Inbred or Not?

[EWO]

I will disagree. The fact we are not there, and breeders get there anyway, is an art. EWO

[Officially Retired]

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 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


.

[Frank43]

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%