Breeding thoughts or Any anecdotal evidence?

[JTG]

[david]

For Rockytrails:
"An organism can be homozygous dominant, if it carries two copies of the same dominant allele, or homozygous recessive, if it carries two copies of the same recessive allele. Heterozygous means that an organism has two different alleles of a gene."

Praise the Lord for the Internet. Lol

I been looking up terms like crazy.

[pegleg]

Complex organisms have complex genetics and dogs are one of the most varied, in the same class as humans. There's a lot of things at play in their genetic make up. The conversation will be hard to have until a lot more studies and testing have been done On all dog breeds and then the family lines and strains can be looked at. Then perhaps we will know more about the genetic model of dogs and can talk in a more knowledgeable way about something like tree traits be a locating ability or what ever it maybe.

[david]

[pegleg]

Only that breeding a hound that trees to one that doesn't produces more hounds that fall somewhere on the spectrum of treeing then those that don't tree. And honestly most dogs of other breeds tree at least a little. Maybe the question should be what have the foxhound breeders done to insure their dogs don't? I have seen a lot of dogs that once they've started to Chase something would tree on their own. Whether it was visible or in a hollow tree or in rock's they still bark out of frustration. So if tree hounds are extreme versions of treeing genetics. And foxhounds are extreme versions of not treeing it probably is more of a meet in the middle type situation.

[JTG]

[david]

[dwalton]

Treeing shows up in a lot of different ways. As stated most curs and a lot of terriers are good tree dogs. A lot of the lion dogs from the southwest that I have tried up here do not tree here. A lot of dogs that tree coon and bear don't know where a bobcat goes when it trees. I have seen coon bred dogs tree when everyone else is but can not locate and tree on their own. A lot of first time cross with a running dog will tree on lion and bear but don't have a clue where bobcats go. Some dogs only sight tree. Some learn to tree with time. Dogs that tree before 12 months old usually become slick tree dogs for us bobcat hunters by 3 years old. Some dogs are just about perfect at locating and treeing bobcats. I feel good locating dogs on bobcats are good track dogs that don't rehash a track and know that the track has ended. BRAINS and track style make a good tree dog. With hounds there are a lot of ways to go with each trait you are looking for. Good luck with your breeding program and the traits we want in a dog. It is endless. Dewey

[JTG]

David,
Yes, numbers or the law of averages. A large gene pool to select from, keeping only the very best.

The traits will pass more strongly from the male to the female. If you run into a wall, than you could use sex-linked manipulations, for improvement in the next generation.

Nothing in nature is more powerful than breeding a male to his daughter, to pass on genetic influence.
JTG

So your plan gets its tree from the male.

I assume that is because you have more potential options because of simple numbers of puppies that could be produced by parent/pup matings.

Is that true? Or did you get your tree from the male because you beleive the treeing trait might be passed more strongly from the male than it would from the female?

Or do you beleive male/daughter matings are somehow better or more powerful than female/son matings. ?[/quote]

[Andyva]

If treeing was a sex linked gene, and it worked like most other sex linked genes that occur in nature, and you crossed a non tree dog to a tree dog then all offspring of one sex would tree and all offspring of the opposite sex wouldn't.

As was stated, there is probably a lot more than one gene responsible in the various breeds, and the dominance of those genes could differ between family lines, in other words, terrier influence could work one way, shepherd in another.

In foxhounds, every thing I have read has said that treeing was a trait to be culled for, or at least that a lot of people culled for. If it were a dominant trait, once it was gone, it would be gone. There would not be dogs popping up that treed out of lines that had been culled heavily. If it were dominant, non treeing would be recessive, once a line was established out of dogs selected to not tree, they would automatically be homozygous. Nothing could pop up that treed in a line bred family that didn't tree, if non-treeing was recessive.

If the treeing gene in foxhounds was a recessive trait, you would have to breed two that treed together to get any that treed, and all would.

If it were an incomplete dominant, it could make some of them tree, but not be too crazy about it, and make the trait pop up seemingly at random, with no rhyme or reason, and only once in a while would you get one that did it like it meant it, and vast swaths of the population would not, nor produce anything that did. This is what makes me think that it behaves like an incomplete dominant.

[dwalton]

JTG Have you done this type of breeding tree dog to running dog, father to that daughter to see the out come? Which dog female or male has the other traits one needs, deposition, desire, ability to move a track, conformation ect....? I think it would not be hard to make a tree dog by doing this but when you are trying to make a complete dog that has it all it would be a difficult thing to make happen. There are so many different things to be had for a complete dog. One trait that is needed could be dominant, one incomplete dominant or recessive. The combinations are almost unlimited. Now who do you breed to what ? Breeding for one trait be color,treeing, conformation, heart and desire would be easy but we are breeding for numerous traits that are open to each individual opinion as to what it should be now things are getting complicated. Good reading Dewey

[macedonia mule man]

I know nothing about breeding, but I know a animal health salesman that does. Quote from him( remember, to aquire a trait or concentrate one in a animal you will always lose something. When reducing limbs on a tree , you lose shade and wood. In animals the most damaging is loosing brains and reproduction. The most damaging in dogs would be brains. You don't gain a great deal of anything on first cross, sometimes nothing recongnizing. You start seeing what you started for in 2nd 3rd breeding within that first cross. You also start seeing what you lost.) I know when I have bred anything to a American fox hound , I have noticed a big difference in endurance and drive on first cross. It goes down. I think the intentions for a fox hounds was to run a fox race and make enjoyable music. Not to catch, kill, or tree anything.

[JTG]

[dwalton]

JTG with breeding the same line of dogs for so long you understand the problems of breeding and do what all the very top breeder should do keep all the pups and pick only the ones that meet your standards to reproduce more. How often do you out cross or do you just stay within your gene pool? If you bring in new blood what do you look for in your out cross? If you don't out cross does the size of your dogs decrese in size, stamina and litter size? It is good that you share your back ground on here it gives credibility to what you write. Thank you Dewey

[JTG]