krh156
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Location: East Point, Kentucky
Posts: 25 |
bawhitman
[quote]
“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.[unquote]
Please help me here. The above statement was made to refer to severe confirmation faults in the phenotype which was the subject at hand.
Having a severe fault in any mating pair each offspring will be infected or a hybrid carrier for said fault. Spread this over german shepherd hip problems and eye retina corrections. I take the position that since these faults still as of today continue in the breed, it will take many generations of direct effort to remove them from any strain. Is it a true statement that in any mating of infected animals, the offspring will be infected or will be hybrid of this fault or trait? Have I misread that with continued selection and test mating, confirmation faults require many generations to remove? You seem to have an opinion that would help if we could get a handle on it. I did make a reference to bones as in flat feet, etc. Yes, in most cases, six generations is the magic number.
[quote]
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. [unquote]
Here you take another step, that which was unintended. My reference here is genetic drift.
Is it true that nature tends to produce the average of the breeding pair?
In hybrid individuals, is it true to state that offspring can inherit from the sire or dam's side of any pedigree? Is it true that litter mates be directly opposed in the genome, that is to say diverse as in family traits as humans? As you have stated, we can't see the genome, would it be safe to say the inheritance would be diverse among the offspring? Would it be safe to say that selection coupled with physical compensation, over time, would relieve the diversity among the same litter mates?
[quote]
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.[unquote]
This not what was stated. I gave only one value to the treeing trait. I stated that proper treeing was a recessive trait. Can recessive traits skip a generation? Can a dominate be regained in any strain when that dominate has been selected against? If we select against a dominate and do not select to breed it in our crosses, it is true to say, we would need an outcross of an individual to regain the lost dominate. Also a hybrid treeing trait will not show as readily as a double recessive (of what ever value it contains) in proper treeing in hounds. I have not argued with the value of any trait that is dominate or recessive. I simply state, to tree properly, a hound will need the treeing trait from his sire and dam. I state that recessives can not be shown unless they are gained from both sides of the house. The sire must have it and produce it in the offspring. The dam must have it and produce it in the offspring. A recessive character can remain through many generations only to reappear when that recessive is doubled.
You are taking things out of context here. Maybe I am not stating it clearly enough?
[quote]
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.[unquote]
Mr Whitman, I don't claim to have a full understanding of genetics. I am here to discuss it and possibly arrive at a better understanding. Is is wrong that laypersons should also be able to discuss matters? I can tell by your diverse position from noted and accomplished individuals that you also need help. Are you on my posts to receive help? Then just be helpful and get involved. Judgment is the easy part, understanding and helping is where it is at for me.
These posts lend themselves to "let's try together". This is very good, but I am with Elvis. First get it right, then show it in the woods. Education is for everyone. We are very far behind in learning proper breeding much less able to show it in the woods. Is it wrong that I have seen great progress in two breeds of hounds and would like to accomplish this for myself? Yes, we agree on one item. Genetics has to be where it is at, if we can achieve it. What ever evaluation you make of me will not deter my efforts.
Last edited by krh156 on 01-09-2010 at 01:03 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
01-08-2010 05:30 PM
