genetics

December 16, 2009

I think you are right Frank, it gets very complicated after the first generation. How much of which ancester is in each successive generation is still lottery-based. My last post on chromosomes gives the general idea. I think its not something that can be determined for definite without DNA samples from all the birds in the pedigree? And how much would that cost, and would it be any help in breeding a champion?

thats the whole problems the mind boggles i thought it was just me ;D ;D ;D ;D

December 16, 2009

There is no doubt that there is a lot of confusion over the whole subject of breeding. And for me it has to be split down into two separate subjects. There is the theoretical and the practical. I see no point at all in trying to learn the theory of genetics because it will not give you anything that you can work with. We all know what we want to do, but most of us struggle as to what steps to take. We want to breed winners. Nothing more complicated than that.

First of all, all individuals inherit 50% of their genes from each of their parents. Not 65% or any other percent. Always 50% and that never varies. Ever.

The business of the tail granddam is claimed to be about the health and strength of and individual. Not about the genetic makeup of that individual. It is another of those theories with little basis in practice. The theory came about when it was noticed that all race horses are sired by the very best of sires. But not all race horses were even good at racing. Some were really bad in fact. It was then noticed that certain mares would produce stronger foals that others. And in some cases, mares could produce a very high percentage of super foals with almost any stallion that were mated to. And it was the stallion Ribot and his family that was the basis of the study. From these realisations the ideas were read across to racing pigeons. Hence the idea that it is the females that pass the health and strength to the young and not the male.

Then of course there are the suporters of inbreeding. Another waste of time time I am afraid. Inbreeding can only work if there is a rigid progeny testing regime introduced. Inbreeding must have an aim and a target and to do this the direction charted must be measured and individuals not conforming must be dumped. In practice, the early stages of inbreeding must produce an awful lot of unsuitable individuals. The Manager of an inbreeding programme must be prepared to be entirely ruthless in his/her selection.

The only practical way forward is to do what the top Belgiums have been doing all along. Cross winners from one family with winners from another. And yes, label them with their own name so that we Brits will want to buy a strain that never existed.

December 16, 2009

There is no doubt that there is a lot of confusion over the whole subject of breeding. And for me it has to be split down into two separate subjects. There is the theoretical and the practical. I see no point at all in trying to learn the theory of genetics because it will not give you anything that you can work with. We all know what we want to do, but most of us struggle as to what steps to take. We want to breed winners. Nothing more complicated than that.
First of all, all individuals inherit 50% of their genes from each of their parents. Not 65% or any other percent. Always 50% and that never varies. Ever.
The business of the tail granddam is claimed to be about the health and strength of and individual. Not about the genetic makeup of that individual. It is another of those theories with little basis in practice. The theory came about when it was noticed that all race horses are sired by the very best of sires. But not all race horses were even good at racing. Some were really bad in fact. It was then noticed that certain mares would produce stronger foals that others. And in some cases, mares could produce a very high percentage of super foals with almost any stallion that were mated to. And it was the stallion Ribot and his family that was the basis of the study. From these realisations the ideas were read across to racing pigeons. Hence the idea that it is the females that pass the health and strength to the young and not the male.
Then of course there are the suporters of inbreeding. Another waste of time time I am afraid. Inbreeding can only work if there is a rigid progeny testing regime introduced. Inbreeding must have an aim and a target and to do this the direction charted must be measured and individuals not conforming must be dumped. In practice, the early stages of inbreeding must produce an awful lot of unsuitable individuals. The Manager of an inbreeding programme must be prepared to be entirely ruthless in his/her selection.
The only practical way forward is to do what the top Belgiums have been doing all along. Cross winners from one family with winners from another. And yes, label them with their own name so that we Brits will want to buy a strain that never existed.

iam trying to reproduce the old cock not winners that makes a difference does it not??

December 16, 2009

Yes Frank it makes a differance. That is as long as you accept that you can never reproduce your bird beyond a physical approximation. It is a fact that every individual ever born/hatched is unique. Never to be repeated. As it is a male you want to reproduce you are in with a good chance of doing it, providing that you are prepared to select the birds you want to breed with.

If I wanted to do that I would mate him with daughters that were most like him and then to granddaughters out of his daughters. At that stage you should be looking at your bird. If you want to go further you can mate males from one line to females from another and providing you select for likness you can produce a shedfull of replicas of your bird. This method of breeding is said to be on a male line and should give you plenty of masculine looking males to play with.

December 16, 2009

Yes Frank it makes a differance. That is as long as you accept that you can never reproduce your bird beyond a physical approximation. It is a fact that every individual ever born/hatched is unique. Never to be repeated. As it is a male you want to reproduce you are in with a good chance of doing it, providing that you are prepared to select the birds you want to breed with.
If I wanted to do that I would mate him with daughters that were most like him and then to granddaughters out of his daughters. At that stage you should be looking at your bird. If you want to go further you can mate males from one line to females from another and providing you select for likness you can produce a shedfull of replicas of your bird. This method of breeding is said to be on a male line and should give you plenty of masculine looking males to play with.

thanks for that

ally mac · December 17, 2009

iam trying to reproduce the old cock not winners that makes a difference does it not??

Have any of his sons made it to the stck loft yet Frank?

whiteknight · December 17, 2009

We look very close at our stock birds before pairing, as we line and inbreed our family very close like the JANSSEN brothers did and many other top fanciers still do.And yes this works very well as our results show and birds tested for us also do up to 1st federation.We find the best way to keep the winning lines is to pair Double /gdt to her g/sire and winners will come or breedrs of winners .

December 17, 2009

I have always found the theory of genetics to be a waste of time.
Much too deep for me.

Johnesybhoy-----I seem to recollect that I was once told that the tail grand dam was the most important ancestor on a pedigree.
That is the mother's mother.
Could just be an old wives tale.

without genetics thier would be nothing to discuss here every thing we do regarding pigeons or live stock in general is to do with genetics so as for genetics been a waste of time you could not be further from the truth think about it !!! even the food we feed has been geneticaly modified so we can feed a better diet to our birds

genetics is not only about colour you know it is to do with everything down to muscle and skelton structure all have been modified through genetics old or new the ideas are based on the same principles

December 17, 2009

iam trying to reproduce the old cock not winners that makes a difference does it not??

Alfons Anker's advice on producing another 'good one' opened my eyes. Like yourself, Frank, my thinking was 'pairing offspring' from that good bird.

Ankers reckoned for people like me [in the early stages of developing their family] that at the end of each year I should look for the birds that flew well - then look to their parents to breed more 'useful' pigeons from them. I accepted that at the time as good advice, but now wonder is that advice genetically sound? Yes, you have the original gene pool. But how do you calculate the odds of getting the same or as good a combination of genes in a brother or sister?

And taking that a step further, what if you don't have both parents, say only one? Do you pair the cock that produced winner A with the hen that produced winner B? Or do you pair 'A' to 'B' - winner to winner. Pairing best with best is very popular advice amongst fanciers, but genetically speaking which of these two pairings - parents or offspring, or even parents to offsping - is more likely to produce the goods? How do you calculate the different odds?

And are these questions best answered by genetics, or probabilities [odds] or a combination of both?