Page 10 of 12

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:52 pm
by larry
Dan Edwards wrote:Scott, great posts. You can buy me a beer next year.

Larry, you remind me of them know it all bitches that dont roach their mules.



:? sorry not a big fan of mules, wouldn't own one. Hey Dan, go pound sand up your ass :wink:

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:16 pm
by Dan Edwards
HAHA! :beer

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:18 pm
by Dads dogboy
Uphilldoc,

Very thoughtful and informative Posts!

Performance is the main factor in determining which Hounds get to reproduce in Dads program as obviously they are all related and from the same program( He has been evaluating an Outcross either Running Walker or some other breed for the past 5 years and has yet to find what he feels is something that he is willing to invest 5 years in proving right or wrong)

A Male has to be past 4 and have earned the Catdog title before being considered as a Stud. With the Females Dad studies their early performance, their sibs performance, any weakness in their structure, and overall Tailline performance before determining which ones to go forward with!

The decision as to which Male to which Female is something that is very hard for Dad to quantify or for him to put into words. There are some subjective things that he sees that boy I sometimes can't.....but thats why I am just the Dogboy!

I sure hope that folkes who are truly interested in this subject will go back and reread "Whites" Chase Magazine article on In/Line Breeding.

Sure wish Folks could stay focused on the topic, with as much consideration for it as you have shown.

Wish some folks would take the jibs to the PM's!

JMO

CJC

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:29 pm
by larry
Dads dogboy wrote:Uphilldoc,

Very thoughtful and informative Posts!

Performance is the main factor in determining which Hounds get to reproduce in Dads program as obviously they are all related and from the same program( He has been evaluating an Outcross either Running Walker or some other breed for the past 5 years and has yet to find what he feels is something that he is willing to invest 5 years in proving right or wrong)

A Male has to be past 4 and have earned the Catdog title before being considered as a Stud. With the Females Dad studies their early performance, their sibs performance, any weakness in their structure, and overall Tailline performance before determining which ones to go forward with!

The decision as to which Male to which Female is something that is very hard for Dad to quantify or for him to put into words. There are some subjective things that he sees that boy I sometimes can't.....but thats why I am just the Dogboy!

I sure hope that folkes who are truly interested in this subject will go back and reread "Whites" Chase Magazine article on In/Line Breeding.

Sure wish Folks could stay focused on the topic, with as much consideration for it as you have shown.

Wish some folks would take the jibs to the PM's!

JMO

CJC



Why doesn't your dad ever say anything for himself? just curious why it always goes through you

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:23 pm
by Majestic Tree Hound
Gezz all this Genetic Stuff isn't New ... Racing Horses For 450 years .. Fox Hounds for almost as long ..
Their are Fox Hound packs that are over 100 years old and are Still Producing..
These old Packs have writen breeding records from the Start .. A Full Out Cross on a Pack took almost 7 years from start to finish.. I just read that some of the Best Outcrosses were to the Best Hurding Shepard they could find, They would breed the Top bitches in the Pack to the Shepard. All pups that did'nt have the Pack looks and Standard were Culled first. The Pup Walkers would Pick the Best out of Pups at Scheduled Cull dates and at these times the Hound Master and the Pup walkers would choose who stays and who goes. Pups that Growled at Feeding time were Culled on the Spot.. Hounds are still pups thru their Second Hunt season and arn't bred till the age of 4 and only then the Very best out of the Outcross are bred back to the Main line with Extra hard Culling from that Pup season .. This Reduces the chance any Throw backs to the Shepard ... 7 years for the Full Outcross Process

How Silly can we be Expecting it to happen in one or two litters ...

What we could learn from those Old Hound Masters

I'am Feeding 50# per Day to my pack and pups right now .. Thats only the start to two main lines and my own outcross line .. And Its real tough Keeping the Lights On !! lol

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:28 pm
by sourdough
Ike wrote:http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1454


Does our genetic make up determine who we become?
Submitted by asavannah on Wed, 11/14/2007 - 12:39am

* Biology 103 Web Paper 2
* biology

Have you ever wondered where you get your physical or behavioral traits from? Well I have and I decided to do more research on this topic which is what this paper would be about. I am going to discuss the difference between nature versus nurture and whether one or the other has a greater impact on the way an individual behaves. This topic also became of interest to me when I decided to focus more on the study of identical twins who have the same genetic make up but not necessarily the same interests.
The idea of nature versus nurture has been puzzling to scientists for a very long time. “Nature” the idea that was viewed by most people in the beginning of the twentieth century, states that a person’s behavior comes from their genetic traits and that the environment has absolutely no affect on their life. “Nurture” on the other hand is the idea that a person will develop their behavior from outside environmental factors and not necessarily from genetics.
The study of nature versus nurture is usually tested on identical twins. Identical twins are also called monozygotic twins; which means that they derived from the fertilization of one egg by a single sperm which then created a zygote that was split into two embryos. These two embryos now share the same genetic material. It is important to know that just because the monozygotic twins have the same genetic make up, that one should not automatically assume they are exactly the same when it comes to their personality.
For example, in my immediate family, we have a set of 5-year-old identical twin boys, who look very much alike with minor differences and have totally different personalities; one being very outgoing, talkative, and active, while the other is more timid, quiet, and reserved. They also have different physical traits for example one is taller than the other. From observing my nephews I noticed that some of similarities they have are their physical features; they are both also very inquisitive and have a zeal for learning.
I believe that their differences come from their environment. Even though they live in the same household they have been placed into separate classes at school which means they are learning different material in different ways. Many schools actually encourage that twins be placed in separate classrooms so that they can form their own identities. They also have very different interests; one is very interested in dinosaurs while the other enjoys learning about the solar system. While they are still pretty interested in what the other likes, they will both return back to their original interest.
For the nature versus nurture test for the identical twins that do not live in the same household because they were probably split at birth may have a great difference in personality. If one twin was reared in a household that eats meat products, follows a certain type of religion, and is involved in numerous amounts of school activities; this child would have different views of life compared to the other twin, who may be a vegan, may follow some other religion, and does not take part in school activities. This example proves that the environment in which a person lives has a great impact on their personality.
This study of a set of identical twins that were separated during birth or raised in different households has not always had the same results. Sometimes they find that the set of twins indeed have similar personalities, occupations, interests, and mannerisms even thought they were brought up separately. This study goes on to prove that genetics does still play a significant role in the traits that are possessed by a particular individual.
The idea of certain genes being switched on or off due to particular environmental influences is called epigenetic modification. This means that monozygotic twins who share the same DNA can possibly be very similar or different due to the impact their environment has on their lives.
A study that was conducted with twins ranging from ages of 3 to 74 showed that the youngest twins have fewer epigenetic differences. This could be due to the fact that the children do not have much life experience and that they possibly follow what the other twin does. The test also proved identical twins that increased in age had a greater epigenetic difference; this is due to the different exposure each receives to a variety of things in life. The study also showed that twins who were raised separately had the greatest difference. But with age they also found that characteristics such as IQ became more alike as twins got older which then again proves that genetics still has a lot of influence.
From the research I did on this topic I found that neither nature nor nurture has more influence over the other but instead they work together. As we can see from the studies done on this topic, identical twins who share the same genetic make up are not exactly the same or totally different. They may share some traits and not others and now we know that we cannot completely rule out the idea of genetics or environmental influences because they are both equally important to our physical and behavioral traits.



After reading this, it struck me :idea:


Ike, must know something, I am starting to think that there might be a couple of twins on here.

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:21 pm
by sheimer
This is copied from Wikipedia:

Genes and inheritance
Genes are inherited as units, with parents dividing out their genes to their offspring. You can think of this process like mixing two hands of cards, shuffling them, and then dealing them out again. Humans have two copies of each of their genes (i.e, two alleles ) and when people reproduce they make copies of their genes in eggs or sperm, but only put in one copy of each type of gene. An egg then joins with a sperm to give a child with a new set of genes. This child will have the same number of genes as its parents but for any gene one of their two copies will come from the father, and one from the mother.[1]

The effects of this mixing depends on the types (the alleles) of the gene you are interested in. If the father has two alleles specifying green eyes, and the mother has two alleles specifying brown eyes, all their children will get two alleles giving different instructions, one for green eyes and one for brown. The eye color of these children depends on how these alleles work together. If one allele overrides the instructions from another, it is called the dominant allele, and the allele that is overridden is called the recessive allele. In the case of a daughter with both green and brown alleles, brown is dominant and she ends up with brown eyes.[2]


Green eyes are a recessive trait.However, the green eye color allele is still there in this brown-eyed girl, it just doesn't show. This is a difference between what you see on the surface (the set of observable traits of an organism, also called its phenotype) and which genes are in this organism (its genotype). In this example you can call the brown allele "B" and the green allele "g". (It is normal to write dominant alleles with capital letters and recessive ones with lower-case letters.) The brown-eyed daughter has the "brown eye phenotype" but her genotype is Bg, with one copy of the B allele, and one of the g allele.

Now imagine that this woman grows up and has children with a brown-eyed man who also has a Bg genotype. Her eggs will be a mixture of two types, one sort containing the B allele, and one sort the g allele. Similarly, her partner will produce a mix of two types of sperm containing one or the other of the two alleles. Now, when the alleles are mixed up in the offspring, these children have a chance of getting either brown or green eyes, since they could get a genotype of BB = brown eyes, Bg = brown eyes or gg = green eyes. In this generation, there is therefore a chance of the recessive allele showing itself in the phenotype of the children - some of them may have green eyes like their grandfather.[2]

Many traits are inherited in a more complicated way than the example above. This can happen when there are several genes involved, each contributing a small part to the end result. Tall people tend to have tall children because their children get a package of many alleles that each contribute a bit to how much they grow. However, there are not clear groups of "short people" and "tall people", like there are groups of people with brown or green eyes. This is because of the large number of genes involved; this makes the trait very variable and people are many different heights.[3] Inheritance can also be complicated when the trait depends on the interaction between genetics and the environment. This is quite common, for example, if a child does not eat enough nutritious food this will not change traits like eye color, but it could stunt their growth.[4


This is what I was trying to explain in my post about some traits being easier to breed for as opposed to others.

Scott

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:47 am
by 4 corners
This is good stuff. I need a good pup any for sale yet ? :D

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:09 am
by Ike
There is surely somebody out there mixing up a batch of that special brew that everybody wants and nobody else has! :roll:

ike :beer

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:58 am
by UphillDoc
Dads dogboy-Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed your posts as well, and will certainly look into the additional reading you mentioned. From what I read so far, your father is going about it the right way, IMO.

Take care.

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:21 pm
by sourdough
UphillDoc wrote:Succesful breeding is based on proper selection. If you want superior performance animals, that selection must be based on their performance. Genetics is a tricky thing, mostly in that it fools so many people into thinking they can achieve goals by following a set pattern. If you dont select the proper performing animals the science wont mean much in the end, in fact it may set you back farther/faster than if you had just bred two random animals together. On the other hand, breeding with no direction is almost as foolish, and rarely gets folks where they want to go.
How many of the old time breeders had even a basic knowledge of genetics? Most probably had no idea what an outcross vs inbreeding even was, BUT you can almost bet that those that were able to maintain a solid family were inbreeding, BUT not because it was inbreeding, (as so many do today), but rather because the animals that fit their criteria performed in a way that they wanted, and just happened to be related. Too many folks think they are the next genetic whiz kid, and spout their theories as if its a certainty they will work... :shock: If it was as easy as put A to B then back to A etc...we would all have superior animals. Too many hunters have a good dog that they have no idea of its genetics. They breed it to their friends best dog and are shocked when the pups are not as good as either one.
Sometimes folks get lucky inspite of how they breed, rather than because of how they breed. Some folks never own a cull, because they wouldnt recognise one if it was biting them. Some folks are never happy with what they have, because they dont really even know what they want. Sometimes when folks change the subject and go to name calling its because they have already said all they know about subject and cant stand to not be in the conversation. Some folks believe the first thing they ever heard on a subject, and will recite it over and over without ever questioning what they were first told.
Every man has something to teach you...it may be what to do, it may be what not to do, figuring it out is the hard part... :wink:

Take care.



Good post, Uphilldoc


I think people get hung up on the word genetics. Genetics means the origin of something, and genome is a totally different subject. If a person used the word origin (i.e.pedigree) in place of the word genetics it may be easier to understand.

I agree that a person has to breed the best performing animal to the best performing animal in respect to their known origin. I have seen folks breed their best to best, of unknown origin and end up with nothing but lost time, and a broken hearts.

Now, the old timers may not have had an idea of genetics but they did have a pretty good idea of what worked, based on the performance of their hounds. Heck, let's face it, their lives depended on it! And so did the lives of their hounds! The old timers didn't know the term weekend warrior.

Too many times people get hounds from a particular line, based on someone else' success and then use them for something they were never bred for, or handle them too roughly because they think their hounds are not smart or easy to control. When it does not work out, they bad mouth the line or the breeder. I am not saying that a coondog from back east can't make a fine big game hound nor am I saying that all hound guys are heavy handed, that is another debate.

There has been a ton of information posted on this subject, some very good, and some not so good. In my opinion there should always be a purpose for any breeding and money should never be the main reason. Many guys see the green backs someone else is getting and try to capitalize off it without regard to hounds or the sport. There has been way to many crosses of unproven hounds and I don't think that there is any line of coon/big game hound or Cur not to leave any one out that hasn't suffered from it.

With the respects to out crosses, many of the old timers crossed running dogs onto old wrinkles to give them much needed speed when lions were jumped in the bluffs and/or rough country, but they didn't breed haphazardly. They chose hounds from lines that had proven backgrounds and developed the style of hound they needed. I know of cow men that have put pitbull into their line of border collie to make them rougher. Again, these men didn't breed them without a purpose. They had a goal in mind and were not satisfied with average.

Thanks, sourdough

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:50 pm
by Dads dogboy
Sourdough,

Very Good Post!

Lots of thought and expierence behind it.

I answered Larry in a PM concerning why I type Dads thoughts and responses on here. For those who have not read our earlier posts, Dad is 80 years young, fighting Prostate Cancer, can not see very well, and could not turn a Computer on if his life depended on it.

We sure enjoy Topics, Discussions, & Conectivity that this forum has brought to us! Dad says that he is learning all the time with his Hounds being the best teachers.

Good Running to All!

C. John Clay
Dads Dogboy

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 pm
by Ike
Thanks for sharing with us John, and tell your father ol' Ike said hi! :wink:

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:23 am
by sourdough
Mr. C. John Clay,

I will reiterate what Mr. Ike said, "Thanks for sharing with us..." I am sorry to hear about your dad's ailment.

Thanks for the kind words.

sourdough

Re: breeding with genetics in mind

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:38 am
by 4 corners
Wow!! you nailed it there sourdough good post.