Ellen,
If you only outcross after outcross etc. The problem is that the line loses it's seperate identity quickly and hybrid vigor decreases with each outcross. Until finally your left with zero kennels out there that will bring any vigor at all. Ellen, that's true no matter what, period. It's been proven over an over again in the animal husbandry and the agricultural world. Your wanting people to go out and prove it again. Do you think that your the first person to come up with that idea?

Ellen wrote:
""No, you can't -- the "matter of degree" is just too great. Different breeds have entirely different breed-specific genetic set points -- different lines within a breed do not.""

It is definately a matter of degree! The degree is NOT too great. IE; One line is larger in type, and one line is smaller in type. If both are "fixed", then I can cross the two and end up with a uniform litter between the two. This has also been proven over and over.

Richard,

Speaking of lamenting. You wrote-regarding line breeding and outcrossing "Line breeding is not the way to really set the type and temperament, out breeding does it. It is at best a very tricky balance" as you were weighing in about the evils of linebreeding. That's just plain wrong. It is AT HEART, a very tricky balance. Try to take part of the hybrid vigor equation away (as Dr Denny pointed out) and you'll go downhill, period.

I agree (and have said all along) that line breeding should be left to people who know what they're doing. Lots of people that are doing it, should not be. But no linebreeding equals no outcrossing, everytime. Trying to build a line only outcrossing, vigor will wane outcross after outcross. And as far as consistency within a litter, well you can forget about that right away. As I said, be prepared to place plenty of "pets" per litter.

Jason, when are you going to start your breeding program? I think that you will make a fine breeder. It's a natural for you.

Milt

Milt,

Thank you for the kind words. I'm in no hurry. The truth is, I still have a lot to learn about dogs. Too many people out there begin breeding before they have learned what they need to know about breeding. I would do no better if I began without knowing what I need to know about dogs <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Jason and Milt,

No matter what you do you will be placing pets if you breed. No matter if you line breed or out cross. The balance is so tricky that you generally only find 10-20% of progeny are really top quality. When you add the problem of restricting your selection to fewer dogs, you will make compromises to stay with in the line. This is how problems tend to creep in. If you are looking at the ability to make the selection from a wider variety of animals and select the best from that pool you will see improvement.

The idea that you are going to get "watered down crap" is a result of poor selection in breeding pairs. In reality breeding too close for too long leads to the genetic problems we see now in all of the popular breeds. The more popular the breed the more problems. This is then magnified by the breeding of animals that are not of top quality any way. The way to prevent the problems you are talking about is to breed the best to the best. Not by breeding what you have to what you have. Go to the OFA web site and look at the breeds with hip and thyroid problems. The ones with the biggest problems are the most popular breeds and the breeds that have been most heavily line breed for show.

Most people do not have access to control over a large enough number of individuals to be able to be selective enough to line breed. Any time a population becomes isolated, they begin to decrease in quality and health. This is what has led to extinction of several subspecies of wild animals based on the isolation of the populations.
You can't have it both ways. As Dr. Denney the way to increase the hybred vigor is to breed animals with as little in common as possible. There is no statement that it requires that the animal share a long history in their own line. The idea that you are attempting to point out is that when you get to a point where there are problems in a line go out to repair it. Why create it in the first place? Hybred vigor is when the puppies are better than the average of the parents, the expectation would be that they are the average of the parents. There are many ways to isolate populations, the easiest is to use geography. By bringing the best from one are to another yyou are out crossin against a larger "line" and increasing the possibilities of improvement. Line breeding is by breeding the best of a population, you can significantly widen the population you are looking at by not restricting the lines to only those dogs bred by a specific or small groups of breeders. This will widen the "lines" and decrease the problems that result from breeding too close.

Richard:
"No matter what you do you will be placing pets if you breed. No matter if you line breed or out cross. The balance is so tricky that you generally only find 10-20% of progeny are really top quality."

jason:
That statement is 100% true if your "outcross" breeding the way Ellen wants to do it. The percentage will vary when line breeding depending. It's only about 10% true if your doing the "two seperate line" cross.

Richard:
"The idea that you are going to get "watered down crap" is a result of poor selection in breeding pairs."

jason:
That's one way alright, but by only outcrossing, you quickly run out of kennels to go to for vigor. Why is that so hard to understand?

Richard:
" In reality breeding too close for too long leads to the genetic problems we see now in all of the popular breeds."

jason:
TOO close for TOO long, I agree 100%

Richard:
"Most people do not have access to control over a large enough number of individuals to be able to be selective enough to line breed."

jason:
That's why it should be left for people like Ed who can take advantage of things like his experience and his "foster home" program.

Richard:
"the way to increase the hybred vigor is to breed animals with as little in common as possible. There is no statement that it requires that the animal share a long history in their own line."

jason:
It is a requirement that the two seperate lines "breed true" for obtaining maximum predictability in the cross.

Dr Denny:
"Crossbred progeny arising from the mating of purebred parents from two separate breeds are referred to as F, progeny, and for traits which are under the control of many genes, might be expected to perform at a level intermediate to the two parent breeds

Richard:
" The idea that you are attempting to point out is that when you get to a point where there are problems in a line go out to repair it."

jason:
Absolute hogwash!

The truth is, line breeding (BY FOOLS) has been a major problem driving the decline of many breeds. That does not mean that outcrossing alone becomes a sound breeding theory! This is what many people are taking away from articles and books on breeding. It doesn't work that way. It is not a question of line breeding or outcrossing. It' a question of how to obtain predictability, by taking advantage of both. Whether you are trying to get rid of a nasty disease, or you are just trying to put some good litters on the ground, no matter your goal, you aren't going to make any progress as a breeder without taking advantage of predictability.

Slam Dunk Jason. . .

Farmboy knows what the heck he is talking about here.

 Quote:

Originally posted by jason:
The truth is, line breeding (BY FOOLS) has been the major problem driving the decline of many breeds. That does not mean that outcrossing alone becomes a sound breeding theory! This is what many people are taking away from articles and books on breeding.

Jason, you finally used a word I can agree with without argument -- "theory" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> .

Theories are based on total populations -- the cold, hard, impersonal statistics of total populations. No one, not even all the best breeders in the world, are going to individually breed true to "theory" because each individual is only able to breed within a tiny segment of that whole statistical population. Mother Nature can breed true to "theory" but none of us individuals can except by pure chance.

So let's talk "practical" breeding -- the cummulative, individual breeder's reality behind the theories.

The most successful breeder I've ever known has never read a book on genetics. Not only has he developed a line of real working sheep herding GSDs that now after 40 years of tight selective "outcross" (for the most part) breeding reproduce true to what he selected for in 50% of each litter, but also he is one of the top Merino Landschaf sheep breeders in Germany. He is the only man to have won 14 Bundesleistungshueten Championships (the SV's national sheep herding competition) in 30 years all with GSDs he bred himself, and, the only man to have won every class in his sheep breed in a single year in Germany's biggest agricultural sheep show.

If you ask this man questions about the theory of genetics, he will tell you that he is only interested in the "praktisch" (that's German for "practical; practiced; useful/serviceable; or virtual") aspect of breeding -- IOW the actual results of actual breeding.

The "practical" results of his breeding -- his line of sheep herding GSDs -- come from breeding ONLY his performance-tested champions (who are also his every day working dogs) to totally unrelated bitches which are themselves NOT linebred -- FYI he does NOT want the bitch's genetics to compete with his own dog's. When he started breeding for the genetics he wanted, he only got maybe one puppy or two in every litter that had what he was selecting for. After 40 years and only breeding maybe one litter every couple of years to replace his working dogs (not to supply the GSD market), it was commonplace for him to have half the puppies in every litter test positive for what he was selecting for. Let me add that the qualities he was selecting for never changed in those 40 years -- he was totally consistant in his breeding program and NEVER compromised in his selection of breeding males. This was 40 years of basically outcross breeding -- in practice, not in theory.

It doesn't work that way. It is not a question of line breeding or outcrossing. It's a question of how to obtain predictability, by taking advantage of both. You aren't going to make any progress as a breeder without taking advantage of predictability.

Outcross breeding CAN work that way; it works that way in practice; and, it can achieve predictabilty of results. You just have to be totally CLEAR about what you want to breed for and exactly what you need to select for to get it and then tolerate absolutely NO compromise.

Ellen,

I'm not saying that you can't get lucky with that ridiculous plan. I'm only saying that it's a ridiculous plan, compared to your other options. Options which are solidly based on the principles of genetics. "Theories" that have proven themselves more times than we can count. Theories that are rarely understood let alone taken advantage of by dog breeders. This is the REAL problem, not line breeding.

Jason,

Just out of curiosity, What color is the sky in your world?

There are probably less than 50 groups in the world that could maintain the type of breeding program you are attempting to describe. Most of them are Military Organizations. Even they have a temdancy to over Line breed.

There are multiple ways you could define a "line". Populations could be defned by geography, rather than just by breeder. Different areas will breed to a specific standard. By bringing the best dogs from another area you would get the same result.

Very few people have the resources to even attempt what you suggest. Those that do have not been terribly sucessful at it. I know a breeder that controls 100-200 dogs at a time and even she has to go out of her line every 2-3 generations.

What Ellen suggests is not only possible, but has been done many times by many breeders. And as you have admitted, line breeding has created most of the problems seen today in dogs. If you don't have the resources proper out crossing will produce better dogs than line breeding inferior stock. And the breeding of inferior stock has produced the problems we see today. A successful breeding program is the result of breeding the best stock to the best stok. The down fall of modern breeding programs is compromise, that problem is magnified in a line breeding situation because your primary goal is to breed the best you have, not the best you can get.

Richard,

There was a time when I thought that I could do all that I'm describing. Even funnier, I thought that I could maintain a couple of lines, and use them crossing to each other. I no longer feel that way. Do you see me saying anything like that? What I have admitted is line breeding BY FOOLS is one of the things causing all the problems out there. Like you, lots of people think it's just the line breeding. "line breeding is the problem!" When I run into a breeder that says that crap, I tell them I plan to inbreed vicious animals, and I try to sound as uninformed to them as they sound to me. Just to watch them freak out. Do you see me posting anything like that on this thread? NO. Nothing I have said here has been bad information. In the begining of this thread, I had one goal. To let some of these "hobby" breeders know, who are currently inbreeding, line breeding, or indiscriminately outcrossing, that those ideas are comparatively foolish. That there was a much better way to do it. That they should search out two good animals from two seperate lines that breed true, and only breed these two together. I pointed out why. You have a problem with that? May I ask why? Over and over in this thread I have said that line breeding is not for "hobby" breeders. Just exactly what do you think I am suggesting here? There are some line breeders, some of the best breeders in the world in fact, who have prepotent dogs for these smaller breeders to obtain and outcross for the most predictable outcome. That's what I'm suggesting, and it's a HELL of a lot better than just any old outcross (dogs being equal). How many people out there do you think that was news to? I'd say two for sure, based on the reactions to this sound theory I'm getting from those who are chiming in here. Trying to create a line by outcross after outcross etc. makes no sense at all. Line breeding is a necessary part of the equation, not the cause of all the problems. People who say otherwise, are clueless. What's your answer to skin cancer? Should we do away with the sun?