2-2 Line/In breeding - Page 13

Daryl wrote:..."contributed to the 'backmassing' ( a term Gustav created and so loves to use), of good ole' Horand".
I don't think he did; I was using 'backmassing' because it's been used here in the UK for longer than I can remember, long before I ever heard of PDB, let alone Gustav.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/community.read?post=676527-need-to-be-schooled-on-understanding-a-list-of-linebreeding&p=2

 

Fun reading! 

I was just teasing Gustav a little. To clarify my point, establishing a breed reduces the gene pool, it doesn't expand it. This is done by breeding like to like characteristics. In other words, linbreeding or inbreeding through breeder selection. The gene pool of the breed has been reduced since its inception by eliminating certain characteristics such as white coat patterns, brindle or wire haired, as examples. If Mackenzie believes that the gene pool has broadened, I would like to know the explanation if one exists. Out crossing beyond the breed registry could be the only explanation, aside from the accumulation of minor mutations along the way.

Granted, there have been splits in breeding certain bloodlines that have been infrequently crossed in recent decades. As an example, Jenni concentrating her working blood lines on the back massing of Marko vom Cellerland, a producer fairly less used than today's most commonly used blood lines through Fero. It appears to me that Jen is offering a nice option for outcrossing with Fero lines without dropping a lot of favored working characteristics. It may appear to some that the gene pool has become wider if you consider the consolidated blood lines to which can be out crossed. But in a closed registry, the gene pool of the breed cannot logically expand.

Indeed it cannot !
My own 'pet hate' about using this sort of breeding is the way certain breeders have used particular lines to consolidate on dogs for producing above average numbers of whites, blues and livers, usually with long coats, because these puppies SELL as pets; constantly repeating the genetics of dogs known to carry epilepsy (among other things), just because they also carried the genes for dilute colours. Early in the histories of those breeders efforts are close inbreedings, and so if anybody wants a good example of why too tight breedings should be avoided like the plague, rather than turned into a habit, that is one to think about.

Hahaha, Hundmutter, I have to laugh at the time I did a major outcross, looking for an alternate line to breed back to in the future and got BLUE!!!! Now, Mackenzie would say it wasn't an outcross, and point out every linebred dog behind both dogs, smh, but still...I chuckled and I had to share. What a waste that was, LOL.
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=2118423-ehren-vom-eisenherz

My Blues were also a result of total out cross breeding GSL to DDR
I on the other hand do not consider mine a waste.
One of them has brought literally millions of dollars to the police fund through his fine work of narcotics detection over the years

just adding a little proof to the pudding

Thisbox contained money and cocaine seized by NYS  from the drug Cartel coming into NYS by this dog I bred.

How relevant are Jenni's and Kitkat's contributions ? Of course Blues crop up from some outcrossed matings, no one is saying they don't. The deliberate production of blues, or any other 'oddity', by doubling up and backmassing their breedings are A) what feeds the markets for those oddities, and B) keeps the genes running in the breed instead of them dying out (if EVERYONE was trying  to breed away from the fault).
Not all blues/livers/whites/long coats will necessarily inherit the bad alleles linked with them, they just make it more likely they will be carriers and thus have them come up later; if we believe the BBS / WSS people, they have spent a great deal of time and energy working to ensure they are getting rid; but if you concentrate the familial connections in order to produce a greater number of them (even if only early in the programme) you increase the risks of problems such as epilepsy along with that - ^ as already pointed out several times about perpetuating close in-breeding OR too close line-breeding. Or just using a load of apparently 'outcrossed' lines back to the same dog(s) known to carry something a lot of generations ago, as with the way epilepsy works, and maybe odd colours, dwarfism and other things also do. WHEN we have cracked EVERYTHING about canine genetics other than the partial picture we have now, perhaps we will find out, or have a better idea of percentage risks.

I don't think it's relevant, HM. I thought it was clear I was just sharing because it amused me. :)

I do consider that breeding a waste, in that I did it with A GOAL and that goal was not met. I didn't use anything from that breeding moving forward. I guess if my goal was to supply nice people with nice dogs, it was a success. But that was a byproduct, and the intent for those I didn't choose to build on, not my goal. But we're getting way off topic...

Yes Jenn ;-) ; and just to make it clear, I personally don't have any objections to any dog with a fault as per the Standard, I have known some cracking individual dogs (and as Kitkat says, hers have been valuable for LE) which were 'wrong' in some way. Loads of 'normal' dogs don't cut it, either, for purposes of being Shown to represent the best of conformation in the breed. But the dogs appearing as accidental/'throwback'/incidental to the breed, in regular proportion to the breed population as a whole is one thing, and they are probably no more likely to carry any genetic diseases than any sable or black & red dog you could select.

But every time I point out what IN PARTICULAR has been done to a section of the breed by the money-grabbing few, processing these faults to produce high numbers to sell, or the ridiculous preference some of the buying public have for these furry teddies in different coat colours, someone or other accuses me of having a dislike for, and a 'down' on, blue dogs or white dogs or whatever. And yet you only have to read some threds here down the years on e.g. epilepsy to see the sheer misery this has led to for some owners.