Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: >>>))) Great Articles on Breeding Dogs (((<<<

  1. #11
    I ran across this article and thought it was worth posting here –

    http://www.damascusroad.ca/Article-M...ire-Effect.htm

    The Maternal Grandsire by Cindy Vogels

    For years, horsemen have acknowledged a phenomenon called the maternal-grandsire effect, when outstanding males do not immediately reproduce their greatness in the next generation. Instead, they produce daughters who are outstanding dams. An oft-cited example is Secretariat, perhaps the greatest thoroughbred of all time. Secretariat's achievement was not matched by his direct get, who by and large were unremarkable, but rather was passed on through his daughters, many of whom went on to produce great performers. Dog breeders, too, have noted that an extraordinary male, while not producing extraordinary offspring, will often produce daughters who are prolific and exceptional dams. For years, there was absolutely no scientific explanation of this phenomenon in which traits skip a generation and are passed along only by female offspring. Recently, however, an article documenting scientific evidence of the maternal-grandsire effect appeared in issue number 242 of Equus, an outstanding horse publication. I acknowledge that article for providing me with much of the information in this column.

    Some Genetics Background

    In each cell of a dog's body there are 39 pairs of chromosomes, one set from each parent. Each chromosome pairs off with a corresponding chromosome of the other parent, and in each chromosome there are thousands of genes, which contain the protein codes that determine every physical trait. Within a pair of chromosomes will be pairs of genes from each parent that determine various traits. When the genes are not in conflict with each other - both expressing brown eyes, for example - there is no problem. However, if one chromosome contains the gene for brown eyes but another one contains the genes for green eyes, long-accepted Mendelian theory states that only the genetically dominant chromosome will be expressed. The theory also states that genetic dominance is unrelated to the sex of the gene donor. When both genes are expressed, they are considered to be co-dominant. Coat color, for example, is an area in which both genes can sometimes exert influence. Other times, both genes are recessive, but one is nonetheless more dominant than the other, thus allowing a recessive gene to be expressed. Recessive genes may also be expressed when both contain the same protein code for a trait.

    A Startling Study

    In 1969, Dr. W.R. Allen startled the world with a study that seemed to indicate certain genes might be gender-related in their expression. Allen bred horses and donkeys, and during pregnancy measured levels of the pregnancy hormone called equine chorionic gonadotrophin (ECG). Normally this level is high in horse-horse crosses and low in donkey-donkey crosses. According to Mendel, it should not have made any difference which species served as sire or dam. The levels should reflect a combination of the two species, and would either be a moderate level (indicating co-dominance), or if one species dominated, the level would be either high or low. Surprisingly, the mares (horse females) bred to donkeys exhibited low levels of ECG, much like a donkey-donkey cross, and the jennies (female donkeys) bred to horses registered high levels of ECG, as in a horse-horse cross. Although no definitive conclusions were reached, it appeared that the sires' genes were the only factor affecting the ECG levels in the females. The females' genes were silent.

    It was not until 1986 that the topic reappeared in the literature. A research team headed by Dr. Azim Surani used mice to create embryos in which all the genetic material was received entirely from either one parent or the other. Since the material was transmitted in appropriately matched pairs, Mendelian theory would have predicted that the embryos would develop normally, since it was only the presence of two genes for each trait, and not the sex of the gene donors, that was considered relevant. Again, however, Mendelian expectations were confounded, as the all-female gene pairings resulted in large placentas with little embryonic material. The all-male gene pairings produced the opposite result: small placentas with large embryos. Surani's team concluded that some genes do not follow Mendel's laws. Some are "switched on" before fertilization and are always expressed, while others are "switched off" and never expressed. The sex of the gene donor is the factor that determines which mode a gene will fall into. A theory called "genome imprinting" was created to account for this previously unformulated phenomenon.

    For example, say there is a canine gene that is paternally imprinted and, when expressed, produces three-eared dogs. When the gene is not expressed, the dog has two ears. A three-eared male inherits the gene from his mother, but because a gene that is paternally imprinted is switched off when passed on by a male to its offspring, he will have all two-eared offspring. His male two-eared offspring will not produce three-eared dogs, but his daughters will, because a gene that is paternally imprinted will be switched on in females.

    Questions and Implications

    Many questions still remain, and the literature is vague on why the phenomenon might occur. Researchers point to the significance of gender-related functions. For example, it appears that males strive to produce virulent, robust get, while females, for their own well-being, control the size of their offspring. Imprinted genes are quite possibly involved in traits inherited polygenically. If only some of the genes are switched on, the work of the geneticist tracking inheritance becomes more complicated.

    The implications of this finding go far beyond the world of Thoroughbred racers. Already, a number of imprinted human genes have been pinpointed. Ongoing mapping of the canine genome should increase the likelihood of detecting imprinted genes in dogs. The most important contribution would probably be in the realm of canine health, but eventually we might have the tools to track the inheritance of many canine characteristics that seem capricious in their skipping of generations.

    Dog breeders should be aware of this possible maternal-grandsire effect. Keep in mind, however, that outstanding males tend to be bred to outstanding females, so even if some of the male's desirable genes are paternally imprinted, the offspring of such matings will probably inherit some excellent traits from their exceptional dams. For example, this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner, Charismatic, was sired by 1990 Preakness winner Summer Squall, who is out of a Secretariat daughter. While Summer Squall's prowess on the track could be traced to the maternal-grandsire effect, he seemed to pass his greatness along directly to Charismatic. However, Secretariat's mother appears another time in Charismatic's pedigree and Secretariat's sire Bold Ruler appears twice. So, the talented colt's lineage points back to many outstanding individuals. A pedigree, whether for dogs or horses, always contains many influences and variables. We dog breeders tend to be impatient and are disappointed when an outstanding male does not immediately reproduce his excellence. Remember the maternal-grandsire effect, and wait a generation.

    *Cindy Vogels is breeder-judge from Littleton , Colo.
    She has bred Soft Coated Wheaten Terriers, Kerry Blue Terriers, Welsh Terriers and other breeds for almost 30 years, and judges 18 terrier breeds.

    ------------------------

    Equus Magazine #242 December 1997

    On Saturday afternoon in April 1977 a record crowd of 22,000 spectators converged on Kentucky 's Keeneland Racecourse to, see a chestnut filly named Sexetary contest the day's third race. The filly was an unlikely focal point for such attention. She had never run a race, and her preparatory workouts had been decidedly ordinary. But she was greeted with pomp and circumstance, mobbed and cheered in the saddling enclosure, and bet down to the role of overwhelming favorite for one reason alone: her sire. Sexetary was the first foal of Triple Crown winner Secretariat to race. As the filly was loaded into the staffing gate, the fans had every expectation that through this filly and legions of foals to come, Secretariat would prove himself as impressive as a sire as he had been as a runner.

    But Sexetary's fourth-place finish proved to be a harbinger of performances to come. In the succeeding years, Secretariat's offspring would do better than average at the races, and several would excel. Still, though mated to the world's best mares, Secretariat never approached the same greatness as a sire of racehorses that he displayed on the track. In turn, nearly all of his sons would be unexceptional sires. Secretariat died in 1989, and as his last, aging runners go into retirement, the book is closing on a stud career that has often been described, in light of the initial expectations, as a disappointment.

    Still, even before Secretariat's death, breeders had begun to notice a trend among his progeny's progeny. Secretariat's daughters, even those who floundered on the track, had become and continue to be some of the greatest broodmares in the world, producing elite runners, including champions A.P. Indy and Summer Squall(both sons of 1992 Broodmare of the Year Weekend Surprise), Chief's Crown, Dehere, Gone West and Storm Cat. Even Sexetary, who never won a race and earned a paltry $1,425 at the track, produced a stakes winner. Secretariat's exceptional athleticism lives on, it seems, in the second-generation offspring produced by his daughters.

    Known as the maternal-grandsire effect, this generation-skipping, female-linked phenomenon is far from exclusive to Secretariat. Other racetrack greats, including Buckpasser, Key to the Mint and Graustark, were similarly unspectacular as sires of runners and as sires of sires, but they displayed uncommon brilliance as broodmare sires. For generations, the effect has baffled breeders, and even the most prominent geneticists could come up with no credible theory to account for it. "It made no sense at all," says genetics and reproduction researcher Doug Antczak, VMD, PhD, the Dorothy Havemeyer McConville professor of equine medicine at Cornell University , director of the university's James A. Baker Institute for Animal Health and participant in the Horse Genome Project. "It didn't follow any known rules of genetics." But after 20 years of puzzling over the effect, Antczak, a lifelong horseman, believes recent genetic breakthroughs may finally offer an answer. His theory: Because of a quirk of genetic inheritance, some horses may exhibit their line's high level of athleticism only when the genes for it are contributed by females, while corresponding genes contributed by males always pass down to the offspring in "mute," inactive form. This theory draws on "the cutting edge of genetic investigations," says Antczak, but its effects could be of significance to breeders and buyers of every kind of Performance horse.

    Genetic exceptions

    Within the nucleus of each equine body cell are 32 pairs of rod-shaped chromosomes. Thousand of genes, which contain the chemical codes to produce every trait and direct the body's every function, are arranged linearly on each chromosome. An offspring receives one complete set of 32 chromosomes, containing genes for every possible trait, from each parent, and those chromosomes connect to create 32 chromosome pairs. (For definitions of genetic terms, turn to page 28.)

    In some cases, only one of the two parental genes is expressed outwardly in the offspring, as when horses inherit one coat-color gene from the sire and a different coat-color gene from the dam. Conventional genetic theory, developed through the 1865 pea-breeding experiments of Austrian monk and botanist Gregor Mendel, has held that the gender of the gene's donor-father or mother-is irrelevant in determining which gene is expressed. Instead, Mendel's theory says, genetic dominance is the determiner: Many genes come in either dominant or recessive forms, and dominant genes override recessive ones. Recessive genes may be passed down through many generation but are expressed only when paired with other recessive genes. Other genes are expressed co-dominantly-that is, the effects of both parental copies of such genes are expressed.

    For more than a century, Mendel's theory of genetic dominance and the irrelevance of the gender of the donor parent held up with only minor modifications. But in 1969, W.R. Allen-then a young New Zealand veterinarian pursuing a PhD degree at England 's Cambridge University , and now a professor there conduced studies with different equid species that seemed to turn Mendel's work on its ear. Using mares pregnant with mules, which are sired by donkeys, and jenny donkeys pregnant with hinnies, which are sired by horses, Mien measured the levels of equine chorionic gonadotrophin (ECG). This pregnancy hormone is always present in high levels in horse-horse pregnancies and in low levels in donkey pregnancies. The expected result of this experiment was either that the levels of ECG in maternal blood would be a blend of the two parent species' levels (co-dominant) or that one or the other form, either high or low, would be dominant in both types of hybrid pregnancy. According to Mendelian genetics, the horse-donkey pregnancies, regardless of which species was sire and which was dam, should be identical, producing the same ECG levels in the pregnant mares and pregnant jennies.

    But that was not what happened. In a complete reversal of expectations, the mares had the low hormone levels seen in donkey-donkey pregnancies, while the jennies had the high levels seen in horse pregnancies. Apparently, the sires' genes were the sole determiners of ECG levels in the pregnant females, whose genes, in this case, were silent. Contrary to Mendel's laws, the gender of the parent contributing the gene for this particular trait appeared to influence the expression of the trait. No one knew what to make of the study. "It was very hard to explain," says Antczak. "The finding languished in the literature for almost 20 years."

    Gender effects

    Fast forward to 1986, when Dr. Azim Surani and his colleagues at the Agriculture and Food Research Council's Institute of Animal Physiology in Cambridge conducted a series of studies that finally offered some explanation for Allen's unaccountable findings. By micromanipulating mouse sperm and eggs, the researchers created fertilized eggs in which the paired chromosomes were either entirely from the mother (gynogenetic) or entirely from the father (androgenetic). According to Mendelian theory, since each embryo contained the necessary two genes for every trait and since the gender of origin for each gene was considered irrelevant, the resulting pregnancies should have developed normally.

    As with Allen's experiments, the unexpected occurred: The androgenetic pregnancies developed large placentas but almost no embryonic tissue, while the gynogenetic pregnancies developed large embryos but very little placental tissue. In each set of embryos, neither of the paired genes for one trait was being expressed. It was as if these genetic instructions had been switched off.

    Surani and his colleagues posited a stunning hypothesis to explain the results. Some genes, they argued, don't follow Mendel's law. Instead, they are programmed to be switched on before fertilization of the egg, so that they are always expressed in the offspring, or switched off, so that they are never expressed. Then came the kicker: The factor that determines whether this kind of gene is passed to the offspring in the "on" or "off" mode is the gender of the parent who donates the gene.

    In other words, some genes are never expressed in the offspring when donated by the father, because in male parents, these genes are automatically switched off before transmission. The androgenetic mouse embryos failed to develop because some of the genes critical to the development of that trait had been transmitted in mute form by males and lacked the female parents' genes for embryonic development. The gynogenetic mouse embryos were without placental support because some of the genes critical to the development of that trait were switched off in the female transmitters.

    The phenomenon, says Antczak, amounts to a reproductive "distribution of labor," with some of the female's genes primarily responsible for particular duties in the offspring's development and some of the male's genes primarily responsible for other duties. Researchers named the phenomenon "genomic imprinting." A "maternally imprinted" gene is switched off when transmitted by the mother, leaving the father's gene to be expressed; a "paternally imprinted" gene is inoperative when donated by the sire, allowing the maternal influence to prevail. Finally, Allen's curious findings of 20 years earlier had an explanation. "The horse was out there trying to tell us something fundamental about genetics," says Antczak. "This is one of the few truly new concepts in genetic inheritance developed since Mendel grew his peas. It is an entirely new paradigm."

    Since Surani's studies, a handful of imprinted genes have been identified. Several human diseases have been found to be governed by imprinted genes, including the nervous disorder Huntington's chorea, some developmental behavioral abnormalities, certain facial deformities and some tumors. In each case, the critical gene's activity, and the resulting course of the disease, is determined by the sex of the parent donating it.

    In addition, research into an abnormal type of human pregnancy called a trophoblastic mole has revealed a case strikingly similar to Surani’s mouse findings. This type of pregnancy, which occurs when two sperm penetrate an egg and their chromosomes pair to form an embryo lacking female genetic material, results in the development of a partial placenta but no fetus.

    Why does genomic imprinting exist?

    One hypothesis holds that it offers a mechanism by which males and females can control the most essential traits. In fetal development, for example, the father's reproductive "goal" is to sire the largest, most vigorous offspring possible, but for the mother, delivering an overly large foal could be deadly. Perhaps for this reason, some genes critical to fetal development are switched off by paternal imprinting, allowing the mother's genes complete control over many aspects of fetal size.

    Skipping generations

    Genomic imprinting creates an inheritance pattern whose expression "skips a generation." Just for illustration, imagine a human gene that, when expressed, produces blue hair. When the gene is not expressed, the offspring's hair color is brown. Because the gene also happens to be paternally imprinted, the trait would be expressed as follows: A man inherits the blue-hair gene in active form from his mother and has blue hair. Because he is a male, the blue-hair gene is "switched off" in transmission, so his children inherit the gene in inactive form and all have brown hair. When the sons reproduce, the gene remains switched off, so their children are all brown-haired. But when his daughters reproduce, the gene, in its active form, causes all of their children-male as well as female to have blue hair. The result: The trait reappears in the third generation, but only in the offspring of the blue-haired man's daughters.

    As a reproductive and genetic researcher, Antczak was thrilled with the footnote to Mendel's law and the new research avenues it opened up. What if there was an imprinted gene controlling some critical aspect of equine athletic performance that was switched off when transmitted by males? Its expression, he realized, would produce precisely the same generation-skipping excellence as seen in the production records of Secretariat, Graustark and other sires. Antczak had hit upon the first plausible explanation for the maternal-grandsire effect.

    "If you take this theoretical framework and put into it the observations of the matemal-grandsire effect, it fits," says Antczak, who cites Secretariat's lineage as a prime example. "Princequillo was a leading sire of broodmares three decades ago, and he sired Somethingroyal. She inherited this peculiar, imprinted performance gene and transmitted it to Secretariat in active form, contributing to his outstanding athletic performance. But when the father transmits it, the gene is transmitted in the switched-off state. Therefore, Secretariat's offspring don't perform as well as he did. When his sons transmit the gene, it is still in the off state, so his sons likewise are not great sires of performers. But Secretariat's daughters switch the gene around so that it is transmitted in the active state. His daughters are among the best broodmares in the world right now."

    Other Influences

    Though they were standouts as broodmare sires, all the sires linked to the maternal-grandsire effect were certainly decent or even very good sires of runners. But if genomic imprinting was at work in these sires, how were they able to produce any good performers at all? One contributor is probably the extraordinary mares to which these stallions were bred. Another, says Antczak, may be that many genes contribute to outstanding performance, only some of which are imprinted. Though a stallion with imprinted genes may not be able to pass them on in active form, he still transmits-a potent package of nonimprinted genes that, in combination with the mare's genes, can produce championship performance an4 reproductive excellence in the next generation. But the daughters of sires with imprinted genes still come out with the greatest genetic performance package to pass along in active form to their foals.

    Antczak does not yet know what performance4elated gene or set of genes might be controlled by genomic imprinting, if imprinting is indeed responsible for the maternal-grandsire effect. Genes related to growth and development are likely possibilities, in part because they are central to athleticism and in part because so many of the genes already identified as genomically imprinted are growth related. Secretariat's case suggests that optimal heart development could be one such critical athletic characteristic passed on in active form only through females: While the average Thoroughbred heart weighs 8 1/2 pounds, Secretariat's heart weighed an astonishing 22 pounds, the largest equine heart ever measured.

    Does the performance influence of genomic imprinting extend beyond the world of Thoroughbred runners? Coveted athletic attributes in other disciplines and breeds may be expressed in alternating-generation fashion, but in the absence of detailed, multigenerational record keeping of easily quantifiable performance data, the effect may escape notice. "The maternal-grandsire effect may be manifest in other breeds," says Antczak, "but it may be unnoticed because of the way those horses are bred." And imprinting likely affects far more than horses' athleticism. In people, mice and sheep, as well as in Allen's research equids, imprinted genes have been identified that have significant influence on individuals' development, health and even appearance. The same types of genomic imprinting may well occur in horses.

    Reality checks

    The first step in verifying the role of genomic imprinting in the maternal-grandsire effect or any other equine characteristic is to locate which genes might be subject to imprinting and test horses who exhibit the effect. It is a tall order: The maternal-grandsire effect, for example, appears to become diluted and disappear very quickly, so observations must be made over just a few generations. Furthermore, locating genes is an intensely painstaking, expensive project. But by embarking on the new Horse Genome Project, which seeks to create a gene map of the horse, Antczak and fellow researchers have already taken a major step in that direction. "If we can identify the genes that determine the maternal-grandsire effect, then we can find out if they are imprinted or not," he says. "If we do, that will close the loop. This is a reason for horsemen to be enthusiastic about the Horse Genome Project. Without the genetic tools we are building, we won't be able to answer that question."

    If researchers do identify imprinted genes, the information will take a great deal of guesswork out of breeders' decisions. Poorly performing mares from sire lines featuring maternal-grandsire effects could be kept in breeding programs, when in the past they might have been culled. And, says Antczak, "it might help you identify two kinds of sires: sires who can run and transmit their abilities, and sires who can run but probably wouldn't transmit their abilities to their sons and daughters and instead will skip a generation and transmit the ability through their daughters." Finally, other characteristics controlled by genomic imprinting could be more effectively bred for, or-in the case of undesirable traits-perhaps even be bred out of the gene pool.

    As enthusiastic as he is about the possible link between genomic imprinting and the maternal-grandsire effect, Antczak stresses that the connection is still an intriguing theory awaiting more thorough exploration. If the theory holds, however, it will lift the onus from the great performers who never quite live up to expectations in their second careers as sires. Standout athleticism will always be a rare trait in an essentially athletic species, but horse breeders may have the assurance that if they wait just one more generation, a daughter of the great one may produce another world-beater.

    EQUUS thanks Secretariat historian Brian Windham for his assistance in the preparation of this article.
    Common sense isn't so common these days.

  2. #12
    This really is an interesting article, thank you for sharing

    As someone who has bred dogs long enough to have a pretty far-reaching hindsight, I have long seen traits skip a generation in dogs, really innumerable times. Although I do not have technical training in genetics, I do have enough experience breeding my own line of dogs to say with 100% certainty that the most powerful portion of all that reading was contained in the last 3 sentences of paragraph 8:

    "A pedigree, whether for dogs or horses, always contains many influences and variables. We dog breeders tend to be impatient and are disappointed when an outstanding male does not immediately reproduce his excellence. Remember the maternal-grandsire effect, and wait a generation."

    It would be my opinion that 99% of the people breeding dogs do not have the patience ever to be successful as bloodline breeders, precisely because most people cannot handle the fact that key traits very often skip a generation. I have gotten rid of enough dogs I didn't like, only to realize that those dogs ultimately produced good dogs down the road, to learn the big mistake of making rash decisions on any stud dog "right away." The dead game Truman was an example of the above, where almost all of his offspring *sucked* ... and yet the two times I double-bred on Truman (and Miss Trinx) ... using his sons to his daughters ... or Poncho to his daughter ... I got all-game (or nearly all-game) litters. I have seen things happen like this time-and-time-again, with my dogs as well as with other people's, and so it is nice to see some scientific study that shows us "why" things like this can and do happen.

    Everybody (myself included!) always wants "instant results" with the breedings we do ... but sometimes the best results won't happen in "that" generation ... but they will happen in the next generation ... and so the breeder who ultimately learns patience ... and who learns to double-breed on the right dogs/genes ... will always produce a better overall average litters and overall results than the guy who is always doing "experimental crosses" and only looking at the present litter ... and who will (for the most part) always give up and move on to something else if his big "blockbuster" doesn't happen (which it seldom does).

    This consistent reality of key traits skipping a generation may not always be because of "The Maternal Grandsire Effect," but very often it is. This particular phenomenon might also explain why so many experienced bloodline breeders believe in father/daughter ... as well as father/granddaughter breedings ... and why dogs of this breeding pattern always seem to be such high-percentage producers, when inbred on the right father/daughter.

    Jack

  3. #13
    I ran across this web site and they have a lot of articles so I thought I would post the link --

    http://breedingbetterdogs.com/articles.php

    I have only read a few of the articles and hope the members here find them interesting and useful!
    Common sense isn't so common these days.

  4. #14
    Thanks for the resource SGC. It will only be select few working dog breeders who will appreciate in-depth, intelligently written articles that are featured on such a website.

  5. #15

    BRACKETT'S theories for breeding

    what is your guys opinion on this bracketts theories for breeding?
    http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFil...tts_fomula.pdf

  6. #16
    Will have to read it later, when I get back from the Keys

    But Brackett's main article heads this thread

  7. #17
    i really enjoyed (The Art of Breeding Dogs ) great knowledge and you break it down.. barney style. the way i like. easy to read and full detail. thanks for the direction to this thread. i am the guy you talked about that works with two dogs. maybe in the future i will be on the other side of the coin.

  8. #18

    Indian Sonny on Colby Dogs and Best to Best breeding.

    I think this article was called, "This here is a colby dog"? Lemme know if yall know.

    I believe it is a must read.


    Indian Sonny Had this to say about the Colby dogs.

    Mr John P Colby was an active breeder for many years and produced some of the best dogs of his time. Much of his foundation stock was from the Gas House and Burke strains, as were the dogs of many other breeders. The difference in the quality of the dogs Mr Colby produced was the result of breeding principles he employed. Also, Mr Colby in my opinion possessed a very important attribute, which I refer to as a gift.

    Mr Colby practiced a simplified version of genetics, Best to Best, selective breeding


    Best to Best does not mean performing dogs alone. It entails all aspects of the dogs, from performance to pedigree. The most obvious qualities would be gameness, biting power, talent, stamina and a great bloodline. A bloodline is the result of a breeders influence.

    Over the years dogs bred by Mr Colby began to exhibit physical and mental characteristics such as conformation, colour and gameness which distinguished them. These dogs were then referred to as Colby Dogs. Thus we have the Colby Bloodline. People were proud to say, "This here is a pure Colby dog". This sounds simple; and it leads people to ask; why there were not more top breeders? I believe deciding on what is Best to Best is the key.

    I'm not sure that every dog Mr Colby bred to was Dead game; and I'm equally sure he did not breed to every Dead game dog he owned. This is where the gift comes in. It seems to be an in-born sense or ability. I believe most outstanding accomplishments have been made by men who were endowed with a gift for their respective fields.

    I do not believe that man knows enough about genetics at this time to produce great animals; and he most certainly didn't know enough in the days of Mr Colby. Race horse people spend millions of dollars a year, trying to produce great horses, with only marginal success. Similarly, there is no pattern for producing Great dogs.


    Friends
    The most essential qualities a breeder may possess are; dedication, a gift, a knowledge of Best to Best, and money might come in handy. If a breeder combines these attributes he is likely to produce, with luck, a great strain of dogs.

    It doesn't take too much effort to recall the great Colby dogs of the past. These dogs were bred from the pit and for the pit.

    But all of this brings us to a very important question; When a strain of dogs that were once highly regarded, such as Colby's, stops producing consistently good pit dogs, is this strain still to be considered good? I have heard people say, "I know he's a cur, but the blood is there". While this is true in many cases, I wonder how long we can continue to breed to curs and hope to produce game pit dogs.

    What is good blood and how long will it remain good if we continue to breed to dogs, who do not possess the qualities of their ancestors? While great breeders can breed to dogs who themselves do not exhibit good qualities; can the average breeder afford to take this gamble?

    I have seen strains of dogs that have not produced dogs fitting this description for many years, and people who are active in the sport refer to them as good blood or good brood stock. Many seem to proceed under the assumption, that once a bloodline is good it remains good forever. Many well-meaning people have continued to breed Colby dogs exclusively, thinking all that was necessary to preserve the quality of the strain, was to breed to a dog that had the name Colby on his pedigree.


    I believe that we have to continuously strive to improve the strain, in order to keep it as good as it was or is. It's an accepted theory, that in order for an institution to continue, it must change and continuously seek to improve. To preserve a bloodline, there is more required than just breeding to dogs whose pedigree shows a particular name. Change is required in order to prevent change in the quality of dogs produced. The Colby strain was developed by change.


    Friends
    I have heard people say, that the dogs of yesteryear were gamer than those of today. Could it be, in some cases, because we have tried to play Pat and in doing so have lost ground. The people that have bred Colby dogs exclusively for these many years, thinking they were doing what was best, have perhaps underestimated their own ability to breed good dogs.

    Many of them have bred dogs for 40 years or more and could have perhaps contributed much more to their own dogs, by using their own ideas and experience. New ideas are necessary in every field. Sports records are consistently surpassed by those not satisfied with repeating someone else's past performance. Last year's record won't win this year's meet.

    Were the dogs of yesteryear really superior? I'm sure many dog men of the past would think we have it too easy, because we don't have to grow secret vegetables and cook our dog's food or boil their water. Penicillin has replaced many old remedies, making better dog care possible. I have read some diets that top dog men used. While some were good, none could compete with any good commercial dog food available in countless supermarkets. The poorest feeder today is able to provide better nutrition than the best feeder of yesteryear. We also have refrigeration and other conveniences.

    It is not my intention to criticize old-timers and their methods. How many of us would be feeding as many dogs if we had to cope with the same adverse conditions? I think our mission however, is to pick up where they left off, emulating their objectives rather than their methods. The Colby dogs of the past, fit the description of good blood, as their pit records indicate. The Colby strain was developed on the principle of Best to Best. When that principle is no longer employed there is bound to be a drastic change in quality. In a very short period of time a great strain of dogs can be reduced to a strain that can do no more than refer to their pedigree and say "My great, great, grand-daddy was a pit dog....I think!"

    By Indian Sonny

  9. #19
    Some ( or none ) of you guys may have heard or know of Dr Mike Davis DVM and / or Dr Arleigh Reynolds DVM , or even care lol ... anyway they both do indepth study and reserch on working / racing dogs in Alaska.. their diet , conditioning , breeding ect ect ... found this little artical a wile back , i hope you might get something out of it , maybe not ... you deside.


    Breeding Methods

    Breeding methods are commonly grouped into four general types. These are inbreeding, linebreeding, outcrossing (also called outbreeding), and crossbreeding. Each system has its place and its purpose and accomplishes certain results when properly used. A difference of opinion exists as to the exact definition of these terms as well. This is probably due to differences in the breeding methods used on different species. An example would be: inbreeding in wheat is much different than inbreeding in dogs, or even inbreeding in people. This comparison sometimes is confusing to the lay person - why would you breed a grandaughter back to her grandfather? Isn't that "incest"? In people - yes, but in dogs, there is no social taboo or inhibition in this example. *

    Dogs only look at themselves as either "alphas" - animals allowed to breed, or "betas" animals that may or may not breed depending on the alpha's wishes. Familial relationships don't enter into their view of things. This can seem upsetting or even creepy to humans, but it just doesn't matter to dogs who think like canines, not primates (us). A dog breeder must make decisions based on the genetic makeup of the dogs, first and foremost. The dogs see it as "alpha" (the breeder) allowing or disallowing breeding just as the alpha dogs and bitches in a wild pack might do. In light of this, this canine trait has allowed humans over hundreds of generations, to alter the physiology and temperament of dogs to domesticate them, and change their appearance and abilities.

    Inbreeding is the mating of related individuals (usually not more than two generations removed from one another), where neither individual is an ancestor of the other. The most distant-related individuals included in this definition would be those having only one grandparent in common. It should be noted that this definition excludes such matings as mother to son, granddaughter to grandfather, etc. The reason for this will be explained in the discussion of line-breeding. The maximum inbreeding that can be achieved in a single mating is by breeding brother to sister. Much easier inbreeding can be obtained by breeding brother to sister through several generations. Slight inbreeding for several generations may have a greater effect than close inbreeding for one generation.

    Inbreeding brings out recessive genes in the homozygous condition. Genes that are "homozygous" are genes that have no opposing gene in a sense - in other words, the dog will carry this trait and no other version of the trait. If a dog is homozygous for purple fur, it means it ONLY has the gene for purple fur and passes this strong trait on to it's offspring. Since these genes may be either desirable or undesirable, the effects of inbreeding can vary quite a bit. The results obtained from inbreeding depend upon the recessive genes carried by the original animals. Recessive genes are genes that are hidden by obvious visible traits, but the dog still carries another related hidden trait. That hidden trait can be good or bad, but it is still there, overshadowed by the more dominant trait that can be seen.

    Inbreeding of itself has no bad effects. This was proven most definitely by Dr. Helen Dean King at the Wister Institute in Philadelphia. She bred rats, brother to sister, for over a hundred generations. The result was that the rats were larger, lived longer and produced larger litters than did the rats with which she began her experiments. The reason for these good results is that careful selection was practiced during the entire experiment. All undesirable animals were not bred. Only the best animals were kept for breeding. If a given line of dogs carries an undesirable gene, it must be eliminated or it will continue to appear in future generations.

    Inbreeding accompanied with careful selection is one of the best possible means of breed improvement. Slight inbreeding is practiced by most dog breeders and serves to maintain stock uniformity and keep the children similar to parents and general ancestry.

    Linebreeding, a form of inbreeding, unfortunately, has been over-publicized, and depending on who you talk to - is either the answer for all that is wrong with Malamutes, or is blamed for everything from temperament to health problems. It's neither. As with inbreeding, the results obtained depend entirely of the quality of the original stock, the skill with which the breeding program was planned and executed, and on the methods and amount of selection.

    Much of the factual information on linebreeding has been camouflaged by breeder's Malamute theories. Literally dozens of linebreeding theories, plans, charts, and schemes have been proposed. Many such plans are represented as a method of recombining the genes that were present in some famous past dog to duplicate its quality. Some plans are touted as a general cure-all for the elimination of faults, while other schemes profess to breed champions from common Malamute stock.

    A successful linebreeding program should always be planned to fit the individual case. No plan that is supposed to fit one breed as well as another, or one dog as well as another can be of much value. In other words, a breeder should never go to the "big name" just because he is a big show winner. Sometimes the best dog for a particular bitch can be an unknown dog with specific traits that compliment the bitch. This is what is meant by fitting a breeding to an individual case. Some breeding "theories" have become quite popular. The advocates of these theories are always pointing to this or that great dog was bred according to their theory. However, all breeding methods are used to slowly cull bad genes, in the hopes of retaining the good, and as such, assists in producing healthy, good temperamented dogs. There really is no quick "answer" or stud dog that can fix all breed problems instantly. As for show champions, there is no plan that is guaranteed - there are too many genes to say for sure this dog and that bitch WILL produce a champion - however, if they both carry excellent specimens in their genetic background, it increases the odds of combining the millions of genes in such a way as to produce general overall quality.*

    The strongest possible linebreeding effect is obtained by breeding a sire to his own daughters for several generations, but not even this will produce youngsters of the exact genetic composition of the original sire. Linebreeding also brings out recessive genes but in a more orderly manner than general inbreeding. Less variation will appear in linebred dogs than in inbred dogs.

    With linebreeding the breeder can choose, to some extent, which recessive gene he wishes to bring out and which ones he wishes to hold back. For example, if youngsters are sired by a dog with the genetic composition AAbb, while the dam is aaBB, (these original parents are known as the P1 generation; capital letters represent dominant genes, small letters recessive genes), all of the young will be of the genetic composition AaBb.

    This generation is termed the F1 generation. If these youngsters are bred brother to sister, the resulting puppies (called the F2 generation) may vary all the way from AABB to aabb. The difference between the individual puppies may actually be greater than between the individuals of the P1 generation. If one of the female pups of the F1 generation (AaBb) is bred back to her sire (AAbb) the resulting pups will be either A-bb or A-Bb. They will never show the recessive gene (b) carried by their father. From these simple examples, it can be seen that linebreeding permits a better control of the genes than does general inbreeding. In actual practice, a cross may involve several hundred different genes. Obviously, this number of genes cannot be dealt with in the precise manner used in these examples. The geneticist must work by steps, focusing his attention on a few important genes and traits in each mating. Also, genes are not all dominant and recessive, but may combine in other more complex ways, or a specific trait is governed by a group of genes - so this too must be taken in to consideration when a breeding is planned.

    Outcrossing is a mating between individuals that are less closely related than average. A mating should probably be considered outcrossing when the two individuals show no common ancestor in a four generation pedigree. This type of breeding may be used to bring a new trait into an inbred line or to increase the amount of variation for future selections.

    Outcrossing is closely related to a phenomenon known as hybred vigor. When a cross is made between two different inbred strains of animals, the crossbreds often prove to be superior to either of the original strains. This explains why many show people feel this is a good method. It can by chance net them a big winner. However, upon continued breeding, the advantages are lost and the pups are often not nearly as good as the parents. The homozygous genes have been "watered down" and there is a tendency for a breeding group's progeny over generations to return to mediocrity. Hybred vigor does not always occur either, and at present there is little chance of predicting when it will or will not occur. Since the best outbred animals seldom pass their superior qualities on to their descendants, the value of this method to dog breeding is dubious. However, excellent Alaskan Malamutes have been produced by outcrossing and it is one method breeding to be considered under certain circumstances.

    Crossbreeding is a mating of one breed to another. This method has little to offer the Malamute breeder but is useful to the research geneticist in learning more about the genetic composition of the different breeds. Only very knowledgeable breeders should consider this option and it's an option generally used for centuries to create new dog breeds or drastically change a breed. In the Alaskan Malamute it is not a viable option as most arctic dogs are probably somewhat related to each other anyway and what purpose would it serve to breed them to non-arctic dogs. The Alaskan Husky is a dog of this genre - whereas it gains speed for races, it loses many of the survival abilities necessary to a true arctic dog. Some feel crossing the Alaskan Malamute with a wolf or wolf-dog can produce a better animal genetically. However, this almost always nets a dog too shy and spooky for sled work, too unreliable in a family situation and it often loses conformational qualities refined for years in arctic dogs such as thicker bone, deeper chests and working attitude.

    Consequently, the best option for breeding dogs is generally linebreeding, with occasional instances of outcrossing and inbreeding used to gain or eliminate specific traits. A wise breeder will use all of these methods carefully, reevaluating his breeding program as pups grow up and planning future breedings with these methods in mind to refine and bring out traits he feels are important, and lessen traits he feels are a detriment.

  10. #20
    and this site ... http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/Genetics.html , some of you guys might dig this ....me , not so much lol

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •