BigGameHoundsmen.com

Would like to hear everyones thoughts about what bloodlines that are bred strictly for bobcats or if there is anybody that is trying to breed for that style of hound.

Been running for the past 25+ years with my own Nance strain and doing well still havent got the perfect cat dogs Andy

Nelson Cole out in Maine has ran and bred the same line of hounds for over 40 years, he dose line breed but seems to be makeing some out crosses as of late. They are bear/cat dogs but the last 8 years or so have been more cat bred than anything. I just took my old Patty bitch out so he could double up on his old Musket dog.

Budd Denny wrote:Nelson Cole out in Maine has ran and bred the same line of hounds for over 40 years, he dose line breed but seems to be makeing some out crosses as of late. They are bear/cat dogs but the last 8 years or so have been more cat bred than anything. I just took my old Patty bitch out so he could double up on his old Musket dog.

Your a nice guy Budd, thats a drive!

Folks, I sure like some of the new features Buddyw has added. Seeing the similar Threads at the bottom of the page has triggered my interest in several of these Old Threads.

This is an old thread that deserves more exposure.

Miss Melanie and her line of Linebred TWs sure deserves mention.

Vacathunter and several of his compadres have kept the Lewis Jordan Hounds alive by Linebreeding them. They produce lots of game in the Tidewater and now are doing it in Old Mexico.

Mr. Glen Mullis, Charles Tyre, Charles Smith, et al have been pretty much Line Breeding their Running Walkers for lots of years. Their Hounds are successful on Fox and Bobcat up and down the East Coast.

In Deep South Texas several Lines of Hounds are being kept alive by the Folks that Hunt them. These are Running Walkers for the most part, however some Lines/Strains are crossed with TW and other Treetype Hounds, then bred to type.

CRA and others from CA should be able to tell us about the TANT and Turner Lines of Hounds and who may be keeping them alive!

My question is how to line breed, and not cause side effects. What crosses are effective and low side effects. Are you line breeding distance relations or are you staying tight? I just don't know nothing about linebreeding

Unreal_tk,

One of the biggest Myths about Breeding/Line Breeding is that this CAUSES defects!

It does not! The defects are already to be found in the DNA of the Hounds. When the right combinations come together a Defect will show up. Hard Culling will remove this from the Gene Pool.

After 7 Generations of CLOSE Breeding almost all of the possibilities of a recessive combination for a Defect will have been removed. This does not mean that a Genetic Mutation might occur causing a Defect to appear.

Line Breeding when done right will REMOVE defects from a Line not CAUSE them!

Please use the new and improved Search Engine to reread the very Good articles on Hound Breeding by Brackett, GSPS and others that I have Posted. These can answer your questions way better than I!

You posted all these articles? I just want to know so its easier to sort thru it all. A buddy of mine recently did a mother and son cross. I am curious how they will turn out.

unreal, line breeding is not a miracle approach to producing top hounds. and when you start all the skeletons in the closet will show up. it will be the person doing the breedings job to do the culling. and believe me everything will show up. knowing this you will still have to breed best to best (looking for all traits desireable) with in a family. some will tell you that doing this creates idiots and physically flawed products. and breeding best to best (unrelated) none of these flaws show up. well they don't show up for the same reason that a high percentage of good good hounds don't show up. (extreme diversity of genes). there are some that come up with the occasional super star breeding best to best (unrelated). dad would call them one time wonders. and would say lots of luck trying to reproduce it with any kind of consistency. line breeding i believe is the way to go. but be prepared to invest some time, four to seven generations if things go well. if you are young enough this is what i would recommend. but remember life can deal ya some pretty rough bumps both with the hounds and personal things going down the road. and things can go to hell in a hand basket. causing ya to lose everything ya worked for. trust me when i say this, i've been in that canyon. and this is why there are as few top breeders as there is top hounds. if you choose to go down that road good luck to you as it is very rewarding. remember be ruthlessly honest with yourself and don't compromise. take care, Willy


P.S. when faced with criticism tell them to look at wild life! MOTHER NATURE DOES THE CULLING THERE.

Unreal_tk

Yes I posted those Breeding articles. Several times over the last 4 years.

the Mother Son mating will build on replicating the Mother and/or her Parents. Dad has done this several times over the years. Normally he does Aunts to Nephews and Uncles to Neices.

We have done two 1/2 Sibs in the last two years and this has worked well!

I THINK THAT i HAVE THIS FIGURED OUT!

Understanding Brackett—An Introduction
Dr. Robin R. Lyle

"Let the sire of the sire become the grandsire on the dam's side."
Lloyd C. Brackett

As you move among breeders of the German Shepherd Dog, it is inevitable that you will often hear the
name “Brackett” dropped in the conversation. "Let the sire of the sire become the grandsire on the dam's
side" is the single most recognizable Brackett quotation. However, understanding Brackett goes much
deeper than knowing this single foundational principle and striving to apply this axiom to one’s breeding
program.

What I will attempt in the articles that follow will be to analyze the writing of Lloyd Bracket by utilizing his
booklet entitled Planned Breeding. Brackett’s booklet is a compilation of articles written for Dog World
Magazine in 1960. These articles won for him the Dog Writer’s Association Award as the best non-
professional work in the dog press that year (1960). Dog World Magazine published these articles in
booklet form in 1961 as a result of the hundreds of requests from their readers. I have gleaned ten (10)
insights or principles from Planned Breeding based upon my careful reading and analysis.

As a preface to sharing my summary, I enclosed the following editorial notes about Brackett which are
included in the booklet:

“One of the fathers of the German Shepherd in this country and the oldest living continuous fancier of the
breed in America (since 1912) his theories on breeding have been more than proven in the Long-Worth
Kennels where he established his own strain in the breed and produced more than 90 champions in only
12 years—a world’s record for any breed.”

“Known affectionately as ‘Mr. German Shepherd; he has proven beyond doubt the soundness of his
breeding program.”

Carmen L. Battaglia wrote an article entitled Brackett’s Formula in which he noted the following:

“By the early 1950's, Lloyd C. Brackett had become a legend in his own time. In part because of the quality
of the dogs he produced and in part because of his candor when addressing problems related to the
breeding of canines. He had much to say about the selection of sires, how to correct problems and how to
make improvements. . . Brackett was well read and a quick learner. Through his writings he shed light on
the confusion and misunderstandings associated with line and inbreeding.”

Battaglia espouses Brackett’s breeding program indicating that his methods and ideas were not new.
However, he points out that Brackett “combined the study of pedigrees with the results they produced.
After years of watching what combinations produced the better offspring he refined his ideas about how to
select breeding partners. Out of these experiences came a formula that later would make him famous.”

The German Shepherd Dog Club of American (GSDCA) has even designated an award (Lloyd Brackett
Award) in memory of Brackett’s contribution to the breed. This award is for a member of the GSDCA
whose breeding program exhibits a vision of improvement to the breed, tempered with the wisdom to exhibit
strict attention to the standard of the German Shepherd Dog. The recipient(s) should be someone whose
dogs display a consistency of breed type and have created a line of German Shepherds easily
recognizable within the breed.

Briefly outlined below are the ten foundational principles which I find within Brackett’s planned breeding
program:

#1 Learn What a Good GSD specimen is!

#2 Build a Strain!

#3 Build Your Kennel on the Selection of Bitches!

#4 Linebreed/Inbreed Wisely!

#5 Outcross—But Only for Definite Purposes!

#6 Know What to Expect through Inheritance!

#7 Know Faults for Correction through Physical Compensation!

#8 Use Only Outstanding Studs!

#9 Always Select the Best Bitch Puppies!

#10 Breed Back to Your “Toppers”!

In the next two parts, I will elaborate upon these foundation principles. First, principles 1 – 5 will be
expounded and then principles 6 – 10 will be detailed. I conclude this brief introduction with an implied
underpinning as we consider applying these principles in future articles:

“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), . . .”
Lloyd C. Brackett
Understanding Brackett—Part II

Dr. Robin R. Lyle


“Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.”
Lloyd C. Brackett

This is a continuance of the article which appeared in the June edition of the German Shepherd by Design. I began by analyzing the
writing of Lloyd Brackett utilizing his booklet entitled Planned Breeding. I have gleaned ten (10) insights or principles based upon my
careful reading and analysis.

In Part I you may recall that I stated and expounded upon principles 1 - 5. The first five (5) principles are:

#1 Learn What a Good GSD Specimen Is!
#2 Build a Strain!
#3 Build Your Kennel on the Selection of Bitches!
#4 Linebreed/Inbreed Wisely!
#5 Outcross—But Only for Definite Purposes!

I continue with principles 6 – 10 of Brackett’s planned breeding program:


#6 Know What to Expect through Inheritance!

“…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.”

Mr. Brackett employed a three-step procedure for this component of visualizing what a proposed breeding might bring forth. First, the
breeder must know what constitutes a good GSD according to the breed standard. Next, be knowledgeable of the pedigrees of the
potential mates. This naturally leads into the third step of knowing the characteristics (attributes and faults) of as many of the dogs on
the pedigree as possible.

It is imperative to be certain to select near faultless dogs as foundation stock! It will be very difficult, if not impossible; to implement
planned breeding using mediocre stock. Brackett was adamant that if a beginner, or any breeder for that matter, discovers (obviously
through gained knowledge and experience) that they possess mediocre stock; then there is only one course of action—“Cull
relentlessly!”

Even when the proposed mating matches very good dogs, never mate two dogs with similar faults. This action would only heighten the
or probability of reproducing that very fault.

This principle rests upon knowing both the “phenotype” and the “genotype” of the dogs being used in your breeding program.
Phenotype can be defined as the “outward, physical manifestation of the organism. These are the physical parts, . . .anything that is part
of the observable structure, function or behavior of a living organism.”

Genotype can be defined as the "internally coded, inheritable information carried by all living organisms. This stored information is
used as a ‘blueprint’ or set of instructions for building and maintaining a living creature. These instructions are found within almost all
cells (the ‘internal’ part), they are written in a coded language (the genetic code), they are copied at the time of cell division or
reproduction and are passed from one generation to the next ("inheritable").”

Brackett goes so far as to suggest that many beginners are stuck and have little hope of moving away from mediocrity. He wrote that
“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.” They are “stuck” with the stock they have and therefore are
determined to make use of what they have. The reasons for breeding from such mediocre stock may be the result of affection for the
bitch, insufficient financial ability to purchase something better, the lack of knowledge to be aware of what constitutes a good GSD and
the inability to set a vision in regards to developing a breeding program or planned breeding. Brackett advocated beginning with
something much better than an ordinary, run-of-the-mill specimen.


#7 Know Faults for Correction through Physical Compensation!

“…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 and over-all improvement.”

“Paper breeding”, as Brackett called it, alone can be very dangerous. Start with the pedigree as you consider linebreeding, but avoid if
both the bitch and the prospective stud dog carry a common fault. Or if a weakness or fault is observed in the bitch. Then be sure that
the stud dog and his ancestors do not carry that same fault. Battaglia stresses that “it is safe in study of pedigrees to assume that the
recurrence of certain traits for more than four generations is genetically stable and not likely to be easily lost.”

“We must also try to find one who not only possesses these correct attributes himself but comes from dogs who had them.”

If possible, the sire should further be prepotent in the attributes in which the bitch is weakest.

“If we DO know that either the sire or dam, or any others amongst her ancestors, did have one or more faults mentioned, then 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.”

It is critical to properly undertake an evaluation, particularly of the breeding pair and their sire and dam and their littermates, if at all
possible. Above all, know the genotype traits of both the bitches and potential studs back a minimal of three generations.


#8 Use Only Outstanding Studs!


“We should also select a stud who is preferably inbred, or at least quite strongly linebred, so that the strength such breeding gives to
his prepotency will most likely insure his dominance in the mating pair.”

This is stated by Brackett knowing that an inbred or strongly linebred male’s virtues and fault will be overt—clearly seen in the dog and
his progeny. Remember that perhaps the greatest advantage of family breeding is simply to get predictable results—if the selection
has been good, the “pulls” are all in the same direction. As stated in the foundational principle #4 (Linebred/Inbred Wisely), a breeder
ought to be able to move from hoping for a good result to having the power of the hereditary influence pull these factors into a favorable
direction. Therefore, using an inbred or strongly linebred stud dog should insure some degree of prepotency. Of course, you as the
breeder must know the dominant virtues of the stud you select.

“…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.”

Decisions must be based upon information carefully collected. Obviously this data must be objective, measurable (and not given to
hearsay and rumor), and factual. Selection of studs must be based upon the excellence of both the phenotype and genotype and the
proper match and compensation with the bitch.

What is an outstanding stud?
1. Dogs without phenotype faults? These are faults which can be seen with the eye—obvious faults.
2. Dogs without genotype faults? These are faults which cannot be seen with the eye. However, these faults are nonetheless
possessed by the dog and can be passed on genetically to the dog’s progeny. Discovering genotype faults can only be accomplished
by knowing the virtues and faults of the ancestors back through at least three generations and preferably more.
3. Dogs that have a proven track record for producing very good (fault free) progeny.
4. Dogs that possess proper temperament. An outstanding stud will be dominant in producing proper temperament for several
generations. Brackett stated that “any dog which is not mentally sound should not be used as a breeder.”
5. Dogs that possess compensating factors when you consider and measure the bitch against the stud.

When Brackett selected his foundation stock, he chose three males as foundation stones that had overall type, noble appearance, iron
backs, properly angulated fore-assemblies, excellent rear angulation and good pigmentation.


#9 Always Select the Best Bitch Puppies!

“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.”

Hopefully that bitch puppy resembles her outstanding sire more than the dam. If she resembles the bitch that has weaknesses; when
she has puppies, she may pass on those similar weaknesses to her offspring.

Limit one’s interest in keeping male puppies! They take up space, time and resources. You can always breed to the outstanding studs
outside your kennel. Mediocre males are just as expensive to keep and maintain as outstanding males. In fact, one could argue that
they are more expense since the mediocre male will generate little or no income to the kennel through stud fees.

It should further be mentioned, the Brackett encouraged “culling relentlessly” the average, ordinary bitches in one’s kennel as more
correctly structured ones are bred into one’s own program. Culling simply means to remove the average, ordinary bitch from one’s
kennel by selling her or placing her into a good, nurturing pet/companion environment.

It is best to keep two bitch puppies (if they are close in structure, temperament and movement) until the breeder can be certain that the
pick bitch puppy has matured properly with good ears, full dentition, etc.


#10 Breed Back to Your “Toppers”!

“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 within a few years bring forth, and quite consistently, some ‘toppers.’”

“Given a foundation bitch who herself if 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.’”

Brackett utilized the terminology of “toppers.” In Planned Breeding, he does not define in any detail the usage of “toppers.” However,
one can determine from the context of the above-mentioned paragraphs the intended meaning of this Brackett terminology. It should
also be noted that the use of the term “toppers” seems to have become non-existent today.

Brackett seemed to be stating that one’s “toppers” are superior specimens in the breed possessing all the attributes of a show
specimen with great genetic background. A “topper” would be not only a great specimen, but also one who produces great
specimens. A “topper” will be one who has a family of good specimens behind it.

Of course, “Mr. German Shepherd” advocated the breeding back on one or more of one’s own “toppers.” He stated that “…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.” In addition, he vehemently warned against breeding the best to the best
without regard to bloodlines. Furthermore, he seemed to reluctantly agree to outcrossing, emphatically stating that outcrossing should
be used only for definite purposes.


Conclusion

Where are we now? Are these ten foundational principles passé or still of value to us today? What are the principles upon which you
are building your kennel? How do your principles meld together with Brackett’s principles?

From time to time, I have heard criticism of Brackett’s system of planned breeding. As I have read and reread Brackett’s writing, I am
impressed of his very deliberate openness to his system. He has shared indiscriminately about his successes (and he seemed to be
unhesitant to tell forth about his achievements) and about his failures. I have been amazed that he was so transparent about the
shortcoming of his system. He was a rather individual in this regard. Today so many breeders hide the problems that become evident
through their breedings. Brackett wrote about them, shared them with others and refined his system as he observed, gathered data,
and allowed his mistakes to inform his future practices.

I find it rather interesting as I research the pedigrees of all the Grand Victors and Grand Victrixes from the past five years (2003 – 2007),
they ALL have a common characteristic—there is a Longworth dog in their pedigree. Brackett himself bred the 1950 Grand Victrix CH.
Yola of Longworth and the 1951 Grand Victor Ch. Jory of Edgetowne was sired by Brackett’s Ch. Vol of Longworth. The Dual (1966 &
1968) Grand Victor Ch. Yocalla’s Mike was linebred 5-4 on the 1951 Grand Victor Ch. Jory of Edgetowne. I would encourage readers to
do a thorough research of the pedigrees of your own German Shepherds. You may have to go back 8 to 10 or more generations;
however, there is a strong likelihood that you will find a Longworth German Shepherd in your pedigrees.

As this article moves toward its ending, it only appears appropriate to include comments from several other writers concerning the
contributions of Mr. Brackett to the development of the German Shepherd Dog specifically and, of course, to the breeding of canines in
general.

Gordon Garret wrote:

“A sorting through years of German Shepherd Dog Reviews leaves little doubt as to the tremendous impact this one man made on the
German Shepherds in North America. He is one person, who should be given recognition for keeping the breed going through the
rough times. There were others, but Lloyd Brackett was really the one to point the way. It was in the '30's that he found the golden ring.
From all indications, it would appear that he was a perpetual student, always studying how others had been successful. He learned to
be flexible but with very definite principles as to the right way to breed dogs. He had it all figured out. He spelled it out in his articles, and
later generations found a lot of truth in what he had said. He philosophically endured the unbelievers that scorned him. Then he added
more fuel by bragging of his successes. ”

Fred Lanting wrote:

“Another famous program of the 1940s was the Long-Worth line of Lloyd Brackett. . . Lloyd emphasized linebreeding, while Grant Mann’
s Liebestraum kennel was based more on a type-to-type philosophy which maintained genetic diversity, better yet, was just as
successful in turning out great numbers of great dogs.

“Long-Worth dogs did a lot of winning and producing in the late 1940s and 1950s, and their genealogical branches intertwined with
those of Browvale, Edgetowne, Dorwald, and Rock Reach. Many of the LongWorth dogs were richly pigmented with much of their
coloration coming down thorugh Pfeffer. . . By the 1950s and early 1960s, many experienced dog watchers could guess at the
LongWorth background by simply looking at a dog’s markings and build.”

Carmen Battaglia wrote:

“Brackett understood the value of using quality dogs that were related to each other. This approach allowed him to concentrate the
genes needed to produce desired traits. His techniques for reducing error and improving quality focused on the careful selection of
breeding partners. . . Brackett became famous for breeding quality dogs with consistent type. His strategy relied on a series of
breedings using relatives. Often times he was quoted as saying, ‘never outcross when things seem to be going well, do it only as an
experiment or when some fault or faults cannot be eliminated.’ He was careful to study each stud dog and their offspring, eliminating
those who did not measure up and those who produced faults. . . Brackett's success helped to make line breeding popular. He
demonstrated how to make improvements by retaining a common pool of genes through the use of related dogs.”

Lloyd C. Brackett himself wrote the following in Popular Dogs (December 1952) and it was also printed in the German Shepherd Dog
Club of America, Inc. 1973 National Futurity and Maturity Section, Tabulation of Stud Dogs and Brood Bitches (Redbook):

“While it is undeniable and often observed, that good dogs do come by accident at times, the consistent production of outstanding
specimens and the obtaining of multi-champion litters can be had only through knowledge, and a familiarity with various traits
possessed by the animals in the pedigrees of the mating pairs. The breeder must also have in his mind’s eye a picture of what he
wants to produce; the idealized dog as described by the standard of his breed. Through this knowledge of what constitutes both
desirable and undesirable physical traits in his dogs, he can do compensator breeding. This mating of dogs with certain
shortcomings to dogs which themselves as well as their ancestors are strong in the characteristics desired, is even of more
importance than dependence upon pedigrees alone. Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth
must be built.”

German Shepherd fanciers and breeders owe more to Lloyd Bracket than we realize. I might suggest that there may not be a single
individual, at least in this country, to whom we owe more. Lloyd Brackett. Well-deserving of the affectionate title, “Mr. German Shepherd.”
1 Brackett, Lloyd C. Planned Breeding. Westchester, IL: Dog World Magazine, 1961, page 20.
2Blamire, Professor John. Accessed from: http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/Bio ... ition.html on July 16, 2008.
3 Ibid.
4 Brackett, page 28.
5 Ibid., page 29.
6 Battaglia, Carmelo L. Breeding Better Dogs., Atlanta, GA: Susan hunter Publishing Co., 1986, page 43.
7 Ibid., page 29.
8 Ibid., page 29.
9 Ibid., page 29.
10 Ibid., page 30.
11 Ibid., page 6.
12 Ibid., page 30.
13 Ibid., page 28.
14 Ibid., page 31.
15 Ibid., page 31.
16 Gordon Garret. History of the German Shepherd Dog. Accessed from: http://www.grunfeldshepherds.com/articl ... %20History%
20of%20the%20German%20Shepherd%20Dog-CHAPTER%2012%20BRACKETT%20AND%20MANN.pdf on July 12, 2008.
17 Lanting, Fred. The Total German Shepherd Dog. Wheat Ridge, CO: Hoflin Publishing, 1999, pages 26 – 27.
18 Carmen L. Battaglia, Brackett’s Formula. Accessed from : http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/bracket.html , on July 21, 2008.
19 Lloyd Bracket, Breeding, An Art. GSDCA Redbook, 1973, page 130.

i Brackett, Lloyd C. Planned Breeding, page 2 (Editorial Notes).
ii Carmen L. Battaglia, Brackett’s Formula. Accessed from http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/bracket.html January 27, 2008.
iii Ibid.
iv Brackett, page 27.

We will try this one!

You can join our "In The Know List" and be notified by email when new articles are
released.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Articles may be reproduced for personal use only.
To reproduce for public or commercial use, contact B.E.I. for permission.
"BRACKETT'S FORMULA"
by
Carmen L. Battaglia
By the early 1950's”, Lloyd C. Brackett had become a legend in his own time. In
part because of the quality of the dogs he produced and in part because of his
candor when addressing problems related to the breeding of canines. He had
much to say about the selection of sires, how to correct problems and how to
make improvements. Brackett was considered one of the fathers of the German
Shepherd breed in the United States. At the time of his death he was the oldest
living continuos fancier of the breed (since 1912). His kennel was called Long
Worth and he is remembered throughout the dog world for his theories about
breeding methods. Brackett was well read and a quick learner. Through his
writings he shed light on the confusion and misunderstandings associated with
line and inbreeding. One of his greatest achievements was to have produced over
90 champions in twelve years.
All of his methods and ideas were not new. For example, he combined the study
of pedigrees with the results they produced. After years of watching what
combinations produced the better offspring he refined his ideas about how to
select breeding partners. Out of these experiences came a formula that later he
would make him famous. The formula was not new but his ideas about how to
use it attracted attention. Breeders of domestic animals had used it for years. It
relied on the principles of line and inbreeding. But it was Brackett and his
approach to planned breedings that made it well known. Brackett believed in
pedigree analysis, litter evaluation, the use of line and inbreeding and a record
system that was easy to use. Those ideas are what set him apart from others who
did little more than practice the art of breeding. While Brackett is best known
for his emphasis on the use of line breeding he was not afraid to inbreed if the
situation dictated it. Brackett believed that it made no sense to go forward with
breeding before the needed information about the sire and dam had been
collected. He placed great emphasis on health, temperament and breed
characteristics. His planned breedings were based on the results that occurred in
his pups. In other words, he learned from his mistakes.
Brackett understood the value of using quality dogs that were related to each
other. This approach allowed him to concentrate the genes needed to produce
desired traits. His techniques for reducing error and improving quality focused
on the careful selection of breeding partners. They were central to maintaining
and improving specific traits while at the same time reducing disease and other
unwanted problems. Brackett became famous for breeding quality dogs with
consistent type. His strategy relied on a series of breedings using relatives. Often
times he was quoted as saying, "never outcross when things seem to be going
well, do it only as an experiment or when some fault or faults cannot be
eliminated". He was careful to study each stud dog and their offspring,
eliminating those who did not measure up and those who produced faults. Close
inspection of his pedigrees show that many of his sires were themselves inbred or
line bred and most were usually related in some way to the bitches in his
breeding program. Brackett's success helped to make line breeding popular. He
demonstrated how to make improvements by retaining a common pool of genes
through the use of related dogs. He believed that out-crossing was the least
desirable method because it introduced new genes into his pedigrees, which in
turn produced differences and genetic variations among the offspring.
It has been well documented that two full-brothers usually do not have the same
genetic potential even though they both come from the same two parents. One
sibling might inherit one set of genes from his father and the other might get a
different set from an uncle through his mother. While each pup always receives
half of its genes from the sire and half from the dam it does not mean that they
each will get the same set of genes. This explains why littermates do not always
look alike or have the same capacity to produce quality. Brackett kept detailed
records on the differences between siblings. He was well read on this subject and
occasionally mentioned the works of Aristotle and Mendel in his articles. In
practice they all shared similar beliefs.
Brackett was usually quick to comment on what he observed and how things
could be improved. In a statement taken from one of his articles, he said,
“whenever two or three dog fanciers get together there is almost sure to be talk
about linebreeding. The term may be used without anyone of them having a real
understanding of what it means. There seems to be much confusion even in the
minds of experienced dog breeders about the actual meaning of the terms and
how to differentiate between them”. He referred to this dilemma in several
articles in a variety of scenarios. He once raised several questions when he heard
two breeders discussing a line breeding. He referred to the breeder who
recommended it with the statement, “linebred to what? He knew that the answer
to the question would be a measure of what the breeder actually knew about the
term. It was his way of evaluating the wisdom of others. He knew that line
breeding can mean many things. For example, a dog can be line bred on its sire's
side of the pedigree or on its dam's side. Those who use the term usually
understand it to mean only that the dogs are related to each other.
Brackett was concerned about the future of breeding better dogs and the lack of
breeder education programs. He believed that “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.”
The formula Brackett preferred concentrated genes in a pedigree. He did this by
placing emphasis on the sire of the sire. In Figure 1, notice that the same dog
appears on the sire and the dam's side of the pedigree. Brackett liked to use one
important dog and have it appear twice in a three-generation pedigree. The basic
formula he preferred can be stated as follows, "Let the sire of the sire become the
grand sire on the dam's side". Said another way, “ let the father's father become
the mothers grandfather”.
FIGURE 1 PEDIGREE OF A BRACKETT STUD DOG
The sire that is circled appears on both sides of the pedigree. Because it is the same dog it
must be an outstanding dog free of disease because his genes are being preserved on both
sides of the pedigree and carried forward to the new stud dog.
Brackett knew that Mendel was able to consistently predict the traits in his
offspring especially when he knew what characteristics were carried in the
pedigrees of the parents. They both knew that when two individuals with known
ancestry are bred there is more certainty about what they are likely to produce
then when there is missing information about them. Mendel demonstrated these
principles in the 1860's. Brackett used these ideas because he knew that the
unexpected is more likely to occur when there are gaps in information about the
ancestors and their littermates. While heredity has the tendency to produce
resemblance's, the science of genetics teaches us to search beneath the superficial
resemblances of the phenotypes for the important clues in the genotypes. Thus,
when an individual is said to be dominant for a trait, it should be taken to mean
that a large percentage of their offspring were observed to have a certain trait. It
does not mean that all of their offspring will have that trait. Figure 2 illustrates
how Brackett would approach breeding a hypotical bitch called "A". The Stick
Dog Color Chart pedigree described in Battaglia's book, Breeding Better Dogs is
used to illustrate Brackett's approach. The stick dog pedigree illustrates how the
strengths, weaknesses and trends in a pedigree can be recorded and then easily
coded. Notice that each stick figure is drawn with seven structural parts. Using
the breed standard each of the seven structural parts are color coded to show
there quality or lack thereof. The color-codes for quality:
COLOR RANK QUALITY
Blue First Place Ideal based on the standard
Black Second
Place
Less than ideal based on the
standard
Red Third Place Faulty based on the standard
Gray Fourth
Place Faulty based on the standard
Figure 2 illustrates how Brackett would begin collecting information about “A”.
The notes that were collected about “A” indicate there are warning signals about
several traits. Circles around a trait or ancestor are used to show what
information is missing.
A breeder's notes might read:
“Her parents were of good quality, one of her four brothers was dysplastic, another
a monoricid. Two others had missing premolars, one sister was white. All six of her
littermates were of average quality”.
It must be remembered that the value of a bitch must also be determined by
what she has produced. The breeder's notes about her pups might read:
“Her first breeding was to a quality dog with an open pedigree. All four of her pups
were of poor quality, one had a disqualifying color; two others had an undershot
jaw, one was dysplastic. Her second breeding was a line breeding to another quality
dog. This dog was related to her sire. Two of eight pups died of heart disease, one
was diagnosed with clinical hip dysplasia, and two others had missing pre molars“.
The summary notes about bitch “A” are useful because they present an overview of
the bitches qualities.
FIGURE 2 STICK DOG PEDIGREE
Note 1. First breeding, N=4, to a sire with an open pedigree. Pups produced: 1 with a white
coat, 2 with undershot jaws, 1 dysplastic, and 4 of poor quality
Note 2. Second breeding, N=5, A line breeding. The pups: 2 of 8 died of heart problems, 2
had missing pre molars, and 1 was dysplastic, all of average quality
Note 3. Littermates of "A" (N=6): One monorchid, 2 had missing premolars, one sister was
white. All average in quality
Note 4. The sire and dam of "A" - Both were of good quality but her dam only produced
average offspring when bred to three different quality sires. Little is known about her sire.
Brackett and Mendel would have kept similar notes about the breeding partners
of “A” and her offspring. After two breedings that produced unsuitable
conformation, health problems and a disqualifying color (white), neither
Brackett or Mendel would have bred her a third time even if a top-producing
stud were available. Experience suggests that she should not be bred. However, if
producing an occasional pup of some quality were the goal, this is still a risky
bitch because her pedigree has the potential to produce unhealthy and mediocre
pups, many of which are likely to be carriers. Brackett was concerned about
these bitches because he knew that most buyers want to know that their puppy is
genetically healthy and that it will not become aggressive or so nervous that it
will spook at anything unusual. One of the best reasons for not using “A” is that
most of her pups are likely to become someone's house companion and require a
lifetime of costly veterinary care.
Formula Variations
Breeders quickly learned that variations could be made in Brackett's preferred
formula based on the strengths and weaknesses of the bitch. While they were not
as productive as the preferred formula they did work to concentrate the genes
needed. The variations of the formula can be stated as follows: Let the sire of the
sire be the grandsire of the dam on the sire's side instead of on the dam's side.
Another variation let the sire be the result of either a full or half brother and
sister mating and thus inbred. In each case selecting a mate for a faulty bitch
such as “A” whose wide-open pedigree offers no strength would not be a good
use of these formulas.
The selection of breeding partners must always focus on correcting weaknesses
in pedigrees and making improvements. To do other wise is a waste of time.
References:
Battaglia, C. L. - Breeding Better Dogs, BEI Publications, Atlanta, GA 1986
Bell, Jerold S. "Choosing Wisely", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, Number 8, p-51.
Bell, Jerold, S. "Developing Healthy Breeding programs", Canine Health Conformance, AKC
Canine Health Foundation, Oct. 15-17,1999. St. Louis MO.
Brackett, Lloyd, C. "Planned Breeding," Dog World Magazine, Chicago IL, 1961.
Hedhammer,Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine
health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State University. As an
AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in promotion of breeding better dogs
and has written many articles and several books.Dr. Battaglia is also a popular TV and radio
talk show speaker. His seminars on breeding dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have
been well received by the breed clubs all over the country. Those interested in learning more
about his articles and seminars should visit the website http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com

Maybe this one will work as well!


Hounds and Hunting Through the Ages? I posted some over on this web site http://norwester.proboards.com/index.cg ... hread=1554
Mr. Thomas said a lot without using too many words.

Although I don't hunt the numbers of dogs he did and I don't hunt the same game, I do try to follow the same principles he did (try being the key word there). Not many people do in this part of the world.

Seems to me, your dad could have written the book.



Through the Ages by Joseph Thomas? Thomas was a fox hunter from Virginia and also raised beagles. This book was written in 1933 and has a lot of good information in it. Here's some of his thoughts on breeding hounds:

Certain comments have already been made to the effect that out-crosses must be indulged in with infinite care. Mendel in 1853, laid down his now well-accepted principle of the impossibility of breeding a cross true to it’s own type, on account of it’s innate tendency to split up into it’s original pure or uncrossed forms.

At one time, I was in a great hurry to add certain attributes of conformation to my pack and searched the world for possible out-crosses. Having found a type of hound that had most of the outward characteristics desired, and possessed of fair nose and quality of cry, I did some cross-breeding both ways; that is, using my Virginia hounds as sires and vise versa. My experiments came to very unsatisfactory results, as I might have known had I thoroughly absorbed the teachings of Mendel. While I was flirting on the side with this expensive experiment, several years passed. During this time, my own line-breeding system showed splendid results in improving the appearance and hunting qualities of the pack, and its ability to breed true, in consequence of which I became convinced that a continuous policy of line-breeding, with very diluted out-crosses, if any, is the only policy that gives reasonable assurance of results. This method may not be spectacular, but it is sure.

Breed improvement, commonly called line-breeding, means the restriction of matings to individuals of one line of descent. Its object is to get the best out of a given race, and to better that race if possible.

The chief danger in line-breeding is the selection by paper pedigree - forgetting, or being ignorant of, the attributes of the individual. Elimination in line-breeding is just as important as in any other system, and a line bred pedigree is valuable or worthless in direct ratio to the individuals that made it. No other system of breeding has ever secured the results that line-breeding has; but, to secure results in this manner, personal knowledge of each hound and strict adherence to individual selection is all-essential. Line breeding carried to its limits involves the interbreeding of hounds closely related. This is termed in-breeding, and this system has produced some of the greatest animals in all breeds, but is dangerous unless the utmost attention is paid to individual weaknesses.

Here's some more, having to do with breeding a pack...

On the whole, the breeders problem is to obtain the strongest aggregation of hounds properly balanced as to conformation, superior as to performance, and which will be able to transmit their qualities by virtue of homogeneous hereditary characteristics. When all is said and done, there is nothing like actual observation of the results of using one line of blood in combination with another, and the proven virtues of certain sires and dams as producers. Their value is incalculable.

It is hoped that the attributes of a good hound have been made clear. Multiplying that perfect hunting machine by sixty, the result will be a useful pack, able to turn out eighteen to twenty couple three times a week. The extra hounds will be needed, because there will always be a certain number that are cut, lamed, or otherwise laid up. Such a pack will have no hounds under eighteen months old, and rarely any over six years of age. In other words, every four years an entirely new pack of hunting hounds will have to be provided, a renewal that will require the utmost thought and attention.

An ideal pack must be composed entirely of great individual hounds,- say, seventeen to twenty couple,- perfectly matched for speed and ability, hunting with the utmost unanimity. There must not be a single individual in the pack as a “filler-in” or for appearance only. In his work, each hound must be the best. He must have individuality, yet be subject to control. Often, I have been asked what was my best hound. My reply always is, “I cannot answer. They must all be good.” Of course, some hounds are better than others for different phases of the chase.

All must have their good points - none too fast, none too slow, all coordinating.

This is a Good one as well!

Presents Useful Information About Line Breeding
A very liberally edited version of an article by Jerold S. Bell, D.V.M. that appeared in the September 1992 American Kennel Club Gazette, "The Ins and Outs of Pedigree Analysis, Genetic Diversity, and Genetic Disease Control" ... followed by some personal observations.
Without exception all breeds of dogs are the result of inbreeding. Inbreeding has either occurred through natural selection among a small isolated population (i.e. the dingo) or through the influence of man breeding selected animals to derive specific traits. Either way intensive inbreeding is responsible for setting enough of the dominant traits that the resulting group breeds true to type. At which point a population of dogs can be said to be a breed.
Dogs actually have more genes than humans. Tens of thousands of genes interact to produce a single dog. All genes are inherited in pairs, one from the sire and one from the dame. If the inherited genes from both parents are identical they are said to be homozygous. If the pair of inherited genes are not similar they are said to be heterozygous. The gene pairs that make a German Shorthair breed true to type are obviously homozygous. However, variable gene pairs like those that control coat color, size, scenting ability, etc. are still heterozygous within the breed as a whole.
Linebreeding concentrates the genes of a specific ancestor or ancestors through their appearance multiple times in a pedigree. When a specific ancestor appears more than once behind at least one animal on both the sire's side and yet another animal on the dame's side homozygosity for that animal's traits are possible.
However, if this specific ancestor appears only through a particular offspring of the ancestor in question then the Breeder is actually breeding on this offspring of the ancestor rather than on the ancestor itself. This is why having many "uncovered crosses" to a specific ancestor ( those that come through different offspring of this specific ancestor) gives the Breeder the greatest chance of making the desired traits of the specific ancestor homozygous.
Homozygosity greatly improves the chances that the resulting pups will in turn pass on the desired traits of the specific ancestor to their pups. When selecting pups from a line breed litter the Breeder must choose pups that display the desired traits of the specific ancestor or they have accomplished little. In fact, if these traits are not present in a linebred pup it is very likely that it inherited its genes from the remaining part of its pedigree and will be unable to breed true to type. Because the Breeder selected “out” for the pups that didn’t display this original ancestor’s traits.
Inbreeding significantly increases homozygosity, and therefore uniformity within a litter. One of the best methods of evaluating how successful a linebreeding has been is to gauge the similarity of the littermates as compared with pups of other litters with similar pedigrees. Considerable similarity among littermates tells the Breeder the genes have "nicked" or paired together as anticipated. The resulting pups will likely be able to pass these genes to the next generation.
Undesirable recessive genes are always masked by a dominant gene. Through inbreeding a rare recessive gene can be passed from a common ancestor on both the sire and the dame's side creating a homozygous recessive offspring. The resulting offspring actually displays the trait neither of their parents displayed ( even though both of them carried it ). Understand that inbreeding does not create undesirable genes it simply increases the chance that traits which are already present in a heterozygous state within the breed will be displayed.
Too many Breeders outcross as soon as an undesirable trait appears, blaming the problem on breeding "too close." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact out-crossing insures that the undesirable trait will be carried generation after generation in a heterozygous recessive state only to rear its ugly head again and again. Therefore the Breeder who turns away from breeding “close” is simply passing a known problem on to succeeding generations and future Breeders.
When an undesirable trait is "unmasked" the Breeder who does his breed a real service is the one that stays with his line long enough to rid it of the undesirable trait. By controlling which specimens within their line are used for breeding in succeeding generations this Breeder can eliminate the undesirable trait. Once the recessive gene is removed it can never again affect the Breeder's line. Inbreeding doesn't cause good genes to mutate into bad genes it merely increases the likelihood that they will be displayed.
The Inbreeding Coefficient (or Wrights coefficient) is an estimate of the percentage of all variable genes that are homozygous due to inheritance from common ancestors. It is also the average chance that any single gene pair is homozygous due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Our pedigrees display the Inbreeding Coefficient for each dog in the first 4 generations of a specific dog's ancestry. Each Inbreeding Coefficient is calculated from that dog's 10 generation pedigree.
NOTE: Inbreeding does not cause good genes to somehow mutate - it only increases the likelihood that existing genes will be displayed - allowing the Breeder the chance to eliminate what had previously been unseen in their particular line although it was always present.
At Westwind GSPs we gauge the amount of homozygosity in an animal using their Inbreeding Coefficient (or Wrights Coefficient) - which can be seen as an estimate of the percentage of all variable genes that could be inherited from common ancestors. It is also give us a mathematical value for the average chance that any single gene pair is homozygous due to inheritance from a common ancestor.
Our pedigrees display the Inbreeding Coefficient for each dog in the first 4 generations of a specific dog's ancestry. However, the Inbreeding Coefficients displayed for each dog in our pedigrees is in turn calculated from that particular dog's 10 generation pedigree. We can trace most of our dogs back more than 20 generations – some as far back as 35 generations.
Our German Shorthairs>>
Four generation pedigrees that contain 28 unique ancestors for the 30 positions in the pedigree would obviously generate a low inbreeding coefficient. Yet a ten generation pedigree for the same dog might look quite different. If this dog were to have say 700 unique ancestors filling the 2048 positions in the pedigree the results for the same dog would be a much higher and truer inbreeding coefficient. Sometimes what appears to be an out-bred mix of genes in the first few generations (especially with owners naming their own dogs) ends up being a fine example of linebreeding when the pedigree is extended.
However, it must be remembered that simply knowing the inbreeding coefficient of a dog does nothing to help us understand which ancestors the dog is actually bred on. We know that the animal in question has many crosses to the same ancestors but we don't know which ancestors they are. To understand this, and to unlock the secrets of a dog's pedigree, we must do a homozygosity study.
A homozygosity study is not a percent blood calculation. The percent blood of a dog and its immediate ancestors is relatively easy to estimate but not that important. In fact the dog will have 50% of its blood be from it sire and 50% of its blood be from its dame. But if these two dogs have no common ancestors the inbreeding coefficient would be 0%. Homozygosity is far more important in determining what traits a dog is capable of passing on to its offspring than percent blood but it is extremely difficult to calculate without the use of a computer.
So while knowing a dogs inbreeding coefficient is important in accessing its potential to throw its type we still need to clearly understand which dogs behind a particular dog are the most influential. Simply knowing how homozygous a particular animal is does nothing to help the conscientious Breeder understand this. To understand this and to unlock the secrets of a particular dog's pedigree we must do a homozygosity study. We need to know which ancestors the dog in question is bred on.
On more than one occasion we have seen pedigrees in which the most influential ancestor for a homozygous trait doesn't even appear in the first three generations. In this type of situation it is not unusual for this particular ancestor to contribute 50% of the homozygous genes of the dog in question. In this case if a dog is 16% inbred one ancestor would be responsible for 8% or 50% of the dogs homozygosity. It is of paramount importance for the dedicated Breeder to know not only the inbreeding coefficient for the resulting litter before the mating is done but also which dogs in the pups pedigree are influencing their genetic potential.
Far too many matings have been done only on the basis of physical appearance with little if any regard to the sire's and dame's respective pedigrees or the interplay between the two. Novice Breeders don't realize that individual dogs may share desirable traits but inherit them differently. This is especially true of polygenic traits, such as ear set, bite, or length of forearm. And many Breeders fail to understand that breeding dogs which are phenotypically similar but genotypically unrelated won't produce the desired traits in the current litter - and will actually reduce the chance of these traits being reproducible in the next generation.
Conversely, individual German Shorthairs with the same pedigree do not inherit exactly the same genes and will not breed identically. Dogs in a litter are no more similar than brothers and sisters in a human family. Think about it. If dogs have more genes than people and they are as dissimilar as human siblings need we worry so much about the “too close” we hear sounded by all those who know little or nothing about linebreeding. At Westwind GSPs we regularly breed litters with a Wright’s Coefficient of more than 20% with superior results. There have been examples in German Shorthairs of fine animals with inbreeding coefficients as high as 65%.
The secret is that all linebreedings must be made on a combination of performance, appearance and ancestry. If a Breeder is going to be successful in solidifying a certain trait they must rigorously select breeding specimens which display the desired trait and have similar pedigrees. In so doing Breeders have a chance of making this desired trait homozygous over time. This is the one key to successful linebreeding that is most often missed by unsuccessful Breeders.
In choosing a line of dogs within any bred it is wise to choose a line with "critical mass". Find a line within your breed where the most prepotent individual was mated many times and produced many superior offspring. Without enough genetic diversity it will be more difficult to find animals within the line that do not also share the faults of the pre-potent individual. These are the faults the Breeder will have the most difficulty in eliminating.
No matter how limited the critical mass the Breeder must never breed animals that are poor examples of what the Breeder is trying to produce simply because they share common ancestors. Breeding “paper” is the quickest way to ruination and is largely responsible for the negative attitudes people have toward linebreeding. To a Breeder no dog is worth more than what it is able to produce. No amount of titles can overcome an animals inability to reproduce its own great traits. Look at the lack of production from Secretariat.
Most beginning Breeders suspicion they should start with a brood bitch of a particular line and they are correct. If at all possible the new Breeder should obtain females that come not just from the same important stud but actually come from the same Motherline that is behind the stud in question. Instead of trying to get a bitch as close to the stud in question look for a pedigree in which the mothers of the sires are themselves from the same genepool. This is the female who will likely produce great pups.
Motherlines in German Shorthairs>>
In all mammals the females are "X" "X" and males are "X" "Y" which means that only females carry the genetic code particular to the part of the gene string that is missing in all males. Horse Breeders refer to it the "X Factor" and have demonstrated that the gene responsible for the large heart so many great racing stallions have can be traced back thru their motherlines to a single mare that lived more than 100 years ago. If a stallion has an oversized heart - like Secretariat - this particular mare will show up in his motherlines over and over again. The mares themselves don't have the large heart but they carry the gene for it on their “X” chromosome. Like wise the stallions do not throw the large heart themselves.
And so it is with German Shorthairs. The bitches are far more important than the studs in carrying particular genes forward. Understand that this is true even if the genes most sought were originally found in a pre-potent male. The key for any successful Breeder is to isolate those females that carried his traits and breed off of them. It has been our experience that many important traits are indeed sex linked and carried by the dames from generation to generation.
Successful Breeders realize they are fighting "the drag of the breed," which is the tendency for all animals to breed back toward mediocrity. If it didn't work this way super species and super races would have developed long ago in every animal on earth. For instance in human beings it is impossible to breed parents with high IQs together to produce higher IQs. Even when two genius have children the average IQ of their children will be half way between normal and the average of their IQs.
By the way Einstein himself was the off spring of parents who were themselves first cousins - and he married his first cousin. So much for the tails of woe you heard in school about the effects of inbreeding. In fact the history of the German Shorthaired Pointer is replete with many examples of intensive inbreeding that produced some of the more influential dogs in our breed.
A History of German Shorthairs>>
Unsuccessful Breeders regularly overlook an animal that has a great trait because it also has a minor fault in favor of an animal that has no faults but no great traits. Successful Breeders use specimens within their line that have at least one truly great trait and breed them with specimens that in turn are great where the other dog is weak. This is the "secret to line breeding" - the only way to successfully fight off the drag of the breed.
In so doing it is possible to linebreed offspring that are better than both the sire and the dame. Mathmatically fully ¼ of the resulting pups have the possibility of getting the great traits from both parent. Plus, the resulting specimens in turn can pass these great traits on to the next generation, unlike the F1 hybrid animal that results from outcrossing that carries the same traits. This is how a successful Line Breeder can actually improve his line as he condenses his gene pool.
So much is made about the perceived problem of a limited gene pool in pure bred dogs it has caused some "experts" to advocate out-breeding of all dogs. However, studies in genetic conservation of rare and endangered species have shown this practice actually contributes to the loss of genetic diversity. If we were to uniformly out-cross all "lines" in any breed we would eliminate the differences between the lines and therefore reduce the diversity between individuals within the breed. The process of breeding toward genetic purity of any particular line of German Shorthairs will in fact contribute to genetic diversity within the breed itself.
In fact what few people understand actually happens is that as a line is successfully bred over the years a concentration of good recessive genes is happening. Assuming the Breeder is a person of integrity and doesn't knowingly breed animals that have disqualifiable faults or traits. Over a period of time this Breeder will clean up his genepool. While it is true that linebreeding gives the opportunity for the worst traits to display themselves in any individual animal, it is not true that the Breeder is required to use that animal in his genepool. In fact if the Breeder is concerned with his genepool and not just about producing pups he actually has the opportunity to clean up genes that would go unnoticed in an outcross breeding.
What actually happens in a successful linebreeding program is that over the years the dominate genes in the line tend to lessen in number. This is because unless a dominate gene was selected out for in each successive animal it can never "reappear" in the same way that a recessive gene can. Obviously if neither of the parents displays this dominate gene then none of the offspring can - because it no longer exists in the genepool.
Dominant genes are either displayed or they don't exist. And it should be noted by any serious Breeder that the "Original Animal" his particular line was built on was the only animal in his line to carry all of the dominate genes originally possible. From that point in a truly closed breeding program there is only the chance that the number of dominate genes will decline as they are slowly being replaced on each point of the gene string by recessive genes. There is no other possibility unless a breeder outcrosses.
Therefore if the Breeder isn't skillful in accessing and selecting offspring they will lose some of their precious dominant genes over time. Often we hear Breeders say they are “needing an outcross” - what they are really saying is that they have lost their original dominant genes and have no other means of getting them back. These could be some of the most cherished traits of the Fountainhead Animal.
If possible it is wise for you as a lineBreeder to freeze semen on old stud dogs in your genepool who are known to throw the dominate genes you value. This gives any Breeder the ultimate insurance policy - the ability to "outcross" within their own genepool if they were unfortunate enough to lose valued dominant genes over time. We have made good use of frozen semen on a number of occasions.
Our GSP Puppies>>
One of the more interesting things about a linebred genepool is that it is difficult if not impossible to pass a linebreeding program on to another Breeder. Lets assume that you have put in the work and made the difficult decisions not to use certain specimens (even those with highly touted titles and awards) because they pass on undesirable genes. Let's assume you have managed to clean up your genepool. At the point another Breeder is lucky enough to bred to some of your best specimens it will improve virtually anything the other breeder has.
Unfortunately, while those who outcross to your line will improve their genetic structure the genes of your inbred line will tend to vanish because these genes will very likely be more recessive than the outcross genes. In effect the outcross genepool will "cover up" your more recessive inbred genes. And there is not much either breeder can do about it - even if you wanted to. Unfortunately many breeders do this to themselves.
We have seen this many times over the years especially from those who think they can "buy their way in." The fallacy in their thinking is that they can buy a line breed brood bitch from one line and a line bred brood bitch from yet another line to breed to their great new Stud Dog – often their first German Shorthair. They think they can start a breeding program overnight from three different genepools because the dogs are such fine specimens. Oh if it were so simple.
Often overly enthusiastic newbies in their over simplified thinking take this exact approach. Unfortunately, it is the third generation where the wheels come off. Why the third generation? Well the first two liters were dynamite because they were both F1 hybrid liters. But when the F1 hybrid offspring from one linebred bitch are bred to F1 hybrid offspring of the other linebred bitch things come apart. In fact this "well laid plan" is a sure receipt for breeding straight downhill.
So what is the answer? Wherein lies the truth? It is not what you want to hear but here it is: Years and years of line breeding by a committed ethical Breeder - someone with a vision of perfection and the tenacity to make difficult decisions. The only way to consistently produce superior animals is to linebred. Period ... it’s that simple!
Those who argue against linebreeding are inevitably those who have never successfully bred animals themselves - most often they are college professors. The same people who have bred nothing more complicated than fruit flies or no more demanding than lab rats are often the most vocal about how others should breed performance animals. These "know-nothings" advocate the notion that out-crossing is in and of itself good because it produces some thing they often refer to as "hybrid vigor".
To them, and to you, we pose this question: "If out-cross breeding is the answer then why don't the owners of successful herds of Holstein milk cows out-cross to the American Shorthorn milk cow?" In theory this would produce super milk cows by combining a milk cow that has the genes for high milk production like the Holstein with one that has the genes for high milk quality like the American Shorthorn. Oh yes on both paper (the stuff of academia) and in theory this should produce the best milk cows on earth.
But this is where the theory that reigns supreme in the professor’s lab meets the reality of the milk barn. Some of the most inbred animals on the face of the earth are Holstein Cattle. The reality is that dairy farmers know all too well is that they would go broke from the inferior milk production of the resulting out-crossed animals. Crossing to an animal with such poor milk production would be disastrous fore them. And here in lies the rub for all of us ...
Understand something and don’t let anyone sway you again. Outcrossing does NOT produce “more” – the genetic material remains the same. Nor do the qualities of the subject animals it produces multiply. Just as linebreeding doesn’t damage genes - outcrossing doesn’t magnify what’s in the genome. There is no magic in out crossing!
Note: So called "hybrid vigor" is never in and of itself the answer to breeding better specimens. The quality of the specimen used in any breeding is far more important than whether or not a particular animal has a very low inbreeding coefficient or whether the proposed breeding will result in a low inbreeding coefficient.
And for those who continue to stubbornly advocate outcrossing we ask you this final question: "Even if by random chance the outcross breeding in question would actually produce a superior specimen would the animal in question be able to reproduce itself? Would the greatness be passed on to its get?" No.
The sad fact is that this superior specimen would likely not be able to reproduce itself. It will likely never throw a single specimen as good as it is in its lifetime. This is because by definition this “super specimen” is of the F1 generation. And animals of this generation are rarely able to reproduce themselves. So what has been accomplished by even a successful outcross? Little or nothing other than to put a single animal on the ground.
For fun I would like to invite this no-nothing college professor to the race track where for an afternoon he would have the opportunity to bet on all the outcrosses and I would bet on all the linebred race horses. I believe we call them Thoroughbreds for a reason don’t we? Oh but I forgot he wouldn’t be the betting kind would he? Not in his lifestyle and not in his career. No, he would be the man of theory. He would be a man who lives in the world of theory.
Not us my friend! No, we both live in the world of fact. Yes, we live in the world of bird hunting where what separates the wheat from the chafe are immeasurable traits like “heart” and “bird sense”. At Westwind GSPs we understand how much is expected of these amazing athletes we call German Shorthaired Pointers. You see we own performance animals not lab rats.
Think about it. Those who advocate the outcrossing of birddogs are effectively proposing that bird hunters entrust the development of their performance dogs to the whims of random chance. If you believe this is a wise course then you need to locate another Breeder. May we suggest that you check the want ad section of your local newspaper where you will find many splendid examples of outcross breeding.
Successful linebreeding is a long and arduous task - one that requires a lifetime's commitment to a particular line of dogs. We have great respect for the few Breeders of German Shorthairs who successfully developed and perpetuated their particular line of GSPs in the past – fighting negative public opinion all the way. Even if we don't have a single dog from their particular line in our pedigrees we have studied their breeding patterns and over the years have developed a deep appreciation for their work.
It is from the legacy of Breeders who refused to settle, who held to their standards when things didn’t go as planned that we owe so much. It is from those Breeders who bred to the brother of the champion because he produced better pups than the titled dog that all of us enjoy a robust GSP gene pool today. To them we all owe a huge debt of gratitude.
Our Breeding Philosophy for German Shorthairs>>
Although our breeding program remains a "hobby" our commitment to the German Shorthaired Pointer remains strong. We are looking forward to many more fine litters and many more years of great hunting behind our beloved Westwind GSPs. Which remains the single driving force behind our breeding program. Good Hunting.
www.Westwind GSPs.com
- all rights reserved -
Breeding true to type - Breeding true to the breed

This should be the second article and will appear in two or three parts: Part 1

Planned Breeding
By Lloyd C. Bracket
________________________________________
INDEX
• Part I
o Family Breeding
o Why Inbred Or Linebred?
o Advantages Of Linebreeding
o Disadvantages Of Linebreeding
o Inbreeding
o Advantages Of Inbreeding
o Disadvantages Of Inbreeding
o Inbreeding Not Necessarily Disastrous
o Recapitulation
• Part II
o How To Do Inbreeding
o Breeding From The Best Without Regard To Bloodlines Personal
o Experience
o In Support Of Theory
• Part III
o Building A Strain
o Importance In Selection Of Bitches
o Bitch’s Background Of Utmost Importance
o Choosing The Males
o Foundation Blood Intensifies Pedigrees
o Temperament And Mentality Not Sacrificed
• Part IV
o Ancestors In Common Don’t Guarantee Worthwhile Breeding
o Outcrossing, Part Of Planned Breeding
o Outcross Only For Definite Purpose
o When Should Outcross Be Made?
o Strains And Real Strains
• Part V
o To Get Desired Characteristic When Outcrossing
o Danger In Continued Outcrossing
o Failing Of Many Breeders
o “Warning Blood”
o Imports Could Be “Tainted”
o Summation
• Part VI
o Always Know What To Expect Through Inheritance
o Serious Faults In Some Imports
o Recapitulation
o Regrettably Little Information For True Breed Students
o Analysis Of Breed Survey Systems
o Are Survey Leaders Qualified?
o Are The “Surveyors” Qualified?
• Part VII
o Humans
o Wild Animals
o Horses And Cattle
o Pigeons
o Summary
• Part VIII
o Inborn Traits Hereditable -- Acquired Are Not!
o Producing And Breeding Hybrids
o The Formula In Practice
o Applying Theory
• Part IX
o To Achieve Better Results Faster
o Know Faults To Breed For Correction!
o Favorite Breeding Practice For Superior Stock
o Foundation On Which Worth Is Built
o Select Best Bitch Puppies -- Not Male!
o Breeding Bitch From 1st Litter
________________________________________
PART I
One of the fathers of the German Shepherd in this country and the oldest living continuous fancier of the breed in America (since 1912) his theories on breeding have been more than proven in his Long-Worth Kennels where he established his own strain in the breed and produced more than 90 champions in only 12 years, a world’s record for any breed. Known affectionately as “Mr. German Shepherd” he has proven beyond doubt the soundness of his breeding program.
Whenever two or three dog fanciers get together there is almost sure to be talk about line-breeding. The term may be used without any one of them having a real understanding of what it means. There seems to be much confusion, even in the minds of experience dog breeders, about the actual meaning of the terms inbreeding and linebreeding and how to differentiate between them. The prime purpose of this article will therefore be to try to explain, as simply as possible, these two methods of breeding, as well as why they are used and what should be expected from them. In covering these types of breeding, the subject of outcrossing must of necessity enter the picture. We should know exactly what we mean when we talk of inbreeding, linebreeding and out-crossing. Few breeders have a clear conception of just where one leaves off and the other begins.
Prior to supply a greater definitiveness as to what is meant by the above systems of breeding, the following short explanations are given. In the broadest sense they contain the gist of the whole subject. Linebreeding is mating animals that are closely related to the same ancestor, preferably one whose type it is desired to obtain in the resultant progeny. In other words, it is accomplished by using for parents dogs that are closely related to that ancestor, but are little, if at all, related to each other through any other ancestors. They are, in effect, bred in line to that common ancestor. When a breeder says his dog is linebred, one immediately questions, “Linebred to what?” As we shall see later, the answer to the questions enables us to somewhat evaluate the wisdom of having used this type of breeding in that instance.
Inbreeding implies a much closer relationship between the mating pair than does linebreeding. Instead of involving second, third, or more distant generations, it is generally understood to have to do with only four relationships -- son to mother, father to daughter, brother to sister, half-brother to half-sister (both having the same sire and different dams, or the same dam and different sires). It should be remembered that when mating the progeny of two litters, each having the same parents (from repeated matings, for instance), one is mating full blood brothers and sisters. That too is inbreeding.
FAMILY BREEDING
There is no complete concurrence of opinion among breeders as to where linebreeding takes over from inbreeding, since the former is only a modification of the latter. We find that both terms are rather loosely used, that there are several intermediate relationships which are labeled inbreeding by some, linebreeding by others. It is difficult to make any incontrovertible definition of the two terms, if indeed not impossible. It would be only confusing if we took up here what some breeders consider to be inbreeding, others linebreeding, such as the mating of a dog to a half-brother or half-sister of one parent. There are several other such closely involved relationship matings upon which there are similar differences of opinion. However, in the broadest and most commonly accepted meanings of linebreeding and inbreeding, explanations have been given above.
The reader should understand that there is an area of breeding between interrelated animals which is to entirely covered by the terms “inbreeding” and “linebreeding” as defined here. For this type of breeding I have for years used the term “family breeding,” which, to the best of my knowledge, I myself originated. Since “family breeding” is simply an extension of both inbreeding and linebreeding, what I have to say about these will apply in some measure, of course, to family breeding.
WHY INBRED OR LINEBRED?
While it is important to understand that there are some differences in the selection of the mating dogs when using the systems of inbreeding and linebreeding, it is of far greater value to know why these types of breeding are so often employed; why they are used by almost all successful breeders of any variety of livestock and what the results are likely to be, both good and bad. We shall pursue that subject now.
The purpose of both linebreeding and inbreeding is to bring about breed improvement -- to get the best that is possible out of ones matings and to upgrade his stock. Experience has shown that if more than mere multiplication is to be had, and any real and lasting results toward breed improvement are to be obtained, a breeder must use a system of linebreeding, which not only combines animals very similar in their characteristics but narrows the pedigree to a few closely related lines of descent. This “purifies” the pedigree rapidly and enables a breeder to control, to some degree, all characteristics. It discourages variability and reduces it to a minimum.
ADVANTAGES OF LINEBREEDING
The results obtained by this system of breeding can more certainly be predicted than the average breeder realizes. Few indeed are the dog fanciers who do more than mate bitch to dog HOPING for results that there is no scientific reason to expect. When by good fortune one or two above average offspring do appear, they have nothing behind them upon which to base an expectation that they will pass on their desirable traits. On the other hand, when such superior offspring are produced by linebreeding, and improvement is shown, it is backed up by the most powerful hereditary influence obtainable because of the simplicity and strength of the ancestry. If the SELECTION of this ancestry has been good, the “pulls” are all in the same direction. The records of all breeds show the pronounced salutary results that have come from judicious linebreeding.
DISADVANTAGES OF LINEBREEDING
Selection by pedigrees alone, without consideration being given to the physical traits of the mating pair, is the chief danger in this system of breeding. The writer can state in the following few words the most important counsel to those who would attempt linebreeding: Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built. A linebred pedigree is valuable or dangerous in exact proposition as the individuals have been selected. Linebreeding does not replace selection but, on the contrary, demands the most discriminating choosing within the line. If the breeder selects by pedigree, and without consideration to physical compensation, undoubtedly dogs with notable faults will result, and thus line breeding will insure failure quicker and more certainly than will any other known system of breeding. No other breeding plan has ever brought about the good results of linebreeding, and no other system will ever be so powerful in the production of consistently good animals and this with the greatest certainty year after year. The principal requirement is not to abandon individual selection. A pedigree is a guarantee of bloodlines, a record of the blood of ancestors within which breeding operations and selection may, with confidence, be confined. The word “confined” is used advisedly for, after linebreeding has been practiced for a few generations, the end results is the development of what is in effect of pure breed -- a breed within a breed, so to speak. When that has occurred, any attempt to introduce “cold” blood (that of unrelated dogs of other strains) is likely to result in the penalties of hybridization. The departure from linebreeding is a kind of “crossing” in a small degree, for when the blood of linebred animals becomes intensified they assume all the attributes of a distinct strain, which in truth they are, and they will likely behave as such for a long time.
In saying that linebred dogs tend to become like purebred, or strains within their breeds, and that their progeny from a union with unrelated animals are like hybrids, I do not mean that such breedings should never be made, or that the results would be like breeding into an entirely different breed of dogs. While in some strains of animals linebreeding and inbreeding have been intensified to a point where a herd or flock would be practically a breed of their own, I do not personally know of such a family in any breed of dogs today. However, there have been strains developed in some breeds to a point where their blood has become so dominant that it will not yield for several generations to any noticeable blending when out crossed, the characteristics of the inbred or linebred parent always showing up. That is, of course, to be expected.
In the dog game those who criticize the system of linebreeding far outnumber its proponents. This is true for several reasons. There is a continual influx of beginners in breeding dogs, people who have never before mated one animal to another, or made any study of the subject. In their ignorance they believe that mating two dogs with “pedigrees,” especially if both are winners, or better yet, “Champions,” is all there is to it. Then, there are a multitude of breeders who refuse to take the time to make any study of genetics, who want only to breed dogs to sell and make money, and these have no interest in breed improvement through years of planned effort. Again, we have the many hit-or-miss breeders who hope for the good luck which sometimes strikes novices who by sheer accident come up with a real “topper” or two. In listing the opponents of closed-up breeding, one should not fail to mention owners of stud dogs, hungry for stud fees.
Fortunately there are in almost all breeds of dogs a very few fanciers intent upon consistently producing dogs superior to the average of the breed. Many of these know that the quickest and most certain way to do this is by linebreeding.
INBREEDING
Because linebreeding is more generally practiced than is inbreeding, I have dwelt more on the former so far in this article. The difference in the degree of relationship of mating pairs, as generally accepted by breeders, was explained, however, it might be well now to go more fully into the subject of inbreeding. This is “breeding in and in” and is linebreeding carried to its limits. It possesses all the advantages and disadvantages of linebreeding to their utmost attainable degree. Breeding a daughter to her sire gives rise to offspring three-fourths of whose bloodlines are those of the sire, a practice which, if continued, would soon result in progeny with but one line of ancestry, practically eliminating the blood of the original dam. This form of breeding is practiced when it is desired to secure all that is possible of the blood of the sire.
On the other hand, when a dam is bred to her son or sons successively, it increases the blood of the dam. This form is practiced when it is the dam’s bloodlines one desires to preserve and intensify. Either system can, of course, be approximated by the use of a granddaughter or grandson. The breeding together of brother and sister is inbreeding which preserves the bloodlines from both sire and dam in equal proportions. It is inferior to either of the others as a means of strengthening previously existing bloodlines, but it is freely employed when the combination of sire and dam (of the brother and sister) has proved exceptionally successful, virtually setting a new type. It has all the dangers of the other two types of inbreeding, and in a greater degree because we have no knowledge of what the new combination will produce, whereas in strengthening the proportion of one line of ancestry over another, whether it be that of the sire or the dam, we are dealing with previously existing bloodlines known to be harmonious.
ADVANTAGES OF INBREEDING
As previously stated, it is linebreeding carried to its highest degree. When superior animals are used, it is the most powerful and sure way known of making the most of their excellence and perpetuating it. It is the method by which the highest possible percentage of the blood of an exceptional dog, or of a particularly fortunate “nick,” can be kept, fused into, and finally made to influence an entire line of descent. If continued, the outside blood disappears and the pedigree is quickly loaded to an almost unlimited extent by the blood of a single animal, or two at the most. In practice it is usually that of a sire. Inbreeding is not so much a matter of originating excellence as of holding and making the greatest use of it when it appears.
A large proportion of prepotent sires have been inbred or at least closely linebred. An inbred dog is, of course, enormously more prepotent than one who has outcrops breeding. Its half of the ancestry having a great deal of identical blood is almost certain to dominate the offspring when mated to one of the opposite sex having an “open” pedigree. (An “open” pedigree is one in which there does not appear the name of any one dog more than once in perhaps several generations.) Inbreeding is therefore recognized as the most influential of all breeding plans or systems, supplying the simplest of all pedigrees -- an advantage when we recognize the laws of inheritance. It is all that linebreeding is and more. When using either system it must again be cautioned that careful SELECTION must continually be made, both as to physical compensation and vigor and fertility. In conclusion on the matter of the advantages of inbreeding, I will repeat: No other method of breeding equals this for intensifying bloodlines, making the best use of exceptional individuals, and in building a strain within a breed.
DISADVANTAGES OF INBREEDING
Although the doubling up and intensifying of characteristics by this method of breeding insures results that are more probable than possible and, if continued long enough, are a certainty, it works the same for one trait as another, both good and bad. It affects all characteristics of the animals involved. That is why, unless a breeder knows a good individual of his breed when he sees one, or possesses the right stock to start with, inbreeding can bring disaster. On the other hand, when the opposite is true, the most strikingly successful results can be obtained. Examples of success are many, but so can one name many failures amongst those who have dropped out of the “game” and whose “strains” vanished or are disappearing.
INBREEDING NOT NECESSARILY DISASTROUS
Undeniably, no form of breeding has so many who decry it, most of them entirely ignorant on the subject. They claim it causes lack of vigor, size and fertility, and a multitude of such instances could certainly be listed. However, if what has been written here, and been proven by innumerable tests and examples, has any meaning at all, it is that ANY characteristic can be bred up or down, strengthened or weakened, by this method of breeding. Some of what we know about the results of inbreeding in animals comes from the scattered and irregularly reported experiences of breeders.
It is difficult to be at all sure that the evidence against inbreeding came from using animals that were typical of their breed and should have been inbred upon at the outset. There is also the question of whether one hears of the usual effects of such breedings or only of the exceptionally bad ones. Anything undesirable which does appear is apt to be blamed on inbreeding in spite of the fact that equally bad results often occur when no inbreeding has been done. There is usually no way of making comparisons, that is, with non-inbred animals kept under the same conditions, fed and reared in the same way.
Since it is universally agreed by all breeders and geneticists that any characteristic can be bred up or down, strengthened or weakened, by inbreeding (providing rigid selection is followed), why then this claim that it will bring about a loss of size, vigor and fertility? Are there some inherent traits which come from close breeding, or is it merely that lack of vigor and fertility are commonly possessed characteristics and frequently show up? Many think it is the latter. There are so many examples of great vigor and fertility in inbred individuals, and of family lines, and even in whole species of plants and animals, as to obviate all fear of inevitable weaknesses from close breeding, but it doesn’t take much investigation to indicate to us that there is lurking weakness and infertility everywhere. It is particularly evident in humans and in domesticated animals. A large number of animals, and an apparently larger number of plants, are relatively weak and easily succumb to disease. In nature the strongest live and beget offspring, whereas the weaklings die. In breeding animals we are liable to select largely for show or utility type, yes, even for color, ignoring, or trusting to luck, as to vigor and fertility. Is it any wonder then that these traits have crept upon us until they often present a strong argument against inbreeding, although they also appear amongst entirely outcrop bred dogs?
When we SELECT for vigor and fertility, as well as for other attributes, there will be less talk about the evils of inbreeding. In the meantime we shall hear about it mostly where vitality and fertility were low in the stock inbred upon. Because both of these are requisites--one that insures life and the other for reproduction--they should be possessed in a high degree by the dogs one intends to inbreed upon.
Charles Darwin learned from hundreds of experimental tests with both plant and animal life that cross-breeding, or “outcrossing” as we speak of it in dog breeding, often increases vigor and fertility. He also found that this was not true in all individuals, or in all species, even those most sensitive to inbreeding. His experiments showed that sometimes the opposite (weakness and infertility) occurred and he could not solve the mystery of the cause. Much of this “mystery” for which no explanation could then be offered has been largely dispelled by modern knowledge of heredity. It would necessitate writing at great length were I to describe even a few of his, and many other scientists’, experiments, as well as involve us in complicated scientific terms. This I will refrain from doing, to keep my treatise as understandable as possible to the average reader, since I am not writing for experienced dog breeders or students of genetics. For them this article is elementary, with nothing supplied that they do not already know.
RECAPITULATION
To those for whom it is written, however, a summation of the total effects of inbreeding, and to a modified degree that of linebreeding, follows. All characteristics both good and bad exist in various degrees in different dogs. One wishes in his matings to secure and retain the desirable characteristics, and it is easily demonstrable that this can best be accomplished by inbreeding and, to a lesser degree, by linebreeding. It is also easy to show that, by using the same methods of breeding, the lowest intensity of undesirable characteristics is attainable. Results are entirely dependent upon SELECTION, remembering that “Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.”
PART II
In this article it is my intention to supplement and elaborate upon the subjects of inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing, which I discussed in the July issue, I endeavored in that installment to explain the simplest meaning, as the most commonly accepted, of inbreeding and linebreeding. It also contained some categorical statements regarding the results to be achieved, and the dangers involved, in using either system or a combination of both. Therefore, in order to make what follows understandable and of more value to new readers who may not have seen the first article, it might be well for me to give the following recapitulation.
I concluded my July article with the following: “I am not writing for experienced dog breeders or students of genetics. For them this article is elementary, with nothing supplied that they do not already know. To those for whom it is written, however, a summation of the total effects of inbreeding follows.
All characteristics both good and bad exist in various degrees in different dogs. One wishes in his matings to secure and retain the desirable characteristics, and it is easily demonstrable that this can best be accomplished by inbreeding and, to a lesser degree, by linebreeding. It is also easy to show that, by using the same methods of breeding, the lowest intensity of undesirable characteristics is attainable. Results are entirely dependent upon selection, remembering that physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.
It would seem that the italicized lines above could be easily understood by everybody, and would need no explanation. Since writing it, however, a reader has questioned me as to its meaning. In brief, it is an abjuration against selecting a mating pair by pedigrees alone and emphasizes the importance of considering as a mate for any dog one that is right where the other is faulty. The word “physical” is stressed because any dog which is not mentally sound should not be used as a breeder. In the event that such a one IS bred, however, the same rule holds true. As just one example of many that could be used to illustrate the meaning of “physical compensation”: Where the Standard of a breed calls for a well laid back shoulder blade, one should not breed a bitch with a “steep”, “short”, or “pushed forward” shoulder blade to a stud having any of the same shortcomings.
While briefly on this subject, I should mention that failure to practice “physical compensation” is perhaps the most common mistake made by the average dog breeder. In my own particular breed, the German Shepherd Dog, we see it constantly… the mating, for instance of terrier fronted dogs to others similarly built, and especially of soft-backed dogs to others also possessing faulty top lines. So, when considering inbreeding or linebreeding, and presenting the advantages, I cannot over-stress the necessity of first considering physical compensation if one expects to obtain enduring worth, for it is the foundation rock, rather than the pedigrees alone.
In these articles I shall at times seem repetitious, perhaps bringing up the same point several times. When that occurs it is because I may either want to restate something so it will be remembered, supply added emphasis, or clarify some point presently being touched upon.
HOW TO DO INBREEDING
As I have tried to explain, the first prerequisite for inbreeding is to start with superior animals. It should NEVER be inaugurated by ANY breeder possessing mediocre breeding stock. An explanation of the requirement should be made because many of my readers will immediately conclude that the advantages of this system of breeding cannot be for them . . . they may not possess, nor can they afford to buy, or perhaps find available, superior breeding stock. While any one or all of the above hindrances may be present, they can eventually still do that type of breeding. It will simply necessitate a few more years of effort before they can properly start either inbreeding or linebreeding. Possessing only a rather mediocre bitch, they can “breed up” through using a stud whose structure bears a strong resemblance to the breed Standard’s requirements. Then, on the resultant bitch progeny, or on a selected number from that litter, they should return to the sire’s side of the letter for following matings. I shall go further into that later.
If one grades relentlessly and discards all untypical specimens for his breeding use, inbreeding can be practiced with considerable impunity. On the other hand, if a breeder finds himself in possession of a small amount of very superior blood, and is wondering how to use it, and decides to “breed out” or, as it is commonly termed, do complete outcrossing, he will lose his type by dissipation. It is only because complete out crosses are all but impossible to make, within most breeds, (and this bold assertion will be examined in a later article) that the mating which are termed, and believed to be, out crosses succeed in producing typical stock, if they do succeed.
When a breeder experiences a great variance in the type of dogs he is producing, and can only occasionally come up with a really good one, and that more often than not by sheer luck . . . when the percentage of those good ones compared to his total production is disappointingly low . . . his only course which promises anything fruitful is inbreeding. It puts his breeders to the severest possible test, of course, and the hazard is admittedly great, but the possible results are phenomenal. By inbreeding he learns where his stock has dominant and recessive traits, and what they are, both good and bad. The really sincere breeder should always be ready to accept whatever hazard is inherent thus to obtain the necessary information for success in the future.
If, to learn with what he is working in the matter of inherited traits, both dominant and recessive, he decides to do inbreeding and bring to the surface more or less hidden characteristics, the best way is to go “whole hog”. Many fanciers, fearing the consequences, proceed gingerly, breeding a little more closely with each successive trial. This, if not successful, is discouraging, may cause abandonment of the whole plan, is sure to accumulate numbers of undesirable individuals, and consumes valuable time.
BREEDING FROM THE BEST WITHOUT REGARD TO BLOODLINES
I have reference here to the practice of selecting and breeding from the best individuals but without regard to bloodlines. It is probable that, given enough time, a fancier might come up with quite a percentage of good dogs, especially if he confined himself to a rather limited area wherein his selections came originally from related foundation stock. But in actual practice the breeder following this method succeeds in producing nothing of note, and breeds a jumble of different types. It is the system usually followed by beginners and those whose main purpose is to breed puppies they can sell on the basis of quoting some “big” names and the greatest number of “champions” into pedigree. If and when such breeders turn into fanciers whose main objective is to become preeminent by building a strain of superior animals within the breed, they go at once into some form of inbreeding or linebreeding and this of necessity if they are to succeed. The system of breeding one follows, in other words, depends upon the result to be accomplished. If the purpose is breed improvement, then inbreeding and linebreeding will be found most effective.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEORY
While writing these articles, the thought constantly comes to my mind that, considering the very few breeders who have any breeding plan, and thus the many that are likely to challenge my statements, I should explain the basis for my breeding advice. To any reader of scientific literature pertaining to animal breeding, or to a student of genetics, no justification is needed, although I doubt that such persons will do more than scan these articles, which are intentionally devoid of scientific terminology with all its references to genes, chromosomes, phenotype, genotype, zygote, homozygous, etc., etc. If I find it necessary, later on, to use these terms, or any of the many others, I shall try to define them so they will not be confusing to those in the “beginners’ class” of breeders. As I have previously stated, at the request of Ye Editor I am writing non-scientifically. Nevertheless there should be more than my personal opinions or beliefs and ideas presented, if credence is to be given the many arbitrary statements I make. Other wise I would be taking upon myself a greater responsibility to the fancy than any conscientious person would care to assume. It seems advisable therefore, that I should give something of the background upon which my statements and declarations are based.
During my more than 48 years of dog breeding, I have read and studied every book on animal breeding I could lay hand to. Many of them are in my permanent library and are being referred to constantly, as I write, to make certain my memory serves me correctly. It is worthwhile to read theories but a more dependable knowledge comes through testing them one’s self to determine whether they are right or wrong, and in what degree. This I have done.
As I am writing for an all-breed magazine and know that these articles will be read by breeders and fanciers of various breeds, rather than by those of German Shepherd Dogs alone, with which breed I have done most of my experimenting, I have thus far refrained from interjecting any reference to personal experience. From all I have learned through study, however, I would say that whatever is applicable to one breed of dog is equally so to another, as it is to practically all other varieties in the animal kingdom. Therefore, in writing of the one breed with which I have worked in the main, this should be understood and considered. It seems to me that the story of my own testing of breeding systems, and relating some of the results, might be of interest to my readers and perhaps be of assistance and an incentive to them in their own breeding programs. A presentation of some of the results, prior to telling how they were achieved, may be sufficiently impressive to warrant increased interest in finding out how they were accomplished. The “how” will therefore be given later.
As unimportant to the purpose of these articles, I shall omit the details of how I obtained my first German Shepherd Dog in 1911, and started breeding them in 1912. My bitch was one of the first of this breed in America and was brought over in the womb of her dam. Comparatively speaking, the breed was in its infancy even in Germany, the land of its inception. To the best of my knowledge there are no others in this country who started with the breed in those early days, bred them as long as I did, and have retained their interest even unto this day. Isn’t it claimed that five years is about the lifespan of the average breeder who gets into the game, and continues his interest in breeding dogs?
After a great many more than five, during which time my hobby consisted of breeding dogs just for the fun of it and, when luck was with me, making a little profit occasionally, my objective changed. For one thing, the popularity of the breed, as it became better known in this country, had caused thousands to start breeding it. There was a saturated market of pups for pets, as often happens when any breed achieves great popularity. During the depression of the early thirties I bred only a litter or two a year and found I had the time as well as the inclination to study a bit about how to breed better dogs. I shall skip some intervening years until about 1940, at which time I announced my intention to establish a strain within the breed. In my SHEPHERD DOG REVIEW ad, I stated it would be built on three great imported males of that time, and named them, giving my reasons for the incorporation of each one in my breeding program. Their names and close blood relationship will be given later when I explain HOW the following results were achieved. It is my purpose to limit a listing of these results to no more than enough to show that the “proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof”, and that I have tested the theories about which I write.
Before setting forth some of the results of my breeding plan, perhaps I should explain that I no longer have ANY connection, either in an active or advisory capacity, with any kennel, and this has been true for several years. I therefore have no self-serving motive in writing of my achievements.
In the early forties, I made some incest breedings for educational purposes--to ascertain the dominant and recessive characteristics of the individuals being used in my breeding program. The first dogs of the strain I was then starting began to be shown in competition in 1945. During the next fourteen years more than 90 homebred champions were finished by customers and ourselves, here and abroad. I am told that this is a world record for any breeder, in a lifetime of breeding and showing. I emphasize “homebred” above because the total does not include the probably larger number of those finished who were sired by our studs, or from mating made by customers of bitches bought from us and thereafter bred to our studs.
In all fairness, I should insert here a clarification of the use of “us” and “we” in the preceding paragraph. The kennel operation as a hobby became too large for me and I found myself forced to neglect my business. When this happened I seriously considered liquidating my Long Worth Kennels, especially since I had achieved my purpose of building a strain within the breed and had established a definite type with the ability to “carry on”, as such closely bred (inbred and linebred) animals have the prepotency to do. Briefly, and without further explanation I finally decided that, rather than let Long Worth pass into oblivion, I would give it to Mrs. Virginia McCoy (now Mrs. Richard Vauglm). She had first managed to kennel operation for me and had been one of the most apt “pupils” ever to come to me to learn or just to “talk dogs”. With my championship record well on its way, and using many of the original foundation stock of the strain, she augmented the number already finished for the title, and bred them independently.
Now again to some of the results. I should like to mention the Register of Merit, which will mean nothing to other than breeders of German Shepherd Dogs without my giving a short explanation. So far as I know, no such record of producing sires and dams is made except in one breed of cattle, and in our breed of dogs. Some years ago our Parent Club started keeping such a record of producing sires, and later included bitches. Certain wins at major point shows, made by their progeny, award to the sires and dams a designated number of points. When a dog has sired 5 champions, 10 progeny have made major class wins, and he has accumulated a certain number of points, he receives the honor of being rated as a Register of Merit (abbreviated ROM) sire, or dam. Ch. Vol of Long-Worth is the highest ROM sire in the breed, with 1120 points, more than double the number (545) of the second highest rating male, whose mother incidentally, was bred at Long-Worth and was Vol’s half -sister. Very close in number of points (493) behind the second male is Vol’s son Ch. Chimney Sweep of Long-Worth, in third place. Seep was not only sired by Vol, whose grandmother was Ch. Nyx of Long-Worth, mentioned below, but his dam was a Nyx daughter. Sweep himself became the all time greatest Group and Best in Show winner of the breed.
In fourth position is another Vol son, Ch. Jolly Arno of Edgetowne, with 468 points. Jolly Arno was an inbred grandson of Ch. Derry of Long-Worth, who was the sire of Vol, and himself a ROM sire with 12 champion offspring to his credit. Ch. Derry was quite an old dog before outside breeders took any advantage of his potential (as is so often the case with great sires) and then not more than a tithe as many used his as those who bred to Ch. Vol. It was Derry’s close line-breeding, intensified in the mating that produced Vol., which made the latter the most prepotent sire in the breed’s history. There are hosts of others listed in the ROM either bred at Long-Worth or carrying its blood.
These breedings will be explained in a following article so that readers with enough patience to read through the above, and what follows, presenting PROOF that the writer is not just a theorist, may learn how probably the greatest strain in any breed of dogs was built. It is difficult to present these facts and not seem boastful, but perhaps I may be allowed a felling of notifiable pride in announcing that not only did I breed the highest ROM sire in the breed, but also the top-rating brood bitch. Ch. Nyx of Long-Worth holds that unchallenged (to date) record. Most interesting to students of breeding is the fact that she was the mother of Derry, the sire of Vol. Nyx has undeniable had more influence for good on the breed than any other bitch. Bred only a very few times, she produced thirteen champions, a breed record. Her famous “D” litter, with only six of the eight ever shown, finished easily. This is an all-time record for any bitch of the breed. Incidentally, this litter was so closely linebred as to be termed inbred by some.
Also worthy of note: There were only four bitches awarded Honorary ROM titles in ‘59 because of their records were made prior to the establishment of ROM for bitches. All of them were Long-Worth bitches, with one being one of my three foundation matrons. Combined, they produced a total of 25 champions, with the foundation bitch being next highest in number of points to Nyx. Another of our three foundation bitches was awarded an Honorary ROM position prior to 1959 and was the dam of 8 title-holders. This points up the importance of Starting with good bitches, whether in building a strain or in just breeding a few good dogs.
Ch. and U.S. Grand Victor Jory of Edgetowne (litter brother of fourth position ROM sire Jolly Arno, and of Ch. Jaunty of Edgetowne) was inbred on Ch. Derry, his sire being Vol (Derry son) and his dam also having been sired by Derry. Ch. and U.S. Grand Victix Yola of Long-Worth, perhaps the most perfect bitch I ever bred, was . . . but let’s skip the rest. The portion of the record already given was perhaps has perhaps become tiresome, but I did want to give enough of it to prove my points: (1) that the systems of breeding I have been writing about CAN be used to advantage if one practices, and I am again repeating, the rule that “Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built”; and (2) that I am not open to the charge of “talking through my hat” in writing about animal breeding theories obtained only through “book larnin’”.
As previously stated, I will discuss in the next installment HOW the Long-Worth strain, which made the record part of which is given above, was built. Whether there will be any further articles on breeding after that depends upon the interest evidenced in these.
PART III
After relating in the second installment of these articles some of the gratifying results achieved through my own use of inbreeding, line-breeding, and “family” breeding, I stated that “HOW” would be explained. I also mentioned an advertisement appearing about 1940 in THE SHEPHERD DOG REVIEW in which I announced an intention to build a distinctive strain within the breed using three great males. In that announcement I gave their names and the reasons each was to be utilized as a foundation head, stating that they were closely related.
BUILDING A STRAIN
Up to that time my breeding operations had been of the sort practiced by the average dog fancier, fully 98% of them, I would estimate. This consisted of mating the best bitches I could get to the best available males, regardless of related bloodlines. It is true, however, that for many years I had practiced compensatory matings -- using studs strong in characteristics in which the bitches needed improvement. This was plan, but not a breeding program such as I then inaugurated, although it produced more than the average run of good specimens which are bred by those who make only a hit-or-miss matings, but still it did not give me multiple Champion litters, or establish a definite TYPE. As explained in the preceding articles, these results can be obtained ONLY by utilizing the power of inbreeding and linebreeding.
Referred to hereafter by their first names only, these three foundation males were German Sieger, U.S. Ch. Pfeffer v. Bern, his half-brother (same sire) U.S. Ch. Odin v. Busecker-Schloss, and German Siefer, U.S. Ch. Arras a.d. Stadt-Verbert. The common sire of the first two dogs was Dachs von Bern. Dachs‘ sire had as his paternal grandfather Ger. Sgr. Utz von Haus-Schutting, while his dam Vicki was sired by Utz. Now we come to Arras, the other male in the triumvirate. His dam was the triple Siegerin (German Grand Champion) Stella von Haus-Schutting, claimed by the German breeders to be the greatest specimen of the breed they had ever produced. Stella‘s sire and dam were BOTH by Utz, making her the offspring of a half brother-sister mating. From the above we see that all three dogs stemmed closely and strongly from Utz.
In addition to being thus closely related, each dog had some compensating factors for the others. (Remember as applicable here the several times repeated principle given in the previous installments: „Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth must be built.“). My breeding program was predicated upon „closed-up“ bloodlines, commonly designated as inbreeding and line-breeding, hence the importance of that dictum.
Only in a general way are the compensating factors which I had to consider of importance to the fanciers of other breeds. Every variety may tend to have different shortcomings at one time or another in their history. It may be heads, or feet, or on throughout the entire category of physical structure. However, to make this clearer, I might state that some of the main shortcomings, or faults, most common in our breed at that time were soft toplines, straight (terrier-like) fore assemblies and fading pigment. In announcing my intention to build a real strain within the breed, using these three males as the foundation stones, I wrote that I was using Pfeffer for his overall type, noble appearance, excellent rear angulation, and pigment. His half-brother Odin was to be used for topline correction, ideal ribbing, and perfection of gait and, in common with Pfeffer, a good shoulder assembly. Arras was being incorporated in my projected strain to increase the strength of Odin‘s topline influence, as well as Pfeffer‘s pigment; also for his good, although small, amount of somewhat unrelated blood which brought in traits possessed by the other two which were desirable but not as strong in their dominance as I felt was needed.
IMPORTANCE IN SELECTION OF BITCHES
Having decided upon the breeding program as has been briefly outlined, my next step, of course, was to find and obtain the necessary bitches with which to implement it. This is not an easy task at any time, or in any breed. Owners of females of breeding age who have proven themselves, or because of type and bloodlines give promise of being worthy producers, are loathe parting with them. When one adds the stipulation that they must be daughters of certain studs, their procurement becomes increasingly difficult. Suffice it to say here, with no explanation than that it took me about two years to find and obtain them, I DID get a daughter of each of the above three studs. Moreover, in most respects they evidenced the traits for which their sires were notable, and for which I had chosen them to found a strain.
With only the mention of my foundation BITCHES given above, I am sure I have not sufficiently stressed their importance. It is a much used aphorism that no stable is better than its mares and no kennel better than its bitches. That, of course, is true. The most valuable acquisition a would-be dog breeder can make is that of a good bitch or bitches. Without one or more of these, the task of breeding superior specimens in any breed is a long, if not indeed a hopeless one. It is better; surely, if the bitch herself possesses all the attributes of a show specimen, but of great importance also is her genetic background. It is in her bloodlines, as delineated by her pedigree, that her potential worth can best be judged.
Perhaps some elaboration and explanation of that statement should be made, especially as there are those who believe that a top bitch, regardless of what may be behind her in bloodlines, will as likely produce good ones as well as another who, though less perfect herself, has a family of good ones behind. Every experienced dog breeder knows, and it was pointed out in an earlier installment, that sometimes a superior specimen will come from a quite nondescript hit-or-miss mating. Such a one is an accident or “happenstance.” To claim that a bitch is more likely to reproduce in her own image than that of any one of her litter mates, for instance, is to demonstrate an ignorance of the laws of heredity. Which one or ones, if any, in the litter might carry the genes for the characteristics she alone manifests can be determined only by testing them as breeders. Here as an illustration is just one example of many observed during my experimental dog breeding days. In a litter of eight there appeared only one who was white. Structurally she was the best of the lot and quite a superior specimen. Bred a total of seven times during her lifetime, she herself never produced a white, nor did any appear in succeeding generations, at least not up to fourth, when I lost track of them. She either did not carry the genes for white, or the genes for pigment which she carried were dominant. On the other hand, several of her sisters did whelp white.
BITCH’S BACKGROUND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE
While one of the tenets of all animal breeding is selectivity, this does not mean that a superior bitch, with nothing behind her in sufficient strength to dominate, can be expected to produce as well as another whom, although somewhat less perfect in her own structure, has a family tree inbred or linebred upon superior quality. The sometimes heard statement that “like produces like” is far from being a dependable truism. BOTH are of importance, the overall quality and type of the bitch, as well as her family tree, but of the two the latter will be found to have the more influence both for good and for bad. The first article in this series explained why this MUST be true. It is my desire to get away from the subject of my personal operations, in the matter of building a strain, as quickly as possible. Supplying a record of all, or of even a few, of the inter-related matings would, I fear not only be somewhat confusing, unless pedigrees were given for study, but would also result in book-length articles unsuitable for a magazine and particularly for one read by fanciers of all breeds. However, in order to explain the “how,” it seems necessary to continue with that subject to a somewhat greater length.
Having obtained the three foundation bitches, each related to the others through their sires, and with one having both Pfeffer and Arras close up in her pedigree, I was ready to begin breeding operations, ready, I thought and hoped, to start a breeding program from which would eventuate a noteworthy strain of dogs.
CHOOSING THE MALES
If it has not already been noted by my readers, I should call attention here to the fact that, since my start was made with bitches sired by three closely related males, I was able to dispense with some years of preliminary matings. Had three unrelated sires been chosen, it would have taken several generations of breeding before I could have had in my kennel bitches so closely related in blood as to make inbreeding and linebreeding possible. With two of the foundation males having the same sire (plus other related blood), and the third a close-up descendent of the great German Sieer, U.S. Ch. Utz v. haus-Schutting, as were the others, I was actually STARTING with linebred animals. (Had either Odin, or his half-brother Pfeffer, been a bitch, and one bred to the other, that would have been inbreeding.)
Therefore one can see how quickly I was “cooking with gas” or, perhaps stated more understandably, doing planned linebreeding, when I bred either an Odin daughter to Pfeffer, or the reverse -- and I immediately did both. The results to be anticipated, as described in my first installment explaining what can be expected from inbreeding and linebreeding, were quickly brought forth and plainly visible. It took only a few generations until the type I had wanted to establish and “set” was obtained. While none of the three males upon which I started the strain was perfect in all characteristics (no dog as yet has ever been), it should be pointed out that not only were they quite superior specimens in themselves, but each compensated the other in one or more respects. This being true, when some unwanted or undesirable trait showed up, compensation could usually be found in one of the others.
FOUNDATION BLOOD INTENSIFIES PEDIGREES
Year after year, and generation after generation, this foundation blood continued to intensify in the pedigrees of my dogs. MODIFIED outcrossings were made only occasionally. By “modified” I mean that, when reaching out for some needed trait, I used a stud or bitch possessing at least one-fourth, or better, one-half, of the blood of my strain. Both in such instances, and in the rare ones when complete outcrossing was done, I made it a practice to mate one or more of the resultant progeny right back into the strain. By doing this, I did not lose the qualities I had strived to obtain and make dominant, nor did I dissipate them. Some of the results of this breeding program were reported last month. Multiple champion litters became more the rule than the exception, often with every member who was given a chance, through being shown by its owner, finishing for the title.
TEMPERAMENT AND MENTALITY NOT SACRIFICED
If any of my readers are Obedience enthusiasts, and not particularly concerned with structural perfection, they may feel that no consideration was given to intelligence and trainability in the building of this strain. Nothing could be further form the truth.
Because the abbreviations for German training degrees would be confusing to those in breeds which did not originate in that country, I purposely omitted them when giving the names and CONFORMATION titles of the three sires upon which the strain was founded. Each of them, however, had received, prior to his importation, one or more training degrees showing he had passed the necessary tests to “graduate.” As I now remember it, all three had been awarded the PH. (Polizeihund-Police Dog) degree, which signifies much more than our U.D.T.
The crux of the above dissertation on mental attributes is this: Qualities of the mind, as well as physical characteristics, are subject to the same laws of heredity. My strain became well known not only because of it members’ structural superiority but because of their exceptional trainability in Obedience work as well. One member became top-scoring dog, all breeds, in the United States for two successive years prior to his retirement. It should be stated that I take no credit for this, having neither bred nor trained the dog. The sire of this “dual Champion” (both a bench show and an obedience trial title holder) was a son of Pfeffer, one of my foundation studs, while his dam (one of my world-famous “D” six Champion German Shepherd Dog litter) was so closely linebred on both Pfeffer and Arras as to be considered by some geneticists as inbred.
The belief, and some uninformed breeders’ contention, that inbreeding and linebreeding per se will cause either physical or mental deterioration is a fallacy many times proven. Consider the breeding of the above dog as just one example of many that could be cited. Inbreeding and linebreeding cannot be looked upon as a way to bring NEW characteristics into a breed but, as Humphrey states,” . . . is a source of never ending combinations of racial characters in new individuals, producing variations which are COMPARATIVELY SLIGHT EXCEPT WHEN THE TWO PARENTS ARE FROM WIDELY SEPARATED LINES.”
PART IV
Since I am not a professional writer, nor do I possess either the aptitude or inclination for such work it has been my intention and desire to discontinue these articles as soon as I felt that the editor’s request for something on the above subject had been covered. It seems, therefore, that I made a mistake when I stated, at the end of a previous installment, that a continuance would be predicated upon the interest shown by DOG WORLD readers. I am sure the response has amazed all of us.
Because through lack of time I have been unable to write personally to each of those who have requested more articles, I want to express my appreciation here.
The effort made to be of whatever help I can is doubly rewarding because of the many novices who have written that although they had long wanted information on breeding better dogs, and had repeatedly asked successful breeders for help, little had been forthcoming. One does indeed wonder why so many old timers are chary of assisting the beginners. We seem to forget that we ourselves were once in their position, and how much easier the road would have been for us had we been given encouragement and a helping hand.
The preceding installments have dealt mainly with defining inbreeding and linebreeding together with their advantages and the results to be expected. There was also a report of some of the writer’s successes obtained by using these breeding methods. While much more could, and perhaps should, follow along the same line, it can wait until a future time. The subject of outcrossing is particularly timely now, when there seems to be not only many misconceptions regarding it, but probably never before in the history of dog breeding such a regrettable and harmful amount of it being done.
Somewhere in a previous article I made a statement to the effect that in some breeds the bad results of outcrossing were not as evident as they would be were it not almost impossible to find absolutely unrelated blood in those varieties. This, I said, would be explained later. Probably this should be done now, before going into the matter of outcrossing.
ANCESTORS IN COMMON DON’T GUARANTEE WORTHWHILE BREEDING
Many breeds, and the German Shepherd Dog is a prime example, can trace their origin back to not only one or two foundation heads, but also through little, if any, more than a human lifetime. I myself had dogs but a few generations removed from Horand Grafrath. He was whelped in 1895 and was the first dog of our breed to be registered. To my knowledge, every living German Shepherd Dog in this country traces back, through one or another of his sons, to Horand. Some breeds which have existed since antiquity, with a type somewhat like that of today, can similarly trace their upgrading, which developed the present specimens, to some “great” of the relatively close past. This is true in many varieties of animals, as illustrated by Hamiltonian 10 in race horses, to cite just one example. If one will examine the complete pedigrees, perhaps through six generations, of ancestors behind any two purebred dogs of a recognized breed, it may be seen that the two mated dogs will have at least one ancestor in common somewhere in the combined pedigrees. It is more likely that there will be several common ancestors in the six generations and that the name of one or more of them will appear more than once in one or both pedigrees. With the usually shortened pedigree, supplying the names no further back than perhaps the great grandparents’ generation, the breeder may believe that he is making a complete outcross.
While it is most assuredly not my contention that the breeding of one dog to just any other in the same breed is not outcrossing, I am trying to explain that there often is some interrelationship. Although a common ancestor is so far removed as to have no significant influence, the type that he originated may have kept the breed members more closely alike than they would have been without him.
In view of what I have written above, some of my readers may conclude that an outstanding animal appearing once or even several times further back than the third generation will have a noteworthy influence. One often sees pedigrees, especially those of German Shepherd Dogs currently being imported, stating that there is linebreeding to one or more sires, as “4-5” or “5-5”, meaning in the fourth and fifth, or twice in the fifth, generations. When it is considered that a dog appearing the fourth generation contributes only about 1/256 of the heredity factors in a puppy, one can understand that those distant relatives could not have done much to overcome the influence of the unrelated and perhaps inferior specimens appearing in the pedigree later. Altogether too many fanciers are misled into feeling they have a worthwhile breeding animal because back in the third or fourth generations there appears one or more outstanding dogs.