The Disadvantages of Outcrossing
Michael Shealy
> On 26 Dec 2001 03:12:00 GMT, ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
>
> Now, in fact, outcrossing isn't a perfect plan either. It has
> many disadvantages too.
>
What would you say these disadvantages are? Anyone?
Warm regards to all,
-mikey
Starr Cash
wrote:
*What would you say these disadvantages are? Anyone?
Hi Mikey. Not trying to avoid your question, just trying to avoid any
unpleasant discourse. As I said before:
"Now, in fact, outcrossing isn't a perfect plan either. It has many
disadvantages too. With outcrossing as your only option, it can take
much longer (more breedings) to achieve your objective -- more like
rolling the dice with every breeding. And, you may still end up with
terminal defects but probably not one that would impact your entire
herd. "
So there you have it, the disadvantage to outcrossing is that it can
take longer to achieve your breeding objective and you have no
guarantee that you won't produce birth defects. Probably safer than
linebreeding for the vast majority of breeders, but not a perfect
option.
I'm just a beginner so that's not the result of my personal
experience, just something that I took away from a lecture I attended.
I think I disclaimed that, too. I'm not prepared to defend it to the
death and if you feel strongly that my posting was FOS, go right ahead
and say so.
On the other hand, it might be more fun to have an open exchange of
thoughts on the subject of both linebreeding and outcrossing as
breeding strategies. Would you like to do that?
Starr
tail over back and distinctly lacking in testosterone today.
R.D.
believed that linebreeding was the way to go and faithfully practiced it
until one day, a male llama she had linebred and sold to someone as a stud
produced a cria with Coanal Atresia.
She was so upset by this as was the person who owned the stud and had to put
the cria down that she has never linebred since. And bought back the stud
and had him gelded!!!
Sad but true story!
Robin
Starr Cash wrote in message ...
Starr Cash
*She ALWAYS
*believed that linebreeding was the way to go and faithfully practiced
it
Hi Robin - very tragic story. And there were probably other animals
in the same line that needed to be removed from breeding stock too.
Personally, I don't feel that I would attempt linebreeding without
learning a WHOLE lot more about genetics than I know now. (which can
best be described as not knowing my butt from my elbow! I know just
enough to comprehend that.) I don't think I would even at this stage
feel comfortable breeding one of my females to a line-bred stud or
with purchasing a female offspring of a line bred union.
However, there are those folks who do have that technical background
and while I don't personally know them, I am sure there are some of
them who are engaged in linebreeding. I wish them well because I
suspect that what they learn and hopefully publish will ultimately be
for the good of the whole industry. It has been used beneficially
(and detrimentally, too, it has to be said) in other livestock.
The speaker at the lecture I attended I thought did a good job of
presenting linebreeding as just one piece - one part or option of an
overall breeding strategy designed to achieve your farm's breeding
objective, neither inherently good or bad.
Developing that objective and the strategies to employ to get to it
was the biggest impact I got from his talk. Really tightened my head
down a few screws. As soon as I got home I spent a lot of time and
actually have them written down and in my barn book. It would take us
pretty far off topic from this thread's subject, but if you're
interested in it, I'd love to talk about it further.
Starr
Michael Shealy
> "Now, in fact, outcrossing isn't a perfect plan either.
> It has many disadvantages too.
>
Hey, Starr, ... It looks like a difference of viewpoint re: the "many"
part. I don't see the "many". I see only an "unreliableness" of
type, with healthier and healthier animals.
> With outcrossing as your only option, it can take much
> longer (more breedings) to achieve your objective -- more
> like rolling the dice with every breeding.
>
A gamble against type, not against healthy offspring. Outcross
breedings often produce offspring larger and more robust than it's
parents (maybe not an advantage in alpacas).
> So there you have it, the disadvantage to outcrossing is
> that it can take longer to achieve your breeding objective
>
OK, so how "many" disadvantages is this? And, what is your breeding
objective? We've had a few congenital defects on our ranch. Any is
too many, for me. So, even tho linebreeding can produce more reliably
typed and colored animals, I don't do it myself, IOW, I don't create
linebred animals. I have bred a few females to linebred animals that
have produced great results.
> ... and you have no guarantee that you won't produce birth
> defects.
>
From what I've read and seen in my travels, the further the outcross
the more robust the offspring. What "they" say about the genetics
(correct me if I'm wrong) is, at each outcross breeding the chances of
recessive genes "surviving" the generation become less. When animals
of like breeding are crossed, their characteristics can become easily
"fixed". Even tho, essentially recessive, becoming dominant. This is
true of both "favorable" and "unfavorable" characteristics.
Making a rude, but none-the-less applicable analogy; the offspring of
a human Japanese woman and an Anglo man usually produces a remarkable,
in some way, offspring. Same with Black and Japanese, any races that
have been separated for some period of generations interbreeding will
produce unpredictably unpredictable results. The one thing that is
predictable is the robustness. Heterosis, they call it.
> Probably safer than linebreeding for the vast majority of
> breeders, but not a perfect option.
>
Few options are.
Have a look at the latest Llama Life II, there's a list of
*pre-potent* herd sires there. Interestingly, seems like a high
percentage have died young.
> I'm just a beginner so that's not the result of my personal
> experience, just something that I took away from a lecture I attended.
> I think I disclaimed that, too. I'm not prepared to defend it to the
> death and if you feel strongly that my posting was FOS, go right ahead
> and say so.
>
LOL, not FOS, ... and "to the death", whoa .. I heard that saying,
"the pen is mighter", but this is too much. Are computers *that* much
better than the pen?
> On the other hand, it might be more fun to have an open exchange of
> thoughts on the subject of both linebreeding and outcrossing as
> breeding strategies. Would you like to do that?
>
Sure, I thot we were ...
Outcross is unreliable, in terms of type, but not in terms of HEALTH.
Heterosis is God's reward to the offspring of the young male antelope
that can run the farthest from his herd of origin and still find the
strength to mate.
Hybrid vigor. Do alpaca breeders want this? The word "hybrid"
doesn't work in alpaca context. Maybe a much bigger alpaca (not
good), or one with a flat back (not good), or one with suri fiber
(ahhh, goood). It barely works in llama context, BUT the llama world
is more open to it, seems to me.
After all, any "throw-back", in alpaca terms, isn't good, and neither
is a "throw-forward" (bigger, stronger, straight back, wild colors,
etc.). The possibility exists in outcross breeding, for either. In
llama terms, no biggy for the throw-back and *yipee* when we get a
"throw-forward", love those wild colors. Line breeding produces a
more predictable result, with a general trend towards smaller
offspring than the parents, the increased possibility that a flaw will
be "fixed", as well as the predictable reproduction of *type* and
*color* desired.
Go for it!!!
Warm regards,
-mikey
p.s. Didja know that both alpaca and llama were selectively bred from
guanacos by the Quechua Indians 6,000 years ago? Yup.
Starr Cash
wrote:
*Line breeding produces a
*more predictable result, with a general trend towards smaller
*offspring than the parents, the increased possibility that a flaw
will
*be "fixed", as well as the predictable reproduction of *type* and
**color* desired.
OK Mikey - I concede I misused the expression many.
Far be it from me to speak for any alpaca breeder but me, but.... to
me hybrid vigor is highly desireable. However, if you think about the
true function of an alpaca as a fiber bearing (and commercially
viable) livestock animal then consistency, predictibility, and
reliability of color, fleece characteristics and yield are very
important. I do not have enough knowledge to attempt linebreeding but
I certainly do hope that some people are.
I think it is going to be a necessary part of "migrating" alpacas from
their current exotic, novelty animal status. Most people with alpacas
(me too) currently are selling fiber to home crafters as a sideline to
breeding and selling the animals. These are sort of the "golden days"
when almost every animal is sellable at remarkably high prices.
Eventually that itty bitty market of people who want novelty animals
gets saturated and the prices of the animals will crash. The crafters
market is also pretty small and it will probably be even sooner that
you'll see alpaca fiber sitting unsold in bags at any price. Unless
the alpaca has a marketable function as a profitable fiber bearing
livestock animal with all those predictable, reliable characteristics
it won't ever cross over from exotic to livestock.
So, while I do not currently own a single animal that comes even close
to my breed objective (I like to set high goals), I know what I'm
going for. And even though I will not use linebreeding, once I do get
closer to my goal, consistency and repeatability will be what I strive
for.
Starr
Susan Gawarecki
Ranch practiced field breeding with two studs in each of their fields
for many years. They assigned the offspring to a specific sire based on
phenotype (assuming prepotency, I guess). Now it turns out this was
quite unreliable, based on DNA sampling of remaining living sires.
These are big-time lines, too, like Dr. Doolittle So there may be a
good deal more line- and in-breeding in our animals than we thought.
Susan G.
John Merrell
breeder has a goal in mind (which most don't!!). These are like to like,
and difference.
In like to like, the breeder will breed animals that share the desired
trait(s). Size, conformation, fleece, etc., in hopes of maintaining or
improving those traits.
In difference breeding, the breeder will cross animals with different
traits, e.g. small with large, in an attempt to improve or work towards the
identified goal.
Line breeding is usually, but does not have to be, like to like. IT IS THE
ONLY WAY TO LOCK IN GENOTYPIC TRAITS.
All pure breeds are the result of line breeding. This is why they breed
true - they are genotypically similar. Whether poodles, Jersey's or
Arabians. If current theories about the development of alpacas and llamas
are true, i.e. descended from wild guanaco and vicuna, then there was at
some point in ancient history a program of line breeding.
Line breeding does not cause genetic defects - it exposes them. In fact, a
healthy herd of line bred animals may well show less occurence of genetic
defects than an equivalent hybrid population. Why? The defective genome
may no longer exist in that line. There is a common misconception that
line, or inbreeding causes genetic defects. Again, line breeding does not
cause genetic defects, it exposes them.
In short lived, rapidly reproducing species, such as chinchilla, this is an
advantage to breeders. Animals/lines carrying genetic defects can be
identified in just a few generations and culled out. In camelids, with one
offspring a year, improvement in the breed is not so readily seen.
Outcrossing will produce "hybrid vigor". This is a well established fact.
What is not discussed by opponents of line breeding is the constant dilution
of genetics. People will breed to "prepotent" or desireable herdsires in
order to "acquire" those genes for their breeding "program". Several
generations later they may market animals on the baisis of their excellent
selections in herdsires. But, in each generation they have effectively lost
1/2 of the genes they so badly desired. My first generation offspring from
SuperStud has exactly 1/2 of SuperStud's genes. My second generation has
1/4, third has 1/8, fourth 1/16, etc. SuperStud's genetic attributes have
been long since lost.
Constant outcrossing guarantees that we are breeding towards the least
common denominator. If we were talking about dogs we would call them a
mutt. Some people like mutts. Mutts though are unpredictable in form,
intelligence, disposition, etc. Cross a St. Bernard with an Irish Setter
and you may end up with a long haired, shaggy, drooling mutt of low
intelligence sufffering from hip dysplasia. Now what do you do?
Line breeding will serve to concentrate those genes seen by the breeder as
desirable. It is the only way to avoid the production of "mutts" I must
agree with Starr's comments about this being necessary in a production breed
such as alpacas. I would guess that those that have working llamas feel the
same. As a pack animal, size, hip structure, strength and fiber coverage
are all important traits to breed for. Once you attain what you want, how
do you maintain it?
I think that much of the bias against line breeding is based in a
misunderstanding of basic genetic theory. It is lametable as it directly
impacts the marketablity and quality of the "livestock" that we produce.
Mainstream livestock producers find many of the breeding "programs" amongst
camelid owners to be laughable.
I've been gone awhile, but its good to see this group is still going strong.
Regards,
--
John Merrell
Gateway Farm Alpacas
www.gateway-alpacas.com
Fashioning the Future
"Michael Shealy" <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:38b26340.02010...@posting.google.com...
RSMEINER
Randy
Tirya
Thanks for your thorough and well-composed reply!
And it does prompt a secondary question - how many breeders here do
have a goal in mind, and do they have it in writing?
Regarding linebreeding and genetics, as I understand it linebreeding
makes the number of genes in the mix smaller, so the odds of two
recessive genes getting together and being expressed (as opposed to
being hidden by a dominant gene) is increased. Which is good when
you've got the traits you're looking for pairing up nicely, but bad
when two recessives getting together causes a genetic defect. Putting
it in layman's terms (it's Friday and my brain isn't caffeinated
enough yet).
You mention purebred dogs and other animals as examples of
linebreeding that breed true, unfortunately there are several examples
of genetic problems within purebreds that have been caused by
generations of linebreeding - hip dysplasia in GSDs and Labs; deafness
in Dalmatians; chronic sinus infections in Persians; lethal genes in
crossing tailless Manx to tailless Manx; etc.
You do get a lot of predictability when it comes to linebreeding.
You're pretty sure of what you're going to get. Unfortunately, the
breeders have to be willing to cull those animals who display any sort
of fault, because breeding those animals will only intensify the
occurance of those faults in the gene pool, not dilute them. Is the
North American herd large enough to be able to endure that sort of
culling? Are the breeders in North America responsible enough to
voluntarily cull those animals who aren't up to "snuff"? Or are we
running the risk of "anything for a buck" and "it's not *that* bad"
that has become the bane of several dog breeds that have to deal with
irresponsible breeding and production of animals who are not only
"faulty" but downright crippled? Those that survive long enough to
breed, anyway.
Considering the amount of argument that's currently going on about CA
and whether animals who throw CA crias should be culled or not, I'm
not sure if the NA industry is yet ready to make the sacrifices
necessary to practice linebreeding responsibly. I know they're still
trying to decide whether CA is heritable or environmental or a
combination of the two, but with all the argument that it has caused,
it doesn't make me optomistic about the reaction of the industry if
and when genetic defects surface in the herd...
I know there are numerous responsible breeders out there, and who take
breeding very seriously, but the llama folks on here have already been
talking about irresponsible "backyard" breeders, and is it going to be
long before there are alpacas who follow the trend (if they aren't
already in existence...)? Registered by virtue of having registered
parents, but downbred and linebred and inbred by people who are only
interested in the almighty dollar, not the welfare of the animal or
the species? Do we simply avoid these breeders and try to educate
newcomers to the industry to steer them away from them, as well? Is
there any other option?
I'm sorry, I'm rambling off at the fingers this morning. I'm not
meaning to be argumentative, it's just thoughts coming into my head
and I'm wondering what other folks think about them, or if I'm just
chasing my own tail on this. Part of it is prompted by the recent
discussion on one of the alpaca lists about standards, and in my
mind's eye I keep seeing the Persian cat, whose breed standard listed
"flat face" as a desirable trait, so breeders kept breeding for
flatter and flatter faces, regardless of the fact that it caused
serious health problems for the cat, and I'm worried about something
similar happening for alpacas. Which is only tangentially connected
to the issue of linebreeding, but...
Tirya
"John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Pi8Z7.1722$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
R.D.
R.D.
Anyway, Tirya, I really liked your response to John's post (I also thought
his post was informative) and I would like to just say; The Alpaca breeders
of North America should take a good look at the Llama Industry that came
before. And....don't make the same mistakes. Your industry is still farily
new and it is up to each of you as owners and breeders to learn from the
mistakes of the llama breeders and owners.
R.D. wrote in message ...
RSMEINER
I did a search on google about linebreeding. Way to much reading there also.
Lots of ideas and opinions on the subject.
Randy
Tirya
done a lot of research into the llama industry, so I'm not very up on
the history and everything. So definitely any information that you
would want to pass on as a "heads up!" would be *greatly*
appreciated!!
Tirya
"R.D." <robl...@enter.net> wrote in message news:<NomZ7.74$U13....@monger.newsread.com>...
Michael Shealy
> breeder has a goal in mind (which most don't!!). These are like to like,
> and difference.
>
> In like to like, the breeder will breed animals that share the desired
> trait(s). Size, conformation, fleece, etc., in hopes of maintaining or
> improving those traits.
>
This is done by keeping/breeding the ones that improve and not
breeding the ones that don't, right?
> In difference breeding, the breeder will cross animals with different
> traits, e.g. small with large, in an attempt to improve or work towards the
> identified goal.
>
I'm following you, so far, altho anyone breeding small to large isn't
breeding for anything in particular, with regard to size ... seems
kinda foolish to me. In this post you seem to overlook the value of
"phenotype" breeding, equating outcross breeding with breeding
"mutts", breeding having no particular object.
> Line breeding is usually, but does not have to be, like to like. IT IS THE
> ONLY WAY TO LOCK IN GENOTYPIC TRAITS.
>
I don't think this is true. Again, phenotype breeding can produce
"locked" genes, as much as I want to "lock" them. Extra toes and
such.
> All pure breeds are the result of line breeding. This is why they breed
> true - they are genotypically similar. Whether poodles, Jersey's or
> Arabians.
>
Phenotypic *standards* placed on the *breed* are the result of this
line-breeding.
Llamas are a species. Alpacas, by your standards, are a sub-species,
or breed.
You forgot to mention German Shepards and hip dysplaisia.
This doens't apply to llamas, cuz llamas are llamas, no breed standard
can disqualify them from being so. Double hummm. No standard "type"
is specified in llamas, thus leaving the opening for "hybrid vigor" to
define a "new" type, interesting. I don't believet this to be so in
alpacas, ... not sure? Lind breeding may BE a necessity in alpacas.
> .... there was at some point in ancient history a program
> of line breeding.
>
Possibly, but more likely a careful program of selective breeding was
implimented. No doubt the early originators of llama and alpaca were
herd managers, selecting desiralbe characteristics, rather than
ancestors. Surely paying more attention to form, feature, and
produce, than to genetics. So, to them "hybrid vigor" was the MOST
desirable feature. Undoubtedly done by the Quechua Indians beginning
6,000 years ago, with follow-up touches by the Incas.
> Line breeding does not cause genetic defects - it exposes
> them.
>
THIS IS THE PROBLEM. What do YOU do with these?
> In fact, a healthy herd of line bred animals may
> well show less occurence of genetic defects than
> an equivalent hybrid population.
>
AND may well not. Kinda flip the coin. It would be a lucky
situation, tho. The problem, from where I sit, again, is what to do
with the animals that don't work. The ones that have a "fixed"
defect? In South America, they eat them. Here, ....
For me, ... yes, again .. I have used line-bred studs (outside) to
cross with my girls, and my results have been very good, maximum
heterosis. BUT, for me, being concerned with llamas, I won't create
ANY line-bred animals closer than one grand, and one great-grand being
a common ancestor, thanks. Cuz, I don't want to be faced with any
retards of my own.
> Again, line breeding does not cause genetic defects,
> it exposes them.
>
Yup, ... so John, what do YOU do with them when they're exposed?
> In camelids, with one offspring a year, improvement in
> the breed is not so readily seen.
>
Well, hummm ... Yup, and with a 25 year life-span, it makes the goofs
a life-long project, too.
> Outcrossing will produce "hybrid vigor". This is a well
> established fact.
>
Another yup. Swear to orgling, John, I have a half-Peruvian female
llama that is not only gorgeous (orange & white reverse-appy butt,
white neck and forelegs), strong & stout, AND she's 49" at the
withers, huge. Do alpaca standards allow for this kind of deviation?
Something we breed for which seems great to me, larger and healthier.
We do this phenotypically, outcrossing all the while.
> What is not discussed by opponents of line breeding is
> the constant dilution of genetics.
>
Your statement dilutes the power-of-attention to phenotype. Which
can, in a more desirable way, effect the outcome of our domestication
of the species, ie, a heterozygous genotype (nature's way). The idea
that line-breeding is a necessity to maintain species integrity is a
false one.
> Constant outcrossing guarantees that we are breeding towards the
> least common denominator.
>
Not so!!! There you go again. What about attention-to-phenotype?
> If we were talking about dogs we would call them a mutt.
>
Hummm, well this llama breeder isn't just breeding "mutts", he's
breeding the biggest, healthiest, longest-legged, most colorful,
straight-backed, straight-legged, intelligent, friendliest strongest
*dogs*, which you are line-breeding a smaller, fiber-bearing, less
reproductively-sound "breed" thereof.
> Some people like mutts. Mutts though are unpredictable in form,
> intelligence, disposition, etc. Cross a St. Bernard with an Irish Setter
> and you may end up with a long haired, shaggy, drooling mutt of low
> intelligence sufffering from hip dysplasia. Now what do you do?
>
Who would do this? Again, what about attention to phenotype?
AAANNNND, hip dysplasia is occurring BECAUSE of line-breeding fixing
UNDESIRABLE genetic structure in PURE(line)-BREDs. German Shepards,
ya know? NOT because of outcrossing.
> Line breeding will serve to concentrate those genes seen by the
> breeder as desirable. It is the only way to avoid the production
> of "mutts"
>
There you go again, ... what about phenotypic selection? Line
breeding isn't the only way to attain breeding objectives, maybe this
doens't apply to alpaca breeding?
> I would guess that those that have working llamas feel the
> same.
>
NOT this "those"!!
> As a pack animal, size, hip structure, strength and
> fiber coverage are all important traits to breed for.
> Once you attain what you want, how do you maintain it?
>
By outcrossing and *phenotypic selection* for bigger and better
animals. Linebreeding tends to limit size and verility.
> I think that much of the bias against line breeding is based
> in a misunderstanding of basic genetic theory. It is lametable
> as it directly impacts the marketablity and quality of the
> "livestock" that we produce.
>
I can't speak for "much of the bias", but for me, line-breeding means
"pushing" genetics in the wrong direction. If I could eat the
mistakes "fixed" by same, it'd be fine, but the way it is, we have to
live with them. So, I'll do phenotypic selection, like the old days,
thanks.
From where I sit, I'm glad I don't have animals that are line-bred by
necessity.
> Mainstream livestock producers find many of the breeding
> "programs" amongst camelid owners to be laughable.
>
Beside the fact that "they eat their business" mistakes, ... shit,
they eat them all, what do you think "they" are laughing at? Not
enough line-breeding? Remember, we have to live with them for 25
years. I don't put mine down, cuz they're "off-type", cuz there isn't
any "off-type" with llamas. All types are accepted, esp, robust
hybrids "B^).
Warm regards,
-mikey
John Merrell
NOT HAVE A BREED STANDARD. I am of split opinion on this issue, because
alpacas are generally recognized as a species with two varieties - huacaya
and suri. To establish a breed standard for alpacas (or llamas - note the
two "l's") would be akin to establishing 1 breed standard for all members of
the canid family - there goes all the breeds of dogs.
My point is that we can have a geneticaly diverse species while having
"breeds" that breed true. I will continue with my response in-line of the
rest of the post...
"Michael Shealy" <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:38b26340.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Pi8Z7.1722$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > All breeding programs basically come down to two choices, assuming that
the
> > breeder has a goal in mind (which most don't!!). These are like to
like,
> > and difference.
> >
> Hi John, ... nice post, thanks.
>
> > In like to like, the breeder will breed animals that share the desired
> > trait(s). Size, conformation, fleece, etc., in hopes of maintaining or
> > improving those traits.
> >
> This is done by keeping/breeding the ones that improve and not
> breeding the ones that don't, right?
No, this is breeding large to large in order to get another large. The
attempt to maintain phenotype by like to like matings. Each is a roll of
the dice, as the genotype remains unkown. This is why two humans standing
over 6 foot may have a child that is only 5'4". Both parents may be
carrying short genes, and the child may get them.
>
> > In difference breeding, the breeder will cross animals with different
> > traits, e.g. small with large, in an attempt to improve or work towards
the
> > identified goal.
> >
> I'm following you, so far, altho anyone breeding small to large isn't
> breeding for anything in particular, with regard to size ... seems
> kinda foolish to me. In this post you seem to overlook the value of
> "phenotype" breeding, equating outcross breeding with breeding
> "mutts", breeding having no particular object.
No, again. The breeder may, in alpacas for instance, breed a fine though
less dense fleece to a course but very dense fleece in hopes of getting an
offspring with a dense fine fleece. This is normally described as "breeding
up", and is exactly why "pre-potent" studs are desirable. Bad bite to good
bite, straight legs to crooked legs. This is where folks try to improve, or
breed out the undesirable traits.
>
> > Line breeding is usually, but does not have to be, like to like. IT IS
THE
> > ONLY WAY TO LOCK IN GENOTYPIC TRAITS.
> >
> I don't think this is true. Again, phenotype breeding can produce
> "locked" genes, as much as I want to "lock" them. Extra toes and
> such.
Phenotype is phenotyope. It hides the recessive genes. (By the way, at
least in himans, extra digits are a dominant trait. Also, while it is
possible to bred out dominant genes, it is almost impossible to breed out
recessives - they hide. But, in humans at least, the dominant extra digits
have been pretty much bred out.)
>
> > All pure breeds are the result of line breeding. This is why they breed
> > true - they are genotypically similar. Whether poodles, Jersey's or
> > Arabians.
> >
> Phenotypic *standards* placed on the *breed* are the result of this
> line-breeding.
>
> Llamas are a species. Alpacas, by your standards, are a sub-species,
> or breed.
Lamas (note the one "L") may be seen as a species, but according to this
definition both llamas (two "l's") and alpacas are sub-species, or
varieties, or breeds, depending on your nomenclature. The fact that
llama/alpaca crosses do not breed true, e.g. they revert back to llama or
alpaca phenotype over just a few generations, suggests that they are indeed
distinct species.
>
> You forgot to mention German Shepards and hip dysplaisia.
>
I mentioned St. Bernards and hip dysplasia instead, also Irish Setters and
stupidity.
> This doens't apply to llamas, cuz llamas are llamas, no breed standard
> can disqualify them from being so. Double hummm. No standard "type"
> is specified in llamas, thus leaving the opening for "hybrid vigor" to
> define a "new" type, interesting. I don't believet this to be so in
> alpacas, ... not sure? Lind breeding may BE a necessity in alpacas.
>
As stated above, no breed standard for alpacas either. But, this begs the
question, what are you breeding for? Do you have a standard, and if so,
what is it? The currydale sheep breed was developed on the Southern Oregon
coast by a sheep rancher who wanted a breed that was adapted to weather and
topography there. It was the result of a concentrated breeding PROGRAM over
many years. Interstingly, he has since bred all of the wool off his herds
and now runs "hair" sheep. Wool prices were so low that shearing/shipping
wool was a loss, so he simply bred it away and is left with a meat animal.
How many of us camelid owners demonstrate this level of knowledge,
commitment, vision and follow through?
> > .... there was at some point in ancient history a program
> > of line breeding.
> >
> Possibly, but more likely a careful program of selective breeding was
> implimented. No doubt the early originators of llama and alpaca were
> herd managers, selecting desiralbe characteristics, rather than
> ancestors. Surely paying more attention to form, feature, and
> produce, than to genetics. So, to them "hybrid vigor" was the MOST
> desirable feature. Undoubtedly done by the Quechua Indians beginning
> 6,000 years ago, with follow-up touches by the Incas.
The "Accoyo" line of alpacas out of Peru, generally recognized as the best
herd in the world, is also a result of selective breeding. One of the
biggest criticisms of it is that it involves line breeding. The old coot
simply weighed the fleece of each male every year and only used the best 10%
for breeding purposes. His selections were based on phenotype. Since he
didn't consider pedigree the result was a program of line breeding, but the
line breeds true. (There is also a good deal of anecdotal evidence that
there are serious genetic defects in this line, partcularly CA.)
>
> > Line breeding does not cause genetic defects - it exposes
> > them.
> >
> THIS IS THE PROBLEM. What do YOU do with these?
No, the problem is that they lay dormant in outcross breeding also. One
advantage of line breeding is that it forces these defects to the surface.
What do you do with a CA cria from an outcross breeding? How do you know if
it was mom or dad? Who do you cull?
>
> > In fact, a healthy herd of line bred animals may
> > well show less occurence of genetic defects than
> > an equivalent hybrid population.
> >
> AND may well not. Kinda flip the coin. It would be a lucky
> situation, tho. The problem, from where I sit, again, is what to do
> with the animals that don't work. The ones that have a "fixed"
> defect? In South America, they eat them. Here, ....
See my previous paragraph. The genetic defect doesn't go away simply by
outcrossing. It gets hidden. And then the owners of the high priced stud
carrying that CA gene threaten suit everytime the dam's owner threatens to
expose it. In this scenario it is too easy to always blame the other
person's animal for the defect.
>
> For me, ... yes, again .. I have used line-bred studs (outside) to
> cross with my girls, and my results have been very good, maximum
> heterosis. BUT, for me, being concerned with llamas, I won't create
> ANY line-bred animals closer than one grand, and one great-grand being
> a common ancestor, thanks. Cuz, I don't want to be faced with any
> retards of my own.
Ah, but here you do express acceptance of the idea of line breeding. Grand
and great grands bring back together the original desirable genes, the ones
that have been diluted by two and three generations of outcrossing.
>
> > Again, line breeding does not cause genetic defects,
> > it exposes them.
> >
> Yup, ... so John, what do YOU do with them when they're exposed?
Cull them, and the parents that produced them. This means removing them
from the breeding pool. Possible, since you know where the genes came from.
>
> > In camelids, with one offspring a year, improvement in
> > the breed is not so readily seen.
> >
> Well, hummm ... Yup, and with a 25 year life-span, it makes the goofs
> a life-long project, too.
The outcrossed goofs are a life long problem too, unless it was a fatal
defect ending in fetal or infant death.
>
> > Outcrossing will produce "hybrid vigor". This is a well
> > established fact.
> >
> Another yup. Swear to orgling, John, I have a half-Peruvian female
> llama that is not only gorgeous (orange & white reverse-appy butt,
> white neck and forelegs), strong & stout, AND she's 49" at the
> withers, huge. Do alpaca standards allow for this kind of deviation?
> Something we breed for which seems great to me, larger and healthier.
> We do this phenotypically, outcrossing all the while.
There is no alpaca standard. If I wanted 49" alpacas I could breed for
them. I prefer a smaller animal, preferably producing a minimum of 10
pounds of blanket fleece of 22 micron or less and at least 4 inch staple
length per year. This is what I am aiming for. Also good bone structure,
straight legs, good bite, etc.
>
> > What is not discussed by opponents of line breeding is
> > the constant dilution of genetics.
> >
> Your statement dilutes the power-of-attention to phenotype. Which
> can, in a more desirable way, effect the outcome of our domestication
> of the species, ie, a heterozygous genotype (nature's way). The idea
> that line-breeding is a necessity to maintain species integrity is a
> false one.
Let us not confuse species and breeds. Some level of homozygous genotype is
a necessity for a pure breed.
>
> > Constant outcrossing guarantees that we are breeding towards the
> > least common denominator.
> >
> Not so!!! There you go again. What about attention-to-phenotype?
>
It's basic genetics, my man. Phenotype too often reflects environmental and
developmental factors. For example, I have a very small herdsire. I am
gambling this is not genotype. You see, his mother died before he was
weaned. Both parents were outstanding animals, and of average or above
average size. (Both were of Accoyo lineage too.) His size is most likely a
result of inadequate nutrition at an important developmental stage, not a
reflection of his genotype. Non-selective breeding will ALWAYS result in
the genetic mean, which is an "average" animal. Vigorous? Probably. But it
will never breed true. Breeding is an art, and as breeders we are trying to
establish a balance between vigor and repeatable desirable traits.
> > If we were talking about dogs we would call them a mutt.
> >
> Hummm, well this llama breeder isn't just breeding "mutts", he's
> breeding the biggest, healthiest, longest-legged, most colorful,
> straight-backed, straight-legged, intelligent, friendliest strongest
> *dogs*, which you are line-breeding a smaller, fiber-bearing, less
> reproductively-sound "breed" thereof.
>
We are both attempting to breed for a particular phenotype of our selected
species. We both want healthy and reproductively sound breeds. Our animals
are bred for very different purposes. Besides size, there is the issue of
pelvic structure, which effects load bearing ability. But, lets look at the
llama industry and the development of "wooly" and "suri" llamas, both of
which in all likelihood are a result of alpaca/llama crosses. The genes
have been introduced and now folks are trying to concentrate them, for
better or worse. This deabate is about how to most efficiently do that.
> > Some people like mutts. Mutts though are unpredictable in form,
> > intelligence, disposition, etc. Cross a St. Bernard with an Irish
Setter
> > and you may end up with a long haired, shaggy, drooling mutt of low
> > intelligence sufffering from hip dysplasia. Now what do you do?
> >
> Who would do this? Again, what about attention to phenotype?
> AAANNNND, hip dysplasia is occurring BECAUSE of line-breeding fixing
> UNDESIRABLE genetic structure in PURE(line)-BREDs. German Shepards,
> ya know? NOT because of outcrossing.
But the outcrossing also dilutes the genetics that define the breed (not
species). I am not condoning the prevalence of certain defects in
particular breeds. I am simply saying that when you breed a Shepard to a
Shepard you are engaged in line breeding. You simply may not be able to
trace that line back to the common ancestry. Shepards breed true because
they are homozygous in so many identifiable traits. It is unfortunate that
hip dysplasia has been brought into the breed, or more to the point, been
allowed to establish itself via the breeder's failure to cull. The same
goes for the random aggressiveness that is exhibited in a large number of
German Shepard lines that came out of the puppy mills of the 60's and 70's.
Bad breeders out to make a buck can quickly ruin a breed, and it can take
many, many generations (if ever) to recover.
Look at more modern breeds, like St.Bernards, that can be traced back to the
original members of the breed. If you study the history of some of these
breeds you will see points where concious decisions were made to outcross to
other breeds in order to create hybrid vigor and/or get by genetic
bottlenecks. I believe that the same has occured in Thoroughbreds.
>
> > Line breeding will serve to concentrate those genes seen by the
> > breeder as desirable. It is the only way to avoid the production
> > of "mutts"
> >
> There you go again, ... what about phenotypic selection? Line
> breeding isn't the only way to attain breeding objectives, maybe this
> doens't apply to alpaca breeding?
>
Phenotypic selection does not concentrate genes, it dilutes them.
Unfortunate, but true. Lets say you have a two big animals. The gene for
big is "B". So you cross them based on phenotype. Genotypically only one
is homozygous, so:
BB x Bb results in:
BB, Bb, BB, Bb
So far, so good. Now you outcross to another heterozygous "B", but it looks
good because you're basing your selection on phenotype. No you get:
BB,Bb,BB,Bb,BB,Bb,BB,Bb,BB,Bb,Bb,bb,BB,Bb,Bb,bb
Where'd those little guys come from? After all, both parents were
phenotypically BIG. Lets cull those two runts and try again:
BB, Bb, BB, Bb,BB,Bb,Bb,bb,BB, Bb, BB, Bb,BB,Bb,Bb,bb,.... There's little
critters popping up all over the place, and at unexpected times too. In
fact, one out of four is a runt. 50 % of the offspring are heterozygous.
Only 1/4 of the offspring are homozygous for the large gene. We can live
with size differences, but what if we substitue a trait like CA, or
blindness, etc. (Too be sure, such traits are not controlled by a single
gene, and therefore are much more difficult to understand. The point is to
understand how phenotypic selection hides genetic defects and dilutes the
effort to establish certain traits.)
> > I would guess that those that have working llamas feel the
> > same.
> >
> NOT this "those"!!
>
> > As a pack animal, size, hip structure, strength and
> > fiber coverage are all important traits to breed for.
> > Once you attain what you want, how do you maintain it?
> >
> By outcrossing and *phenotypic selection* for bigger and better
> animals. Linebreeding tends to limit size and verility.
>
See above. With outcrossing you are doomed to the occasional runts. If
this is a working herd, the runts become a liability. They consume feed,
space and vet services, just like the money making big critters. What will
you do with them?
> > I think that much of the bias against line breeding is based
> > in a misunderstanding of basic genetic theory. It is lametable
> > as it directly impacts the marketablity and quality of the
> > "livestock" that we produce.
> >
> I can't speak for "much of the bias", but for me, line-breeding means
> "pushing" genetics in the wrong direction. If I could eat the
> mistakes "fixed" by same, it'd be fine, but the way it is, we have to
> live with them. So, I'll do phenotypic selection, like the old days,
> thanks.
>
> From where I sit, I'm glad I don't have animals that are line-bred by
> necessity.
>
> > Mainstream livestock producers find many of the breeding
> > "programs" amongst camelid owners to be laughable.
> >
> Beside the fact that "they eat their business" mistakes, ... shit,
> they eat them all, what do you think "they" are laughing at? Not
> enough line-breeding? Remember, we have to live with them for 25
> years. I don't put mine down, cuz they're "off-type", cuz there isn't
> any "off-type" with llamas. All types are accepted, esp, robust
> hybrids "B^).
>
Traditional livestock breeders can not afford weak, genetically flawed
breeds. Its their livelihood. The fact that they can make a living off of
line bred, genetically pure breeds is pretty good evidence that line
breeding is not in itself flawed. They don't all eat their animals. My
Father-in-Law would be in the poorhouse pretty quickly if he ate all of his
dairy cows!!
In the alpaca industry there has been quite a debate about what to do about
CA. Part of the problem with CA is that it lies hidden in the gene pool,
cropping up here and there, like the runts in the above example. Will
outcrossing solve, or worsen this problem? If I had a line of alpacas that
was demonstrably free of the CA gene (or genes), then every time I
outcrossed to attain hybrid vigor I would also be risking the introduction
of this fatal genetic defect into my herd, where it could lie dormant for
many generations before being expressed, meanwhile being spred throughout my
herd's gene pool. OUCH!
Now, for the record, I am not currently engaged in line breeding. This
rather long response has simply been to stimulate the gray matter. All of
us, if we are truly breeding for an identifiable goal, need to understand
these basic principals of genetics. The current bias against line breeding
in the American camelid market makes line breeding a very poor business
practice. That said, I envision a time when line breeding will, by
necessity, become more common. This will reflect changing market pressures,
and the diverse climates within the US. Will we be ahead of, or behind, the
curve?
Susan Ravan
John Merrell wrote:
>
> Ah, a true debate! First some clarifications. The NA alpaca industry DOES
> NOT HAVE A BREED STANDARD. I am of split opinion on this issue, because
> alpacas are generally recognized as a species with two varieties - huacaya
> and suri. To establish a breed standard for alpacas (or llamas - note the
> two "l's") would be akin to establishing 1 breed standard for all members of
> the canid family - there goes all the breeds of dogs.
Not necessarily - look at breeds of dogs that come in long and short
coat varieties - Chihuahuas come to mind since I have one. The breed
standard for conformation is the same for each dog. The only difference
is the coat itself. Why can't the alpaca industry establish a
standard? After all, a standard also establishes what is not desirable.
BTW, great post!
Susan R
RSMEINER
what you were saying.
Again, nice to have you back.
Randy
<John Merrell said >
Snip
Snip
Michael Shealy
>
> Now, for the record, I am not currently engaged in line breeding.
>
From her paper written for the Llamas Magazine titled "Production of
the Genetically Superior Llama: Breeding Stock Selection, Mating
Systems and Genetic Defects", Dr. Julie L. Koenig wrote:
"... Linebreeding may appear safer (than inbreeding) because it
usually involves the mating of individuals that are less closely
related. Unfortunately, linebreeding involves the repeated use of one
or several ancestors within the family line, and therefore is just a
disguised form of inbreeding. Although the process of gene
concentration may be slower with linebreeding than with inbreeding,
the outcome is the same. Linebreeding has the same genetic effect and
therefore results in the same long term, deleterious consequences as
does inbreeding. It increases homozygousity, which increases the
incidence of genetic defects, decresses genetic variation and results
in inbreeding depression.
If you plan to linebreed or inbreed, don't be surprised by an
increase in reproductive priblems, less fit offspring and the need to
cull some fairly disasterous results. Linebrteeding and inbreeding by
themselves will create, at best , and individual identical to, but not
better than, the ancestor. Only the process of genetic selection can
create a better llama."
> This rather long response has simply been to stimulate the
> gray matter. All of us, if we are truly breeding for an
> identifiable goal, need to understand these basic principals
> of genetics. The current bias against line breeding
> in the American camelid market makes line breeding a very
> poor business practice.
>
There seems to be some difference between your understanding and Dr.
Koenig's.
For me it's not about the business practice, but about the cripples
that IT (linebreeding) *can* lay in my pasture.
> That said, I envision a time when line breeding will, by
> necessity, become more common. This will reflect changing
> market pressures, and the diverse climates within the US.
> Will we be ahead of, or behind, the curve?
>
If you are linebreeding, you'll be behind the curve, according to Dr.
Koenig.
From the same article:
"Outcrossing is the mating of individuals from genetically different
populations (populations that have been geographically isolated, and
hence reproductively isolated for some time), so by definition the
breeding pair is unrelated. Examples would be the mating of a
domestic llama with a Chilean, a Chilean to a Bolivian, or a domestic
and a Bolivian. Outcrossing has the opposite genetic effect of
inbreeding and linebreeding as it tends to increase the proportion of
genes which are heterozygous. This increase in heterozygosity tends
to increase genetic diversity, decrease the incidence of genetic
defects and frequently results in heterosis (a condition sometimes
confusingly referred to as hybrid vigor).
Heterosis is the term used to describe the extra boost in vigor,
fertility, growth rate and overall fitness that occurs in an offspring
produced by an outcrossed mating. ..."
Warm regards, and keep up the outcrossing within herd objectives. Oh
yah, keep stimulating the gray matter, too.
-mikey
Michael Shealy
> I would guess that those that have working llamas feel the
> traits to breed for.
>
Rigoberto Calle Escobar (Peruvian camelid expert) says with regard to
llama size improvement: "Since the llama breeders of the U.S.A. seem
to be interested in the llama as a beast of burden, the improvement of
this aptitude can only be achieved by introducing new sires in thier
herds since there is already excessive inbreeding."
Best regards, and keep those herd objectives in mind while bringing in
new blood (genes).
-mikey
Starr Cash
*how many breeders here do
*have a goal in mind, and do they have it in writing?
Hi Tirya - Here is my breeding goal. Like I said, I don't presently
have a single animals that meets this goal but at least I know what
I'm going for!
Venezia Dream Farm
Our goal is to breed for consistency and predictability, repeatable
results rather than an occasional superstar. More of a livestock
approach than a show champion strategy. In the future this may
include linebreeding but not now
- Solid color blanket fleece - yielding arou 8-10 lbs prime blanket
annually. Any color as long as the main blanket is solid. I happen
to like white on the face and feet.
- Fleece characteristics: between 18 & 22 micron at 4 yrs age, SD
less than 3%, CoV at 16 or less, and less than 2% over 30 micron,
staple length at least 4", good crimp formation.
- correct healthy body conformation; straight legs, level backs,
proper tail set, etc - no defects that affect functionality. However,
I will not be going for what I consider cosmetic details such as
muzzle or ear length or puffy bonnets or leg or face coverage. I
happen to prefer smallish animals provided they have the desirable
fiber density.
- Intelligence. By which I mean calm temperaments, easy to train,
good herd affinity.
- Females - easy birthers, good milkers, good moms. Easy to get
pregnant.
I haven't actually done it yet, but I am planning to create a rating
system that will "grade" each alpaca based on my goals. I don't know
if you are familiar the technique, but I'm thinking of something like
a Vendor Rating System that we used when I worked. This way I will be
best able to make breeding (or selling or buying) choices.
What I intend to do with the ones that don't fit my dream alpaca? If
they are good and healthy and fit for breeding but just don't fit my
goals I will try to sell them at competitive prices to someone whose
program they do fit. If they are not fit for breeding I will neuter
them and still try to sell them at the appropriate prices. If they
are not sellable, they will always have a safe and caring home with me
as fiber animals or pets. I will never buy or breed an animal unless
I am prepared to care for it for the length of it's life.
Now, I'm less than a year at this and I wouldn't be surprised if my
goals change as I become more informed. But, I feel like these are
sufficient to get me started.
What about you? I'd like to hear other people's goals.
Starr
Len Hennig
Michael Shealy <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:38b26340.02010...@posting.google.com...
Michael Shealy
> Where and what exactly are his stats on this "already excessive inbreeding"?
>
of unsupervised breeding (meaning brother to sister, father to
daughter, etc.) in an enclosed environment (compared to the vast herds
of llamas in Peru) + they don't have either CA or ALD in S.A. =
"excessive inbreeding" in what we call "classic/domestic" llamas. In
his opinion, granted, he's just basing it on the facts, there is
enough evidence to make this conclusion. Ask any biologist what the
implications are in this scenario. We llama owners tend to want to
look the other way on these implications, for some reason or other.
Best regards, Len,
-mikey
Len Hennig
Llama Life II, Hearst had 2 llamas in 1928 and 12 in 1931. He did sell some
along the way, but after his death, "Roland Lindeman took the entire herd of
between 30 and 40 animals to Catskill, New York". This does not sound like
a huge amount of llamas. Wonder who has the correct "facts"? Also in the
same article was the blurb about the animals at the San Francisco zoo. "In
time the Hearst herd did provide surplus that started the San Francisco
zoo's llama herd. ..... Though there was very little outbreeding, the San
Francisco Zoo herd has very few historic congenital problems, according to
curator Saul Kitchner." Now that "excessive inbreeding" would make an
interesting study in itself. I am going to try and find out if anyone has
done that.
Would you know anything about that, Michael?
Len Hennig
Michael Shealy <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:38b26340.02010...@posting.google.com...
Michael Shealy
> According to Eric Hoffman's article of 1988, published again in the latest
> Llama Life II, Hearst had 2 llamas in 1928 and 12 in 1931. He did sell some
> along the way, but after his death, "Roland Lindeman took the entire herd of
> between 30 and 40 animals to Catskill, New York". This does not sound like
> a huge amount of llamas. Wonder who has the correct "facts"?
>
Escobar says nothing about the numbers in the USA. I was just
guessing how he'd come to the conclusion, given (most of) the facts.
Did you think his facts might help yours look better?
I wasn't sure of the number WRHurst started or ended with, I even got
up to look for it (that article) and couldn't find it right away. I
knew it was more or less 200 when the Pattersons started scooping them
all up from '75 on, .... 200 is bad enough. Geez, he started with
two, huh? ... How are you questioning Escobar's statement?!!! Or did
you just read that article? I think is was also published in LLII
about three? years ago, or so ... heh, I lose track of years anymore.
> Also in the same article was the blurb about the animals at
> the San Francisco zoo. "In time the Hearst herd did provide
> surplus that started the San Francisco zoo's llama herd.
>
Still the same original gene pool, tho.
> ..... Though there was very little outbreeding, the San
> Francisco Zoo herd has very few historic congenital problems,
> according to curator Saul Kitchner." Now that "excessive
> inbreeding" would make an interesting study in itself.
>
Given the number of animals that started the North American llama herd
and how they were (not)managed, excessive inbreeding would be
unavoidable, don't you think?
> I am going to try and find out if anyone has done that.
>
OK, go for it.
> Would you know anything about that, Michael?
>
Well, not really, Len ... but thinking on human genetics and some of
the "experiments" humans have done on themselves with their
reproductive deviations, ie, "blue-bloods", and so on, inbreeding
doesn't work well. We usually frown on linebreeding in humans, too.
Left to their own instincts, in open spaces and a normal population,
llamas/guanacos would NEVER do this. They even know better,
"themselves". Eventually, some catastrophic results manifest when we
do it to them, or any species we mess with.
A friend of mine did receive a female give-away llama as a conditional
attachment to his purchase of another llama ( a clever breeder ).
Poor little thing, was quite small for her age, always had her head
kinda drooped, and at the slightest stimulus, head cocked, would back
in circles. Her father was her mother's father. So it is with
"fixing traits" by breeding closely. Oooops.
To say nothing of the "breeder's" tactic.
Warm regards,
-mikey
Len Hennig
trying to get to who had the correct facts. Eric is a writer and is not new
to research and I may very well contact him and ask where he got all this.
As for Escobar, I assumed you had taken his figures from that book you quote
. You might be confusing that number with what Roland Lindeman accumulated
and what Patterson's bought from him. I think the number was 109 over a 30
year period. (This is from Catskill Game Farm records according to Eric
Hoffman) Wonder how many Lindeman still had after this? Apparently after
this, Lindeman said, "We were the llama king. Now Mr. Patterson is the
king." So, it was definitely less than 109. I think that would at least
indicate who had the biggest herd. Then there were of course, zoos and a
scattering of other animals here and there.
Michael Shealy <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:38b26340.02010...@posting.google.com...
Len Hennig
most of his time chasing away other males and I believe, chasing away his
own male offspring. However, I don't recall him chasing away his female
offspring. I guess we have bred out that instinct in our llamas because I
would guarantee that if you left your male in with open females he would
eventually take them all on with no thought of skipping his own related
offspring.
Mike said regarding inbreeding:
RSMEINER
The dominent male would indeed chase off any other males
regardless if he sired them or not. ALL the females are his.
Period. Natural instinct would be for him to breed any and all
females he could. Most male animals could care less if they
sired them or not. This includes people. That is why you see
laws about marrying or even having sex with a close relative.
And even those laws are meaningless to some..
I'm not sure how this is handled in all cultures but I would bet on
poorly.
Randy
>"Len Hennig"
Michael Shealy
> I did see a video on Guanacos in Patagonia and the male of the harem spent
> most of his time chasing away other males and I believe, chasing away his
> own male offspring. However, I don't recall him chasing away his female
> offspring. I guess we have bred out that instinct in our llamas because I
> would guarantee that if you left your male in with open females he would
> eventually take them all on with no thought of skipping his own related
> offspring.
>
Left to their own devices, I believe they'd form up in herds, one
dominant male per herd of females. Adult males I've observed can't
stand weanlings (any sex), they make them all-squeemish tail-up-weird,
at least at first. Also, maiden females I've seen will run and run
before finally submitting to a male. This tendency plays into the
territorial setting of guanaco herd life and removal of the incestual
relationship.
In domestication (captivity) llamas/guanacos will do things they may
not ever do in a natural setting. My own feeling, as stated before,
*IN NATURE*, inbreeding is generally not done, by design. All animals
seem to know it at a genetic level, quite appropriately.
Best regards,
-mikey
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
Some breeds of dogs have several varieties of one breed, the only
difference being height (poodles, beagles) color (cocker spaniels), or
coat length (chihuahua, dachshund). Aside from those characteristics, all
other standards apply to all animals in the breed.
Unfortunately, the differences I've seen between huacaya and suri go
beyond simple fleece type - the suris I've seen are leggier and longer
nosed than the "typey" huacaya alpaca. IMHO it would be unfair to judge a
huacaya and a suri side-by-side with the same physical standards, where
the only difference is fleece type. Unless you get a nice rangy Chilean
huacaya... =D
That's just been my observation at the shows I've been to and looking ath
Alpacas magazine. If there were breed standards set, I think they'd have
to be completely separate - German Shepherd Dog vs. Chihuahua as opposed
to Long Haired Chihuahua vs. Short Haired Chihuahua.
I suppose that would mean that to my way of thinking, huacaya and suri are
analogous to different breeds, as opposed to just different varieties.
Tirya
--
| Everything you know is wrong |
| Black is white, up is down and short is long |
| And everything you thought was just so important doesn't matter... |
| TDC Inca Jeeper | AlTeam #99 | http://www.enteract.com/~tirya |
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
> "Len Hennig" <lhe...@rof.net> wrote in message news:<u3fk70j...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> According to Eric Hoffman's article of 1988, published again in the latest
>> Llama Life II, Hearst had 2 llamas in 1928 and 12 in 1931. He did sell some
>> along the way, but after his death, "Roland Lindeman took the entire herd of
>> between 30 and 40 animals to Catskill, New York". This does not sound like
>> a huge amount of llamas. Wonder who has the correct "facts"?
>>
> Thanks for this, Len.
> Escobar says nothing about the numbers in the USA.
Is this the same Escobar who said that approximately 15% of huacaya to
huacaya alpaca breedings resulted in suri offspring?
Tirya
--
| Sheep in a Jeep on a hill that's steep. |
| Oh dear! The driver sheep forgets to steer. |
| Jeep in a heap. Sheep weep. Jeep for sale -- cheap. |
| -- Nancy Shaw, "Sheep in a Jeep" |
Michael Shealy
>
> Is this the same Escobar who said that approximately 15% of huacaya to
> huacaya alpaca breedings resulted in suri offspring?
>
that came up with the 15%, he wasn't into searching thru the book and
winged it a little. He shoulda known he'd have to look it up
eventually "B^) so I did.
"From the coupling of a female Huacaya and a male Huacaya, a 2% of
Suri results; whereas the coupling of a female Suri and a male Suri
results in a 17.4% of Huacaya."
Not that good an average, either. Sorry. Hope that helps.
-mikey
Tirya
> Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com> said...
> > Not necessarily - look at breeds of dogs that come in long and short
> > coat varieties - Chihuahuas come to mind since I have one. The breed
> > standard for conformation is the same for each dog. The only difference
> > is the coat itself. Why can't the alpaca industry establish a
> > standard? After all, a standard also establishes what is not desirable.
> > BTW, great post!
> That's just been my observation at the shows I've been to and looking ath
> Alpacas magazine. If there were breed standards set, I think they'd have
> to be completely separate - German Shepherd Dog vs. Chihuahua as opposed
> to Long Haired Chihuahua vs. Short Haired Chihuahua.
>
> I suppose that would mean that to my way of thinking, huacaya and suri are
> analogous to different breeds, as opposed to just different varieties.
I know it's generally bad form to reply to your own message, but after
logging off last night, I realized I have to retract that statement.
Oops. Since you can get a huacaya from breeding suri to suri, then it
would be more like varieties of the same breed, as opposed to
different breeds of the same species. If you breed a chihuaua to a
chihuahua, you're going to get a chihuaua, not a GSD. You may get a
leggier chihuahua, or a long haired one, but it's still going to be a
chihuahua.
Tir
Susan Gawarecki
than 2 years before a younger stronger male defeats him. This tends to
decrease the incidence of sire-daughter breedings, but doesn't protect
against first cousin's breedings as much.
My male would certainly have taken daughter Rory without a moment's
consideration. That's one reason I sent her off to be boarded. Even
though she's only 9 months old, she was definately giving "I'm open!"
signals and driving him crazy.
Susan G
--
Tirya
How big of a sample herd is Escobar working with, does he say? When
was he identifying fleece types as Suri or Huacaya? Was he working
strictly with a SA herd?
I'm wondering because one of the alpaca lists talked about Suri out of
Huacaya (sometimes called Chili fleece) and of the 670+ members from
the US and Australia, I think there were 4 people who said they knew
of a Suri out of Huacaya cria, and one or two of them said that after
the baby fleece was shorn, they would have registered them as huacaya
instead, if I'm remembering right. There was also a link to a really
interesting article about Suri genetics in the Australian herd, about
misidentification in registration, and stuff like that.
I suppose one of these days camelid genetics will actually make
sense...
Tirya
John Merrell
The Alpaca Registry has a data base of over 30,000 animals. There have been
4 or less registered suri offspring from huacaya/huacaya crosses. This is
0.01%, or a 200 magnitude difference from the above cited figures. This
holds true of the Australian Registry also, though there database is less
complete due to only registering stud males.
The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an example
of a simple dominant gene. Those that argue loudest against this are suri
breeders - the same ones that want to set a standard of always breeding
suri/suri. Why? If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a
homozygous suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri! Suri alpacas and
suri fiber both carry a price premium. One might conclude that these folks
have a financial incentive to argue against the dominant gene theory.
The Australians are crossing suri huacaya with some success in producing
colored suri offspring. At this point it appears that the ratios of
phenotypic expression are consistant with the dominant gene theory (e.g. 50%
and 75% suri offspring reflecting Ss X ss and SS X ss).
Suri alpacas serve as a wonderful example of where line breeding could be
used to concentrate the suri gene. I will leave it to someone else to draw
out the diagrams.
Michael Shealy
>
> The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an example
> of a simple dominant gene.
>
"Presumably this delecateness of the Suri is due not only to it's weak
constitution, but perhaps is (due) chiefly to scarce protection that
these animals have on their loins to supprot the inclemency of the
highland environment. The back is not well covered because of the
straight fiber that hangs laterally and down, leaving the top of the
back uncovered. This could be the reason for the greater prevalence
of bronchial and pulmonary disease in Suri than in the Huacaya, which
causes high(er) mortality rates."
It might be that in/linebreeding, too.
> If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
>
Which apparently doesn't always happen.
> Suri alpacas and suri fiber both carry a price premium. One might
> conclude that these folks have a financial incentive to argue against
> the dominant gene theory.
>
There are other physical characteristics that are present in the Suri
that aren't in the Huacaya, as well, ie, body weight and fineness of
structure (as stated by Escobar). This leads one to believe that it's
a combination of genes that create the Suri alpaca.
> Suri alpacas serve as a wonderful example of where line breeding could be
> used to concentrate the suri gene.
>
Probably already has. Note the "delecateness of the Suri", ... not
heterosis (hybrid vigor) for sure ~smiles~.
Love ya,
-mikey (doesn't know anything about alpacas)
Tirya
> > If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> > suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
> >
> Which apparently doesn't always happen.
Escobar's research that you quoted gave no indication whether or not
the suris used were homozygous (SS) or heterozygous (Ss). A
homozygous suri, if fleece type is a single-gene, simple dominance
trait, will ALWAYS produce a phenotypic suri if bred to a huacaya (ss)
- All offspring will be genotypically Ss, phenotypically suri.
If you're referring to the 17% that was quoted before, a heterozygous
suri (Ss) bred to a homozygous huacaya (ss) (which, if it is simple
dominance, makes "homozygous huacaya" redundant), should produce 50%
phenotypic suri (Ss), and 50% huacaya (ss). If Escobar was using a
group of animals, there is no way to know how many of his suris were
homozygous or heterozygous, hence the 17%.
Tirya
John Merrell
> "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<yLM_7.14879$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an
example
> > of a simple dominant gene.
> >
> Just for fun, Escobar states (with no statistical back-up) that,
> "Presumably this delecateness of the Suri is due not only to it's weak
> constitution, but perhaps is (due) chiefly to scarce protection that
> these animals have on their loins to supprot the inclemency of the
> highland environment. The back is not well covered because of the
> straight fiber that hangs laterally and down, leaving the top of the
> back uncovered. This could be the reason for the greater prevalence
> of bronchial and pulmonary disease in Suri than in the Huacaya, which
> causes high(er) mortality rates."
>
> It might be that in/linebreeding, too.
>
> > If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> > suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
> >
> Which apparently doesn't always happen.
The only way to establish that the suri was homozygous would be to do enough
matings to get statisically meaningful numbers. I would guess that if a
person were to search the ARI database that it would be pretty easy to
establish some males as homozygous. The above statement might cause one to
wonder how well basic genetic theory is understood by its author.
>
John Merrell
Michael Shealy
>
> The above statement might cause one to wonder how well basic
> genetic theory is understood by its author.
>
Ah, so .... it comes down to casting aspersions, eh? Good debating
technique? You flatter me (or Escobar, not sure which). Off to the
Stock Show.
Your pal,
-mikey
John Merrell
With all due respect, lets take the quotes in their entire context, and try
not to get all in a tither about it..
> > If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> > suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
> >
> Which apparently doesn't always happen.
> > ...The above statement might cause one to wonder how well basic
> > genetic theory is understood by its author.
Genetics to to a very large extent based on the statistical analysis of the
random pairings of a fixed number of alleles.
A hypothesis is a guess made about the possible explanation for an observed
phenomenon. For any phenomenon there are an infinite number of posible
hypothesis.
A theory is a hypothesis made plausible via the scientific method.
A law is a theory made manifest by through empirical analysis of the body of
all available data.
Basic stuff.
We can not draw conclusions about genetics in general based on experiences
with a statiscally insignificant (e.g. four) animals. Some of the
conclusions reached in this thread have a very tenuous basis, as has been
pointed out by people besides myself. I would hope that when (not if) I
talk myself into an indefensible position that others would respect me
enough to tactfully point it out. I have discovered too many times that
just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true.
Susan Gawarecki
--Susan G
Tirya
> > If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> > suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
> >
> Which apparently doesn't always happen.
Escobar's research that you quoted gave no indication whether or not
the suris used were homozygous (SS) or heterozygous (Ss). A
homozygous suri, if fleece type is a single-gene, simple dominance
trait, will ALWAYS produce a phenotypic suri if bred to a huacaya (ss)
- All offspring will be genotypically Ss, phenotypically suri.
If you're referring to the 17% that was quoted before, a heterozygous
suri (Ss) bred to a homozygous huacaya (ss) (which, if it is simple
dominance, makes "homozygous huacaya" redundant), should produce 50%
phenotypic suri (Ss), and 50% huacaya (ss). If Escobar was using a
group of animals, there is no way to know how many of his suris were
homozygous or heterozygous, hence the 17%.
Tirya
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!u_n_a__c_ancel
From: tir...@yahoo.com (Tirya)
Control: cancel <24eee6c0.02011...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <24eee6c0.02011...@posting.google.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.animals.llama
Message-ID: <cancel.24eee6c0.0...@posting.google.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:11:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1010804675 209.3.144.105 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:04:35 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:04:35 CST
autocancel
Michael Shealy
>
> The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an example
> of a simple dominant gene.
>
"Presumably this delecateness of the Suri is due not only to it's weak
constitution, but perhaps is (due) chiefly to scarce protection that
these animals have on their loins to supprot the inclemency of the
highland environment. The back is not well covered because of the
straight fiber that hangs laterally and down, leaving the top of the
back uncovered. This could be the reason for the greater prevalence
of bronchial and pulmonary disease in Suri than in the Huacaya, which
causes high(er) mortality rates."
It might be that in/linebreeding, too.
> If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
>
Which apparently doesn't always happen.
> Suri alpacas and suri fiber both carry a price premium. One might
> conclude that these folks have a financial incentive to argue against
> the dominant gene theory.
>
There are other physical characteristics that are present in the Suri
that aren't in the Huacaya, as well, ie, body weight and fineness of
structure (as stated by Escobar). This leads one to believe that it's
a combination of genes that create the Suri alpaca.
> Suri alpacas serve as a wonderful example of where line breeding could be
> used to concentrate the suri gene.
>
Probably already has. Note the "delecateness of the Suri", ... not
heterosis (hybrid vigor) for sure ~smiles~.
Love ya,
-mikey (doesn't know anything about alpacas)
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!skynet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!204.71.34.15!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!u_n_a__c_ancel
From: toucht...@bwn.net (Michael Shealy)
Control: cancel <38b26340.02011...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <38b26340.02011...@posting.google.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.animals.llama
Message-ID: <cancel.38b26340.0...@posting.google.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 2
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:37:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1010804683 209.3.144.105 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:04:43 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:04:43 CST
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40511411
autocancel
Michael Shealy
>
> The above statement might cause one to wonder how well basic
> genetic theory is understood by its author.
>
Ah, so .... it comes down to casting aspersions, eh? Good debating
technique? You flatter me (or Escobar, not sure which). Off to the
Stock Show.
Your pal,
-mikey
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!204.71.34.15!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!u_n_a__c_ancel
From: toucht...@bwn.net (Michael Shealy)
Control: cancel <38b26340.02011...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <38b26340.02011...@posting.google.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.animals.llama
Message-ID: <cancel.38b26340.0...@posting.google.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:09:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1010804528 209.3.144.105 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:02:08 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:02:08 CST
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40511094
autocancel
John Merrell
> "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<yLM_7.14879$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an
example
> > of a simple dominant gene.
> >
> Just for fun, Escobar states (with no statistical back-up) that,
> "Presumably this delecateness of the Suri is due not only to it's weak
> constitution, but perhaps is (due) chiefly to scarce protection that
> these animals have on their loins to supprot the inclemency of the
> highland environment. The back is not well covered because of the
> straight fiber that hangs laterally and down, leaving the top of the
> back uncovered. This could be the reason for the greater prevalence
> of bronchial and pulmonary disease in Suri than in the Huacaya, which
> causes high(er) mortality rates."
>
> It might be that in/linebreeding, too.
>
> > If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a homozygous
> > suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri!
> >
> Which apparently doesn't always happen.
The only way to establish that the suri was homozygous would be to do enough
matings to get statisically meaningful numbers. I would guess that if a
person were to search the ARI database that it would be pretty easy to
establish some males as homozygous. The above statement might cause one to
wonder how well basic genetic theory is understood by its author.
>
John Merrell
> > Suri alpacas and suri fiber both carry a price premium. One might
> > conclude that these folks have a financial incentive to argue against
> > the dominant gene theory.
> >
> There are other physical characteristics that are present in the Suri
> that aren't in the Huacaya, as well, ie, body weight and fineness of
> structure (as stated by Escobar). This leads one to believe that it's
> a combination of genes that create the Suri alpaca.
>
> > Suri alpacas serve as a wonderful example of where line breeding could
be
> > used to concentrate the suri gene.
> >
>
> Probably already has. Note the "delecateness of the Suri", ... not
> heterosis (hybrid vigor) for sure ~smiles~.
>
> Love ya,
>
> -mikey (doesn't know anything about alpacas)
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!u_n_a__c_ancel
From: "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <Hqv%7.21324$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <Hqv%7.21324$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.animals.llama
Message-ID: <cancel.Hqv%7.21324$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:48:42 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1010804603 209.3.144.105 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:03:23 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:03:23 CST
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40511273
autocancel
John Merrell
The Alpaca Registry has a data base of over 30,000 animals. There have been
4 or less registered suri offspring from huacaya/huacaya crosses. This is
0.01%, or a 200 magnitude difference from the above cited figures. This
holds true of the Australian Registry also, though there database is less
complete due to only registering stud males.
The eveidence strongly supports the theory that suri phnotype is an example
of a simple dominant gene. Those that argue loudest against this are suri
breeders - the same ones that want to set a standard of always breeding
suri/suri. Why? If the dominant gene theory is correct, then crossing a
homozygous suri with a hucaya will ALWAYS produce a suri! Suri alpacas and
suri fiber both carry a price premium. One might conclude that these folks
have a financial incentive to argue against the dominant gene theory.
The Australians are crossing suri huacaya with some success in producing
colored suri offspring. At this point it appears that the ratios of
phenotypic expression are consistant with the dominant gene theory (e.g. 50%
and 75% suri offspring reflecting Ss X ss and SS X ss).
Suri alpacas serve as a wonderful example of where line breeding could be
used to concentrate the suri gene. I will leave it to someone else to draw
out the diagrams.
--
John Merrell
Gateway Farm Alpacas
www.gateway-alpacas.com
Fashioning the Future
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!skynet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!204.71.34.15!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!u_n_a__c_ancel
From: "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <yLM_7.14879$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <yLM_7.14879$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.animals.llama
Message-ID: <cancel.yLM_7.14879$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:46:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1010805148 209.3.144.105 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:12:28 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:12:28 CST
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40512790
autocancel
Michael Shealy
> Basic stuff.
>
Right, .. thanks for the basic rundown on hypothesis, theory, and the
scientific menthod.
> We can not draw conclusions about genetics in general based on
> experiences with a statiscally insignificant (e.g. four) animals.
>
experiencially so.
> Some of the conclusions reached in this thread have a very tenuous
> basis, as has been pointed out by people besides myself. I would
> hope that when (not if) I talk myself into an indefensible position
> that others would respect me enough to tactfully point it out.
>
Dear John, ... until you bury a few, theory is interesting and playing
with "perfecting" genetic value in a herd of animals is all very
interesting and amusing. After the burials, things are different.
Haven't you found that to be true?
Best regards,
-mikey
"It is amazing how care-free you are when you don't care about
anything!" --Annalee Rose
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
>> We can not draw conclusions about genetics in general based on
>> experiences with a statiscally insignificant (e.g. four) animals.
>>
> They may be statistically insignificant, but they aren't
> experiencially so.
But your experience does not prove anything, either genetically or
scientifically. Maybe you just got a bum llama. It's your *opinion* that
he was linebred, and that's why he threw flaws in his offspring, but
opinions aren't science. To qualify as science, it needs to repeat under
qualified study.
Tirya
--
| There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through |
| a suitable application of high explosives. |
John Merrell
news:<uiQ%7.24467$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> with "perfecting" genetic value in a herd of animals is all very
> interesting and amusing. After the burials, things are different.
> Haven't you found that to be true?
I've buried a few. Always difficult. I can trace my animals back at least
4 healthy generations. No linebreeding in that span, which fits your
grand/great grand criteria. Is failure to thrive syndrome hereditary? Ever
watched a cria slowly die and be able to do nothing to stop it?
Guilt and emotions do not make for an effective debate tactic.
Michael Shealy
> "Michael Shealy" <toucht...@bwn.net> wrote in message
> news:38b26340.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Merrell" <johnwm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<uiQ%7.24467$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Dear John, ... until you bury a few, theory is interesting and playing
> > with "perfecting" genetic value in a herd of animals is all very
> > interesting and amusing. After the burials, things are different.
> > Haven't you found that to be true?
>
> I've buried a few. Always difficult. I can trace my animals back at least
> 4 healthy generations. No linebreeding in that span, which fits your
> grand/great grand criteria.
>
chance of in/linebreeding either.
>Is failure to thrive syndrome hereditary?
>
"There is no evidence that this (FTTS)is a hereditary defect, but
contrarily, there is no evidence that it is not, .." --Murray Fowler,
DVM
Damned if I know! Do you? Have you had FTTS at your place?
> Ever watched a cria slowly die and be able to do nothing to stop it?
>
Not a cria, but several adults.
> Guilt and emotions do not make for an effective debate tactic.
>
I'm out of this debate, my friend. For me, it all comes down to the
value of one life. There are no dispensible llamas (or future crias)
at our place, whatever the reason.
Warm regards,
-mikey
Michael Shealy
> I thought it interesting in that issue the discussion of the Patterson
> Ranch practiced field breeding with two studs in each of their fields
> for many years. They assigned the offspring to a specific sire based on
> phenotype (assuming prepotency, I guess). Now it turns out this was
> quite unreliable, based on DNA sampling of remaining living sires.
> These are big-time lines, too, like Dr. Doolittle
>
They didn't know but one of his parents, Fluffy, so who knows?
The one that comes to mind tho, is Lopez, (a very wooly dark brown
bay). He was supposedly sired by Zorro (med/wooled all black w/a
little white on forehead), who was pastured together with Chief
Sitting Bull (another medium wooled by today's standards, white
w/black saddle and back of neck). They went for the color
determination (huh?), seems silly now, but ...
> So there may be a good deal more line- and in-breeding in our animals
> than we thought.
>
This is true, no doubt.
Funny tho, while I was typeing the above about Lopez's parents and he,
there didn't seem to be a "prepotency" in terms of sires, at least,
ie, heterozygous parents. Lopez was one of the outstanding llamas of
his day, truly a cut "above" his sire, like in "hybrid vigor". Just a
thought, and I started typing. "B^)
-mikey