The Hunting Trait...

[Reuben]

many times we hear that the brother to the world champion is a better producer even though he is an average dog...the lesser dog may be an average hunting dog...so how many times can we breed these type of dogs before we lose performance in a line of dogs???once in a while is not a bad thing but practicing that on too regular of a basis and I just don't see how those types of breeding's will hold up...

I once lost the female I planned to breed and I had culled one earlier and the reason for culling was because she was too small and a light blonde color which I didn't like...She probably weighed 32 pounds but she was well bred from excellent dogs...She hunted hard and was a good strike dog and she started rolling out at 4 months on her own...I sent her to a friend and then I got her back because I needed a female to breed...bred her back to her grandsire and the smallest female she produced was 45 pounds and one of the best females I had...so breeding like that when one is backed in a corner is the right thing to do...it is by far the best thing to do rather than to bring a great female from a line that has no relations whatsoever...my belief is that we should stay away from that type of breeding when we can...

[Reuben]

Good thing you can breath while typing lol

talking/hunting dogs...my favorite subject...  it's great having multiple discussions and everyone has their own opinions...that's what makes the world go round and round... 

[reatj81]

Reuben you said what I was trying to about improving traits within a line. I'm sure glad all of you'll are better with words than I am.  Good discussion gentlemen. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[barlow]

Selection within a line of Terriers will never produce a Bluetick hound. If it ain't in them you can only put it in them by going outside and getting more . . and with that comes the threat of losing everything you have.

If the dog is a better reproducer it's a better reproducer. There is no connection between hunting performance and reproductive quality. NONE. Therefore it doesn't matter if Sally wasn't as good a hunter as Sadie. What she passes on to her offspring is what she passes on to her offspring. Period. End of story. A dog's performance in the woods is what proves his parents' reproductive quality. It DOES NOT prove his own reproductive quality. The pedigrees that come from UKC or AKC etc would do better to indicate how many champion pups a dog threw rather than how many titles he won. If a litter of pups from two average dogs contains 7 out of 8 above average pups . . I would line breed on the parents as they are the ones who are proven to produce quality. Or look at it this way . . if I wanted to produce a superstar athlete I would be knocking on the bedroom door of Michael Jordan's parents. Michael Jordan is beyond a doubt a superstar . . . but how many NBA greats has he sired?

[reatj81]

Now that man has a way with words    Lol

[cantexduck]

Barlow,
 So what you are saying is that if "spot" is a superstar dog, gaining a littermate is ok but gaining the sire or momma dog of spot would be the better of the two? makes sense. It seems most breed young dogs out of the litter from the great dogs. Why not go back to the dogs who produced the one great dog.
 

[Reuben]

Barlow...you might be 100 percent right...but like I have said in the past as you have...sometimes a once in a lifetime dog is produced from  average dogs and  the sire or dam could actually be a cull...I wouldn't waste my time with that once in a lifetime dog...because I have to look beyond that if I am wanting a dog that can also produce a high percentage of quality offspring...

we really can't compare dogs with humans for several reasons I can think of right off the top of my head that I think are important...one is that dogs have a more diversified genetic base than humans...and another is that the average woman produces 1 child per pregnancy and a dog can have an average of 8 or so pups per litter...and generally we as humans don't breed on purpose with our parents and grandparents to produce better offspring...but I am sure the slaves were selected for breeding to improve their performance as you would any animal that was used for a purpose...such as better hunting and better working abilities...I do believe that genes can lie dormant just waiting to match up so they can express themselves...that is why I believe in improvement within a line without bringing in new blood...

having said that I do believe that cross breeding is most definitely the fastest way to improve a trait or to capture one that is lacking...and just like anything else...we must also have the ability to pick/select the right pups to carry on what one is trying to retain as a desirable and needed trait or traits for improvement in the bloodline...breeding correctly is one half and the other half is selecting the right dogs for breeding...we can't produce good dogs for long if we are weak in either area...

[Reuben]

Now that man has a way with words    Lol

amen to that...

[Judge peel]

Amen to that

[barlow]

About 9 or 10 years ago Charles Gantte gave me a book on canine genetics called "The New Art of Breeding Better Dogs". I suggest it to anyone interested in this stuff but it is a bit complex in places and ultimately, the author, Kyle Onstott was a breeder of show dogs. I mention it because as you mentioned . . Onstott got interested in livestock breeding records and after years of research he found that the most extensive records ever kept on a breeding program were the plantation documents of slave breeding. Regardless of political incorrectness or crimes against humanity . . . slaves were among the most valuable assets of that period and their owners kept very detailed histories of their slaves and the results of the "crosses" they made. Onstott spent years going over the information contained within and used it and some of their methods as a basis for not only his dog breeding but the dog breeding book as well. In fact . . he got so wrapped up in the slave records that they inspired him to write novels loosely based on slave life such as . .

"Master of Falconhurst"



or "Mandingo" that was later made into a movie . .



And if you really want a lesson on line breeding . . go directly to Charles Gantte of Dandridge, Tennessee. He's been breeding the same strain of bear bred Plotts since the 1950s without a single outcross. All of the perhaps thousands of dogs produced from his line go back to five individual crosses within the early registration or pre-registration Plotts. Regardless of what anyone may find good or bad within his strain . . it's all a matter of taste or opinion. The fact that he still produces healthy animals without immunity or sterility issues is a testament to his abilities as a breeder. I'm just a rookie with a spell checker on his google box.

[Bryant]

As much as we can all theorize, there is still the factor of pure luck that plays into the game.  As Barlow has mentioned prior, this is the reason that 100% cull-free litters of performance dogs will never be mass produced.

As has also been discussed above, many "breeders" (using the term loosely here) don't pay near enough attention to prepotency.  No one would argue with the idea of breeding the best of each consecutive litter, but I will agree that performace in the field doesn't necessarily equate to performance in the whelping box.  A long line of well bred dogs has a percentage of luck factored into the breedings in addition to all the knowledge of the breeder.

Owning a sure-enough bang up hunting dog that has been proven as a producer is a pretty rare thing.  Having a female as I describe, is like having won the lottery in my opinion (as I believe the female has a greater influency on the progeny....but that's an entirely different topic).

[halfbreed]

The pedigrees that come from UKC or AKC etc would do better to indicate how many champion pups a dog threw rather than how many titles he won.

  actually barlow the ukc now does this , each set of papers show's how many pups a sire and dame have had [ at the time the papers were issued ] and it breaks them down as to how many titled pups are out there in the world . it is a very good program and it is  no if's and's or but's as to weather a  high powered stud dogs is prepotent and gyp's as well  . statistics don't lie .

  this is a good discussion and good for the young uns to read , and like I've tried telling folks for years .  even that best to best first time breeding is still a crap shoot and should be considered as such   lol  .

[barlow]

I'm glad they finally see it my way. HA. Thank you. I didn't know that. Been a while since I looked at a set but it always seemed like such an obvious thing to include.

[Bryant]

...as long as they're honest about them.

[RyanTBH]

Great read guys! Don't stop now... Yall keep breaking it down. I like the fact that all of you seem to stick to the fact that if your "line"/"family" of dogs do what you want them to do ie: looks, build, bottom, nose, grit, ect then keep it in the family. I think this is perfect. Once you have daughter, dame, and granddame of similar blood then you have the ability to produce some seriously good dogs if the sire is the same potent hog dog producing fool. If "he" isn't then why would you breed him in the first place? I mean you have to find out, and there is only one way to do that... but no need in breeding him again if his offspring isn't up to par. But what is the ideal cross? And does it matter? Father/daughter, aunt/nephew, uncle/niece, or even brother/sister. I mean depending on how many dogs you you have you have to start with you have to outcross eventually right? There is such thing as too tight... As someone said, tired genepool.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Mike]

Ryan, several old timers I've talked to have said 1/2 brother 1/2 sister crosses have produced some of their best dogs.

[buddylee]

I made a 1/2 brother 1/2 sister breeding once with some game bred bulldogs. Worked out nice from what I was told. I've done 2 breeding to the same male dane/pit with plans for another. Bred them back to each other for generations if all works out.

[reatj81]

Dang Barlow about the time i finally decide who I'm going to breed my gyp to, you put some info out that I had not previously considered.   I wish she would go ahead and come in so I can bred her,  the two options are driving me crazy, trying to pick, weighing out the odds

[cantexduck]

Jody ,
  Breed both ! 



   

[reatj81]

Jody ,
  Breed both ! 



   

Both gyps, to my male? Both males to one gyp?  Both males to both gyps?   
Thanks for the help!   I was going with my male, now Barlow threw the whole Tiger Wood thing out their!   I think I'm just going to go the simple way, and raise a pair from both males, from both females. 
Haha!!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk