Line breeding: how do I get started?

[chooks4life]

I wasn't saying it was related to the original topic, but that it's one of the most likely-looking explanations behind the topic we diverted into, which was the question of why younger parents would produce poorer offspring --- or rather the sharing of differing experiences supporting/not supporting that finding.

In sharing your opinion on the topic, unfortunately, you're repeatedly making some rather unnecessary statements about things like 'talented talkers' and 'internet authorities' and other terms like that which don't have any use in this discussion, or any reasonable debate on any topic. All they do is show your feelings on the subject but that's of no use to anyone trying to learn here.

I never made any claim I was an expert --- in fact I made one very simple little observation and the response has been excessively derogatory in general. Since we began discussing epigenetics, you've made many remarks referring to supposed experts, authorities, fanciful thinkers etc, but here's my first reference to it... Let me know if anywhere in there you see any claim or even suggestion of authoritative knowledge:
Quote:
Going by your own statements on epigenetics, it's not something anyone can dismiss out of hand nor arbitrarily claim as a cause of some effect, but nobody here has done the latter.

Without intending to cause offense, I can't see how you're able to legitimately claim epigenetics are irrelevant, unless you're an authority on epigenetics.

I see you hold this subject in some contempt, that's clearly within your rights, but using derogatory phrasing to describe people who have different beliefs and theories than you do is never constructive. I don't know if it's aimed at me or anyone else here but it's pointlessly distracting from the actual topic being discussed, which is off topic in the first place. It was a simple remark I made, not intended to ruffle any feathers.

I'm not sure where in any discussion derogatory remarks have a functional purpose, other than shaming people for daring to ask questions or be different; generally it's a control method used by those who want to dismiss others' opinions, often with either a belief in their own complete correctness driving it, or a vested interest. (Neither of which I am accusing you of nor implying, after all you've stated you're not sure of the science behind it as it's still in much conflict, and I doubt you have a vested interest in it. Just a general observation on the general context in which derogatorily dismissive statements begin being applied in attempting to shoot down an opinion.) Reminds me a bit of the majority of the scientific communities' scornful and vitriolic dismissal of all the herbal knowledge our ancestors collected, which has since had to be retracted in increasingly large amounts as we learn to stop scoffing without knowing the full story or even being open-minded to comprehensively learning about it before passing judgment on it. The old 'quack feather-&-tarring' treatment has been used on many pioneers of the way of the future by often well meaning but mistaken sorts.

Scientific roads to knowledge are paved with countless mistakes, failures, and often scathing scorn directed at anyone who didn't go with the preferred opinions of their day, many of whom were later shown to be correct... At least as far as we know at this given time, lol. May be subject to change without warning.

With that in mind I'd suggest that because the subject is still under much debate, though with some proven aspects, we should probably refrain from making absolute statements, and it should go without saying that any discussion of conflicting viewpoints is bettered by the lack of usage of emotive/dismissive adjectives.

Best wishes. Each to their own, different worldviews and all.

 

[gjensen]

Sigh, management has a lot to do with epigenetics. Diet and environment are key to those on/off switches.

Don't you worry about bottlenecks and a lack of diversity using the posted breeding plan? I realize the plan posted was the quick version but what do you do if your ten best are all siblings? How do you deal with the complete loss of some potentially valuable genes? Lowered MHC? It has to be important in poultry too.

FYI- I have no plans for poultry breeding. Not interested. Plus no roosters, no breeding. Common problem I'm sure. Worked with parrot breeders. Not sure why you can have Cockatoos and Macaws yet not roosters, I think my hearing is permanently affected. Raising chickens is a piece of cake compared to them.

This could have been a discussion about a multitude of species in almost any time in history. It's both funny and sad. I am sorry that some poultry breeders feel an us/them mentality. It only lessens your chances of learning.

That is good question, and for me it is settled on a few points.

One is the side mating, by which you can add "new blood" safely.

Another is numbers. Notice the author mentioned minimum numbers. Also qty that is hatched is a relevant consideration. There is variability in the numbers. The more offspring that are hatched, the more variation that is seen. I believe one can work their way out of a corner, just by hatching in qty and smart selection.

Selection is a key point. There is always a bird or birds that are more vigorous and healthy than their hatch mates. A viable flock requires good vigor. It does not take long for a keeper to be able
to identify who those individuals are.

A point that I like about breeding poultry is not being bound by a piece of paper. That point alone gives enough freedom to never have the excuse why the flock is in poor health.

Chickens tolerate inbreeding better than mammals.

All of it boils down to good decisions/ good breeding. A breeder should know when he/she needs to do something, why, and how. Often that is done on the side, before it is decided to add the bird(s) to the main effort. Otherwise the breeders efforts could be compromised.

It is not all that different in the rest of creation. A pride, herd, pack etc. does not necessarily receive a complete genetic exchange every year. Also the adjacent groups usually share some degree of relation. Instead of natural selections, the breeder is the pressure and brings in what is necessary and wen it is necessary.

You could go quite some time with the above breeding plan IF food decisions are made. If their is poor selection, the flock could head down hill in a very short time.

Yes, management could be considered part of epigenetics. Just remember most changes in animals are not heritable and reversible. I do hope before anyone decides to breed any animals, they learn to take good care of them first. There is no pleasure in unhealthy stock. A vigorous, healthy, well bred flock is a pleasure to own.

 

[tridentk9]

 This was a line breeding thread, in a forum for breeding poultry to a Standard. I am not saying that the topic is of no interest. I am saying it is not relevant to this cause.

The forum is posted as "Exhibition, Genetics & Breeding To A Standard". All three can be altered for better or worse by epigenetics.

I will yield to your theory that genetics and breeding are totally different in poultry than in any other species. I'm sure it will make an exciting article in a peer reviewed journal. Please advise when it's published. OK, now that I'm done joining in the passive-aggressive comments .....

ALL the people I've known that are top in their field accept that they can learn something from newcomers to the field and even from people in other fields seemingly unrelated to their work focus. The ones who feel that only their peers, and then only those that agree with them, know anything- well they stagnate. They just rehash and gossip. Sigh, and some of them can be quite nasty when their comfort zone is breached.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

What the hobby needs is more talented breeders, and less talented talkers. Of all the new interest in poultry, there are only a few sincerely interested in learning the craft.

I just said this on the phone minutes ago. If a given variety in a given breed has more than six serious, hardcore breeders at the moment, well, that's a lucky variety. As Bob would say, "KISS..."

 

[tridentk9]

That is good question, and for me it is settled on a few points.

One is the side mating, by which you can add "new blood" safely.

Chickens tolerate inbreeding better than mammals.

There is no pleasure in unhealthy stock. A vigorous, healthy, well bred flock is a pleasure to own.

Ahh, I forgot about the side flock. Another line bred group? Phenotypically similar, so type to type? Obviously same breeding system- exchanges possible either way? I'd guess for some people it's not really a "side flock" but Flock A and Flock B. Equally important just different ancestors or a fork in the road.

Any idea why chickens would tolerate inbreeding better than mammals? Lowered MHC doesn't mean immune system issues? No lowered reproduction rates? While I disagree with some of his thoughts, Leon Whitney wrote about tropical fish in the 1930's? He said the first few generations of inbred fish went down in color, longevity, etc but then they suddenly became more vigorous, vibrant, etc. In the long run, for however long he studied them, inbreeding worked in their favor. Hmmm, question - a maternal grandsire to granddaughter is one of the popular line-breeding schemes in dogs. Altering for chicken differences of ZZ and ZW, (grandmother/grandson?) Is that theory used in poultry?

Not just flock You should be able to take pleasure in any of your animals. Just looking at them should make you smile

Thanks George, this part of the discussion I like!

 

[3riverschick]

Hi

Here's my take on the whole subject of linebreeding after 15 years of studying of breeding systems
in multiple species in plant and animal kingdoms. I think all of this can be rolled up under the heading
of "The art of breeding". Breeding beliefs and systems are only ways of collecting virtue in a stated
gene pool over multiple generations. That's all. Regardless of the system of belief or breeding we use,
the key is wise selection of the young. To do this wise selection, we need to understand the history
and origins of our breeds so we understand the nuances of that breed. If we do not understand the
nuances of a breed, it is almost impossible to select proper breed type. Greatness in a creature is
measured by the perfection of the scared union between form and function. How perfectly form and
function fit together to make the whole. ( Hang on I am getting to the linebreeding). The art of breeding,
done correctly is epigenetics in positive action. The understanding of the major and minor breeding
laws and how to apply them correctly to the stock at hand produced a positive epigenetics result.
Even tho the breeders of that time didn't have that name for what they were seeing.
On to linebreeding. It is the best route for newcomers to breeding to concentrate virtue in a gene pool.
Why? Because one can make beginner's mistakes and not ruin a breeding program. Due to the
plethora of sex-linked genes and the wide genetic base of the poultry world, they do best in a breeding
program based on close family linebreeding. This linebreeding program can be based on a pair
( Wid Card's book), a trio ( Craig Russell's article) or stock decended from a triple or quadruple
strain-cross. Basing a linebreeding program on a cross-breeding ( for this purpose: breeding 2 different
poultry breeds together)is a decades long adventure because of the genetic variation encountered.
Unless one is trying to create a new breed (should be reserved for the experts) it is a very bad idea
because the genetics in poultry are much more complicated than mammals.
On to age of breeding and its results: Tesio, the greatest racehorse breeder of all time , was a polymath.
Another polymath in the same era was Professor Bohannon ( footnote 1) , who taught at at Ohio State Univ.
Tesio worked with horses and Bohannon worked with collie dogs. Tesio believed, after exhaustive research
and much breeding experience that the best foals were sired by younger studs who had not exhausted
what he called,their "nervous energy". He had records to back it up. This can be read in the book,
"Tesio: In His Own Words", . Bohannon ( I personally believe he studied Tesio's thoughts) used
exhaustive study of collie dog stud records and the accomplishments of their get to establish the same
belief for dogs. His "Chart" is available online. Remember tho, these were mammals, not avian.
The argument for breeding to older females has already been discussed. So what is more important?
The age of the sire or the age of the dam? Maybe nether. If selection and gene pool are not managed
correctly, what difference does the age choosing make?
George is right. Obtain the finest foundation money can buy. Learn to take care of them correctly
or all the genetic fiddle-faddle means nothing. Learn the art of breeding as it applies to birds, not
other species. Study and get to know your gene pool. Hatch staggered hatches so you can
watch the chicks develop side by side. Danne Honour has a DVD available with almost 1000
pages of articles on "the art of breeding". A great place to start learning.
Epigenetics you say? Where? Every time you read the wise counsel of a respected breeder you
are seeing successful epigenetics in action. They called it "earning your stripes" or "putting in your
time", or "learning the hard way". What they were explaining was they they had found a way to
make epigenetics work for them (tho they did not know the name) and were sharing it with us.
We needn't worry about epigenetics. It is all there in the wise counsel of experienced, respected
breeders.
Finally : The art of breeding encompasses breeding systems, the laws of breeding, wise counsel
(which also includes the use and expected results of epigenetics), the proper husdandry of the birds,
wise selection of the young, proper breeding decisions based on the flock's needs. This is all I have
to say about it. Just simple truths wrapped up in fancy bows.
Best Regards,
Karen
footnote 1 : 1887 R. D. Bohannan is appointed professor of mathematics and
astronomy at The Ohio State University. He will serve on the OSU
faculty for 40 years, becoming department head

 

[gjensen]

Ahh, I forgot about the side flock. Another line bred group? Phenotypically similar, so type to type? Obviously same breeding system- exchanges possible either way? I'd guess for some people it's not really a "side flock" but Flock A and Flock B. Equally important just different ancestors or a fork in the road.

Any idea why chickens would tolerate inbreeding better than mammals? Lowered MHC doesn't mean immune system issues? No lowered reproduction rates? While I disagree with some of his thoughts, Leon Whitney wrote about tropical fish in the 1930's? He said the first few generations of inbred fish went down in color, longevity, etc but then they suddenly became more vigorous, vibrant, etc. In the long run, for however long he studied them, inbreeding worked in their favor. Hmmm, question - a maternal grandsire to granddaughter is one of the popular line-breeding schemes in dogs. Altering for chicken differences of ZZ and ZW, (grandmother/grandson?) Is that theory used in poultry?

Not just flock

You should be able to take pleasure in any of your animals. Just looking at them should make you smile

Thanks George, this part of the discussion I like!

Let's say I am working on Buff Leghorns (I am not), and I feel that I need some new blood. I find an unrelated or distantly related flock somewhere, and purchase two hens. Hopefully they have something that I need also.
Committing an entire flock to a cock bird may create genetic chaos, so I put one of my cock birds on the hens. I may even go another generation, then add some pullets to my flock. I should receive some benefit concerning "fresh genetics", but I took the safer route. Adding them on the female side will mean less overall influence. By working them in the way I did, selection would have let me get them closer before they were added.
In theory, I am working towards an ideal. Haphazardly throwing something new in will likely set me back while I work back towards that ideal. Frankly, it could be detrimental to the effort. This could be a side mating that brings in something new, but a safer way to do it.

General side mating's could be to fix or add a trait. It can be taken one generation or more. This side mating will have moved away from the main flock, but not by enough to make a noticeable difference.
It can also be see something that you think will work well, and want to try. The side mating can add a sense of freedom to be creative, but can also be used to mantain or add vigor.

And to your remark. In theory, you are working with more family at a time. Generally from two to four. They are all heading in a similar direction, so their can be a safe rotation between families. You can operate independently for a long time with four families. Many run only two small families, but this is easier done wit more coon breeds that are in good shape.

Yes the Grandmother/Grandson is commonly used. An idea is that each generation is farther away from the first. You are moving away from where you were, and then going back to where you come from.

And I agree, there is no reason to own them if they give you no pleasure. Most people that enjoy them, give them good care. Most.

 

[gjensen]

Chooks4Life, I used some expressive statements. I did not intend for the to be specific towards you. If I got carried away, I apologize. For the most part, the statements were general. What I see a lot of, is for us to get caught up into a lot of interesting and fanciful ideas. There is noting wrong with that, of course, but we often lose our way. I am commenting on the process of learning to breed poultry. The internet is full of it. There is a lot of good information, a lot of bad information, and a lot of distracting speculation. I guess that is where I was coming from, and not intending to direct it at your contribution specifically.

I actually enjoyed the exchange itself. You are obviously intelligent, and probably brighter than myself. I am just trying to learn how to bred a few good birds. A silly hobby that has my interest.

 

[tridentk9]

IMO The end result is; breeding is breeding, the specifics differ in some ways, the overall view- it's exactly the same.

Now for that statement has been repeated several times- exactly HOW is the art of poultry breeding different than the art of mammal breeding? This is Karen's idea of the art of poultry breeding

The art of breeding encompasses breeding systems, the laws of breeding, wise counsel
(which also includes the use and expected results of epigenetics), the proper husdandry of the birds, wise selection of the young, proper breeding decisions based on the flock's needs.

Funny because it's the same in mammals.

George's discussion on breeding could come out of a dog magazine. Change a few words for the species. Sounds just like the schemes used by a few breeders I know. Terminology is slightly different but once explained, the same. Just using a different dialect.

It's all chromosomes and they can be dominant, recessive, incomplete, epistatic, additive, co-dominant, etc etc. I already have to adjust for alleles found or not found in certain dog breeds, LOL- do chicken geneticists have to worry about colors only found in feather footed breeds?

However- by excluding and demeaning others- you only lose.

 

[gjensen]

IMO The end result is; breeding is breeding, the specifics differ in some ways, the overall view- it's exactly the same.

Now for that statement has been repeated several times- exactly HOW is the art of poultry breeding different than the art of mammal breeding? This is Karen's idea of the art of poultry breeding
Funny because it's the same in mammals.

George's discussion on breeding could come out of a dog magazine. Change a few words for the species. Sounds just like the schemes used by a few breeders I know. Terminology is slightly different but once explained, the same. Just using a different dialect.

It's all chromosomes and they can be dominant, recessive, incomplete, epistatic, additive, co-dominant, etc etc. I already have to adjust for alleles found or not found in certain dog breeds, LOL- do chicken geneticists have to worry about colors only found in feather footed breeds?

However- by excluding and demeaning others- you only lose.

Breeding is breeding. The concepts are common, passed down to us by people that depended on them. Of course their are some differences, but much is common.

I do think that poultry can be especially challenging, with the complexities of the color/patterns. Also the exacting requirements.