|
 |
Some interesting articles on breeding dogs.
|
 |

FOUNDER'S EFFECT
by
Carmen L. Battaliga
When a popular sire appears in so many
pedigrees that it causes the gene pool of a breed to drift in the direction of
that sire, the gene pool loses genetic diversity and the phenomena is called the
"Founders Effect". The underlying fear from this phenomenon is that one dog will
have an extraordinary effect on his breed through his genetic influence. This
includes not only his qualities but whatever detrimental recessives he carriers.
The excessive use of inbreeding and line breeding on such a dog will further
reduce genetic diversity. Eggleston (2000) reported on the range of genetic
diversity among the AKC breeds. She constructed a continuum for all of the
breeds. At one extreme she placed the Bull Terriers which had the least amount
of genetic diversity. This means that they tend to be line or inbred. At the
other extreme were the Jack Russell Terriers who she found to have the most
amount of genetic diversity. This means their pedigrees were for the most part
the result of outcross breedings. This meant that the ancestors tended to be
unrelated to each other.
In the world of purebred registered dogs, it can easily be demonstrated that the
most popular dogs are those who are more likely to have influence over future
generations. At the same time these same animals can also be shown to have
contributed a disproportionately higher number of defective genes into the gene
pool of their breed. In the case of a "Founder", who is usually a popular stud
dog, there are four reasons to explain why such a dog will have produced a
higher number of defective traits then other stud dogs who are not well known
and who are used less often.
A prominent stud dog including a "Founder" is usually well known and popular.
This is because the breeders choose to use them based on what they produce and
their winning offspring that have been observed by many exhibitors and breeders.
If several poor quality pups are produced, gossip about them usually spreads
quickly which causes others to avoid using them. Hence, their status is reduced
to a lower popularity.
It can also be shown that there are other sires that will have produced the same
defects. Less will be known about these sires because they will be used less
often and they will have fewer litters and offspring to be seen. These less
popular studs may have produced the same number of defective traits and health
problems, but the gossip about them is controlled and minimized because fewer
breeders are involved and there are less offspring to be seen. It must be
remembered that in order for a genetic disease or a recessive trait to exist in
a breed there must be three kinds of dogs. Those that are affected, the carriers,
and the normals. Suffice it to say that popular sires and those called the “Founder”,
are animals that are widely used. These dogs will have a better chance to come
in contact with carrier bitches, which is why they will have more opportunities
to produce genetic problems than the other stud dogs that are only bred a few
times.
When a pedigree begins to show an over emphasis on one individual, the traits of
that individual are generally well known. It makes no sense to exclude such a
dog, a "Founder" or one of his close relatives without good reason. It must be
remembered that each time a breeding occurs, one half of the genes of the sire
and one half of the genes of the dam are carried forward to their new pups. By
the third generation, only 25% of the grand parent's genes are carried forwarded.
The impact of one dog even if he were the "Founder" would have been minimized.
TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF ANCESTORS
Relationship |
Common Ancestor |
Coefficient of Inbreeding |
Father/daughter |
1/2 on sire |
.25 |
Mother/son |
1/2 on dam |
.25 |
Brother/sister |
2/2 grandsire 2/22 grand dam |
.25 |
Paternal half sibs |
2/2 on grandsire |
12.5 |
Maternal half sibs |
2/2 on grand dam |
12.5 |
First cousins |
3/3 grandsire 3/3 grand dam
4/4 on ancestor |
6.25
.78 |
When a stud dog that is closely related to the “Founder”, is bred to an
unrelated bitch only 50% of his genes will appear in their pups. Thus, the
effect of the "Founder" is reduced and will continue to be reduced in each
subsequent generation simply by using an outcross. These breedings will
dissipate rather then concentrate the genes needed to retain and strengthen
traits. The continued use of an outcross is equivalent to throwing genes away. A
better strategy is to analyze each pedigree that includes the "Founder" or one
of his other close relatives to see what traits and risks are involved.
In every breeding there will be some degree of risk. The key is to minimize the
potential for problems. For example, if the "Founder" was a quality dog known to
produce desired traits it would make no sense to eliminate him or a pedigree
with him in it just because he had produced an undesirable trait. If the
“Founder” was a popular dog what he produced is a reflection of the pedigrees
bred to him. Because he was popular explains why he has produced some or all of
the undesirable traits known to his breed. A certain percentage of these bitches
will have been carriers. Avoiding these popular dogs because of a known fault
provides a false sense of security based on undefined “fears”. It makes more
sense to make decisions about their use after their pedigree has been analyzed
for breadth and depth of the traits desired along with what they have produced.
Planned breedings are the best way to avoid problems. A breeder's objective is
to find the best stud dog for each bitch. Experienced breeders know there are
always risks. It is the novice who continues too avoid using the popular sires
because they have produced faults. Their preference is to use unknown and
untested dogs that have little or no track record. Experienced breeders know to
avoid using these untested sires because they represent test breedings most of
which are nothing more than the breeding of "likes to likes", “winners to
winners” etc. These are not effective ways to retain traits. A series of planned
breedings using a variety of relatives (close and distant) has been shown to be
a superior method.
Reference:
Battaglia, C. L. - Breeding Better Dogs, BEI Publications, Atlanta, GA 1986
Battaglia, C. L. - Genetics - How to Breed Better Dogs, T.F.H., Neptune, NJ,
1978
Bell, Jerold S. "Choosing Wisely", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, Number 8,
p-51.
Bell, Jerold S. "Choosing Wisely", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, Number 8,
p-51.
Bell, Jerold, S. "Developing Healthy Breeding programs", Canine Health
Conformance, AKC Canine Health Foundation, Oct. 15-17,1999. St. Louis MO.
Eggleston, Marsha, "Genetic Diversity", Report given the AKC DNA Committee,
2002, New York, New York.
Foley, C.W; Lasley, J.F. and Osweiler, G.D., “Abnormalities of Companion
animals: Analysis of Heritabliliy” , Iowa University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1979
Hutchinson, Robert, "Breeders Symposium", Sponsored by IAMS Company, Hotel
Pennsylvania, NY, NY February 10, 2001.
Hutt, Fred, Genetics for Dog Breeders, WH. Freeman Co., San Francisco, CA, 1979
Willis, Malcolm, Genetics of the Dog, Howell Book House, New York, New York,
1989
Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health
Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
Willis, Malcomb, "The road ahead", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, number 8,
p-47.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State
University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in
promotion of breeding better dogs and has written many articles and several
books.Dr. Battaglia is also a popular TV and radio talk show speaker. His
seminars on breeding dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have been well
received by the breed clubs all over the country.
__._,_.___

"BRACKETT'S FORMULA"
by
Carmen L. Battaglia
By the early 1950's”, Lloyd C. Brackett
had become a legend in his own time. In part because of the quality of the dogs
he produced and in part because of his candor when addressing problems related
to the breeding of canines. He had much to say about the selection of sires, how
to correct problems and how to make improvements. Brackett was considered one of
the fathers of the German Shepherd breed in the United States. At the time of
his death he was the oldest living continuos fancier of the breed (since 1912).
His kennel was called Long Worth and he is remembered throughout the dog world
for his theories about breeding methods. Brackett was well read and a quick
learner. Through his writings he shed light on the confusion and
misunderstandings associated with line and inbreeding. One of his greatest
achievements was to have produced over 90 champions in twelve years.
All of his methods and ideas were not new. For example, he combined the study of
pedigrees with the results they produced. After years of watching what
combinations produced the better offspring he refined his ideas about how to
select breeding partners. Out of these experiences came a formula that later he
would make him famous. The formula was not new but his ideas about how to use it
attracted attention. Breeders of domestic animals had used it for years. It
relied on the principles of line and inbreeding. But it was Brackett and his
approach to planned breedings that made it well known. Brackett believed in
pedigree analysis, litter evaluation, the use of line and inbreeding and a
record system that was easy to use. Those ideas are what set him apart from
others who did little more than practice the art of breeding. While Brackett is
best known for his emphasis on the use of line breeding he was not afraid to
inbreed if the situation dictated it. Brackett believed that it made no sense to
go forward with breeding before the needed information about the sire and dam
had been collected. He placed great emphasis on health, temperament and breed
characteristics. His planned breedings were based on the results that occurred
in his pups. In other words, he learned from his mistakes.
Brackett understood the value of using quality dogs that were related to each
other. This approach allowed him to concentrate the genes needed to produce
desired traits. His techniques for reducing error and improving quality focused
on the careful selection of breeding partners. They were central to maintaining
and improving specific traits while at the same time reducing disease and other
unwanted problems. Brackett became famous for breeding quality dogs with
consistent type. His strategy relied on a series of breedings using relatives.
Often times he was quoted as saying, "never outcross when things seem to be
going well, do it only as an experiment or when some fault or faults cannot be
eliminated". He was careful to study each stud dog and their offspring,
eliminating those who did not measure up and those who produced faults. Close
inspection of his pedigrees show that many of his sires were themselves inbred
or line bred and most were usually related in some way to the bitches in his
breeding program. Brackett's success helped to make line breeding popular. He
demonstrated how to make improvements by retaining a common pool of genes
through the use of related dogs. He believed that out-crossing was the least
desirable method because it introduced new genes into his pedigrees, which in
turn produced differences and genetic variations among the offspring.
It has been well documented that two full-brothers usually do not have the same
genetic potential even though they both come from the same two parents. One
sibling might inherit one set of genes from his father and the other might get a
different set from an uncle through his mother. While each pup always receives
half of its genes from the sire and half from the dam it does not mean that they
each will get the same set of genes. This explains why littermates do not always
look alike or have the same capacity to produce quality. Brackett kept detailed
records on the differences between siblings. He was well read on this subject
and occasionally mentioned the works of Aristotle and Mendel in his articles. In
practice they all shared similar beliefs.
Brackett was usually quick to comment on what he observed and how things could
be improved. In a statement taken from one of his articles, he said, “whenever
two or three dog fanciers get together there is almost sure to be talk about
linebreeding. The term may be used without anyone of them having a real
understanding of what it means. There seems to be much confusion even in the
minds of experienced dog breeders about the actual meaning of the terms and how
to differentiate between them”. He referred to this dilemma in several articles
in a variety of scenarios. He once raised several questions when he heard two
breeders discussing a line breeding. He referred to the breeder who recommended
it with the statement, “linebred to what? He knew that the answer to the
question would be a measure of what the breeder actually knew about the term. It
was his way of evaluating the wisdom of others. He knew that line breeding can
mean many things. For example, a dog can be line bred on its sire's side of the
pedigree or on its dam's side. Those who use the term usually understand it to
mean only that the dogs are related to each other.
Brackett was concerned about the future of breeding better dogs and the lack of
breeder education programs. He believed that “the majority of dog breeders
formulate no breeding plan and seldom if ever, when making a mating consider how
or what they will mate any of the resultant progeny.”
The formula Brackett preferred concentrated genes in a pedigree. He did this by
placing emphasis on the sire of the sire. In Figure 1, notice that the same dog
appears on the sire and the dam's side of the pedigree. Brackett liked to use
one important dog and have it appear twice in a three-generation pedigree. The
basic formula he preferred can be stated as follows, "Let the sire of the sire
become the grand sire on the dam's side". Said another way, “ let the father's
father become the mothers grandfather”.
FIGURE 1 PEDIGREE OF A BRACKETT STUD DOG
The sire that is circled appears on both
sides of the pedigree. Because it is the same dog it must be an outstanding dog
free of disease because his genes are being preserved on both sides of the
pedigree and carried forward to the new stud dog.
Brackett knew that Mendel was able to consistently predict the traits in his
offspring especially when he knew what characteristics were carried in the
pedigrees of the parents. They both knew that when two individuals with known
ancestry are bred there is more certainty about what they are likely to produce
then when there is missing information about them. Mendel demonstrated these
principles in the 1860's. Brackett used these ideas because he knew that the
unexpected is more likely to occur when there are gaps in information about the
ancestors and their littermates. While heredity has the tendency to produce
resemblance' s, the science of genetics teaches us to search beneath the
superficial resemblances of the phenotypes for the important clues in the
genotypes. Thus, when an individual is said to be dominant for a trait, it
should be taken to mean that a large percentage of their offspring were observed
to have a certain trait. It does not mean that all of their offspring will have
that trait. Figure 2 illustrates how Brackett would approach breeding a
hypotical bitch called "A". The Stick Dog Color Chart pedigree described in
Battaglia's book, Breeding Better Dogs is used to illustrate Brackett's
approach. The stick dog pedigree illustrates how the strengths, weaknesses and
trends in a pedigree can be recorded and then easily coded. Notice that each
stick figure is drawn with seven structural parts. Using the breed standard each
of the seven structural parts are color coded to show there quality or lack
thereof. The color-codes for quality:
COLOR |
RANK |
QUALITY |
Blue |
First Place |
Ideal based on the standard |
Black |
Second Place |
Less than ideal based on the standard |
Red |
Third Place |
Faulty based on the standard |
Gray |
Fourth Place |
Faulty based on the standard
|
Figure 2 illustrates how Brackett would
begin collecting information about “A”. The notes that were collected about “A”
indicate there are warning signals about several traits. Circles around a trait
or ancestor are used to show what information is missing.
A breeder's notes might read:
“Her parents were of good quality, one of her four brothers was dysplastic,
another a monoricid. Two others had missing premolars, one sister was white. All
six of her littermates were of average quality”.
It must be remembered that the value of a bitch must also be determined by what
she has produced. The breeder's notes about her pups might read:
“Her first breeding was to a quality dog with an open pedigree. All four of her
pups were of poor quality, one had a disqualifying color; two others had an
undershot jaw, one was dysplastic. Her second breeding was a line breeding to
another quality dog. This dog was related to her sire. Two of eight pups died of
heart disease, one was diagnosed with clinical hip dysplasia, and two others had
missing pre molars“. The summary notes about bitch “A” are useful because they
present an overview of the bitches qualities.
FIGURE 2 STICK DOG PEDIGREE
Note 1. First breeding, N=4, to
a sire with an open pedigree. Pups produced: 1 with a white coat, 2 with
undershot jaws, 1 dysplastic, and 4 of poor quality
Note 2. Second breeding, N=5, A line breeding. The pups: 2 of 8 died of
heart problems, 2 had missing pre molars, and 1 was dysplastic, all of average
quality
Note 3. Littermates of "A" (N=6): One monorchid, 2 had missing premolars,
one sister was white. All average in quality
Note 4. The sire and dam of "A" - Both were of good quality but her dam
only produced average offspring when bred to three different quality sires.
Little is known about her sire.
Brackett and Mendel would have kept similar
notes about the breeding partners of “A” and her offspring. After two breedings
that produced unsuitable conformation, health problems and a disqualifying color
(white), neither Brackett or Mendel would have bred her a third time even if a
top-producing stud were available. Experience suggests that she should not be
bred. However, if producing an occasional pup of some quality were the goal,
this is still a risky bitch because her pedigree has the potential to produce
unhealthy and mediocre pups, many of which are likely to be carriers. Brackett
was concerned about these bitches because he knew that most buyers want to know
that their puppy is genetically healthy and that it will not become aggressive
or so nervous that it will spook at anything unusual. One of the best reasons
for not using “A” is that most of her pups are likely to become someone's house
companion and require a lifetime of costly veterinary care.
Formula Variations
Breeders quickly learned that variations could be made in Brackett's preferred
formula based on the strengths and weaknesses of the bitch. While they were not
as productive as the preferred formula they did work to concentrate the genes
needed. The variations of the formula can be stated as follows: Let the sire of
the sire be the grandsire of the dam on the sire's side instead of on the dam's
side. Another variation let the sire be the result of either a full or half
brother and sister mating and thus inbred. In each case selecting a mate for a
faulty bitch such as “A” whose wide-open pedigree offers no strength would not
be a good use of these formulas.
The selection of breeding partners must always focus on correcting weaknesses in
pedigrees and making improvements. To do other wise is a waste of time.
References:
Battaglia, C. L. - Breeding Better Dogs, BEI Publications, Atlanta, GA 1986
Bell, Jerold S. "Choosing Wisely", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, Number 8,
p-51.
Bell, Jerold, S. "Developing Healthy Breeding programs", Canine Health
Conformance, AKC Canine Health Foundation, Oct. 15-17,1999. St. Louis MO.
Brackett, Lloyd, C. "Planned Breeding," Dog World Magazine, Chicago IL, 1961.
Hedhammer,Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine
health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State
University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in
promotion of breeding better dogs and has written many articles and several
books.Dr. Battaglia is also a popular TV and radio talk show speaker. His
seminars on breeding dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have been well
received by the breed clubs all over the country.
__._,_.___
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|

"Mendel's Puzzle"
Desired traits can be produced by direction.
by
Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia
In one way or another technology has
had a profound effect on our history. It has also contributed to our material
progress and effected the evolution of our social attitudes and many of our
public policies. Folklore has also played an important role by affecting how we
think and what we believe. Combined, technology and folklore have both had a
profound influence on the way we live and the breeding of purebred dogs. Over
the past half-century there have been an endless number of changes and
technological breakthroughs that have affected us. Many of these changes began
when the science of genetics began to redefine what was important. History
suggests that most of these changes occurred after World War II when human
health problems such as polio and smallpox were still considered life-threatening
diseases. As these new technologies began to address the old problems, they also
began to improve the quality of our lives and what we considered important.
Emphasis shifted from treatment protocols to the prevention of viral and
parasitic diseases. By the end of the 1960's these new technologies had
eradicated most of the diseases with new immunizations. Soon to follow would be
the mechanisms necessary to control the other dreaded childhood diseases and
some of the animal diseases that had persisted during the past several centuries.
While advancements to improve human life moved with remarkable speed, the same
pace did not take place in the dog world. The scientific community ignored the
faults of conformation and many of the defects common to most breeds because
they were not considered worthy research projects. In retrospect, most of the
accomplishments can be attributed to one monk who in the 1850's thought he had
uncovered the answer to heredity.
MENDEL
Today, we know that the basis for this
science began in the early 1790”s when a British farmer, T.A. Knight crossed a
garden pea that had purple flowers with one that had only white flowers.
Everyone expected that the two flower colors would blend and produce lavender
flowers. To everyone's amazement they produced only purple flowers. Knight's
experiment puzzled everyone for years. Then came the Austrian monk named Gregor
Johann Mendel who showed a keen interest in science. In 1843, he entered the
Augustinian Monastery in Old Brno where he lived as an ordained priest. In 1851,
he became a member of the Natural Science Society. Membership in the society
provided him the opportunity to lecture about his experiments and the ideas he
was developing. His wonderful discovery of the principles of heredity draws
attention to the fact that one individual working with little outside help could
carry out many historic experiments. Because his ideas were new and not well
understood they were not accepted. His experiments (1856-1864) on the genetics
of inheritance involved the principles of dominant and recessive traits.
Mendel's famous lecture in 1865 was not published until 1866. His experiments
led him to propose a new way to think about inheritance and how traits are
passed down from one generation to the next. For example, he suggested that each
parent equally contributes to the makeup of their offspring based on their own
inheritance. It was this idea that departed from the popular thinking of the
1800's. Mendel enlightened the world about many things, which oftentimes are
overlooked by breeders. One of his greatest discoveries was to prove that a
desired trait can be produced by direction instead of by chance.
The Puzzle
What made Mendel's approach so significant
can be found in the strength of his experimental design and his interest in
qualitative analysis. He used both to produce his postulates about inheritance.
What Mendel found ultimately explained Knights puzzle. Until his experiments
were published there was no understanding of dominant and recessive traits and
why they could appear and then disappear. For example, Mendel found that when
tall plants were bred to short plants, only tall plants were produced. After
years of experiments using mathematics to calculate the frequency with which
traits would appear he concluded that tallness was dominant over shortness. He
also furthered the notion that there was something that could produce a
non-dominant trait, which could linger in the background. Later the world would
call it a recessive gene. His efforts resulted in the discovery that each trait
is produced by one or more particles (“factors”) and that each offspring
receives its genetic instructions for their own make-up directly from the
particles of their parents. Mendel died on June 1, 1884 not knowing the
significance of his discoveries. After his death, his writings, experiments and
materials were stored in the school's library where they remained virtually
unnoticed. His research, which was decades ahead of its time, would be ignored
until they were duplicated and then cited by Carl Correns, Hugo de Vries and
Eric von Tschermak in 1900. It is interesting that researchers in Germany and
Holland would independently find and use Mendel's experiments to launch their
own studies. What is more interesting is that they would discover that their
results were very much like those Mendel had discovered forty years earlier.
Today, we know that what Mendel called the “factors” or “particles" of
inheritance were actually the genes. He did not know that they were the
structures contained within the chromosomes. That would come later. What he
proved was that genes travel in pairs and that they seemed to be packaged in one
of two distinct types or alleles. To better understand this idea and for the
sake of convenience letters are used to represent the alleles. The lower case
letters (b, w, l) represent the recessive alleles. The dominant alleles are
represented by upper case letters (B, W, and L).
Mendel learned that if both of the alleles are different, they are said to be
heterozygous (Ww) for the trait. If they are both the same, they are called
homogenous (ww). It was this discovery that led Mendel to his "First Law" of
genetics, which works for all animals. What is more interesting is that he
developed his ideas using only the garden pea plants. Mendel proved that genes
do not blend together, instead they retain their individual character even when
a recessive gene is present and masked by a dominant gene. It took from 1790 to
1866 before the solution to this puzzle was found. Today, we know that the
breeders who do not understand Mendel's Law of Genetics will continue to think
about the occurrence of defects and recessives traits using folklore rather then
science.
Figure 1 represents Mendel's First Law, which involves dominant and recessive
traits. Imagine that you have bred two black dogs. One is black because it
carries two dominant genes for black (BB). The other is black because it carries
one dominant gene for black and one recessive gene (Bb) for the recessive color
liver, which sometimes is called chocolate.
Figure 1 Two-Black dogs that are carriers
Notice that breeding two carriers does not improve a breeding program because
the number of carriers is increased. Notice in Figure 2, what happens when a
carrier (Bb) is bred to a dog that is dominant (BB) for its color. Carrier to a
non-carrier breedings produce 50% carriers and 50% dominant for their color.
Figure 2 Carrier X Dominant
In addition to color,
breeders can also apply Mendel's Law to other traits such as coat length. In
this regard, the reader should note that breed standards use different words to
mean similar things. For example, the word for a normal coat in one standard is
sometimes called short or smooth coat in another standard. The short or smooth
coat is dominant over the recessive coat, which might be called long, fluffy,
feather or powder puff. Since Mendel's first law applies to many traits, let's
take as our next example coat length since it can easily be seen and appreciated.
In Figure 3, a long coat (ll) is bred to a short coat (Ll) that is a carrier for
the recessive long coat. Notice that the recessive gene (l) is retained in every
puppy.
Figure 3. Long Coat X Normal Coat
Now notice in Figure 4 what happens when two
carriers for the recessive coat are bred.
Figure 4.
Normal Coat (carrier) X Normal Coat (carrier)
The breeding of
two carriers will produce carriers in 75% of the offspring. This same principle
was illustrated in Figure 1 for color.
The problem for most breeders is that they do not know if their dogs are
carriers for recessive traits and many times, the traits in the puppies can be
confusing if they do not think about Mendel's First Law of Genetics. For example,
in Figure 4, suppose that only two pups were born instead of four, they could
both have been two short coats (normal or smooth) or depending on the breed,
they might both have long, shaggy, feathered or powder puff coats. However, when
just one pup occurs with a long coat or a recessive color the breeder will know
that both parents were carriers. The ratios seen in these figures are the
mathematical frequencies a breeder should expect if the breedings were repeated
several times. Breeders can learn about their pedigrees and the carriers by
keeping a record of what they produce. Breeders will sometimes over look the
obvious unless they remember that a recessive trait can remain in the background
for several generations. A quick glance at the AKC breed standards show that
many breeds have coat and pigment faults. To avoid them, a breeder must develop
a record system that captures the traits produced in each generation. Mendel's
experiments demonstrated that breeders could solve many of their problems that
puzzle others if they keep records. Figures 1 and 4 illustrate how breeders can
be led to believe that both parents were not carriers. The point here is this.
When just one pup occurs with a long coat or a recessive color the breeder will
know that both parents were carriers. Keeping records of each breeding on a
Symbol pedigree helps to piece together the puzzle of what traits lay hidden in
their pedigrees. For more information about how to use the Symbols pedigree and
the technique for breeding the better dogs use the website below or the
references listed.
References:
Battaglia, C. L. - Genetics - Breeding Better Dogs, BEI Publications, Atlanta
Ga., 1999.
Bell, Jerold, "Developing a Healthy Breeding Program", National Parent Club
Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine Health Foundation, St. Louis MO. October
15-17, 1999.
Hutt, Fred, Genetics for Dog Breeders, WH Freeman Co., San Francisco, CA, 1979
Willis, Malcolm, ”Breeding Better Dogs "(Key Note Address) National Parent Club
Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine Health Foundation, St. Louis, MO. October
15-17 1999.
Willis, Malcolm, Genetics of the Dog, Howell Book House, New York, New York,
1989
Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health
Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
Willis, Malcomb, "The Road Ahead", AKC Gazette, August 2000, Vol. 117, number 8,
p-47.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State
University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in
promoting ways to breed better dogs. The author of many articles and several
books he is a popular TV and radio talk show speaker. His seminars on breeding
dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have been well received by breed
clubs all over the country.
Enter supporting content here
|
|
|
 |