Registered: Aug 2006
Location: London Ohio
Posts: 155

Maybe this is a dumb question?

Does anyone have knowledge of? Can anything be said, learned or guestimated for breeding observations about dominant and recesive genes. Has anyone else experienced this and have any guesses for what to try next like closer line breeding on different ancestors or the same as Male #2.

One outcross I made on a female meaning nothing on the ped twice back to at least as far as great gandparents produced a fairly consistant litter, looks and behavior and pretty aveage hunting ability on male #1.

Male #2 cross a great grandparent was on ped top and bottom. That litter had three enirely different looks and a what seems so far like a wide range of characteristics. Ranging from one very nice pup ability wise to one that will not train so far at all.

Would this suggest at all that it may be wise to avoid line breeding on other parentage?

__________________
Randy Novak
Author
www.trainingthetreedog.com
Home of
Nt. Ch. PKC CH. Novak's Easy Flo IV

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1253

Good question, but I wouldn't make any assumptions without looking a little closer.
In the first breeding, even though it's an outcross, I would think that probably most of the ancestors were reasonably similar in type and hunting style. Sometimes called breeding 'like to like', and will result in a fair bit of consistency in the offspring. Those offspring will reproduce themselves if bred to similar dogs. By breeding like to like, you can get a lot of consistency even out of unrelated dogs.
In the second breeding, one common great-grandparent is not really enough to consider it a line breeding, so it would pretty much be an outcross as well. I would think there is probably a lot more variation in type and style in the ancestors - this sometimes happens when people breed to pedigrees or win records, rather than the dogs themselves, and will result in a wide variation in offspring. These offspring, when bred, will also produce a variety in their offspring, and will not be consistent reproducers.
Look at the 4 grandparents in each of the breedings, and see if the 4 grandparents in breeding one are more similar to each other than the 4 grandparents in breeding two.
Laurie

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Anchorage,Ak
Posts: 1727

Try PM'ing Larry Atherton he has quite a bit of knowlege when it comes to genetics. also do a search on here for genetics there are quite a few threads out there with a lot of info.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: cambridge,ohio
Posts: 4143

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Soutar
Good question, but I wouldn't make any assumptions without looking a little closer.
In the first breeding, even though it's an outcross, I would think that probably most of the ancestors were reasonably similar in type and hunting style. Sometimes called breeding 'like to like', and will result in a fair bit of consistency in the offspring. Those offspring will reproduce themselves if bred to similar dogs. By breeding like to like, you can get a lot of consistency even out of unrelated dogs.
In the second breeding, one common great-grandparent is not really enough to consider it a line breeding, so it would pretty much be an outcross as well. I would think there is probably a lot more variation in type and style in the ancestors - this sometimes happens when people breed to pedigrees or win records, rather than the dogs themselves, and will result in a wide variation in offspring. These offspring, when bred, will also produce a variety in their offspring, and will not be consistent reproducers.
Look at the 4 grandparents in each of the breedings, and see if the 4 grandparents in breeding one are more similar to each other than the 4 grandparents in breeding two.
Laurie

---

__________________
740-255-3087
william(wildbill)saylor
wildbills101@hotmail
wildbills101@yahoo
http://wildbills101.homestead.com/wildbills101.html

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: London Ohio
Posts: 155

Thanks,

__________________
Randy Novak
Author
www.trainingthetreedog.com
Home of
Nt. Ch. PKC CH. Novak's Easy Flo IV

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6168

Randy,

From your initial post, it's difficult to tell if you bred the same female in both crosses....

Look, most all dogs can breed, but not all of them can reproduce in their own likeness. Far too many people look back in a pedigree to find something "missing" in their dogs, and it just doesn't work that way.

Until you've hunted with all of the dogs on a three generation pedigree, what can you really say about that cross? I'll tell you...."it looks good on paper"....that's about it.

If we were more selective about the dogs in the FIRST generation of a pedigree, and less selective about the full page color ads that tell us what all "Super Stud" has won....I think we would all be happier with what we are raising.

Family breeding is a corner stone of many successful breeders today. My own thinking is that by making "outcrosses" you simply don't know what your going to get, and at least scientifically your not going to be able to sustain it.

Close family breeding will never bring anything new to the table, but it will certainly allow you to "lock in" the type of traits that caused you to breed the dogs in the first place. Do a search for Filial Degeneration....in a nutshell, that's nature trying to revert to the average... and you will soon understand why outcrossing on an outcross is a futile attempt to get "better".

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: London Ohio
Posts: 155

The female I am referring to is the same in both crosses. It is her dominate/recessive gene types I am juggling around in my head and am interested in attempting to identify or at least guestimate by looking at traits from an elementary perspective such as that used by Gregor Mendal to study peas. http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/2/concept/index.html. Combined with more advanced knowledge of genetics such as prepotency and filial degeneration principals you mention is this a possibility?

Some more facts. I raised and trained this female and two more of her littermates. Their great grandfather bottom and grandfather top were brothers. They were all easy to train and looked similar. They all learned to tree game at a young age on their own. Their abilities ranged from acceptable to excellent. The female in question is the excellent one. Her mom, grandma and great grandma would all share the most resemblance in overall look and traits. The pups in Litter #1 overall rate borderline acceptable and all share a similar look and similar to their mom. Litter #2 out of her range from poor to excellent ability and the one that looks and acts ovearll the most like her is the excellent one.

Maybe this is too complicated but if Mendal could make valid hypothesis with what he observed can we do that today with so much more information available? Say for instance if I line breed her maybe I would be better off to pick between two stud lineages from her pedigree based on which one of the studs looks the most like her in order to try to get more than one excellent pup from a litter. Or do the two outcross results suggest I would be better off to try that again and hope for just one excellent pup from a litter.

__________________
Randy Novak
Author
www.trainingthetreedog.com
Home of
Nt. Ch. PKC CH. Novak's Easy Flo IV

Last edited by dropthetailgate on 02-07-2010 at 06:01 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6168

If dogs were like peas or fruit flies, and all we were really concerned with was appearance....the answer would be a resounding "yes"....

But our hounds are so much more than what they appear on the outside. Traits like scenting ability and intelligence make up a large part of what we breed for. Breeding two individuals that look alike would get you pups that look alike, but may not have the scenting ability or intelligence you desire.

Your female is an outcross, and you are making outcrosses with her. You will never find that which you are looking for by making continued outcrosses. If you really want to understand the recessive, you MUST inbreed to discover them. By inbreeding hounds with common recessives, that is the only way to find them.

Inbreeding is the control, out-crossing is the experiment.

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 6544

Randy,

Being able to determine what is a dominant trait or recessive trait is very hard unless you have as much information regarding several generations that includes all relatives such as aunt and uncles. Then there is the added issue that not all traits maybe a function of simple gene traits such as was discussed with Mendal. Breeders can make guesses based on mathetical formulas, but I don't believe we will have the total picture until we completely unlock the dog genome.

It has always been my contention that while having some basic genetic knowledge is helpful it isn't necessary for coon hound breeders to make better breeding choices.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2007
Location: missouri
Posts: 1356

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oak Ridge
Randy,

From your initial post, it's difficult to tell if you bred the same female in both crosses....

Look, most all dogs can breed, but not all of them can reproduce in their own likeness. Far too many people look back in a pedigree to find something "missing" in their dogs, and it just doesn't work that way.

Until you've hunted with all of the dogs on a three generation pedigree, what can you really say about that cross? I'll tell you...."it looks good on paper"....that's about it.

If we were more selective about the dogs in the FIRST generation of a pedigree, and less selective about the full page color ads that tell us what all "Super Stud" has won....I think we would all be happier with what we are raising.

Family breeding is a corner stone of many successful breeders today. My own thinking is that by making "outcrosses" you simply don't know what your going to get, and at least scientifically your not going to be able to sustain it.

Close family breeding will never bring anything new to the table, but it will certainly allow you to "lock in" the type of traits that caused you to breed the dogs in the first place. Do a search for Filial Degeneration....in a nutshell, that's nature trying to revert to the average... and you will soon understand why outcrossing on an outcross is a futile attempt to get "better".

---

__________________
Get a Real Stud Dog That Reproduces... Not One that wins a Title himself. But gives you a litter of CoonDogs.!!!

Grand Nite Champion Turpins Stylish Rube.

Sire of World Champion "Insane Jane"

Also another--Hamptons Stylish Jewel Placing 9th in The UKC World Hunt Last Year. She Took Them to 14th Place This Year !!!

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh85/HuntingFamily/100_1125.jpg

"Turpins Stylish Rube" Breeding Females with 400 million live sperm/98% motility

"High Quality Sperm, like His Dad Stylish Hickory Nut Harry" Dr. Kenneth O'Hanlon-All Pets Medical Center, Altus, Ok.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: London Ohio
Posts: 155

Joe if your around,

I have been tossing this around and considering my options. Inbreeding is gonna be hard to do from an availability standpoint. My real good old females dad don't seem to be producing anymore. I could breed her back to a male pup out of her. He is from the litter where I just got a very very exceptionaly nice female out of. Would that sound as good as anything to try. The male pup I have not spent much time around to judge. I could not say that I would be breeding good to good.

__________________
Randy Novak
Author
www.trainingthetreedog.com
Home of
Nt. Ch. PKC CH. Novak's Easy Flo IV

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6168

Let me answer your question with a question.

If by your own admission you have not been around the male enough to make a clear evaluation, how would crossing him on his mother really prove anything?

Successful breeding, be it close family breeding, or outcrossing requires careful selection of animals with similar traits. Now, if you spend enough time with the male to clearly evaluate him, it is certainly a choice.

I would think that a better choice would be a brother to your old female.....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 18

The best way to get consistancey is to breed closer and linebreed with dogs that has the particular traits you are after. A good rule of thumb for example if you are like me and like Nailor bred dogs if you want his traits it is best to breed to dogs that have Nailor as close as possible to the first generation, and when you get a dog bred like that you breed to a female that is heavy linebred off Nailor blood or ( and I no alot of people will disagree when I say this but here it goes) breed back to a parent or grand parent or great grand parent, but remember to breed with Nailor or that dog you are trying to have your dogs to hunt like and look like in mind. Only outcross when you have to. If you can't find dogs with Nailor or the dog you are looking for up close, the next thing you do is breed to or breed heavy linebred dogs on the dog you want to pattern your yard after, this means you want Nailor or the dog you want as many times as possible in that pedigree as possible, there is consistancey in the number of times a dog shows up in a pedigree. If I can't find a dog with Nailor in the first or second (in the second preferabley twice) when I look at the pedigree, then I look at the third generation and I want to see Nailor there as many tmes as possible or a litter mate or a parent to Nailor. It is hard for me to find dgs bred tight or close like I like them, which is why I must breed my own and if I have the money and I run across one bred like I like I jump on them and buy them. The tightest bred Walker hound line I see anywhere close to how I like to breed is the Clover blood , and heavy bred Houses Lipper blood , followed by the Sacket Jr bred dogs and the funny thing is I wonder if the breeders of the heavy linebred line of dogs meant to breed them that way? I am new to the hounds been raising them for 3 years now have had the chance to breed anything yet but I have alot of experince with A.D.B.A reg. American Pitbull terriers and my breeding methods has worked well for performance bred dogs with no ill effects just alot of predictability on how dogs will turn out only outing when nessasary.

__________________
BROOD BOY KENNELS
broodboykennels@gmail.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged