Hi Mike,

The best lessens i've had are from the rural farmers who i call my neighbours.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to help some with their chores, and sit down afterwards and simply talk, breeding practices.

It's amazing how it's so clear to them yet so grey to the rest of us.

I believe it stems from the fact that they still view animals as animals and not extended family members.

Cheers,
Chello...

Email: Mr_Chello@hotmail.com

Yes, the farm animal breeders have a leg up. In addition to the statistical information and databases available to them, they have not lost the realism that it is indeed an animal. People tend to anthropomorhpic about dogs, which is understandable as they are mans closest "friend" of the animals. However, breeders must not allow them to fall into these traps when making breeding decisions or evaluating potential breeding animals. There must be a very clinical (if not cold) approach to selection. However, too many people breeds their "buddies" to get more "buddies" or breed their dogs because they have so much time and money invested (happens quite often in sport) rather than make those cold, hard decisions.

I get rather funny looks when I say "Nobody is off the chopping block" when referring to the dogs. Too many breeders (in the States anyway) do not say the same (and if they do, not many mean it), nor do many have the guts to carry through with it.

There are a few breeders though that I've seen prove their conviction, eliminating animals later on that do not cut the mustard or if there is something questionable about the animal. Those types are the ones that I would not hesitate or gasp at them doing an extremely close linebreeding or inbreeding, because I know they would cull ruthlessly and abandon that breeding entirely (not meaning abandoning the dogs, but meaning they would not carrying forward with animals from that breeding and would either sterilize or euthenize the animals depending on the level of the problem).

Marcello,

I don´t think you will find any serious geneticist that would think inbreeding, or very thight breedings are the way to go.
On the contrary, the knowledge and research geneticist have today about effects of inbreeding, strongly shows the bad sideeffects of this approach, and today there is a lot of talk about keeping the diversity in small closed populations that most breeds are, if the breeds should stay strong.

Much of this knowledge is from the domestic animal industry, and populations-geneticists that works a lot with the effetcs of inbreeding.
There is also the moral problem of tight breeding, why increase the risk for suffering, both for the dogs, and also
for puppyowners that may have to put to sleep a dog that later in life develops problems caused by negative sideeffects of inbreeding, not a fun thing to do if you have lived with the dog for a long time.

Stig, for long run? No, tight linebreeding or inbreeding is definitely not the way to go. I don't think Chello was trying to say that either. However, to set a trait or series of traits in your breeding, that is the way to do it.

And in the commercial industries (beef cattle for example), they do use linebred and tightly linebred animals. However, they also do crossbreedings (not outcrosses, but crossbreeding between two breeds) to get the performers. Due to the hybrid vigor and diversity, the animals really perform (make a lot of meat with relatively little inputs).

Mike, any thoughts on what how any of the protocols in other forms of animal husbandry could apply to canine breeding?

I wonder if we are using inbreed coefficients enough, or % blood of old ancestors far back.

My beauceron had a very low COI (1%) but around 10 generations back %blood of 4-5 dogs was over 5%. An outcross in appearance only.

I imagine in GSDs that whether if is a 4-5 or a 3-5 on some famous dog, that 20 generations back there could be an unintended, unselected linebreed of sorts and with what little I know of GSD pedigrees, it could be determined with some degree of accuracy.

rgds andrew may

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what breeding protocols from other breeds would indeed work in modern dog breeding. I have been planning breedings using some methods from guidelines set forth from race horse breeding...but we're still only on first generation, you'll have to get back to me in a few years to see how that is going.

What I don't believe are good ideas is strictly phenotype breeding (meaning like to like in what you can see, with no regard to the genotype/pedigree), strictly genotype breeding (all based on pedigree with no concern given to phenotype), or compensatory breeding (Bitch A is weak in this trait, Dog B is strong in it, breed the two and you'll get an averaging in the trait). You can (and some do) get good dogs from those types of breedings, however they will probably not be as consistent (or breed true) as someone that takes a complimentary (Bitch A strong in these traits, Dog B strong in the same traits, breed the two for compounding of the traits) type breeding combining good use of phenotype evaluation, genotype understanding/information, and some type of game plan on meshing the bloodlines.

Even some well known crosses, for the sake of example I'll use Mink & Fero (keep in mind this is for illustrative purposes only and not anything that is bound in fact), don't work when flip flopped (it has been shown that this is true in race horse breeding). Say someone does a breeding with Mink on the top half of the sire's pedigree and Fero on the top half of the dam's pedigree...the litter turns out amazing. Now say that your dogs are full siblings and pretty much the same phenotypically to the two dogs used in the first litter, however your stud is littermate to the previous litter's dam and your bitch is littermate to the previous litter's sire. This put's Fero on top and Mink on bottom...then the litter turns out less than spectacular. All part of the reason there can be no real strict science to it, as technically the pedigrees have the same dogs just in a different order. It's part research/knowledge, part luck (cause Mother Nature has a wicked sense of humor), and part art form.

"Tight line breeding..."

Why does the state of Alabama always come to mind when I hear that statement....
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


If the movie Star Wars had been filmed in Alabama:
Darth Vader: "Luke....I am your father."
"And also your brother...."

Have a lot of family in Alabama, do ya Will? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You know, Georgia doesn't have much of a better reputation than Alabama...but at least it's not Kentucky! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The question in terms of linebreeding (inbreeding) is not whether to do it but how much can the breed tolerate without the eruption of genetic deseases.
Somewhere in the back of my mind a percentage of inbreeding needs to be kept lower than 11%. Don't quote me on that, it has been a long time since I really cared too much about details.
The truth of the matter is that too many guidelines against inbreeding is deleterious to the production of dogs with specific working traits that we seek.
Do you limit inbreeding when the population of the breed has been seeing limited numbers possessing strong working qualities.
Personally we may need to forgo the looks, size, and color issue in the GSD to get back to the basics of work. In addition we may need to experiment with tight linebreeding on those few animals that have produced extreme working character.
This is exactly what the Malinois folks have done....lied on a bunch of pedigrees also.
The malinois hasn't gotten to where it is at...the #1 working dog in just the past 30 years without very focused breeding to include in breeding.
To be sure...purebred dogs are the result of inbreeding, if not just look at the 30# little feral dogs around the world , that would be all we would have.