This is a placeholder text
Group text
by perrogrande on 17 June 2010 - 14:06
I've came across this kritterkorner.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/new-study-shows-the-problems-of-inbreeding-dogs/
and I'm concerned. I do have some questions for people with knowledge on the subject:
1. Is any type of inbreeding acceptable?
2. What is the motivation of breeders behind inbreeding?
3. Resulting problems
4. Prevention and warning signs
5. Future of the breed if no modification is made
Just by looking at the net, I have found that close inbreeding creates dogs with very weak immune system, identical physical characteristics (like head features and size of the dog) and no desire to work. Am I understanding it correctly or is it more to it? Thank you for your replies.
and I'm concerned. I do have some questions for people with knowledge on the subject:
1. Is any type of inbreeding acceptable?
2. What is the motivation of breeders behind inbreeding?
3. Resulting problems
4. Prevention and warning signs
5. Future of the breed if no modification is made
Just by looking at the net, I have found that close inbreeding creates dogs with very weak immune system, identical physical characteristics (like head features and size of the dog) and no desire to work. Am I understanding it correctly or is it more to it? Thank you for your replies.
by GSDguy08 on 17 June 2010 - 14:06
That "inbreeding" made it sound like the father would breed the puppy it sired when the puppy is old enough to mate....correct me if I'm wrong there. I don't know of anyone doing that close of a breeding.
by jc.carroll on 17 June 2010 - 15:06
Inbreeding in small doses is no better or worse than any other breeding, and in certain wild populations, island populations, the gene pool is so small that all the individuals are related.
However, inbreeding magnifies all the traits carried by related individuals, good and bad. And if the negative outway the positive... well, problems start. Another problem is inbreeding depression, marked by reduced fecundity and overdominance, where certain necessary recessive traits become drastically reduced in expression.
It's also important to note that the more complex an animal is, the less tollerance for inbreeding they have. More primative critters do better with it, and heck, certain plants self-pollinate.
One of my passions is genetics. Over the last two decades or so, I've done experiments involving plants, fruit flies, and rodents. Each program ran mulitple generations, and examined different aspects of genetics. My latest ewas several years ago when I did an extensive inbreeding project on mice, using the following phenotypes for observation: solid (dominant), agouti/sable (dominant), spotted (recessive), and black (recessive).
My P generation was a solid agouti male, and a spotted black.
F1 were all solid agoutis, het for spotted and black.
F2 was a male bred back to his mother, producing solids in black and agouti, and spotteds in black and agouti.
Anyhow, fast forward about 5 or 6 generations of parent to offspring and sibling x sibling crosses, and another trait emerged: dilution. Then I did a full outcross, and that ruined everything!
The outcross \carried lethal white, a dominant trait that kills in its homogenous form. When I did another inbreeding of sibling x sibling, I expressed lethal white, as well as several other negative traits, and wound up with a litter of defective mice: expressed lethal white, whirling mice, and for the first time these mice did not live as long as their parents (or grand parents, or great grandparents, etc). I terminated the project, and kept the mice as pets.
With dogs, I prefer 3-4 linebreedings, I don't like going closer than 3-3; but that's my choice. I don't think there is a problem with the occasional 2-3, or even 2-2 IF the parents are sound, but I do not personally do it. Inbreeding and outcrossing both carry a certain amount of risks. With detailed record-keeping, linebreeding is my first choice because it allows me to predict with a fair degree of accuracy the traits I expect to find.
I prefer not to always use "top producers" for my females because many of the VA dogs have half-siblings that produce just as well if not better.
Over-use of a single stud because he or his lines are en vogue creates the potential for a genetic bottleneck in a few generations. I try to be very selective in my studs because I like to keep my dogs genetically diverse, which gives me better options for future breedings in several years after the world has a large number of a certain male's progeny.
However, inbreeding magnifies all the traits carried by related individuals, good and bad. And if the negative outway the positive... well, problems start. Another problem is inbreeding depression, marked by reduced fecundity and overdominance, where certain necessary recessive traits become drastically reduced in expression.
It's also important to note that the more complex an animal is, the less tollerance for inbreeding they have. More primative critters do better with it, and heck, certain plants self-pollinate.
One of my passions is genetics. Over the last two decades or so, I've done experiments involving plants, fruit flies, and rodents. Each program ran mulitple generations, and examined different aspects of genetics. My latest ewas several years ago when I did an extensive inbreeding project on mice, using the following phenotypes for observation: solid (dominant), agouti/sable (dominant), spotted (recessive), and black (recessive).
My P generation was a solid agouti male, and a spotted black.
F1 were all solid agoutis, het for spotted and black.
F2 was a male bred back to his mother, producing solids in black and agouti, and spotteds in black and agouti.
Anyhow, fast forward about 5 or 6 generations of parent to offspring and sibling x sibling crosses, and another trait emerged: dilution. Then I did a full outcross, and that ruined everything!
The outcross \carried lethal white, a dominant trait that kills in its homogenous form. When I did another inbreeding of sibling x sibling, I expressed lethal white, as well as several other negative traits, and wound up with a litter of defective mice: expressed lethal white, whirling mice, and for the first time these mice did not live as long as their parents (or grand parents, or great grandparents, etc). I terminated the project, and kept the mice as pets.
With dogs, I prefer 3-4 linebreedings, I don't like going closer than 3-3; but that's my choice. I don't think there is a problem with the occasional 2-3, or even 2-2 IF the parents are sound, but I do not personally do it. Inbreeding and outcrossing both carry a certain amount of risks. With detailed record-keeping, linebreeding is my first choice because it allows me to predict with a fair degree of accuracy the traits I expect to find.
I prefer not to always use "top producers" for my females because many of the VA dogs have half-siblings that produce just as well if not better.
Over-use of a single stud because he or his lines are en vogue creates the potential for a genetic bottleneck in a few generations. I try to be very selective in my studs because I like to keep my dogs genetically diverse, which gives me better options for future breedings in several years after the world has a large number of a certain male's progeny.
by bea teifke on 17 June 2010 - 16:06
very intresting.
by bea teifke on 17 June 2010 - 16:06
i too dont like to get any closer than 4-4 , but i never knew much about out crossing, its nice to know.
by jc.carroll on 17 June 2010 - 16:06
Forgot to add, when I plan a litter I look three generations ahead, as well as three generations back. This helps me ensure that I'm getting a comprehensive view of the bloodlines, and have a distinct goal with each litter that helps me establish what I value in my breeding program.
Great-grands, grand-parents, parents -- litter -- progeny, grand-progeny, great-grands.
Without looking at the gran and great-grands, it's hard to establish a distinct direction to pursue. It's also easy to get a breeding that seems good on the F1 or F2, but proves itself way too close for my comfort level by F3. I look at the progeny of parents and grand-parents as well, because I like to see dogs that produce with a strong degree of consistency through their lines.
A great dog from highly appealing bloodlines might be a fluke from its grands, and might not necessarily pass on its greatness to its progeny.
However, it might have a sibling, half-sibling, or close relative that produces stronger. I'd chose an SG dog that consistently passes on good traits to its offspring over a VA that has hit-and-miss success with its progeny. By doing so, I also avoid overuse of a specific dog's genetics.
People who produce puppies primarily for resell value would do well to chose the highest titled parents possible for advertisement's sake. However, a different combination might yield offspring that, while not as "valueable" as puppies, will mature to be the better dog. I'm not so interested in money as I am producing great dogs for myself *shrugs* but even with very good breeding stock, it's still a roll of the dice to see what will ultimately occur. (Example: two dogs, carriers for long coat, should theoretically produce only 25% coats... but actually each pup has a 25% chance of being a coat, so it's completely possible an entirely coated litter can be produced by two stock-coat dogs.)
Great-grands, grand-parents, parents -- litter -- progeny, grand-progeny, great-grands.
Without looking at the gran and great-grands, it's hard to establish a distinct direction to pursue. It's also easy to get a breeding that seems good on the F1 or F2, but proves itself way too close for my comfort level by F3. I look at the progeny of parents and grand-parents as well, because I like to see dogs that produce with a strong degree of consistency through their lines.
A great dog from highly appealing bloodlines might be a fluke from its grands, and might not necessarily pass on its greatness to its progeny.
However, it might have a sibling, half-sibling, or close relative that produces stronger. I'd chose an SG dog that consistently passes on good traits to its offspring over a VA that has hit-and-miss success with its progeny. By doing so, I also avoid overuse of a specific dog's genetics.
People who produce puppies primarily for resell value would do well to chose the highest titled parents possible for advertisement's sake. However, a different combination might yield offspring that, while not as "valueable" as puppies, will mature to be the better dog. I'm not so interested in money as I am producing great dogs for myself *shrugs* but even with very good breeding stock, it's still a roll of the dice to see what will ultimately occur. (Example: two dogs, carriers for long coat, should theoretically produce only 25% coats... but actually each pup has a 25% chance of being a coat, so it's completely possible an entirely coated litter can be produced by two stock-coat dogs.)
by Two Moons on 17 June 2010 - 17:06
perro,
you need to get beyond KritterKorner if you want to learn about this.
Every species has it's limits but a certain amount of inbreeding has always been necessary for survival of any species.
Nature has this all figured out, the problem is when humans interfere, manipulate, select.
Line breeding, inbreeding, out crossing, all have their pro's and con's.
Mostly there are no guarantees, also there are mutations, natures little surprises, again good and bad.
Anyone who says they are an expert is pulling your leg, there is a limit on predictability.
The biggest limitation here is human understanding of evolution, we don't even know our own family tree yet.
In my opinion the female is key to everything.
I am no expert either.
you need to get beyond KritterKorner if you want to learn about this.
Every species has it's limits but a certain amount of inbreeding has always been necessary for survival of any species.
Nature has this all figured out, the problem is when humans interfere, manipulate, select.
Line breeding, inbreeding, out crossing, all have their pro's and con's.
Mostly there are no guarantees, also there are mutations, natures little surprises, again good and bad.
Anyone who says they are an expert is pulling your leg, there is a limit on predictability.
The biggest limitation here is human understanding of evolution, we don't even know our own family tree yet.
In my opinion the female is key to everything.
I am no expert either.
by darylehret on 17 June 2010 - 17:06
One thing you'll get, is more mouths to feed.
by duke1965 on 17 June 2010 - 18:06
inbreeding is not a problem at all , it happens every day in the wild , yhe only problem is the process of selection of humans afterwards , where natures selection is working perfect , humans selection is guided by commercial and emotional
motivations , and plain stupidity
let me give you a simple example of one of mother eahrts inbreedingprograms
in the 1920 s about 18 koalas were placed on kangaroo island , probably mostly females and a few males
by the year of 2000 , the number of koalas on this island is believed to be some 27000 , but also there are estimates of 100.000 or more
since this is a remote island this population MUST be very much inbred , and none of all the horror stories of inbreeding took place and destroyed the population
more info on http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0510_020510_TVkoala.html
the bullshit stories about the deminishing genepool are not at all caused by inbreeding , but most definately caused by the effects of everybody running to a great name to be able to sell pups and the easy acces for everybody worldwide to the same dogs
If all people run to breed to ferro zeuter himmelreich , and his sons and grandsons , this will have a huge impact on the variety of genes worldwide and therefore to the breed
on the other hand , if I have ferro in my pedigree 25 times , but nobody else has him in his pedigree , the impact on the breeds genepool worldwide is zero
so what you need is variety of genes in the breed and uniformity of genes in the individual animal
or simply said , multiple inbred bloodlines , that are totally different from each other , so that , if you outcross , it really is an outcross , and inbreeding is true inbreeding , not your accidental 4-4 that is hard to avoid these days
this is the way it works in the wild ages and ages
motivations , and plain stupidity
let me give you a simple example of one of mother eahrts inbreedingprograms
in the 1920 s about 18 koalas were placed on kangaroo island , probably mostly females and a few males
by the year of 2000 , the number of koalas on this island is believed to be some 27000 , but also there are estimates of 100.000 or more
since this is a remote island this population MUST be very much inbred , and none of all the horror stories of inbreeding took place and destroyed the population
more info on http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0510_020510_TVkoala.html
the bullshit stories about the deminishing genepool are not at all caused by inbreeding , but most definately caused by the effects of everybody running to a great name to be able to sell pups and the easy acces for everybody worldwide to the same dogs
If all people run to breed to ferro zeuter himmelreich , and his sons and grandsons , this will have a huge impact on the variety of genes worldwide and therefore to the breed
on the other hand , if I have ferro in my pedigree 25 times , but nobody else has him in his pedigree , the impact on the breeds genepool worldwide is zero
so what you need is variety of genes in the breed and uniformity of genes in the individual animal
or simply said , multiple inbred bloodlines , that are totally different from each other , so that , if you outcross , it really is an outcross , and inbreeding is true inbreeding , not your accidental 4-4 that is hard to avoid these days
this is the way it works in the wild ages and ages
by BlacqueKat on 17 June 2010 - 18:06
Nice looking dog Daryl lol
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
