The American Beagler Forum

I was just wondering how far back in any pedigree do most breeders consider a dog can be relevent to their breeding. Or, when does it reach a point that a particular dog does not affect a litter of pups because of the other dogs inbetween the breedings. I read where Mrs. Kyrpan {from Branko Kennels} said after three generations a dog's influence is very little. She may or may not have been talking about if a dog was not linebred, not sure. I was just curious of other breeder's thoughts.

The consensus of opinions among most breeders is that any dog past the third generation will have little influence.
For instance, if a pup is not line bred or inbred for three past generations, it is the product of 16 individual dogs. Doing the math, none of the 16 dogs, on their own, can contribute a great deal to the pup. Too much attention is often given to pedigrees when selective breeding is key to success. It is certainly a plus when both peds and selective breeding produce a winner.

I by no means say my one occurrence is the standard by any means. However I disagree with the anything past three generations having any influence. Case in point around about 9 or so years ago I bred a black/tan female of mine to a bluetick male. Neither dog had any red/white blood in them until 5 generations back of the dam side. Guess what, the black and tan female through three red/white pups out of a litter of 9. Thus my opinion is this if color from 5 or more generations back can show up, then well whose to say other traits can't as well?

I had a female pup that I lost last summer, she was out of John L's Dock. From her mother, to her grand father and grand mother, great great grand mother & father, they were all 15 inches, but I got a 12 inch female. All the way back to the 7th generation, there were a few 13 inches, and she was the only one in the litter that stayed small...... so i think size, there is no comparison to which generation has an affect!!!

This is a question I have came close to posting many times myself. I see many folks with dogs for sale that they say for instance Ranger Dan bred and Ranger Dan is in the 4,5,or 6 line back. I say past 3 and you are stretching it, unless inbred.

Dave

A dog (or any mammal) inherits one-half of his genetic self from his two parents, one fourth of his characteristics from the four grandparents, and one-eight of his biological distinctiveness from eight great-grandparents..

so by the time you get to great grandparents and such the chance of getting a trait specifically from one of them alone without other recessive traits from the dam or sire is extremely unlikely--- by the seventh generation as the post above it simply means (if its true) that all the dogs carried a resscive trait as the mating partner and there you have it.. (or an oops happened which is far more likely but not necessary..

grandparents are about as far as I would look back in the ped...

SO if i bred ranger dan four generations ago and the other three to all say Green bay shooter straight line bred.... thinking that ranger dan in that line is going to affect any new breedings is a little silly...

cause in that cause if it was that influential we would all be running similar speeds and styles still....

Jamie Rice wrote:I by no means say my one occurrence is the standard by any means. However I disagree with the anything past three generations having any influence. Case in point around about 9 or so years ago I bred a black/tan female of mine to a bluetick male. Neither dog had any red/white blood in them until 5 generations back of the dam side. Guess what, the black and tan female through three red/white pups out of a litter of 9. Thus my opinion is this if color from 5 or more generations back can show up, then well whose to say other traits can't as well?

I completely agee offspring can get one or two traits from many generations back. Simple statistics explain this. However I am sceptical a hound could get several traits from one hound deep in its pedigree when not linebred. Once again, statistics explain the possibility. How many other traits did those red pups exhibit from the red hound in their pedigree?

How can anyone prove that a hound cannot be just the same in characteristics as a great grandsire or further back?? I am talking about style not genetics. It is ludicrous to think that a hounds ancestry ends in a generation which is designated, ex. 4th. Just asking??

STYLE COMES FROM GENETICS----

No one is saying there is o effect...

but if I take a walkie talkie dog breed it to my fastest gyp take the fastest pup and then breed that pup too the fastest branko I find and that pup to the next fastest branko and so on....

How often after taking the fastest dogs out of the litter do you think you will throw a walkie talkie dog....

50 percent first time
25 percent second time
12.5 third
6 fourth
3 fifth

and thats only using standard model-- realistically throwing a walkie talkie dog after the fifth generation would litterally be the odds of winning lotto.. and even then it may actually be impossible if speed isn't simple as dominant or recessive.. Thats the beauty of genetic science, we can and do know how these things work..

2 generations anything past grandsire and dam is very little if the dogs aren't related.

I had a litter last year one pup had a caliaco ear and white tail all the way to butt 1st one since 5 generations back that look like that

Each parent makes a 50% contribution. As the parents in any generation always contribute 50% of their genes to their pups, 25% will come from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great-grandparent, and so on. Once we are past the parents, we are dealing in what “might” be, not what “will” be.

When a sire passes a pup a set of his chromosomes, they will include a selection of ones inherited from both his parents, but there is no guarantee that the selection or the % of genes from each parent will be exactly equal. There is even a small chance {very small} that he will pass on those from only one of his parents, maybe the side that you don’t want. It also blows the theory out of the water, to go breed to the “littermate” of that FC male and hope to expect the same results as from the FC. They more than likely received, have and will throw totally different genes.

The contribution in a 10 gen. Pedigree from each of the 1024 ancestors would amount to less than 0.1%. But in the pedigree of the average beagle, there are rarely more than 100-200 different names and some appear 50 times or more. Because “line-breeding” narrows the gene pool and creates a “domino effect” in the gene pool, these are the significant ancestors that make the major genetic contributions. If you look at the pedigrees of 2 dogs and in 4 generations they do not have 1 dog in common, we “lable” breeding the two of them together is an “out-cross”, but that can be misleading, as far as meshing traits together. These 2 dogs may be more alike {characteristically} to each other then they are to their own littermates, because of what they are both overwhelmed with 8 & 9 generations back and how the current dogs “evolved”.

Example: My friend Larry Perry liked a dog from years ago called Mt. Zion Pete. For years he has concentrated on dogs that were heavy “Pete” bred. Dingus Macrae blood being one of the major dogs he used. But he also has and still uses other dogs that are heavy concentrated in “Pete” blood. Now Pete is in most pedigrees 7, 8, 9 or more generations back. But Larry has dogs that have “Pete” in their pedigrees over 80 times. Is he expecting to “clone” Mt Zion Pete? Absolutely not, but by narrowing down the gene selection to be passed down you can manipulate of what “might” be and increase the %’s of getting what genes and characteristics you “hope” to get from and how the selected dogs evolved {in common} from the “Pete” blood.

Good job laneline talking about the pedigree I enjoyed it.

I have a pic of my grandpas grandpa on my wall. When anyone sees it they think its me in one of those old time looking pics. I think its like putting chances in a hat. The more recent in a ped the more chances but the older ones still hav a chance in there. Key word being a chance.

Laneline wrote:Each parent makes a 50% contribution. As the parents in any generation always contribute 50% of their genes to their pups, 25% will come from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great-grandparent, and so on. Once we are past the parents, we are dealing in what “might” be, not what “will” be.

When a sire passes a pup a set of his chromosomes, they will include a selection of ones inherited from both his parents, but there is no guarantee that the selection or the % of genes from each parent will be exactly equal. There is even a small chance {very small} that he will pass on those from only one of his parents, maybe the side that you don’t want. It also blows the theory out of the water, to go breed to the “littermate” of that FC male and hope to expect the same results as from the FC. They more than likely received, have and will throw totally different genes.

The contribution in a 10 gen. Pedigree from each of the 1024 ancestors would amount to less than 0.1%. But in the pedigree of the average beagle, there are rarely more than 100-200 different names and some appear 50 times or more. Because “line-breeding” narrows the gene pool and creates a “domino effect” in the gene pool, these are the significant ancestors that make the major genetic contributions. If you look at the pedigrees of 2 dogs and in 4 generations they do not have 1 dog in common, we “lable” breeding the two of them together is an “out-cross”, but that can be misleading, as far as meshing traits together. These 2 dogs may be more alike {characteristically} to each other then they are to their own littermates, because of what they are both overwhelmed with 8 & 9 generations back and how the current dogs “evolved”.

Example: My friend Larry Perry liked a dog from years ago called Mt. Zion Pete. For years he has concentrated on dogs that were heavy “Pete” bred. Dingus Macrae blood being one of the major dogs he used. But he also has and still uses other dogs that are heavy concentrated in “Pete” blood. Now Pete is in most pedigrees 7, 8, 9 or more generations back. But Larry has dogs that have “Pete” in their pedigrees over 80 times. Is he expecting to “clone” Mt Zion Pete? Absolutely not, but by narrowing down the gene selection to be passed down you can manipulate of what “might” be and increase the %’s of getting what genes and characteristics you “hope” to get from and how the selected dogs evolved {in common} from the “Pete” blood.

The last two paragraphs are very powerful in there statements. The first is breeding to a littermate of a FC and not getting the same traits as the FC. Question is "Is the FC producing the same traits that it got or is one of the littermates passing on those traits?" Ever see a kid that looks more like it Uncle then its own dad? This is the reason that I like the breeding of Uncle/Niece or Aunt/Nephew! Trying to make sure you will get some of the traits that you are looking for.

The last paragraph about the same hounds in 7,8,9 generations back is also great, but saying that your hound is "blank bred" or "line bre" is over used (not in your case with 80 plus crosses of Pete) . What most people should say is "name of stud" is in its pedigree, or they should say that this FC or that FTCH is in its pedigree.

Below is just a little research done of some "big name studs" that are used everyday on this board and the % of FC or FTCH they have produced. Now before anyone makes a big deal out of this I got my information from the beaglepedigree site. I know there are more hounds out of the studs but are not on beaglepediree.com.

Jack of All Trades
53 times
137 pups
27 FC/FTCH
19.7%

Ranger Dan
34 times
164 pups
21 FC/FTCH
12.8%

Heli-Prop
74 times
172 pups
17 FC/FTCH
9.8%

Ali-Baba
85 times
218 pups
29 FC/FTCH
13.3%

Copper Boy
20 times
54 pups
5 FC/FTCH
9.2%

Blue Ninja
32 times
124 pups
17 FC/FTCH
13.7%

McBrides fly on snowflake
7 times
13 pups
6 FC/FTCH
46.1%

Wally of Floline
6 times
7 pups
5 FC/FTCH
71.4%

All this info does is show that alot of people are just interested in the title and not the breeding. Lets look at the most common name "Jack of All Trades" he has 137 pups on the ground 27 made a title but 110 did not and who is to say that the best Jack of All Trades offspring are not the title hounds but ones that went to gun hunters. What hounds out of him did great in the trials but never produced anything and what hounds that never seen a trial produce great hounds. So sometimes it is not a bad thing to breed