Printable View
Good stuff all around and I agree it is much more to be learn and many angles to look at it. Great discussion piece and good to just talk dogs. Minuteman as Jack said I don't believe you were wrong and as you said it was just how you first came at it. Looking forward to more good topics and discussions. I really knew nothing of this and have been reading and learned some things.
I am staying on the outside as I am not at all familiar with the complex mechanics, but good read and great discussion!! Thank you all for the input.
Great stuff, The X factor. For those interested studying breeding/genetics a lot can be learned by studying what breeders of other perfomance animals have learned and achieved. I've gleaned information on breeding from the studies and research of Thoroughbreds, Gamefowl, Racing Pigeons, Roller Pigeons, Hunting Beagles, and APBTs. I've bred all of those breeds and the breeding principles are the same for each. I adopted the breeding principles of the Greatest thoroughbred horse breeder, Fredrico Tesio and applied his methods to all of my breeding endeavers and the results have far exceeded what I accomplished before I adopted his methods. I also incorporate the Rasmussen factor of inbreeding to superior females in all of my breeding programs.
Thanks to Stone City for starting this and for Jack's considerable insight and observations and all the others that took the time to ask questions. Many years ago, I visited with Jerry Clemmons and discussed breedings. He said to me that he always examines the parents and their breeding and then if he liked the mother's side better, he chose males and if he liked the father's side better, he would choose females. Seems to follow along with this discussion also.
If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding
if you do this and end up with only females where do you go? appologize if this is already covered, very pressed for time
Go get a male thats heavy on the male line you want to breed on. With out using the X Factor its the samething Jack did by adding Silverback after poncho was gone. Then you will have it in the X Chromosome too of the Sires mom to pass to his daughters. Most of all SHOULD be good quality individuals with good % in immediate family and surrounding but its not always the way it goes and works out.Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcg
Poncho
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... og_id=1033
Now look at Silverback. Male line saved and insured even more.
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... g_id=57819
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojacc357
(Also, it is interesting, you mentioned how this relates to my dogs and bloodline now. My line is based primarily on the Hammer/Trinx blood, where Poncho was the Y dominant force of this mating that was bred to many bitches, and (because I never got too many pups out of her) the X force of Missy was pretty much on the sideline. Now, as you pointed out, I have a triple-bred Hammer dog (and son of Missy) in Silverback, and am breeding him to my Poncho bitches, almost reversing the roles of Poncho and Missy in my pedigrees, not to mention adding the other blood through Ouch. Ponchoback demonstrates this perfectly 8-)
Glad you enjoyed it, I sure have too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool Killer
Thank you for adding your perspective, Stonewall, and thank you for mentioning the name of Federico Tesio. I Googled the name and added the link, and the man was indeed a legend. (Pardon my ignorance for not knowing this already, but I have not studied racehorses, so both you and Stone City have taught this old dog some new tricks :mrgreen: )Quote:
Originally Posted by STONEWALL
At any rate, WOW, he must have been a legend because a hardcopy of his book, Tesio: In His Own Words, is selling for $776.58 on Barnes & Noble, while another copy is selling on Amazon for $625 :shock:
I would be fascinated to read what he has to say, but I will have to wait until someone real nice lets me borrow their book :lol:
You're welcome, and I am grateful for all the other input as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger
While I have always been pretty confident in my breeding knowledge, this thread made me realize how much I really don't know, and how much more there is to learn, which I think is great. To me, the prospect of being able to learn just one new, useful principle is literally "the spice of life" :idea:
Jack
does this theory only potentially hold true when line or inbreeding , or can the same results be reached by stacking the brood gyp and the sires ped with high % females of different lines ?
It's an interesting read. However, as it pertains to genes, it is much more complicated than that. In the 1980's , two groups of scientist , one in phili and one in Cambridge , made a surprising discovery, They tried to create a uniparental mouse- a mouse with only one parent. Since strict cloning from a body cell was impossible in mice (post- Dolly, this is quickly changing) , the Phili team swapped the "pronuclei" of the two fertalised eggs. When an egg has been fertalised by a sperm, the sperm nucleus containing the choromosone enters the egg, but does not first fuse with the egg nucleus: the two nuclei are known as "pronuclei". A clever scientist can sneak in with his pipette and suck out the sperm pronuclei, replacing it with the egg pronucleus from another egg- and vice versa. The result is two viable eggs, but one genetically speaking with two fathers and no mother and one with two mothers and no father. The Cabridge team used slightly different tecnique, but achieved the same result. But in both cases, such embryos failed to develop properly and soon died in the womb. In the two mothers case, the embryo itself was properly organized, but it could not make a placenta with wich to sustain itself. In the two father case, the embryo grew a large and healthy placenta and most of the membranes that surround the foetus. But inside, where the embryo should be, there was a disorganized blob of cells with no discernible head.
This result led to an extraordinary conclusion. PATERNAL GENES INHERITED FROM THE FATHER, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAKING OF THE PLACENTA: MATERNAL GENES, INHERITED FROM MOTHER, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE GREATER PART OF THE EMBRYO, ESPECIALLY IT'S HEAD AND BRAIN. As it turns out, the placenta is not a maternal organ designed to give sustanance to the foetus, or a paternal organ, but rather a FOETAL organ designed to parasitize the maternal blood supply and brook no opposition in the process. The placenta literally bores its way into the mothers vessels, forcing them to dilate, and then proceeds to produce hormones which raise the mother's blood pressure and blood sugar. The mother responds by raising her insulin levels to combat this invasion. yet for some reason if the foetal hormone is missing, the mother does not need to raise her insulin levels and a normal pregnancy ensues. In other words, although a mother and foetus have a common purpose, they argue fiercly about how much of the mother's resources the foetus may have. - exactly as they later will during weaning.
The foetus is built partly with the maternal genes albeit a very small part. , so it's not surprising that the genes find themselves with a situational conflict of interests. The father's genes in the Foetus have no such worries. They do not have the mother's interests at heart, except insofar as she provides a home for them. To turn briefly anthropomophic, the father's genes do not trust the mother's genes to make a sufficiently invasive placenta; so they do the job themselves. Hence the paternal imprinting of placental genes as discovered by the two-fathered embryos.
Mind blowing stuff eh.. yes the female is responsible for the core of mammal , but the male plays a pivotal role.
This is simply fascinating Evo.