ADGA Planned pedigree...

The Tin Mom · #1 03/21/12, 09:31 PM

Just for fun I started looking at the ADGA Planned Pedigree page for next fall's breedings. Do any of you look at the inbreeding %? If so, what do you look at? What do you consider to be the inbreeding "limit"?

I was surprised that some of what I considered "less desirable" matches were actually less inbred than I thought, and a few were even less inbred than some of the ones I would have considered to be "not too close".

JBarGFarmKeeper · #2 03/21/12, 09:58 PM

I know that there are many people that have decided opinions on breeding animals closely related but I have found just as many that have the same fervor in the OPPOSITE direction.

The Nubian world has been "setting desirable genes" with linebreeding for decades.

I spoke recently with a LaMancha breeder that has been in goats for over 30 years. She said the most "inbred" goat she had was 34% and she was very nice. I think she said 15% is a desirable number.

I have bred two half-sisters to a half-brother buck for kids later in the spring. All 3 have different dams. I am very excited about this and this friend and others assure me I will be pleased. We shall see.

As we learned today, you and I have animals with similar ancestry. (Although, the breeding I am speaking of are through my "other" set of lines and I would LOVE to talk about with you sometime.) I intend to cross these lines in the fall to see what pops out. I believe "out-crossing" is far more unpredictable than line breeding but one must try it to find out.

Oat Bucket Farm · #3 03/21/12, 10:10 PM

Betsy, remember that Joy is out of a breeding between half-siblings. She turned out quite lovely.

yarrow · #4 03/21/12, 11:11 PM

I wanted a new jr. herdsire that was at least 20% inbred out of my Copper-Hill does Sunny (Sunny herself is 31.1%)... so I bred her back to her grandson (I knew I'd either get something I really, really liked.. or I'd get something I would end up culling).. She had two kids (buck/doe twins).. couldn't be happier with them.. right number of teats, nice bites, great heads/ears... level, wide.. good bone.. can't wait to see them with a month or so worth of growth... I've got a doe due next monday.. her dam had the same sire, as the buck she is bred too.. the kids will be line bred, but not nearly to the extent of Sunny's two. (I also bred two Sunny grand daughters to the same Sunny grandson that I bred Sunny too... both had twin does.. again, really nice, very correct.. the Copper-Hill & the Amberwood lines just do so well when tightly linebred)

susie, mo ozarks

SpiderLegs · #5 03/22/12, 06:25 AM

15% is a good number to shoot for.
I always end up culling those that are 17-22%, but love the ones over 27%, go figure.

JBarGFarmKeeper · #6 03/22/12, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiderLegs

15% is a good number to shoot for.
I always end up culling those that are 17-22%, but love the ones over 27%, go figure.

The half-sibling breeding that I referred to above will be about 28-29%.

yarrow · #7 03/22/12, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBarGFarmKeeper

The half-sibling breeding that I referred to above will be about 28-29%.

I've got some Copper-Hill W. F. Papa Bear semen coming... if I were to use that on Sunny it would be something like 45% (and I'm sure we'd be hearing *banjo music* playing LOL)... SO.. I plan on holding off and Ai'ing Sunny's new baby daughter.. we've named Crow....

I've also bought some Copper-Hill Alginon's Breakaway.. I plan on Ai'ing a grand daughter of his with it, this fall... they'll only be 19%, but I think it will be a good breeding.... .. THEN I can breed those offspring to Crow's future babies.. see.. it just never ends.. I'm forever playing pedigree match-making

susie, mo ozarks

Narshalla · #8 03/22/12, 01:42 PM

I've only seen the results of linebreeding firsthand with dogs, but I think I've probably seen the same results, relatively speaking, as most people here.

One line was of show-quality Boston Terriers. The pet-quality puppies commanded high prices because the family bred for temperament, as well, and the entire line was polite and well-mannered. The show dogs and (females) were expected to be as well-mannered and pleasant as the purely companion animals.

They also culled one show-quality dog after he had one best-in-breed because every time they bred him, the puppies were high-strung and neurotic. This held true weather he was bred to his own line, their other lines, or completely unrelated lines (six litters, total.) He fathered some pretty puppies, but they were shy, skittish, prone to biting, and just plain all-round "off." Oddly enough, neither of his intact full brothers had this problem with their pups.

Since he was, himself, a good dog, he ended up as a fixed pet. He was a very nice dog, smart and obedient, but I met two litters of his pups . . . crazy little monsters.

The other case was with dobermans, also show quality. The stud had won four best-of-breed titles, he had a great personality, and his owners loved him very much (deservedly so, IMO). I saw the puppies he fathered, though. Of the fourteen litters I saw over three years, not one pup grew up to be show quality. When they bred him to the best of his daughters, the results were all over the map (and not the good side of town, either) -- one decent, but not show quality (their stated reason for breeding him,) a couple identifiable as dobermans (barely,) and three that were colored like dobermans, but their conformation . . . Yuck!

He was a genetic fluke, an accidentally show-quality dog that came from a backyard breeder; he looked good, but genetically, didn't have anything to back it up; he certainly couldn't pass it on to any of his offspring. (Or, in science-speak, good phenotype, very poor genotype.)

The bad part about breeding dogs is that you can't eat the mistakes; the good part about breeding goats is that you can.

Linebreeding or inbreeding just lets you see what's already there; if it's good, then you'll usually end up with good offspring. If the results are bad, then you know the weaknesses of the parent animal, but everything you see is the results of the parents' genetics -- if the results are bad, then the existing genetics probably aren't that great, either.

Some people don't like linebreeding, because IMO it shows them that their favorite, wonderful, much-beloved animal . . . isn't as good as they like to think.

Some don't like it because of the "yuck" factor, but to me, that's just silly. Animals don't think like humans, primarily because animals don't think in abstract ideas. The animals don't care, and if you have no other males available, there's nothing wrong with breeding mother to son, father to daughter, or brother to sister just to freshen the doe (or cow, or ewe if it's a milk breed.) If you don't like the results, eat the offspring and don't repeat the breeding.

Remember, when the results are bad, it's because the parents' genetics are bad. Some people (not many, but some) seem to think that linebreeding is what caused the problem, that the act of breeding relatives is so wrong that the offspring of such a union is cursed, and not because the parents' genetic flaws are being unmasked. (ETA: I don't think that anyone on here has that attitude, though, as near as I can tell.)

Tin Mom, with the breedings that you considered "less desirable" -- you were probably right. After all, the calculator just shows percentages; you get to look at results.

CaliannG · #9 03/22/12, 03:52 PM

In science-speak, it also has to do with species genetic diversification.

In-breeding and line-breeding among humans will often produce undesirable traits and deformities within 3 generations. That is because the human gene pool is actually very small. We are MUCH more closely related than we'd like to think, and are genetically very, VERY similar to people in other countries that look very different from us.

The same is not true of other species, such as horses, goats, cows, dogs, cats, etc. They enjoy an much broader range of genetic diversity than we do and therefore do not have the problems with in-breeding and line-breeding that we do.

Our distaste for incest is cultural, but also has instinctual background. For humans, incest is *bad* because of our lack of much genetic diversity. For other species, it is more often the norm.

For my goats, I would rather breed a poor looking goat with a great genetic background than a great looking goat with a poor genetic background. Genotype will trump phenotype in the long run every time.

SpiderLegs · #10 03/22/12, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narshalla

I've only seen the results of linebreeding firsthand with dogs, but I think I've probably seen the same results, relatively speaking, as most people here.

The bad part about breeding dogs is that you can't eat the mistakes; the good part about breeding goats is that you can.

Linebreeding or inbreeding just lets you see what's already there; if it's good, then you'll usually end up with good offspring. If the results are bad, then you know the weaknesses of the parent animal, but everything you see is the results of the parents' genetics -- if the results are bad, then the existing genetics probably aren't that great, either.

Some people don't like linebreeding, because IMO it shows them that their favorite, wonderful, much-beloved animal . . . isn't as good as they like to think.

It takes a knack too along with lots of research to find out what faults are in a line. Nubians do have a very small gene pool here in the US and it brings up lots of discussions on the different boards. The trick I see is that we as breeders do not need to get hung up on only outcrossing or only inbreeding. There is a happy medium where everyone can produce some great goats.