# Sticky  Summary linebreeding & outcrossing



## Selena van Leeuwen

Daryl have summarized an introduction to Understanding Linebreeding & Outcrossing, to help people understand it a little better.... 

http://www.ehretgsd.com/genetics.htm#InbreedOutcross


----------



## Bob Scott

Thanks Selena! Good explinations of linebreeding and outcrossing. It makes the hair on my neck stand up when I hear people commenting about a breed (any breed) that has so many problems because they are so inbred. :roll:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I would just like to clarify, I have no problems with linebreeding, it's just weird to me to think \"hey my dog is the product of a mother and her son\" :lol: But if I was a breeder and I thought it would benefit my line to do this, then absolutely I would go that route. But as a human being that wasn't born or raised in Alabama, it's still kinda weird :lol: :lol: :wink:

Great article, good information, thanks Daryl for writing it!


----------



## Julia Tompson

Selena... great article but I am still a little confused. First I know very little about linebreeding. I hear some breeders brag about it like its a great thing so I assume its good even though I really dont understand it. :? 

If you see a linebreeding in a dogs pedigree like the one below would that mean the last 3 generations were outcrossed? Would this be considered a distant linebreeding since it is 4 generations back? 

When breeders linebreed famous dogs do they usually make public what traits or goals they are trying to gain from the breeding? 

Do they follow up with a report indicating whether the objectives were achieved or not?

Do you have the name of a famous dog that was a close linebreed? I am sure there are many I just dont know where to look?

Sorry for so many questions but this is a subject that seems very tricky to understand.  

Linebreeding - 5 generations
4 - 4............................................. in VA1 Ulk von Arlett
5 - 5............................................. in V Dolly von Arlett
5 - 5............................................. in VA1 Uran vom Wildsteiger Land
5 - 5............................................. in VA5 Yago vom Wildsteiger Land


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Is far linebreeding indeed, after 5 generations you don´t speak of linebreeding anymore.

Linebreeding´s purpose is for genetic tieying down the good behaviour and/or looks, simply said. By (tight)linebreeding you will make all charaterics more pronouced, the bad and the good ones. If you make an outcross you will choose a mate who can soften/eliminate the bad habits/looks in your line and will strenghten the good points. All ideally spoken ofcourse.

I know some famous dogs, but you probably won´t know them.
Example, a dog of my fathers
www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=11

father of this dog is a combination of full brother and sister

and

Our Benta & Spike
www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=3455

father/daughter combination

and if Benta is pregnant, this will be the father of the pups
www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=2541

so this wil be a half brother/half sister combination

The dutchie lovers here will probably see a familiar name: Robbie/Rockie is father/halfbrother of Athos.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

A a half brother/half sister combination is how one of my females was produced, creating a 2-2 linebreeding on Titus z Pohranicni Straze, a well known Czech border patrol producer. Not all linebreeding produces well though, and the tighter the linebreeding, the more familiar a breeder should be with the particular line and what it produces beforehand.


----------



## Ken Thompson

This is very interesting. I used to raise racing pigeons and we would inbreed the best to the best (Mother-Son, Father-Daughter, Brother-Sister). We would do this until all were physically the same (trying to remove the bad genes). When you do this you lose vigor and sometimes get genetic problems. With birds that's not a problem you would cull the bad ones. What was left, you would outcross to another family inbred the same way. What you would get is a type of hybrid with more vigor than you could imagine (not good for breeding but excellent raciers). I can see where line breeding would have some advanges but it may take many generation to form a breeding stock. This is why even the best dogs may not produce a high precentage of top quailty pups. Our best raciers were not usually the best breeders. 

I'm not an expert on this by any means, this is just my thoughts. :?


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Ken, this line is also in Bear's pedigree,Pohranicni Straze. Good stuff.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

Nicely written article 
http://www.westwindgsps.com/linebreeding.htm


----------



## Don Turnipseed

In reading Daryls article of linebreeding and the article put up by Lynn, I see areas of differing ideas on the "successful" or "right" way to linebreed. It is no wonder such confusion exists on the subject. I have opinions of my own that do not entirely agree with the articles. One would be the part of 10 to 20 % great dogs in a litter. The idea of successful linebreeding in my mind, is to achieve more of a 70 to 80% far above average, solid dogs. The purpose of linebreeding is to develope a line of solid, viable dogs, not the single grand nationals champion. With an expected success rate of 10 to 20% outstanding dogs, you are about as well off scatterbreeding and really mixing them up and hoping for the best. That low a percentage just wouldn't warrant the years of line breeding. IMHO The idea is to fix traits and every outcross adds 50% new genes to the mix and negates the linebreeding until the offspring can be bred back and reset them. EVERY outcross will do this.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

In the article I wrote, I didn't want to imply what would be "right or wrong", just inform what happens, and that to make the most of it, both methods are necessary. It's important that the actual breeding pair should be representative of the focus of the linebreeding characteristics aimed for.

The 10-20% figure is pretty subjective, and totally dependant on what's bred to what after all. Your best genes may go into 25% of the pool, but not necessarily into the same quarter of your litter, into the same pups. Depends on how many separate heterogenous characteristics you're hoping to make homogenous. Then you have to re-select from the results, and continue refining.

As a general rule, linebred dogs can be better for _producing_, and outcrosses are often better _performers_. And often, the best performers are not necessarily the best producers (depends on the mate matched with).

This distinction of producers vs. performers can even be seen between littermates. I guess my favorite example would be Ellute von der Mohnwiese and Eros von der Mohnwiese. One's a better producer, the other a better performer. They're linebred, but hardly in any significant way. 5-4 on one particular dog, but through alternating sexes (M>F>M>F>M--M>F>M>F). Their dam was somewhat linebred, but not in a very influential way.

If you have a subject that is very outstanding, but want to plan some improvement, linebreeding is a good way to really take advantage, and in a lesser amount of time. Then follow with a suitable outcross, an equally important component.

It's not any kind of magic formula, but it definitely helps keep a trait or characteristic _within the line_ that may exceedingly be rare among the general gene population. It seems we are noticing some shortages out there for balanced-drives, genetic-grips, good-hips. Challenging to find one or two, much less all three traits in a single dog. Throw in a couple other desireable characteristics, and the math is less in your favor (10-20% might be optimistic).



> That low a percentage just wouldn't warrant the years of line breeding.


_linebreeding is actually the "quick-fix", it would take much longer with only very carefully selected outcrosses... lifetimes perhaps, depending how refined you want to go_



> The idea is to fix traits and every outcross adds 50% new genes to the mix and negates the linebreeding until the offspring can be bred back and reset them. EVERY outcross will do this.


_the outcross is the "finished product" _


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I see what you are saying Daryl in regard to the percentages. And you may be on the money. You, from what I am reading, look at linebreeding as a method to give the outcross the highest success rate. I view linebreeding solely as a tool that produce consistency in a line....as in the larger percentage should ideally be closer to being clones to the dogs the line is built around. Part of the frustration with a breed like Airedales is that very few are really in working hands. The result is that there are no specific lines, just dogs. The closest thing to a line is show bred and hasn't worked in decades. This makes a reliable "finished product" iffy in itself if the outcross is the finished product. The hybrid vigor is less than desirable in this case because the resulting pups can head out a totally new direction and, once again, leave a small percentage of viable super dogs. One spends years trying to acheive predictability through homozygosity, but, there is nothing left to breed to that has anything set outside of appearance. 

You mentioned that outcrossing can take a life time and linebreeding is the quick fix. I would appreciate you going a bit farther on this. I never gave outcrossing continually much thought after the first few breedings. If memory serves, I decided after three litters that I was already to old for this method. 

I probably shouldn't get into these subjects requiring thought at 3 in the morning but it is still close to a full moon and Airedale can howl, 25 can really howl. I cringe when that full moon is cycling up each mo.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Daryl, here is a pedigree I am considering in a couple of years. Magnum , the sire is out of a litter of 8, pretty much carbon copies. Magnum is about 6 mo olkd and is going back to Oh with me in March to run the Master Fur at the Nationals. I could have taken any othe the pups in the litter and run this because they have the capability. While one person looks for the 10 to 20% finished dogs to compete at a high level(Outcross), I want to see solid consistency and have no use for the once in a life time time dog. Molly Dolly Varden is Winchesters Grandaughter and most of the top side of the pedigree goes back another 3 to 5 genrations with HC.....as does the bottom. Any outcrossing is done elsehere and when a new pup comes here, It is already 50% out of my stock as is the possible dam HC. Chloee. I got into breeding to work my own dogs and never found 10 to 20 % an acceptable figure figure.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

> I view linebreeding solely as a tool that produce consistency in a line


That _really is_ the best way to view it, from a breeder's standpoint. But only considering that you _already have_ in your lines the best possible breeding stock to work with. If you are satisfied with 70-80% of what you produce, and feel there's no need for improvement, then linebreeding with occasional type-to-type outcrossing (from a similar genetic population/ancestry) is all you need to maintain this. Linebreeding near the founding times of the GSD, was in a way a _necessity_, to establish a consistent type for the breed. As mentioned before, those percentage figures are really subjective, in that they are depending on what you're original breeding stock consisted of, and the goals or satisfaction level you seek. If you start with less than ideal material to work with, then maximizing for hybrid vigor is the aproach you may want, then refine.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Daryl, I want to make it clear I am not disagreeing with you even though my thoughts may wander a different direction now and then. I thoroughly enjoy discussions on line breeding and it is difficult to find someone with your understanding of the subject to discuss it with. I find every discussion gives me new perspective on the subject. As they say, there is always more than one way to skin a cat. I have found this to be somewhat true in line breeding. One can approach it intensely, or, with a much less intense style. I started slowly and was dead set against line breeding at the outset. I was less than happy with the results I was seeing in litters. I had a mother and son that were really intense dogs that had no fear and more prey drive than any dog needs. They were constantly laid up for grabbing 300lb hogs or bears by themselves. The first few years in line breeding I bred for the hard big game dog because that is what I did. I soon realized that fur hunting with dogs will end some day with the current trend and I had developed a specialty dog that could get thrown 8 ft in the air and cut up by hogs only to get up and engage again and cry to do it again the next day. It was natural ability I was looking at and I realized that few people needed dogs like this. I also learned, through talking to people such as yourself, that hardness isn't the same as grit in many circles. I was made aware of training hardness, which I noticed was lacking in my original lines. They did it their way or they wouldn't do it. What they did they did very well but that is where it ended. I bred a softer female into the line and the change was phenomenal. Now instead of having very aloof one dimensional dogs, I have to endure dragging pups all over the yard attached to my legs and arms, they are no longer aloof, much more vocal and very trainable. I found, through necessity, you can change the program mid stream while line breeding.


----------



## Mica Korab

A very interesting read, just caomes at this time when I am looking for a stud dog for my black bitch, I am looking at a niece to uncle mating, quite tight there I think, but I can go back through both sides and 'know' the dogs inside out.. any thoughts?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

How the **** did I miss this thread??


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

You were sick that day.


----------



## Hil Harrison

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How the **** did I miss this thread??


wrong glasses on Jeff?:lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Ok, so you are jamming the lines to get the dog that you want, my curiousity is what are you seeing from your culls as far as genetic problems??? Or in Don's case however long ago that was....LOL.

Also, how many lines do you have going at once???


----------



## Daryl Ehret

My actual experience with this is pretty limited, but my take is, even with the best intentions focusing on some of some of the best dogs, you can still cause as many problems as benefits. (For example, a great performer might contribute toward unhealthy hips more than usual, and linebreeding creates doubly additive effect of gene frequencies toward HD) And often overlooked, the actual breeding pair should ideally (but not necessarily) be representative _in phenotype_, the traits you intend to capture.

I'm currently working toward two linebred gsd lines, one West-working and one Czech. It'll be some years yet before they're crossed.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Mica Korab said:


> A very interesting read, just caomes at this time when I am looking for a stud dog for my black bitch, I am looking at a niece to uncle mating, quite tight there I think, but I can go back through both sides and 'know' the dogs inside out.. any thoughts?


 Generally, I have gotten better results from 1/2 bro/sis or grand parent/grandpups. I would say compare the uncle to the brother (father). Better yet, breed directly to the father. It will tell you where you stand so you don't waste a lot of time tightening for nothing.JMO


----------



## Justin Eimer

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Is far linebreeding indeed, after 5 generations you don´t speak of linebreeding anymore.
> 
> Linebreeding´s purpose is for genetic tieying down the good behaviour and/or looks, simply said. By (tight)linebreeding you will make all charaterics more pronouced, the bad and the good ones. If you make an outcross you will choose a mate who can soften/eliminate the bad habits/looks in your line and will strenghten the good points. All ideally spoken ofcourse.
> 
> I know some famous dogs, but you probably won´t know them.
> Example, a dog of my fathers
> www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=11
> 
> father of this dog is a combination of full brother and sister
> 
> and
> 
> Our Benta & Spike
> www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=3455
> 
> father/daughter combination
> 
> and if Benta is pregnant, this will be the father of the pups
> www.bloedlijnen.nl/stamboom.php?ID=2541
> 
> so this wil be a half brother/half sister combination
> 
> The dutchie lovers here will probably see a familiar name: Robbie/Rockie is father/halfbrother of Athos.


Selena~
Eik Des Deux Pottois is a great example of a product of inbreeding that has had a huge impact on the working Malinois. He was the foundation (and Othar too) for Perle De Tourbiere and other breeding programs. Many dogs have been line bred on Eik. Thanks for sharing this information Selena, it's good stuff. ~Justin

PS~ So, you would not ever take into consideration a dogs pedigree beyond the fifth generation?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I think what Seleena is saying, is if common ancestery is more than 5 generations apart, it isn't considered line breeding. I wouldn't think much of it if it was past two generations personally. Every unrelated dog adds to the mix you are trying to narrow down to throw true.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

5 generations is somewhat "loosely linebreeding". When I outcross my West-working and Czech linebred lines, there will be no common ancestors for at least several generations. Each generation removed, the genetic contribution is roughly halved, so a 3-3 linebreeding is sort of on the equivalent of a 4,4-4,4 linebreeding, which is around %25 (same contribution as a grand parent). But importantly, with each linebreeding, it's possible to duplicate phenotype as the genotype for less heterosis, and more predictable breeding results.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

You lost me there Daryl. More predictable breeding results how? Have you started on this already? If so, can you accurately predict what you are going to get?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Don, with the type of linebreeding you have accomplished, did you at some point have a lot of pups with health problems??? I am not real familiar with Airedales, but since they are terriers, I would think they would be less inclined to have as many as the GSD.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff, When I started, The litters averaged 10 to 14 pups. The most was 16. Like most, I was a bit idealistic about it and handfed the weak, had them in a whelping box next to my recliner...you know...todays accepted way to raise pups. I even handled them from day one. Well, I noticed that the hand fed ones could never cut it playing with the others. I noticed that outcrossing was a waste of time because the dogs were all over the map. I moved them outside, quit handling them, started tightening them up. The tighter they got, the more I lost. Got down to a 30% survival rate for a while, but, I kept going because that 30% were the creme of the crop. As the generations went by I kept tightening. The ones that didn't have strong enough genetics died. After a few generations, I was back to a 50% survival rate. Then 60% and 70%. The tightest cross I have was 80%. This is why I quit checking on them the first two weeks and why I put them outside. It is tough not to intervene with the weak ones if they are sitting next to your chair. Mother nature has a world full of inbred coyotes, lions and most wild animals. She also has a way of sorting them out where only the strong survive, so, I let her do it. Why did the survival rate drop to 30%...mostly because of todays breeding practices of saving them all....for the good of the breed you know. I think all breeds have been weakened by this practice and I believe it is because people think pups need to be raised in the house. I have not seen any of the heart murmurs and things like that. That recent bout with parvo with 16 pups that ranged from 5 week to 10 weeks(none had shots yet), I only lost five and none went to the vet. Just kept bleaching the yard and kept fresh water in the pens. This tells me the other 11 were naturally stronger. Actually, it has reached a point to where I am more comfortable with the tightest breedings for the best numbers and dogs.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Don Turnipseed said:


> I think what Seleena is saying, is if common ancestery is more than 5 generations apart, it isn't considered line breeding.


thanks Don, that was what I tried to say.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Don Turnipseed said:


> You lost me there Daryl. More predictable breeding results how? Have you started on this already? If so, can you accurately predict what you are going to get?


Characteristics encoded in the genes are not all outwardly appearant. Some are expressed in the outward characteristics of the dog, and others are extra unused information to maintain diversity in later evolution of the population. Linebred specimens are more prepotent (tending to reproduce like themselves) because they have multiple copies of the same gene-coding alleles in the chromosome; they're "genotype" is more homogenous for the traits they possess. Breeding for outward appearance alone (by phenotype) cannot produce the same level of consistancy that selecting for genotype can. By reducing the possibility of traits that can be inherited in the first place, you have in effect created a degree of consistency or predictability.

The genotype of any individual is only partly expressed in the phenotype (external appearance). Many genes that are carried by a single organism may be expressed, and just as many may not be expressed at all (sometimes referred to as 'junk DNA'). The observed phenotypic variation cannot show you what's beneath the surface, in some regards it's just the "tip of the iceberg." By linebreeding, you're doubling-up on a specific individual creating homogenous genes for many phenotypic variations, as well as a good sum of single-gene-recessives, incompletely-dominant, and additive-polygenic traits that aren't as outwardly obvious. That's more consistent than type-breeding, where you're selecting for the outwardly appearant, which is really only the top-tier of the entire organism.

Even if you don't know the genotype combinations of the parents, you'll be able to predict the proportions in the offspring if you know the frequency of matings between each pair of genotypes, and the reproductive output of each genotype combination. Call it "looking back to see foreward" and "watch your flanks" from time to time to see what the lateral aunts and uncles are producing into the cousins of your breedstock.

I often explain with coat patterns in the gsd as examples to convey a hereditary concept, because there's few phenotypes, and they're relatively mendellian in heredity which makes them simpler to comprehend while "getting to the point" of a related idea.

By trial and error and deductive reasoning, breeders have determined the "order of dominance" of the coat color patterns frequently seen in the gsd breed. They are as follows: Sable (most dominant), Black and Tan, Bi Color, and solid Black (least dominant).

In simplest terms, give me two black gsd's (one of each sex) and they will always produce ALL black pups. Give me one sable dog, and it MUST have come from at least one sable parent. With a bit of deductive logic and careful observation, you can piece together alot of the puzzle on your own without the use of microscopes and test tubes. Even the complex stuff, and it becomes easier with larger samples. By measuring results, you can find the underlying rules to the patterns.

I've started already, I guess. But I haven't really produced for the long-haul. I've only loosely linebred so far, nothing closer than a 4-4,4 in "x" & 4-5 in "y" combo. That's mainly from an effort to harness some "old blood" before it vanishes, not really to concentrate my breeding yet. I've got a loooong way to go.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I see what your saying. Basically it was the phenotypical similarity that cued me as to how close the genotype was getting in my dogs even though the parents didn't readily display the similarity. Pups from different parentage looked like brothers and sisters even though the breeding were never based on phenotypical characteristics.


----------



## Gloria Maxwell

wonderful article. Thanks a lot.
Gloria


----------



## Terry Holstine

Hey folks, I have a litter of pups on the ground. They are line bred. I crossed Ole Spot back to his best daughter. All of them have four feet, two eyes and one tail. Im trying to come up with another Spot. Its a tall order but Im hopeful whatever magic happened when the old boy was formed is somehow replicated. He is seven now and still going strong but he is almost certianly going to start to slow down in the next couple of years. Ill keep you posted, if the magic replicated there should be evidence of it in six to eight months.


----------



## ann schnerre

"incest is best, put it to the test"


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> I would just like to clarify, I have no problems with linebreeding, it's just weird to me to think \"hey my dog is the product of a mother and her son\" :lol: But if I was a breeder and I thought it would benefit my line to do this, then absolutely I would go that route. But as a human being that wasn't born or raised in Alabama, it's still kinda weird :lol: :lol: :wink:
> 
> Great article, good information, thanks Daryl for writing it!



If two people from Alabama fall in love and get married, are they still considered brother and sister? :razz:

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!


----------



## todd pavlus

Lee H Sternberg said:


> If two people from Alabama fall in love and get married, are they still considered brother and sister? :razz:
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist!


Wasn't Forrest Gump from Alabama


----------

