Bates' Susie (Bolio's granddam)
Yes or no ... no comments; just vote.
We'll keep it anonymous.
Let's see how many people here know how to read a pedigree :-?
Jack
Printable View
Bates' Susie (Bolio's granddam)
Yes or no ... no comments; just vote.
We'll keep it anonymous.
Let's see how many people here know how to read a pedigree :-?
Jack
Only 6 votes so far ... surely everyone isn't that timid :-SS
It's anonymous, so just vote :twisted:
:appl:
Okay, 76% of you got it right, Bates' Susie is an inbred (nephew/aunt) breeding.
His sire, Carver's Lasso, was off of Dibo bred to his granddaughter, Black Widow ... and Lasso was then bred to his aunt (Black Widow's sister) Carver's Judy.
Those people who voted "no" need to slow down and take a look at the relationships a bit more closely.
I have heard it said, "The old time breeders didn't inbreed that much," and the people who say that simply don't know how to read pedigrees either.
Any thoughts? Comments?
Jack
Good topic... I think most folks look at the more obvious father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister breedings as typical of inbreeding.
Alot of folks draw lines in the sand over inbreeding vs line breeding. I can see how You'd draw the line at the nuclear family to classify it as inbreeding. Some draw it deeper into the extended family.
I think to determine what it is the flow of the breedings behind those dogs should be taken into account. I wouldn't call an aunt to nephew breeding within a scatterbred pool of dogs inbreeding. You'd still be lining things out. What are you really tightening up on in such a scenario?
The bates' Susie dog was lined out a bit, then it was brought back together to culminate in her being produced i.I believe the formula behind her of line breeding lent to her being inbred more so than just it being an aunt nephew. We do tons of 1st n 2nd cousin and aunt uncle and nice nephew and great uncle breedings etc...we never really consider it inbreeding unless its from the nuclear family. All the dogs on the yard are at least 2nd cousins anyway.
Question?
Wright's coefficient on pedigree is 28.125%
You state the following?
----
Like any tool, the Wright’s Inbreeding Coefficient has very good practical use, but it should not be misused or misunderstood. Two dogs out of the same litter may share the same theoretical WIC “on paper” ... but IN THE REAL WORLD one dog may happen to carry with it a substantially-greater “pull” from one side of its pedigree than its littermate brother or sister. For instance, Laguna Sunrise and Jezebel were littermates out of the same litter of Poncho to Screamer. Therefore, “on paper” these two sisters have “an identical” WIC. However, the physical reality is Laguna Sunrise carries a much greater “Hollingsworth” (or even Red Baby) GENETIC PULL AND EXPRESSION than did her sister Jezebel, who carried a much stronger “Poncho” pull in her actual physical expression and characteristics. So, again, use the Wright’s Inbreeding Coefficient as a tool, but do not be blinded by this tool; use your eyes in conjunction with it.
In closing, as a general rule, a coefficient of 10% (or less) is a scatter-bred dog (or possibly a 100% straight outcross), where there is little relatedness in common amongst the entirety of BOTH parents’ ancestries. A 10%-20% WIC is a somewhat linebred dog. Coefficients of 20%-35% are getting into some solid linebreeding in the genetic background, and anything with over a 35% WIC. is an intensely inbred/linebred animal.
---
Just a question. I would read it as inbred or intensely line bred. But how do you reconcile it with the coefficient.
---
I did read the whole article. I am however asking about a specific reasoning in this case
Inbreeding =
Brother/Sister
Father/Daughter
Mother/Son
Aunt/Nephew
Uncle/Niece
Cousin/Cousin
This is an Aunt/Nephew breeding (breeding a dog to his mother's sister), and it absolutely is an inbreeding.
If Lasso was bred back to his mother, Black Widow, everyone on earth would agree (and see) it's an inbred dog ... but Carver bred him to his mother's sister, and normally 3/4 of the people "can't see it" ...
At least here, 3/4 of the people did see it ... Judy = Black Widow's sister 8)
Jack
So Jack..... A half brother sister breeding isn't inbreeding?
Yes, forgot that one.
Try looking again at 10-generations ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanDogMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanDogMan
I would first look at ANY pedigree 10+ generations-deep, minimum, before discussing what the coefficient is :idea:
Then I would answer you a 42+% inbred dog is highly-inbred, as the article states.
And you got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanDogMan
Your mistake was looking at a 4-generation pedigree to discuss "depth" ...
Typically, a WIC search spans 10-15 generations in order to have any meaning :)
Jack
Thanks Jack duly notedQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
It only took one click to see it with the 10 generation
I beg to differ. I dont think 22% is inbred at all. I'd say line bred for sure. MY OPINION
http://www.machobuck.com/Bates'%20Susie.htm
By: Carver's Lasso
Ex: Carver's Judy
Inbreeding Coefficient: 22.0524% based on 19 generations.
171 different animals found in 19 generations.
Data is unavailable on 1046686 ancestors in all 19 generations,
therefore ancestry is -1% known.
* - Missing one or both parent names
50.000% Carver's Judy
( Dam's Side: 1 g1 )
50.000% Carver's Lasso
( Sire's Side: 1 g1 )
43.750% Ch. Tudor's Dibo ROM
( Sire's Side: 1 g2, 1 g4 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g3 )
37.500% Hanson's Amber Girl
( Sire's Side: 1 g3 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g2 )
37.500% Cannon's Black Shine
( Sire's Side: 1 g3 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g2 )
25.000% Carver's Black Widow ROM
( Sire's Side: 1 g2 )
21.875% Heinzel's Bambi
( Sire's Side: 1 g3, 1 g5 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g4 )
21.875% Hubbard's Bounce
( Sire's Side: 1 g3, 1 g5 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g4 )
18.750% William's Bucky Mack
( Sire's Side: 1 g4 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g3 )
18.750% William's Sarge
( Sire's Side: 1 g4 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g3 )
18.750% William's Shine
( Sire's Side: 1 g4 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g3 )
16.406% Hubbard's Gimp
( Sire's Side: 1 g4, 3 g6, 2 g8 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g5, 2 g7 )
13.770% William's Cyclone
( Sire's Side: 3 g7, 4 g8, 3 g9, 1 g10 )
( Dam's Side: 3 g6, 4 g7, 3 g8, 1 g9 )
13.672% Hubbard's Lena
( Sire's Side: 1 g4, 2 g6, 1 g8 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g5, 1 g7 )
11.279% Tudor's Duce
( Sire's Side: 1 g7, 4 g8, 5 g9, 4 g10, 1 g11 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g6, 4 g7, 5 g8, 4 g9, 1 g10 )
10.938% Ritcheson's Spike
( Sire's Side: 1 g4, 1 g6 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g5 )
10.938% Ritcheson's Spotty
( Sire's Side: 1 g4, 1 g6 )
( Dam's Side: 1 g5 )
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionkennels
Wow, that's an eye sore with all that bold, big text :-O
If you don't believe that a son of Black Widow bred back to Black Widow's sister is an inbreeding, then we will just have to disagree.
FYI, it is really not even a matter of debate that breeding an aunt to a nephew is an inbreeding. It simply is.
Now, whether or not it's a "severe" inbreeding is a matter of opinion (I don't think it's too heavy of an inbreeding myself).
But, regardless of whether whatever you calculated it on is right at 22%, or whether our 42% calculation is correct, this is immaterial to the fact that an aunt/nephew breeding is an inbreeding.
Jack
What other evidence do you have to that fact since the coefficient is immaterial?
I always preface these posts with "I am not a breeder", so with that said, for me breeding is far more art than science. I like pedigrees as much as the next guy, I always take a glance at the coefficient as well, but I have always wondered if there is any real connection between a higher coefficient and a higher percentage of success. EWO
Sorry about the large caps. I think it has enough outs. Also.. I saw two or 3 different peds for some of the dogs as I was researching 7 and 8 generation. Although the further away the less significance. Victor at Southern kennels was always certain that uncle to niece or vise versa was the best way to linebreedQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I never said the coefficient is immaterial. The coefficient determines HOW inbred a dog is, not "yes or no" if it's inbred.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
However, the coefficient is somewhat theoretical, for the reasons already stated as clearly as can be stated in this article. One's comprehension, however, is another matter.
The only other "evidence" I have are the very definitions of inbreeding.
Marrying someone unrelated to you is not inbreeding.
Marrying someone related to you, depending on how close, can be inbreeding.
I have already stated the direct kinds of inbreeding there are, so if you have trouble "getting" this, then I can't help you any further.
If you have trouble seeing that Lasso was bred to his aunt, then I can't help you any further here either.
Tell you what, if you have trouble understanding what I have already put here, then just go announce that you are marrying your aunt and get back to me with the results.
Jack
Nephew/aunt is how Hardcore produced his first, and only, Grand Champion, Nine Milli.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionkennels
And when RTK bred Mayday's aunt Polly to Mayday, that inbreeding produced Gr Ch Haunch and Ch May May.
.
IMO, breeding is both art and science.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
SCIENCE: You have to know what you're looking at in a pedigree. You have to know the best breeding patterns to reliably and consistently "get what you want" from your dogs.
ART: You have to get a feel for your dogs. You have to have a good eye and select the right dogs to put into the breeding patterns.
Regarding the Wright's Inbreeding Coefficient, I personally don't think a higher coefficient necessarily means anything at all.
This thread is getting sidetracked on the WIC, rather than just the ability to "see" the relatedness in a pedigree.
I.e., most people can clearly see a mother/son inbreeding, because the mama's name is the same, but they're blind to a nephew/aunt inbreeding because the bitch name changes (even though the mama and aunt have the same pedigree).
In other words, if Lasso was bred back to his mama, Black Widow, everyone could see this and agree it's an inbreeding;
But when Lasso is bred back to Black Widow's sister, not as many people can see this is still an inbreeding, yet Black Widow/Judy have the same pedigree.
Jack
:appl::appl::appl::appl:Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I think this was a bit of a tricky question, I saw right away the related pedigree, even before looking further than the 4 gens. But, I would lean more toward calling this a line breeding. Even though it essentially is an inbreeding. I did answer the question correctly btw.
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Butcher boy very closely resembles bolio..
After I answered this, I thought I'd do a quick search of ADBA's website, being that they are the #1 registry for bulldogs. And see where they stood, being that breeding is what makes up the largest part of their business.
Here is their stance:
STYLES OF BREEDING:
Inbreeding: Inbreeding is usually defined as the mating of closely related individuals. Some references include half brother to half sister mating as well as brother to sister, father to daughter, mother to son, grandsire to granddaughter and granddam to grandson breedings as examples of inbreeding. Other references define 'closely related' as brother to sister or closer. Another way I like to think of inbreeding is mating the individual dog to a dog that is IN the dog's pedigree. Regardless of how you define it, the goal of inbreeding is to fix and preserve the traits that the breeder is looking for by increasing homozygosity in the dog's genetic pool. You can calculate the inbreeding coefficient, or the probability of the genes being homozygous by looking at the number of times that a certain dog is present in the dog's pedigree. In every generation, each parent transmits only one half of his or her genes, and each subsequent generation again reduces the genes from an individual in half: in other words, 50 percent in the first generation, 25 percent in the second generation and 12.5 percent in the third. When the same ancestor appears in the pedigree of both the sire and dam, it increases the probability that the same genes will be present in the offspring and that they will be homozygous.
From breed to breed and bloodline to bloodline the popularity of inbreeding can vary. The more sound the bloodline (void of structural faults and health problems) the more successful inbreeding will be. This is because, inbreeding leads to random fixation of traits, increases homozygosity of the genes and for some genes, can cause inbreeding depression. Some genes causing detrimental health effects are only expressed in the homozygous state. They remain hidden (recessive) until as a consequence of inbreeding the genes are made homozygous. You then see the trait expressed in the offspring. One example of this is the gene causing juvenile cataracts in the Boston Terrier. When mating two dogs that are heterozygous or carriers for the gene together the probability is 25% of the bad genes becoming homozygous and causing blindness in the affected offspring. In the heterozygous or carrier state, the dogs are unaffected and will have good vision. A breeder could be totally unaware of a dog being a carrier for this gene unless a thorough pedigree analysis was done for this trait, or when the dog produces an affected pup.
Within a breed, it is not uncommon to see a breeder use half brother to half sister breedings with great success for about four generations, and then run into a brick wall where they find that a bad trait that was occasionally seen is now being expressed 100% of the time in the offspring. This is because of the fixing of the trait within the family because of the resulting homozygosity of the genes.
Knowledgeable dog breeders can use inbreeding as an effective tool to achieve specific goals and to enhance desired traits, if they are carefully alert for developing problems. Many novice breeders feel that inbreeding is the only way to develop their own strain or bloodline. In the wrong hands inbreeding can be dangerous. If the novice starts with a fair or poor quality dog then begins to inbreed to one of the close relatives they are likely to run into trouble. If one plans to use inbreeding in their breeding program, the breeder must have high quality, sound brood stock and a knowledge of what was behind them.
Before deciding to use inbreeding in your breeding plan there are some questions that a breeder might consider: How inbred is the brood bitch or stud dog itself? Are there any recessive hereditary disorders known in your stud dog or brood bitch's bloodline? What breed faults might you be concentrating or passing on to the resulting offspring? What are the positive effects that you are hoping to achieve by inbreeding?
Careful inbreeding is often of great value to a breeder. It is most successful when the highest quality dogs are used as brood stock, the breeder has a thorough knowledge of the dog's pedigree and intends to fix within the bloodline specific desirable traits.
Linebreeding: This term is often used to denote breeding among related individuals or dogs from the same family or bloodline. Examples would be mating between first or second cousins, uncle to niece, aunt to nephew, and in some references half brother to half sister is also listed as an example of linebreeding. Linebreeding is the breeding style that is a compromise between inbreeding and outcross breeding. Breeders use line breeding to preserve the traits of a family of dogs while at the same time retaining the variability in the gene pool. Variability is good as it counteracts the potential detrimental effects of doubling up on bad genes that is sometimes seen as a consequence of inbreeding. Line breeding is a slower and less direct way to fix desirable traits in a bloodline, but does offer more options and fewer risks than inbreeding. Diligent selection of quality brood stock from bloodlines known for their soundness and breed type is also very important when a breeder is choosing to do linebreeding.
Outcross breeding: The definition of outcross breeding is the mating of purebred dogs within the same breed that are relatively unrelated. The style of breeding increases heterozygosity and creates new genetic combinations by bringing together genes from totally unrelated individuals. There are two primary reasons that a knowledgeable breeder will choose to make an outcross breeding. The first is to introduce into their family of dogs a trait that is absent or lacking, and secondly to dilute undesirable traits that are caused by homozygous recessive genes. Outcross breeding is essential when a breeding program begins to show signs of inbreeding depression such as loss of vigor, disease resistance and infertility. Many times breeders will have two basic inbred or linebred families of dogs or bloodlines within their kennel and will do outcross breeding between these two lines. The result will be dogs that are 'better' than the two original lines. Breeders speak of this as a 'nick'. Geneticists speak of this as 'hybrid vigor'. No matter what you want to call it, this type of breeding will many times produce animals that are better than each of the original lines. Many times these dogs produced from outcross breeding have gone on to become athletic top performance animals. We have seen many famous 'nicks' within our breed, none more notable than the Tudor/ Colby breeding of Howard Heinzl and the Boudreaux/ Carver breeding of the Honeybunch line. Both of these bloodlines have produced many outstanding individuals as well as becoming the foundation of many other quality bloodlines today.
Many times using these talented performance dogs that are the product of outcross breeding as brood stock will result in a disappointment for the breeder, as the dogs will tend to produce the norm of their respective bloodlines. Many an old time breeder has been heard to say, "don't breed to the top performance dog of the day, breed to his parents". On the downside, many breeders frown on the use of outcross breeding as it does introduce unknown and sometimes undesirable traits into the bloodline. Also with an outcross mating of dogs that are already the product of outcross breeding, there is little predictability and uniformity in the traits that one will see in the offspring. Within a litter of pups, you can see good pups, poor quality pups and everything in between. Uniformity and predictability in the quality of the pups produced is the goal and the hallmark of a good breeder.
One of the most effective ways I have seen an outcross breeding used by breeders is to select to breed to an unrelated dog with a sound pedigree that possesses an outstanding quality that is absent or lacking in the breeders bloodline. From the resulting offspring an individual is selected for the trait that the breeder is looking to introduce into his line. That dog is then bred back into the original bloodline (linebred or inbred) fixing the new desirable trait into the original bloodline. One breeder explained the breeding strategy of bringing a quarter outcross into his line to be used as a 'catalyst' for the line. A 'catalyst' in the sense of bringing together all the goodness and quality of his bloodline with an added kick of hybrid vigor.
Grading Up: Breeding the females on hand to a male of better quality is known as grading up. The best females in each generation are then kept and again bred to a top sire from an outstanding bloodline. This is one of the tried and true ways to improve the quality of a cattle herd and other livestock. This is also true of many dog breeders. Many breeders have started with a very average bitch from a good bloodline and have invested their money wisely in breeding to an outstanding champion stud. As their experience increases they have refined their selection process, retaining the best in each generation. Careful selection of the top studs have in many cases produced a foundation of brood stock that have gone on to develop into a quality bloodline. There have also been many examples of breeders going astray and developing bloodlines that have consistently produced average or inferior dogs because of loss of focus into the selection of quality brood stock or chasing after the latest fad in breeding style or individual dogs.
Selection of breeding stock, the pedigree analysis and the styles of breeding are all tools that a breeder can use to develop his bloodline of dogs. High standards, diligent pedigree research and honest evaluation of the dogs the breeder is producing are also essential to guide the breeder to a successful program. What might work for one breeder may or may not work for another. This is why breeding dogs is considered as much as an 'art' as it is a 'science'. In the next issue of the Gazette, I will present a look into some breeding programs of some top breeders as examples to demonstrate the principals that have been outlined in my first two articles.
http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fspid=107
I voted No because I view it as a Linebreeding, but they are Inbred.
In my opinion, hardcore has the best RedboyJocko x rascal dogs for an extended period.
Good Post Sb.
I Believe an inbreeding is breeding dogs in the initial generations makeup. Dam, Sire, Sybs. Aunts n Uncles are a complete generation removed from said makeup. A makeup which goes back to the grand dam and grand sire and the litter they produced, separate influences. I agree its hardcore lining out. I dont think its quite inbreeding.
Interesting, S_B.
I would simply disagree.
The aunt isn't "1 generation removed"; she has the exact same pedigree as the mom.
However, she still isn't the "exact same" dog; she may have subtle differences from the mom.
Will be busy all day, but good post.
Jack
I voted it as inbreeding based on the aunt and mother being littermates with the idea there could be variables. Are they belly mate sisters? or repeat breeding sisters? The pedigree does not tell that. Of the two sisters in question did they both carry the traits of the father? or the mother? an apparent combination of the two?
Even with father to daughter 'inbreeding', what if one daughter is the spitting image of the father carrying the traits and attributes of the sire. The other is the exact replica of the mother, all the traits and attributes that warranted her being bred.
On paper both are inbred but in reality one is and one is more of a repeat of the breeding that made her. For me, and not being a breeder, I would say art plays a far greater role in successful breeding than science and/or reading a pedigree without knowledge of the dogs behind the dogs being bred.
The subject dog is inbred on paper to me, but without having knowledge of the dogs it is 'paper inbreeding'. Paper breeding (even with the best intentions) will not stand the test of time without 'knowing' the dogs involved. Knowing and applying is the art. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
It's all science, the "art" part is just being better at the science than others. If the money and technology was more inept to determine which genes a dog has and where it came from we would have no use for the art or people that thoroughly know their dogs. You could just map the dogs genes and compare to both parents. Of course it would be really tricky to know which genes were responsible for each function and that's why we aren't there yet. But it's all science though.
I will disagree. The fact we are not there, and breeders get there anyway, is an art. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
I totally disagree too ...
There are "educated geneticists" who have never bred a winner and couldn't maintain a bloodline to save their lives ... and there are uneducated dogmen (Carver, Hollingsworth, etc.) who are able to "just know" which breedings to make to produce good dogs.
To underscore the point, I remember the article Gary Hammonds wrote ... where he was talking with Maurice Carver, and asked him WHY he made X breeding ... Hammonds sat there (pen-in-hand) ready to take notes on the great wisdom behind Carver's decisions ... when Carver said, "Well hell, son, I'll tell ya--I just thought it would be good."
Jack
.
I well known cattle breeder that wrote a book on linebreeding said if the percentage of one parent is 50% or less it’s linebreeding. He hates inbreeding father, daughter, mother son etc. for 140 years has maintained a line bred off one bull. Through rigid selection. He hates inbreeding and that one bull maintains a relationship of a grandfather through his herd. I would inbreed off a spectacular individual to try to solidify and magnify the trait. Immediately I would cross to a related family. I prob digress. He would say that was solid linebreeding because the percentage is less than 50%