inbreeding/linebreeding or open breeding/outcrossing???

[YELLOWBLACKMASK]

Cajun and YELLOWBLACKMASK what route would you go w the best pups out of that father daughter cross ?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Depends on how close the line is before the cross. If it is tight bred prior I would back off on an inbreed or a second line breed. Also what availability do you have on outside crosses that are just as good or better?

[barlow]

If you had a genetic map of your dog it wouldn't be marked with "daughter" "uncle" or "grandmother" . . . those are just terms we made up to explain our family relationships. They have no bearing on livestock breeding and therefore it makes no sense to assume that uncle X niece or mother X son can determine the positive or negative outcome of any mating. Words like inbreeding and linebreeding have little, if any, real merit. They merely help us describe things in conversation. If I breed a yellow lab to a yellow spaniel the genes that control coat color are the same and act in the manner that most breeders associate with inbreeding. If I breed, for example, a long legged, gritty, cold nosed Redbone to a Walker who is identical in those departments . . I am in effect inbreeding for those traits, regardless of the fact that the dogs are absolutely unrelated for practical purposes. Historically, less was known about genetics and many superstitions played a greater role.

Obviously, the best source for like genetics (and desirable, similar traits) is in closely related dogs. But selection is the most important factor. If you and I each take a male and a female from one litter and breed them bro X sis for three generations . . we can achieve vastly different results. You pick the darkest colored, poorest performing pups from each of your litters and I'll pick the lightest, best performing pups from mine. On paper the pups will be bred so closely as to seem like clones. In reality . . they are practically unrelated (yours from mine). Selection trumps method of breeding. For the record, culling is but one manner of selection. Keep the best, remove the worst.

Think of your method, whether it be outcrossing, linebreeding or inbreeding . . like a paint brush. They are tools. And in the end, you can not blame the brush for the color that your house ends up. The dogs you have chosen dictate the color.

Another thing (IMO) that bogs some people down is the concept of a breed. Breed has no practical use to a breeder of performance animals. The Blackmouth is a perfect example of this. You have under the heading of breed the Mississippi tree dog variety, The 100 pound Carnathan dogs and the Texas stock dogs. To breed one strain to the other is going backwards for creating similar traits in your dogs. If you breed BMCs and you find a line of Lacys that are of equal size, hunting style, grit, range, etc . . . you are better to breed to that family than to some other family of BMCs that are less similar in trait. A family of bear catching Plotts is going to be closer of trait to a family of bear catching Walkers than they are to many other families of Plott who have been used exclusively as competition coon dogs and may no longer possess the grit or bottom that you desire. Breeds on the whole are irrelevant to your breeding program. Families are more important. If you can't find a suitable mate (or trait) within your family . . find a family of dogs who are as close to yours, performance wise, as you can. Or one that will give you what you are trying to gain while giving up as little as possible from what you already have.

But that's just how I see it.

[Reuben]

If you had a genetic map of your dog it wouldn't be marked with "daughter" "uncle" or "grandmother" . . . those are just terms we made up to explain our family relationships. They have no bearing on livestock breeding and therefore it makes no sense to assume that uncle X niece or mother X son can determine the positive or negative outcome of any mating. Words like inbreeding and linebreeding have little, if any, real merit. They merely help us describe things in conversation. If I breed a yellow lab to a yellow spaniel the genes that control coat color are the same and act in the manner that most breeders associate with inbreeding. If I breed, for example, a long legged, gritty, cold nosed Redbone to a Walker who is identical in those departments . . I am in effect inbreeding for those traits, regardless of the fact that the dogs are absolutely unrelated for practical purposes. Historically, less was known about genetics and many superstitions played a greater role.

Obviously, the best source for like genetics (and desirable, similar traits) is in closely related dogs. But selection is the most important factor. If you and I each take a male and a female from one litter and breed them bro X sis for three generations . . we can achieve vastly different results. You pick the darkest colored, poorest performing pups from each of your litters and I'll pick the lightest, best performing pups from mine. On paper the pups will be bred so closely as to seem like clones. In reality . . they are practically unrelated (yours from mine). Selection trumps method of breeding. For the record, culling is but one manner of selection. Keep the best, remove the worst.

Think of your method, whether it be outcrossing, linebreeding or inbreeding . . like a paint brush. They are tools. And in the end, you can not blame the brush for the color that your house ends up. The dogs you have chosen dictate the color.

Another thing (IMO) that bogs some people down is the concept of a breed. Breed has no practical use to a breeder of performance animals. The Blackmouth is a perfect example of this. You have under the heading of breed the Mississippi tree dog variety, The 100 pound Carnathan dogs and the Texas stock dogs. To breed one strain to the other is going backwards for creating similar traits in your dogs. If you breed BMCs and you find a line of Lacys that are of equal size, hunting style, grit, range, etc . . . you are better to breed to that family than to some other family of BMCs that are less similar in trait. A family of bear catching Plotts is going to be closer of trait to a family of bear catching Walkers than they are to many other families of Plott who have been used exclusively as competition coon dogs and may no longer possess the grit or bottom that you desire. Breeds on the whole are irrelevant to your breeding program. Families are more important. If you can't find a suitable mate (or trait) within your family . . find a family of dogs who are as close to yours, performance wise, as you can. Or one that will give you what you are trying to gain while giving up as little as possible from what you already have.

But that's just how I see it.

good post...some folks talk about I have a line of gold nugget bred dogs and gold nugget died 30 years ago...in reality it is true to a certain extent if that person maintained those same traits for that long...some folks will and some won't...I have 2 friends that all three of us have had the same family of dogs and all three went in different directions with them...just different wants...

[Cajun]

If you had a genetic map of your dog it wouldn't be marked with "daughter" "uncle" or "grandmother" . . . those are just terms we made up to explain our family relationships. They have no bearing on livestock breeding and therefore it makes no sense to assume that uncle X niece or mother X son can determine the positive or negative outcome of any mating. Words like inbreeding and linebreeding have little, if any, real merit. They merely help us describe things in conversation. If I breed a yellow lab to a yellow spaniel the genes that control coat color are the same and act in the manner that most breeders associate with inbreeding. If I breed, for example, a long legged, gritty, cold nosed Redbone to a Walker who is identical in those departments . . I am in effect inbreeding for those traits, regardless of the fact that the dogs are absolutely unrelated for practical purposes. Historically, less was known about genetics and many superstitions played a greater role.

Obviously, the best source for like genetics (and desirable, similar traits) is in closely related dogs. But selection is the most important factor. If you and I each take a male and a female from one litter and breed them bro X sis for three generations . . we can achieve vastly different results. You pick the darkest colored, poorest performing pups from each of your litters and I'll pick the lightest, best performing pups from mine. On paper the pups will be bred so closely as to seem like clones. In reality . . they are practically unrelated (yours from mine). Selection trumps method of breeding. For the record, culling is but one manner of selection. Keep the best, remove the worst.

Think of your method, whether it be outcrossing, linebreeding or inbreeding . . like a paint brush. They are tools. And in the end, you can not blame the brush for the color that your house ends up. The dogs you have chosen dictate the color.

Another thing (IMO) that bogs some people down is the concept of a breed. Breed has no practical use to a breeder of performance animals. The Blackmouth is a perfect example of this. You have under the heading of breed the Mississippi tree dog variety, The 100 pound Carnathan dogs and the Texas stock dogs. To breed one strain to the other is going backwards for creating similar traits in your dogs. If you breed BMCs and you find a line of Lacys that are of equal size, hunting style, grit, range, etc . . . you are better to breed to that family than to some other family of BMCs that are less similar in trait. A family of bear catching Plotts is going to be closer of trait to a family of bear catching Walkers than they are to many other families of Plott who have been used exclusively as competition coon dogs and may no longer possess the grit or bottom that you desire. Breeds on the whole are irrelevant to your breeding program. Families are more important. If you can't find a suitable mate (or trait) within your family . . find a family of dogs who are as close to yours, performance wise, as you can. Or one that will give you what you are trying to gain while giving up as little as possible from what you already have.

But that's just how I see it.

What Barlow says in the second paragraph, I have seen firsthand. My Buddy in Fla. breeds Straight Swampland Plotts originating back to Leroy Haug's line of Plotts. we were at Plott days last year & ran into a man from Michigan who bred straight swampland plots. We examined pedigrees from both. From Grandsire & great grandsire almost all the dogs were identical. The dogs my buddy had were in the 45-55# range. This other guys dogs were all in the 70-80# range yet they all had the same ancestors. They were evidently bred for what works in their country.
  I made a 1/2 sister cross to  her 1/2 brother & my buddy got a female. He took her & bred her to her 1/2 brother & I took a female from that cross. That female was accidently bred to her full brother. The first 2 crosses produced about 80 percent top dogs with a couple of culls along the way in the second 1/2 to 1/2 brother-sister cross.  All dogs bred had three things in common. Nose, speed & grit. The cross with her full brother had the speed, nose, but just what I call average gritty. Good dogs but not what the first 2 crosses were. All the dogs in these crosses were pretty straight weems bred & linebred before the 1/2 sister-brother crosses were made.
 

[Crib]

This thread is kinda getting pulled in different directions with spins. I noticed there is a tendency to try and find a fool proof formula example brother x sister everytime works, Mother x son everytime works etc etc. Then another opinion that counters that one to the point that states line breeding is useless. There is no one way works for every dog or every breeding. Depends on the individuals being used. I suggested the method to Bo Pugh strictly based on the dogs he told me he had and what his plans were.

It has been shown repeatedly that dogs can pull from anywhere in their ancestry. That's why the one person saw plots from the same family produce different sized dogs. One guy breed on traits from certain individuals that were larger and the hunter bred on the more suitable working sized ancestors.

The formal definition of outcross is breeding unrelated dogs. So if you cross two breeds even if they share common characteristics that is not inbreeding. It is selection for certain traits but that breeding is an outcross. That is called breeding genotypically similar dogs and it does has it place but not as a complete replacement method. It still yields to the wide variety of genes you get from crossing different breeds   So the breeder is subject to get everything under the sun that comes from "both" breeds. You may get the benefit of hybrid vigor the 1st generation (F1), but really what you did was take two inbred dogs from different families and breed them together.

Let me ask this question, if line breeding/inbreeding has no use how would anyone have a redbone to even cross with a walker? Redbones and walkers were developed through inbreeding. Every pure redbone is inbred off the same original family of dogs. Every pure bred dog is inbred. That is also how one would know how to put a finger on traits those breeds bring to the table. This is called uniformity and that's the value of linebreeding. I know people who have excellent working dogs that are purebred and the dogs reproduces themselves.

As stated selection is the key to any type of breeding practice. Selection for genotypic and phenotypic traits are useful tools as is outcrossing, linebreeding/inbreeding. All methods have their place.

[barlow]

This is just my belief and method. People are gonna breed however they wish to. As for the TERMS inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing . . I didn't say they have no place. I merely said that they work for reasons other than the common perception. They work because closely related dogs often have the most in common. It's the genes they share that make it work. Not the fact that they are mother to son. By this same logic . . any shared genes between two mated dogs will double up that factor regardless of family relation.

And I didn't mean to suggest everyone should only cross breed their dogs. I was trying to stress the fact that we are generally breeding for traits. When breeding for traits you want to mate two dogs who have the same desired genetics and will therefore pass it on to the next generation. That two dogs are brindle and called Plott does not make them related or mean that they will pass on like traits (other than brindle). The point in breeding tightly bred dogs is to gather like to like and strain out outside or unwanted genetic markers. It is never as simple as blending blood or breeding one dog to one other dog. You are matching a million genetic markers (in sperm) to a million genetic markers (in an egg). What we call inbreeding increases our chances of matching up like genes and you are absolutely correct in saying it is the most effective method. But if my dog from Breed A is pure dominant for any single trait and your dog from Breed X is pure dominant for that same trait . . . they will only pass on that trait and every pup in the litter will possess that trait. On the flipside .  . if we have littermates and they each have different genetics for say eye color or ear length . . though they are bro X sis . . it will not achieve the intended purpose and is in fact, an outcross to a different eye color or different length of ear.

[BigCutters4]

I figured this fit this post as i was surfing around the net . Main Entry: line·breed·ing 

Pronunciation: \-ˌbrē-diŋ\

Function: noun

Date: circa 1879

: the interbreeding of individuals within a particular line of descent usually to perpetuate desirable characters

— line·bred \-ˌbred\ adjective

Main Entry: inbreeding

Function: noun

Date: circa 1842

1 : the interbreeding of closely related individuals especially to preserve and fix desirable characters of and to eliminate unfavorable characters from a stock 2 : confinement to a narrow range or a local or limited field of choice



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Bryant]

People believe that the term "linebred" dogs relates to "better" dogs.

You can take two sorry dogs and tightly breed them from now to eternity and your going to end up with nothing more than a BUNCH of sorry dogs.

The purpose (In my mind anyhow) of tightly breeding dogs is to reproduce what you start with.  Although slight "corrections" can sometimes be made by outcrossing, for the most part if your trying to fix things by use of linebreeding then you started with the wrong dogs and your wasting your time.

[Crib]

This is just my belief and method. People are gonna breed however they wish to. As for the TERMS inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing . . I didn't say they have no place. I merely said that they work for reasons other than the common perception. They work because closely related dogs often have the most in common. It's the genes they share that make it work. Not the fact that they are mother to son. By this same logic . . any shared genes between two mated dogs will double up that factor regardless of family relation.

And I didn't mean to suggest everyone should only cross breed their dogs. I was trying to stress the fact that we are generally breeding for traits. When breeding for traits you want to mate two dogs who have the same desired genetics and will therefore pass it on to the next generation. That two dogs are brindle and called Plott does not make them related or mean that they will pass on like traits (other than brindle). The point in breeding tightly bred dogs is to gather like to like and strain out outside or unwanted genetic markers. It is never as simple as blending blood or breeding one dog to one other dog. You are matching a million genetic markers (in sperm) to a million genetic markers (in an egg). What we call inbreeding increases our chances of matching up like genes and you are absolutely correct in saying it is the most effective method. But if my dog from Breed A is pure dominant for any single trait and your dog from Breed X is pure dominant for that same trait . . . they will only pass on that trait and every pup in the litter will possess that trait. On the flipside .  . if we have littermates and they each have different genetics for say eye color or ear length . . though they are bro X sis . . it will not achieve the intended purpose and is in fact, an outcross to a different eye color or different length of ear.

We agree here. It depends on the individual. In some families of dogs a particular female might the be the better producer, in some cases the male might be. The transfer of desired traits might be carried through the females based on the one great female or vice versa. Different  individuals may cross differently from breeding to breeding also. This is why developing a plan to increase the predictability is important.

Since dogs pull from anywhere in their ancestry, two pups from the same litter may actually not be closely related genetically. That's why you can have two littermates look completely different. It is also why a parent x pup breeding is considered more closely related because you have a better chance of matching up genes.

On the other hand it is also why relying on hybrid vigor in the F1 (in outcross breedings) then trying to match up dogs genotypically would be like throwing a bunch of marbles up in the air and trying to predict where they will land and stop moving as opposed to hand placing them in one spot.

I think you and I agree for the most part. I lean toward linebreeding as important tool for "working dog programs". Now for those who use the short term swap out type methods for yards, hybrid vigor works good b/c those dogs are going to be replaced with completely new dogs anyway.

[Crib]

People believe that the term "linebred" dogs relates to "better" dogs.

You can take two sorry dogs and tightly breed them from now to eternity and your going to end up with nothing more than a BUNCH of sorry dogs.

The purpose (In my mind anyhow) of tightly breeding dogs is to reproduce what you start with.  Although slight "corrections" can sometimes be made by outcrossing, for the most part if your trying to fix things by use of linebreeding then you started with the wrong dogs and your wasting your time.

This is were selection comes in Bryant. Breeding the best dogs no matter if its linebreeding or not.

Let me know how that pup you got from Scott's breeding works out for you. Just FYI that pup is 3/4's my stuff.

[Bryant]

Let me know how that pup you got from Scott's breeding works out for you. Just FYI that pup is 3/4's my stuff.

I'm more excited about that AB pup than any I've raised in a while.  I went to the kennels and messed with him for an hour or so yesterday evening.  He's extremely outgoing which excites me in itself...I've had some shyness issues with AB's in the past.  Doesn't bother me much with curs, but I don't like a shy bulldog.  I'll keep you updated.  No doubt, he's a looker for sure!

[Crib]

Great!...Thank you sir!