Author Topic: Breeding approaches, strengths and weaknesses (Read 14945 times)

SallyintNorth · « **on:** September 20, 2012, 05:27:07 pm »

This is a spin-off from the "KC - Legs and regs" thread.

Annie, I hope you won't mind me opening with a quote from you and then disagreeing with it!

Quote from: doganjo on September 20, 2012, 04:12:10 pm

It's the aim of every responsible breeder - 'to breed better than what you have now', and the best method to do that is called line-breeding. Breed your health tested bitch to the best health tested dog you can find that has common ancestors with your bitch. You have to be aware of the bad points as well as the good ones obviously, and you will find good and bad in every litter. They can't all be champions! But the better you get at honing your knowledge of pedigrees, and matching them, the closer you get to perfection.

My reaction to that was emotional and negative, but in truth I know very little about breeding dogs as I've never done it.

So I thought I would link across to a new thread to get a discussion going on approaches to breeding and the strengths and pitfalls of each.

It'll be emotive - so I am hoping we can all manage to be as dispassionate as possible and not descend into personal affronts or, as my grandmother used to put it, casting nasturtiums.

in the hills · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2012, 05:41:03 pm »

Are only "pedigrees" perfection? For many people they are not.

Even within a specific breed such as labradors, breeders may disagree with which traits are desirable. A lab bred for the show ring is quite a different animal to a lab bred for working ability. Few gundogs are classed as truly dual purpose.

This is what worried me about the other thread and all the talk of more legislation.

Who is qualified to judge which traits count as good ones to be passed on?

Dogs are lots of different things to different people.

Old Shep · « **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:01:09 pm »

I have never bred either so not very qualified!!

I am sure that Doganjo's statement is the tried and tested method of breeding pedigrees and is one I have heard a lot.

However, I have a young gordon setter bitch who shows great working promise. A friend (a retired vet) who has her brother was trying to encourage me to breed from her as he really likes her. When I asked who he would recommend as a sire - he said the best bet is to find a completely unrelated imported dog. The gene pool for gordon setters is quite limited in this country and many forward thinking breeders (both working and show I believe) are importing dogs to widen the pool. This sort of goes against the line breeding theory? (PS I haven't been convinced to breed her yet

)

Fronhaul · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:08:16 pm »

I have two issues I think. Firstly what constitutes "better than what you have now"? Secondly I worry about the reference to line breeding.

I think we also need to be careful to define what we mean by "pedigree" before we go too far down this route. I have seen very long pedigrees for working terriers and in particularly JRT's and I am fairly sure that the same can be said for a number of other breeds that are not and probably never will be recognised by the Kennel Club.

I find it hard to believe that Doganjo is really suggesting that carefully selected outcrosses are not appropriate. Line breeding is an emotive issue. My personal belief is that line breeding should never be undertaken without extremely careful research and requires a vast knowledge of pedigrees if it is to be undertaken successfully. Before going further I would really like some clarification of Doganjo's thoughts.

jaykay · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2012, 07:06:00 pm »

Firstly, I think taking someone's statement and picking it apart publicly is a pretty aggressive thing to do, particularly when you apply terms like 'emotional' and 'negative' to it before the thread even starts. It's almost guaranteed to cause offence and hurt feelings. Why do it? Have left this visible otherwise Sally's response later makes no sense.

Another way of starting such a discussion might be 'what are people's views about line breeding compared with outcrossing, in pedigree dogs'?

Secondly, if you're trying to 'fix' certain characteristics then line breeding is what you do. But there's a risk you get two negative recessive genes together too, so it has to be handled skilfully. If you're just after a broad 'type' then unrelated every time because you reduce this 'collecting negative recessives' problem.

The debate about pedigrees and perfection is a different issue.

in the hills · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2012, 07:21:59 pm »

I think you are right Jaykay in that lots of different issues are included in both threads. However, in the show ring you are striving to match a breed standard and so I think trying to achieve perfection (of course all dogs have faults and none are actually perfect). As you say, it is an accepted approach to line breed in order to achieve this. So these issues are intrinsically connected.

I think we all agree that breeding for whatever reason should be done responsibly and of course there is an awful lot of bad practise out there but also good.

jaykay · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2012, 07:24:34 pm »

Yes, I agree about breeding to meet a breed standard is connected to line-breeding.

I think I just meant that the philosophical 'are pedigree dogs what perfection is' is a different debate

YorkshireLass · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2012, 07:46:37 pm »

I haven't bred my dog. But in a hypothetical situation, if she were 90% perfect, I would look for a mate that overcompensated that missing 10% - so probably unrelated. Once my idea of perfection was achieved, then I might consider researching line breeding, but meh.

There is no point line breeding "imperfect" dogs, and no one will ever agree on what dog is perfect.

doganjo · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:03:25 pm »

Quote

author=Fronhaul link=topic=27681.msg273631#msg273631 date=1348160896

I find it hard to believe that Doganjo is really suggesting that carefully selected outcrosses are not appropriate. Line breeding is an emotive issue. My personal belief is that line breeding should never be undertaken without extremely careful research and requires a vast knowledge of pedigrees if it is to be undertaken successfully. Before going further I would really like some clarification of Doganjo's thoughts.

No I'm not suggesting that at all - '3 in,1out' is the traditional method of linebreeding. (three generations using dogs that are related, then one generation bringing in a different line)
If you breed a total outcross you may get one good animal but the chances are you will get quite a variety with the others. Bear in mind we are not talking horses or sheep where you only have 1, 2 or 3 siblings but possibly many more.

When line breeding you would expect to have most of the litter being similar.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly that linebreeding must be done following knowledge of the lines. But it is not difficult to do that research. There are of course some people who advocate never line breeding - a friend of mine kept bringing top animals in from France instead of breeding to her own excellent lines with the result the progeny were all different sizes and shapwes. She now still brings in dogs from France but they are now related to her own stock with much better results in the progeny (my breed are of course dual purpose so we look for working instincts as well as conformation).
You obviously can't do this with crossbreeds in the first generation , but if you want to set a new breed you line breed, in fact possible even inbreed.

SallyintNorth · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:10:49 pm »

Quote from: jaykay on September 20, 2012, 07:06:00 pm

Firstly, I think taking someone's statement and picking it apart publicly is a pretty aggressive thing to do, particularly when you apply terms like 'emotional' and 'negative' to it before the thread even starts. It's almost guaranteed to cause offence and hurt feelings. Why do it?

Well, if I have hurt Annie's feelings then this is a public and very heartfelt apology.

Annie. It was certainly not my intention.

I think I am allowed to have an emotional reaction which is negative and to say so. I don't think that's aggressive act; it's aggressive if I then attack the quoted statement or the person who made it, but I do neither. I proffer my ignorance and ask for enlightenment. We've been doing that on a couple of other threads, and apart from a brief descent into less constructive stuff, we've mainly managed to respect each others' views whilst being allowed to express views which differ. I was hoping for more of the same here.

If I've judged it wrong then I apologise profusely. And will probably crawl back into my burrow.

jaykay · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:26:49 pm »

Didn't mean to send you back to your burrow.

Will avoid hijacking the thread any further.

SallyintNorth · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:55:40 pm »

Quote from: jaykay on September 20, 2012, 08:26:49 pm

Didn't mean to send you back to your burrow.

Will avoid hijacking the thread any further.

Ta

Have PM'd to discuss off-thread.

Thanks for the bit about double recessives etc - it's exactly the kind of input I was hoping to elicit!

jaykay · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:30:33 pm »

Negative traits are most usually recessive. So a 'hybrid' animal will have plenty, but the ones from its mum won't the be same as the ones from its dad, so it'll have a good, dominant gene for each thing, which is what will show and the animal will be healthy and hearty.

The closer the relatives the more likely they are to have the same negative recessives and therefore the more likely you are to get two negative recessives together in an offspring and them to therefore show in the animal.

This is also the reason for the incest taboo in all human cultures and the reason why inbred populations tend to have reduced intelligence/health and have high incidences of oddities like finger webs.

YorkshireLass · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:40:09 pm »

On the flipside, you might *want* those recessive genes - e.g. certain colours. The knack is getting the good bits (pretty colours) without the bad bits (knock knees, for a random example!)