UKC Forums - question about Linebreeding dogs ???

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 39 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- question about Linebreeding dogs ??? (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=232358)

Posted by Oak Ridge on 10-09-2008 06:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by elvis
my question is this,
why are there a small handfull of breeders that just seem to have some kind of sixth sense when it comes to makeing good crosses?

Ive known 1 particular walker breeder for 20 yrs who seems to be able to make outcrosses on his line of dogs and almost always has an entire litter of above average pups. He then keeps a female from that litter and either crosses it back to his foundation stock or he may make another outcross before comming back to it. Then he may make a half bro/sis cross or has been know to cross a full bro/sis.
I am fairly certain that he has no education in the field of genetics(or anything else for that matter) and is just as lost as i am when yall start useing those genetic terms, and would roll on the floor laughing if i tried to explain the red ball green ball theory to him.

Im not at all saying you guys dont know what your talking about, obviously you do, but it just seems to me that a select few have a god given gift of knowing what cross will work or not regardless if its linebreeding,inbreeding, or total outcrosses.

elvis,

"If it was easy...everyone would do it"

To be able to answer your question, your friend the breeder would have to be able to tell you how he goes about choosing an "outcross" sire. I'd be willing to bet that titles don't mean anything to him, I'd be willing to bet that Super Stakes eligibility means nothing to him, and I'd be willing to bet that how well the pups will sell means least of all to him.

More likely, he is choosing a sire based upon what he sees in that sires pups....and he has the inate ability to recognize prepotency (where the pups favor the sire more than normal)

We could also go back to the "red ball" theory. If after generations of selective breeding, his female (who now is a red x red, prepotent reproducer that is an above average dog, carrying above average genetics), the female may be far more responsible for the outcome of the litter than the male.

I think I've also said that it's almost impossible to get a pup from this breeder....so he's keeping them "close" to make a selective breeding in the future...When he goes back and breeds heavily on his foundation line, he's bringing the red balls back into the sack.....without much culling...

His methodology of breeding is based upon just what I've explained...but he had done it by a steadfast determination of never settling on what is available, and breeding just to raise pups...he has a plan and a purpose for each mating...he stays close to his foundation stock....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Posted by Oak Ridge on 10-09-2008 06:43 PM:

If that breeder was to oucross one of his outcrosses...what then? Filial degeneration takes over and the overall average of his pups begins to diminish....

By constantly going back and doubling on his foundation, he prevents that degeneration from happening.

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Posted by Larry Atherton on 10-10-2008 03:18 PM:

Elvis,

I have always said that dog breeding was as much an art as it was a science. In fact, my point has always been that science simply proves what all of our old time breeders have been practicing for years.

Good dog breeders know their stock. They usually have an almost intimate knowledge of their breeding stock and offspring. Science says we should know our stock as well as possible. Good dog breeders are usually super selective in what they use as breeding stock. Science says to increase the average dog we need to increase our selection. Can you imagine your budding using a cull female?

I have simply been using science as a means to support what your buddy has naturally been doing for years. What I usually post on these breeding post truly isn't any different from the practices you are are familiar with.

One of the reasons I do post quite a bit about breeding is I see an awlful lot of people making bad breeding choices based on ill conceived notions. One example is who should I breed my female too question on a message board. Has your buddy ever consulted a message board for his breeding decision?

I believe your example of your friend isn't really any different than many of the practices that Joe and I try hard to understand and to share with others.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Posted by smokey7 on 10-10-2008 04:50 PM:

I have a question. Why are the color of walkers, on average, so much more uniform and basic than BLueticks? Now, i know there are walkers that are odd colored. Joe, you have several that way. But when you look at walker dogs in general, advertised or in person or whatever, theres a really really high percentage of them that look the same. Red headed, blanket backed. That simple. But when it comes to blueticks the color variations are so different. In one litter you'll likely have 3 that are all dark blue, 3 with big black body spots on a light blue background, 2 that are light colored almost like a walker dog, and 2 that look exactly like a Black and tan except for a little blue ticking on there belly or chest. Why is this?

__________________
Home of.........

Baldwin's Blue Princess

and

Baldwin's Blue Texas

In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-- Mark Twain

Posted by Oak Ridge on 10-10-2008 05:14 PM:

Sheep,

The answer is in the complexity of the genetics that drive the bluetick and even the redtick dogs...

First off...walker colors are driven by a genetic sequence, called the spotting pattern. The pattern that you describe is called the "Irish pattern" and it is a varitation of the "spotted" pattern. "Most" walkers these days have two copies of this Irish pattern, which gives them the blanket back and tan head....it's not always been that way, but some folks have bred walker dogs with this in mind, and won't breed to an "open spotted" dog...to ensure that they get Irish pattern pups.

The "ticked" dogs, also carry a spotted pattern which gives them the large blots of color. There are sereral different variations of the spotted patter, from nearly no spots....to the Irish pattern which covers most of the body in a darker color.

With ticked dogs, only the areas that would normally be WHITE are affected by the ticking pattern. That "ticking" is not really "ticking"...but rather is more correctly identifed genetically as roan....well known color pattern in both horses and cattle.

Ticks are small "dots" of color, while roan is defined as two or more hair colors intermingled...

So, the answer to your question is that your beloved blue dogs carry a more complex genetic code for coat color...they have both the spotting pattern, and the roan patter where other dogs would have white.....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Posted by smokey7 on 10-10-2008 05:24 PM:

thanks Joe, that explains it.

Posted by John D on 10-10-2008 05:33 PM:

Interesting discussion.

IMO, prepotency is overrated. If I breed a female to a male and I'm hoping that the pups are mostly like him, then perhaps I shouldn't be breeding that female at all.

I want the pups to get 50% after each parent. Getting the right 50% is another story....

The other thing is that breeding anything, whether its corn, cattle or coondogs involves the same principles that man has used for hundreds of years. Someone will say that you breed cattle only for beef. Thats oversimplified, but its true. Just like we could say we only breed coondogs to tree coons.

Coonhound breeders are just so backward and so far behind that when someone comes along and uses sound, junior high school breeding principles, it looks like they are some kind of genius. Chances are, they don't even really realize what they are doing, they are just instinctively doing it. Getting in the right genetics sure helps them look smarter, too.

Breeding is more than just mating the right male with the right female. Someone has to be capable of really evaluating the traits and abilities of each and I don't just mean a nite hunt record, pedigree, or what ol' so and so says. If the right 2 get put together, then there's a litter of pups. Now, someone has got to spend some quality time on those pups and again the evaluation process has to happen so the next cross can be planned. Or, if the pups are worthy, then their traits need to be known for the next generation.

__________________

Click here to visit The B&T Coonhunters Message Forum for news, views, open discussion, ads, and event winners in the B&T Breed (Registration, with your full name, required)

Click here to see my Dog List

Posted by Oak Ridge on 10-10-2008 05:56 PM:

John,

I don't disagree with you at all.....

Knowing genetic principles, at a junior high school level or above, does not make it any "easier" to be a successful breeder.

But I think you would have to admit that the FOUNDATION of successful breeding is selection. Certainly not the end all and save all...

If we breed cattle for beef...someone has to feed and care for the calves...they have to be able to establish a feed to gain ratio....and they have to be able to evaluate the offspring for the betterment of their breeding herd....

I for one dont have the resources to keep every pup born here at my place....I might be better off I I cut down on breeding and focused on that....a thought that has crossed my mind on multiple occaisions....

Prepotency is over rated, when you are looking at one parent or the other to "cover up" for the other parent...and it's bound to fail. But if you had an entire line of prepotent reproducers, and you could settle on the traits that are important for you to reproduce, theoretically at least, this would be the way to ensure continued breeding success....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Posted by John D on 10-10-2008 06:59 PM:

I agree about keeping every pup. We have a more flawed system with coonhounds because the only real reliable way to evaluate, for selection, is more touchy-feely than based on any facts.

Cattle breeders have a mind boggling number of statistics, hard core facts, to base selection on. These numbers won't change too much because of who owns the calf.

This is where it may get to be a little bit of an art, like Larry was saying. For me, I can't keep more than 1 pup from a litter and do it justice. But I do try to keep 1 from every litter. I've kept 2 from one litter and it just doesn't work.

So, this means I am evaluating pups that go to a variety of different type handlers. Which means I am not only evaluating pups, I am now evaluating handlers, to see how they are affecting the genetic makeup of the pup, for better or worse. The more complicated it gets the more we rely on instinct and gut feeling.

Its a miracle anybody produces a pup that can tree a coon but the principles of how to do it are there if we can make them work for us.

Posted by elvis on 10-11-2008 05:08 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Larry Atherton
Elvis,

I have always said that dog breeding was as much an art as it was a science. In fact, my point has always been that science simply proves what all of our old time breeders have been practicing for years.

Good dog breeders know their stock. They usually have an almost intimate knowledge of their breeding stock and offspring. Science says we should know our stock as well as possible. Good dog breeders are usually super selective in what they use as breeding stock. Science says to increase the average dog we need to increase our selection. Can you imagine your budding using a cull female?

I have simply been using science as a means to support what your buddy has naturally been doing for years. What I usually post on these breeding post truly isn't any different from the practices you are are familiar with.

One of the reasons I do post quite a bit about breeding is I see an awlful lot of people making bad breeding choices based on ill conceived notions. One example is who should I breed my female too question on a message board. Has your buddy ever consulted a message board for his breeding decision?

I believe your example of your friend isn't really any different than many of the practices that Joe and I try hard to understand and to share with others.

Larry, you are correct ,and i apreciate your input. I probably do seem to be a bit sarcastic about this subject. I am not a breeder.

Im just one of the guys that has spent many years training,hunting,and promoting the breeders product. I have earned the right to scoff, mutter and shake my head whenever i hear someone try to tell me they have this thing figured out. LOL

Yea yea,i know, if i were a better trainer id be singing praises to you fellers. LOL

As far as my friend goes, im convinced he is just plum lucky,cause he is color blind and cant tell the difference between a red ball and a green one.
he does however,ussualy keep all the pups from a litter till they all are treeing coon and then decides whichun to keep. he hardly ever keeps the one i would though. mebbe thats why hes the breeder and im not.

Posted by smokey7 on 10-11-2008 02:43 PM:

The only part about this i hate is listening to Joe about the subject will get you depressed!!!!!!!! LOL LOL Basically, it doesn't matter what dogs you breed, they get sorrier and sorrier from one generation to the next!!!!!!!!!!! Something about "filly degeneration"..............

Posted by Majestic Tree H on 10-11-2008 03:28 PM:

Not to Preach on John Wicke but he also Kept and trained the Entire Litter untill he was confident he could pick out the "Keepers" but he also had the Remaining Started pups to sell or Cull ..

He then Bred on the good ones ..

But I don't think he ran a Second Line to breed back on when needed.. So I gess he lost it..

Now Dave Dean did run 2 Seperate Lines plus kept the Good ones Close to him to breed back on ..

__________________
Steve Morrow "Saltlick Majestic's"
"Never Have Hounds Or Kids And You Won't Get Your Heart Broke"!!

540-421-2875

PR, Saltlick's Blue Misty Linga "Bluetick Coonhound"

French X American Hounds

Posted by Allen Payne on 10-12-2008 03:39 AM:

This has always been a subject of great interest to me, and the only thing I really know for sure is that I don't know anything about dog breeding. There are a few things I have noticed about dogs reproducing though. #1. It seems that rarely do you see a stud dog that is from a dominant historical stud ever go down in the history books as huge as his sire. and a dominant reproducer have sons that ever reach the level of dominance of their sire. However it seems that so many times you will see the next big thing come from a daughter of that historical sire. One example I always used in my breed, Black and Tans, was Tenn. Fiddler, even though Fiddler produced many good pups and had many good sons that achieved some level of success at reproducing none ever reached the level or had the impact that Fiddler did, however a daughter of Fiddler produced Ozarks Screaming Bo who was possibly the next big stud after Fiddler. Look at Nocturnal Nailor, his mother was a daughter of Houses Lipper. Now I know that Houses Lipper produced Wagner's Stylish Lipper who was probably very close in reproducing ability as his sire and that Rat Attack has met or surpassed his sire, Sackett Jr., in fame and reproducing, so this tells me that nothing is written in stone. #2. there seems to be a trend of dominant reproducing females passing on that dominance to her daughters or at least one of them. Again an example in the Black and tan breed has been Gr.Nt.Ch. Bailies Ozarks Patsie who produced Gr.Nt.Ch. Fox River Mandy who produced Gr.Nt.Ch.Bauer's Kansas Jewell all being top reproducers. Just look at Gr.Nt.Ch. Abbott's Big Horn Daisy who had a whopping reproducing average of 62.86% who produced GR.Nt.Ch. Abbott's Nocturnal Jodie which has another whopping 64.86% average. It just seems that you can track reproducing abilities from mothers to daughters and on down the line.

Posted by HistoryNutt on 10-12-2008 04:06 AM:

Three Breeds Look From One Cross

quote:
Originally posted by smokey7
I have a question. Why are the color of walkers, on average, so much more uniform and basic than BLueticks? Now, i know there are walkers that are odd colored. Joe, you have several that way. But when you look at walker dogs in general, advertised or in person or whatever, theres a really really high percentage of them that look the same. Red headed, blanket backed. That simple. But when it comes to blueticks the color variations are so different. In one litter you'll likely have 3 that are all dark blue, 3 with big black body spots on a light blue background, 2 that are light colored almost like a walker dog, and 2 that look exactly like a Black and tan except for a little blue ticking on there belly or chest. Why is this?

Let me share with you a cross that was made many years ago.

The male was a walker hound with not much red on his head. Looked a lot like Sailor Jr. or Oklahoma Spot. The female was a little saddleback black and tan female with maybe a little white on one foot and very little in her chest.

The walker male wasn't registered but was out of a line of walker hounds that had been bred for a while.

The little black and tan female was out of black and tan bluetick crosses. The bluetick went back to vaughn bred hound. The black and tans went back to local bred black and tans with some saddle back.

Out of this cross came 6 pups.

1 - Walker Red headed no ticks as good a looking treeing walker you would see anywhere.

2- Black and Tans One female that was colored up like her mother but a male Black and Tan that like the walker would have passed for registered stock, not one white hair and a beautiful black and tan.

3 - Blueticks. 1 female mostly ticked with hardly any black spots and two males dark blue and any of the three would have passed for registered blueticks.

So here was a cross that 5 of the 6 pups would have passed for registered stock of three different breeds. When a cross like this is made and you know a lot of the characters in the background, it shows you how with the roll of the dice something can crop out that you wouldn't even be thinking of.

You can breed a certain way with hope that certain traits match up but sometimes you will be thrown a curve that will leave you scratching your head. If it was easy everyone would have a good hound.

__________________
The History Should Be Known
Don

http://www.finleyriverchief.com

Sites I like to visit that have a lot of information:

A Lot Of Old Pictures And Ads

http://finleyriverchief.forumotion.net

Register On The Above Forum To See A Lot More Old Pictures And Ads.
There are more that you can't access unless registered.

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34 PM.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 39 posts from this thread on one page