Gentics-Gun Dog Beagle
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
-
Stan Rawlinson
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:48 pm
- Location: Southern Illinois
Gentics-Gun Dog Beagle
After reading The New Art of Breeding Better Dogs by Kyle & Phillip Onstott, for the 4th time, I think I have an elementary grasp of basic genetics. I guess my question is if anyone out their knows how these basic principles apply to the Gundog Beagle. Like what's doment and what's recessive as it applys to type of mouth, extra mouth, tight mouth, hunt, straightness, packing ability. The dog is made up of tens of thousands of gene combinations, are these traits listed determined by single gene combinations or by multiple gene combinations.
-
Rosewood
I wish there were. I've wandered the same thing myself. The only conclusion that I can come up with is there is just not enough accurate data recorded to predict what is dominant and what is recessive. If all the beagle breeders could form some kind of data base we could predict and determine what traits are more likely to be passed on and which ones are not. There are so many variable and differences of opinion that don't look for any progress in the near future. The best thing I can think of is do it on your own set up your own data base with your hounds, keep accurate and impartial records. It will still take years But nothing of value ever comes easy. 
-
CHAD_PLUNKETT
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:06 am
- Location: Dawson Springs, KY
Hi Stan, I dont know if this will help you are not but here it goes. I have 2 littermates 1 female and 1 male. The male gives alot of mouth and the female is exremely tight mouthed. Both are bawl mouthed. The dam is bawl mouth but the sire is chop mouth. I hope this helps. By the way hows your Robo pups doing? The one I have is looking real good. She's the spitting image of him marked in color and built just like him. She has a chop mouth and good and true on the line. Now if she turns out like him i'll be doing good.
-
bob huffman
The sire is chop mouth and it is dominant. He also carries the recessive genes for bawl mouth. The dam is bawl mouth and she carries the genes for bawl mouth. She can't be carrying the genes for chop mouth because if she did, she would be chop mouth since it is dominant and would have to show in the phenotype. If the sire was pure for chop mouth, all the offspring would have chop mouths because it is the only genes he could throw and since it is dominant, it would have to show. Therefore, he passed his hidden recessive bawl mouth genes to these 2 offspring. The bitch also passed recessive bawl mouth because she shows bawl mouth in the phenotype and thus can't be carrying and genes for chop mouth or they would have to show since they are dominant. The sire is hybrid for the dominant chop genes and the bitch is purebred for the recessive bawl. Since both pups are bawl, they did not inherit any dominant chop genes. CONFUSED YET!!!!!!!! Many other traits work the same way and many work with a combination of genes. A lot also work by the number of genes inherited for a particular trait. Some are caused by 2 or 3 or 4 genes such as eye color and coat color, and some are caused by the number of genes inherited. For example, if intense searching is inherited on 14 gene locations and a dog inherits 13 for the trait, he will be an intense searcher. If he inherits 9, he will be a good searcher but not as good as the dog with 13 genes for the trait. Maybe he only inherits 3 genes for the trait. He will be a poor searcher. The same thing happens in humans behavior traits such as musical ability. Another would be jealousy. There is a normal jealousy that everyone has and might be caused by 6 genes. If a person had 10 genes for the trait, he would not be what is considered normal for that trait and it would most likely cause him problems in social situations. Likewise having too few genes for the trait could also cause problems. In Beagles, this is where linebreeding and inbreeding can be useful because you can stack up the genes like putting money in the bank. You can stack the deck if you are very careful because you must prevent stacking the bad genes in the process. This is also where knowing how certain traits are inherited becomes useful. Some traits that are caused by only 2 or 3 or 4 genes would be short or long hair, nose, mouth, leg length, body length, air scenting as opposed to head down scenting, ear length and many more. From there it gets more complicated and we don't have room but a basic understanding is good enough to have success if you are careful and LUCKY. Good luck!
Here's another point to think about. Through I process which I don't understand a recessive can become a dominant.
If it helps at all I've found that genetics is best suited for explaining what went wrong after a failed breeding. We're not to the point yet where a hounds genotype can be determned before a breeding takes place. All we have to work with is the phenotype. A simple rule of thumb would be to breed the best you have to the best you can find and hope for the best; while never breeding two hounds together that have the same major fault. Afterwards your understanding of genetics will help you determine what happened with the breeding.
Breeding is not an exact science. Hence the use of the word ART in the book written by two scientists.
If it helps at all I've found that genetics is best suited for explaining what went wrong after a failed breeding. We're not to the point yet where a hounds genotype can be determned before a breeding takes place. All we have to work with is the phenotype. A simple rule of thumb would be to breed the best you have to the best you can find and hope for the best; while never breeding two hounds together that have the same major fault. Afterwards your understanding of genetics will help you determine what happened with the breeding.
Breeding is not an exact science. Hence the use of the word ART in the book written by two scientists.
-
bob huffman
Yes we are to the point where a dogs genotype can be partly determined before he produces offspring. I can observe a dog and tell some of the traits and if the dog is pure for them or hybrid. That is why Stans desire to know which genes are which is so important. If you are merely breeding best to best without regard to this, you are not using all the info you have to determine the outcome. By knowing the parents and grandparents of a dog, and by observing the traits of the dog, you can tell in part what traits he will reproduce some of the time or all of the time depending. The old practice of breeding best to best is still used and still works, but not as well as scientific method. As for the recessive becoming a dominant, that is impossible. The fashion in which it is inherited can change though. For instance the recessive gene for blue eyes can appear to be dominant when a gene for green eyes is present. Irregardless, it is still a recessive gene. The reason for this is that many gene loci may have several differant genes capable of being at that site.
-
bob huffman
Bob: I guess you are right. I can tell which of my hounds carry as recessive the gene for the lemon color. However no one can tell by looking or by observing which field traits a hound carries as recessive or dominant. A double dose of a recessive will appear as a dominant in the phenotype and until the hound is breed one cannot know if the trait is dominant or recessive.
Three generatoins Bob. That's the rule of thumb we use when considering a breeding. If by the scientific method you mean line breeding and by definition line breeding will incorporate a certain amount of inbreeding you are right again. That is the breeding method we use and have used for a long time. Further, all of our hounds come from a family of hounds that were line bred for generations before we got them.
With a line breeding program one can be more confidant in the breeding potential of their hounds but until they actually produce you never know for sure. One breeding means nothing and to be sure a hound must be breed to three breeding partners.
As for the dominant. A recessive certainly can become a dominant. But don't take my word for it (I know you won't) but research it yourself.
Three generatoins Bob. That's the rule of thumb we use when considering a breeding. If by the scientific method you mean line breeding and by definition line breeding will incorporate a certain amount of inbreeding you are right again. That is the breeding method we use and have used for a long time. Further, all of our hounds come from a family of hounds that were line bred for generations before we got them.
With a line breeding program one can be more confidant in the breeding potential of their hounds but until they actually produce you never know for sure. One breeding means nothing and to be sure a hound must be breed to three breeding partners.
As for the dominant. A recessive certainly can become a dominant. But don't take my word for it (I know you won't) but research it yourself.
-
bob huffman
JOE WEST I never said I could tell by looking at a dog which traits were dominant or recessive. You don't read very carefully and only see what you want. I said I could tell what traits he would reproduce. Go back and read it until you understand it. I said I could tell which traits were in the hybrid state and which were purebred by knowing the parents and grandparents. If you have brown eyes and one of your parents had blue. I can absolutely gaurentee that you are hybrid for brown eyes. Not purebred! I can tell beforehand what color eyes you will transmit depending on which color you are mated to. If mated to blue, you will produce half blue and or green and half brown. I already know it as fact before I ever see the offspring. I looked at your parents and positively know that is what the outcome will be. Other traits can be predicted accordingly depending on if they are recessive or dominant. According to you this feat is impossible. You also said I can't tell which traits are recessive and which are dominant. If you are going to discuss something, get your quotes correct. I don't like being mis quoted. I am sitting right here looking at a list of canine traits that are either dominant or recessive according to the research of over 10,000 matings. Do you have that list and do you know which ones they are? I doubt it. Go look up the definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD so you know what it really means. It is a specific term in science and is not just a slogan. it means using quantitive data and experiments and research with controls that are repeatable by anyone time after time. It has nothing to do with linebreeding etc. You shoot from the hip Joe and hope you are correct.[/quote]
breeding
To Bob Huffman, Is this list of canine traits something you could email me. I am a pointy headed guy when it comes to this type of stuff. I was also stupid enough to major in mathematics in college so that tells you I am a glutton for punishment. Let me know if this is something I could get a copy of.
Also Bob how far do you live from Wapello IA, I come out there every year to rabbit hunt for a week. Nice bunch of people and plenty of rabbits.
Big Dog
Also Bob how far do you live from Wapello IA, I come out there every year to rabbit hunt for a week. Nice bunch of people and plenty of rabbits.
Big Dog
Black and Tans, Blue Ticks, and a few others bringing smoke
-
Stan Rawlinson
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:48 pm
- Location: Southern Illinois
I'm going to quote what the two writers said about "like begets like". Hopefully I'm not breaking any laws.
The early breeder who first uttered the dictum that "like begets like" was simply talking because he thought he had to say something. He observed that animals sometimes looked much like one of the parents, often looked somewhat like both the parents, and blurted out a false law. Perhaps because it sounded well, because the words had a nice epigrammatic finality, or, perhaps, because if it were only true it would solve all our breeding problems, we accepted as law this glib aphorism of wishful thinking as if it had been engraved on tablets of stone and brought down to us from Sinai. Generations of breeders of animals have uncritically parroted "like begets like." Like father like son."
But does like beget like?
As the statement has been made and acted upon though the years since its acceptence by breeders, it is one of those half truths which are more harmful than good, outright, honest lies which can be nailed and stricken from the record. That like organisms always produce like progeny is simply not true. To modify the statement and say that like organisms tend to produce similar progeny takes from the maxim all of its finality and certitude, leaving us nothing for practical use.
The eary promulgators of the "like beget like " idea knew nothing of Mendelism and less of genes. The "like begets like" idea is much older than the modern science of genetics. What was meant is that animals look like their parents and grandparents. They do, sometimes, resemble them.
When the "like begets like" theory, however, is applied to the genes, it becomes true. Like organisms do not of necessity beget like organisms. Like dogs do not beget like dogs. LIKE GENES DO PRODUCE LIKE GENES. AND LIKE COMPLEXES OF GENES FIND LIKE EXPRESSIONS IN THE ORGANISM, be the organism a garden pea, a vinegar fly, or a Homo sapien- a Homo sapiens insapient enough, in the face of ocular evidence that like often begets difference, to continue to cry like begets like.
Mendelism proves that the breeder is matching and balancing genes, not merely mating dogs and bitches. It reduces the operation to its smallest factors. Using those gene factors as stones, the breeder builds the mosaic of the new organism.
I think this explains why many stud dogs are duds as far as produces go.
They may be great as far as their phenotype goes, but because of hybrid
dominance in their genes, they can't produce quality it their get.
The early breeder who first uttered the dictum that "like begets like" was simply talking because he thought he had to say something. He observed that animals sometimes looked much like one of the parents, often looked somewhat like both the parents, and blurted out a false law. Perhaps because it sounded well, because the words had a nice epigrammatic finality, or, perhaps, because if it were only true it would solve all our breeding problems, we accepted as law this glib aphorism of wishful thinking as if it had been engraved on tablets of stone and brought down to us from Sinai. Generations of breeders of animals have uncritically parroted "like begets like." Like father like son."
But does like beget like?
As the statement has been made and acted upon though the years since its acceptence by breeders, it is one of those half truths which are more harmful than good, outright, honest lies which can be nailed and stricken from the record. That like organisms always produce like progeny is simply not true. To modify the statement and say that like organisms tend to produce similar progeny takes from the maxim all of its finality and certitude, leaving us nothing for practical use.
The eary promulgators of the "like beget like " idea knew nothing of Mendelism and less of genes. The "like begets like" idea is much older than the modern science of genetics. What was meant is that animals look like their parents and grandparents. They do, sometimes, resemble them.
When the "like begets like" theory, however, is applied to the genes, it becomes true. Like organisms do not of necessity beget like organisms. Like dogs do not beget like dogs. LIKE GENES DO PRODUCE LIKE GENES. AND LIKE COMPLEXES OF GENES FIND LIKE EXPRESSIONS IN THE ORGANISM, be the organism a garden pea, a vinegar fly, or a Homo sapien- a Homo sapiens insapient enough, in the face of ocular evidence that like often begets difference, to continue to cry like begets like.
Mendelism proves that the breeder is matching and balancing genes, not merely mating dogs and bitches. It reduces the operation to its smallest factors. Using those gene factors as stones, the breeder builds the mosaic of the new organism.
I think this explains why many stud dogs are duds as far as produces go.
They may be great as far as their phenotype goes, but because of hybrid
dominance in their genes, they can't produce quality it their get.
-
Stan Rawlinson
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:48 pm
- Location: Southern Illinois
Hey Chad, I ended up with one of those Robo pups out of the same litter you have. He is a good derby prospect. I'd like to come down and see yours run over the summer. I think their might be some like genes going on there. My email address is Hunt410@shawneelink.net or phone is 618/966/2200.