Quote:

Originally posted by jason:
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.

It seems to me that sharing knowledge about a breeding option that has been shown to work is more productive than laboring over a variety of theories you claim, rightly or wrongly, that no one in the dog breeding world seems smart enough to appreciate <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> .

As a footnote ........ I would hardly call 40 years of a consistant and unbroken chain of producing a public record of performance results using ones own breeding stock "luck" or "ridiculous" -- I would call it "good breeding" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> . A breeding option that actually produced proven results consistantly over a 40 year time period must fit into some workable theory of genetics -- whether it fits "your" idea of workable theories is of course another matter <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> .

Just out of curiosity -- why do you think (to use your own words) that your breeding options which are so solidly based on the principles of genetics, "theories" that have proven themselves more times than we can count, are so rarely understood let alone taken advantage of by dog breeders? There must be some reason (if this statement of yours is true) other than your implied suggestion that all/most dog breeders are idiots -- what could it be?

Jason,

Lets take a look at the debate.

Three people have been involved in this conversation. I am not sure what your experience is in breeding dogs. I do know the Ellen and I have been involved in breeding dogs for multiple purposes (different types of work, and show) for over 20 years. We have watched the way it has been done by other people as well as looked at the sucesses and failures we have had, as well as the sucesses and failures of others over a long period of time. The only one suggesting indescriminant breeding of outcrosses is you (and that is a thereotical description of methods of some breeders). We have described the results of the following of the techniques you describe.

The comments I have made lead basicly to a very simple statement, breed the best animals to the best animals. Those decisions are based on the principle that you look critically and realisticly at the animals involved as well as the gentic history and results of the breedings. There is no such thing as sucessfull long term breeding with any indescriminant breeding program. This discussion comes down to a very simple debate. Theory vs the practical results of how breeding is done in reality. The idea that many theories can be followed in the real world based on the available resources people can control is the prime issue. I am looking at the long term results of breeding based on a wider view of the theory you describe. A large part of it is what constitutes a line. There is definitely a place for both types of breeding. In reality it comes down to the idea that you need to breed the best to the best, and it takes time to demonstrate the results of any breeding. The big problem in the way dogs have been bred for the last 30 or so years is compromise in the selection of breeding pairs. People accepting less in the dogs they breed based on the idea that they have to breed to seperate the animals they breed from the population as a whole. By doing this they end up breeding less than acceptable dogs.

The way to breed exellent animals is to be ruthless in your selection of the animals you breed, in all areas of the selection process. The problem is that people are willing to breed based on a compromise to justify breeding what they have. This has been the problem with line breeding, not any problem with the theory.

Hey Richard, you don't have to eat sh-t to know that it tastes. . .like sh-t. BUT, Farmboy here, I am willing to bet, has more experience with breeding animals and genetics than 100 years of your hobby dog breeding. He works a farm/ranch for god's sake. I would listen to what he is saying. You guys are ALL making the point that you have to choose the best animals for breeding. He is just pointing out that the best way to run a breeding program is with the methods described above. I don't get this whole post. Most of the time you jerks are talking about the same thing, why don't you stick to the few things that you are in disagreement about. Its too long for all us other jerks to read.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Did I mention that I think Jason is right on here. :rolleyes: Hmmmm....

I think Jason is right on here.

I don't think its appropriate to directly compare breeding of "higher-level animals" (where temperament and complex character traits are a primary focus) with breeding livestock.

Based on what I've observed, I would classify Richard and Ellen in the "very knowledgeable" or possibly expert category.

When Jason has bred several working litters and assessed their quality in adulthood, he may be in this category also.

Hi Guys, thought that I would wade into this and throw what our most recent breeding has done and the math behind it and what I am thinking about doing in the future. Perhaps after reading this post you all could give me some feed back.

Lets start with the original Rocky Bayard my import from France. Very good dog but titles are not so important as the math is.

Rocky Bayard was I,2 on his Father Cibo. Cibo also being the Father of Rocky Bayards Mother.

Rocky when still alive if it was possible bred to a baboon would produce solid working Malinois. In a majority of the Bitches he was bred to and from different lines. He was pre potent.

The very best Bitch that he ever produced was from a bitch (Gahel) that was linebred herself but was a total outcross to the inbred Rocky Bayard.

Now, I take this Bitch from the outcross breeding of Rocky and Gahel, her name is Brooklyn who appears to be the same type that Rocky Bayard consistantly produced from other matings only difference is Brooklyn was the very best we ever produced as a female.

Next I take the total outcross Brooklyn and bred her to another outcross breeding to my current Axel who himself is very solid old Belgian but firm line breeding behind him.

So we have a total outcross, outcrossed to a line bred dog.

The first time I did the Brooklyn/Axel outcross I got out of nine pups, one that I allowed to survive. The rest I culled. The one that survived is Rocky II and in my mind is the very best Male that I have ever bred.

OK, now I am very happy with Rocky II, to say the least. So, I go and repeat the breeding hoping to get another Rocky II.

Survey says.... NOPE, No Rocky II, not even close but this time I keep five out of the same number of pups born to see what I have accross the board. 3 males and 2 bitches.

The five this time are ok and can work but not even in the same ball park as a Rocky II.

Not even any dogs that look like Rocky II let alone work like him, which is almost a carbon copy of his Father Axel and other side of the ped Grandfather Rocky Bayard.

Keep in mind that I breed for myself first and have no problems culling pups. I am not so keen on the pet market for mals.

My thoughts are to now take Rocky II and breed back to his Mother (inbreding Yes)and keep this whole litter except to cull anything obvious from birth and look for the real future of our kennel in this breeding.

What do you think and keep in mind that the bitches from this proposed inbreeding will have to be outcrossed completly and then again in the next generation before I begin the line breeding again but with the option of multiple lines to work with.

Somewhere in this thread the term toolbox came up. Well my tool box contains good working dogs that are outcrossed, a stronger sense of line breding and the odd dash of inbreeding. This is my idea of breeding for myself and the dogs that I like to work day in and out.

Jerry

I know lots of people who have been doing things for a long time. That in no way makes them an expert at what they're doing. The idea that it's all about breeding the best to the best is an idea that I would take no further than my kitchen garden. If it was that easy, everybody would kick ass at it. It's about taking the best to the best WHILE taking advantage of the principles of genetics. I hear statements like:

"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."

And

"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"

And

"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"

In my opinion, these are not comments that should be coming from people who understand the principles of genetics.

Earlier, it sounded to me like you two were slamming line breeding. Now, your saying things like: "There is definitely a place for both types of breeding"

I feel I have a decent understanding of what it's about. I have never bred a litter and I may not know it all, but, I don't think the concept is as clear to many others who are out there doing it now.

Maybe some people will dig what Ellen is saying and go out and try to create a line by outcross after outcross. I hope not. I don't think it's practical at all. I think many hobby breeders who currently think it's only about the best to the best should start taking advantage of the "two seperate line cross". I think they should apply this concept when they breed as often as possible. I think more predictable, uniform litters will be the outcome.

Jason,

Perhaps before you attempt to educate people have been breeding DOGS for years, should go and breed a litter or two.

Lets face it there are challenges in any endeavor. In most cases experience is the best teacher. Theory is a good place to start, but the application of theory is at best a begining point. If theories were the sole place to gain the requsite knowledge then most here would be experts in training. It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't

I can't agrue with a wall and that is what I am up against here. People can and will follow what they will and neither you or I can change that. Since after breeding no dogs you know more about it than those that have, I will retire from this debate.

Richard,

You aren't arguing with a wall, your arguing with the principles of genetics. Your right though, folks will do what they want. Your bogus argument about me not having experience breeding dogs is weak by the way. These principles apply to all breeding, period.

Jason,

The principles are the same, the application is significantly different. Most ranchers have control over several hundred breeding animals. Most dog breeders do well to have control over 10. BIG Difference.

Richard,

It is significantly different alright but it is more than possible and there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON you can't take advantage of the principles of genetics when breeding dogs. Other than ignorance of these principles. An understanding of the basics is the place to start. As in this entire thread, this is just my opinion.