This is a placeholder text
Group text
by duke1965 on 24 February 2014 - 15:02
sunsilver you are kindof bringing in an argument that goes against the believes of the outcross believers, I know there are recessive genes and I know we cannot get rid of every problem in one generation, but people who are against linebreeding bring up this argument that genetic problems will be brought out by linebreeding, now you are stating they are wrong
the whole discussion has much more depth than most people think and I know that, but to put it in a more simple way let me give a simple example of what I mean,to make it visible I will use a problem that is detectable geneticly and we know how it is passed on to the offspring, DM
if you outcross/breed two dogs that are actually having DM what will the offspring have
now, if you linebreed two dogs that are DM clear, what will the offspring have
you see it is not allways about the breedngsystem used but also about the individuals we use for breeding, big problem with the geneticists and people against inbreeding is that they allways come up with the results of 20 generations of brother sister or father doughter inbreeding of lab mice to make their points, in reality these levelsof inbreeding will never be reached in dogs and most other animals
mother nature did fine with inbreeding over millions of years and se didnot use advice from geneticists, main difference between nature and breeders is SELECTION, nature doesnot use hotlights/welpingbars/doesnot extrafeed the weak ones, take them to the vet and operate them if sick/weak doesnot breed the soft ones because they were promoted more, doesnot do Artificial Inseminatin when they are unable to breed by themselves,the weaker ones dont get food, or get eaten themselves but in any case are unable to reproduce
the zebras are example, for the zebras I can take same picture of snakes, sharks, crocodiles , hippos ,eagles or you name it, genetic diversity in dogs is nowhere as close as in the other animals on our planet, and if we take one example , snakes, boa constrictr, you can see on their colour and pattern exactly from which region they are, this is result of inbreeding as well
we should stop blaming breedingsystems and look closer at breedingchoices if we want less problems in our breed,
and for the outcross believers, what if we outcrossed every GSD breeding, how man generations could we do that till every GSD in the world will carry the same genepackage, and with that every genetic disorder in the breed and than what , outcros them to other breeds , so we can also throw those breeds in the melting pot, and we will end up with one breed of dogs looking like all and nothing and carrying all possible genetic problems you can think of, and are able to produce all possible diseases ever found in every breed like russian roulette
the whole discussion has much more depth than most people think and I know that, but to put it in a more simple way let me give a simple example of what I mean,to make it visible I will use a problem that is detectable geneticly and we know how it is passed on to the offspring, DM
if you outcross/breed two dogs that are actually having DM what will the offspring have
now, if you linebreed two dogs that are DM clear, what will the offspring have
you see it is not allways about the breedngsystem used but also about the individuals we use for breeding, big problem with the geneticists and people against inbreeding is that they allways come up with the results of 20 generations of brother sister or father doughter inbreeding of lab mice to make their points, in reality these levelsof inbreeding will never be reached in dogs and most other animals
mother nature did fine with inbreeding over millions of years and se didnot use advice from geneticists, main difference between nature and breeders is SELECTION, nature doesnot use hotlights/welpingbars/doesnot extrafeed the weak ones, take them to the vet and operate them if sick/weak doesnot breed the soft ones because they were promoted more, doesnot do Artificial Inseminatin when they are unable to breed by themselves,the weaker ones dont get food, or get eaten themselves but in any case are unable to reproduce
the zebras are example, for the zebras I can take same picture of snakes, sharks, crocodiles , hippos ,eagles or you name it, genetic diversity in dogs is nowhere as close as in the other animals on our planet, and if we take one example , snakes, boa constrictr, you can see on their colour and pattern exactly from which region they are, this is result of inbreeding as well
we should stop blaming breedingsystems and look closer at breedingchoices if we want less problems in our breed,
and for the outcross believers, what if we outcrossed every GSD breeding, how man generations could we do that till every GSD in the world will carry the same genepackage, and with that every genetic disorder in the breed and than what , outcros them to other breeds , so we can also throw those breeds in the melting pot, and we will end up with one breed of dogs looking like all and nothing and carrying all possible genetic problems you can think of, and are able to produce all possible diseases ever found in every breed like russian roulette
by joanro on 24 February 2014 - 16:02
Very interesting topic. Both Duke and SS have valid points.
I agree with you, Duke, that the choice of individuals bred is the key to breeding.
SS, your points on genetic diversity of the dog compared to undomesticated species are also my view.
I agree with you, Duke, that the choice of individuals bred is the key to breeding.
SS, your points on genetic diversity of the dog compared to undomesticated species are also my view.
by Sunsilver on 24 February 2014 - 16:02
Duke, yes, genetics is not a simple science! Each species has to be looked at individually. The gene makeup of one species can't be generalized to draw conclusions about another. For example, when you talk about crocodiles looking all the same... I know nothing about their genetics, but they are reptiles, so their gene makeup will be quite different from a mammal's. And they are not as homogenous as you might think. Nile crocs are different from those in Austrailia, then there are caimans (small crocs) and the Indian gharail which has a very long, slender snout. Wikipedia lists 14 different species, while another website lists 23. A particular population of a particular species may look all the same to our eyes, but I am sure there is more variation within it than we are aware of. I also think natural selection works against extremes, while we humans tend to select for them.
You probably know mammals have 2 sets of chromosomes. For humans, it's 23 pairs for a total of 46, so that's how a dog can have 2 different alleles for the same gene, carried at the same spot on each chromosome of a particular pair. Some species of salamander have three or even four sets of chromosomes. While this is fairly common in plants, it's unusual for animals, and unheard of in mammals. Maybe it explains how they can manage to regrow body parts that have been amputated!
Sorry...this stuff fasciates me, and I tend to get carried away....
You probably know mammals have 2 sets of chromosomes. For humans, it's 23 pairs for a total of 46, so that's how a dog can have 2 different alleles for the same gene, carried at the same spot on each chromosome of a particular pair. Some species of salamander have three or even four sets of chromosomes. While this is fairly common in plants, it's unusual for animals, and unheard of in mammals. Maybe it explains how they can manage to regrow body parts that have been amputated!
Sorry...this stuff fasciates me, and I tend to get carried away....
by duke1965 on 24 February 2014 - 17:02
genetic diversity should be in the breed, not in the individual animals
outcrossing will create more genetic diversity in the individual animals, and less genetic diversity in the breed, and this is what you really dont want
outcrossing will create more genetic diversity in the individual animals, and less genetic diversity in the breed, and this is what you really dont want
by Joewulf on 24 February 2014 - 17:02
“as soon as you have bad genes exposed you can get rid of them, where in outcrossing they will keep slumbering along”
But genes get exposed because you double up on them by depending on in/line breeding, if they are hidden they are not a problem, that’s just how is supposed to be, that’s nature for you, and remember, all dogs carry a number of recessive bad alleles (genetic load).
“outcrossing outside the breed is done for years and generations in KNPV breeding where among others GSD, malinois, Dutchie, dogbreeds,terriers, and even more are mixed in, and still all genetic problems occuring in various breeds are popping up in the mixed up outcom, so that is not a solution to get rid of problems”
That’s because you are confounding what the real issue is here: the existence of genetic disorders is not the problem, that is just how life is, the real issue is the HIGH incidence of specific disorders among specific breeds. So we are not going to get rid of the problems but we sure can reduce them.
“secondly joewulf, if outcossing is the answer for a breed that is far from geneticly stable and exists for about 120 years, can you tell me where animals that are around for millions of years , like crocodiles, sharks etc, where have they been outcrossing to for millions of generations, and why are these strong species so much stronger fenotypical identical, which is obviously NOT a sign of genetic diversity the outcrosspeople are preaching”
Seriously? You are comparing a species with a dog breed? You know that species developed very slowly and gradually over thousands of years under natural selection. Sure there was inbreeding but there was also outbreeding (something that doesn’t happen with dog breeds, so your comparison ends there), hell, hybridization is not as uncommon as people believe, we know coyotes and wolves (and dogs) have done it in nature, not to mention that different species have different levels of inbreeding tolerance and we know that wolves have inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Now, if you really want to compare, let us look at an island population, like the wolves of Isle Royale: http://www.border-wars.com/2011/12/lessons-from-island-wolves.html and http://www.border-wars.com/2013/06/misconceptions-about-inbred-wolves.html
Also, with just a glance I can see differences among the stripes of those zebras.
Finally, I leave this very good and easy to understand article about line breeding and disease expression:
http://www.border-wars.com/2014/02/how-linebreeding-causes-disease-expression.html
But genes get exposed because you double up on them by depending on in/line breeding, if they are hidden they are not a problem, that’s just how is supposed to be, that’s nature for you, and remember, all dogs carry a number of recessive bad alleles (genetic load).
“outcrossing outside the breed is done for years and generations in KNPV breeding where among others GSD, malinois, Dutchie, dogbreeds,terriers, and even more are mixed in, and still all genetic problems occuring in various breeds are popping up in the mixed up outcom, so that is not a solution to get rid of problems”
That’s because you are confounding what the real issue is here: the existence of genetic disorders is not the problem, that is just how life is, the real issue is the HIGH incidence of specific disorders among specific breeds. So we are not going to get rid of the problems but we sure can reduce them.
“secondly joewulf, if outcossing is the answer for a breed that is far from geneticly stable and exists for about 120 years, can you tell me where animals that are around for millions of years , like crocodiles, sharks etc, where have they been outcrossing to for millions of generations, and why are these strong species so much stronger fenotypical identical, which is obviously NOT a sign of genetic diversity the outcrosspeople are preaching”
Seriously? You are comparing a species with a dog breed? You know that species developed very slowly and gradually over thousands of years under natural selection. Sure there was inbreeding but there was also outbreeding (something that doesn’t happen with dog breeds, so your comparison ends there), hell, hybridization is not as uncommon as people believe, we know coyotes and wolves (and dogs) have done it in nature, not to mention that different species have different levels of inbreeding tolerance and we know that wolves have inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Now, if you really want to compare, let us look at an island population, like the wolves of Isle Royale: http://www.border-wars.com/2011/12/lessons-from-island-wolves.html and http://www.border-wars.com/2013/06/misconceptions-about-inbred-wolves.html
Also, with just a glance I can see differences among the stripes of those zebras.
Finally, I leave this very good and easy to understand article about line breeding and disease expression:
http://www.border-wars.com/2014/02/how-linebreeding-causes-disease-expression.html
by duke1965 on 24 February 2014 - 17:02
the biggest difference between dogbreeding and breeding of wild animals is the way they select who is breeding who and the way they select which youngster will survive and which one will not
if you like island stories, you might like this one http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR03007.htm
if you like island stories, you might like this one http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR03007.htm
by Joewulf on 24 February 2014 - 17:02
“said this before also, genetic diversity should be in the breed and NOT in the individual animals”
No, unfortunately, some things are more complicated than just simple recessives; there are complex systems in the individual level, like the immune system (MHC), that need the diversity: http://desertwindhounds.com/2010/11/18/closed-registries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-i/
So we need diversity in the breed and in the individual
No, unfortunately, some things are more complicated than just simple recessives; there are complex systems in the individual level, like the immune system (MHC), that need the diversity: http://desertwindhounds.com/2010/11/18/closed-registries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-i/
So we need diversity in the breed and in the individual
by Joewulf on 24 February 2014 - 17:02
So I give you wolves and you give me koalas. Wich is better comparison to dogs?
Also, aren't koalas endangered?
I think we want for our dog breeds to be in better shape than island populations, don't we?
Also, aren't koalas endangered?
I think we want for our dog breeds to be in better shape than island populations, don't we?
by duke1965 on 24 February 2014 - 18:02
the koalas proove that WITH strong inbreeding and strong natural selection a small isolated group of 18 animals, if im correct three males, can grow out to a healthy population of over 27000 animals without bringing in new blood
by Joewulf on 24 February 2014 - 18:02
“… I will use a problem that is detectable geneticly and we know how it is passed on to the offspring, DM
if you outcross/breed two dogs that are actually having DM what will the offspring have
now, if you linebreed two dogs that are DM clear, what will the offspring have”
What about all the other bad genes we don’t know and that we don’t have a test for? Or those of polygenetic inheritance? Or even better, what about those genes that are advantageous in heterozygous state but bad on homozygous state? Current genetic testing only gives you a very small glance of the whole genome of a dog (the tip of the iceberg). So genetic testing is not only not enough to deal with these issues, it’s also not an excuse to keep doing in/line breeding.
“mother nature did fine with inbreeding over millions of years and se didnot use advice from geneticists, main difference between nature and breeders is SELECTION, nature doesnot use hotlights/welpingbars/doesnot extrafeed the weak ones, take them to the vet and operate them if sick/weak doesnot breed the soft ones because they were promoted more, doesnot do Artificial Inseminatin when they are unable to breed by themselves,the weaker ones dont get food, or get eaten themselves but in any case are unable to reproduce
the zebras are example, for the zebras I can take same picture of snakes, sharks, crocodiles , hippos ,eagles or you name it, genetic diversity in dogs is nowhere as close as in the other animals on our planet, and if we take one example , snakes, boa constrictr, you can see on their colour and pattern exactly from which region they are, this is result of inbreeding as well
we should stop blaming breedingsystems and look closer at breedingchoices if we want less problems in our breed,”
Again with this, “mother nature” used more than just inbreeding. When a new and advantageous mutation occurred, it didn’t need of inbreeding to start to spread. First, if the mutation was dominant you don’t need inbreeding for it to be widespread among a population, and if it were recessive, speciation can take a lot (and I mean a lot) more generations for it to be widespread, allowing unrelated individual to have the same mutation. I will not say inbreeding doesn’t happen, because it does, but so it does outcrossing, and that does not happen with our current dog breeds (sorry, but cross strain breeding is not the same).
It seems that the problem here is that you cannot accept that traits can be fixed without in/linebreeding.
Let me put you an analogy. Remember those stories were the protagonist has to choose between two paths to reach their goal? Well is the same here, the path at your right is “Assortative mating of unrelated dogs”, this path is longer but it’s also safer and by the time you reach the end you’re in the better shape than when you started; then you have the left path, the path of “Line breeding”, this path is a lot shorter but is also very risky and dangerous and if you survive and reach the end, you’re going to be in very bad shape. So you see, in/line breeding is a very risky shortcut to fix the desired traits, but it’s not the only way to do it, unfortunately is the only way endorsed under our current breeding system.
if you outcross/breed two dogs that are actually having DM what will the offspring have
now, if you linebreed two dogs that are DM clear, what will the offspring have”
What about all the other bad genes we don’t know and that we don’t have a test for? Or those of polygenetic inheritance? Or even better, what about those genes that are advantageous in heterozygous state but bad on homozygous state? Current genetic testing only gives you a very small glance of the whole genome of a dog (the tip of the iceberg). So genetic testing is not only not enough to deal with these issues, it’s also not an excuse to keep doing in/line breeding.
“mother nature did fine with inbreeding over millions of years and se didnot use advice from geneticists, main difference between nature and breeders is SELECTION, nature doesnot use hotlights/welpingbars/doesnot extrafeed the weak ones, take them to the vet and operate them if sick/weak doesnot breed the soft ones because they were promoted more, doesnot do Artificial Inseminatin when they are unable to breed by themselves,the weaker ones dont get food, or get eaten themselves but in any case are unable to reproduce
the zebras are example, for the zebras I can take same picture of snakes, sharks, crocodiles , hippos ,eagles or you name it, genetic diversity in dogs is nowhere as close as in the other animals on our planet, and if we take one example , snakes, boa constrictr, you can see on their colour and pattern exactly from which region they are, this is result of inbreeding as well
we should stop blaming breedingsystems and look closer at breedingchoices if we want less problems in our breed,”
Again with this, “mother nature” used more than just inbreeding. When a new and advantageous mutation occurred, it didn’t need of inbreeding to start to spread. First, if the mutation was dominant you don’t need inbreeding for it to be widespread among a population, and if it were recessive, speciation can take a lot (and I mean a lot) more generations for it to be widespread, allowing unrelated individual to have the same mutation. I will not say inbreeding doesn’t happen, because it does, but so it does outcrossing, and that does not happen with our current dog breeds (sorry, but cross strain breeding is not the same).
It seems that the problem here is that you cannot accept that traits can be fixed without in/linebreeding.
Let me put you an analogy. Remember those stories were the protagonist has to choose between two paths to reach their goal? Well is the same here, the path at your right is “Assortative mating of unrelated dogs”, this path is longer but it’s also safer and by the time you reach the end you’re in the better shape than when you started; then you have the left path, the path of “Line breeding”, this path is a lot shorter but is also very risky and dangerous and if you survive and reach the end, you’re going to be in very bad shape. So you see, in/line breeding is a very risky shortcut to fix the desired traits, but it’s not the only way to do it, unfortunately is the only way endorsed under our current breeding system.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top