Registered: Nov 2009
Location: East Point, Kentucky
Posts: 25

What you see...is not what you get....without genetics

phenotype: what an organism looks like as a consequence of its genotype; two organisms with the same phenotype can have different genotypes

genotype: a group of organisms sharing a specific genetic constitution
2: the particular alleles at specified loci present in an organism

phenotype is basically the dominate physical being of each dog (what we can see). It is governed by the whole genotype. The genotype (genetics) will produce what was inherited from dogs bred.

polygene: a gene that by itself has little effect on the phenotype but which can act together with others to produce observable variations.

The hardest traits to remove from any strain will be those polygenes in the phenotype. Such examples, ticking, flat feet, short ears. Eye coloration is another example. These are controlled by many polygenes.

You can cause all traits to be bred up or bred down. Phenotype and polygenes of faults will take about six generations to remove from your strain of dogs.

Opposite of the above, you can breed recessive tree traits into any strain of dogs in two generations.

What does this mean? Select for very correct physical being in your hounds (phenotype) first. This will save generations of heartache of trying to get them to show quality.

After this procedure, select for good recessives such as proper treeing.

All strains of hounds inherit differently. They may look alike, sound alike, but this does not mean they have the same genetic make up. Once you arrive at the dogs you think are a credit to the breed, then lock up what you have by family breeding by selecting the dogs with the best traits to produce what you want in your dogs.

Do not breed dogs with the same weak traits. Use Physical Compensation, that is to say where one is weak the other mate should be very correct. This way, you can offset the drag of the breed returning to average among the offspring.

As an example, if you owned a top male that happened to be very strong overall, but with one noticeable trait fault. Select for him a mate with very strong features in this fault in the male dog. This is where knowing your dogs helps. In future breedings don't allow that fault to be doubled. Do not breed back into it. Breed away from known faults by good selection of mates.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: minnesota
Posts: 3685

Now for good measure, calculate "epigenetics". Shouldn't we value treeing over show quality? I would rather have a flat footed ticked up dog that treed than an eye popper that stood at my feet.

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2009
Location: East Point, Kentucky
Posts: 25

The choice is not necessary. You can have both show quality and treeing. It is written in the post?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 2814

You haven't figured in the effect of hybrid vigar. I like to outcross occasionally to see if I can get it. But, it is often a 1 generation effect.

Most coon hunters go on phenotype.

__________________
Dave Haugh

LAKELAND KENNELS
____________________________
English Coonhounds
____________________________
Gr Ch Lakeland's Phoebe
PKC Sq Ch Lakeland's Mini Mouse
____________________________
Mt Curs
____________________________
Ch SqCh Lakeland's Lucy
SqCh Lakeland's Goldie
SqCh Lakeland's Kate
____________________________
Beagles
____________________________
Dual GrCh Blank's Midnight
GrCh HBCh Lakeland's Cricket II

_______________________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2009
Location: East Point, Kentucky
Posts: 25

Hybrid vigor is very real. You are very correct. I am just trying one thought at a time. I am needing help like everyone else. What breed are you breeding? Are you getting satisfied on the pups you are getting?
Thanks.....Ken

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

I hate to sound like I am coming at you krh156, but you are presenting things as truth that simply are not.

Where are you getting this information? The definitions of phenotype, genotype are accurate. However, the rest is not either known or confirmable with our current understanding of the dog genome. Heck, they wouldn't be confirmable with what we know about the human genome, the rat genome or even the mouse genome.

What you are suggesting is that something as simple as length of ear is governed by many genes working in concert, where as something as complex as the behavior of treeing is governed by one gene of two forms (dominant and recessive)? You are correct that polygenes are responsible for coat color, eye color, ear length, etc., BUT you are wrong to suggest that complex behaviors, such as treeing, boil down to a single gene. There is no magic tree gene that only dogs carrying two recessive copies are the ones that good at treeing.

"Phenotype and polygenes of faults will take about six generations to remove from your strain of dogs." Where are you getting these numbers? A trait governed by 3 polygenes will take less generations to change than one that is governed by 12 polygenes. Is there something special about six generations? What about genes that serve as polygenes in several different sets of traits? If you change the gene in one you change the gene in the other.

"...you can breed recessive tree traits into any strain of dogs in two generations." See above comments on recessive tree traits. How, based on phenotype, are we to even know that either of the parents are carriers of a recessive allele? The answer is, you can't. Mendelian genetics shows us that recessive traits can be shown in 1 generation if both parents are carriers of the recessive allele, or never if neither parent carries the recessive allele. "Two generations" is not accurate!

Krh156, as I mentioned on your other posts on the redbone board, I can appreciate what you are trying to do in making the posts that you are; however, you are presenting misinformation. Misinformation is the last thing any of us need when trying to move our respective breeds forward. I encourage you to continue to learn about genetics and how they can be manipulated through selective breeding to create a better coonhound, but most of what you are presenting as truth on here does not hold up to the scientific understanding of how genetics function. You are on the right track, but the details you are sharing are not factual and are harmful.

Truly, you opened a beautiful can of worms. Epigenetics in the simplest of terms is how an individuals environment interacts with its genetic makeup to change how genes are regulated. It is the convergence of "Nature vs. Nurture" or better stated how nurture can influence nature, and may be as important to the outcome of a dog as its basic genetic background. How much epegenetics influences any one individual over the course of their lifetime is unknown. But, I am glad you put the term out there. It is something I spend a great deal of time thinking about.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2009
Location: East Point, Kentucky
Posts: 25

random population genetics is far from dog breeding. You are always pushing the edge without going far enough.

You can certainly remove a polygene fault from sight very quickly, but you will not remove it from your strain of hounds less than six generations. Ask yourself why does UKC require seven generations for "Purple Ribbon" status? There in lies your answer. Why does UKC only give single registered dogs 100 points? There in lies your answer. Do we now discount registry policies? A study of single registration will show all inspections necessary that require type and confirmation before dogs can be single registered. This is to say the dogs show no faults on breed standards, but are they pure breeding? Not very likely. If you use population genetics for your dogs, I certainly hope one man can live long enough to see it completed.

references:

Lloyd C. Brackett 1950
Genetics for Dog Breeders...Frederick Hutt
How to Breed Dogs.............Leon Whitney DVM
The New Art of Breeding Better Dogs.........Kyle & Phillip Onstott....1946 through 1975
Genetics of The Dog / The Basics of Successful Breeding...Marca Burns / Margaret N. Fraser

Practical Dog Breeding and Genetics..........Eleanor Frankling 1972
Breeding Better Dogs (fifth edition) Carmelo L. Battaglia PHD
Genetics For Dog Breeders.........Roy Robinson 2000

I judge the Robinson book as the best of all.

You can carry the genetics to virtual theory if you want, but I am just trying to get some better breeding stock. Genetics has many loop holes. It is a young science, but I believe very helpful to breeders. I am aware that me, nor you, or anyone else can number polygenes as it affects dogs. The truth is when single gene theory does not behave as one individual gene, it is just thrown on the POLY stack for future study. No where in my post do I attempt to number polygenes, wisdom also tells me that you can't number them either.

Considering the variations in over 120 + breeds, magnetism, inversion of chromosomes and chromosome linkage you are now suggesting that all dogs inherit the same and you can with detail number polygenes? If you would post your lab detailed mapping and DNA markers for any breed then we could consider some of your points.

Concerning the tree traits. A true signature of a recessive is skipping generations only to reappear in future generations. Dominates bred out are never again seen because they are just that, they are bred out. I would ask you, what do you use to get treeing in your dogs? Test mating will show the treeing quality of the mating involved. Do you test mate? Why then do you question selection and test mating if you are breeding good dogs that look and tree properly?

Have you witnessed your theories go hunting? Get on the wood? Have the coon? Does all your breeding practices produce 75% quality tree hounds? I have seen all the above. This is why I am so determined to accomplish it for my hunting stock.

[quote]
I encourage you to continue to learn about genetics and how they can be manipulated through selective breeding to create a better coonhound, but most of what you are presenting as truth on here does not hold up to the scientific understanding of how genetics function. You are on the right track, but the details you are sharing are not factual and are harmful. [unquote]

Concerning the above quote:

Do you possess some credentials that should sway an opinion of known dogs preforming above average in the woods and breeding pen? Where is this strain of hounds that you have designed? Can one visit your kennel and find all your words in the dog flesh? Have you a strain longer than three generations that you have selected and produced? If this is true, I will buy breeding stock from you. Any person, of any breed of hounds, that can claim this information as this is written, just PM me. No matter the breed. I will buy breeding stock from you.



You can take many avenues to genetics. I choose only what is beneficial to better dogs. I do not write these as a contest or for review.

I am writing these to connect with the correct breeder for the stock I want to buy for my own use.

Last edited by krh156 on 01-06-2010 at 07:10 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

KRH156

I will start out by presenting you with my credentials. However, credentials do not change fundamentals of genetics. I have no intention of getting into a pissing match about who has and who hasn’t produced what hounds. I am not on this board making any claim that my hounds are any better than anyone else’s or that my breeding program or breeding philosophy is any better than anyone else’s. I am making the claim, however, that what you are presenting about genetics is flawed, wrong, and/or misleading. My credentials to make such claim is based on being a PhD candidate studying epigenetic mechanisms of the alcoholic disease state in the Neurobiology program in the School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill and having a Master’s degree in Biology from Boise State University studying non-genomic transfer of behaviors from mothers to offspring (epigenetics). If you don’t count my undergraduate education in physiology, I have about 8 years of study in genetics and epigenetics at the post-graduate level. Is that adequate enough credentials to sway your opinion of my understanding the basics of genetics? Since we have the ruler out, you might as well show me yours.

I will address each of your comments as best I can.

“random population genetics is far from dog breeding. You are always pushing the edge without going far enough.”

I am not making any reference to random population genetics in my criticism of your post. I am referring to the basic concept of inheritance by way of genetics, just the very basic of which are complex, complicated and for the most part completely misrepresented, misinterpreted and poorly presented in your posts. You are taking just one small snippet of information about the subject, presenting it as though you are an authority and then misinforming folks on how it applies to breeding a better dog. Take, for example, your post on the redbone board about “Genetic Drift.” In that post you presented that the reason that in one litter from the same two parents with 10 pups sometimes you only get 8 dogs that turn out, and in a second litter from the same two parents you get 3 dogs that turn out from a litter of 10 pups, and that the underlying mechanism responsible for this is genetic drift. This is MISINFORMATION! Genetic drift has to do with population level genetics, relies on the random pairings and chance of survival and reproduction—none of which are at play with a cross between two coonhounds, nor is it reasonable for one to think that one litter of puppies is going to change, in any considerable way, the genetic makeup of the entire population of any given breed of dog.

I am not sure what you mean by “pushing the edge without going far enough,” but if you mean that I am not presenting enough information of how all this stuff works it is because we don’t know how it all works. There are way too many factors that go into producing one hound that turns out great and to make any sweeping statements claiming that this or that is the way it is done or that it can be done in six generations or any number of generations is preposterous.

“You can certainly remove a polygene fault from sight very quickly, but you will not remove it from your strain of hounds less than six generations.”
How could anyone make a definitive statement like this? What do you even mean? You can remove it quickly in some organisms, but not in a hound in less than six generations? It is a ridiculous statement. Anyone can remove any polygene fault from their strain of hounds in the time it takes to cull the puppies from a litter that have the fault. There is nothing magic about removing the individuals from your breeding program that have the fault you don’t want. You can outcross until you are blue in the face and never get the fault out or you can breed littermates without the fault and be done with it in one cross. There is more than one way to approach the problem and nothing short of chance will result in six generations being the magic number.

“Ask yourself why does UKC require seven generations for "Purple Ribbon" status?”
I asked myself this question and then pulled the correct definition of “Purple Ribbon” off of the UKC website.
"Purple Ribbon" is a distinction UKC gives to a dog if all 14 ancestors within a dog's three generation pedigree (parents, grand parents, great grandparents) are each registered with United Kennel Club (http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/...ng#PurpleRibbon)
The UKC seems to think that 3 generations composed of 14 ancestors is plenty for the arbitrarily assigned title of “Purple Ribbon.” They could call it any color of ribbon bred and it would not stand as evidence that genetics played into their decision to put a label to a dog whose three generations prior to their own are registered with the UKC.

“Why does UKC only give single registered dogs 100 points?”
I have no idea what you are asking here. 100 points for what?

“Do we now discount registry policies?”
You make that statement as if the UKC’s policies were written by God himself. In case you have not noticed registry policies change all the time. In fact, an individual can even petition for a rules change. It is flawed logic to use the registry’s policies in defense of your statements. I doubt they had your thoughts in mind when they made up the rules and I doubt their rules are based first and foremost on sound genetic principles.

“A study of single registration will show all inspections necessary that require type and confirmation before dogs can be single registered. This is to say the dogs show no faults on breed standards, but are they pure breeding? Not very likely. “
Again, I am not sure what you are saying here but a close look at the UKC’s single registration policy will likely stand as the best evidence that you are trying to justify misinformation with misinformation.
From the UKC’s website: “Single Registration is the procedure by which a purebred dog, not born in a UKC registered litter, may be registered with United Kennel Club, Inc. Dogs must be registered with a UKC acknowledged registry, and show proof of such by submitting a copy of the Registration Certificate from that registry.

The owner of a single-registered dog has the same rights and privileges as the owner of a dog whose litter was UKC registered. Single-registered dogs may participate in any UKC licensed event for which the breed is eligible. A dog with a disqualifying fault, as determined by the dog's UKC breed standard, is ineligible for single registration.

UKC tailors the rules for single registration to the needs of each individual breed and takes into account the wishes of our individual national breed associations. Accordingly, the rules for single registration vary slightly depending on the breed of dog to be registered.”

How about this for a quote from the UKC’s own policies on single registration: “The owner of a single-registered dog has the same rights and privileges as the owner of a dog whose litter was UKC registered. Single-registered dogs may participate in any UKC licensed event for which the breed is eligible.” It seems to me, based on the UKC’s own policy, that a single registered hound is not treated any differently than a Purple Ribbon bred hound.
Furthermore, the UKC’s policy on single registration states “UKC tailors the rules for single registration to the needs of each individual breed and takes into account the wishes of our individual national breed associations.” Tailors its rules to the needs of each individual breed and takes into account the wishes of the individual national breed association!!! What? Are they saying that the rules are not the same for each breed and that it might reflect the desires or the national breed association and not the UKC? The point is, your example of how single registration can stand as evidence that six generations are needed to remove any polygenetic fault in a dog is BOGUS.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Last edited by bawhitman on 01-07-2010 at 12:12 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

“If you use population genetics for your dogs, I certainly hope one man can live long enough to see it completed.”
Population genetics simply do not apply to selective breeding of highly specialized hounds. I have never made the claim that it does and in fact in response to your “Genetic Drift” post I clearly stated that genetic drift, a term you were using in describing selective breeding, is a population level phenomenon and not applicable to selective breeding.

I have already pointed out many of the weaknesses of the two references that you posted on the redbone board. I hardly have time to critique the others, but one thing I am sure of is that our understanding of genetics just since 2000 (your most recent published reference) and most certainly since 1950 is staggering. The older publications are quite questionable. After all, DNA’s role in heredity was not confirmed until 1952 by Alfred Hershey (Hershey A, and Chase M 1952. "Independent functions of viral protein and nucleic acid in growth of bacteriophage". Journal of General Physiology 36 (1): 39–56.) I am not saying that there is not useful information in the books you listed, but anyone can buy books off of Amazon, pick a few out of context tidbits from them and post the information as: 1) their own information, and 2) meaning something that the authors never intended.

I have a suggestion. How about you contact the authors of the above books and ask them make a post, to summarize their years of experience and knowledge and to impart some of their wisdom on us?

“You can carry the genetics to virtual theory if you want, but I am just trying to get some better breeding stock. Genetics has many loop holes. It is a young science, but I believe very helpful to breeders. I am aware that me, nor you, or anyone else can number polygenes as it affects dogs. The truth is when single gene theory does not behave as one individual gene, it is just thrown on the POLY stack for future study. No where in my post do I attempt to number polygenes, wisdom also tells me that you can't number them either.”

I am making no attempt to “carry genetics to virtual theory.” You made the claim that you can breed out a polygene fault in six generation in your post. A statement like that is “virtual theory,” whatever that means. You cannot assert that claim based on the information that we know about dogs or genetics. If you have a trait that is linked to 12 genes with 3-10 polymorphs each on 7 different chromosomes you sure as hell are not going to change it in any discernable way in six generations. Conversely, if you have a trait that is governed by 2 genes with two polymorphs all on the same chromosome it will not take 6 generations to change. Making the claim that it will take anyone, as a breeder, 6 generations of breeding to get rid of their dog’s flat feet or short ears is just NOT true! One cannot predict the number of generations it would take based on the current understanding of the canine genome.

“Concerning the tree traits. A true signature of a recessive is skipping generations only to reappear in future generations. Dominates bred out are never again seen because they are just that, they are bred out. I would ask you, what do you use to get treeing in your dogs? Test mating will show the treeing quality of the mating involved. Do you test mate? Why then do you question selection and test mating if you are breeding good dogs that look and tree properly?”

Here is where your knowledge of simple Medelian genetics is lacking. The whole basis of dominant and recessive genes is a numbers game. The numbers are plain and simple and depend on the initial frequency of the dominant and recessive alleles in the breeding pair, nothing more, and nothing less. If you breed two individuals that each carry only one copy of a recessive allele (these are called heterozygotes) the predicted outcome is as such: 25% of the offspring will have two copies of the dominant allele (homozygous dominant), 50% will come out having a copy of each a dominant allele and a recessive allele (heterozygous), and 25% will come out with two copies of the recessive allele (homozygous recessive). The numbers fall out differently depending on the composition of dominant and recessive alleles in the initial pairing. Cross two individuals each with two dominant copies of the alleles and all you will get is offspring with dominant alleles; cross two individuals with all recessive alleles and that is what you get—all recessive alleles in the offspring. Cross an individual with one recessive allele and one dominant to one that has two dominate alleles and you end up with 50% of the offspring having two dominate alleles and 50% having one dominate allele and one recessive allele. And finally, cross an individual with two dominant alleles to one with two recessive alleles and you with get 100% of the offspring that have one dominant allele and one recessive allele.

These are the basics of genetics, and they only hold true for simplest of traits, traits like Mendel described in his seed coat color of peas. The problem is numbers of offspring needed to see the expected results. If you identified a trait that was governed by simple Mendelian genetics in a dog and bred two heterozygotes expecting to get keep only the homozygous recessive individual, you will not see this expected ratio in a litter of 3. The reason is simple. Twenty-five percent of 3 is a fraction and you cannot produce fractions of dogs. You might see it in a litter of 10, and it would certainly see the expected 25% homozygous recessive by the time you had 100 offspring from the same cross. You are correct that dominants bred out are not seen again, but the same holds true for recessives. They just hide better, but once bred out they, too, are gone. Your notion that “A true signature of a recessive is skipping generations only to reappear in future generations” is not the whole story. Recessives can “skip” generations IF you have a really small number of individuals in the generation. Recessive alleles do not disappear or reappear; they are simply masked by the presence of a dominant allele. It is only when an individual has two copies of a recessive allele that it shows in the phenotype.

The other aspect of that you are failing to acknowledge is that if treeing ability is recessive, dogs would come in two forms: those that tree because they have two copies of the recessive tree allele and those that don’t because they either have one or two copies of the dominant allele. This is simply not the case. Hounds vary from those that will not tree at all to those that will tree leaves. This, in itself, is all the evidence one needs to know that treeing is not regulated by one gene with two alleles—one dominant and one recessive.

“Have you witnessed your theories go hunting? Get on the wood? Have the coon? Does all your breeding practices produce 75% quality tree hounds? I have seen all the above. This is why I am so determined to accomplish it for my hunting stock.”

This section is, again, base on flawed logic. I am not basing my critique of your post on theories. I did not invent genetics, nor is the study of genetics theory, but I do know how they work. The coat color of a pea has been shown by years of research to be regulated by one gene with two alleles. The behavior of treeing raccoons has never and likely will never be shown to be regulated by one gene, not to mention the learning aspect associated with the process. Dogs of any breed don’t come out of their mommas tracking and treeing raccoons. However, I have seen dogs of all kinds of breeds tree their butts off and I am sure others can attest to this as well. It was not selectively bred into these other dogs, but they LEARNED by being out in the woods with dogs that were selectively bred for the trait or by being encouraged to do so. I know of a doberman pinscher that will track and tree with the best of our hounds. He is silent on track, but he will run it and tree ahead of many hounds. Should we introduce him into our breeding programs? Does he carry the recessive alleles to change the way our hounds tree? The point is that a behavior such as treeing is NOT governed by a single gene, and thinking about changing the performance of any organism one gene at a time is not going to work well.

I commend your desire to achieve high standards in your breeding program. If you know of someone that produces 75% tree hounds, if you have seen it with your own eyes, then play the numbers game, buy several dogs from them and cull the ones that don’t turn out. You will have a great foundation and all the hard work has been done. You don’t seem to be doing that. You are on the boards posting misinformation about a subject of which you don’t have a full understanding—genetics. That is not going to get you a great foundation stock and it is serving to propagate misunderstanding about how to use genetics to one’s advantage in their breeding programs.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

“Do you possess some credentials that should sway an opinion of known dogs preforming above average in the woods and breeding pen? Where is this strain of hounds that you have designed? Can one visit your kennel and find all your words in the dog flesh? Have you a strain longer than three generations that you have selected and produced? If this is true, I will buy breeding stock from you. Any person, of any breed of hounds, that can claim this information as this is written, just PM me. No matter the breed. I will buy breeding stock from you.”

This is yet again an example of flawed logic. I am not making any claim as to how to make a better treeing hound or that I have it figured out. I am only making the claim that what you are stating as facts about how genetics work are false and misleading. I don’t need a hound at all to make that claim, let along an extensive breeding program. Based on your earlier assertion that six generations are necessary to remove faults, and given that a good age to breed a female is 2 years old, only those in this game for 12 years or more could produce such a hound. That leaves a lot of folks out of the running for producing quality hounds.

I will present an equally illogical challenge in return. Where is your sixth generation line-bred, track driving, lockdown tree dog’s sequenced genome with complete linkage analysis for every imaginable trait to assure me that you can be certain that six generations is some magic number for removing faults and that treeing is linked to only one gene? Also, I want them to breed so true that environment is irrelevant to the outcome of the dog—from birth to death, it tracks and trees coons. I will buy that dog from you or anyone else that can produce it. Seems like a ridiculous challenge doesn’t it? But it is no more ridiculous than yours.

“You can take many avenues to genetics. I choose only what is beneficial to better dogs. I do not write these as a contest or for review.”

I am not critiquing your post as a contest of who is smarter. However, if you are presenting information that is not accurate you can bet someone is going to review it and call you out on it. You are not an authority on the subject of genetics and taking snippets of information out of dated books and incorrectly presenting it as your own does not invite anything but criticism. I don’t care who has what letters behind their name or who doesn’t or what books you have read or written; the basics of genetics are not open to interpretation—they are what they are. It is not a contest to me; it is a matter of doing one’s best NOT to misinform. I am happy to share what I know about genetics with anyone who is interested, but I will not go spouting off about any subject based on what little I could learn from a few outdated books.

I have no intention of brow-beating you or anyone else for learning, trying to make improvements to our hounds or even for sharing information, but I also have no intention of letting misinformation get presented as facts and becoming dogma. I told you before that I commend your efforts to get the discussion of genetics up and going. It is something we can all learn more about and something that can be a useful tool. However, for the time being we would all be better served if you spent more time learning and asking questions and less time posting your misguided understanding of genetics.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2410

You can test mate livestock , and use all that science ... because laying hens are already pure .. you have something you KNOW .

Livestock is also one dimensional ... they can be retarded , but lay eggs and they are called oustanding.

Nothing compares to coonhounds ... they aren't pure enough apply purebred genetics to.

They are too versatile to apply intense inbreeding to and make them stupid .


Bottom line ... if you are quoting from a book or repeating someone ... just sale me the book before you forget part of it and mess it up .

Tell me about your dogs , what you have SEEN ... and give me the facts.

If you give me FACTS and TRUTH ... we'll all see eye to eye .

.. if you have neither .... you have nothing.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: bainbridge ny
Posts: 2589

i know your trying.however tell it like it's written not as you see it

__________________
the rooster will crow again.. keep them english and keep them looking up
email minihorse@hotmail.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 6544

Bawhitman,

I have to respectful disagree with your statement that population genetic principles have no basis in breeding coon hounds. Please see the article written in December 2000 issue of Coon Hound Bloodlines page 68. I wrote the article based on 2.5 decades of study and practice. The title is Population Genetics, Selection & Breeding Coonhounds.

The article is referenced and cited for all my sources.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

Are you suggesting that allelic frequency at the population level of any given coonhound breed is changed by a single litter of pups? If so, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Last edited by bawhitman on 01-08-2010 at 03:08 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 6544

LOL you just stated one little aspect of population genetics. Population genetics is a complex subject with many different aspects to the discipline.

Population genetics is related to selection forces on a population. Selection is selection whether it is natural or artifical. Coon hound breeders use artifical selection. In addition, a population does not have to be all inclusive. A population can be as small as a strain of hounds.

To give ya something to chew on consider the follow excerpt from the article.

"The relationship between the response to selection and the selection differential and the concept of heritability of a trait can be expressed in a simple mathematical formula (Willis 1989) R=SxH2 where R=response to selection, S=selection differential, and H2=heritability. This is all good for a better understanding of selection and genetics, but the most important point to notice here is that R is dependant on S and H2. The only way to increase R is to increase S or H2. H2 is the heritability of the traits that are being selected. Therefore, the only way a breeder can increase the response to selection is by increasing the selection differential. You can only increase the selection differential by increasing selection."

By the way Willis is the author of Genetics of the Dog.

The long and short of it is to get better dogs breeders need to use better selection techniques.

I will leave you with the final two sentences of the article. "If coonhound breeders want more predictability in their litters, they must use sound selection tools, and if we want to improve our breeding stock we must increase selection. The alternative is to live with the constant gamble of medocrity."

Quoted sections are from an article that appeared in Coonhound Bloodlines December 2000 issue.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Dog House
Posts: 4112

Anyone care to take an old dummy like me to the woods and show me the results of all this studying? Its an interesting topic and I enjoy reading it, but I need someone to show me that a person can apply it to breeding coonhounds and do more than reproduce consistant mediocracy.

I dont mind traveling and am always looking for something better.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

I will concede, Larry, if, and only if, you consider the 6 dogs I have in my back forty a population then, yes, population genetics are of serious consideration. However, if you are considering all the available adult Treeing Walkers in the US as the available gene pool, you are not going to have any discernible effect on R (response to selection) in the entire population by crossing one dog to another, even if you are highly selective. The reason being your selection of one cross is not equally distributed across the entire population. Selection of one cross from my six dogs in not equally distributed across the population either, but is is a much larger portion of the population. Willis formula only works well when selection is applied to the whole population. I am sure Willis goes on to explain that in his book. If he doesn't he should.

The other posts started by Krh156 were removed by him. If you read my responses to his other posts you would know that I am of the same mind as you are regarding breeding of coonhounds--be highly selective for the traits you are looking for and cull the dogs from the gene pool that are not what you are selecting for. If you don't like a characteristic in one of your hounds you are doing the breed a disservice to pass it along to someone else. Unless, of course, it is a characteristic that the other person finds useful in their breeding program. Piss poor treeing, ill dogs, or excessively shy dogs are not going to be a boon to anyone's breeding program and should not be passed along.

Selection and culling, selection and culling, you got it Larry! I got it, Larry! Now lets shout it out so everyone gets it.

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Last edited by bawhitman on 01-08-2010 at 05:52 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 73

Elvis,

You can bet the day coonhounds become as profitable agricultural products, Monsanto will show the results of all the studying. Until then, we will just have to do it a few dogs at a time with what little resources we have.

I am not sure anyone could consider your track record anywhere close to mediocracy, Elvis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by elvis
Anyone care to take an old dummy like me to the woods and show me the results of all this studying? Its an interesting topic and I enjoy reading it, but I need someone to show me that a person can apply it to breeding coonhounds and do more than reproduce consistant mediocracy.

I dont mind traveling and am always looking for something better.

---

__________________
My dogs chase to catch and bite to kill--but that's just their tails.
919-886-2036

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 6544

Elvis,

My goals have always been simple. I want to produce a dog that I can enjoy, and not have to go through 6 pups to find one. Time and money are tight in my household. I don't have the time to waste messing with dogs that don't meet my expectations.

I have absolutely no desire to win a World Hunt. As little as I hunt I am lucky any of my pot lickers can tree a coon. So please don't make judgements based on my lack of lofty goals.

Fact is most coon hunters don't use any selection past titles. Titles and win records are known not to be the best selection criteria for breeding. There are few individuals with the dedication to follow a highly selective breeding scheme. In addition, a selective breeding program with pretty decent hounds takes many generations to actually realize a marked improvement, therefore we only begin to realize a breeders impact about the same time they slow down. Pretty much the same way we often don't know what studs reproduce until they get old. All of the above factors can figure into the fact that you haven't witnessed the positive effects of a selective breeding program. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

How do you explain the great breeders of the past such as the Lee Brothers? They knew their hounds and they were selective about their breeding stock.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: minnesota
Posts: 3685

WOW! A truly intelligent conversation broke out! Larry and baw, you guys sure know the theoretical end of genetics. I am trying to grasp the practical application of epigenitics, or more accurately, the theoretical application of epigenetics.
Justin is onto it too- Breeding hounds is so much more complex than breeding any other specie that I can think of as it requires breeding for so much more than physical and temperment issues. What other species breeds for voice and use of voice?

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: tekonsha mich
Posts: 2024

I am with you elvis , that was interesting reading but somewhere along the line I ended up with a headache..... Way to difficult for my simple mind.

__________________
if its there eventually it will look

Mark Warner

"HOME OF PREDAWN KENNELS"

http://www.tekonshathunder.homestead.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Dog House
Posts: 4112

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry Atherton
Elvis,

All of the above factors can figure into the fact that you haven't witnessed the positive effects of a selective breeding program. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Mercer PA
Posts: 4835

You guys figure it out and just tell me how much they are at 8 weeks.

__________________
The fun is over once you pull the trigger

Ron Ashbaugh
CROOKED FOOT KENNELS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: tupelo ms
Posts: 505

so what we are saying is breed a hound that looks good, trees good and tracks good to another hound that does the same. we should get pups that will do the same.
I think I agree with that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 6544

Guys in simple terms. No more science just plain talk. A winning record in of its self is one of the least effective selection tools available. Now, I will be first to admit that it is better than nothing, but the fact is this method is at most 5% successful.

Coon hound breeding is hard! I know I have had two crosses that I consider were complete failures. One cross I planned for 5 years. Just because something is hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best.

The long and short of it is if we want better coon hounds than more of us need to get more picky about what we breed. Only after more of us do this can we truly expect to see better dogs more frequently.

Hard work+family knowledge+increased selection= a better chance at more and better coon hounds.

Nope, it isn't rocket science, but just plain hard work with maybe just a little bit of art mixed in. All of my post simply try to illustrate that science backs up the above statements.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged