BigGameHoundsmen.com

Part 2

OUTCROSSING, PART OF PLANNED BREEDING
There have been many, and far better, articles than I can write about the matter of outcrossing -- including if, when, and how to do it. One such appeared only last year in DOG WORLD by the famous geneticist Dr. E. Fitch Daglish. Anything that I or anybody else, might write would have to be repetitious, so well did he cover the subject.
Pointing this out to our editor, he explained that there were probably many who did not read it, that there were new subscribers who had not had the opportunity, and, “Besides, it and the other subjects you have been covering can’t be repeated too many times.” If all this be true, I need then only apologize for singing the same song again to those who are excepted from the above categories.
Outcrossing is, of course, a concomitant of “planned breeding” and therefore MUST be considered when offering any effectual treatise on that subject.
Previous installments have dealt in the main with the use of inbreeding and linebreeding to establish a strain within a breed of dogs. It remains now to cover the matter of how often it is advisable to introduce an outcross and, when and if such an outcross is made, where one goes from there.
I would like to interject here my observation of something which continually amazes me, and it has to do particularly with our present-day German Shepherd Dog breeders. Practically none of them have evolved a “plan” of ANY sort. There is presently a heterogeneous crop of imported males available and they are being used as breeders by hundreds of fanciers who have NO knowledge of those dogs’ ancestors. Neither have they the least knowledge of the producing abilities of these studs themselves, in most instances. I have asked dozens of these breeders (they cannot rightly be designated as “fanciers”), “Where do you plan to go from there?” and I cannot remember a single instance when any one of them could tell me of a breeding plan he had for the future.
We are about to discuss outcrossing and, as above outlined, “how of the,” “when,” and “if” to do it. This will mean absolutely nothing, whatever I may write, to such hit-or-miss breeders who are not only starting with outcross-bred animals, but must almost of necessity CONTINUE that process unless they immediately find some way to breed back on the sire’s side (of the inadvisable when his forebears are considered, or impossible from the standpoint of availability), or start inbreeding on the best dogs of the dam’s side. But when asked, “What are you going to do next?” as stated above, the usual reply is, “I haven’t gotten that far,” or “I haven’t thought of that.”
Using the vernacular, I will state unequivocally that “nobody but nobody” amongst them is going to do constructive animal breeding or produce a satisfactory percentage of top specimens, and most certainly they WILL NOT build a strain within the breed. This having been proved to be true innumerable times by geneticists and all successful animal breeders, regardless of variety, what follows can be of value or interest to those now doing such outcross breeding only for one reason: to demonstrate why they are not getting the desired results.
OUTCROSS ONLY FOR DEFINITE PURPOSE
Those doing planned breeding based upon inbreeding and linebreeding should outcross only for a definite purpose. Where the misconception started that it is not safe to inbreed more than three generations without an outcross nobody seems to know, but is not necessarily valid. To my own misfortune I myself believed this fallacy at one time, and reaped the consequences.
Every experienced breeder knows that, perhaps more often than not, the offspring of a first-generation outcross of two excellent animals show many of the good points of their parents. That is why, when so many of those first generation puppies from outcross matings are doing well in the show ring, their breeders, and others who have noted this, rush to make similar breedings. They will undoubtedly learn, as I did, that the youngsters of succeeding generations of outcross breeding will be a heterogeneous lot, showing an absolute lack of uniformity. This will not only prevent those breeders from developing and holding a proper type, but will help to make their breed one of even further differing types in size and proportion.
Such breeders then, do a disservice to their breed and are mainly responsible for the great differentiation within it. They also are the cause of many judges’ bewilderment. One often hears puzzled judges ask, in judging German Shepherd Dogs, for instance, “What DO you WANT, anyhow, those big and square ones, the small long ones, those angulated as your Standard calls for, or those built about like Collies?”
Breeders who believe that an outcross should be made at some definite time as, for instance, the previously mentioned third generation, are, as another writer has put it, giving credence to one of those “old wives’ tales” to which some dog breeders seem to be particularly addicted.
WHEN SHOULD OUTCROSS BE MADE?
In answering this question, I can give no better advice than that advanced by Dr. Daglish: “To ask when an outcross should be made in a certain number of generations is like asking on which days of the week one should carry and umbrella.” It seems to be a popular belief that bringing in new blood every once in awhile, or even with every breeding, must be beneficial after linebreeding and inbreeding have been practiced for a few generations, but it is absolutely the opposite of truth if my several time repeated tenet, “Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built,” has been followed during the period of closed-up breeding.
If my readers have obtained a correct understanding of the earlier installments of these articles, they will know that inbreeding and linebreeding make for the elimination of recessive factors which produce faults, and bring about purification within their strain. This close breeding upon the blood of one or more superior specimens has quite rapidly done away with the influence of the more faulty ancestors, and caused a definite type to be established. Because, at least after the first generation of an outcross mating, a breeder will LOSE THE TYPE HE HAS WORKED TO OBTAIN through linebreeding and inbreeding (unless he then breeds back into his established line), an outcross should be made only FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE -- to correct a fault or faults which may have shown up in his inbred strain. More will be written about this later. To be successful as a breeder, one must seek to produce animals which are genetically pure for all those dominant qualities which are demanded by the breed’s Standard of perfection. The nearer he approaches that ideal, the more uniform -- similar in type -- will be the dog he produces. When a breeder of any variety of dogs uses the more distantly related animals in his matings, he can expect less uniformity in the offspring. So, as previously stated, if completed outcrosses are used at all, they should be made for a definite reason and not with the belief that the purpose of the matings will be fulfilled in one generation. To cover fully the reasons for this statement and prove its worth would entail the writing of a full-length installment in this series, as well as the use and explanation of many terms which might be confusing to novices in the breeding art.
To supply some backing for what I have written however, other than my own statement of fact, which is based upon both study and experience, I quote Onstott: “Any virtues which may be added to a strain through outcrossing … cannot be looked upon as inherent in that strain UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN PURIFIED AND FIXED WITHIN THAT STRAIN THROUGH INBREEDING. Outcrossing is only to be employed as a means to an end and as a preliminary to the FIXATION of its good results, if any, through inbreeding.”
STRAINS AND REAL STRAINS
To those who have become readers of DOG WORLD since this series started, I might explain that in speaking of a “strain” I mean as someone has put it, a variety within a variety” of animals.
One family with many breeds of dogs is struck by the fact that few breeds have many real strains within them. Uninformed breeders speak of “my strain” or “his strain” when all that any of them have is a kennel of dogs possessing hit-or-miss pedigrees with a hodgepodge of ancestors, perhaps including “Champions” in their pedigrees, which, of course, indicates to the cognoscente that the advertiser is a rank and uninformed novice of the first order. In conversations, these people usually speak of their “strains” when, as stated above, all they have is a mixture of several strains, or perhaps one of “just dogs” with no rhyme or reason for any of them having been mated together.
However, where there ARE real strains within any breed, one seldom finds them unmixed with the blood of other so-called strains, because most breeders start their strain with the same ancestor, or ancestors. This is done because those mutual ancestors were considered to be great dogs of their time, as they probably were, or else a breeder knowledgeable and serious-minded enough to start building a strain would not have chosen them. WHEN such superior specimens have in mutuality been selected by the founders of different strains within a breed, the so-called out-crossing between their strains is less hazardous than would be the using of animals with either no, or very distant, relationship.
I shall continue this important subject of outcrossing in the next installment and try to explain how best to do it, when it is considered advisable.
PART V
In the preceding installment, I stated that there are few real strains within any of the various breeds of dogs in this country. I defined a strain as being a “variety within a variety” having a distinct type, the members of which are recognizable as being of that family.
It was also explained that, where there are strains, one seldom finds them unmixed with the blood of other so-called strains since most breeders started their strains with the same ancestor or ancestors, this because that dog or dogs were great ones of their time and recognized generally as being so. When outcrosses are made between two such strains, there is not as great risk as thought. There were not common ancestors reasonably close up in both pedigrees.
Before going further into the subject of outcrossing, I feel it should be repeated the NO complete outbreeding should be done unless some fault or faults have shown up in an established strain. If even through careful selection during the building of his strain, a breeder finds he has some shortcomings he cannot eliminate or improve without using outside blood, then it is time to outcross. This may well be one of the most critical periods in his breeding career.
It is not the experienced and informed breeders who constantly practice outcrossing but rather the novices and uninformed who hope, through outcrossing, to retain all of the virtues, while they eliminate the faults, in the first generation resulting from an outcross. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that, for outcrossing BRINGS UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS TOO. Faults brought in through outcrossing can be eliminated by linebreeding of the progeny resulting from an outcross.
TO GET DESIRED CHARACTERISTIC WHEN OUTCROSSING
In reaching out, through outcross blood, to obtain some wanted characteristic not present in his strain, or to correct a fault he has not been able to eliminate from it through closed-up breeding, a breeder should make the outcross as partial as possible. In other words, he should obtain the desired correction or improvement through using a stud possessing the needed trait, and who is also, if possible, related to his own strain -- the more closely related the better. Through this procedure he may save himself from the necessity of generations of breeding to regain the virtues already in his strain as well as hold those he obtained by outcrossing. This is true because outcrossing is quite as likely to destroy the good traits already possessed as to add others which are missing and desired.
Perhaps at another time I will explain the basis of this principle by going into the matter of genes and chromosomes and how they combine. For the present, however, as I have stated previously, I am making these articles as easily understandable as possible to the novice breeder. To do so, I must at times make statements of fact known to every geneticist and student of animal breeding, without explaining scientifically the proof supporting them.
So important is the matter of what to do after making an outcross, I think it should be repeated that any bad results from outcrossing can be eliminated only through continued inbreeding or linebreeding, and careful selection, so that the benefits derived form outcrossing may be incorporated in one’s strain.
There are two reasons why a breeder sometimes obtains approximately what he is seeking in the first generation of an outcross. The first is that what he believes to be an outcross may be the mating of two dogs who are not as unrelated as it appears to him from looking at their short pedigrees. As previously stated, a more extended pedigree might show relationship.
The second reason takes a bit more explaining. A breeder sincerely interested in producing high quality dogs usually searches for a prepotent stud dog known to sire outstanding progeny. It is quite generally known that such males are dominant because of being, in most instances, either inbred or linebred, and, putting it in the simplest way; they thus have the power to impose their own characteristics over the recessive ones of a hit-or-miss bred bitch. Sometimes I like to explain it this way: such a cold bred bitch can be likened to the seed bed, the earth, while the male’s sperm is the seed which produces its own kind. Of course, the reverse is true when the bitch with inbred dominance is mated to a cold bred stud.
DANGER IN CONTINUED OUTCROSSING
When salubrious results are obtained in the first generation of an outcross, many breeders think the mating was an unqualified success and all they need do thereafter is to continue such outcrossing to become great breeders with an established type of their own, producing a high average of good ones. They could not be more mistaken, since the exact opposite is sure to occur. I can do no better than quote here from the world-famous geneticist Dr. E. Fitch Daglish, who is also a contributor to DOG WORLD. The following is an excerpt from his article in the June 1959 issue:
“INVISIBLE FACTORS INHERITED: One of the fundamental principles of genetics is that it is not the visible properties of individuals that are inherited but those factors or genes which endow them with the ability to produce certain qualities under certain conditions. When two animals differing in genetic make-up are mated, their offspring must be genetically impure in varying degrees however closely the two parents may resemble each other in outward appearance. It is this which causes the wide variation in size, shape, constitution and so on that is invariably seen in the second generation of cross breeds...
“ ... Impressive examples are furnished by the familiar utility crosses in poultry, cattle and pigs produced by farmers. Such first crosses are, as a rule, very uniform in appearance and for certain purposes are preferred as layers or fatteners, but if such hybrids are bred from the results are always disappointing. They are impure in respect to so many genes -- for all those factors in which their parents differed -- that their progeny show the widest variations and include a large proportion of individuals of very low quality form whatever point of view they are judged. “It may be objected that what happens when different breeds are crossed is not relevant to the effects to be expected from outcrossing within a single breed but, genetically outcrossing and crossbreeding differ only in degree. Both involve the mating of individuals whose genetic constitution is almost certain to differ widely so that there must be a drastic reshuffling of the genes in the offspring.” (Italics are my own.) It should be remembered, therefore, that as dog breeders we are dealing not only with the physical structure of a mating pair, but with the GENES inherited from the forbears shown in their pedigrees.”
FAILING OF MANY BREEDERS
The number of breeders who know practically nothing about the ancestors of their dogs is appalling. Many cannot even name, when asked, without looking at a pedigree, the names of the sire and dam of a dog or dogs they own. Were they asked for a four-generation pedigree of one of their dogs, only a few could write it from memory. In my breeding days I could do this on any one of a hundred or more dogs in my kennel, with seldom an error. My contention is that, unless a breeder can do likewise and also has quite a complete knowledge of the virtues and faults of all the ancestors through at least the third generation -- and even further back is preferable -- he will not become even a good breeder, let along a great one. He MUST KNOW from whence came certain traits, both desire and undesired, if he expects to retain or eliminate them. This cannot be accomplished by hit-or-miss breedings, be they inbred, linebred, or, most certainly, outcross.
Whenever a breed becomes popular, there is an influx of novices not only ignorant of what constitutes a good specimen in the variety, but much more lacking in any knowledge of animal breeding. Newcomers should be, and usually are, welcomed when they indicate a sincere desire to find out what a good specimen of their chose breed IS and have a willingness to learn and study. It is they who must replace those who are constantly disappearing from the game for one reason or another.
Of later there has been a big influx of beginners in several breeds, Poodles, German Shepherd Dogs, Miniature Schnauzers, and Basset Hounds, to name just a few. Most of my life having been spent hobbying German Shepherds; my connection with, and knowledge of, that variety is greatest, but I understand somewhat similar conditions as to the type of breeders above also exist in breeds other than the German Shepherd Dog. Referring now to what has already been written about outcrossing, I can state unequivocally that in the German Shepherd Dog breed, as in no other, can so many of the evils of that kind of hit-or-miss breeding be found today. Outcrossing is more the rule than the exception. It is being done, not by novices and beginners only, but also by many who should know better because of greater experience in dog breeding. The results are presently visible to all and should be a warning to fanciers of other breeds. In no other breed with which I am familiar does one observe in the show ring such a wide diversity of type.
Recent years have seen dozens of German Shepherd Dogs imported, with no two of them much alike except perhaps in faults not heretofore common to our breed in their country: short necks, coarse and unattractive heads, insufficiently long and pushed forward shoulder blades, soft backs, rear angulation and proportion of length to height both falling far short of the breed Standard’s specifications, etc. Because of the belief, from perhaps of an inferiority complex, that anything imported must per se be superior to something produced in this country, together with a lack of knowledge as to what a good specimen of the breed looks like, many of our breeders are rushing “like mad” to breed their bitches to these imports.
“WARNING BLOOD”
In all dogs we have what is termed “warning blood”. As implied, this means that there are certain faults contained in the genes of those animals which are quite certain to show up when they are mated to others. These shortcomings became dominant through a lack of selection in the matings of their ancestors, which, properly planned, would have eliminated them. I wish to pursue this subject only enough to use it as a demonstration of WHY any kind of outcrossing, and especially that which is now being done in German Shepherd Dogs, is dangerous and can eventuate in harm to the breed.
As has been pointed out, a breeder, to be successful and not trust entirely to luck, must know the background of his mating pair. He must, most importantly of all, know the WARNING BLOOD behind them. It is difficult enough to learn of such warnings in the pedigrees of dogs with several generations bred in this country, so HOW can he find out about those from abroad. The fact is that probably one in a hundred of the breeders using imports DOES knows one darned thing about what to guard against -- long coats, and all of those quite commonly possessed faults listed above. If he is ignorant of what a good specimen of his breed looks like, or hopes that the visible faults in the dog are not inherent and will not appear in descendants “even unto the third generation,” he is fooling himself and doing his breed a great disservice.
IMPORTS COULD BE “TAINTED”
Our Shepherdists were the first to take cognizance of, and try to do something about, hip dysplasia, that crippling disease found in so many breeds. Great efforts have been made to eliminate it through an educational campaign instructing breeders to use only sound animals for breeding purposes. This is admirable and to be commended, but how sincere, may I ask, are those (and amongst them are several who were the loudest in their demands that affected dogs be discarded as breeders) who themselves bred to these imported mates?
The taint has been shown to be inheritable. Not the slightest attention is, or has been given to it by foreign breeders. The individual dogs may be shown to be untainted through an X-ray examination, upon or before importation, but what about the genes they may carry for it? Do the importers know -- do the purchasers from these importers know -- do the fanciers who breed to these dogs know? What about the parents or the litter mates: are they “clean”? Who knows? The answer is that nobody knows, because no recognition is given to hip dysplasia in Germany -- no X-rays and no consequent culling of their breeding stock.
Theoretically, dogs in this country could eventually be produced free of the tainted, and then one imported dog carrying it could start the whole thing over again. It is commonly known that some of these imported dogs are amongst the worst offenders in siring dysplastic progeny (and orchidism, as well). At least one dog, perhaps as perfect a specimen as has recently been brought to this country, and for which a big price was paid, has been returned to Germany by a conscientious American breeder because she was dysplastic.
What does all of this actually mean to breeders? It means that outcrossing is particularly dangerous when traits both visible and those inherent in the mating pair’s ancestors, are not known. A breeder is gambling when he makes an outcross mating, and it is an outcross breeding when no common ancestors appear in the fourth or, at least, the fifth generation. In outcrossing one is mixing the bloodlines of different strains and consequently unwanted recessive characteristics are likely to be brought in. Very often novice breeders present the pedigree of their outcross bred bitch to me, asking for advice about breeding her. Such a pedigree cannot be evaluated properly because it is impossible to know the genetic makeup of such an animal.
SUMMATION
Never outcross when things seem to be going well -- do it only as an experiment, or when some fault or faults cannot be eliminated by staying within one’s strain. Breeding complete outcrosses is a dangerous procedure, sure to result in a hodgepodge of breed traits with a loss of all true type, if practiced carelessly, or beyond an initial mating without a definite purpose.
When, and if, an outcross is made, every effort should be expended to see that the outcross dog brings in as few line traits and genetic impurities as possible. To insure this, one should use an individual which carries as much blood as can be found of the foundation stock of the strain which is to be crossed.
After an outcross has been made, a breeder should then breed right back into the original strain. This is the only safe procedure after the purpose of the outcross has been achieved.
As Dr. Daglish states it: “Only in that way can the high degree of genetic purity established in a valuable true-breeding strain be recovered and the bad effects of mixing the genes carried by unrelated animals be avoided.”

Part 3

PART VI
In earlier installments I have pointed out both the benefits and dangers inherent in line breeding or inbreeding and dwelt, at considerable length, on the necessity for using only as near faultless stock as it is possible to obtain one’s foundation animals. It is very evident to me now that I have presupposed a greater knowledge of what constitutes a good animal of any given breed that the majority of its fanciers possess. This being true, it seems to behoove me now again to warn some of today’s breeders NOT to attempt any kind of closed-up breeding; in fact, not to do ANY breeding until they have a better knowledge of WHAT they want to get FROM their matings’.
Of course, the person who is interested only in the commercial aspect of the game, the breeding of dogs to sell and make money (if indeed that can be done), or because it is fun to have some cute puppies around, will have no interest in what I have written previously or in what I say now. To the many, however, who seem sincerely interested in breeding better specimens, to the many who want to know HOW to do it, I want to stress as strongly as I can: YOU MUST FIRST KNOW WHAT IS A GOOD DOG OF YOUR BREED. In other words, know your breed before you try to breed it.
The manufacturer of any product must know what that article should be and look like before he starts to make it. The baker of a cake must know what a cake should look like and, in each instance, the manufacturer and the baker must know, and be able to recognize, any and all faults or shortcomings in their products.
We Must Linebreed - But Wisely! The subject of inbreeding and linebreeding might be summed up this way: Probably no great epoch or step forward in any breed has ever been achieved without the constant and unhesitating use of consanguinity; at the same time we must realize that its use is full of dangers and pitfalls for those novice breeders who fail to recognize the imperative need for using only stock which is sound in constitution, organs and structure - and which also possesses outstanding points of merit, with NO SINGLE FAULT COMMON TO THE TWO ORIGINAL PARENTS. This means we must line breed, but line breed wisely, and not until we are able to recognize any shortcomings, as well as the merits, of our dogs, and are informed about the same in their ancestors.
Need for the above advice, or warning if you will, has been impressed upon me more and more as breeders have contacted me. Some have asked if they should line breed upon dogs whom I have found to be so “full of holes” - with so many faults - that they should not be used as breeders at all. Then there are so very many, especially in German Shepherd Dogs, who state their intention to inbreed or line breed up imported animals. When asked, they admit to no knowledge whatever of the inheritance factors possessed by these dogs, the good as well as the warning blood in them. To breed to them in order to find out is one thing, but to plan the building of a strain, through inbreeding and linebreeding on them, is quite another matter.
ALWAYS KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT THROUGH INHERITANCE
It should be made clear that I am not taking any stand against breeding to some of these imported dogs. On the contrary, I recognize that doing so has given the German Shepherd Dog breed in this country a boost and eventuated in some excellent specimens.
The point I am trying to get across is based upon what I have written above; i.e. that ONLY those breeders knowledgeable in what constitutes a near-perfect specimen of the breed, as well as those having information on what to hope for, and look out for, through inheritance factors, should even THINK of doing closed-up breeding on them. The same, of course, applies to our American-bred dogs.
While on this subject, I would indeed be remiss did I not again point out some of the traits which I find so very many of our German Shepherd Dog breeders of today are either not knowledgeable enough of their Standard to recognize, or which they ignore -traits that, should they be “set” through inbreeding or linebreeding, would put the breed back many years and be all but impossible to eradicate. I realize that these were listed in earlier installments, but because there seems to be few who know them, even amongst judges, I feel that attention should again be called to them.
SERIOUS FAULTS IN SOME IMPORTS
The most important faults in the imported German Shepherd Dogs, it seems to me, are these:
Lack of proper type as defined by the Standard of the breed. Where it calls for dogs to be longer than high, very many are practically square. Proper angulation at BOTH ENDS is difficult to find. Rear angulation, in many instances, approximates that of Collies, while the forequarters have scapulars (shoulder blades) much too short and steep-pushed up into too-short necks. Properly high-set withers, with strong backs, are all but nonexistent in many of these imports.
The very idea of, even the giving of consideration to, inbreeding or linebreeding on such dogs, causes any real student and lover of this noble breed great concern.
As most of those either contemplating or engaging in such a breeding program are novices or formerly unsuccessful breeders, I can but hope that my “lone voice crying in the wilderness” will make them pause before irreparable harm is done to the breed.
RECAPITULATION
(1) Through studying the breed’s Standard of Perfection, attending dog shows, talking with knowledgeable people in one’s breed, and owning good dogs, a breeder should learn what IS a good specimen of his breed before he starts ANY breeding operations, let alone the more or less involved types such as inbreeding and linebreeding.
(2) When either of the latter are attempted, make certain to select as near faultless foundation stock as it is possible to get, and cull relentlessly, never mating together two dogs with similar faults. I repeat for the umpteenth time in this series “Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.”
REGRETTABLY LITTLE INFORMATION FOR TRUE BREED STUDENTS
In some of the preceding installments I have pointed out that most of my experimenting with various breeding theories has been done with German Shepherd Dogs, but stated my sincere desire to be of all help possible to beginners in any breed. Resultant information obtained from the many contacts made since the appearance of the first article in this series has shown me how many dog breeders are deeply and seriously interested in obtaining knowledge which will enable them to produce better specimens of their particular breed.
It is indeed regrettable that, at least in the more popular breeds, with a consequent greater number of fanciers, there are not more sources of information available to such students, that there is not a printed compendium of knowledge about the various qualities of the leading sires in each breed.
It goes without saying that any such record should be compiled by very knowledgeable and experienced fanciers of a breed, and, of most importance, that it be fostered by its Parent Club. While such a program presents great advantages in theory, its practical application is all but impossible, especially if the compilers of such a record essay to give breeding advice.
ANALYSIS OF BREED SURVEY SYSTEMS
The above is written as a prelude to what I am about to write regarding the patently ill-advised organization termed “The American Breed Survey Society for German Shepherd Dogs, Inc.” Because I find such a large proportion of the readers of these articles are fanciers of that breed, I hope my inserting the following in what is, in the main, material for all breeds, and printed in an all-breed magazine, may be pardoned. It may also result in second thoughts on the part of any personally ambitious fanciers of other breeds, or clubs contemplating the establishment of such an organization.
For the benefit and information of those in other breeds who may not know about this “Breed Survey” in Shepherds, or who have not read the challenging article concerning it written by Mrs. Lesley Kodner, together with the reply by Mr. Grant Mann, as they have been appearing in DOG WORLD, some explanation should be given.
In Germany, the “home” of this breed, and where it has been most highly developed throughout the almost three-quarters of a century of its history as a distinct breed, there is accessible to its fanciers a wealth of information. In all but inexhaustible detail records have been kept of every animal, especially of all those used as breeders.
Such breeding and show records have been published in book form and so are available to all German fanciers of the breed. Neither available space, nor the probable interest of many of my readers in this subject, would warrant a full explanation of how this estimable program is conducted in that country. Neither is it necessary to relate all the reasons why it could not be and never has been when previously tried, a success in America.
Suffice it to explain that over there they have “surveyors,” or breed wardens, who through many years of intensive training and practical experience, are worthy of being listened to when they give advice, or estimate the qualities of a dog. Also, such it seems is the typical German mind that they will submit to being regimented and, in the matter of mating their dogs, listen to, and obey, the advice of the appointed authorities. Fortunately or unfortunately, according to the way one may look at it, such is NOT the case here in our country. Neither will most of us comply with, or heed, any advice given relative to breeding our dogs, nor do we have in this country many, if indeed any, who are sufficiently knowledgeable through experience, or sufficiently dedicated to have studied bloodline inheritance, to make a similar program valuable or workable.
It is regrettable that such is the situation because, as previously stated, in THEORY an organization supplying valuable data on physical structure, and reliable information on breeding worth, could be of inestimable advantage to all breeders and especially to those beginners who are so hungry for knowledge about their breed.
It would seem from the above, and it is true, that while I recognize the need for an accurate source of information, especially about dogs used for breeding, and which would be obtainable by the many fanciers of all breeds who are hungry for it, I do NOT look favorably upon, or in any way approve or, The American Breed Survey Society.
For whatever my opinion my be worth to those either contemplating having their dogs “surveyed”, or who have already had it done and may assume the reports made on their dogs either completely accurate or, in the matter of breeding advice given, worthy of acceptance, it seems I should detail some of the reasons upon which my opinion is based. This I shall now do in the form of questions and answers.
Has such a project ever before been inaugurated in this country? Yes, on several occasions and under the sponsorship of the Parent Club of the breed.
Because of success in supplying unbiased, unprejudiced, accurate, and valuable information, were any of them deemed worthy of continuance? Quite the opposite. About their only result was to prove how unworkable (and for too many reasons to elaborate upon here) such a program must be in this country.
Who were those doing the examining of dogs and termed “surveyors’ during these previous experiments? Selected German authorities of breed renown in their country, and brought over for the purpose of helping us establish a record of our American-owned dogs’ attributes such as is available in the country of its origin.
ARE SURVEY LEADERS QUALIFIED?
Who is the originator and operator of the so-called “American Breed Survey” now currently functioning? Mr. Grant E. Mann of Detroit, Mich.
Does he have the experience and necessary attributes to evaluate the qualities of a dog? I feel, and the general consensus of opinion seems to be, that he has, since he is a long time breeder, erstwhile judge of the breed, and producer of many top-quality specimens.
Who, other than Mr. Mann, are listed as officers of his organization? A.D.M. Barton as “Gen. Counsel,” R.T. Landquist, Treasurer, and for secretary, a seemingly obscure man named Brotherton about whom nobody seems to have any information other than that he is the owner of one dog. To my knowledge, at least, there is evidently no record of Mr. Brotherton’s or Mr. Lundquist’s previous activity in the breed upon which to predicate a belief in their importance in such a venture.
Did the Board of Governors of the German Shepherd Dog Club of America, when urged by Mr. Mann to accept and sponsor his “Breed Survey” idea, vote to do so? No. Having knowledge of the failures of previous attempts, and the basic reasons for the debacles, they wisely refused to participate in any way. They seem to feel, however, that they had no authority to prohibit Mr. Mann from operating such a project “on his own”.
Are the purposes of the organization as altruistic in all its claims, including that of its being a non-profit venture, as are stated? Perhaps that should not be challenged, despite there having been no reports made, to anyone’s seeming knowledge, either privately or publicly, as to its income and disbursements. In the absence of any such accounting, one is of necessity left to draw his own conclusions.
What are the charges made for the examination or “surveying” of a customer’s dog? They seem to vary according to the number of dogs gathered at a prearranged surveying point and the distance the surveyors must travel, the minimum, I understand, being $10.00 a dog.
Are such charges reasonable? They would seem to be, providing the customer receives in exchange enough actual, usable and dependable information to make the cost and the time consumed worthwhile -- providing much more is received, we would say, than any knowledgeable judge of the breed could, and usually would, be willing and capable of supply “for free” at any dog show.
Do the written reports, as furnished to those who submit their dogs for evaluation by the committee appointed by the Society, really supply enough more information than could be obtained, as above mentioned, to be worth the charge? Indeed, are many of them even accurate or detailed enough to warrant one’s serious consideration, even could they be obtained without ANY charge having been made for them?
Personal knowledge of many of the dogs surveyed, together with a familiarity with their ancestors, as delineated in their pedigrees, lead many of the cognoscente to strongly question it. In fact, so many of the reports I have seen are sufficiently inaccurate, and wrong in listing the surveyed dog’s physical characteristics (as many others, including capable judges, have found them to be), together with their ill-advised recommendations for its breeding use, as to raise the serious question: May not the results of the organization’s work prove to be more harmful than beneficial to the breed, if its findings are accepted seriously by customers?
Just one of many such misleading and very inaccurate survey reports to come to my attention is the one mentioned in Mrs. Kodner’s “Open Letter to Grant Mann”, which appeared in the November issue of DOG WORLD and the October issue of THE SHEPHERD DOG REVIEW.
Before me as I write is a photo static copy of the Breed Survey’s report on her dog Ch. By Jiminey. I have had the experience not only of judging the dog at least three times, but also the opportunity of studying him outside the ring on numerous occasions. In addition, I have seen, and know, his immediate progenitors. A considerable knowledge of the ancestors, I might add, is a prerequisite to making ANY breeding recommendations. Unless it is known which traits are inherited and which may be acquired, as through feeding and disease, for instance, NO worthwhile or even reasonably accurate recommendations can possible be made as to certain “warning blood,” or what type of mate is, or is not, suitable.
In the case of the above mentioned dog, is it probable that there could have been any knowledge of his ancestry possessed by the surveyors? At least one of the three participants, the Herr Funk of Germany, could not possibly have known much, if indeed anything, about that. Considering the recommendations made, it is my belief that neither did the other two surveyors on the team. That opinion is based upon my above stated familiarity with the dog, his ancestors, and the offspring I have seen sired by him and out of different bitches.
If this article were appearing in a breed magazine, much more could and should be said about this sample case of improper and disillusioning “surveying”. However, any informed breeder and fancier, or student of the breed, can easily determine for himself, with a little effort, why there is so much dissatisfaction with, and criticism of, the American Breed Survey Society for German Shepherd Dogs, Inc. -- decide for himself by checking the Survey report on Ch. By Jiminey, in conjunction with the dog himself, by SEEING the faults enumerated by his conscientious owner but NOT mentioned in his report -- by comparing him with his inferior brother who was given a higher rating -- by learning about his ancestors so as to determine the validity of worth of the “Breeding Warnings”, etc., etc.
ARE THE “SURVEYORS” QUALIFIED?
Who, in addition to the operator of this Breed Survey Society, do “surveying” for it? Its letterhead lists eleven names as “Advisory Panel.” What are their qualifications? Mr. Mann has listed the names of several of the surveyors in his well-written reply to Mrs. Kodner’s “Open Letter,” this reply having been printed in the December and January issues of DOG WORLD, so the reader may judge for himself. Amongst those listed on the Society’s letterhead there are only three, it seems, who have obtained their judges’ licenses.
How many of the listed surveyors have a record as prominent or successful breeders? None, so far as I know. It would be difficult to remember and name any noteworthy number or top-quality dogs ever bred by any of them other than Grant Mann. A few either presently own, or in the past have bought, good dogs.
Human nature being what it is, breed Standards being as they are (subject to differing interpretations), and exhibitors’ opinions about judges varying as they do, who is to say that any judge, be he on the Society’s panel or not, is capable? That matter, as well as the qualifications possessed by them, and the non-judge surveyors, both as to their abilities to evaluate dogs and advise others about “Breeding Warnings,” etc., should, it would seem, be given thoughtful consideration by all potential users of the Society’s services.
There is probably no dog breeder or person interested in the “game” who does not wish there were a dependable source of information such as the present American Breed Survey Society for German Shepherd Dogs was organized to supply.
The sincerity and reasonableness evidenced in Grant Mann’s reply to Mrs. Kodner’s “Open Letter” is indeed commendable. His admittance that improvements in its operation are needed and planned for might create hope for such an eventually dependable source of information. However, considering all the factors, some of which have been touched upon in this article, plus others more fully elaborated upon in Mrs. Kodner’s “Open Letter,” her short rebuttal, and more that some of my readers personally know about, is it reasonable to entertain expectations for such improvement as would insure the continued existence of this organization? Only the most naive of those whose opinions are based upon wishful thinking could possibly expect this to happen. Its comparatively early demise has been predicted by many since the announcement of its start of operations and the selection of its surveyors.
PART VII
After each article, correspondence and personal conversations have indicated to me the need for further elaboration upon inbreeding. The old bogeys and superstitions held by so many, and for so long a time, seem all but impossible to eradicate. They pop up even in some scientific circles amongst investigators whose experiments have quite patently been conducted in a wrong or incomplete manner.
An instance at hand is the recent report of a Laura A. Harris and associates regarding inbred bulls and their semen evaluation. Since nothing was stated as to any selection having been made to insure potency when the inbreeding was done, one must presume that this factor was not given consideration. Most certainly through inbreeding one can increase, or lose, not only virility but the many other traits composing an animal.
It all boils down to CAREFUL SELECTION.
In this short article, preceding the final chapter which I hope to have ready for the March issue of DOG WORLD, I would like to draw attention to some facts which are so often overlooked or forgotten. Because there are so many misconceptions about closed-up breeding, it might be well to touch upon certain categories of living or animal organisms, starting with
HUMANS
The origin of the human family is mysterious, but history has given us certain examples of consanguinity.
We have read of an old Syrian tribesman named Terah who had three sons and a daughter named respectively, Nahor, Haran, Abram and Sarai, by different wives. Contrary to modern custom, the two latter (half brother and sister) married, and their son married Nahor’s granddaughter who was twice his first cousin, once removed, and they were known as Isaac and Rebekah. Their son Jacob married his two first cousins (great-granddaughters of Nahor, Terah’s son) and had eight sons, who became the founders of the most persistently influential nation in human history, the ever-miraculous Jewish race. Eight of the twelve founders of tribes have each four separate crosses to Terah, and they passed a law to establish their tradition that their children should not marry into strange families, which law survives in essence today.
Of the many charges brought against the Jews in all of history nobody has ever levied, or even heard, that of degeneracy.
WILD ANIMALS
In wild animal life amongst deer, a fox, rodents, cats, dogs, horses and cattle, inbreeding, checked only by the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, has prevailed uninterruptedly since time immemorial. As a result, there has not been a pronounced similarity prevailing in the age-long result; nor is there any inherent degeneracy traceable to such inbreeding.
HORSES AND CATTLE
Some mention has been made in previous installments of foundation horses from whom almost all of today’s race horses stem. Those much more conversant with horse pedigrees than am I could supply interesting and valuable data, I am sure, but I shall not attempt it without a great deal more study being given to the subject than is possible.
A piece of enlightening information did come to my attention some time ago, however, regarding cattle. It has to do with milk-producing Jersey cattle.
Quite some years ago, a daughter of the bull Saturn and the cow Rhea was mated to her full brother, and the resulting heifer was mated to her sire; the daughter of this mating was mated to her full brother and, again, the resulting heifer was mated to the same bull; their calf was put to the same bull and their calf yet again to the same sire.
The result of this intensive and exaggerated inbreeding, by which the last calf had nine crosses of the same original parents (Saturn and Rhea) and not other blood, was Purest, a cow of exceptional vigor and robustness, and an amazing milk producer.
PIGEONS
Many such examples as the above might be found in all varieties of livestock but only those in which the excellence lies in strength, vigor and fertility would help to open the eyes of a generation of breeders who have associated inbreeding with a loss of those attributes.
There is perhaps no greater test of physical endurance than the prolonged flight of a racing pigeon; here, if ever, one might expect a constant demand for “new blood,” but what are the facts? I have read that Continental and British breeders of racing pigeons vie with one another in “wrapping up the blood” of their stock -- that is, in preserving their own strains in concentrated form.
SUMMARY
What is true of humans, horses, cattle, pigeons, and every variety of animate beings is, of course, equally true of dogs: By inbreeding and linebreeding we intensify both the merits and the faults of the original foundation parents.
The Syrian tribesman Terah must have had a strong, healthy body and a keen, lively and judicious mind. The cow Rhea must have had much more than a productive udder to commend her highly for being bred upon so heavily. Dreanought (the Abraham of homing pigeons) must have had not only a deep keep and strong wings, but must have been perfectly balanced throughout. Cottage Queen (the first hen to lay an egg every day of the year except Sundays and Bank Holidays) must have had no ovarian blemish to bequeath to her countless daughters.
We as dog breeders, when considering inbreeding and linebreeding, MUST remember that outstanding quality is good; indeed, it is excellent, but the absence of similar faults or shortcomings in the mating pair is every bit as important. We must also remember that by using a our tap-root, or foundation, animals for inbreeding or linebreeding two specimens having a similar fault, it is far more easy to establish that fault in our strain than had we used some other type of mating.
Any student who will take the trouble to study the original forebears of any strain in any species of livestock will find that inbreeding and linebreeding have played a large part in creating their type. There is a persistent belief that such breeding endangers virility and fertility, but the absence of the latter essentials to existence is, in any case, very common, inbred or not.
Many domestic animals are weakly, many are sterile, and any tendency in that direction in a parent becomes, of course, doubled by inbreeding. This belief, therefore, becomes reestablished by the experience of those who have inbred their stock WITHOUT ADEQUATE SELECTION OF SOUND SPECIMENS.

Part 4

PART VIII
In these, the final installments of the series which has been appearing for several months, I have been asked to supply both a summation, and some examples, of planned matings.
First, it must be recognized that all faults, excellencies, capabilities and diseases of all living matter can be divided into two categories, depending entirely on whether they are (1) inborn, or (2) acquired. To obtain a proper understanding of these two terms, it is necessary to study briefly another point. All life has its origin in what is known as the living “cell,” the lowest form of animal life consisting entirely of one single cell. As the animal forms rise to a level above this simplest type of life, more cells are added and the creature becomes an organism of multi-cellular life.
The cells of which an animal is composed are of two kinds: the pro-creative germ, or birth cells, and the body cells. The first of these, the germ cells, are the most important in planned breeding and are the result of the fertilization of one cell, the ovum of the female, by another germ cell, the sperm of the male. Because these cells are the true bearers of the heredity of the individual, and their chromatin material passes on from generation to generation, they are the ones with which we are concerned in this study.
The second group of cells -- the body cells -- are essentially covering or protective cells. In higher animals they are always associated with the idea of protection and use and are of various kinds: such as, muscle cells, bone cells, skin cells, etc.
Because we are here mainly concerned with the matter of hereditable characteristics, rather than acquired, little need be said about the latter. It might be well, however, with the object of clarification in mind, to consider briefly some differentiation between the two groups of cells -- this particularly because, I have found, there is confusion in the minds of some beginner dog breeders as to what constitutes inherited characteristics in contrast to those which are acquired.
So very many ask, when some fault of their dog is pointed out to them, “Can I do anything to correct it?” or “Will exercise improve the condition?” They thus indicate their confusion over the two types of cells. It seems to me that unless an understanding is had on this matter, there would be little help given to novices in the breeding art by the further consideration of a breeding program.
As is well known, there is never any growth without the stimulus of nourishment of some kind. Thus the GERM cells develop under the stimulus of nourishment, while the growth of BODY cells comes through the stimulus not only of nourishment, but also of use or injury. As examples, muscle is developed by use while the bad effects sometimes eventuating from distemper are caused by injury.
These points are important for an understanding of the subjects of particular interest to dog breeders, namely the inborn and acquired faults, virtues, or diseases of their stock.
INBORN TRAITS HEREDITABLE -- ACQUIRED ARE NOT!
It can thus be seen that the inborn and the acquired characteristics are in two separate classes.
The inborn is the result of the germ cells and is hereditable, which the acquired affects the body cells, is not continuous in its life, and so cannot be transmitted.
Take as an example rickets, which is a disease of the bones (the body cells) due to a lack of vitamin D, calcium and phosphorus. It is, therefore, an acquired disease and is not transmitted, although, through faulty metabolism, the ability to assimilate the above mentioned essentials of proper nutrition might be.
On the other hand, the short tails which often appeared in the descendants of Nores v.d. Kriminalpolizci back in the nineteen-twenties’ German Shepherd Dogs were the result of an inherited trait due to genetic influence.
Contrasted to this, we find that the tails of several breeds of dogs, such as Fox Terriers and Dobermans, can be docked for generation after generation and, as this is a body cell injury and not inheritable, no change is made in the germ cells and succeeding generations of these dogs continue to come with long tails.
If the above principles are understood and applied to dog breeding, it will at once be seen that the main estimate of a good specimen are all dependent upon inborn characteristics and are therefore inherited. By training, feeding, and other good care, they can be improved up to a certain PREDESTINED point, but beyond that it is impossible for them to be changed or improved.
This explains the characteristics which are hereditary and thus transmissible, but when we come to the manner in which they are transmitted, in what degree they re- transmitted, and how we can increase or eliminate them, the questions become much more difficult to answer. Numerous scientists in the field of genetics have propounded various theories of animal breeding. As is well known, Mendel based his experiments on sweet peas, with which he explained the transference of characteristics from parent stock to succeeding generations. The characteristics of sweet peas are limited, but in dogs there are almost unlimited inherited factors and combinations of factors.
Gait for example, depends not only upon the conformation of the dog as regards his skeletal structure, but also upon the muscles working over it and the motor-nerve force stimulating them to action. The complexity of all these influencing factors is such that any attempt to use the Mendelian theory in the breeding of dog is, for all practical purposes, out of the question.
This law, now generally accepted by all authorities on animal breeding, presupposes that the two parents contribute, between them, half of the inherited traits, each of them, contributing one-quarter. The four grandparents contribute among them one-fourth of the inherited traits, or each of them one-sixteenth. The eight great-grandparents contributed amongst them one-eight, or each of them one-sixty-fourth, and so on, the whole inheritance equaling the sum of the series.
It might be well to interject here a mention of how little influence any grandparent or great-grandparent has, when it appears no more than once in a pedigree, and also to indicate, to the proponents of continual out crossings, how they are misleading both themselves and those who listen to them when they point to some notable dog in the third or fourth generation of their dog’s pedigree as being of particular value.
In order to apply Galton’s law with any degree of success, an animal breeder should be in possession of very accurate data as to the characteristics of the ancestors of the mating pair, and this is often difficult to obtain. Furthermore, too few dog breeders are sufficiently interested in their breed’s improvement to take the trouble to look for such data before making their matings.
A further hindrance to the obtaining of accurate information is that our conception of beauty and perfection is so changeable. Ideas regarding these attributes are comparative and subject to change continually, while perhaps not in the exact wording, at least in interpretation, by the judges.
These differences of opinion and selections by judges, some qualified and perhaps more who are not, lead to confusion. They make all but impossible any definite standard of beauty or utility.
While, scientifically speaking, neither Mendel’s nor Galton’s laws can be applied, practically speaking, there are known results which work out very much in accordance with them.
PRODUCING AND BREEDING HYBRIDS
For example, Mendel, in his experiments with sweet peas, bred together a tall and a short variety and got a hybrid generation. He bred the hybrid together and found he obtained 75 per cent tall plants and 25 per cent dwarf plants. The small plants were then bred together and produced nothing but small plants, but the 75 per cent of tall plants, when bred together, produced two kinds: (1) a mixed collection of talls and dwarfs, and (2) nothing but talls, the ratio of talls to dwarfs being as 2 to 1. In this way he learned that by breeding two hybrids (or intermediates) the result was 25 per cent tall, 50 per cent mixed, and 25 per cent dwarfs. In all breeding it must be remembered that there are two types of characters, or factors, DOMINANT and RECESSIVE. In sweet peas, the talls were proven to be dominant and the dwarfs recessive, and each, when bred to its own kind, bred true; whereas the mixed when interbred produced the same formula of 25 percent tall or pure dominants, 50 per cent mixed, or impure dominants, and 25 per cent dwarfs, or pure recessives. To set up the formula as simply as possible, we will take the letters PD to represent pure dominants (talls), PR to represent pure recessives (dwarfs), and ID to represent impure dominants (intermediates). The result of a union of two ID would work out as follows:
ID plus ID = 1PD, 2ID, 1PR
That is, there would be one pure dominant to three others.
THE FORMULA IN PRACTICE
If we consider some of our most prominent sires of the past whose records are available to us, as well as a few of the present dogs, we will find that occasionally there comes along a stud who seemingly sires outstanding specimens, as judged by their show wins. This is also true of bitches, as evidence by Ch. Nyx of Long-Worth, for example.
I am mentioning the elate Ch. Nyx here both because she is well-known to every Shepherd breeder, and because she has undeniably had a greater influence for good on the breed than any other bitch, at least in comparatively modern times. Something of her record was given in an earlier installment and, while much more could be supplied, it would not serve my purpose here. By the same token, I could use her grandson Ch. Vol of Long-Worth, were I to choose a male for the purpose.
Let us suppose that the parents of Nyx were both impure dominants and, for use in as simple a manner as possible, that the average litter is four in number. Then it is possible, even if not proven scientifically, that Nyx was the pure dominant, in various characteristics, in her litter. While I found in actual breeding use that she was dominant in quite a number of characteristics, suppose we select one, rear angulation, to use here. (Although I am cognizant of the fact that rear angulation is not a simple genetic factor, but rather a combination of factors, it will nevertheless serve to well illustrate my point.)
Now let us set up some possible matings and their results. Taking the average litter as four, and figuring on three litters, there would be twelve puppies.
Nyx`, with dominant good rear angulation, if mated to a male with dominant good rear angulation, would produce all pure dominants. Mated to a sire with impure dominant rear angulation she would produce one-half pure dominants and one-half impure dominants. If mated to a pure recessive -- a male with straight angulation in the rear as a pure recessive characteristic -- she would produce all impure dominants.
These results may be tabulated as follows:
PD plus PD = all PD
PD plus ID - one-half PD, one-half ID
PD plus PR = all ID
Of the twelve puppies from the three sires, NYX would produce six pure dominants and six impure dominants, but no pure recessives, as shown above.
Now take a bitch that is an impure dominant in this factor of rear angulation, which for demonstration purposes we have selected as the trait to use as an example, perhaps one of the above ID offspring.
The formula works out as follows:
ID plus PD = one-half impure dominants, one-half pure dominants.
ID plus ID = one-fourth pure dominants, one-half impure dominants, one-fourth pure recessives.
ID plus PR = one-half impure dominants, one-half pure recessives.
Again taking the average litter as four, there would be twelve pups out of this impure dominant bitch, sired by a pure dominant male, and impure dominant male, and a pure recessive male. There would be three pure dominants, six impure dominants, and three pure recessives in the offspring.
Thus, from a pure dominant female there would be twelve puppies twice the number of good ones, or pure dominants for sufficient rear angulation, and no really poor ones. Again, as stated above, I used the bitch NYX in these illustrations only because she is better known amongst the fancy than any other bitch of the breed, with a record of producing winners from every mating.
In the actual working out of these theories it is perhaps easier to use a sire. His ancestry is usually better known, and through being bred to many bitches his classification as to whether he is PD, ID, or PR in certain factors is more easily and quickly determined.
All of this seems much simpler than it is often found to work out in actual practice but we all know that, in speaking of the prepotency of a sire or dam, we mean to what extent that animal is able to predominate in the blend resulting from matings with it. Its prepotency may vary and extend to any degree up to an entire inheritance.
Earlier in this article I mentioned Galton’s law and stated his theory that each ancestor contributed a certain proportion of the sum total in the offspring.
We will now take up what is sometimes termed “piling up the blood” of certain ancestors, or inbreeding and linebreeding, the terms used when the name of some ancestor appears several times in the pedigree. The exact term varies according to how many times the name occurs and where it occurs in the pedigree.
It stands to reason that if an ancestor’s name appears twice in a pedigree, especially if it is not far back in it, then his influence must be greatly increased; if three times, then it is of still greater value. In matings where similar blood is united -- where the pedigrees of each of the mating pair contain the name of notable specimen of the breed -- we often get results which are so fortunate as to cause us to speak of that particular mating as a “nick mating.”
Suppose, for example, that a bitch has the blood of many sires but three of which we will designate as A, B and C. If she is mated to a stud who also has blood of different sires, but amongst them he also has stud C as a close ancestor, we will say, then the resultant offspring will more likely inherit the characteristics of the C dog than of A or B, or any other dogs in the pedigree.
If these characteristics are desirable and what we are striving to breed into our dogs, then the mating can be called a “nick mating.” The Nyx mating to Ch. Marlo was an example, for this “D” litter containing six Champions (all that was ever shown out of the eight) is represented in a large percentage of our modern type, and later-day, prepotent American bred German Shepherd Dogs.
APPLYING THEORY
In as simple a manner as possible let us try to apply this breeding theory.
All animal breeding operations must of necessity start with the female and, as it is a truism that “No stable is better than its mares,” so is no kennel any stronger than its bitches. Too much stress can not be placed upon the importance of the careful selection of a prospective matron or matrons, and an entire chapter could be devoted to this subject. It is highly important to ascertain that the brood bitch is as free as possible from inherited, or inborn, faults.
Perhaps the easiest fault for a beginner to recognize, as well as the most important in many breeds, is that of temperament (again not the result of a single genetic factor), so I shall use that as an example here. The brood bitch, then, should be free of inherited shyness or savageness, one fault about as bad as the other, the latter often a result of the first, and both probably as difficult to eradicate as any other fault in some breeds.
Careful selection of mates, who are pure dominants in the matter of proper temperaments through several generations, is the only way to eliminate this, as with any other fault. Close breeding to pure dominants on the other side of the pedigree from the one showing the fault is the best and surest way to get rid of it.
Again, given a bitch whose pedigree is “hit-or-miss,” with no definite breeding plan indicated in the combining of the blood of her ancestry -- a bitch whose pedigree is so open that there is nothing to “catch old of” -- the best results from any standpoint should be obtained by mating her to an inbred or linebred stud who is a pure dominant in as many desired requisites as possible. His influence should, and usually will, predominate over the traits of an outcross and hit-or-miss bred bitch. In practically all breeds there is a big majority of such bitches, the result of generations of careless outcrossings.
We will next consider a mythical bitch and try to plan a mating for her, with the object in mind of improving the mean or average quality of the breed.
PART IX
One too often hears from exhibitors and breeders such remarks as, “I breed for the type that are winning, regardless of the Standard.” This means to me that the speaker’s future as a consistent producer of high-quality dogs is most doubtful -- and that his real interest in the “game” is the superficial one of winning, rather than of breed improvement.
It becomes, therefore, more important for the beginner breeder to obtain some knowledge of genetics, together with a complete understanding of his breed’s Standard, than for him to visit dog shows to see what type is winning!
It goes without saying that in the long pull, the time it takes to breed consistently good specimens, let along establish a stain, a breeder must hitch to something -- and that should be the Standard of his breed rather than what is currently the “style” as established by the interpretations or perhaps vagaries of the judges.
In other words, if there is to be any continuity of effort toward the production of a standard type within a breed, it must be predicated upon an all but unchanging written often-changing of the Standard (either written or implied) through interpreting it to fit the present show dog. Any current fad incorporating qualities not called for by a breed’s Standard can, and often does, change periodically, leaving breeders who have based their efforts on producing stock to conform to “today’s winners” out of the running.
With the establishment in the minds of beginner breeders of what has already been written, we can now turn to some applications of these precepts and theories which have been propounded in this series of articles on planned breeding.
Much easier would it be, and more quickly could salubrious results probably be obtained, were the beginner breeder for whom I am writing the owner of two or three very good bitches. Such is not the customary case, however, judging from the situation of many who have contacted me since the inception of these articles. Few indeed are those who have more than one bitch and, more often than not, that one not such a specimen as a knowledgeable fancier of the breed would select as a foundation brood
matron. Questioning brings forth this usual information -- they are stuck with what they have, and feel they must use it. Affection for the animal, lack of funds with which to purchase a better one, or inability to find and select a more suitable bitch for their start, are the more common reasons given for not beginning with something better than the one perhaps mediocre specimen they already own.
In addition to the physical shortcomings of the average beginner’s bitch, she is apt to have a hit-or-miss pedigree. There may be numerous “Champions” in it, more likely than not all picked for use because they WERE such title holders, but without any selection having been made, in the matings producing her and her immediate ancestors, for physical compensation of faults.
TO ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS FASTER
Our editor has asked that, taking such a bitch as an example, I try to point out a procedure by which a beginner breeder might, most quickly and surely, improve the “mean” or average quality of his production -- and indeed might within a few years bring forth, and quite consistently, some “toppers.”
Granted that the possessor of such a foundation bitch as outlined above must expect to spend much more money and time than if he could start with either or both: the bitch herself a good show specimen, and/or the possessor of a line-bred pedigree. In the absence of these qualifications, however, he must take the longest and most difficult road -- the one being traveled by the greatest number of beginners, and whom we most want to help.
Instead of names for the animals in the pedigree, I shall take alphabetical letters. In the interest of keeping the use of space to a minimum, as well as for elimination of confusion, I shall, at least for the present, project only a 3-generation pedigree.
Following, then, is the pedigree with which we will start:
It will be observed that no dog appears more than once in the above pedigree, so it is what is known as “wide open”. Also that none has been designated as a Champion, although several or all of them might have had that title.
We must now carefully analyze the structural attributes of the above bitch and to do so, I shall presume her to be a German Shepherd Dog. As explained in previous installments, although I have made some study of almost all of the AKC recognized varieties, with particular emphasis on Work and Non-Sporting, the most of my breeding work has been done with Shepherds.
Furthermore, the Standard requirements of quite a number of breeds, especially those of the larger varieties, demand somewhat similar specifications. They all stress the importance of type, balance, toplines, ribbing, fore and rear angulation, bone and substance, feet, correct “bite,” gait, color of eyes, color and texture of coats, etc. Surely there are enough characteristics in that list for us to use here in an evaluation of the hypothetical bitch being considered.
Studying her, we will probably find that she has many shortcomings and faults, that she is more or less, “just another dog” of her breed. To the non-critical and uneducated eye she might be called “pretty,” and is easily recognizable as a specimen of her particular breed. She might have done, or be capable of doing, some winning, even placing above superior specimens at times for one reason or another. Yes, she may even be a Champion for, as we all know, “holes” can be found in even the best of such title holders, and no absolutely perfect specimen of any breed has ever been produced, or is likely to be!
KNOW FAULTS TO BREED FOR CORRECTION!
For the purpose of our present study, we must center our attention on several faults in type or structure possessed by this bitch, so we can go about breeding her for correction ad over-all improvement. I shall select topline, fore-assembly (the entire shoulder structure composed of shoulder blade and upper arm, the length of those bones, as well as their placement one with the other -- the angle made where they join) and, as the third structural characteristic to be considered, rear angulation.
I have selected these three for several reasons but mainly because the proper formation of these is the most important in the make-up of the greatest percentage of dog varieties as well as the ones most often found to be faulty.
No more than a cursory glance at our bitch indicates to the knowledgeable fancier of her breed that she is “soft in back” -- that is, she has a dip in her topline, the back between her shoulder blades and hips being lower than either. When trotted, her back “bounces” instead of holding steady and firm as it should in order to insure no loss of power as it is transmitted from the rear to the front.
So, since we find this bitch to be somewhat soft in back, we will want to mate her to correct this fault in her progeny, or at least in most of her grandchildren. Closer inspection, necessitating perhaps the use of our hands, divulges a too short and “steep” shoulder blade. Instead of being long and well laid back, or put on obliquely”, as many Standards state, this one, we find, is too perpendicular.
Likewise, as in the matter of topline, the third fault in our bitch is quite easily observable -- she hasn’t sufficient rear angulation, is “too straight in the rear.” A full explanation of this as well as the two above-mentioned faults would necessitate the use of all the space allotted to this article.
Besides, I have explained earlier that until a breeder is fully conversant with what constitutes idealized perfection, as well as faults and shortcomings in his breed, he should not attempt, or at least expect, to consistently produce outstandingly good specimens. I must therefore presuppose a complete knowledge on the part of my readers of ALL facets pertaining to the three structural faults listed above, and possessed by our mythical bitch.
Because, amongst the 14 animals in her immediate pedigree, there does not appear the same dog’s name more than once, it would not be likely that we could determine form which, or any several of them, came one or more of her faults.
If we DO know that parents of the sire or dam, or any others amongst her ancestors, did have one or more of the faults mentioned, the we most certainly do not want that dog or dogs in the pedigree of the mate we select for her -- if we can possibly avoid it. Should such be unavoidable, then that animal should be so far back in the pedigree as to make its influence negligible.
Having a hit-or-miss bitch with which to start and one with such a complexity of faults, we must consider her as only a seed bed -- the “ground” in which to plan the improved seed (sperm) of a male who, in particular, is correct in the places where she is faulty and without other and perhaps as bad shortcomings. We must also try to find one who not only possesses these correct attributes himself but comes from dogs that had them.
We should also select a stud that is preferably inbred, or at last quite strongly linebred, so that the strength such breeding gives to his prepotency will most likely insure his dominance in the mating pair.
FAVORITE BREEDING PRACTICE FOR SUPERIOR STOCK
After quite some searching for a compensating male, and study of available studs’ pedigrees, the male whose pedigree follows was selected.
There is a favorite breeding theory, or system, used by successful breeders of many varieties of animals. It usually eventuates in superior stock IF the male selected is himself an outstanding specimen, nearly faultless, and has such progenitors.
It goes as follows: “Let the sire of the sire be the grandsire of the dam, on the dam’s side.”
Does that seem complicated? A look at the above pedigree will clarify it. The dog we are using (BB) has as his sire O, while his dam P also has as her “grandsire on the dam’s side” the same dog O.
Because the majority of dog breeders formulate no breeding plan and seldom if ever, when making a mating, consider how or what they will mate any of the resultant progeny, a stud bred such as the above dog is not common. As you will recognize, it take some years of planned breeding to produce such a dog.
In the absence of a stud with such bloodlines, those with modifications of it can be used. As one example amongst many, the sire of the sire might be the grandsire of the dam on the SIRE’S side, instead of on the dams. Another: the sire selected might be the result of either a full or a half brother and sister mating, and thus inbred. And so we might go on listing differing formulas indicating inbreeding and line breeding.
The point I want to make, however, is that in selecting a mate for a faulty bitch whose wide-open pedigree offers no individual in it free of her faults, and dominant in correcting them, one must select as her mate a dog not only himself CORRECT where she is failing, but through some intensity of corrective blood is dominant.
FOUNDATION ON WHICH WORTH IS BUILT
I feel it well to interject here that “paper breeding” is not alone the answer, and may be dangerous -- in case I haven’t made it sufficiently clear heretofore that:
“Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.”
It therefore goes without saying that we have selected stud BB not only because of his line-breeding on O, but also because both he AND O are correct where the bitch AA is faulty.
It has not seemed practical for the purpose of this article to become involved with listing dogs further back in the pedigrees than are given. However it is worthy of note that in the ancestry of our stud BB there are lines running in the fourth and later generations to top quality as well as top-winning males and bitches.
Two studs and one bitch, for instance, appear three or more times back of the 3rd generation, and all three were eminently strong in the sections where our bitch is weak. The male O, as an example, goes back with three lines to the great dog we will designate as UU and four times to one of the best bitches ever produced in the breed, ZZ.
The latter, incidentally, not only possessed a practically perfect fore-assembly, ideal rear angulation, and an uncriticizable topline, but, in turn, was a descendant of another “great” in the breed, one dubbed as “the dog with an iron back.”
The litter resulting from mating the dog BB to the bitch AA would have the following pedigree:
It would be unreasonable to expect that in this first generation produced form an entirely outcross-bred bitch with several faults, although sired by a line-bred male without them, we would get any, let alone all, of the resultant litter entirely “trouble-free.” it is, however, reasonable to assume that one or more of the pups showed some, or a complete correction of one or all of the dam’s faults. Why?
Because, as we have pointed out, the sire through his linebreeding should be somewhat dominant over the “seed bed” in which is sperm was placed. As all experienced dog breeders know, such a mating a outlined above does sometimes produce considerable improvement over the dam, with some or most of the puppies resembling the sire a great deal more than their dam. So that we can proceed with this projected breeding plan, in which we found it necessary to start with such a foundation head as described above, and attempt to “breed up” from her, we must go on, using the best of what we have obtained for this first mating.
SELECT BEST BITCH PUPPIES -- NOT MALE!
As soon as the litter is sufficiently grown so enough can be told about them to make a fairly safe selection (and this varies amongst different breeds), we try to pick the best bitch puppy. Let us presume that we find one resembling her sire more than the dam, as we have planned and hoped for.
We are not at all interested in keeping a male, and should not be in the foreseeable future, unless none such as we must use in our breeding program is available at public stud. As a beginner breeder without the space and means to permit us the luxury of maintaining a large breeding establishment, we must of necessity confine ourselves to the use of studs for the small number of bitches we can breed and litters we can produce.
Impatient for desired results and those good-quality specimens it is our determination and desire to eventually produce, there are two things we can now do with our foundation bitch AA. We can “pension” her as a pet, discarding her as a breeder, or we can mate her again while waiting for the selected puppy from her last litter to become old enough for breeding. Incidentally, it is always best to keep two females in a litter from which one plans to pick future breeders, giving some insurance that, should one be lost while maturing, there will be a replacement.
Should the alternative be decided upon (breeding the bitch AA a second time), there are again two decisions to make: Shall we repeat the first mating or select another stud? The decision as to whether to repeat the mating will, of course, depend upon what came out of the first.
If a different mate is selected for AA’s second litter, then who should he be? One could decide upon several courses --select another stud with different bloodlines but equally corrective and prepotent, or one closely related to stud BB.
In the first instance, the resultant litter might be of such higher and more uniform quality as to make it advisable to use one from it with which to carry on, and in the second, with the two litters having a measure of identical (and corrective) blood, a puppy or puppies from each litter might later be mated together.
BREEDING BITCH FROM 1ST LITTER
We are patently unable to delve deeply into such problems or matters in this article. In fact, it is bound to run a greater length than planned if I go no further than suggest what to do with the selected bitch from the first litter of BB to AA, which litter I will designate as CC.
If what I have written in earlier installments, together with this one, has been followed by our readers, I am sure you will pretty well know what I shall suggest as the next move in this projected breeding program.
Yes, you are right -- further use of the bloodlines of the original male BB and, in particular, that of his sire and his dams grandsire O. We will say, as would have been quite likely, that the puppies in litter CC showed improvement in, or correction of, the listed faults of their dam, at least to some extent. Also that the bitch puppy selected for future breeding us was found to possess her sire’s good fore-assembly and topline but not his proper rear angulation. After all, one cannot hope for, or expect, EVERYTHING wanted from just one mating, and I am stretching the probably facts greatly when I admit to the above two improvements so soon after the start. But, in the desire to be helpful, I should be as encouraging as possible. Right?
If it takes longer to obtain such correction as outline above, do not be too discouraged -- you must continue with intelligent breeding to corrective and, if possible, closely related animals.
In the meantime, this warning: make sure you do not lose other and valuable characteristics possessed by your breeders, the while you work to eliminate the three special faults we have listed as needing correction. This sounds simple, but I must warn you that it “ain’t”!
Well, while we have digressed above, we shall take it for granted that our young bitch has matured to breeding age. The answer as to how we should mate her, from my experience and in my best judgment, as well as in accordance with genetic knowledge, has been given above. It appears to me that we have not as yet named our young bitch, the product of a mating of BB and AA -- so, being a 50-50 combination of the two, she is named BA. We have presupposed that BA received form her sire BB his good fore-assembly and topline but no improvement over the rear angulation of her dam AA. We therefore want to hold and “set” the good characteristics obtained from BB, the while we acquire the proper and needed rear angulation.
Our greatest chance for success in this endeavor lies in returning to either the sire himself, breeding his daughter back to him, or in using one of his sons who not only possesses BB’s front and topline but, because of blood form his maternal side of the family, has a strong dominance of proper rear angulation.
In other words, BB having been bred to a good bitch, herself possessing proper rear angulation (and if possible others in her ancestry), BB’s son out of such a bitch should carry extra strength in this characteristic. Here again we would be doing “paper breeding” had we not stressed the importance of physical compensation in the mating pair.
Space permitting, I might go on with outlines of suggested future use of the progeny of bitch BA from the litter by her sire BB or one of his sons. It should be recognized that the recommendations made in this article are not always possible of exact fulfillment. For instance, no such stud as BB, with a pedigree in which “the sire of the sire is the grandsire of the dam on the dam’s side” maybe found and, if located, his sire and dam’s grandsire might not be at all the type of animal one would want to line-breed on.
It should be understood that, in its widest application, the recommendation made as to a mate for the foundation bitch AA would be a stud who not only himself but, more importantly, his immediate ancestors, possess as nearly as possible the proper structural attributes demanded by the breed’s Standard.
Stressing the importance of the above, we must remember that inbreeding and linebreeding serve to accentuate not only the GOOD but the BAD points and, again, that when such breeding is used, STRICT SELECTION must be made.
Given a foundation bitch that herself is of superior quality as compared to the average of her breed, and who has a pedigree in which some top-quality dogs appear one or more times, the procedure recommended herein, of course, would have been different. Advice would have been given to breed back on one or more of those “toppers.”

John, you are on the right track. I read the articles you posted, some I have read before. There have been advancements in modern genetics since these articles have been written.

They are leaving out the most important things. One is how do you lock in genes and how do you remove and add traits.

Recessive genes is nothing more that something you cannot see. Once they show up how do you remove them while keeping and improving desirable traits?

JTG

I read the first article already I believe before, but the second I started and got tired. I will finish reading it soon, I appreciate you reposting the information.

JTG,

Please direct me to the new Genetic Breeding information! I would really like to read the methods and results.

Thanks!

JTG,
I would be very interested in reading/studying the "New genetic material information" you are refering to as well if you would not mind sharing it with those of us looking to further our knowledge in the art and science of animal breeding.

Mr. Clay,
as allways thank you very much for posting and sharing this information with us, you and your dad are truly unique individual's with a wealth of knowledge and experience from a lifetime of breeding and hunting these hounds, thank you for sharing some of that with us.

Josh

JTG

Thanks for the email, and the Pics.

I noticed on your profile no State listed...please modify your profile to add this as it is the Rules on BGH and helps the readers know a little more about you.

Now again thanks for the Pics but with out any background it would be hard to say anymore than they are nice appearing Pups. You wrote:

"John,

Attached is an inbred litter of mine. Notice how they look similar on the outside and they are similar on the inside. Also notice the mother who looks just like the pups. As far as a book on genetics you are just going to have to do the work. You can Google canine genetics and go from there. Just like anything else the more you dig into it the more you find. As I said you are on the right track most are clueless and I do not care to argue.

One thing I can tell you is that it does not take seven generations and you can do it with just three especially if you start with an established family."

JTG, Your inference is that they maybe almost Clones…without additional information on how close the mating was and how closely bred the Parents were it is hard to say more than “Nice Pups”.

Now why be so Cryptic as to your sources on Line/In Breeding? This is a place for a “Free Exchange” of Ideas and Information. This is not meant to embarrass or anger you, but to encourage you to be a bit more forth coming with information that several of us will enjoy and quite probably use.

Oh and I am currently doing a Google Search on Canine Genetics and will post the results!

Josh,

I hope your Breeding program is going along fine. I hope we see you in Powell, OR in Aug. or can get by to see you while we are in the neighbor hood!

QUOTE:JTG- One thing I can tell you is that it does not take seven generations and you can do it with just three especially if you start with an established family."


KEY WORDS ESTABLISHED FAMILY. AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE EVERY BIT OF THREE GENERATIONS AND BE DARN LUCKY IF ALL GOES WELL!

Well Folks,

I am on Google searching for more info.....here is a Link to a much more condensed version of all of the above:

http://www.thedogplace.org/Genetics/090 ... ammill.asp

This Article along with most of the newer Papers all refer readers/researchers back to Mr. Brackett's Article above!

John,

I am trying to help by not going by hearsay on what others say or wrote why it will not work, what may happen or by how it has been done for years.
Genetically there is no way to increase inbreeding coefficient beyond 35% with this method. Heterozygous genes are mostly passed on with random gene expression. Homozygous genes pass with more consistenty.

Here’s a good example, look at someone with brothers and cousins. Do they all look and act the same? That is what you will be getting with this method.



I appericate your comments and no offense here.

JTG

From what I'm reading about Dr. Charles Davenport, he sounds like a certifiable WACKO! From a cursory survey of his teachings and beleifs, it sounds as if he and the Nazis would have gotten along famously, breeding a superior human race??? Haven't found much on how his theories can be transposed into dog breeding yet.

slowandeasy wrote:QUOTE:JTG- One thing I can tell you is that it does not take seven generations and you can do it with just three especially if you start with an established family."


KEY WORDS ESTABLISHED FAMILY. AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE EVERY BIT OF THREE GENERATIONS AND BE DARN LUCKY IF ALL GOES WELL!

If you're starting with an "established family", hasn't someone else already done the previous 4 generations of leg work to lock in certain traits and cull out others? To me this is just the same as "Joe Jonson" putting an ad on here to sell "Jonson Hounds" after they've bred two or 3 generations of Cameron hounds (that have been bred knowledgeably and patiently for almost half a century to lock in a certain type) and calling them his own strain that he "cloned" in 3 generations.

The other thing I think we're leaving out of this discussion that Mr. Brackett had the luxury of and we don't as performance dog breeders/hunters is that he could focus on a breed for physical features/form, where we have to breed for the abstract, under-the-surface characteristics, like locating/treeing, or moving a cold track with speed or even a good mouth. Making sure the litter "looks" uniform is probably a good place to start, but I'm not fully conviced that its a good indicator that they'll hunt the same or sound the same. CJC, what about the family of hounds your family breeds? Are they very similar in conformation, color, voice, and hunting traits? If so, what traits did your dad lock in first?

newby wrote:From what I'm reading about Dr. Charles Davenport, he sounds like a certifiable WACKO! From a cursory survey of his teachings and beleifs, it sounds as if he and the Nazis would have gotten along famously, breeding a superior human race??? Haven't found much on how his theories can be transposed into dog breeding yet.

slowandeasy wrote:QUOTE:JTG- One thing I can tell you is that it does not take seven generations and you can do it with just three especially if you start with an established family."


KEY WORDS ESTABLISHED FAMILY. AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE EVERY BIT OF THREE GENERATIONS AND BE DARN LUCKY IF ALL GOES WELL!

If you're starting with an "established family", hasn't someone else already done the previous 4 generations of leg work to lock in certain traits and cull out others? To me this is just the same as "Joe Jonson" putting an ad on here to sell "Jonson Hounds" after they've bred two or 3 generations of Cameron hounds (that have been bred knowledgeably and patiently for almost half a century to lock in a certain type) and calling them his own strain that he "cloned" in 3 generations.

The other thing I think we're leaving out of this discussion that Mr. Brackett had the luxury of and we don't as performance dog breeders/hunters is that he could focus on a breed for physical features/form, where we have to breed for the abstract, under-the-surface characteristics, like locating/treeing, or moving a cold track with speed or even a good mouth. Making sure the litter "looks" uniform is probably a good place to start, but I'm not fully conviced that its a good indicator that they'll hunt the same or sound the same. CJC, what about the family of hounds your family breeds? Are they very similar in conformation, color, voice, and hunting traits? If so, what traits did your dad lock in first?

newby, that was the point i was trying to make when i quoted jtg. someone had put in some TIME already. how ever he is 100% on track about saving TIME by being smart enough to go that route. as far as using someone elses name for advertising purposes this is prevelant in magazine ads and on this forum. but most sincere breeders looking to improve the breed are normally doing it for reasons of self satisfaction, and for more success on the desired critter they are chasing. and one other reason for registration papers being of value. is because a person can run but they can't hide. because right on the papers is the name of the breeder! and that name is responsible from that point on. and to my knowledge most of the breed ass. still have what they call single registration. which would allow you to get papers for a hound, instead of investing a life time only to have blue sky for proof of your toil. the other point you made that i was waiting for someone to bring up is the fact about performance. it is much harder to reproduce than looks, color, and medical flaws. all this being said all of these theorys are just that, THEORYS. although much scientific experimenting has been done all to often you can come up with an empty sack. so although i believe line breeding is the way to go. what i believe really isn 't really worth the time it took to type this. so i guess what it comes down to is. try your hardest to improve on what is out there, and be honest with yourself with the results. and try and figure out as fast as possible that you are not going to get rich in this game. AND ABOVE ALL AS OF THIS MOMENT NO ONE HAS ANY GAURANTEED RESULTS. so in reality it's still all about having fun take care!

John, Slowandesy and Newby all of you have very good information.
Davenport was a wacko but his experiments with mice in respect to genetics are still being used today. I agree no one has guaranteed results however you increase your chances with homogenous genes.
Without a lot of mixed up genes to deal with you will see good characteristics passed on to the next generation. You are correct about it takes longer if you do not start out with good brood stock. Intelligent selection is an very important part. That is why that even if a person buys excellent brood stock it seldom lasts very long and improving it is very difficult. However there is no shortage of overnight ” expert” breeders with pups for sale. Yes breeders put in the time and effort and it is wrong to take credit for their hard work. I do not like it myself especially with Del who I consider is a fine man and an excellent breeder.
Another important part that I think is being left out is environment which pays an very important part. If you can have breeding stock as far away as possible it’s very useful in a breeding program.

JTG

Slow and Easy wrote: “KEY WORDS ESTABLISHED FAMILY. AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE EVERY BIT OF THREE GENERATIONS AND BE DARN LUCKY IF ALL GOES WELL!”

Newby writes: “If you're starting with an "established family", hasn't someone else already done the previous 4 generations of leg work to lock in certain traits and cull out others?”

Both of you are right on the money with these statements! In Dad’s case others preceded him in Line Breeding to Ole Ch. Mark S. The Monroe Bros had bred Cry Baby…she had Mark S. 5 times in three generations…. Raider Rivers (the Stud Dad bought and had die after the first litter was conceived) was a Mark S. son out of a Mark S. granddaughter.

Now as I have posted before Ch. Mark S. was in fact a Line Bred Hound going back many times to the old Hub Dawson Hound!

Now JTG is right when he writes: “Heterozygous genes are mostly passed on with random gene expression. Homozygous genes pass with more consistency.”.

Yet after 7 generations and RUTHLESSLY culling the chances of the Heterozygous – Recessive Genes appearing are severely diminished. People much smarter than I am have expressed this in Formulas and Graphs….people going all the way back to Mendel.

Newby writes: “CJC, what about the family of hounds your family breeds? Are they very similar in conformation, color, voice, and hunting traits? If so, what traits did your dad lock in first?”

Newby, Dad’s Hounds are all similar in Conformation. Structure is the second most Important Trait behind BRAINS that Dad breeds for (if a Hound does not have a Running gear to get them there…all the Brains, Nose and Mouth will do them no Good). Colours just happen, as that is not ever something that influences a Mating to be made. Mouths are another Trait down the List to be considered important (Dad has been blessed that most of his Hounds have had Mouths that any Houndman would enjoy). The Hunting Traits….what we call Styles will vary from Hound to Hound, but all be of a Style that fits the Team!

As far as what Trait did Dad “Lock in first”…..Mr. Hinkle Schillings, the Monroe Bros. and Folks even predating them had already done this…they had LOCKED in this BRAIN Thing!

Slow and Easy writes: “the other point you made that i was waiting for someone to bring up is the fact about performance. it is much harder to reproduce than looks, color, and medical flaws. all this being said all of these theorys are just that, THEORYS. although much scientific experimenting has been done all to often you can come up with an empty sack. so although i believe line breeding is the way to go. what i believe really isn 't really worth the time it took to type this. so i guess what it comes down to is. try your hardest to improve on what is out there, and be honest with yourself with the results. and try and figure out as fast as possible that you are not going to get rich in this game. AND OBOVE ALL AS OF THIS MOMENT NO ONE HAS ANY GAURANTEED RESULTS. so in reality it's still all about having fun”.

Folks read the above quote by Willi a couple of times…there is some Pearls of Wisdom to be found here! Performance should be #1 thing to consider in selecting a Mating Pair. HONESTY in evaluating the performance of these Hounds, then Honestly evaluating the Siblings to these two; Then being RUTHLESSLY Honest in Evaluating the Pups in their performance.

This HONESTY in Evaluation is where most Folks have problems! They or their family falls in LOVE with ole Sport or Sassie and even though he/she is the weakest Pup/Hound in a Litter, then that is who gets Bred. That or else ole Spud has the kind of Mouth that makes your hair stand on end gets him bred to instead of Spot who is the better Hound but has a Mouth that sounds like a flock of Guineas!

The Wheel does not need to be reinvented when it comes to HOUND Breeding, just do your Homework in evaluating Strains-Lines, find some Honest Hard Hunters to help in your Evaluation Process and be willing to be patient, hard and Honest with yourself. If you do in just a couple of Generations you will be surprised at what you have.

Folks, there are more people doing this than my Dad, it appears that Miss Melanie and Ms Cassandra, Twist, Festus, Cat and Bear, Vacathunter, and several others are very successful Line Breeding Hounds. If you are serious about GOOD hounds, INVEST some time and go see a Hounds Person who is Line Breeding GOOD Hounds!