inbreeding/linebreeding
- Thread starter dane12
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
bigbull338
Well-known member
now thats a sight getting linebreeding confused. i even done a soubletake on that 1. scott
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/a ... g02911.htmdane12":3tteygai said:
Susie David
Well-known member
There is a reason why cousins shouldn't breed...at least first cousins anyway. Serious (no banjo music in the background).
As for cattle we don't breed sires into daughters or grand daughters...cousins ok here...but then we haven't IQ tested any offspring from the get-together.
As for cattle we don't breed sires into daughters or grand daughters...cousins ok here...but then we haven't IQ tested any offspring from the get-together.
greenwillowherefords
Well-known member
A man who has done it for years said he doesn't exceed 50% blood from the same parent.
MY
Well-known member
Greenwillow,
I think 50% is a safe percentage, and still allows one to narrow the gene pool and increase uniformity.
On the other hand, with straight 50% stock and nothing tighter to infuse with the other segments of the family where that particular ancestor may be down to 25% or 12.5%, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a 50% emphasis down through the generations without painting yourself into a corner, or ultimatley sacrificing that higher percentage of influence in the pedigrees.
Mind you, all of this is on paper, and what is really important is capturing "the essence" of the traits that one is breeding for regardless of percentage, but it's nice to maintain the influence "on paper", as well as in type. The objective of maintaining a 50% influenece becomes substantially easier if you have some 75% or 87.5% inbred stock to maintain the goal of 50% emphasis on the "target" ancestor. This gives you many other breeding options. You can breed the family much longer without an outcross if you set yourself up well in the beginning. Unfortunately, most people that set out to breed in this way have no experience to bank on, and usually fail miserably. Then, "inbreeding" gets the bad rap, instead of placing the blame where it belongs..................... on the people who do not understand the principles of inbreeding.
For Example:
I have 3 foundation animals of my canine family.
Some are as tight as 87.5% on the foundation ancestor:
Some are 50% and the foundation ancestor is deceased:
Some are 50% with the foundation ancestor very much alive.
Others are a blend of the three like 62.5% 25% and 12.5%.
Where I am only at 50% and the foundation animal is deceased, I'm finding it difficult to maintain the 50%. I sure wish that some of his 75% offspring were still alive, it would make my quest in maintaining him as an integral part of this family much easier. Nevertheless, he will live on through his progeny, it just becomes a bigger challenge to maintain correct structure, performance, size, and fertility as tight as they must be bred now as we move along deeper in this 15 year old endeavor.
If anyone doubts the efficacy of these same principles in the cattle industry, one only needs to look to the WYE Angus or the Line-One Herefords to see how it has been done successfully for many decades now. Most folks are probably better off sticking with crossbred, or purebred but outcrossed cattle though, unless they have some extensive inbreeding background in another discipline, or a successful mentor to help them along.
I think 50% is a safe percentage, and still allows one to narrow the gene pool and increase uniformity.
On the other hand, with straight 50% stock and nothing tighter to infuse with the other segments of the family where that particular ancestor may be down to 25% or 12.5%, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a 50% emphasis down through the generations without painting yourself into a corner, or ultimatley sacrificing that higher percentage of influence in the pedigrees.
Mind you, all of this is on paper, and what is really important is capturing "the essence" of the traits that one is breeding for regardless of percentage, but it's nice to maintain the influence "on paper", as well as in type. The objective of maintaining a 50% influenece becomes substantially easier if you have some 75% or 87.5% inbred stock to maintain the goal of 50% emphasis on the "target" ancestor. This gives you many other breeding options. You can breed the family much longer without an outcross if you set yourself up well in the beginning. Unfortunately, most people that set out to breed in this way have no experience to bank on, and usually fail miserably. Then, "inbreeding" gets the bad rap, instead of placing the blame where it belongs..................... on the people who do not understand the principles of inbreeding.
For Example:
I have 3 foundation animals of my canine family.
Some are as tight as 87.5% on the foundation ancestor:
Some are 50% and the foundation ancestor is deceased:
Some are 50% with the foundation ancestor very much alive.
Others are a blend of the three like 62.5% 25% and 12.5%.
Where I am only at 50% and the foundation animal is deceased, I'm finding it difficult to maintain the 50%. I sure wish that some of his 75% offspring were still alive, it would make my quest in maintaining him as an integral part of this family much easier. Nevertheless, he will live on through his progeny, it just becomes a bigger challenge to maintain correct structure, performance, size, and fertility as tight as they must be bred now as we move along deeper in this 15 year old endeavor.
If anyone doubts the efficacy of these same principles in the cattle industry, one only needs to look to the WYE Angus or the Line-One Herefords to see how it has been done successfully for many decades now. Most folks are probably better off sticking with crossbred, or purebred but outcrossed cattle though, unless they have some extensive inbreeding background in another discipline, or a successful mentor to help them along.
Maine Limi Man
Member
Just something I found interesting..At the Three Tree's Angus sale this past spring, lot 1 was choice of four females who's sire and dam were 7/8 siblings..It sold for $70,000
And not that this has any relation to cattle but I breed working dogs and with them the tighter they are bred the more predictable they will produce, but they will sacrifice performance..The best breedings seem to be line breedings between uncles, cousins,half siblings,and grandparents to grandchildren..Now I have no idea how this relates to cattle but I think line breeding is a very interesting and fascinating subject no matter what type of animal and thought some might be interested as well..
And not that this has any relation to cattle but I breed working dogs and with them the tighter they are bred the more predictable they will produce, but they will sacrifice performance..The best breedings seem to be line breedings between uncles, cousins,half siblings,and grandparents to grandchildren..Now I have no idea how this relates to cattle but I think line breeding is a very interesting and fascinating subject no matter what type of animal and thought some might be interested as well..
The Holstein association and most dairyman around here consider more then 12 1/2% of any one animal in the pedigree to be inbred. But the Holstein breeding industry has a problem with almost everything tracing back to just a handfull of bulls and they have problems with soundness and reproduction. Those problems I feel (personal opinion) goes back to single trait selection, milk, and not paying attention to the other traits.
With most anaimls other then cattle, horses, probably elephants and others with long gestation periods and typically single births linebreeding would work better because you can knock in the head whatever isn;t up to the criteria that is set. The folks that are linebreeding succesfully have a much better grasp of genetics and possible flaws/problems then the average breeder.
dun
With most anaimls other then cattle, horses, probably elephants and others with long gestation periods and typically single births linebreeding would work better because you can knock in the head whatever isn;t up to the criteria that is set. The folks that are linebreeding succesfully have a much better grasp of genetics and possible flaws/problems then the average breeder.
dun
bigbull338
Well-known member
dun as far as holstein breeding goes. most all of the bloodlines traceback to a handfull of bulls.like palamar bootmaker round oak ragg apple elavation swd valient triple threat astro bloodlines. scott
Our sharp cowman told me if you do it on purpose it is "linebreeding," if it happens accidently it is "inbreeding."
I think there are beginning to be some things to watch out for on this. They are really starting to do a lot of work with DNA in cattle, selecting genes for marbling, tenderness, and in the future, who knows what. There is a fellow here in Iowa that linebreeds Angus cattle. He has some excellent cattle and his latest ad was touting what inbreeding has done to the concentration of the identified and desired genes for marbling and tenderness in his herd. The fact of the matter was, he didn't know at the time that the sires he was linebreeding to had those genes. It was just kind of dumb luck. It is not something that is going to have an imediate impact tomorrow, but if we concentrate on just a couple of sires and breed heavily to them and their offspring, we might find later that we have shut ourselves out of some of the future's desired genetics. And then how long and how many generations to breed it back in?
I think there are beginning to be some things to watch out for on this. They are really starting to do a lot of work with DNA in cattle, selecting genes for marbling, tenderness, and in the future, who knows what. There is a fellow here in Iowa that linebreeds Angus cattle. He has some excellent cattle and his latest ad was touting what inbreeding has done to the concentration of the identified and desired genes for marbling and tenderness in his herd. The fact of the matter was, he didn't know at the time that the sires he was linebreeding to had those genes. It was just kind of dumb luck. It is not something that is going to have an imediate impact tomorrow, but if we concentrate on just a couple of sires and breed heavily to them and their offspring, we might find later that we have shut ourselves out of some of the future's desired genetics. And then how long and how many generations to breed it back in?
certherfbeef
Well-known member
I was always told if it turns out good it was linebreeding, if it is a train wreck it was inbreeding.dph":3dxj6bh3 said:
bigbull338
Well-known member
line breeding was a train wreck for me. i was buying seedstock off a guy that had been breeding reg polled herefords 50yrs. an he beleived in linebreeding. an thats what he done.bred the fertilty right out of the cows. wouldnt bred back very good if at all. scott
bigbull338
Well-known member
dun if there wasnt a prob somewhere the cows i bought. so i know there had tobe a problem somewhere.b/c i used the bulls that ran with that herd in with the dairy an they got emm bred. an couldnt breed the herefords. so had tobe a prob there. scott
MY
Well-known member
Double Post
MY
Well-known member
Maine Limi Man,
I think linebreding and inbreeding are fascinating too. Dun you also made a very astute observation when you said :
I feel the same way. I've always wanted to understand genetics better, so I've fooled with inbreeding starting with rats, and then dogs for 16 years now. Some sore lessons to be learned, as well as some old wives tales dispelled, but there's no better teacher than hands on experience. I plan on an inbred Hereford program as well in the near future. Right now I have a scatterbred cattle operation, and I find while it might be a sensible approach to most folks, it's completley foreign to me with my background.
Maine Limi Man,
What you said can sure be true, you can increase predictability while losing performance with a tight program, but it doesn't have to be that way. The tighter you get, the more important selectivity becomes. As we increase the Inbreeding Coefficient, we begin to produce a greater percentage of offspring who are more like their parents rather than other core ancestors. It becomes imperative to use the absolute best individuals from a tight program to keep the vigor alive. It also becomes important moving forward to produce another foundation animal that exceeds the original foundation ancestors of the family. If we fail to produce another keynote animal after a few generations, then what is the purpose of continuing down the path? Another thing I've done is maintain my family in 2 segments based on where I believe their traits are coming from, or classifying them as to who are they the most like in their pedigree. I've got full brothers and sisters that I personally classify as seperate segments of my family, even though they share identical pedigrees. The thought behind this is that these tight but distinctly different individuals when mated together will once again give me the vigor of the original cross, without having to make the dreaded outcross. It's all about management at this point of my program. If I just lumped them all into one pot without any forward thinking about maintaining and improving the quality of my inbred stock, then it becomes easy to lose the quality and produce a bunch of third rate bums. The real advantage to a program like this that is 3,4, and 5 generations deep where a man has hands on knowledge of everything in the pedigrees is that you can identify where the physical and performance traits orignated. Sticking with it long enough to see the light is all it really takes, along with making a few mistakes and tasting a little success along the way.
I think linebreding and inbreeding are fascinating too. Dun you also made a very astute observation when you said :
I feel the same way. I've always wanted to understand genetics better, so I've fooled with inbreeding starting with rats, and then dogs for 16 years now. Some sore lessons to be learned, as well as some old wives tales dispelled, but there's no better teacher than hands on experience. I plan on an inbred Hereford program as well in the near future. Right now I have a scatterbred cattle operation, and I find while it might be a sensible approach to most folks, it's completley foreign to me with my background.
Maine Limi Man,
What you said can sure be true, you can increase predictability while losing performance with a tight program, but it doesn't have to be that way. The tighter you get, the more important selectivity becomes. As we increase the Inbreeding Coefficient, we begin to produce a greater percentage of offspring who are more like their parents rather than other core ancestors. It becomes imperative to use the absolute best individuals from a tight program to keep the vigor alive. It also becomes important moving forward to produce another foundation animal that exceeds the original foundation ancestors of the family. If we fail to produce another keynote animal after a few generations, then what is the purpose of continuing down the path? Another thing I've done is maintain my family in 2 segments based on where I believe their traits are coming from, or classifying them as to who are they the most like in their pedigree. I've got full brothers and sisters that I personally classify as seperate segments of my family, even though they share identical pedigrees. The thought behind this is that these tight but distinctly different individuals when mated together will once again give me the vigor of the original cross, without having to make the dreaded outcross. It's all about management at this point of my program. If I just lumped them all into one pot without any forward thinking about maintaining and improving the quality of my inbred stock, then it becomes easy to lose the quality and produce a bunch of third rate bums. The real advantage to a program like this that is 3,4, and 5 generations deep where a man has hands on knowledge of everything in the pedigrees is that you can identify where the physical and performance traits orignated. Sticking with it long enough to see the light is all it really takes, along with making a few mistakes and tasting a little success along the way.
SF
Well-known member
MY":2hev57cc said:
Well put. I've added the bold for emphasis. Successful linebreeding programs require persistent culling, but one should and can produce better cattle through line breeding. Line breeding is certainly not for everyone and not everyone should try it. JMO
