My question is how much does genetics play in size? If I have a big bitch, does that mean when bred to males her size or bigger Im going to consistently get big dogs on average? she is around 48-50 on the chain, mayday bred bitch.
Printable View
My question is how much does genetics play in size? If I have a big bitch, does that mean when bred to males her size or bigger Im going to consistently get big dogs on average? she is around 48-50 on the chain, mayday bred bitch.
Cross that bitch and you'll get bigger dogs. Inbred will create smaller dogs.
Inbreeding doesn't produce smaller dogs; breeding to small dogs is what produces small dogs. For example, these inbred dogs were actually larger than the dogs they were inbred on:Quote:
Originally Posted by OGDOGG
- Silverback (a 36 lber) was triple-bred on Ch Hammer, who was a 32 lber.
- Cherry Coke (a 32 lber) was double-bred on Coca Cola, a 26-lber.
Although my dogs are small in general, what brought the size down "in general" wasn't any inbreeding I did, it was simply using small dogs to begin with, not my inbreeding. If Ch Hammer would have been a 45 (instead of a 32), and if Coca Cola would have been a 39 (instead of a 26), then my highly-inbred family of dogs would have been in the high-30s/mid-40s, rather than in the high-20s/mid-30s.
It was only because I selected small dogs to linebreed on to begin with that made my dogs small, not any inbreeding or linebreeding "by itself" :idea:
Actually, there are many highly-inbred strains that are still big in size ... Yellow dogs and OFRN dogs, for example, are all highly-inbred/linebred strains that still remain very large dogs in general.
Jack
LOL.....Thanks Jack. I don't understand what most don't get about such things.
I've fed the same line of dogs for 17 years. I typically get the average size of the family I breed. Males are 50-53Lbs and females are 40-45lbs. I get some bigger and some smaller, but I typically fall within the average.
Breed small dogs, get small dogs. Breed big dogs, get big dogs.
Breed good dogs and you'll get good ones. I know all the benefits with smaller dogs, but in the end size don't mean shit. I know smaller dogs are faster and usually is more entertaining. But to see catchweight dogs go at it for 2 hours is something rare and special to me. I can honestly say I will breed the best one i got no matter if he is a 60 lbs dog or a 30. Weights are out there, it' all about if you are willing to travel for it.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=11761
There are three in this litter all are bigger than average for the yard. Jimmy and Tardo the two males sit on the chain around 50 lbs. Their sister at about 40. Tarzan was about a 43, Cookiedoe probably a 34, Booty would be a 20 something if shaped, Jag was a 50. Got high hopes for this litter they are put together about as good as I could ask.
My last litter of dogs produced two pups who were the average of the line, and 2 others that are significantly larger than just about anything we have bred to in 22 years. My hunch is that the line is starting to overcome the tendency towards filial degeneration, and is actually increasing in vigor because of stringent selection and overall improvement of the line. The other possibility is the skip in generations that I have noticed in the line, and that these dogs are a direct throwback to something deeper than 5-6 generations before we were breeding them. These pups have a 44% Inbreeding Coefficient. The next mating I do, will have a 72% inbreeding coefficient. It will be interesting to see what percentage carry this new larger frame size that has cropped up.
good read it breaks down filial degeneration...
http://www.racingpigeonmall.com/loft...prepotent.html
If you breed her to another 50lb Mayday dog you can expect to get some horses out of that litter I personally don't prefer big catch weight dogs. I recently bred my small 32lb bitch to a big 50 plus pound Barracuda/Buck male and all the pups ended up falling between 40 and 45lb which was cool because once brought down in weight they will be right in the ball park im comfortable with. Now one thing i will say is that I have thought about breeding my bitch to a 31lb male but I was kind of skeptical because I didn't want to end up with a bunch of really tiny dogs lol. But I have seen dogs which seem to decrease in size with a certain degree of inbreeding Ch. Homie when bred to his daughter produced several tiny dogs and he sits around at 50 plus, Also I have noticed that Ch. Ranger dogs when inbred tight seem to throw small dogs and Ranger wasn't a small dog either, also the tight bred Gr. Ch AC stuff when inbred dogs seemed to decrease in size, although i know there are always exceptions and a lot depends on bloodlines and individual dogs, just sharing some of the examples i have seen. Ok enough of my rambling lol but i do agree with the general statement breed big dogs end up with big dogs breed small dogs end up with small dogs.
PS. I haven't been on in a while i would have liked to post the peds of the dogs mentioned seeing as how some of you may not be familiar with the dogs mentioned
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRISIS
One of the things I would like to clarify (and take issue with) in that article is the idea that traits inherited from distant ancestors are "always" calculated based on a fixed % of genes the individual receives as follows.
"50% from each parent
25% from each grandparent
12.5% from each great-grandparent, etc."
Many people act as if traits from distant ancestors "get diluted" with each successive generation, which is absolutely untrue. Take my dog Silverback for example: his 2 key traits (in my judgement) were his seal color and his ability to finish. Well, according to possible interpretations of the above theory, this trait would only come from 6.25% of his pedigree ... yet the reality was it was 100% expressed in him (including his seal color). As I wrote in the Avila's Ouch! thread, I explained how he affected Silverback's traits the way he did. So let's take a look at Silverback's pedigree and look at the percentages:
I have bred my own family of dogs for over 20 years, and I have bred more "linebred Ch Hammer dogs" than any man on the planet, and yet Silverback (although he was triple-bred Ch Hammer), carried almost zero traits of any Hammer dog I ever had. Instead of being a tough, game dog that would go all night and take a killing, Silverback would steamroll what he faced and be killing them almost as soon as the "release" happened. How could this be? Why was he so "different" from typical Hammer dogs, when he was the only triple-bred Hammer dog left alive on the planet?
Well, the the reason Silverback carried the unique (ultra-finishing) traits he did (as well as his seal color) was because of Jessop's Pitfall in the pedigree of Godzuki (aka: Mexican Pete's 410). Jessop's Pitfall was a relative of Gr Ch Zebo and Ozzie's Ch Homer. So, even though "on paper" Silverback only carried 6.25% Pitfall blood, the reality was HER TRAITS are what carried directly to him through whatever random genetic intangibles happen anytime the "genetic deck" is shuffled when you make a breeding.
The fact is, Silverback's seal color, his ultra-powerful backend, and his relentless desire to finish (as opposed to being a typical "game/tough" Hammer dog) were ALL carried directly from Jessop's Pitfall to Needham's Strega, then to Shaeffer's Godzuki (or 410), then to Raina, then to Ouch!, and finally onto Silverback. Therefore, the idea that the % of a dog's influence always divides "by half" in each successive generation is nonsense. Sometimes a dog's traits get passed on IN FULL in each generation.
Let's look at the seal color first. Seal is a derivative of black, and it can be created either via a seal dog or by breeding a chocolate to a buckskin dog. Well, Jessop's Pitfall was a seal dog and she passed on the seal color to Strega. Strega in turn produced the chocolate Godzuki (410), and then Godzuki produced the seal-clored Rueger and Raina when bred to Hammer. When the two seal littermates, Rueger and Raina, were bred together they produced chocolate Ouch! ... who (when bred to the buckskin Missy) produced the seal-colored Silverback.
The POINT is, it's not like the color seal/chocolate was "diluted by half" each time a new dog was bred to ... the fact is this color passed on IN FULL with each successive generation. Therefore, even though "on paper" Silverback is only 6.25% Pitfall, the fact is Silverback was 100% seal himself JUST LIKE JESSOP'S PITFALL WAS. Therefore, even though Silverback was a whopping 50% Ch Hammer "on paper" ... the reality was he was a Jessop's Pitfall dog in physical expression. When people really know their pedigrees, they realize that a certain dog "now" can be more influenced by some dog way back in their pedigree than by dogs that are "up close" :idea:
Now, regarding the finishing trait Silverback got from Pitfall, this trait must have been passed on recessively. Pitfall got these traits presumably from the Zebo-type blood behind her. And while she passed it on to Strega and Godzuki (410), it was lost in Ouch's parents Rueger and Raina (who were littermates). And yet, because these littermates were bred to each other to get Ouch!, this doubled-up on Mexican Pete's 410 (Godzuki), a badass bitch, allowing the recessive trait of relentless drive to come out again, because Mexican Pete's 410 (Godzuki) was on both sides of the pedigree (which is what any recessive trait needs in order to "come back" again). So, once again this relentless trait appeared in Ouch!.
Now, although Ouch! wasn't a true finisher, in that he didn't hit "kill spots" like Silverback, Ouch! did relentlessly drive-and-drive for the backend in his style (even though both his parents were head dogs). And when he was bred to Missy, that relentless drive passed onto Silverback, who just "knew where to go" to finish ... a trait that I attribute to only 6.25% of his pedigree that originated in the 5th generation of his pedigree.
Jack
I for the longest believed in petcentages, and inbreeding coeficients, but now that we have DNA, I don't see why you would use anything else. If you have the blueprint of what you want, why not try and replicate it? Here is another piece to add to the equation, most genes come in pairs. Although I don't have the DNA markers in front of me, what Jack says is possible. I have noticed in my own dogs different paired genes, for example, the dogs that I have with ultra finish in your throat high ability are super clean, they won't pee in the kennel, and they wait to deficate while I clean the kennels. The super intense crazy in the corner I'll Take what i can get, swap it out, front end, back end ,game as the night is long strain like Machobear and Machabear will shit all over the kennel, step in it, roll in it. Etc. What am trying to get Is that super smart finisher with the retard mentality, buy I think they are a completely different gene set
I agree, except for the caveat that we don't know exactly which DNA relates to what. In other words, we can't (yet) identify a gameness gene, an ability gene, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionkennels
In the end, a person has to go with his eyes ... and his own personal knowledge of "what he wants" ... and which dogs in his pedigrees carry these traits ... if he is going to successfully make breedings that pass-on the torch he's trying to perpetuate.
Although I have no love for Pat Patrick, I do think his quote to me (back in 1993) was the best I have ever heard ... when I told him of the CompuPed Pedigree program Wildside Kennels started using ... Pat said, "I don't need some fuckin' computer program to tell me that Bolio out-produced every other stud dog I had; all I had to do was start rolling his pups to see that." :idea:
Jack
Sometimes i have the feeling, evolution kennels thinks we do.Quote:
I agree, except for the caveat that we don't know exactly which DNA relates to what. In other words, we can't (yet) identify a gameness gene, an ability gene, etc.
I agree 100%, but I am DNA ing everything I have for the next 10 years, and after enough sampling, I'll be able to take a few stabs at it. It's just that nobody yet has gone through the expense of it. I wouldn't say using DNA blind, that's obsurd, but if I see one has the traits that've want and compared it to the one that doesn't, I'll have an idea. You mark my words, in 10 years, I'll isolate the gameness, ability and smarts, and if I am unlucky, the cur gene... Lmao, maybe I'll get a Nobel Dogman prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Do you believe genetics are malleable? Meaning can environment and other outside factors have an altering effect on the genes?
Of course genetics are malleable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ez Country
Take strength, for example: a dog (or person) has a certain amount of strength "genetically" in its natural, healthy state.
If, however, you take that that dog (or person), and you underfeed it, and then if you subject it to disease and a poor environment, and basically keep it in a general state of malaise/ill health ... then whatever strength that individual had "genetically" will be diminished and whatever "genetic potential" it had will be unrealized.
Take that same dog (or person), and instead feed it optimally, make sure it is in a clean, disease-free environment, and then strength-train train that individual routinely ... then whatever strength that individual had "genetically" will be be enhanced and whatever "genetic potential" it had will be maximized.
Jack
I think this could be part of the reason that identifying gene pairs like gameness, ability, ect. ect. is so difficult. I also think that these traits probably involve more than just one gene pair.
Best of luck with your research evolution, I look forward to hearing about it sometime in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ez Country
Great points.
Really, this is exactly why a good dogman can take a fair dog all the way ... while a lousy dogman will ruin a great dog.
With enough human stupidity, even the best dog that ever lived has no chance ...
Jack
Agreed. All this of course with the added expense of really good Care. Well see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
That is really all we are doing in an intense linebreeding program that is stacked with dogs of our own evaluation and selection, "trying to replicate what we want".Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionkennels
The inbreeding coefficient is not magic, it is only a statistic of how close we are to narrowing our genetic variables. That statistic may or may not hold true. You could have some 75% inbred dogs that still express a lot of variation, or you could have some lesser inbred dogs that are very consistent in type and genetics makeup.
You are exactly right Evolution, the only way to truly know the genetic "sameness" is through DNA profiling. I'm just not sure the cost will ever yield a positive outcome for a breeder in being able to select either brood animals or their offspring based entirely on DNA. For one, gameness is subjective and open to wide intepretation. One man's game dog is another man's cur. How can one interpret something from DNA data that has no absolute? I think coat color, nose color, eye color, scissors bite, and other very concrete traits may be able to be predicted by interpreting genetic markers. But gameness, intellegence, stamina, etc. are very complex traits that cannot be accurately measured without physical testing. I don't think any amount of DNA data will be able to identify those type of traits. At best, they will be able to show that a descendent possesses similar genetic makeup as an ancestor, but that is no guarantee that it will be expressed outwardly in the same manner. Even clones are not identical to their genetic donors.
Please feel free to elaborate and correct me where I am wrong, I'd love to get more insight as to where you are headed with your genetic data compilation.
Has the role of epigenetics taken into account, or to be fair, can be recognised to a certain degree this role? A dog is judged as worth for breeding after a certain age, by which time epigenetics will have participate in this organism's attitude and development.
Would you say that for eg a male will produce different results as breeding material at the age of three compared to the age of nine?
Finally, if cost isn't an issue, and assuming that at a younger age a dog will pass better genetic material, always because of epigenetics, would it be logical for a breeder to store semen from an early age and dispose in the future, or use, according to the dog's achievements?
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ez Country
Yes... that's a very good point... the added expense would be that you have to store the semen earlier on.. the good thingies that if something happens to him, you have semen stored... it's gonna be an expensive experiment, but then again, I've always paid for what I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by tasoschatz
I can't argue with that... there are so many different factors, but we have to start somewhere. My two controls will be the machobuck DNA strand, and the machobear strand.... and we will see what 10 years of experimenting and observation will reveal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFX
Evo I hope you continue to make your findings public for us laymen's !
I commend you for being dedicated enough to go down the untraveled path Evolution!
Thanks fellas