Inbred or Not?

[Officially Retired]

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

[EWO]

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

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