PART IX

OF PEAS AND PUPS

PART IX

INTRODUCTION:

Selection, we concluded in Part VIII, is the oldest and most used of the breeding tools. If any leg of a three-legged stool is most important...selection is the most important of the breeding tools too. It is also the "handle" for the others tools since it is necessary for their effective use. Selection is used to choose one individual at a time...a sire or a dam...The "selection-handled" tools are used to choose pairs, mates, a sire and a dam, and therefore might better be called plans than tools.

...The genes already present within the breed are the materials of the genetic builder. The tools or plans for the manipulation of these genes are the breeding systems...they permit the shuffling, re-arranging and aligning of the contents of the germ plasm...As with all forms of building, there are specific tools for each job. No breeder will succeed with inbreeding where, he should have outcrossed and the results will be no less absurd than driving a nail with a saw. He who mates like to like, using no other tool, is no less foolish than the builder who cuts his boards with a hammer. Carrying the analogy a step further...a builder who starts with poor material, will build a poor house, regardless of his ability or the completeness of his tools. So to build a better Shorthair, we must have good genetic material to start with and we must use each genetic tool for its proper job.

A BREEDING PLAN WITHOUT BASIS:

...Before discussing worthwhile mating plans, we should, solely for the sake of completeness include that form of mating which accounts for the greatest number of canine offspring. It is, of course no real "plan" at all. It is random matings...the uniting of sire and dam without regard to Appearance, Performance, Ancestors, Descendance...convenience being the "tool". Like drawing their names out of a hat. Occasionally, someone will point to a good pup from such a chance mating and use such evidence as proof-positive that all breeding is a matter of dumb luck...The fact of the matter is that a chance mating which does produce an exceptional specimen is Dumb Luck, and for each such, there are hundreds, which tend to act as a drag on the breed...

...We may assume, that the good "meat-dog" which oftentimes results from random-mated Shorthairs, is largely due to the degree of homozygosity, built in by intense inbreeding in the foundation stock...after all, the breed is less than 100 years old. This original inbreeding , coupled with the fact that the total population of the breed has remained small, force toward homozygosity even in random-mated Shorthairs, which is not present in older and more populous breeds...Or, it is also possible that the random mating just happened to nick, or it might have been that chance provided a genetic inbreeding even though no pedigree inbreeding was apparent. Whether heterosis or inbreeding produced the favorable results will depend upon what comes from future matings of this exceptional chance-mated sire.

BREEDING PLANS BASED ON THE APPEARANCE and/or PERFORMANCE OF THE MATES

Mating Likes to Likes:

...Its name pretty well describes the plan. In the strict sense of the term, it means mating the worst to the worst, as well as mating the best to the best. It is the latter, which is usually implied for no one mates the worst to the worst, except through Ignorance, Inexperience or Change...To make full use of the tool, we must use its selection handle. Art is basic to wise selection. For the Shorthair, selection may be based on the conformation of the dog or on his hunting ability...ideally, it is based on both.

...If we mated animals with like pedigrees, we would probably be inbreeding but, here, we are concerned with likeness of Appearance and Performance of mates themselves...as a breeding system. What happens when like animals are mated...both being above average? We assume the use of but two genetic tools...phenotype selection and mating likes to likes. There will be considerable similarity between parents and pups because each pup is made up of two halves of a similar appearing pie. The crust (phenotype-appearance), makes the pies, look alike. But how is the breeder to know that the "TM" on one pie stands for "tis mince" while the "TM" on the other stands for "taint mince"?...The two parent-pies, are carefully cut down the middle and just as carefully, a half from each is placed in a clean new pie plate to make another pie. This puppy pie LOOKS like the parent pie but its half apple and half mince...Certainly the results from a like to like mating might no be so genetically divergent as the mince-apple pie...but, then, even mince pies have some apples in them...The point is, that although sire and dam have some genes which produce similar appearance, these genes do not necessarily come from the same allelic series.

...If, instead of two tools, we used three our gains could be held. If, with selection and mating like to like, we used some form of inbreeding, the chances would be much greater that the similar appearance and performances of the parents would be due to genes in the same allelic series. This is because, as we have said, related animals are similar because they have received common genes from common ancestors...If we start with apple pie parents, we end up with apple pie pups. Homozygosity, contributes to breed improvement mating like to like, alone, increases homozygosis but little and therefore any gains are shortlived...Like to like matings reach their limit in a generation or two and if inbreeding does not immediately follow to FIX any gains made, a rapid return to the average can be expected.

...If the goals of all Shorthair breeders were the same, within reasonable limits, like to like matings would do the breed no real harm. However, where there may be a difference, as, for example, in the size of the Shorthair, this plan can produce profound divergence...It can act as a snow-plow, disrupting uniformity and dividing the breed right down the middle. The field trialer who wants a smaller dog and the show people who must have larger dogs to please the judges. I do not maintain that this divergence is developing to any extreme degree (altho' that it is present cannot be denied) nor that mating like to like is causing it. My point is that like to like matings produce wider extremes IF goals differ.

MATING UNLIKES:

...This term, too, is self-explanatory, or, if we wish to get technical, we can call it "negative assortive mating on the basis of somatic resemblance." The term I like best is selective compensatory mating. Its most useful function is the correction of defects, but here again, to be most effective, a third tool should be used. Lloyd Brackett in his "Planned Breeding" (Dog World-Chicago '61) stresses again and again..."Physical compensation is the foundation rock upon which all enduring worth is built." His compensatory matings were accomplished by close mating within his own strain. His success with the "three tool plan" is testified by some 90 Show Champion German Shepherds...a record approached by no other breeder of any breed!

...The correction of physical faults and the production of intermediate types makes this tool one whose primary use applies to conformational improvement. It has little use with regard to field traits except indirectly, that is, except that we know a dog "Must be built right to work right." We know of no field dogs which have too much nose, too much run, are too staunch on point, or are too intense in backing.

...Mating unlikes is a matter of degree. Like mating likes, no two dogs are identical...Even when we try to mate likes, we never succeed fully. GERD has an exceptional nose. Our desire is to pass it along and strengthen it. To this end, we should seek the finest nose in a female of his strain...like to like in the like, in the same strain. Since we cannot find any female with a nose to match his, we will be mating unlikes, whether we like it or not. GERDA has a fine nose but GERDS is better. The pups will be intermediate. How can we channel Gerd's great nose into some of his get?..We can continue to breed back to Gerd, each time picking up a few more of those great nose genes...but we are getting off the subject.

...Mating unlikes, intentionally, is primarily a conformational tool, as we have said. If, for a simple example, we have a small male, say 22 1/2" at the shoulder, he should be mated, to correct this fault, to a larger female. For best results, she should be about as far over he is under, say 23 1/2". The results should be intermediate...particularly if the mates are of the same family or "bloodlines". This is not to say, of course, that when 23 1/2" bitches are mated to 22 1/2" sires, all the male pups will be 24" and all the female pups will be 22" at maturity. If breeding were an exact science, it would lose much of its interest and enjoyment...it is still primarily art and no such slide-rule results can be predicted, but the guiding principle is still there and working.

...If we neglect selection and use to plan but the mating of unlikes what would be the overall results to the GSP as a breed?

-1. Heterozygosity would be increased but little and therefore but little homozygosity would be lost.

-2. The extremes of type would be lost...the breed would become more uniform. This would take place rapidly, probably little over a generation. The return to its present state would be just as fast with a generation of random mating.

-3. In contrast to mating likes, the pups would little resemble their parents or grandparents but would have a tendency to resemble each other a great deal more that in a chance mating.

...Do these fundamentals of mating unlikes have any practical application? I'll let you answer that.

SUMMARY:

...Mating unlikes has a its most important use, the correction of faults...primarily show faults, and the production of intermediate types. The faults are more certain of correction if a third tool is added. The fixing of some intermediate types is possible through inbreeding once they have been established by mating unlikes. The fixing of such intermediate traits as would result, from genotype of Aa, Bb, Cc, etc. is impossible with any tool or tools now available.

BREEDING PLANS based on the Relationship of the Mates:

...The Wall Street Journal may seem like a strange source of genetic information, however in a recent issue it reported a genetic breakthrough which is pertinent to our discussion. The story concerned genetic relationship...By a new technique, scientists at the Carnegie Institute have been able to separate the "beads for genes"...to divide our double strand necklace into two single stands. This is something nature does many times each moment, but this is the first time man has accomplished the feat. A single strand from one species is exposed to a single strand from another species. When the two strands have the same beads...identical genes (allelic pairs or series), they will combine and cling together in the area of their likeness. By this process, it was determined that the salmon and man are related by 5%. They share 5 genes in every hundred. No mention was made of the relationship between man and dog. Are you man or mouse? Mice and men share 20-25% of their genes in common. The method is not without error and they have as yet been unable to count the number of genes in any species but can this knowledge be far off?

...On this basis, all dogs of all breeds are 99 plus % related...and they are...that is, the single strand (gene string) from a male of any breed will combine and cling to a single strand from a female of any breed...they can mate. But what concerns us here is the relationship between the members of the same breed. This relationship is based not alone on the number of the allelic pairs in common but more especially the number of Homozygotic allelic pairs in common, either dominant or recessive. Two animals which not only possess the same genes but the same genes in the same form, are identical twins (even if they didn't have the same parents). Such individuals could not mate of course, they being the same sex...if they could, this would constitute self-fertilization...not possible in any animals, although common in plants.

...GENETIC RELATIONSHIP within a breed is based upon homozygotic genes in common. Since we cannot know with certainty these genes, we must use terms which have the most likelihood of indicating that genetic relationship. But we must always be mindful that this relationship...and the plans based on it...are but possibilities, not certainties. The probable relationship between granddaughter and grandsire is 25%. But it may be 50% or it maybe 0% and we must remember, these possibilities too. If the relationship were 25%, mating the two would be inbreeding (F_x .125)...any mating which causes the relationship between parent and offspring to exceed 50%, the inbreeding would be more intense (F_x .25), the same as mating full sibs. If the relationship were 0%, which is possible but improbable, no inbreeding would have taken place...contrary to what the pedigree says. Thus, factually, a pedigree inbreeding, could be a genetic outbreeding. We are not building paper houses or paper dogs...the genes are our building blocks. These possibilities are being constantly stressed only to emphasize the lack of consistency, the importance of ART in breeding.

...Merely for explanation, lets make the GSP a single gene-paired animals, as we did in discussing relationship in Part VI. There would be but three types...AA, Aa &aa. Under such circumstances, mating AA to aa would be a perfect outbreeding. Mating AA to AA or aa to aa would be perfect inbreeding. Aa to Aa would be the breed average. A breeding which produced AA or aa pups would have been an inbreeding...that which produced Aa pups, an outbreeding. This brings us to the strange fact that a random mating...the average...Aa to Aa, would produce two inbred pups, AA, aa, and two outbred pups, Aa, Aa, in the same litter. Inbreeding results when like genes meet in the zygote...outbreeding results when unlike genes meet in zygote. It is only art, and lots of it, that can unravel such a tangle. It is obvious that no one definition will satisfy all circumstances. If difficulties arise even in such an oversimplified hypothetical case, how much more complex the real ting can be. So in describing breeding plans, let us not be too positive or too emphatic. In most cases, the pedigree and the genes will agree within reasonable limits...it is the exceptions which will arise to plague us and of which we must always be aware.

...FIGURE 38, is a summary of breeding plans based upon genetic relationship. All breeding terms are relative. We would be inbreeding by mating a Shorthair and a Wirehair...compared to mating a dog and a wolf, it our relationship were based on the whole genus canis. But for our purpose, and in most instances, the term relates to a breed...here the FSP...We arbitrarily, set out starting point at a breed average of 10,000 homozygous and 10,000 heterozygous genes in the members of the breed. The 20,000 genes of the Shorthair was merely a figure, little more than pulled out of the air...In the accompanying illustration the beads for genes represent the eight-gene string of a typical (or average) gamete shown will produce complete heterozygosity for these strings...as do the gametes shown under "perfect outcrossing". The difference between the two lies in the fact that in the random mating, crossing over could produce some homozygosity, whereas in the perfect outcrossing no amount of Crossing Over will produce one iota of homozygosity. This is true for the same reason that no amount of crossing over in the "perfect inbreeding" will bring the slightest heterozygosity. In the former instance, for these eight genes, there is no genetic relationship...the dam is homozygous dominant, the sire, homozygous recessive. This is also the reason that at breed average, we indicate both Rx and Fx at zero. With the minor exceptions previously mentioned, there is no breed relationship (above the average) and therefore no inbreeding at that point. We might consider that point as being Genetic Equilibrium for the breed.

...A diagram such as this, attempts to tell a story briefly and graphically. It omits details, is satisfied with averages and is therefore somewhat incomplete. What actually concerns our topic ends with the perfect outbreeding...the balance is included for prospective. There are those who abhor, even the thought of mating Lab and Shorthair...yet, they never give the matter a second thought when they come as close to that point as possible and still stay within the same breed. Outbreeding, is the crossing of strains and differs from crossbreeding only in degree....Under generic crosses, we list the mating of sheep and goat. There seems to be enough relationship so that fertilization takes place and the fetus starts to develop but it rarely goes full term. It is either resorbed or aborted. Cross breeding, species crosses, etc. need not concern us here except to complete the picture and to demonstrate that there is a point beyond which heterozygosity cannot go and life be maintained.

OUTBREEDING:

...OUTBREEDING IS THE MATING of animals less closely related than the average for the breed. We often hear it described as the mating of unrelated animals...and relatively, that is correct, but only animals which are closely related can mate, when we consider all animals. That's why the average for the breed, is important in defining the term. We might also say that outbreeding, is a mating which brings fewer like genes to the zygote than a chance or average mating. For convenience, and with a reasonable degree of certainty, we may say that a pedigree which shows no common ancestors in the usual five generation pedigree, is probably an outbreeding. Of course, the population an outbreeding. Of course, the population and age of the breed, together with the amount of inbreeding practiced through the years would also effect the actuality of such a statement. We must remember too, that there are instances probably not many, where the gifted breeder has sheparded the genes in his kennel down through the generation by sheer artistic talent alone...the pedigree does not show the art involved...Motherline breeding, which is difficult to read in a pedigree, is such a plan.

...CAN OUTBREEDING PRODUCE good pups?...Certainly! As a matter of fact, outbreeding will often produce better pups, phenotypically, than any other mating plan, the first generation either is practiced. Can outbreeding as a long range plan bring improvement? That is, generation after generation of outbreeding? Certainly NOT!

...Outbreeding is to heterozygosity what inbreeding is to homozygosity. There is not outbreeding without heterozygosity. In the following figure (39), we see a theoretically perfect outbreeding. Note the diversity of the parents. They are genetic opposites, unrelated in a breed sense, yet they are both inbred and both are homozygotic. Consider this for a moment...both are inbred...both are homozygotic, yet they are opposites.

...Both pups are, in themselves as individuals, good...phenotypically good. Not genotypically good. The only way they can become genetically valuable, is to be bred back to their sire...inbred. If, for example, the little hybrid bitches are bred back to their sire, outcrossing would better describe the mating. OUTCROSSING is an outbreeding step in an overall inbreeding plan. Following the outcross, the original inbreeding (or linebreeding) is resumed. Rare is the dog of any breed, whose genetic quality permits many generations of close inbreeding without the need for an occasional outcross. In a genetically perfect dog, there would never be the need for outbreeding. Since there are no such dogs, continued close breeding, through its process of increasing homozygosity, is going to eventually double up some recessive defects. To prevent them from becoming fixed, we outcross. The outcross should be just as mild as consistent with desired results, to avoid upsetting the genetic applecart...to avoid excessive heterozygosity.

...OUTBREEDING WORKS ON THE PRINCIPLE that there are more good genes than bad in all dogs. That most good genes are dominant, most poor genes recessive...Thus, at first, outbreeding may bring improvement because the favorable dominants mask the unfavorable recessives...BUT, the recessives are still there...not lost, just hiding...Continued use creates and maintains heterozygosity which brings uniformity...a uniformity of mediocracy to your strain. Factually, I should have said, "to your kennel", it will bring nothing to your strain because you can have no strain based on outbreeding. Outbreeding destroys strains by scattering our hard-earned homozygosity to the four winds.

...The outbred animal which proves superior to its parents has nicked or heterosed. It exhibits hybrid vigor, as explained earlier, and like a falling star, there is a sudden bright flash in the sky...then darkness. Lush, referred to earlier, sums it up briefly and accurately..."Outbreeding usually leads to individual excellence but low breeding-worth." That is, good phenotype...poor genotype. It is the good genotype which brings breed progress.

...The very rare pedigree outbreeding which not only brings individual excellence but also great breeding worth, has, in fact, been no outbreeding at all, from the standpoint of the genes. This mating has produced homozygosity...like genes have met...this is the only possible form of prepotency.. Homozygosity is the antithesis of outbreeding.

...Most dog breeding books tell us the prime use of outbreeding is to annex to our own strain some virtue which is either lacking or weak. it sounds easy, if you say it fast...IF we do gain from an outcross (this is the only practical form of outbreeding) and this is no certainty, we must immediately fix that gain by inbreeding or it is lost. Before embarking on any planned outcross, we should exhaust every possibility that this favorable trait is no where present in any animal related to our own strain. The closer to home we can pick up this desired virtue, the more certain, we are of fixing it and the less danger we suffer from disrupting strain type.

...The dangers from the improper use of outbreeding are no less great than those resulting from the improper use of inbreeding or any other genetic tool...and no less art is required to do one well than the other. Probably the widest use of planned outbreeding is carried on with livestock. The increased size and weight which comes with hybrid vigor pays off on the stockyard scales. But, we do not measure the quality of the Shorthair by the pound..."He can't be all bad...he hates kids," Outbreeding isn't all bad. Although I've never heard it mentioned, there is one use which does much for dogs of all breeds...in a negative sort of way...The beginner shuns inbreeding like the plague because of what he has been told. The reasons may be wrong but the idea is not. Pushing the novice toward outbreeding is a service to any breed. How? Because the inexperienced, through ignorance, convenience or without realizing it, so often mate faults (like to like)...Mating likes with outbreeding will no more fix faults than it fixes virtues. If we must have faults...and we must...the more "unfixed", the better...Outbreeding is not a "fixin'" tool but a "mixin'" tool. Inbreeding is the fixin' tool but both tools, like matches, do not belong in the hands of children...even those 30-40 years old.

SUMMARY:

...Outbreeding as a long range plan has little to offer the Shorthair. Outcrossing, which implies the use of additional tools, has two primary uses...First, to modify any degeneracy which might develop through homozygosity. Should necessity require it at all, it should be as mild as possible. Second, to gain or strengthen some characteristic lacking in our own strain. This step should be taken only after we are sure that it is available from no closer source. If we gain from the outcross, we must immediately inbreed to hold it. Outcrossing does not automatically bring the desired results...and the artistic requirements are no less rigid for this than any other breeding tool.

Copyright 2001. Dr. James G. McCue, Jr. All rights reserved. Postscript: And his legacy lives on in the German Shorthaired Pointers of today. May they always be healthy and bred with forethought and planning.

Return Home