Linebreeding

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7206793]
DBaldStockings, don’t be silly. Of course horses were moved around in past centuries – but not to the extent that they are. And that certainly wouldn’t include the semen.

I just hope that all breeders truly realize that no matter how much research you do, close inbreeding can still result in some very unpleasant surprises, up to involving the type of culling that involves the death of the horse – because you do not have a genomic map and do not and cannot know everything in that horse’s genes. Picking out the examples that have worked out with close inbreeding isn’t the whole picture.[/QUOTE]

Silly? I don’t believe I was the person discounting breeding horses that were geographically close to one another solely for that reason because they would be closely related = a bad choice?

Outcrossing can result in unpleasant surprises, too. If the genetic complex that expresses as a phenotype for visible trait X in family 1 is not the same genetic complex that expresses as looking like visible trait X in family 2, and you cross the families?

Here comes visible trait M which is a combination of those genes that never occurred in the parent stocks because the distinct gene pools didn’t have the combination possible until the horses were crossed.
Maybe better, maybe uh, oh! No visible trait X at all.

Inbreeding discloses what is hiding under the ‘covers’. It may be good, or it may be bad.

And outcrossing within a breed may not truly be outcrossing if one checks the pedigree… Sammy and Jacques 5 generations back are full brothers… and all the mares in that farm breeding group were descended from just 2 stallions and 1
mare… then there was a cross 50 years back of a mare seized in wartime, pedigree unknown, but a dead ringer for known daughters of Good Ol’ Boy, who is a horse created by breeding sire to daughter then granddaughter back to sire then great-grandaughter back…until the original sire passed on and his best son took up his line…

I am not kidding. Just because the names on the papers don’t double up doesn’t mean that Sally and Molly aren’t very close genetically to Bobby and Tommy…

Picking out the examples that have ‘worked’ with outcrossing or even more extreme: cross breeding, isn’t the whole picture, either.

It is always a shotgun blast to breed 2 animals. Hopefully the breeder is loading the genetic gun as correctly as able and has the barrel as ‘tight’ as possible to reduce the scatter. Using an inbred animal as one of the parents does tend to ‘tighten’ the barrel. Now we hope the aim went the right direction…

Phenotype to phenotype can be misleading:
A Morgan x Percheron might outwardly resemble a Welsh Cob, but it will not breed like one.
An Arab x QH might outwardly resemble a Welsh Mountain x TB, but it will not perform the same or produce the same.

Full brothers result of an Arab x Standardbred can resemble anything from pure cobby Morgan to rangy TB… and won’t breed as they appear.

Outcrosses can incorporate all the unfortunate carrier genetics from both families or breeds and present them through the progeny generations later…

[D_BaldStockings]

"And sometimes two beautiful people have an ugly child. But usually, they don’t. And most often two athletic people will have athletic kids. Or very high IQ parents will have very intelligent kids. "

There was a case mid-20th century of a man who crossed breeds for specific hunting dogs - usually terrier to hound or sheperd to hound. Often he lost the good hound nose when trying to add the sheperd speed and endurance, or created dogs with great tenacity from the terrier, but with most unmelodious voices… outcrossing can be a mixed set of good and bad, too.

Breedings work when fortuitous combinations of genes get together. What one calls their method doesn’t improve or make worse the product standing in their pasture.

[vineyridge]

The King Ranch, mentioned earlier, created their stock horse lines which became foundation QHs by close inbreeding of a TB sire on grade mares. I actually saved a paper on this.

[jdeboer01]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7207127]
"And sometimes two beautiful people have an ugly child. But usually, they don’t. And most often two athletic people will have athletic kids. Or very high IQ parents will have very intelligent kids. "

There was a case mid-20th century of a man who crossed breeds for specific hunting dogs - usually terrier to hound or sheperd to hound. Often he lost the good hound nose when trying to add the sheperd speed and endurance, or created dogs with great tenacity from the terrier, but with most unmelodious voices… outcrossing can be a mixed set of good and bad, too.

Breedings work when fortuitous combinations of genes get together. What one calls their method doesn’t improve or make worse the product standing in their pasture.[/QUOTE]

The above example isn’t really the same as what I’m saying though. If that dog breeder was hoping to combine two traits, of which one was absent in each dog, then of course his chances would be less predictable. He may get pups with only one of the two traits or neither of the two traits along with pups that may inherit both. Even Brad Pitt isn’t going to make all of Susan Boyle’s babies pretty. LOL But I’m willing to bet big bucks that Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen’s kids are going to be knockouts when they grow up.

The idea is to start with two unrelated animals that both already have the desired traits. (as much as possible, anyway.) The other problem with the dog example is that dog breeds can vary so wildly to begin with. Of course it’s crazy to breed a Great Dane to a Dachshund and expect to get a great outcome. That’s the same as breeding a Draft to an Arabian and expecting to get Totilas! Lol. It’s not to say that Cold Blood x Hot Blood horses can’t be successful. They can be. But you’re beginning with two completely different animals that excel at very different things and are phenotypically opposite. And of course breeding two Cold Blood x Hot Blood horses together will give unpredictable results. But I don’t think anyone is promoting such an example.

Of course when I’m outcrossing a Friesian mare to a Warmblood stallion, I’m starting with the best quality Friesian mare that I can. One that at least has better talent and conformation for dressage than many of her breed typically do. I don’t want to start with a mare that has her head cranked up and is hollow and tense in her movement. I know lots of Friesians are like that. But many are not. I also can’t expect the Warmblood stallion to always produce an FEI offspring out of a Friesian mare. But that’s also the case when that stallion is bred to another Warmblood mare. All we can do is to start with the best mares and stallions we can, and not double up on obvious weaknesses.

[jdeboer01]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7207116]

Outcrossing can result in unpleasant surprises, too. If the genetic complex that expresses as a phenotype for visible trait X in family 1 is not the same genetic complex that expresses as looking like visible trait X in family 2, and you cross the families?

Here comes visible trait M which is a combination of those genes that never occurred in the parent stocks because the distinct gene pools didn’t have the combination possible until the horses were crossed.
Maybe better, maybe uh, oh! No visible trait X at all.[/QUOTE]

I’d really need to see examples of this scenario being the case. It’s probably very unlikely to be a common occurrence. If two unrelated families are crossed, all of which consistently have, say, long legs and necks, then I’d be inclined to think that combining the two would produce offspring with similar traits. I seriously doubt they’d produce offspring with short legs and necks. It would at least be highly unlikely.

[FayeHanoverian]

I think most people agree that careful linebreeding can result in some very nice offspring. I think that while introducing detrimental genetic treats those can be worked around with careful culling. The larger issue with that is whether people will actually do the culling.

The bigger issue with linebreeding in my opinion is the fact that you are introducing immunological weakness. Breeding very closely related animals limits the amount the range of antibodies an animal can produce. This is going to limit their ability to respond to new diseases. I think this is a reason to be careful about linebreeding.

[omare]

Conversely is a hybrid animal (outcross of two breeds) as likely to be a good breeding animal or to stamp his or her get/produce?

[jdeboer01]

[QUOTE=omare;7208048]
Conversely is a hybrid animal (outcross of two breeds) as likely to be a good breeding animal or to stamp his or her get/produce?[/QUOTE]

I think they can be, yes. I do think what the hybrid is being bred TO makes a world of difference.

A good example of a hybrid stallion producing reliably quality offspring would be Lexington, a Friesian Sporthorse stallion who himself is a Friesian x TB cross. He is of super quality himself, both in sport and in conformation (competing now at GP). His offspring have been receiving high scores and winning at recognized DSHB competitions against Warmbloods. So it is possible. I’d also like to point out that in the case of genetically starved breeds there may be little choice but to try using hybrids in order to introduce new genetics to that breed. I’m not sure if Lexington has been used on any purebred Friesian mares yet, but I’m certainly not ruling him out in my own program.

[paulamc]

[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7202246]
Absolutely there is! :lol: If there isn’t any inbreeding or linebreeding in the first five generations it means that there was a certain amount of outcrossing. If you go backward in the lineage in any breed there are going to be common ancestors.

Nearco and Ribot certainly were not the result of sibling or half sibling or mother/son or father/ daughter crosses. That was my point.[/QUOTE]

That is not what i meant - you are mentioning these horses and yet only providing a 4 or 5 generation pedigree link for people to see. For a horse like Nearco to really see the amount of full and part sibling crosses you need to look at at least 7 generations, otherwise it looks like there is no evidence of siblings in his pedigree. Often looking at a 7 generation pedigree then brings in duplications on the 2nd and 3rd generations that you would not see if you were only looking at 4 and 5 generations

Paulamc

[paulamc]

I find these linebreeding discussions extremely tiresome. i could provide a long list of top stallions and competition horses that are extremely linebred and inbred to superior females - that is inbred to various extents, and i have done so in other line breeding discussions, but there doesnt seem to be much point

Instead of hearing all the knockers and the same old reasons why it should be done with care, which we know anyway and why wouldnt we with it being shoved down our throats all the time - why cant we hear from people who are wanting to linebreed and inbreed and have a discussion about doing it

As a linebreeder myself i would really love this instead of the same old tiresome reasons why not to. it doesnt seem like many of the people posting in these threads have ever focused on doing so

No one here is talking about breeding extremely inbred horses like brother and sister matings, or father /daughter matings - it would be good to hear some positive experiences from people who base their breeding programmes on these theories for a change

Paulamc

[grayarabpony]

What? :lol: Paula, close crosses are EXACTLY what K and others were talking about. Guess what, Tesio’s best horse weren’t the result of crossing grandson to granddaughter either.

There’s nothing unfair about showing a 5 generation pedigree of a horse to show the degree of inbreeding within 5 generations. Get it? The further back an ancestor is in a pedigree, the less related that ancestor is to its descendent. And there is no horse in the second or third generation of Nearco that’s also in the 7th generation. ROLLS EYES. That’d be rather hard to accomplish ANYWAY.

In the modern world of English sport a lot of the top competitors and breeding horses are NOT highly inbred. Deal with it. They are more inbred in the Western world, but I know for example that some reining breeders are really wanting to outcross at this point.

Who cares if you find these discussions tiresome and everyone doesn’t agree with you?

I just find it astounding that some people are looking at an old fashioned model and yes, blithely ignoring all of the RISKS. Tesio didn’t stick to close inbreeding in producing his hugely successful horses. Why can’t you learn from that? I’ve already said that linebreeding to a certain extent is very useful, so don’t even start with that again.

Tiresome?? – pot meet kettle.

If you want to continue on this line you’ll have to do it on your own.

[grayarabpony]

What? :lol: Paula, close crosses were discussed earlier in the thread. Did you miss that? In any case, Tesio’s best horses weren’t the result of crossing grandson to granddaughter either, or other close crosses in the 2nd and 3rd generations.

There’s nothing unfair about showing a 5 generation pedigree of a horse to show the degree of inbreeding within 5 generations. Get it? There is no horse in the second or third generation of Nearco that’s also in the 7th generation. ROLLS EYES. That’d be rather hard to accomplish ANYWAY.

In the modern world of English sport a lot of the top competitors and breeding horses are NOT highly inbred. Deal with it. They are more inbred in the Western world, but I know for example that some reining breeders are really wanting to outcross at this point.

Who cares if you find these discussions tiresome and everyone doesn’t agree with you?

Tesio didn’t stick to close inbreeding in producing his hugely successful horses. Why can’t you learn from that? I’ve already said that linebreeding to a certain extent is very useful, so don’t even start with that again.

Tiresome?? – pot meet kettle.

If you want to continue on this line you’ll have to do it on your own.

[grayarabpony]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7207127]
"And sometimes two beautiful people have an ugly child. But usually, they don’t. And most often two athletic people will have athletic kids. Or very high IQ parents will have very intelligent kids. "

There was a case mid-20th century of a man who crossed breeds for specific hunting dogs - usually terrier to hound or sheperd to hound. Often he lost the good hound nose when trying to add the sheperd speed and endurance, or created dogs with great tenacity from the terrier, but with most unmelodious voices… outcrossing can be a mixed set of good and bad, too.

Breedings work when fortuitous combinations of genes get together. What one calls their method doesn’t improve or make worse the product standing in their pasture.[/QUOTE]

Crossing two entirely different TYPES is bound to result in scattershot phenotypes, unless you’re dealing with a highly dominant trait.

[D_BaldStockings]

Point 1.

The genetic bottleneck for Cheetahs has been dated to approximated 10,000 years ago… so despite being inbred for 10,000 years, they have survived to date. We humans do not know when genetic defects increased to the point of making the population non-viable although we assume they are there now.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070701_cheetah

Point 2.
Horses have been domesticated for approximately 7,000 years - dating to 5,000 BC. And possibly domestication took place at one location.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/horses.htm

You can look at this from two viewpoints:

Extinction of horses is inevitable as the gene pool is already too limited.

or
If cheetahs can thrive with natural selection for 10,000 years in one location, one environment despite the presence of 2 larger predators they cannot overcome (lions and leopards) and, while, rarer than these predators, were not dangerously threatened until human degradation of habitat and systematic hunting…
Then horses, which are distributed world wide and encompassing many distinct phenotypes and breeding groups will probably not be damaged by careful inbreeding and linebreeding during the relatively short human lifetime a breeder works with their stock before passing them on to breeders of the next generations, always assuming sound, healthy stock are slected each generation.

Point 3.

Some breeders of horses created some pretty good breeds and families within breeds by linebreeding and inbreeding; the Morgan in the USA for one example, the Suffolk Punch draft in England for another; both breeds noted for longevity, fertility toughness and utility.

Point 4.

Hybrid corn, for instance is the result of crossing 2 semi-unrelated inbred strains.
Many have thought that regression would occur if the first cross were mated to each other, however, studies at some universities have not shown significant loss of vigor or production to the 7th genration descendants (none of which, to the 15th generation were as weak as the original inbred lines used to create the first cross).

[D_BaldStockings]

Sometimes linebreeding works, as does inbreeding.

http://www.reines-de-course.com/Articles/Articles%20F/Frizette.htm

http://www.pedigreepost.net/archives/BoussacAnnePeters.html

http://www.ownerbreeder.co.uk/2011/10/mixed-blessings-of-close-inbreeding/

[paulamc]

[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7211715]
What? :lol: Paula, close crosses were discussed earlier in the thread. Did you miss that? In any case, Tesio’s best horses weren’t the result of crossing grandson to granddaughter either, or other close crosses in the 2nd and 3rd generations.

There’s nothing unfair about showing a 5 generation pedigree of a horse to show the degree of inbreeding within 5 generations. Get it? There is no horse in the second or third generation of Nearco that’s also in the 7th generation. ROLLS EYES. That’d be rather hard to accomplish ANYWAY.

In the modern world of English sport a lot of the top competitors and breeding horses are NOT highly inbred. Deal with it. They are more inbred in the Western world, but I know for example that some reining breeders are really wanting to outcross at this point.

Who cares if you find these discussions tiresome and everyone doesn’t agree with you?

Tesio didn’t stick to close inbreeding in producing his hugely successful horses. Why can’t you learn from that? I’ve already said that linebreeding to a certain extent is very useful, so don’t even start with that again.

Tiresome?? – pot meet kettle.

If you want to continue on this line you’ll have to do it on your own.[/QUOTE]

grayarabpony, i am not saying that Nearco has a linebreeding in the 3rd and 7th generation although many many horses do

But if you only look at a 5 generation pedigree of nearco - you will not start to see the full sister/brother combinations that start occurring in the 5th generation. YOu have to go to an 8 generation pedigree to see that the full siblings start on the 4th generation with St Simon who is there in multiples from the 4th generation, along with his full sister who appears in the 7th generation, which gives several full brother sister combinations from the 4th generation and onward in Nearco
YOu will not see this just by looking at a 5 generation pedigree of him and will think that there are no close siblings this early

nor am i saying that top competition horses have to be very tightly bred, they do not and there are many examples of this,

What i am saying is the very important stallions and mares in our time and in history , whose presences are felt for generations are almost always the result of full sibling configurations within 6 generations

a great competition horse can be a total failure as a breeder - to be a very top breeder a horse must be tightly bred

There is no need to be so vitriolic , it would just be great to have a positive discussion about all this

i am not even talking about TEsio here but i think if you look at his great breeding horses you will find they are all pretty tightly bred, although you may not see this unless you are looking at a bigger pedigree chart than 5 generations

Paulamc

[D_BaldStockings]

This horse is quite high up on the General Sire list (TB)
http://www.pedigreequery.com/speightstown

linebred to Secretariat, Bold Ruler, Nasrullah, and Tom Fool on the 5 gen pedigree.

Also very high up
http://www.pedigreequery.com/kittens+joy

linebred to Northern Dancer, Turn to, Hail to Reason, Tom Fool on the 5 gen pedigree.

How about a broodmare sire
http://www.pedigreequery.com/ap+indy

linebred to Bold Ruler, Nasrullah, Turn-to, Princequillo, Somethingroyal
all on the 5 gen pedigree.

[vineyridge]

One thing about TBs that looking at SHBD will show is how much ancestor loss there is over 12 generations. That is a measure of in/line breeding. Most TBs have lost about 70% of their ancestors by generation 12, so dense line/in breeding is the norm, not the exception. It’s within the first five generations that breeders have been scared away from multiple duplicates, and this only happened after a rather major scare campaign by a TB breeding expert journalist after 1930. I’m fairly certain, though, that no a breeder on earth today would find anything out of the ordinary with lots of doubles (and more) in the fourth and fifth generations.

[D_BaldStockings]

Contendro, Holsteiner
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/contendro
Ramiro Z, Ladykiller and Rantzau.
And Cottage Son 1 more generation back.

[_Tradewind]

An interesting example of consistent linebreeding in a breeding program is that done by Galten Farms. Their superstar mare, Abiza (dam of Abdullah, Pan Am medalist Amiego, approved stallion, Adrian, among others) is the foundation of their breeding program and most of their broodmares are linebred (some heavily) to this mare. They have also bred some approved stallions that have considerable linebreeding to several marelines, in particular. This breeding program has produced a slew of international jumpers and event horses. Here is the pedigree of their young homebred stallion, Humble GS, who has recently made his eventing debut with Jessica Phoenix:
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/humble+gs

and a homebred stallion they previously stood, Arapaho:
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/arapaho+gs