MY
Well-known member
HS wrote:
Maybe we can retire by buying culls of excellent bloodlines. I researched filial degeneration a tad, I what I have realized in thinking about this concept in the context of line breeding, ….. is if I use inexpensive initial seed stock, their progeny should revert to the mean and the odds of me breeding a standout are very low but the cull factor should also be low. On the other hand, if I use expensive initial seed stock, their progeny should also revert to the mean and the odds of me breeding a standout are higher as long as the majority of lower performing animals are culled.
MY Reply:
BINGO! Scatterbred animals are not very predictable producers of their own traits. If they appear to, most often you are not breeding and inheriting from the individual sire or dam as much as you are his entire ancestry within the first 7 generations or so. I might add that it need not be traits from direct lineal ancestry that will manifest either. I have observed plenty of inbred offspring that favor non-lineal ancestors such as a great uncle for example. The key is being familiar enough with a breeding program to identify the origins of traits from within the family. There is no subsitute for time in this regard.
HS Wrote:
The real question may be …can the marginal animal produce pre-potent progeny greater than the prior most superior animal in the entire herd (the best performing animal so far)? I would think it is possible, but the odds would be drastically reduced relative to focusing on the higher level animals.
MY wrote: Great question! In the beginning you can get away with a lot, as you are really focusing on the genetic purification of major underlying faults. You need all of the hidden genetic junk to surface, so breeding nearly everything is a good idea so as to give you some basis and understanding on what you are dealing with genetically. It's kind of like tearing down an engine, only way to know what is inside and what shape it is in is to tear it down! As time moves on in a linebreeding effort, one needs to become increasingly more selective. As you increase the coefficient of inbreeding percentage, the statistics become much greater that the traits you will inherit actually come from a parent rather than another ancestor. (e.g. 26% COI means that you have a 26% chance that the traits will come from a parent. It usually takes 3 or 4 generations of direct inbreedingto get to this level. If you linebreed more cautiously from a wider genetic base it will take much longer.) Thus, it behooves us to increase our COI% so that we have the true predictability we seek in our sires and dams. Most people make a breeding decision based on something like the following. "She is a little flat in the rear end and he has a lot of butt on him, so he will clean up what she lacks". While that is a dandy little theory, it is lauaghable from a statistical perspective. Most of the bulls and cows out there have less than a 1% chance of contributing their own traits directly to their offspring. Now, some defy the odds, and this IS called prepotency. That is the perfect type animal to begin a linebreeding program upon, the picture of perfection with the ability to gentically stamp the progeny. Back to your hypothetical question..... as time moves on, we must become increasingly stringent with selection so that we build upon true excellence in our generations. As we progress in increasing COI% we begin to see the sires and dams play a greater direct role in contributing to the actual traits of calves.
HS wrote:
I was under the impression I was already using a tightly inbred lines…but after considering your wording closely, I want to get tighter than my original thinking. If I focus on Felton's 517 or maybe MSU Prospector 508 instead of 3008, I could reduce the variability somewhat in which you refer in exchange for the competition being fiercer. I will also focus on finding a higher inbreeding coefficient as I do want to my an ground shaking impact.
MY reply:
It would behoove you to start with as deep of linebred genetics as you could, as much of the legwork is already done for you. I would recommend looking to the Lents Anxiety 4th Herefords. They trace back to the original importations of Simpson and Gudgell without any outcrossing. Coincidentally I just got an e-mail from Jim yesterday regarding his long awaited new edition of his book The Basis of Linebreeding.
I would highly recommend that you read this book. I have been waiting for my copy for a long time now, as have others.
For domestic shipment the cost per book is $30, and for shipment outside the United States the cost is $40US. Both figures include shipping and handling.
Address all orders to:
Jim Lents
25398 SW Coombs Road
Indiahoma, OK 73552
With your order please include the name and postal address where the book(s) are to be delivered along with your payment. Personal checks and/or money orders are fine for domestic orders; however, books shipped to addresses outside the United States require an International Money Order denominated in US dollars and payable in the United States for payment. These can be purchased at most commercial banks in your country. If you have a special request such as an inscription or an autograph include them with your order.
I think after talking with Jim, reading his book and newsletter, and seeing his cattle (UNREAL thick Hereford Cattle!) which finish naturally on grass, you will be sold on his approach. They have a COI of about 94%, determined through actual DNA tests, not just statistical probabilities. Another way to put it is that there is only about 6% variation in his entire herd genetically, or they are 9$% clones of one another. I'll never go purebred unless I can deal exclusively with Jim's cattle. One day Imight be sitting well enough off to buy a bull and some cows and have them shipped. I am absolutely sold on his program because his philosophies already mirrored what I know from my own experience breeding dogs. (Incidentally, dogs are much tougher to breed for than cattle due to the higher number of chromosomes and multi-faceted performance traits. Eating grass and making gains just aint that tough in the grand scheme of things!)
HS wrote:
I hope you stick around awhile and continue to contribute as I value your experience very much.
MY Reply:
Thank you for the kind words. I'l likely be around as I have been, although I lurk more than I post. I just can't get excited about most breeding topics. Your post was just interesting enough for me to come out of my cocoon. 8) I'm going to check out your site.
Maybe we can retire by buying culls of excellent bloodlines. I researched filial degeneration a tad, I what I have realized in thinking about this concept in the context of line breeding, ….. is if I use inexpensive initial seed stock, their progeny should revert to the mean and the odds of me breeding a standout are very low but the cull factor should also be low. On the other hand, if I use expensive initial seed stock, their progeny should also revert to the mean and the odds of me breeding a standout are higher as long as the majority of lower performing animals are culled.
MY Reply:
BINGO! Scatterbred animals are not very predictable producers of their own traits. If they appear to, most often you are not breeding and inheriting from the individual sire or dam as much as you are his entire ancestry within the first 7 generations or so. I might add that it need not be traits from direct lineal ancestry that will manifest either. I have observed plenty of inbred offspring that favor non-lineal ancestors such as a great uncle for example. The key is being familiar enough with a breeding program to identify the origins of traits from within the family. There is no subsitute for time in this regard.
HS Wrote:
The real question may be …can the marginal animal produce pre-potent progeny greater than the prior most superior animal in the entire herd (the best performing animal so far)? I would think it is possible, but the odds would be drastically reduced relative to focusing on the higher level animals.
MY wrote: Great question! In the beginning you can get away with a lot, as you are really focusing on the genetic purification of major underlying faults. You need all of the hidden genetic junk to surface, so breeding nearly everything is a good idea so as to give you some basis and understanding on what you are dealing with genetically. It's kind of like tearing down an engine, only way to know what is inside and what shape it is in is to tear it down! As time moves on in a linebreeding effort, one needs to become increasingly more selective. As you increase the coefficient of inbreeding percentage, the statistics become much greater that the traits you will inherit actually come from a parent rather than another ancestor. (e.g. 26% COI means that you have a 26% chance that the traits will come from a parent. It usually takes 3 or 4 generations of direct inbreedingto get to this level. If you linebreed more cautiously from a wider genetic base it will take much longer.) Thus, it behooves us to increase our COI% so that we have the true predictability we seek in our sires and dams. Most people make a breeding decision based on something like the following. "She is a little flat in the rear end and he has a lot of butt on him, so he will clean up what she lacks". While that is a dandy little theory, it is lauaghable from a statistical perspective. Most of the bulls and cows out there have less than a 1% chance of contributing their own traits directly to their offspring. Now, some defy the odds, and this IS called prepotency. That is the perfect type animal to begin a linebreeding program upon, the picture of perfection with the ability to gentically stamp the progeny. Back to your hypothetical question..... as time moves on, we must become increasingly stringent with selection so that we build upon true excellence in our generations. As we progress in increasing COI% we begin to see the sires and dams play a greater direct role in contributing to the actual traits of calves.
HS wrote:
I was under the impression I was already using a tightly inbred lines…but after considering your wording closely, I want to get tighter than my original thinking. If I focus on Felton's 517 or maybe MSU Prospector 508 instead of 3008, I could reduce the variability somewhat in which you refer in exchange for the competition being fiercer. I will also focus on finding a higher inbreeding coefficient as I do want to my an ground shaking impact.
MY reply:
It would behoove you to start with as deep of linebred genetics as you could, as much of the legwork is already done for you. I would recommend looking to the Lents Anxiety 4th Herefords. They trace back to the original importations of Simpson and Gudgell without any outcrossing. Coincidentally I just got an e-mail from Jim yesterday regarding his long awaited new edition of his book The Basis of Linebreeding.
I would highly recommend that you read this book. I have been waiting for my copy for a long time now, as have others.
For domestic shipment the cost per book is $30, and for shipment outside the United States the cost is $40US. Both figures include shipping and handling.
Address all orders to:
Jim Lents
25398 SW Coombs Road
Indiahoma, OK 73552
With your order please include the name and postal address where the book(s) are to be delivered along with your payment. Personal checks and/or money orders are fine for domestic orders; however, books shipped to addresses outside the United States require an International Money Order denominated in US dollars and payable in the United States for payment. These can be purchased at most commercial banks in your country. If you have a special request such as an inscription or an autograph include them with your order.
I think after talking with Jim, reading his book and newsletter, and seeing his cattle (UNREAL thick Hereford Cattle!) which finish naturally on grass, you will be sold on his approach. They have a COI of about 94%, determined through actual DNA tests, not just statistical probabilities. Another way to put it is that there is only about 6% variation in his entire herd genetically, or they are 9$% clones of one another. I'll never go purebred unless I can deal exclusively with Jim's cattle. One day Imight be sitting well enough off to buy a bull and some cows and have them shipped. I am absolutely sold on his program because his philosophies already mirrored what I know from my own experience breeding dogs. (Incidentally, dogs are much tougher to breed for than cattle due to the higher number of chromosomes and multi-faceted performance traits. Eating grass and making gains just aint that tough in the grand scheme of things!)
HS wrote:
I hope you stick around awhile and continue to contribute as I value your experience very much.
MY Reply:
Thank you for the kind words. I'l likely be around as I have been, although I lurk more than I post. I just can't get excited about most breeding topics. Your post was just interesting enough for me to come out of my cocoon. 8) I'm going to check out your site.
Some animals can throw some great ones mixed with some poor ones, some can produce a high percentage of really nice ones, but no really great ones, nor poor ones. Who is the better producer? Selection is key! I want consistency, not spotty producers. The one who throws me very few bad ones with plenty great ones behind him will give me the foundation to improve with. The great ones will resurface. I am worried about eliminating substandard producing individuals to the extent possible. By doing so are we not improving our program? As a young breeder, I used to cull 70-80% of offspring. Today I cull about 20-30%. Is that not progress? Admittedly, I haven't had a performance Champion in 13 years though, although I have 2 that are going to make it this fall. You see, had I become discouraged in the program and started outcrossing to get Champions, I would have had some great performers earlier, but I would still be culling 70-80%! Now I have a clean genetic base that produces a high percentage of keepers, and is once again starting to duplicate the Superstars I began with some 4, 5, to 6 genertions later. As far as a database, I hand entered all of my dog pedigrees of 2 working breeds into a database that will figure inbreeding coeffcients to the 10th generation. There are programs that go to the 30th generation to caluclate this. If you could get a preloaded database going back to foundation animals from AHA you will save a lot of tedious work. Even if you have to hand enter them though, the result is worth it as you are much better equipped to plan for the future. Not all breeding decisions can be made around COI%, or any single aspect of the goals of the breeder. That is why I like Dr. Witherspoon's quote regarding "universal excellence". In the linebred program we are gently nudging the program forward in all areas, making some compromises as we go for the greater good of the program. This is in contrast to a best to best effort where one is trying to produce a few high profile superstars. I want a whole family of better than average animals, and can live without a superstar. However, the linebred family will still give you the occasional superstar as I illustrated above, and those are important flagship animals to breed upon. The principles of breeding quality never change. The inbreeding effort most closely resembles nature. Our job as breeders is play the cruel role of nature in deciding who gets bred and who does not. Look at wild mustangs as a classic example of how nature and inbreeding work to produce a very sound animal. The finest bred 6 figure horses do not compare to the soundness of mustangs in many regards. 
