useful, but I’m being cautious with it. Southern Salsa himself is quite inbred, and he is helping concentrate this family in Goose. He is not a bad signal, but I’m not casually piling on more related blood unless the buck clearly corrects Goose’s weak points.
Kastdemur’s LE Renegade is another documented influence. He was born in 1999, had ETA21 -35 and ETA12 -6, and was 9.86% inbred. His type evaluation shows daughter data from 3 states, 4 herds, 8 daughters, and 8 appraisals, with average final score 85.6, PTAFS 0.2, and reliability 57.
That makes Renegade a real influence, not just an old name. His daughter average is useful, and the reliability gives us something to read. But his ETA values are not shouting “improvement sire.” I’m reading him as part of the family’s type foundation and predictability, not as a reason to add more of the same blood without checking the traits.
J-Nels Savannah’s Chili Pepper is one of the more positive animals in this shared group. She was an SGCH purebred Nubian doe, born in 2000, with FS91 EEVE at 5-06. Her PTI values, especially PTI12 85, point more toward type than production. Her type evaluation shows PTAFS 0.6, reliability 51, and useful teat trait values, including teat diameter PTA 1.4.
For Goose, Chili Pepper is probably one of the better pieces
of the shared pedigree. She may help explain why Goose has better rear udder arch than her dam and why there is enough type strength in the family to keep working with. But she is not close enough to guarantee what Goose will transmit by herself.
Kastdemur’s Audacity is another important shared family
piece. She was an SGCH purebred Nubian doe born in 2002, appraised FS91 EVEE at 5-01, and was 10.92% inbred. Her PTI/ETA values are not especially strong, and her type evaluation shows PTAFS -0.2 with reliability 72.
So what does this shared family actually tell me?
It tells me Goose has real type depth and recognizable family strength. It likely helps explain her useful general structure, rump width, dairy character, and rear udder arch. She did not come out of nowhere.
It also tells me Goose already has a lot of this genetic neighborhood. I’m not choosing a buck just because he adds more Kastdemur, J-Nels, Brown Sugar, or Wingwood influence. If those lines appear in the buck, fine, but the buck still has to prove he improves what Goose needs improved. Say that three times fast!
The repeated family gives Goose quality and predictability, but it also gives me the warning label: do not stack the same blood again unless the mating has a clear purpose.
What Goose Is Likely to Transmit
Based on her own LA, photos, production status, and pedigree, I expect Goose has the best chance of transmitting general dairy usefulness, moderate strength, rump width, rear udder width or arch, and a functional young mammary system.
I do not expect her to be a guaranteed mammary improver without help. Her fore udder attachment needs protection, and her dam line reinforces that concern. I’m also watching teat size and milkability in her daughters. Teat traits are not the whole goat, but they matter every single day, twice a day, on the milk stand.
Her close maternal records are not production-heavy. So I’m calling her a
promising young milker with incomplete official production proof, not a proven
production transmitter yet. Goose may turn out to be a strong production doe, and I hope she does. Right now, the official records say the buck should bring more production and component strength.
What Kind of Buck Goose Needs
Again, Goose doesn’t need a buck chosen because his pedigree looks exciting. She already has plenty of recognizable Nubian families behind her. What she needs now is a buck chosen for the specific things he can add.
This is where actually reading the pedigree is key. A big herd name can tell us there may be quality behind an animal, but it does not tell us whether that buck is the right match for this doe. Goose already carries a lot of Kastdemur, J-Nels, Brown Sugar, Wingwood, and related Nubian influence. So I’m not looking at a Kastdemur name and thinking, “Perfect, more of that on her papers.” A Kastdemur buck might still be a good choice for Goose, but only if he is far enough away from her repeated cluster or clearly stronger in the traits she needs corrected. If he brings more of the same family influence without better fore udder attachment, stronger udder support, practical teats, and stronger production or component backing, he is probably not improving the mating. He is just making the pedigree look prettier while leaving the same problems in place. But, a buck without a well known name may be perfect. That is the difference between pedigree shopping and breeding. Pedigree shopping gets excited about the name. Breeding asks whether the animal improves the next generation.
For Goose, the first priority is fore udder attachment. Her score of 16 lines up too closely with her dam’s weak fore udder score and udder tilt note for me to ignore it. I’m looking for a buck whose daughters, dam, granddam, or close female relatives show smooth, extended fore udders that blend well into the body wall and hold up over time.
The second priority is mammary support as a whole. Goose has a strong rear udder arch, and I don’t want to lose that. But she needs more help in fore attachment, rear udder height, medial definition, and overall udder balance. I want a buck that improves the support system without narrowing the rear udder or sacrificing the width she already has.
Teat structure stays on the list too. Goose has a narrower teat diameter score, and there are hints of that tendency in the family. I’m not looking for a buck that makes tiny, fussy, hard-to-milk teats. I want daughters that are practical in the milk room, with teats that are clearly delineated, easy to handle, and placed well enough to milk comfortably.
The buck also needs stronger production and component support than Goose’s close maternal line gives her. Her dam and maternal granddam don’t give me enough official milk, fat, or protein proof to ignore production in the mating.
Milk volume matters, but components tell us how useful that milk is. Butterfat and protein affect cheese yield, milk value, kid growth, and the practical usefulness of the doe in a dairy herd. I want a buck that can help keep or improve milk while also supporting fat and protein.
I’m also watching reliability. A young buck with low reliability might be worth using if his close female relatives are exactly what Goose needs, but I’m not treating low-reliability numbers like promises. If the buck has daughters, even better. I want to see what he actually puts on the ground.
The buck needs to protect what Goose already does well: rump width, rear udder arch, udder depth, dairy strength, general structure, and her current milk potential. I don’t want to fix fore udder by losing the rest of the goat. That trade is not worth it.
Bottom Line Breeding Goal
My breeding goal for Goose is not to make her daughters look like they came from a different family. I want to keep what Goose does well and use the buck to strengthen the places where her LA, dam line, and production
records all tell me to be careful.
The best buck for Goose is a mammary improver with production behind him. He needs to bring better fore udder attachment, stronger udder support, higher rear udders, practical teat structure, more reliable production and components, and enough structural correctness to stay useful for more than one pretty freshening..
He also needs enough reliability or close-family proof to trust the direction. If he is a young buck, I want to see his dam, granddam, sisters, and paternal female relatives clearly supporting the traits Goose needs improved.
Goose is a doe I like, and I think she is worth breeding thoughtfully. She is not perfect, but she is useful, productive, and has good pieces to protect. The right buck should not erase her. He should help her make daughters that are a little stronger, a little more secure in the udder, and better backed by production than she is on paper right now.
