This is a placeholder text
Group text
by kitkat3478 on 23 August 2016 - 12:08
I know I am not the only one who wonders about the impact of dogs from generations ago in pedigrees, i found this interesting , the fact is, depending on the dog, the ancestors it seems can be more influential, geneticly speaking, than closer relatives.
If unacceptable, do your thing and delete it....
disclaimer...I do not purport anyone or any info fact or expert, just sharing some of my research.?
Knowledge of the degree of inbreeding in a pedigree does not necessarily help you unless you know whose genes are being concentrated. The percent blood coefficient measures the relatedness between an ancestor and the individual represented by the pedigree. It estimates the probable percentage of genes passed down from a common ancestor. We know that a parent passes on an average of 50% of its genes, while a grandparent passes on 25%, a great-grandparent 12.5%, and so on. For every time the ancestor appears in the pedigree, its percentage of passed-on genes can be added up and its "percentage of blood" estimated.
In many breeds, an influential individual may not appear until later generations, but then will appear so many times that it necessarily contributes a large proportion of genes to the pedigree. This can occur in breeds, due to either prolific ancestors (usually stud dogs), or with a small population of dogs originating the breed. Based on a twenty-five generation pedigree of Bilye, there are only 852 unique ancestors who appear a total of over twenty-million times.
PEDIGREE ANALYSIS OF LAUREL HILL BRAXFIELD BILYE
(COMPUTED TO 25 GENERATIONS)
1st Generation
Linebred Ancesters
Percentage of blood
Appearance in pedigree
# times in pedigree
CH Afternod Drambuie 33.20% 6 33
CH Afternod Sue 27.05% 7 61
CH Afternod Callant 26.56% 5 13
"Grand-Parents" 25.00% 2 1
CH Sutherland Gallant 25.00% 3 2
CH Sutherland MacDuff 25.00% 3 3
CH Sutherland Lass of Shambray 25.00% 3 2
CH Wilson's Corrie, CD 22.30% 7 200
CH Afternod Buchanon 20.22% 7 48
Loch Adair Diana of Redchic 17.97% 5 12
CH EEG's Scotia Nodrog Rettes 17.76% 8 181
Afternod Ember of Gordon Hill 17.14% 8 76
CH Afternod Hickory 16.21% 6 27
CH Black Rogue of Serlway 15.72% 9 480
CH Afternod Woodbine 14.45% 6 15
CH Fast's Falcon of Windy Hill 13.82% 8 66
Afternod Fidemac 13.67% 5 7
CH Page's MacDonegal II 13.43% 7 56
Afternod Hedera 13.38% 7 56
CH Downside Bonnie of Serlway 12.90% 10 708
Peter of Crombie 12.76% 11 3,887
"Great-Grand-Parents" 12.50% 3 1
CH Afternod Amber 12.50% 5 5
Ben of Crombie 11.83% 11 7,584
Stylish William 11.18% 13 23,764
Stylish Billie 11.08% 14 70,542
Stylish Ranger 10.80% 15 297,331
CH Afternod Kate 10.74% 6 17
Heather Grouse 10.61% 16 1,129,656
Afternod Hedemac 10.45% 7 28
The above analysis shows the ancestral contribution of the linebred ancestors in Bilye's pedigree. Those dogs in color were present in the five-generation pedigree. CH Afternod Drambuie has the highest genetic contribution of all of the linebred ancestors. He appears 33 times between the sixth and eighth generations. One appearance in the sixth generation contributes 1.56% of the genes to the pedigree. His total contribution is 33.2% of Bilye's genes, second only to the parents. Therefore, in this pedigree, the most influential ancestor doesn't even appear in the five-generation pedigree. His dam, CH Afternod Sue, appears 61 times between the seventh and tenth generations, and contributes more genes to the pedigree than a grandparent.
Foundation dogs that formed the Gordon Setter breed also play a great role in the genetic makeup of today’s dogs. Heather Grouse appears over one million times between the sixteenth and twenty-fifth generations, and almost doubles those appearances beyond the twenty-fifth generation. He contributes over ten percent of the genes to Bilye’s pedigree. This example shows that the depth of the pedigree is very important in estimating the genetic makeup of an individual. Any detrimental recessive genes carried by Heather Grouse or other founding dogs, would be expected to be widespread in the breed.
by Reliya on 23 August 2016 - 13:08
You hear all the time that certain dogs today produce offspring similar in behavior to themselves, but I've also heard people say that linebred dogs six, seven generations back "don't really matter," but if that dog shows up a certain amount of times, I would think it definitely matters and gets passed along. I never spoke up about it because I figured I'd get berated. Nice to see science behind my belief.
by Baerenfangs Erbe on 23 August 2016 - 14:08
by Mithuna on 23 August 2016 - 16:08
by kitkat3478 on 23 August 2016 - 16:08
I myself keep seeing posts stating that anything back further than 4-5 generations really has no baring on a dog...
But then the next post is, is it genetics that make my dog do as he does,
good dog/bad dog...in the genes/not in the genes...so, which is it?
I figured the make up of the dogs genes comes from somewhere, but where, at what point do good genes..disappear, how can 'I ,MYSELF' maintain what I love about the breed, if every good dog in the lines, and what made thdm a good/great dog, disappears in every generation.
In my breeding, I sought the lines of the dogs I hold high regards for.
Many, many times it was said {here}that you cannot successfully outcross the lines without jeopardizing the dogs .
But when you consider the seperation of lines was not really that long ago, in terms of generational breeding, you come back to the same line (s).
I found myself producing better dogs as far as conformation, structure and temperament go. Of course what each individual dog grows into becomes more of the environmental factor.
I was shocked today when I came upon the study of genetics and how further back genetics can play a bigger role overall than 2-3 generations do.
Don t know why I was so shocked, that was what I sort of thinking all along.
See, there IS a method to my madness, lol
i really do spend alot of time with in this breed
by susie on 23 August 2016 - 17:08
When I start to add the % s, it´s way too much.
Different system maybe?
I don´t believe in ancestors within 5. + generation, because it´s more than unlikely, that thousands of breeders had the same goal in mind, all of them evaluating for the same traits.
by Koots on 23 August 2016 - 17:08
I think that livestock breeders put more faith in mathematical outcomes and scientific breeding principles than dog breeders. Perhaps this is because there is less emotional investment in the the breeding animals and outcome?
by susie on 23 August 2016 - 18:08
"Perhaps this is because there is less emotional investment in the the breeding animals and outcome?"
I like that sentence...
Looking at genetics there always will be a loss of 50% of genetic material within ONE generation ( DNA; 50% dam - 50% sire ), everything else is impossible. That´s no guess, that´s science.
by kitkat3478 on 23 August 2016 - 18:08
if there are no genetic s that carry on in the lines, where does this, that or the other thing, that was "supposidly"from this dog or that dog...come from?
I have always sucked at math. The mathmatical equasions mean squat to me, nor would I dare to, or care to say, well...my dog has 32.76% of whoever in them because some chart told me so,
But You can't tell me that dogs that have a high number of appearances of certain other dogs in their pedigrees only carry over the genes that effect coat, color or maladies with them.
OR CAN YOU?
by Sunsilver on 24 August 2016 - 12:08
50% of The genes disappear? REALLY?
Genes do NOT disappear. They are still in the gene pool. Maybe not in your dog, but they are still there. Yes, they can mutate, and rare genes may get dropped from the genome eventually. But I am one of those people who likes to know what's back there. For instance, when Palme von Wildsteigerland appears 14 times in my dog's 7 generation pedigree, and also in the pedigree of just about every other dog out there with showline blood,I want to know who this dog was, and what influence she may have had on the breed for better or for worse.
It's called BACKMASSING, and it can cause a lot of problems. I've posted this before, but it was completely ignored. I still think it's important - VERY important! These people are scientists, and deal in facts.. The highlighting of certain phrases is mine.
The Fable of Old Blue
by C.A. Sharp editor of the "Double Helix Network News"
THE FABLE OF OLD BLUE Consider the hypothetical case of Old Blue, Malthound extraordinaire. Blue was perfect; sound, healthy and smart. On week days he retrieved malt balls from dawn to dusk. On weekends he sparkled in malt field and obedience trials as well as conformation shows, where he baited to - you guessed it- malt balls.
Everybody had a good reason to breed to Blue, so everybody did. His descendants trotted in his paw-prints on down through their generations. Blue died full of years and full of honor. But what people didn't know was that Old Blue, good as he was, carried a few bad genes. They didn't affect him, nor the vast majority of his immediate descendants. To complicate the matter further, some of those bad genes were linked to genes for important Malthound traits.
A few Malthounds with problems started showing up. They seemed isolated, so everyone assumed it was "just one of those things". A few declared them "no big deal". Those individuals usually had affected dogs. All in all, folks carried on as usual.
Time passed. Old Blue had long since moldered in his grave. By now, everyone was having problems, from big ones like cataracts, epilepsy or thyroid disease to less specific things like poor-keepers, lack of mothering ability and short life-span. "Where can I go to get away from this?" breeders wondered. The answer was nowhere.
People became angry. "The responsible parties should be punished!" Breeders who felt their programs might be implicated stonewalled. Some quietly decided to shoot, shovel and shut-up. A few brave souls stood up and admitted their dogs had a problem and were hounded out of the breed.
The war waged on, with owners, breeders and rescue workers flinging accusations at each other. Meanwhile everybody carried on as always. After another decade or two the entire Malthound breed collapsed under the weight of its accumulated genetic debris and went extinct.
This drastic little fable is an exaggeration--but not much of one. Here's similar, though a less drastic example from real life. There once was a "Quarter Horse stallion named Impressive. The name fit. He sired many foals who also exhibited his desired traits. But when they and their descendants were bred to each other, those offspring sometimes died. Impressive had been the carrier of a lethal single-gene recessive trait. No one knew it was there until they started inbreeding on him. The situation of a single sire having this kind of drastic genetic effect on a breed became known as the "Impressive Syndrome".
Many species and breeds of domestic animals, including dogs, have suffered "impressive Syndromes" of their own. But cases like that of Impressive are only the tip of the iceberg. A single-gene recessive becomes obvious in just a few generations. But what about more complex traits?
This is not to say that those popular sires we so admire are bad breeding prospects. Their many excellent traits should be utilized, but even the best of them has genes for negative traits.
The problem is not the popular sires, but how we use them. For a century or more, inbreeding has been the name of the game. (For purposes of this article, "inbreeding" refers to the breeding of dogs related to each other and therefore includes line-breeding.) By breeding related individuals, a breeder increases his odds of producing dogs homozygous for the traits he wanted. Homozygous individuals are much more likely to produce those traits in the next generation.
When a male exhibits a number of positive traits and then proves his ability to produce those traits he may become a popular sire, one that is used by almost everyone breeding during his lifetime, and maybe beyond, thanks to frozen semen.
Since the offspring and grand-offspring and so on are good, breeders start breeding them to each other. If the results continue to be good, additional back-crosses may be made for generations. Sometimes a sire will be so heavily used that, decades hence, breeders may not even be aware of how closely bred their animals are because the dog no longer appears on their pedigrees.
This is the case in Australian Shepherds. Most show-line Aussies trace back, repeatedly, to one or both of two full brothers: Wildhagen's Dutchman of Flintridge and Fieldmaster of Flintridge. These, products of a program of inbreeding, were quality individuals and top producing sires. They are largely responsible for the over-all quality and uniformity we see in the breed ring today - a uniformity that did not exit before their birth nearly three decades ago.
Working lines have also seen prominent sires, but performance traits are far more complex, genetically and because of the significant impact of environment. They are therefore harder to fix. Performance breeders will in-breed, but are more likely to stress behavioral traits and general soundness than pedigree and conformational minutiae. The best working sires rarely become as ubiquitous as the best show-line sires. Not every popular sire becomes so because of his ability to produce quality offspring. Some have won major events or are owned by individuals with a knack for promotion. Such dogs may prove to be wash-outs once their get is old enough to evaluate. But a lot of breeders have been using the animal for the few years it takes to figure that out and the damage may already have been done.
Use of even the best popular sires, by its very nature, limits the frequency of some genes in the breed gene pool while simultaneously increasing the frequency of others. Since sons and grandsons of popular sires tend to become popular sires the trend continues, resulting in further decrease and even extinction of some genes while others become homozygous throughout the breed. Some of these traits will be positive, but not all of them.
The owners of Old Blue, the Malthound in the opening fable, and those who owned his most immediate descendants had no idea what was happening under their noses. They were delighted to have superior studs and even more delighted to breed them to as many good bitches as possible.
Dog breeding and promoting is an expensive proposition. One usually winds up in the hole. But owning a popular sire can change that. The situation looks like a winner for everyone--the stud owner finds his financial burden reduced while breeders far and wide get to partake of his dog's golden genes.
No one breeding dogs wants to produce sick dogs. A small minority are callous and short-sighted enough to shrug genetic problems off as the price you pay to get winners, but even they do their best to avoid letting it come to general attention. We need a total re-thinking of how we utilize stud animals. No single dog, no matter how superior, should dominate the gene pool of its breed. Owners of such sires should give serious consideration to limiting how often that dog is used, annually, through its lifetime and on into the future, if frozen semen is stored. The stud owner should also look not only at the quality of the bitches being presented, but their pedigrees. How much will the level of inbreeding be increased by a particular mating?
The bitch owner also needs to think twice about popular sires. If you breed to the stud of the moment and everyone else is doing the same, where will you go when it comes time to make an outcross?
Finally, the attitude toward genetic disease itself has to change. It must cease being everyone's dirty little secret. It must cease being a brick with which we bludgeon those with the honesty to admit it happened to them. It must become a topic of open, reasoned discussion so owner of stud and bitch alike can make informed breeding decisions. Unless breeders and owners re-think their long-term goals and how they react to hereditary problems, the situation will only get worse. ________________________________________
C.A. Sharp is the editor of the "Double Helix Network News". This article was printed with permission and may be reprinted provided it is not altered and appropriate credit is given.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
