Brood stock

Historically bro x sis breedings are regarded as brood stock which is understandable nething how only ch 357 turned out to be any good in that department my question is I see Alot of Pple once they do that type of breeding to create their brood stock than they go and outcross it to some complete other bloodline. What's the point I like to tighten up on what I have and than hit it with a cousin for instance I hit my machobuck blood with my shybaby Gaston blood it all goes back to buck x dasiey next I want to hit my yard with some queen of hearts bull blood if I can get my hands on it. I feel by staying within the same family but different strains allows me to breed tight and still get show dogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RFK

Historically bro x sis breedings are regarded as brood stock which is understandable nething how only ch 357 turned out to be any good in that department my question is I see Alot of Pple once they do that type of breeding to create their brood stock than they go and outcross it to some complete other bloodline. What's the point I like to tighten up on what I have and than hit it with a cousin for instance I hit my machobuck blood with my shybaby Gaston blood it all goes back to buck x dasiey next I want to hit my yard with some queen of hearts bull blood if I can get my hands on it. I feel by staying within the same family but different strains allows me to breed tight and still get show dogs

---

Excellent post and thread topic.

This is a subject that's bigger than Texas, speaking of which ol' Maurice Carver himself said this about brother/sister breedings: "They'll take ya 3 steps forward and 2 steps back," so even Maurice Carver didn't like them too much. But yet, as you mention, here we have dogs like Ch 357 ROM who is both a performance dog as well as a Register of Merit producer, right out of a brother/sister breeding.

The question thus becomes, was 357 just "an exception" ... and are brother/sister breedings basically lousy breedings (with "a few exceptions")? I can give you my experience with brother/sister breedings, which is this: I bred Poncho to Missy in 1997, and that was the only time I ever did a brother/sister breeding ... and I got very mixed results: Phoenix was a dud male (durable, but stupid and no ability). Primo was a rough, game, durable male with so-so ability. Little Kim was a beautiful, but cold bitch. Misty was never touched, but had bad eyes, and a bad knee. While Diamond (not to be confused with Diamond Girl) was an A-caliber head dog, with great ability, stamina, lightning-quick reflexes, and super-smart. (There were 3 other puppies who died, so I don't know how they'd turn out.)

That was the only time I made a brother/sister breeding ... with my best two dogs ... but I personally didn't like the overall yield ... though there was 1 truly excellent dog in the litter. In hindsight, I should have kept that 1 truly excellent bitch and gone forward with her. Moreover, there are other brother/sister breedings I wish I would have made (U-Nhan-Rha/Twilight & Icon/BrickHouse head that list). In other words, as I have had the benefit of many years of hindsight, I think people "cut bait" too quickly on the idea of inbreedings, in 3 ways:

• 1) They assume the dogs won't be able to brawl, but some inbred dogs can absolutely kick ass;
  2) They assume because there are some duds, that this means they should not do the breeding again, when the truth is they should cull the weak and proceed forward with the purified, super-clean animals;
  3) They assume that, because one inbreeding didn't work that this means "they all" won't work, when nothing could be further from the truth!

Regarding the way you tend to breed, which I term "loose linebreeding" (Stone City dogs to Gaston dogs, etc.) is a very effective way to both keep some genetic uniformity (and, in this case, overall 'pattern' uniformity also), while still benefitting from the vigor of "difference" in the two respective lines. Just realize that you can also get fully-capable match dogs through highly-inbred animals, if the right selection is made.

For example, Ch Red Bull was one of the very tightest-bred dogs I have ever put together in my life. So, as someone who has "bred tight" for many years, I can tell you for sure that (yes) some of them come out unable to compete ... but when you make good selections (and/or select the best from the litters) ... you can get dogs that are as good or better than any outcrossed dog.

Don't forget that devastating dogs like Gr Ch Zebo ROM, Gr Ch Banjo/Gr Ch BB Red, etc. were all highly line-/inbred animals :mrgreen:

Jack


.

I really do not see a point in doing a bro x sis breeding unless they are they only two left to continue a line. However, if said dogs start as a cross, I do not see that breeding as brood stock or tightening a line as the result pups would still be 50/50 or whatever precentage cross they sire and dam were intially.

Linebreeding on related dogs and occasional inbreeding seems to be the better choice. But as with anything else there is always factors involved and maybe a bro x sis breeding would be necessary as stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AL Clown

I really do not see a point in doing a bro x sis breeding unless they are they only two left to continue a line. However, if said dogs start as a cross, I do not see that breeding as brood stock or tightening a line as the result pups would still be 50/50 or whatever precentage cross they sire and dam were intially.
Linebreeding on related dogs and occasional inbreeding seems to be the better choice. But as with anything else there is always factors involved and maybe a bro x sis breeding would be necessary as stated above.

---

I agree with you Al Clown. In fact, I agree with you so much that (as I mentioned) I only did this myself once in 23 years breeding dogs. And, even with the benefit of hindsight, I still only have maybe 2-4 other pairs of siblings (out of all the dogs I have had over the years), to where I wished I would have done made other bro/sis breedings. The rest I am glad I didn't.

So your point is well taken: brother/sister breedins are NOT a normal way to breed, and are rarely the best way to breed; brother/sister breedings should be done on a very limited basis, if at all, and then only because the dogs involved are so strong genetically that they might actually produce match dogs by doing so.

I agree that too many people breed brother/sister for no other reason than because they "bought the pair" as pups, and are too lazy to go make better choices, so they breed two duds that are in their back yards.

Jack



.

To piggy-back on your last statement...I think people in general breed dogs for the wrong reason and more often excessively to much. I have own these dogs since 1983 and I did not make my 1st breeding until the late 90s. The reason being I did not feel I had enough knowledge about the breed to properly breed these animals. Now that I feel I have some knowledge of the breed and have had a chance to be involved in every aspect of this breed, I still feel unless you are solely a breeder and producing quality animals on a consistent basis then you should only breed when it is necessary to your program.

Alot of times I see people with 4 or more breedings available forsale every 6 months. I sit back and shake my head, because when you call and talk to these breeders they can barely tell you the name of the dogs that make up the 1st two gen. It is very rare they can tell you anything about any of the dogs that make up these great pups pedigree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AL Clown

To piggy-back on your last statement...I think people in general breed dogs for the wrong reason and more often excessively to much. I have own these dogs since 1983 and I did not make my 1st breeding until the late 90s. The reason being I did not feel I had enough knowledge about the breed to properly breed these animals. Now that I feel I have some knowledge of the breed and have had a chance to be involved in every aspect of this breed, I still feel unless you are solely a breeder and producing quality animals on a consistent basis then you should only breed when it is necessary to your program.

Alot of times I see people with 4 or more breedings available forsale every 6 months. I sit back and shake my head, because when you call and talk to these breeders they can barely tell you the name of the dogs that make up the 1st two gen. It is very rare they can tell you anything about any of the dogs that make up these great pups pedigree.

---

Who can argue with that? It's true.


.

WOW GREAT STUFF

people do breeding just because they have these dogs it's because of that reason why the breed is under the microscope now you have guy putting these dogs in the wrong peoples hands they in turn do (WELL) you know. I've had my dogs for a little bit but I've only done 4 breeding my mistake was in thanking that people would appriate good dog. (WRONG) but i love tight breed stock i have a bitch that off of a bro/sis breeding her first breeding was line breed back to her uncle the result from this was 4 pups that were acting like full grown hounds i keep 3 out of the 4 but lost one but it can work if you have the time to wait to see what you have

Great topic. I've bred brother/sister on several occaisions. It's not something that the casual breeder should undertake. I've made every kind of inbreeding imaginable. I've had good and bad results with both. When I wanted to preserve and purify my line I inbred. Now all of my dogs are inbred and related to one another so no matter which dogs I pair up they are inbred and related. I have no need to cross them and I dred the day that I do. Hopefully I will never have to.

I have experimented with outcrosses ... and certain inbred dogs I have bred have "needed" an outcross ... but the overall best dogs I have ever fed were (and are) always the high end of my line- and inbred animals.

Jack