# Line-breeding and in-breeding thoughts & reasons



## MyLittlePonies (Mar 15, 2011)

I don't like in-breeding, but line-breeding is a delicate thing. I believe that only professionals who know what they are doing should be line-breeding because you have to decide what quality you are trying to preserve, why you want to preserve, how you can successfully preserve that quality, and which horses will be the best cross that will not only keep the quality but add more to the resulting foal. I've seen several line-bred horses come out well in the show pen and breeding shed. It's about knowing what you want and sticking to it. It's not for every breeder.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Linebreeding and inbreeding are common and useful practices in breeding animals.
If you want to ensure the offspring inherit the good qualities of the dam and sire the best way to get the results you desire is inbreeding.
I own several mares that are the result of their dams being bred back to their own sires. These mares are correct and most importantly pass on the qualities I desire in their offspring.
I purchased the half sister to my stallion solely becuase of the foals the two have produced. She is the only mare I purchased to cross with my stallion who by the way is related to everyone of my mares either through Bask or The Minstrel.
All pure bred animals are inbred. It is used to set type .
The closer related a stallion is to the mare the more careful one must be when choosing to breed. Shalom


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

Its used to "lock in" a highly desirable trait or set of traits. It should only be done by someone who knows what they are doing and are extremely familiar with the lines they are working with. It can result in an outstanding horse/animal that can then be outcrossed to another line for the next generation, or produce a horrible mess. It is a sure way to bring out any hidden recessives if there are any lurking in the lines and can emphasize any weaknesses just as easily as any strengths.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Ok, inbreeding, taboo in the human race because of the possibility of less desirable traits being thrown, and the severe possibility of doubling down on genetic disorders. Our ancient ancestors worked this out quite quickly I think. My husband came from one of a group of small islands off of the North of Scotland, and raids to find new women have been going on forever. At the same time there is an upside, you can magnify any good traits, you have a chance of improving the desirable. In the human world we are against such experimentation, because the poor folk who are born carrying the negative traits are too big a price to pay for the chance of positives. Besides there is no breed standard for people.

For the animal world though, it is how new breeds start, you have one desirable animal with the traits you want, then you start inbreeding with close relatives who have those traits, and once you have offspring, then you can breed them back to the parents. Lets stay with the cattle world, in that case the ones that carry the right traits will be bred, the failures either die, or we let them grow then eat them! It is not a venture for the faint of heart, or those without a depth of knowledge of what they are trying to achieve, the risks involved, and the possible costs, emotional, financial, and on the health of the animals. It is a high risk game for all involved.

Line breeding is far more wide spread, but again should be approached with a little caution, and a whole bunch of knowledge. My beautiful Arab, has Bask and Serafix many many times in her pedigree, no inbreeding, but line bred so she has many common ancestors. They certainly produced a mare of great beauty, and she has no health issues, so either she is lucky, or people have cared enough to do their homework and make sure that they made good choices.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Linebreeding and inbreeding are common and useful practices in breeding animals.
> If you want to ensure the offspring inherit the good qualities of the dam and sire the best way to get the results you desire is inbreeding.
> I own several mares that are the result of their dams being bred back to their own sires. These mares are correct and most importantly pass on the qualities I desire in their offspring.
> I purchased the half sister to my stallion solely becuase of the foals the two have produced. She is the only mare I purchased to cross with my stallion who by the way is related to everyone of my mares either through Bask or The Minstrel.
> ...


No, all pure bred animals ARE NOT inbred, they may be line bred, but they are not inbred.

Your chances of having a physically and/or mentally deformed offspring as a result of breeding within 2 or 3 generations is substantially higher when inbreeding. As opposed to breeding for desired traits to present in another 4+ generations removed. This is a scientifically proven and published fact, not something made up.

Yes, if you breed a dam to her sire, you MIGHT get what you want. But you are more likely to get a foal that is of no use to anyone. That's fairly irresponsible in my book, especially considering the amount of poor quality horses there are now as a result of poor breeding practices....


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

busysmurf said:


> No, all pure bred animals ARE NOT inbred, they may be line bred, but they are not inbred.


To be 100% fair they probably WERE inbred in the first generation or two, when there is a huge failure rate, while people try and develop a new breed. As time goes on and the gene pool increases then a wider breeding pool is used. It's kind of like saying that humans are inbred because we all descend from Adam and Eve, who if I remember only had two sons. Well anyway, you get the idea, we are either descended from monkeys, or we are inbred:wink:


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

I am not a breeding guru. At all. 

But I am extremely turned off by a horse that has the same name several times in its pedigree. If I am looking to buy a horse, I will often cross that horse out of my list of potentials. Call me uneducated, but it doesn't seem right to me for breeding close relations. 

This thought has always striked me as interesting. What if Tina Charles and Michael Jordan got together to produce the ultimate basketball champion? And then that daughter got with her dad, and then their son got with their mom, to produce more? Disgusting right? But its okay when we do it with horses..... Just food for thought.


----------



## MsLady (Apr 18, 2013)

I have a 4 month old colt that is the result of daughter being bred to her father (I didn't do it, I got her 1 month before she foaled). Everyone says this could be an OK thing or a bad thing. 

So far the colt seems smart, what do look for in "in breeding" as opposed to line breeding? Does that make sense?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

All purebred animals are very closely related they have to be to have the same traits.
All morgans descended from 1 horse all TBs from 3 arabian stallions, Haflinger are all related to one horse etc.
I want a animal that is line or inbred for breeding purposes. It is the most sure way of getting the traits you want.
now I would never breed full siblings or like a certain reserve halter world champion have every single line but one going to Impressive.
if I breed a filly to her sire I wont breed her foal to its half sibling. I want some outcross in the equation to have some different genetics to work with.
As far as humans all Jews are related to one mans twelve sons who married each others sisters and daughters.
Abraham married his sister, their son married his mothers niece, their son married two of his mothers nieces.
Moses's father married his own aunt.
These were people chosen by G-D. Shalom


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Side Bar.....So where and how did the human race start from the Jewish perspective DB? As in do you believe in the Adam and Eve story, which makes us all descendants of two people?


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Every time you do NOT outcross you reduce the amount of genetic material. Cheetahs have such a low gene pool that zoos are the only way to breed and maintain any wild numbers now. They almost became extinct and might still go under.
My other argument against inbreeding and line breeding is "Impressive." There is a genetic abnormality found in QH's with Impressive (the stallion) blood, and people who buy horses bred from an Impressive line get them tested. Many are NOT able to perform in a sport.
This happened bc of inbreeding and line breeding. 
In fact, IMHO QH's as a whole are a great breed bc there are so many different breed lines that run through it.
If you read the book, "Secretariat", the author takes a chapter to run through his ancestry. Even 40 years ago some TB breeders realized that the massive amount of inbreeding and line breeding in the TB studbooks had created physical problems. Secretariat is fairly outcrossed, at least as much as possible, with ancestors from Ireland, England and the U.S.
Just some food for thought.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> All purebred animals are very closely related they have to be to have the same traits.
> All morgans descended from 1 horse all TBs from 3 arabian stallions, Haflinger are all related to one horse etc.



I will have to check my haffy history, but actually no not all purebred animals are closely related, was the arab breed created by a person, or was it developed from the type of horse that lived in that part of the world? The Morgan yes, Arab? Well I wonder, unless we believe in the Story of Noah, and then all horses are descended from an original pair.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

There is an old saying which is little used nowadays,

BREED CLOSE CULL HARD.


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

Foxhunter most don't have the heart to Cull hard these days. Twenty years ago you never saw dilute aussies, the result of breeding a merle to a merle dog, often resulting in deaf or blind puppies. It was done twenty years ago, but no one wanted to admit that they had produced a deaf/blind puppy and kill those ones off. Now its really common and a "fashion" it seems in some circles to own/train a deaf/blind dog. 

I think while inbreeding is done in many cases to "start" a breed there is no real need for it with established breeds. As others have said, it doubles up on good but it also doubles up on bad genes. Sometimes it leaves only the skeletons in the closet for which to make a body. Some one else mentioned the cheetah and I will mention the banana. Banana's are incredibly inbred, they are basically clones of one another. Which means that if we get a banana blight (not entirely uncommon/unlikely) it will easily destroy the worlds population of bananas. That would be bad for a lot of people, who make a living growing, or selling bananas. So agricultural scientists are actually working on "genetically modifying" the banana in an attempt to increase its genetic variability and prevent a banana crash. 

Horses are not that different and with so many unsuitable horses being bred and so many horses being created I don't see a need for it. I know members (who I respect in many matters) are very pro inbreeding/line breeding. I am just not for it because I think its hard to find a horse out there that compliments your horse; however, its possible. We have at our finger tips basically the entire equestrian world (via the internet) with hundreds of people advertising their stallion or mare. Which means you can probably find a horse that compliments your horse. It might take longer and be more expensive than using a sibling but I think the end product would be a better for the breed/species as a whole.


----------



## dressagebelle (May 13, 2009)

I personally am very careful about a horse's ancestors when I am looking at breeding. I don't mind 5 or 6 generations back having a couple of common ancestors, but close line breeding, or in breeding, definitely not. I had a thoroughbred, bred for racing, with almost no line breeding in her closer relatives. Once you got back to the 1800's you started to see repeat names, but she was fairly out crossed, and a very nice example of a racing thoroughbred. My Arabian mare I had was the same way, she had three names, each only repeated twice in the fifth generation, but most of her lines were all different names, and again, a very nice example of the Arab breed. That being said, I do see a point in further generations back of having some common names, because they do set a type, and especially if the breed has gone off in an unforseen direction, sometimes recrossing to something you know can bring it back. I know someone who had an Arabian, decided to breed her to one of the stallions from the farm where she was originally bred, and somehow when the breeder sent them the semen for ai, they sent the wrong stallion, and she ended up getting bred back to her dad. They had no idea until the baby was born with several different problems, and a color he shouldn't have been if his sire was the horse they asked for. He has basically spent his life as an expensive pasture pet, and the owner opted to not breed her mare to the right stallion. There are risks associated with line and in breeding, and I agree that unless you really know what you are doing, have done extensive research on those lines, and on any potential problems that have arisen, you should stick with not doing it.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

I see no difference in line and inbreeding, though most people seem to see inbreeding as a no no and line breeding as okay. Line breeding is still inbreeding, especially if the sire and dam are within three or four generations. In/line breeding animals has the same genetic consequences it can have in people, and it bumps the chances of genetic issues quite a bit. (We had a while unit on this in my Genetics class last semester but focused on the line breeding of sled dogs). It's not as taboo with animals as with people but the problems are the same.

I would not buy a horse that was 'line bred' or inbred if I could help it. Horse might be dandy now but who knows what might pop up down the line. (I feel like my opinion is unpopular here, but the thread DID ask for opinions). 

And yes, the first bunch of generations of any breed (especially a 'pure' breed) can be pretty heavily inbred - That's why inbreeding can cause issues, it multiplies the chances of the issues that stemmed from that showing up again.

EDIT: Dressagebelle, you said it beautifully. I agree with almost everything you said.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

The joys of line/in-line breeding are as timeless as the history of humans breeding livestock. Not just horses, but all domestic animals. In relative recent history it's been used to bring back breeds that were on the brink of extinction. In the equine world I'll use the Friesian as an example. By the end of WW II the gene pool for the breed was almost gone. The remaining "pure" Friesian blood was used with obvious in-line breeding along with a certain amount of selected cross breeding of horses that had a high % of Friesian blood, but were not "pure". All of these off spring were eventually in-line bred to some degree (grandfathers, great aunts, cousins, etc.....) in the effort to bring back the breed while creating a greater number of breeding stock.
That's the up side of it. Salvaging in hopes of not losing.
There can be a down side (I'll stay with the Friesians just because the KFPS was kind enough to give me a great example of both sides of the coin).
The concept can become so entrenched that common sense (and healthier breeding practices) can be sacrificed in the interest of "purity".
The Dutch registry restricted stallions approved for breeding from being used in cross breeding. If the were used to cross breed they were removed from the "approved for breeding" stud book and were no longer acceptable for breeding with approved mares.
Now the German registry was a bit more "enlightened". The broke with the Dutch registry and openly allowed approved stallions to be used in cross breeding. Now in case you're wondering why any of this matters....over time it can (depending on what's allowed). If stallion A1 is bread to non or part Friesian mare 2Z and they have a filly: cross A1/2Z who is bred to Friesian stallion G5 producing a filly G5/A1/2Z, who is then bred to Stallion B3 (and so on). Eventually (sooner than you might think) you end up with a horse that is 95% or better pure Frisian, but with good, clean, non line/in-line blood. Multiply this by 100 and you can see how a breed can quickly be saved AND brought back with healthy diversity in the blood lines.
Line/in-line breeding has it's uses and it's place. It's value, however unpopular it might be with some people, is undeniable. Without it many of the breeds we have today (that now have strong and diverse blood lines) would not exist. The problem is when registries lose sight on reality and cling to the tiny fraction of "old" blood without realizing the value and need for the influx of unrelated blood to keep the breed strong and growing toward what should be the ultimate goal of have a breed with a broad diversity of "pure", but extremely distantly related blood available for continuing the breed.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

beau159 said:


> I am not a breeding guru. At all.
> 
> But I am extremely turned off by a horse that has the same name several times in its pedigree. If I am looking to buy a horse, I will often cross that horse out of my list of potentials. Call me uneducated, but it doesn't seem right to me for breeding close relations.
> 
> This thought has always striked me as interesting. What if Tina Charles and Michael Jordan got together to produce the ultimate basketball champion? And then that daughter got with her dad, and then their son got with their mom, to produce more? Disgusting right? But its okay when we do it with horses..... Just food for thought.


I'm not "pick on" your post, it just demonstrates my point well Beau...

It really is the human mind that gets in the way when people think of line breeding. The only reason its wrong is because society says so. It's really not an apples to apples view. Just like you cannot compare breeding an older stallion to a younger mare because its taboo for women to date/marry much older men. Horses have no concept of sexual morals.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CessBee (Dec 6, 2008)

Corporal said:


> Every time you do NOT outcross you reduce the amount of genetic material. Cheetahs have such a low gene pool that zoos are the only way to breed and maintain any wild numbers now. They almost became extinct and might still go under.


Surprisingly enough the Cheetah is not suffering from inbreeding depression, as much as would be predicted from common understanding.

There is even a degree of selection for inbreeding observed in the wild. 
A study on birds was done and it showed a female preference for cousins over an unrelated individual.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

SlideStop said:


> I'm not "pick on" your post, it just demonstrates my point well Beau...
> 
> It really is the human mind that gets in the way when people think of line breeding.* The only reason its wrong is because society says so. *It's really not an apples to apples view. Just like you cannot compare breeding an older stallion to a younger mare because its taboo for women to date/marry much older men. Horses have no concept of sexual morals.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And there's a good reason for that. It's NOT without fault. Genetic problems arise from line/inbreeding in both people AND animals. Yes you can double the good traits, bring them out in a breed - and you can also bring out the bad traits that are line-specific.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Shoebox said:


> And there's a good reason for that. It's NOT without fault. Genetic problems arise from line/inbreeding in both people AND animals. Yes you can double the good traits, bring them out in a breed - and you can also bring out the bad traits that are line-specific.


Oh yes, with out a doubt it can absolutely bring out the worst of the worst. The taboo to not inbreed has been around for a long time. It wasn't worth it to risk the possibility of some type of deformity. Now with genetic testing you have a good idea about what will get when parent reproduce. Genetic counseling is quite common now. Now let's say you had a super smart family. They took the egg of a super smart granddaughter and the sperm of a super smart grandfather who have no genetic shortcomings when paired. Still wrong?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

SlideStop said:


> Oh yes, with out a doubt it can absolutely bring out the worst of the worst. The taboo to not inbreed has been around for a long time. It wasn't worth it to risk the possibility of some type of deformity. Now with genetic testing you have a good idea about what will get when parent reproduce. Genetic counseling is quite common now. Now let's say you had a super smart family. They took the egg of a super smart granddaughter and the sperm of a super smart grandfather who have no genetic shortcomings when paired. Still wrong?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh good I'm glad we're on the same page here! If that was the case, then the part of me that thinks inbreeding is wrong would say no, it's just dandy. The part of me that is a bit revolted by the thought just because it's been beaten into me that it's disgusting (society again, haha) would remain unchanged... But you don't KNOW that that would create no genetic shortcomings. 

There are genetic tests, but you just can't test for everything. There could be something in the bloodline that nobody knows about but it comes up with a six-legged foal, and because nobody knew to test for it, it wasn't tested for - and it's only in that bloodline, so were they outcrossed it wouldn't be a problem. You can choose what to test for, but there could be any number of issues that could crop up just because nobody thought it would be a possibility, but when you breed two close family BAM, there it is - two genes crossed very badly and there's no way to to tell if that's going to happen. I realize that this is a problem with ANY breeding, but linebreeding multiplies this by SO much that it's just not responsible in my eyes.

IF there was a way to say 100% that there would be NO genetic problems directly stemming from line/inbreeding two horses, I wouldn't really have an issue with it. As another user posted a bit back, there's healthier ways to bring back a breed than risking inbreeding. 

I'm having a really hard time trying to explain what I'm trying to say. When we covered this in my Genetics class he showed us a video about line breeding and the unavoidable (and often unforseeable) problems it can cause - even just little things, like a weak heart or whatever that you don't even notice but will shorten the life span. I'll see if I can find it - it really was interesting and good food for thought.

EDIT: You can't test for problems that aren't already known to come from a certain line. That's a better way of explaining it. You can make sure known inbreeding problems don't occur, but you can't 'test' for issues that haven't come out yet - but could and will from a certain close family cross.


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

I had a mare, i sold, she was so Line bred.. that she was In bred. The family tree only had a few branches.. back to 8 generations.. Did not know this when I got the mare, found out After I had her registered , Cost a fortune at age 4. Line bred to the point she could be considered In bred. BAD THING.. She was pretty.. BUT stupid..


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I did not read all of the posts, so forgive me if I am being redundant. 

There is an old saying that "If the results are good, we call it line-breeding".
"If the results are not good, we call it in-breeding".

Two of the most successful early-day breeding programs in AQHA history were the King Ranch program that started with the stallion, Old Sorrel. Wimpy, an outstanding in-bred double grandson of Old Sorrel was given the prestigious AQHA registration number P-1. His sire and his dam were both sired by Old Sorrel. Hickory Bill, the sire of Old Sorrel, was the the great grandsire of Wimpy 3 times. Three of his 4 great grandsires was Hickory Bill.

The other famous in-breeding program was Hank Weisecamp's program. He in-bed the Shoemaker horses with much of it centered around Skipper W.

Many people do not know the extent of the culling that comes with any strong in-breeding program. There were years on the King Ranch that only a handful of foals were registered and the others were either shipped across the border to be used and ridden in Mexico or were destroyed. Back in the 50s, there were many very unseemly stories that came out of south Texas about how few horses were 'saved' and used for breeding.

I personally knew Hank Weiscamp. I also know that most of the time during the 60s, he had over 200 mares. I've heard people that knew him much better than I did that said he bred over 300 mares most years back then. You could drive through the San Luis Valley for many miles around Alamosa and see pasture after pasture with a stud and 15 or 20 mares in it. The mares all looked like peas in a pod. Yet, there were some years that Hank only registered 30 or 35 foals. He seldom registered horses until they were yearlings so he could decide which ones to register. The others were sold without papers or any acknowledgement of how they were bred. If you went to see his horses, he would show you only a few and usually would not tell you what horse was running with a set of mares. He owned an auction barn in Alamosa and would run a lot of colts through it in the fall when he took them off the mares. The better ones would be kept until spring, but most of those still did not get registered. 

I have all of the old AQHA Stud Books and during the long Colorado winters, you can get desperate for something to do. One winter I went through several of these Stud Books page by page. Some years I found as few as 30 foals registered. When someone culls 75% to 90% of their foal crop, they are intent on setting a type and getting as close to 100% consistency as is possible. 

One of the problems come when you find out that you have also 'set' bad traits. Thus, when you see line-bred Weisecamp horses, you find a lost of Mon-orchids and crypt-orchids. You also see a lot of tiny feet and very shallow feet that do not stand up to hard riding, especially in the rocks. The cowboys were I lived used to say the Skipper Ws are what made them like the Hancocks. If they did not buck you off in the morning, you at least had a horse that was still going to be sound late that night and could go in the rocks day after day for 20 years. We used to say that you'd have to cut its head off and hide it to hurt one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the in-bred Crabbet Arabians that perpetuated the SIDS lethal gene in Arabs?


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

I think Cherie makes some great points. I will also say that I think when you start inbreeding for a set trait you can loose sight of other traits. As an example, you say we want to breed for a certain ear set. So you have two horses that are related that have great ears but one is really nasty and difficult to handle. You breed that horse because it has great ears. You end up with a foal that has great ears and a bad temperament, you then breed that horse to another one with bad temperament or bad feet, but great ears. Soon you have horses with great ears but are really hard to handle and are unsound at age 9 and there is a very limited market for that kind of horse. I think thats a danger of inbreeding you can hyperfocus on one thing to detriment of others.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Golden Horse the first five books of the Hebrew bible are a history of the Jewish people. I do not know if we are all related to Aiden and Eva. I know that I am.
To answer your question about arabs being created by man. They were indeed. Arabs believed in breeding pure strains of the arab only . there are only 5 strains. They did little outcrossing so the breed has been inbred heavily for thousands of years.
The Kiger mustangs were only discovered in the 1970's and only 27 individuals were known. They were released back into two herd management areas 20 in one and 7 in the other. Today thousands of horses are descended from those 27 with apparently no known genetic flaws.
Henry Babson imported 6 horses into the US. a stallion and 5 mares. Babson bred arabians all descend from those 6 horses and there are straight babson bred breeding programs going strong and those horses are highly sought after for outcrossing to other lines.
To me that is too much inbreeding and after the first 2 or 3 generations an outcross needed to me introduced
Spainish bred arabs are known to be heavily inbred as no importations were allowed for decades.
I will not purchase a stallion that is not related to my mares in some way and I want the mares to be linebred to ensure those good traits i desire he pass on are set.
How do you think the different breeds of dogs all developed yet are genetically the same? Cattle and all other livestock were developed regionally from small gene pools/
That is why they are uniform in size and color.
Inbreeding works well when you have two very correct individuals.
Two crooked legged hammer headed horses would produce the same, just as two champion halter horses would. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

OOPS the above post should say after the second or third generation and outcross needed to BE introduced . Not ME introduced. That is a deadly sin and will get you arrested. LOL Shalom


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I find this all very interesting. I do know that with father to daughter or mother to son breeding the first generation are usually fine but, it is the offspring from the second generation that often goes wrong. 

Getting away from horses, there is a family locally that married 'close' first cousin to first cousin twice. The result from the one part of the family I knew would prove that line breeding in humans was not a good thing!
Two sons were certifiable with mental disorders and one of the two daughters exceedingly 'slow' with learning disabilities.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

There is one huge difference between the Kiger Mustangs and other examples. While people that in-bred heavily culled for what they wanted, the mustangs were culled by nature. So if there were any with crooked legs, bad feet or any other physical characteristic, by NATURAL SELECTION, they became bear bait and buzzard bait. If they could not make it 20 miles from feed to water on a dry year, they did not make it at all. 

When you look at large numbers of mustangs several characteristics strike you right away. They consistently are small, have big feet and short pasterns, are narrow, light muscled, have scrawny butts, steep croups with very low-set tails and are frequently slightly cow-hocked. You see a lot of plain heads and ewe necks but I am not sure they play into the 'survival of the fittest' theme that runs through the least 'managed' units. I am sure that the common characteristics you see are all there by 'natural selection'.

They have been greatly modified over the years. They had a huge infusion of TB blood in the late 40s and 50s with the addition of many remount stallions from the disbanded Cavalry. Many Indian Tribes turned out these studs, too. Many western ranches also lost or turned out stock in the winter and could not re-catch a number of these ranch horses in the spring. 

I know of one bucking stock contractor that turned out half draft bucking studs so try to raise cheap bucking stock that could be caught later. One of those stallions was turned out on the Red Desert in Wyoming and other in Northern Colorado. I am not sure if they ever got to gather any of the results as shortly after that, the Federal mustangs laws went into effect.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Foxhunter said:


> I find this all very interesting. I do know that with father to daughter or mother to son breeding the first generation are usually fine but, it is the offspring from the second generation that often goes wrong.
> 
> Getting away from horses, there is a family locally that married 'close' first cousin to first cousin twice. The result from the one part of the family I knew would prove that line breeding in humans was not a good thing!
> Two sons were certifiable with mental disorders and one of the two daughters exceedingly 'slow' with learning disabilities.


Humans don't stringently "cull" so therein lies the problem. The odds that people aren't bright enough to know not to breed with their close kin would certainly support inbreeding daftness..LOL
The odds that educated, superiorly intelligent kin with no genetic defects would inbreed is pretty slim I think..


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

In-breeding and line-breeding DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CAUSE DEFECTS IN THE OFFSPRING! Genetic defects that are ALREADY IN THE GENE POOL may become more apparent, but the defects are not caused by the manner of crossing. 

Say a mare has a recessive gene for "bunkylegitis". Now, she has the recessive form, and only one copy. So she has perfectly fine legs. She is bred to a stallion who has no copy of bunkylegitis, so she has a 50% chance of passing down this gene to her offspring - who, incidently, won't express it as it is recessive. So let's continue the theoretical - say she has two colts, one of whom inherits bunkylegitis, and one that doesn't. Remember, they are not expressing it, but one of them has the recessive gene for it. Now, let's say we bred both of them back to their dam. Colt A has no copy of the recessive gene, so there is a 50% chance that the offspring get the gene from their dam, but, as it is recessive, it isn't going to impact them at all. Colt B has received a copy of the gene, but has no effects as he only has one copy of it. However, when bred to his dam, their offspring has a 25% chance to inherit two copies of the bunkylegitis gene, and when you have two copies of a recessive gene, it expresses. All of a sudden, we have a foal with legs so wonky it can't walk straight, fails sobriety tests its whole life, and generally looks bad for the family line. This isn't caused by the in-breeding - it is highlighted by it.

The point I am making is that a responsible breeder would do many things with this situation. First of all, if there was any known cases of bunkylegitis in the horse's pedigree, a responsible breeder would select outcrosses very carefully in order to ensure no second copy of bunkylegitis was introduced. They would test their breeding stock stringently, and not breed two horses that both carry a copy of the bunkylegitis gene. And, should it come up by surprise, they would humanely deal with the resulting foal (whether that is culling or gelding/spaying would depend on the severity) AND never make that particular cross again. 

In-breeding does not cause problems. Irresponsible breeders that don't do their research or operate with integrity do.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> Humans don't stringently "cull" so therein lies the problem. The odds that people aren't bright enough to know not to breed with their close kin would certainly support inbreeding daftness..LOL
> The odds that educated, superiorly intelligent kin with no genetic defects would inbreed is pretty slim I think..


 
I'm confused now, are you for in-breeding, or against it? With the above statement, you are stating that it's not a good thing and essentially shouldn't be done. That educated, intelligent individuals wouldn't in-breed.

Yet earlier, you stated that it should be done to produce the traits you desire in an off-spring. Could you please clarify?


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> I'm confused now, are you for in-breeding, or against it? With the above statement, you are stating that it's not a good thing and essentially shouldn't be done. That educated, intelligent individuals wouldn't in-breed.
> 
> Yet earlier, you stated that it should be done to produce the traits you desire in an off-spring. Could you please clarify?


I think you missed the entire point about stringent culling. If you line-breed or inbreed with individuals are appropriate for it, then it is successful. If you use Billy-Bob and Bobby Sue, who already are poor representations, then you get what you put into the equation.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Chiilaa said:


> In-breeding and line-breeding DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CAUSE DEFECTS IN THE OFFSPRING! Genetic defects that are ALREADY IN THE GENE POOL may become more apparent, but the defects are not caused by the manner of crossing.
> 
> In-breeding does not cause problems. Irresponsible breeders that don't do their research or operate with integrity do.


Thank you Chiilaa!! This is exactly right!!


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Chiilaa said:


> In-breeding and line-breeding DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CAUSE DEFECTS IN THE OFFSPRING! Genetic defects that are ALREADY IN THE GENE POOL may become more apparent, but the defects are not caused by the manner of crossing.
> 
> Say a mare has a recessive gene for "bunkylegitis". Now, she has the recessive form, and only one copy. So she has perfectly fine legs. She is bred to a stallion who has no copy of bunkylegitis, so she has a 50% chance of passing down this gene to her offspring - who, incidently, won't express it as it is recessive. So let's continue the theoretical - say she has two colts, one of whom inherits bunkylegitis, and one that doesn't. Remember, they are not expressing it, but one of them has the recessive gene for it. Now, let's say we bred both of them back to their dam. Colt A has no copy of the recessive gene, so there is a 50% chance that the offspring get the gene from their dam, but, as it is recessive, it isn't going to impact them at all. Colt B has received a copy of the gene, but has no effects as he only has one copy of it. However, when bred to his dam, their offspring has a 25% chance to inherit two copies of the bunkylegitis gene, and when you have two copies of a recessive gene, it expresses. All of a sudden, we have a foal with legs so wonky it can't walk straight, fails sobriety tests its whole life, and generally looks bad for the family line. This isn't caused by the in-breeding - it is highlighted by it.
> 
> ...


Effects of inbreeding and other genetic components on... [Animal. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

genetic health and fitness in horses

Inbreeding Throroughbred race horses leads to breeds demise | Global Animal

I'm not talking about line-breeding Chiila, I'm talking about a dad breeding his daughter or a mare being bred to her son, in-breeding. Yes, your chances of getting what you want are good, BUT your chances of getting something "BAD" from that breeding are higher.

I can see how breeding a mare to a sire that is 5 or 6 lines my not cause "problems", and you will probably get what you were breeding for. In all the articles that I've read, even if they were Pro line-breeding, they warn against in-breeding.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

The 2 yo Babson bred colt I is cow hocked. Pretty badly I might add. I bought his mother when she was in foal with him. She has very good legs. She had been turned out with a stallion and already produced a colt with him. He too was cowhocked.
Researching the stallion I discovered he and a few other foals he sired are cow hocked. Not as bad as my colt.
If I ever bred her to another Babson bred stallion to keep the line going in my herd I would find one like Lady my mare with straight correct legs.
This years colt she had is very very correct. the outcross to my stallion was very successful. They are distantly related 4 generations back.
I believe firmly in breeding related horses. My family has done so with cattle for generations with great results.
Yet I follow the rule my family has. I might breed father to daughter or grand father to Grand daughter but I would never breed those offspring back to their father.
Star has sired 5 fillies with my mare Dancer his half sibling. All have been correct and very nice horses. I would never breed one of those fillies back to their sire or a half sibling. 
The fault has to be present genetically to be passed on so as Chillaa explained inbreeding does not cause defects. Shalom


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FANM%2FANM3_12%2FS1751731109990553a.pdf&code=936882aae0218a9f6cb278dbfe6e39fd

I found the whole article


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Here's a few articles I had just posted on Psynny's thread. They explain the entire concept pretty clearly:

Inbreeding, Linebreeding and Crossbreeding

http://tylerligon.tripod.com/sitebui...anbreeding.pdf

Breeding any relation can be successful if done correctly.

Quote from the article mentioned above:

Fortunately for us, there are still a small 
Percentage of Arabians that contain only 
The blood of the original Bedouin desert 
Steeds. Again, I will use Sheykh Obeyds 
As my example but there are other 
Subgroups that have remained pure. SO 
Arabians came from the Bedouins out of 
The desert and have been bred on without 
The infusion of outside or impure blood. 
This allows us a resource that continues to 
Be void of most undesirables or recessive 
Disorders. To this day there are no known 
Cases of an SO Arabian dying of SCID or 
LFS. Since there is little chance of these 
Traits showing up, we can utilize 
Linebreeding and Inbreeding to their 
Utmost potential to produce extremely 
Prepotent individuals who will produce 
Consistently for us. Consistency is one of 
The hardest things to come by when 
Breeding horses and it is the hallmark of 
All great Arabian breeding programs.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Another thought. By in-breeding, and essentially limiting the gene pool, aren't you eliminating the possibility of introducing more desired traits? Such as immunity, stronger legs, etc.?

So in essence, by limiting the gene pool aren't you contributing to the downslide of a breed by preventing sustainable diversity?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> The 2 yo Babson bred colt I is cow hocked. Pretty badly I might add. I bought his mother when she was in foal with him. She has very good legs. She had been turned out with a stallion and already produced a colt with him. He too was cowhocked.
> Researching the stallion I discovered he and a few other foals he sired are cow hocked. Not as bad as my colt.
> If I ever bred her to another Babson bred stallion to keep the line going in my herd I would find one like Lady my mare with straight correct legs.
> This years colt she had is very very correct. the outcross to my stallion was very successful. They are distantly related 4 generations back.
> ...


ok,. I am just jumping in here with NO breeding experience at all, but I wonder about this statement. 

many recessive traits are present genetically but not expressed in the physical animal becuase they are recessive, right?. Would they not be more likely to be expressed in the offspring if the mother was bred to a related sire, who also had the same recessive genetic traits? there would be no dominant gene to prevent expression of that recessive gene.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> Another thought. By in-breeding, and essentially limiting the gene pool, aren't you eliminating the possibility of introducing more desired traits? Such as immunity, stronger legs, etc.?
> 
> So in essence, by limiting the gene pool aren't you contributing to the downslide of a breed by preventing sustainable diversity?


Not if done correctly. The Bedouins created a pure, strong breed that has been utilized by various breeders of various breeds over thousands of years. If this would have caused a down-slide, I think we would have seen it by now.
Arabians have been used to *improve* most other breeds in existence. If they were actually lacking, this would never have been done. I don't see other breeds being introduced to Arabians to improve them.

Again the key to what they created was ruthless culling and great care with choosing individuals.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

*Inbreeding, Linebreeding and Crossbreeding*
*INBREEDING*'s purpose is to fix certain traits or the influence of certain ancestors upon the progeny. This procedure varies in degree from intense closebreeding to mild linebreeding.* Although inbreeding can be detrimental to fertility, vigor, and athletic ability within the offspring*, GRANTED: it can also result in true-breeding strains of horses (that consistently pass important traits to their offspring). Because most breeds were formed by a process of inbreeding, the breeding of purebred horses is, my definition, a form of inbreeding. Some breeds are more inbred than others. (Degree of inbreeding depends on the number of common ancestors, how far back in the pedigree they appear, and how often each common ancestor occurs.)

From a genetic viewpoint, inbreeding results in an increase of the number of homozygous gene pairs in the offspring. Homozygous refers to a condition where two paired chromosomes have the same allelle (gene type) at a corresponding point. Because two close relatives tend to have more of the same alleles (by virtue of inheritance) than two unrelated individuals, their mating provides a greater chance for identical alleles to be paired within their offspring. *This increase in homozygosity is directly related to the appearance of both desirable and detrimental characteristics that were not necessarily apparent in the sire and dam*.
When horses are inbred haphazardly, without culling of inferior stock, many undesirable traits may become predominant in their offspring. For example, the inbred horse's ability to resist disease and his overall performance capacity are often depressed. The growth rate of the inbred foal, and the average mature size within the inbred herd, frequently decreases. Nonselective inbreeding is directly related to a depressed fertility rate, an increase in abortion and stillbirth. Some basic principles of genetics show why these traits are directly related to inbreeding.
When two unrelated horses are mated, the chances of unidentical alleles combining within the resulting embryo are high. On the other hand, mating close relatives increases the pairing of identical alleles (increases homozygosity). The effect of increased homozygosity is a decrease in the number of heterozygous gene pairs and, subsequently, a decline in heterosis (i.e., loss of vigor and fertility). Although the reason for this allelic interaction is not clear, geneticists believe that its presence contributes to the overall quality of an individual. Therefore, as homozygosity increases within the inbred herd, physical quality controlled by overdominant alleles declines.
Many undesirable genes affecting the horse's overall vigor and fertility are recessive. Fortunately, they have no influence in the heterozygous state, since the effect of the recessive allele is completely hidden by the effect of the corresponding dominant allele. Because of the overall effect of inbreeding is an increase in homozygosity, it increases the number of homozygous recessives. *Hence, the effects of undesirable recessive genes begin to surface. Inbreeding does not create undesirable trait, it exposes recessive alleles for hidden weaknesses which are present within the sire and dam.* *Because successful inbreeding demands the culling of inferior breeding stock over many generations (to help eliminate some of the undesirable recessive genes from the herd), it may not be feasible for some breeders. Not only is the time factor impractical for most breeders, the intense culling often necessary may be an economic problem. Additionally, the traits which tend to surface within the inbred herd (such as depressed growth rate and decreased size) contrast sharply with what many breeders select for. Therefore, the breeder must be objective when the need to cull arises.*
Perhaps the greatest advantage of inbreeding is that it increases the prepotency of individuals within a herd and consequently helps to create distinct true-breeding strains or families. This prepotency (the ability of a stallion or broodmare to stamp desirable characteristics upon their offspring with a high degree of predictability) is the result of the parent being homozygous for important desirable traits. When such a parent carries two identical alleles on corresponding points of a chromosome pair, he transmits that allele to the same chromosome point within his offspring. If two such parents are mated, the offspring will always possess the same desirable trait. Therefore, as inbreeding increases homozygosity, it also enhances prepotency. (This is advantageous only if the parents are homozygous for desirable traits.)
As mentioned previously, inbreeding exposes certain weaknesses within the inbred herd. Uncovering these undesirable traits can be an important tool for the overall improvement within a large breeding program. By setting certain selection guidelines, and by carefully eliminating inbred individuals which show inherit weaknesses, the breeder can slowly remove any undesirable recessive genes from their herd. They will find that vigor and fertility are actually improved when inbreeding is accompanied by careful selection.A successful inbreeding program requires good foundation stock and *severe culling over many years.* For this reason, inbreeding is usually practiced by experienced breeders who operate large farms for the production of superior prepotent breeding stock. It can also be used to establish breeds, or true-breeding types, with respect to certain characteristics such as color or size.

From the same source you quoted Druydess


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> ok,. I am just jumping in here with NO breeding experience at all, but I wonder about this statement.
> 
> many recessive traits are present genetically but not expressed in the physical animal becuase they are recessive, right?. Would they not be more likely to be expressed in the offspring if the mother was bred to a related sire, who also had the same recessive genetic traits? there would be no dominant gene to prevent expression of that recessive gene.


That would be a 50/50 chance of expression. And there's no guarantee that an outcross wouldn't carry the same recessive gene. The numbers and odds are what needs to be weighed when considering pairs to be mated. Many people breed unrelated horses who have recessive genes unbeknownst to them. By doing one's homework and knowing what a horse carries, you have better odds at limiting defects, even in closely related horses - probably more-so as a breeder has much more incentive to test and study the lines of close pairings.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

The most important line qualifying the concept, busy: _*When horses are inbred haphazardly, without culling of inferior stock, many undesirable traits may become predominant in their offspring.*_

And- *Uncovering these undesirable traits can be an important tool for the overall improvement within a large breeding program. By setting certain selection guidelines, and by carefully eliminating inbred individuals which show inherit weaknesses, the breeder can slowly remove any undesirable recessive genes from their herd. They will find that vigor and fertility are actually improved when inbreeding is accompanied by careful selection.*


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

that is true.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

"A successful inbreeding program requires good foundation stock and *severe culling over many years.* For this reason, inbreeding is usually practiced by experienced breeders who operate large farms for the production of superior prepotent breeding stock."

So what are you willing to kill off any of your inbred foals to achieve the "superior" foal?

Because, honestly, I haven't met a single person here who I believe would be willing to do that, not that I blame them. But, as ALL of the articles have stated time & time again only successful and responsible breeders that chose to inbreed are willing to kill an undesirable foal. Otherwise, they are continuing the undesirable traits.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Well-- I don't know how we get to killing foals from a breeding debate...:shock:
Seems a bit extreme.. perhaps a good 4-H home might be a better solution.. LOL

BTW-- the Bedouins didn't kill all their foals; they sold many of their unwanted get, especially stallions. Those very "outcrosses" re-introduced defects.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> Well-- I don't know how we get to killing foals from a breeding debate...:shock:
> Seems a bit extreme.. perhaps a good 4-H home might be a better solution.. LOL


It comes from the inbreeding - line-breeding debate. You yourself said that by inbreeding produces superior foals. Correct? But to get to those SUPERIOR foals, the breeder MUST cull / kill the INFERIOR foals. You keep skipping over that part of the equation and it's an integral part of the debate. A necessary evil if you will. You CANNOT validate inbreeding, unless you are willing to eliminate the inferior product. As crappy as that is.

And by allowing "inferior" horses to go to "a good 4-H" home, isn't that a little irresponsible? Unless as a breeder you are going to spay & neuter every inferior offspring you produce and are completely ok, with having your name on a less than stellar example of what you produce out there? Because to a kid, having a horse with papers = bragging rights. While the kids may not understand the implications, parents who understand will associate that breeder with sub-par quality. I know I would, as well as most others I know.

As a "4-H home", I don't want an Ooops horse for my daughter, I want a sound & healthy example of whatever breed we choose, be it a "purebred" or a "cross breed".


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

No-- it really isn't. All beings have a purpose. Many horses are healthy and able to perform just fine without being breeding perfection. Jumping to extreme conclusions isn't helpful in a debate.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

A *lot* of culls during the Arabian heyday were sold/given away without papers, because the high profile breeding farms that produced them didn't want their names associated in any way, shape or form with those horses.

It's a dirty little secret of the Arabian industry that nobody talks about or admits to, but it _did_ happen and it happened with quite alarming regularity. The breeders may have not admitted to those horses but they knowingly threw them out into the general horse populace as grades, and of course many of them were bred regardless, which means the genetic defects _were_ passed on.

It's not all sunshine and roses when you inbreed and if you're unwilling to kill the resulting genetic nightmares, you're willingly perpetuating those genetic faults since someone, somewhere _will_ breed at least a good portion of them.


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

I think it requires a lot of research to do correctly. Species that have not been extremely isolated or selectively bred tend to have very diverse gene pools. Small, isolated populations and selectively bred ones have smaller gene pools to choose from.

For example, two friends of mine are not related, but came from similar areas. They decided to have a baby, and discovered that the baby has a genetic disease. they were both healthy, with no real defects in either family, but carrying the same recessive gene. I know two families like this. I believe for hundreds of years, many populations were fairly isolated, by location, tradition or prejudice. It was traditional in many populations(English, French, Egyptian, to name a few) for close relatives, even siblings to marry. Where as before, most people, and especially the poor, would loose babies and children that had the slightest defect to disease, now many children have moderate to severe defects that would never survive birth or infancy, and are growing up to produce children of their own. There is no 'culling' in our species.

Similarly with horses, people are in breeding and line breeding for specific traits, and loosing sight of the larger picture, as a previous poster mentioned with the ear example. The gene pool gets smaller, the genetic defects get more concentrated, and more often than not, the soundness, health, sanity and well being of the horse are forgotten for the beautiful, colorful or talented. Even if a foal is born defective, people loose sight of breeding for the best possible off spring and breed crazy, poorly conformed or genetically unsound horses because they find the beautiful, they are attached to them or want their own foal. Culling is not done NEARLY enough in the equine world.

I have no problem with line breeding, done carefully by a very experienced breeder, but more often than not I disagree with it. I have seen thoroughbreds that are so fragile conformationally that they barely last till 2 or 3 without breaking down, but while they did run, they were brilliant. One mare I knew personally had the same stallion 6 times in the first 4 generations of her pedigree. she was so fragile mentally and physically that she had no practical use, other than to be a brood mare.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> No-- it really isn't. All beings have a purpose. Many horses are healthy and able to perform just fine without being breeding perfection. Jumping to extreme conclusions isn't helpful in a debate.


But it's not an extreme, it's the price of the act. It's my understanding that breeders want to produce the best example of the breed possible, to promote the true breed, that's why they choose to inbreed rather than bring in other "pure" lines because the chances are greater to get the traits they want, despite the scientifically proven fact that even with selective breeding bad traits surface. But with breeding to other lines, your chances of passing along those bad traits are lessoned.

I'm not understanding how you can say in one hand it's OK to produce less than great examples of a breed by choice, and in the other say that you only breed to produce the best of the breed. And in using Arabs as an example, the breed is SO large, I find it VERY hard to believe that only one sire and one mare pass along certain "perfect" traits.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

That's actually not true as has been pointed out by now- several times, but you're entitled to your opinion.
If you can't understand after all the info presented, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you.
Maybe someone else will have better luck explaining it.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Speed Racer said:


> A *lot* of culls during the Arabian heyday were sold/given away without papers, because the high profile breeding farms that produced them didn't want their names associated in any way, shape or form with those horses.
> 
> It's a dirty little secret of the Arabian industry that nobody talks about or admits to, but it _did_ happen and it happened with quite alarming regularity. The breeders may have not admitted to those horses but they knowingly threw them out into the general horse populace as grades, and of course many of them were bred regardless, which means the genetic defects _were_ passed on.
> 
> It's not all sunshine and roses when you inbreed and if you're unwilling to kill the resulting genetic nightmares, you're willingly perpetuating those genetic faults since someone, somewhere _will_ breed at least a good portion of them.


I OWNED ONE!!!! McCoy, anyone?? 
And as pretty & sturdy as she was, WHAT A PSYCHO!!!!! Never abused physically a day in her life, her sole purpose was to kill who ever tried to ride her by whatever means necessary. Guess who bought her only to find out the result of inbreeding? ME, a 12 year old 4-H HOME!!! And guess what? When we discovered her true self, guess who we sold her to? A BREEDER!!!

Yes, this is only one example. BUT, I'm not the only one this has happened to. There are countless others, because in-breeders DON'T cull, and just pass along the nightmares, not just in the McCoy line, a lot of people have a very bad taste in their mouths about Arabs. This goes for other breeds as well.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> That's actually not true as has been pointed out by now- several times, but you're entitled to your opinion.
> If you can't understand after all the info presented, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you.
> Maybe someone else will have better luck explaining it.


I have no problems understanding the information provided by scientific & proven sources. What I am trying to get explained to me, either from you or someone else, is how it can be considered responsible breeding?

Yes, it's been pointed out several times that in-breeding CAN produce desired traits. I get that, accept that, and am not ignoring that. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to be 100%. I am not tunnel blind to the benefits of line-breeding, I'm curious as to the reasons that pro in-breeders appear to be tunnel blind to the detriments of in-breeding.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Allow me to make this simple.
It is a responsible breeding practice when you breed two correct individuals with the traits you desire to be passed on.
It is not a responsible breeding practice when you breed 2 individuals both having the same major fault that is likely to be passed on.
When you limit the gene pool after more than a couple of generations then you are as you put it a few post back playing russian roulette.
I will continue to use the practice in my breeding program and if you think that is detrimental to my horses then dont buy one from me.
I sleep very well at night and my horses are free of genetic flaws and major physical faults if I bred them. 
I am not stating an outcross needs to occur every so other generation to ensure disease resistance good bones and to allow outside traits I desire into my program.
Now we have given you plenty of proof and your points I read and understood. They are valid in certain context.
If you choose to continue the discussion I will. I have given you my reasons. 
If you want to argue do it with yourself. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Sorry once again for posting something I worded wrong.
i meant to say in the above post.... That I am stating an outcross needs to occur.....
This new medication for i was prescribed is blurring my vision. That or it might be old age. Shalom


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

DB. Is it also responsible to breed horses that cannot be registered?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

msbavin it is not responsible to continue a practice in anyones breeding program that routinely results in a useless horse. That is immoral IMO.
If Star and Dancer who are 1/2 siblings ever threw a foal with a fault that rendered it useless I would never repeat the breeding. Even though the other 5 are nice horses. That would be the warning something was genetically there and was being magnified.
Even a small chance would prevent me from crossing any two individuals. 
By the way good question. Shalom


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

It is a good question. But I didn't see an answer.


----------



## Arab Mama (Jun 10, 2012)

I think the entire point of this thread is to hear responsible breeders admit that even with careful selection, breeding is still a crap shoot. If it wasn't, there would be a whole lot more people out there raking in the bucks by pumping out all these horses with "desired traits" . No matter how you look at it, there are always going to be a significant number of horses in any breeding program that don't live up to the expected standard. Those horses are the ones sold at affordable prices to people who have always wanted to have a horse of that particular breed. The ones that fit the particular niche that breeder is trying to fill are marketed to that subset of buyers. No matter how carefully you select your breeding stock, you can't guarantee that the preferred resulting foals are going to out number the undesirable ones. All you can do is hope you've made the right choices.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Very well said Arab Mama. Nothing is ever a given; one can only maximize their odds to the best of their ability.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

MsBHavin said:


> It is a good question. But I didn't see an answer.


I posted that I thought it was immoral and gave you an example of what I would do if it occurred in my program.
That is the only answer you will get from me and IMPO anwered your question. Shalom


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Allow me to make this simple..
> It is a responsible breeding practice when you breed two correct individuals with the traits you desire to be passed on.
> It is not a responsible breeding practice when you breed 2 individuals both having the same major fault that is likely to be passed on.
> When you limit the gene pool after more than a couple of generations then you are as you put it a few post back playing russian roulette.
> ...


 
Allow me to attempt to make this simpler, I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT LINE BREEDING! I am talking about breeding a sire to a daughter or a dam to a son, i.e. IN-BREEDING. The reasons you have given me, that you seem to thing I am ignoring are for line-breeding, NOT in-breeding. 

I am continuing to discuss (or argue as you believe) this because the story keeps getting switched by certain posters. In one sentence it's being said that to breed a sire to a daughter, etc is in poor judgment, yet in the second sentence it's being said that desired and a good idea.

I'm trying to find out which it is, good or bad?


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Again-- that would depend ENTIRELY upon the individuals being considered..


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Busysmurf when I purchased Dancer it was to specifically breed her to my stallion who is her half sibling. It was not playing russian roulette as I saw the other fillies the two had produced and I researched the pedigrees of both focusing on the common Egytian lines to ensure not genetic problems.
I want to enhance her good qualities in a filly that I intend to retain for my breeding program. I want all my foals to be uniform, athletic, with good arabian type and conformationally correct.
I am not breeding to found a line of horses just have a herd of mares that will breed true and can compliment different stallions.
i believe that the mare is just as much if not more of an influence genetically as any stallion.
You have to inbreed which is basically the same as linebreeding except you have a few more out crosses in play. So I use the term inbreeding for both..
The problem with inbreeding in my herd is I cannot retain a stallion I bred unless I bring in other mares.
Now I gotta go to work at the VA hospital emergency room. Shalom


----------



## Kotori (Jun 18, 2012)

Busysmurf, I get the feeling you're just here to blast people who linebreed. The different breeders have all told you what they do and you insist that the only 'responsible' answer is to kill the foals- but I'm sure if they said that you'd jump them for that too. I'm sure there are horses out there that aren't inbred that have issues too- are you saying that any horse with an issue should be killed because selling them on is irresponsible? Where would the line be drawn? 

As for a breeder buying the damaged mare...that's your fault as much as the origional breeder. you knew what kind of home it was before you sold her.

I'm sorry for ranting, but you need to realize that there are much more irresponsible things than linebreeding for a positive trait. If not for linebreeding, we would not have many of the breeds we have today.

Personally, I believe linebreeding is okay as long as you follow the 2x4 rule- the same name should not appear more than 8 times, or two names more than four times apiece. What would happen ideally, is linebreed until all the traits align the outcross.


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Cull and kill are absolutely NOT the same thing. Sheesh

BTW. Lavender foal runs rampant in arabs. Seems a few breeders don't understand how easy it is to test for it. Thus that would lead to a foal needing to be 'killed'.


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Kotori said:


> As for a breeder buying the damaged mare...that's your fault as much as the origional breeder. you knew what kind of home it was before you sold her.


I'm pretty sure if you look she said she was a 12 year old...so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure she wasn't in charge of who the horse got sold too.


----------



## Kotori (Jun 18, 2012)

MsBHavin said:


> Cull and kill are absolutely NOT the same thing. Sheesh


I know, but it was busysmurf who said it first. IMO, culling is putting it into a non-breeding home, or at the very least, removing it from your breeding program. (Of course, the non-breeding home could sell it to a breeding home)




busysmurf said:


> It comes from the inbreeding - line-breeding debate. You yourself said that by inbreeding produces superior foals. Correct? But to get to those SUPERIOR foals, the breeder MUST cull / kill the INFERIOR foals. You keep skipping over that part of the equation and it's an integral part of the debate. A necessary evil if you will. You CANNOT validate inbreeding, unless you are willing to eliminate the inferior product. As crappy as that is.
> 
> And by allowing "inferior" horses to go to "a good 4-H" home, isn't that a little irresponsible? Unless as a breeder you are going to spay & neuter every inferior offspring you produce and are completely ok, with having your name on a less than stellar example of what you produce out there? Because to a kid, having a horse with papers = bragging rights. While the kids may not understand the implications, parents who understand will associate that breeder with sub-par quality. I know I would, as well as most others I know.
> 
> As a "4-H home", I don't want an Ooops horse for my daughter, I want a sound & healthy example of whatever breed we choose, be it a "purebred" or a "cross breed".


ETA: I went back, and I'm sorry busysmurf. I skipped over your age. My point was that all blame doesn't lie on the breeder- they can't control who the home that they sold to sells to.


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Kotori said:


> I know, but it was busysmurf who said it first. IMO, culling is putting it into a non-breeding home, or at the very least, removing it from your breeding program. (Of course, the non-breeding home could sell it to a breeding home)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They can control what they've bred. Which is why it's important that people actually learn about lines, prove their stock, register them, and keep up on top of testing for genetic issues that their breeds carry. I know of one person who's stud hasn't been tested for anything genetic....but they're relying on what the original breeder told them.... and some breeders are like used car salesmen....they'll tell you dang near anything to get that horse sold


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I do not think that registration does anything much for proving a breeding programme. Majority of breeders will want to sell anything they have bred regardless of any health or conformation issues.

Cherie spoke about a breeding programme that very few of the horses were actually registered from each years crop and this is how it should be.

Breed societies should have a standard for that breed and _every_ horse should be inspected to assess whether or not it is to that standard _especially the stallions._

When there are health issues on a certain line as with the Impressive lined animals, the health issues are known and any stud should be tested for carrying the gene and if it does than registration should not be allowed. 

Unfortunately few countries do this. Germany leads the field in this, there are stringent tests for any stud for most of the breeds. 

I know that with registration of German Shepherd dogs in Germany, both sire and dam have to be health tested for hips and elbows and, proven to the breed standard. If they are not tested then registration of the pups is refused. 

If a breed society decides to do something about a standard then they can change things in a few years.


----------



## CessBee (Dec 6, 2008)

Breeding related individuals increases the chance of a genetic trait being retained, whether that trait is good or bad. A gene does not know if it is "good" or "bad" and then make a conscious effort to be in the sperm that gets the egg. It happens by random chance.

Breeding related individuals therefore increases homozygosity, which isn't always bad. Say you have a genetic illness that is present in the Homozygous Dominant form, with most of the individuals being heterozygous for it, a shift to homozygous recessive isn't a bad thing. It all depends on the trait.

A loss of heterozygosity is generally considered detrimental for diversity, however it doesn't mean that any animals which have a lack of heterozygosity will suffer from inbreeding depression.

Culling, doesn't necessarily mean killing in this instance, it could mean sterilisation of the offspring not deemed of high enough genetic value.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Kotori said:


> Busysmurf, I get the feeling you're just here to blast people who linebreed. The different breeders have all told you what they do and you insist that the only 'responsible' answer is to kill the foals- but I'm sure if they said that you'd jump them for that too. I'm sure there are horses out there that aren't inbred that have issues too- are you saying that any horse with an issue should be killed because selling them on is irresponsible? Where would the line be drawn?
> 
> As for a breeder buying the damaged mare...that's your fault as much as the origional breeder. you knew what kind of home it was before you sold her.
> 
> ...


I got that same impression. Killing foals as THE criteria of a "responsible" breeder is a bit of paradoxical thinking in my book. If we killed all the horses that weren't perfect, there's be none left. Ridiculous. Obviously there are multiple alternatives - most being the very horses the majority of the population rides, cares for, or keeps as family members.


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

I guess culling and killing can be different or the same. I think it depends on whether or not the horse is suitable to be of use. If you have a horse that is going to end up in pain, unsound or not of use than euthanasia may be the best choice. Likewise, if a horse is sound, sane but not "perfect" and a home can be found than it should be. That horse is culled from a breeding program. The double edged sword on this that a horse that may not be suitable for a breeding program may be perfect for a "backyard breeders program". Which is detrimental to the breed in my opinion. 

I think it takes a special horse to be a child's 4H project or a adults first horse. I think that it is irresponsible for a breeder to sell a horse knowingly into one of these situations, if the horse is not suitable. If a horse will be unsound mentally or physically than those traits should not be passed on to anyone or any other living creature.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

A serious defect is another story. Then they should be humanely euthanized. There are many quality horses produced that are perfectly suitable for various endeavors. Just because they aren't the "best of the best" and a breeder chooses not to use them for breeding doesn't make them suddenly "defective."


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Gelding is a form of "culling", is it not?


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> Gelding is a form of "culling", is it not?


I certainly would think so. The ones I won't use or who aren't top quality will be gelded in my program.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Kotori said:


> Busysmurf, I get the feeling you're just here to blast people who *linebreed*. The different breeders have all told you what they do and you insist that the only 'responsible' answer is to kill the foals- but I'm sure if they said that you'd jump them for that too. I'm sure there are horses out there that aren't inbred that have issues too- are you saying that any horse with an issue should be killed because selling them on is irresponsible? Where would the line be drawn?
> 
> As for a breeder buying the damaged mare...that's your fault as much as the origional breeder. you knew what kind of home it was before you sold her.
> 
> ...


Before you accuse me of blasting people, and not listening please actually read posts 6, 36, 40, 43, 47, 49, 53, 56, & 65 and tell me WHERE I'm blasting line-breeding, NOT in-breeding.

"As for a breeder buying the damaged mare...that's your fault as much as the origional breeder. you knew what kind of home it was before you sold her." *Please read my post. I WAS 12!!! I didn't know the first thing about breeding line or in-breeding.* And the ORIGINAL breeder was the McCoy Breeders. Maybe I am wrong, but I was always told by Arab breeders in my area that McCoy was a good line. So here is an example of a big time breeder using in-breeding and the ill results of *IN-BREEDING.*

In response to the statement that I believe the only responsible thing to do is kill the foals, I think you need to re-read my posts. 

Seeing as how it's felt by some here that I'm the one that's not listening, I think your post is proof that's not the case.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> I got that same impression. Killing foals as THE criteria of a "responsible" breeder is a bit of paradoxical thinking in my book. If we killed all the horses that weren't perfect, there's be none left. Ridiculous. Obviously there are multiple alternatives - most being the very horses the majority of the population rides, cares for, or keeps as family members.


Do you get the impression that simple questions aren't being answered? Or the impression that my VERY CLEAR statements about things are being ignored so I can be accused of something?

I have not seen one ounce of proof, other than "because I do it" to show me that direct IN-BREEDING is a safe & responsible way to help a breed flourish. I've been given plenty of examples of how LINE-BREEDING can be beneficial. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING FOR!


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

I get the impression as previously stated, that there's an implication-- a pretty clear one-- that breeders not willing to kill foals.. are irresponsible.
Your words my dear..


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

busysmurf said:


> "A successful inbreeding program requires good foundation stock and *severe culling over many years.* For this reason, inbreeding is usually practiced by experienced breeders who operate large farms for the production of superior prepotent breeding stock."
> 
> So what are you willing to kill off any of your inbred foals to achieve the "superior" foal?
> 
> Because, honestly, I haven't met a single person here who I believe would be willing to do that, *not that I blame them*. But, as ALL of the articles have stated time & time again only successful and responsible breeders that chose to inbreed are willing to kill an undesirable foal. Otherwise, they are continuing the undesirable traits.


How, in any way, shape or form be read as me wanting foals killed? The source that you, Druydess, provided stated that successful & responsible breeders are willing to cull or kill an undesirable foal.

I'm not the bad guy here, or the one changing the facts presented. I have NEVER, nor WILL EVER agree with the killing of a foal because it's not what the breeder wanted. BUT, I WILL NOT consider a breeder responsible if they directly in-breed because, as I've shown time and again, it is a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT that direct in-breeding is not a good thing to do.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

An excellent example of inbreeding success. Raffles was one of the most influential stallions of all time, repeatedly setting type, conformation, athleticism, and consistency.

Skowronek -- Magic Progenitor

Raffles, although very small in stature, sires colts much larger than himself and with tremendous quarters. His get are famed in the show ring from Canada to South America. Raffles' dam, Rifala, was a daughter of Skowronek. Rifala was bred back to her own sire, Skowronek, to get Raffles. Thus, Raffles is intensely inbred, being 75 per cent Skowronek, and an excellent example of the hybrid law at work when bred to unrelated mares. Likewise, he serves as a classic means of intensifying Skowronek bloodlines when used on mares carrying dominant Skowronek breeding.

There are plenty of examples that prove out the success in inbreeding/linebreeding if one cares to look for it.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Your words are pretty clear busy.. and if you don't believe in inbreeding, stop arguing about it. Obviously what's presented to you as fact makes no difference. Debates work best when minds are open.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

But Raffles was sterile for how long???


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Druydess said:


> Debates work best when minds are open.


Funny how that works, eh.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

To further illustrate the point.. we have the great Lewisfield Sun God (Aaraf by *Raffles x Aarafa by *Raffles).
Lewisfield Sun God Arabian

Brother and sister by Raffles inbred/line-bred to produce LSG, the foundation of the Phara dynasty- and ancestors to my colt Psynny. This is where ones' research really pays off.

Again another success setting desirable traits for generations..


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Druydess said:


> Your words are pretty clear busy.. and if you don't believe in inbreeding, stop arguing about it. Obviously what's presented to you as fact makes no difference. Debates work best when minds are open.


Actually, I don't see where she said anything about wanting foals killed.... It seems to me that she's just questioning the 'culling of the foals' that was mentioned by another user. 

Yes, there are a lot of stories of inbreeding success 'if one knows where to look for it'. Pointing all of those out is not going to suddenly erase all the inbreeding disasters. I don't mind if people are for it and practice it, I mind when they deny any kind of negative repercussions of it. By all means go ahead and inbreed your animals, but don't tell me it's without any kinds of problems. (I'm not saying that YOU are saying such, but I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread).


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> But Raffles was sterile for how long???


He wasn't sterile. He wasn't used as a stud for years. Sterility just doesn't "go away."


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> Your words are pretty clear busy.. and if you don't believe in inbreeding, stop arguing about it. Obviously what's presented to you as fact makes no difference. Debates work best when minds are open.


PLEASE SHOW ME FACT, SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and *I will gladly admit that I'm mistaken. NOT* what you've or your neighbor have done.

The purpose of this forum is to inform, I have not been informed other than by personal opinion. I DO HAVE AN OPEN MIND when shown the actual OBJECTIVE FACTS, not the SUBJECTIVE ones being presented.

You gave me the example of Raffles, but he was infertile for a long time. What is so wrong about wanting objective proof?


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Shoebox said:


> Actually, I don't see where she said anything about wanting foals killed.... It seems to me that she's just questioning the 'culling of the foals' that was mentioned by another user.
> 
> Yes, there are a lot of stories of inbreeding success 'if one knows where to look for it'. Pointing all of those out is not going to suddenly erase all the inbreeding disasters. I don't mind if people are for it and practice it, I mind when they deny any kind of negative repercussions of it. By all means go ahead and inbreed your animals, but don't tell me it's without any kinds of problems. (I'm not saying that YOU are saying such, but I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread).


I never said she did Shoebox. I also don't recall denying the risks. Seems I highlighted the fact that is must be done carefully and with proper research.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Moderator note:

If you want to proceed with this discussion ala debate style, you will have to allow differing opinions, while supporting you own. You cannot request people leave the discussion if the do not agree.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> He wasn't sterile. He wasn't used as a stud for years. Sterility just doesn't "go away."


From Raffles

"Shortly thereafter, *Raffles had overcome his sterility problems..."


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

You have facts-- you just seem to not want to accept them.. 
Do the research. It will take you days to track Raffles get, as they influence many horses and the subsequent inbreeding. Study the Aaraf/Aarafa lines. The proof is there. How many times does there need to be successful breedings for it to be good enough?

As far as what I and my neighbor have done, I have no idea what you're talking about. My neighbor has a dog. And I have never inbred anything.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> From Raffles
> 
> "Shortly thereafter, *Raffles had overcome his sterility problems..."


There's speculation that he ever really was. Like I said-- it doesn't just reverse if it's congenital.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Druydess said:


> You have facts-- you just seem to not want to accept them..
> Do the research. It will take you days to track Raffles get, as they influence many horses and the subsequent inbreeding. Study the Aaraf/Aarafa lines. The proof is there. How many times does there need to be successful breedings for it to be good enough?


I accept the facts that have been printed or proven (i.e. papers that were never sent in). Once again the McCoy example. It's a proven fact what happened with the "McCoy Mares". It's their skeleton in the closet, yet even though I had the papers (never sent in)for the mare proving her sire, grand-sire, and great-grandsire were the same on both sides, there's no record of it on the McCoy site? Why is that? Same for big time QH studs, we all know it happened, but you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence they want the public to see. Same thing with your Raffles line. Of course there was a good outcome, the studies have shown that occasionally that will happen. But in most cases, the opposite happens.
I'm not choosing to ignore facts, quite the opposite. I'm looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

At some point you are going to have to agree to disagree and then move on.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

More inbreeding facts by Dr. Rif’at Hussain, breeder of Thoroughbreds for several decades. It'll take a while to get through.

have a very inbred christmas | bloodstock in the bluegrass

Inbreeding and its advantages and disadvantages in racehorses may produce certain desirable characteristics such as speed, stamina, soundness, constitution, character, etc.

What one reads today in the trade journals is notable either for a lack of accurate information or an incomplete account of the practice of inbreeding. The analysis usually provides a very limited and overly simplistic view of inbreeding and what it can do for the breeder in fulfilling his aim of producing smashing racehorses.

There is, however, one fundamental fact that must be kept in mind – that inbreeding is the only tool that we can use to manipulate the genetic puzzle to obtain substantial improvement in the racing ability of the modern Thoroughbred provided it is done in a carefully planned and deliberately well thought out manner.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

farmpony84 said:


> At some point you are going to have to agree to disagree and then move on.


I agree. I'm just posting articles for whomever may like to research further..


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Druydess said:


> More inbreeding facts by Dr. Rif’at Hussain, breeder of Thoroughbreds for several decades. It'll take a while to get through.
> 
> have a very inbred christmas | bloodstock in the bluegrass
> 
> ...



Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them. 

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

I agree with Farmpony. I also want to know what opinions are on one stud being used widely in one breed. An example cited was Raffles, of whom I know nothing of (other than that Raffles is a pretty fun name). So, clearly it sounds like it worked for Raffles to be bred to many mares of his breed (again I will be researching this when more awake). That said, it can also cause massive problems such as the case of Impressive. So, is it better to have one stallion cover most of the mares of his breed in this day and age? 

I know that many may point out that Justin Morgan's horse started the Morgan breed and everyone and their uncle bred a standardbred out of Hamiltonian. That was many, many years ago where breeds were just being started and lets face it finding out about another stallion in another part of the country (much less the world) was a big deal and getting a mare to that stallion may have been unthinkable. So, assuming you are not starting a new breed, but working with an established breed is it wise to breed a tone of mares to a single stud resulting in a large group of half siblings? Thus forcing or making it difficult to do something other than line breed.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Shoebox said:


> Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them.
> 
> (Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)


I'm not saying it. Dr. Hussain is. It's an article presented for others to peruse.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

rookie said:


> I agree with Farmpony. I also want to know what opinions are on one stud being used widely in one breed. An example cited was Raffles, of whom I know nothing of (other than that Raffles is a pretty fun name). So, clearly it sounds like it worked for Raffles to be bred to many mares of his breed (again I will be researching this when more awake). That said, it can also cause massive problems such as the case of Impressive. So, is it better to have one stallion cover most of the mares of his breed in this day and age?
> 
> I know that many may point out that Justin Morgan's horse started the Morgan breed and everyone and their uncle bred a standardbred out of Hamiltonian. That was many, many years ago where breeds were just being started and lets face it finding out about another stallion in another part of the country (much less the world) was a big deal and getting a mare to that stallion may have been unthinkable. So, assuming you are not starting a new breed, but working with an established breed is it wise to breed a tone of mares to a single stud resulting in a large group of half siblings? Thus forcing or making it difficult to do something other than line breed.


I think it would have to be looked at on a case by case basis rookie. I don't think one stallion should be bred to any and every mare out there. Raffles was a success also because he produced so well that it earned him the right to keep producing. Any decisions about a continued breeding career with any stallion would be predicated on _what_ is being produced.


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Shoebox said:


> Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them.
> 
> (Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)


And of all the crippled racehorses coming off the track, I wonder how much of that is attributed to inbreeding...


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Druydess said:


> I'm not saying it. Dr. Hussain is. It's an article presented for others to peruse.


That's very narrow minded of him, then. I could take a cow, cross it with another unrelated cow (with all the favorable traits of course), and keep doing so until I get a genetically superior cow to the one I started with JUST like one potentially could with inbreeding. Saying the only possible way EVER to improve a breed is by inbreeding is silly - one could just as easily do the same with completely unrelated horses (or cows or dogs or what have you) let alone whatever methods geneticists have developed now (that I have forgotten about since last semester. Should have kept my notes.)


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

He makes good points/facts though; not everyone is going to agree on every point.


----------



## MsBHavin (Nov 29, 2010)

Shoebox said:


> (that I have forgotten about since last semester. Should have kept my notes.)



I would have loved to read them!


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

Okay, Druydess I think thats true of any stallion that what they produce should dictate how much they produce. Than again we have the case of Impressive where the genetic mess that follow his success as a sire was not found until years later. It seems an inherent flaw in the breeding of horses that you start breeding next years foal crop without knowing much about this years crop. Lets say you have a stallion who does very well in his discipline. He is bred to 20 mares and sires 20 foals. The owners "like the look" of these foals and those twenty mares are bred back, along with twenty more mares. So at the end of two breeding seasons you have sixty foals out of one stallion and none of those foals have done anything to indicate that they are healthy, sound, trainable or going to out-perform their sire. Many issues that limit a horses career don't show up until that horse is 5 year or older. Its only a serious deficit that prevents a foal from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping and being cute which is basically all people really expect a foal to do. So, in those cases you can have a horse cover a large portion of its breed without actually knowing what he produces. 

The true mark of a great stallion is that he out produces himself. The problem is that most stallions have produced themselves so much that you don't know if its the odds or the horse that are the cause of the greatness. If you produce enough foals eventually one of them will do something correctly. So, do you think changes should be made to limit how many mares a stallion can cover in the first few years of breeding?


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

rookie said:


> Okay, Druydess I think thats true of any stallion that what they produce should dictate how much they produce. Than again we have the case of Impressive where the genetic mess that follow his success as a sire was not found until years later. It seems an inherent flaw in the breeding of horses that you start breeding next years foal crop without knowing much about this years crop. Lets say you have a stallion who does very well in his discipline. He is bred to 20 mares and sires 20 foals. The owners "like the look" of these foals and those twenty mares are bred back, along with twenty more mares. So at the end of two breeding seasons you have sixty foals out of one stallion and none of those foals have done anything to indicate that they are healthy, sound, trainable or going to out-perform their sire. Many issues that limit a horses career don't show up until that horse is 5 year or older. Its only a serious deficit that prevents a foal from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping and being cute which is basically all people really expect a foal to do. So, in those cases you can have a horse cover a large portion of its breed without actually knowing what he produces.
> 
> The true mark of a great stallion is that he out produces himself. The problem is that most stallions have produced themselves so much that you don't know if its the odds or the horse that are the cause of the greatness. If you produce enough foals eventually one of them will do something correctly. So, do you think changes should be made to limit how many mares a stallion can cover in the first few years of breeding?


I'd be a lot richer if I had the psychic ability to know every eventuality. :shock:
All good points, but there's never a guarantee. I also don't see regulation being a reality- breed registries won't stand for it, and I believe people are just greedy and unethical enough to kill the ones they think aren't good enough if there's a quota.


----------



## Kotori (Jun 18, 2012)

busysmurf said:


> _PLEASE SHOW ME FACT, SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE_ and *I will gladly admit that I'm mistaken. NOT* what you've or your neighbor have done.
> 
> The purpose of this forum is to inform, I have not been informed other than by personal opinion. I DO HAVE AN OPEN MIND when shown the actual _OBJECTIVE FACTS, not the SUBJECTIVE ones_ being presented.
> 
> You gave me the example of Raffles, but he was infertile for a long time. What is so wrong about wanting objective proof?


The problem is, much of horsemanship is subjective. One could even argue that the only objective disciplines are the ones run by the clock. Clock= objective, judges are subjective. Even studies can be interpreted different ways. Honestly, I'd take the 'subjective' facts over objective, because it's not an objective world we live in, and I trust the people that are actually out there handling their horse every day.Training is subjective as well- I don't recall every seeing any scientific studies about different techniques.

At the end of the day, I'd take an inbred out the wazoo horse with good conformation and a sound mind over an outcrossed backyard franken-horse any day (But I wouldn't breed either of them).


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Kotori said:


> At the end of the day, I'd take an inbred out the wazoo horse with good conformation and a sound mind over an outcrossed backyard franken-horse any day (But I wouldn't breed either of them).


I wonder what the odds are?

I am seriously considering breeding my backyard mare and making a fraken horse next year....well truth is I am considering crossing my Arab mare out to a Reining Paint with the hopes of getting the best of both worlds, but being very prepared to keep the resultant foal if he is a fraken horse.

OR

I could look at the traits I really love in my mare, look carefully at her daddy and grandsires and see if I could pin down where it came from and then chance breeding back close.

Both are crap shoots, a first cross gives you all sorts of benefits, as does line breeding or in breeding done properly, but I actually don't know the odds.

Walks away muttering, what I REALLY want to do is breed her back to her dam, who is the best of the family, how do I work that one out eh?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Kotori said:


> At the end of the day, I'd take an inbred out the wazoo horse with good conformation and a sound mind over an outcrossed backyard franken-horse any day (But I wouldn't breed either of them).



Surely there is plenty in between those two choices!


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Kotori said:


> The problem is, much of horsemanship is subjective. One could even argue that the only objective disciplines are the ones run by the clock. Clock= objective, judges are subjective. Even studies can be interpreted different ways. Honestly, I'd take the 'subjective' facts over objective, because it's not an objective world we live in, and I trust the people that are actually out there handling their horse every day.Training is subjective as well- I don't recall every seeing any scientific studies about different techniques.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'd take an inbred out the wazoo horse with good conformation and a sound mind over an outcrossed backyard franken-horse any day (But I wouldn't breed either of them).


This is very true; most things related to horses are subjective. Genetics are simply-- mathematics. Anyone who knows what a Punnet Square is can come up with basic odds about a certain cross given the variables. The rest is personal preference as to what's desired, and that can vary with subjectivity- as well as education and research.

Sheykh Obeyd's stud is a great example of inbreeding/linebreeding _consistent_ success, including a complete lack of diseases.. If the OP or others would like to know more about desired results proven repeatedly, that would be a good source to study. Mathematically and scientifically sound, it stands as a model of successful breeding.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

If you refuse to acknowledge the creation of several breeds that are very numerous and popular that originated from one horse , the morgan, or 3 horses the TB, or how the Arabian has been inbred and linebred for thousands of years how many more FACTS do you need?
I do not need scientific facts or some trumped up study. I have over hundred head of cattle that are in bred to their sires and grandsires for generations and several mares that are the result of their dams being bred back to their sire.
The AL Marah breeding program is one of the most successful of any breed in this country and that program is centered on one stallion Indraff a son of Raffles . A stallion that influenced the Arabian horse in this country as much as any stallion has. Who by the way was the result of his dam being bred back to her sire.
The sterility claim was probably trumped up as raffles had already covered a ASB mare that was in foal. 
For those so opposed to the practice how long have you been breeding animals? Or are you just reading something on the internet ?
We have already explained the practice and I have given the reasons why I do it. We have given examples of successful programs and horses . Yet no one has commented on those or asked any further questions.
I am beginning to think some people like to argue instead of having a mature discussion to learn and present your thoughts on the subject.
I am too busy and have no time for such nonsense. Ask direct questions and I will give you an answer. If not then good day. Shalom


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

I agree db. Raffles and his entire dynasty is a varied study in factual successful inbreeding, as well as Indraff, his progeny and Al Marah, as are his son/daughter Aaraf and Aarafa.
I had heard similar stories about the sterility thing FROM trainers who knew Indraff and Bazy.
Experience is a good teacher. This is why I listen to people who've been breeding successfully for years. Some of our much admired breeders recently have used these practices with the expected desired result. Everyone has to choose what they feel is right for them and their program.


----------



## EquineBovine (Sep 6, 2012)

Loads of awesome information here!
Just my own opinion. Linebreeding is only called inbreeding if something goes wrong  
Not horse related but my Jersey cow was bred back to her son because she was a randy little madame and hunted him down, jumping a few fences and throwing herself at him -_-


----------



## EquineBovine (Sep 6, 2012)

EquineBovine said:


> Loads of awesome information here!
> Just my own opinion. Linebreeding is only called inbreeding if something goes wrong
> Not horse related but my Jersey cow was bred back to her son because she was a randy little madame and hunted him down, jumping a few fences and throwing herself at him -_-


 The calf resulting from this was fine btw and filled the freezer a few years later :wink:


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

EquineBovine said:


> Loads of awesome information here!
> Just my own opinion. Linebreeding is only called inbreeding if something goes wrong
> Not horse related but my Jersey cow was bred back to her son because she was a randy little madame and hunted him down, jumping a few fences and throwing herself at him -_-


It's really all inbreeding generally, but yes-- that saying is popular.. LOL

That little hussy!! :shock:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I have returned to this page to make a statement.
I read every post by other members when I am discussing a topic with them.
I may not agree yet I strive to see their side of the discussion.
Hopefully they do the same for me.
If I don't agree with you on this topic that doesn't mean I wont on others.
Everyone's opinion is important. Perhaps that is what we can all agree on.
As adults there should not be any reason the MODS have to remind us to be civil, as they have in this thread. Shalom


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> If you refuse to acknowledge the creation of several breeds that are very numerous and popular that originated from one horse , the morgan, or 3 horses the TB, or how the Arabian has been inbred and linebred for thousands of years how many more FACTS do you need?
> I do not need scientific facts or some trumped up study. I have over hundred head of cattle that are in bred to their sires and grandsires for generations and several mares that are the result of their dams being bred back to their sire.
> The AL Marah breeding program is one of the most successful of any breed in this country and that program is centered on one stallion Indraff a son of Raffles . A stallion that influenced the Arabian horse in this country as much as any stallion has. Who by the way was the result of his dam being bred back to her sire.
> The sterility claim was probably trumped up as raffles had already covered a ASB mare that was in foal.
> ...



I am wondering why line breeding is not so successful inhuman beings. The royalties of Europe had quite a bit of inbreeding or line breeding and didn't they end up with hemophilia and sterility issues? Or is that just old tales they tell?


----------



## EquineBovine (Sep 6, 2012)

Druydess said:


> It's really all inbreeding generally, but yes-- that saying is popular.. LOL
> 
> That little hussy!! :shock:


Yes well, the son she raped was the result of her jumping many a fence to make mad passionate cow love to her father :shock: Yes, she was one cool, crazy cow :twisted: Very nice babies though so there is something to be said for it!


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> I am wondering why line breeding is not so successful inhuman beings. The royalties of Europe had quite a bit of inbreeding or line breeding and didn't they end up with hemophilia and sterility issues? Or is that just old tales they tell?


The issues would not have been caused by the in breeding, but just as in breeding highlights desired traits, it can also highlight undesired traits. So if the defect is already in the gene pool, breeding within the gene pool only will cause the defect to express more frequently. It doesn't cause the actual defect though.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Tinyliny humans have emotional bonds with their family members that last a lifetime and we , for the most part know who our relatives are. 
That and the taboo against incest is pretty strong. Shalom


----------



## MyLittlePonies (Mar 15, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> Tinyliny humans have emotional bonds with their family members that last a lifetime and we , for the most part know who our relatives are.
> That and the taboo against incest is pretty strong. Shalom


I believe this statement. As a human, we know who our relatives are and that we do not just get together with our relatives that way. Now there are some cultures especially back then where it was a very small gene pool and you only married the people within your rank in society( which was your cousin or second cousin-somewhere along those lines). Today we still marry within our rank to a degree but we most certainly do not marry our family members.

Horses do not associate their relatives the way we do, but they do carry strong bonds as herd animals. They do however, know who their foals are, but when it comes to breeding they normally don't care because it's their hormones and instincts to populate.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> I am wondering why line breeding is not so successful inhuman beings. The royalties of Europe had quite a bit of inbreeding or line breeding and didn't they end up with hemophilia and sterility issues? Or is that just old tales they tell?


The bottom line is that there hasn't been an intelligent, methodical selection process. Inbreeding was perfectly acceptable in many societies before the 18/19th centuries. Ancient Egyptians frequently married their sisters as the Pharaoh's throne was tied to the Egyptian Queen and only she was the source of his right to it. The British thrones interbred to secure their power among "royal" ranks as well. The entire dynasty was founded upon close cousins and uncles and nieces. Charles II was more inbred than is typical of a child of a brother and sister. The practice continued without regard to possible genetic concentration and the lack of knowledge about genetics compounded the issue.

Today-- inbreeding still exists due to cultural acceptance. 

The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009

These are the examples of what NOT to do when considering inbreeding. Intelligent research, testing, and careful selection can eliminate these type of scenarios. Random vs selection is the difference.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

By the way, I am well aware of the human emotional bonds at play to discourage incest.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Prepare for a novel guys!

Okay, so just out of my own curiosity I emailed my Genetics professor (he teaches the genetics classes at my college with a pH.D). He's a neutral mind on the subject, since he doesn't know much about horses (dogs is another story) and I thought an unbiased opinion might be nice. I admittedly don't know enough about genetics to get down to the finer points, and we can't ALL be right with our circular discussion - so I went to somebody who could clear things up for me. I've found I was indeed wrong about some things, and correct about others. 

I just sent a basic overview of the discussion with the key points from both sides - a few being the 'impossible to genetically improve a breed without inbreeding,' I mentioned genetic testing for problems, and I brought up the Cheetah analogy - It was mentioned back a bunch of pages ago but basically it says that a long time ago, Cheetahs reached a population bottleneck. Because of this, all (Or at least most) cheetahs are closely related, line/inbred. Because of natural selection, the weak were killed off, leaving a population of cheetahs strongly resistant to genetic disease - BUT in return they are extremely susceptible to a spreading illness. The immune system is genetic, and because they are all related and have a similar immune system, if a disease strikes the cheetah population they are all likely to get killed off. 

This is his exact response. It does go over basic genetics briefly that most of us know about, but some probably don't, so I won't cut anything out:

"Interesting question / issue. I've found myself having similar discussions many times regarding the pure breed vs. mixed breed dog. The basic genetics is straightforward. Horses, like people, have two versions or alleles of each gene. Those alleles can be either the same or different. Many genetic diseases are recessive - meaning that you or the horse needs two copies of the allele to get the disease. Creatures with one recessive allele will be healthy but are "carriers" of the disease allele. All animals carry disease alleles - but they are typically not in the same genes. Line breeding or inbreeding increases the likelihood that an offspring will inherit disease alleles in the same gene and therefore get the genetic disease. It's not that this breeding makes the alleles worse - it just increases that chance that the parents will be carriers of the same mutant alleles (since the parents are related). The genetic term for having two versions of the same allele is homozygous - and it is incontrovertible that line breeding increases homozygosity. That is, in fact, why breeders do it. They want animals to breed true for desired traits (not that in touch with the horse world - but assume things like conformation, etc). The challenge / question is whether or not it is possible to obtain animals that are homozygous for genes that confer desirable traits - but which do not carry disease genes. The old method that you refer to is to cull (either directly or through natural selection). This can work, but _only_ for diseases that show up before animals are allowed to breed. Thankfully we now have newer technologies that allow us to test for _some_ disease genes (I've attached a paper on this). The hope is that breeders will employ such tests prior to breeding and not use animals that carry these mutations. In principal this could ultimately lead to breeds that lack known disease genes and maybe that is what others were referring to when they made the claim that line breeding can enhance a breed? Their are still some problems with this thinking. One is that pathogens change (as you mentioned) - and animal population _need_ genetic diversity to effectively respond to these changes. Line breeding leads to _less_ genetic diversity - this should be obvious as it increases homozygosity and diversity refers to the number of _different_ alleles in a population. Your cheetah analogy is spot on - even with genetic testing line breeding will always lead to populations that are more vulnerable to new diseases. 

I hope that this helps."

So, I was wrong that linebreeding will CAUSE genetic problems - whoever mentioned it was right, it can only bring out the worst in a bloodline (whereas breeding out wouldn't bring out those problems). I apologize. What I'm getting out of this is yes, it can indeed do what you're saying it can, but I was right that even with genetic testing we can't be 100% positive we won't get a genetic problem foal as we can only test for known problems, and that by line breeding it decreases the gene pool, and while that means you can 'breed out' KNOWN genetic diseases (didn't know that either, you learn something new every day) it leads to susceptibility of new diseases (like the cheetahs). 

Attached is the paper he sent about genetically improving racing thoroughbreds. I'm only partway through it, but it's quite interesting so far. If any of you have any questions you'd like to ask him, as long as I'm talking to him already, I can shoot him another response email, just let me know! 

http://https://bl2prd0310.outlook.com/owa/WebReadyView.aspx?t=att&id=RgAAAAAg2NbMmtpgS4dyyQZzHXL0BwCzh7CCPKDYQp2qhcwU6jqNAAAADcTtAACzh7CCPKDYQp2qhcwU6jqNAAB2f3ljAAAJ&attid0=BAAAAAAA&attcnt=1&pspid=_1379776761458_39495860


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Great post. (btw, with my comment about human inbreeding I did not say it "caused" genetic problems. only that more existed, and that becuase of just what your professor is talking about; the increased presence of hitherto recessive genes that in the lack of a dominant gene, express themselves as hemophilia, or whatever . )

When we purposefully pick and chose for "desireable" traits, it has the danger of limiting, and we never know what truly is DESIRABLE. in times of plenty , some traits can be desirable, but in times of famine, others will bring survival.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

tinyliny said:


> Great post. (btw, with my comment about human inbreeding I did not say it "caused" genetic problems. only that more existed, and that becuase of just what your professor is talking about; the increased presence of hitherto recessive genes that in the lack of a dominant gene, express themselves as hemophilia, or whatever . )
> 
> When we purposefully pick and chose for "desireable" traits, it has the danger of limiting, and we never know what truly is DESIRABLE. in times of plenty , some traits can be desirable, but in times of famine, others will bring survival.


I know you didn't, but I think it was mentioned somewhere in the thread. 

And the second part (about limiting) is only true with line breeding. We can pick and breed for desirable traits, and simultaneously expand the gene pool rather than limiting it (by adding more outside alleles) by outbreeding. Though I agree that what's desirable today may not be tomorrow.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Whoops, it looks like that article won't open for some reason... It's a PDF but I can't upload it either because it's too big D:
Let me try to figure out a way to do this here... (Mods? Any help?) -Maybe if I shortened the URL?
In the meantime I think I could forward it to you in an email if you're interested. Just shoot me an address to send it to.

EDIT: Try this link. Leads to the Online Library where the article is hosted.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00465.x/full

(It works for me, should be a link to "Harnessing the Genetic Toolbox for the benefit of the Racing Thoroughbred")


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Thanks your professor just made my point it inbreeding strengthens certain traits and is why I do it .
I just ensure the animals I use are healthy and correct.
It will continue to be a part of my breeding program with the horses and with the cattle especially.
As my vet an equine specialist stated today if done correctly there should be no problems. You do need an outcross however inbreeding can only highlight genetic problems if they are there. It cannot create them. Shalom


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> Thanks your professor just made my point it inbreeding strengthens certain traits and is why I do it .
> I just ensure the animals I use are healthy and correct.
> It will continue to be a part of my breeding program with the horses and with the cattle especially.
> As my vet an equine specialist stated today if done correctly there should be no problems. You do need an outcross however inbreeding can only highlight genetic problems if they are there. It cannot create them. Shalom


Yes, that was a very good article Shoebox. I think many of us were saying the same thing and that article was a big help in reiterating some great points!!


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> I am wondering why line breeding is not so successful inhuman beings. The royalties of Europe had quite a bit of inbreeding or line breeding and didn't they end up with hemophilia and sterility issues? Or is that just old tales they tell?


Hemophilia isn't a result of line breeding. At least no more so than diabetes, breast cancer or any other potentially inherited medical condition. It spread through the royal families in Europe not from line breeding (Czar Nicholas had no blood relationship to HBM Victoria, but he did marry her granddaughter), but because Victoria passed on that gene to most of her female children and managed in a two generations to have much of her offspring married to various noble and royal houses in Europe. Which is why in 3 generations most of the royal families in Europe were related....they had all married members of, or had a parent that had been part of GB royal family.

In the US cousins were still getting married through the 1800's and in England it was still done into the 1900's although I think the practice finally stopped at some point in the 1900's (but not the early 1900's). I can't speak with any degree of knowledge about other countries, but it's a pretty safe bet Europe and most of the world wasn't much different than the US and some were probably like the UK. Of course no one likes to think of that today :lol:. Like many things in human history we like to whitewash, rewrite, ignore or hide things we do/did when we see them as acceptable later on.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Thanks your professor just made my point it inbreeding strengthens certain traits and is why I do it .
> I just ensure the animals I use are healthy and correct.
> It will continue to be a part of my breeding program with the horses and with the cattle especially.
> As my vet an equine specialist stated today if done correctly there should be no problems. You do need an outcross however inbreeding can only highlight genetic problems if they are there. It cannot create them. Shalom


He did mention the possible strengths, but I think he also made my point about the downfalls. You can just 'make sure your animals are healthy,' but you can't do that 100%. You can test for KNOWN issues, not ones that are yet unknown but will possibly be brought out by a breeding. (Unless you want to genetically sequence your horse or something and check everything). 

I think we're all just going to have to agree to disagree - At this point we're going in circular conversations and not getting anywhere. If anything when I read his reply and article it solidified my viewpoint and confirmed what I had thought but didn't really know enough about to feel 100% with. I think it's unnecessarily risky and irresponsible (the 'risks outweigh the benefits' sort of thing for me I think), and I don't think anything will ever change that. On the same coin you both think there's nothing wrong with it and so long as you're careful nothing bad can happen (the benefits outweigh the risks). Dandy! Feel free to continue doing so - Just don't ask me to buy one of your horses :lol:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Shoebox said:


> I think we're all just going to have to agree to disagree - At this point we're going in circular conversations and not getting anywhere. If anything when I read his reply and article it solidified my viewpoint and confirmed what I had thought but didn't really know enough about to feel 100% with.


There you go, the debate has benefit, you have found out more and it moved you further to one side. It is only the swing voters who move by the power of an exchange of words.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Very true Shoebox. The best we can do weigh all the possibilities and make the most educated decisions possible. Time and experience will do the rest. Great debate!  Loved your professors input. Too bad we don't don't have a few more of him on the forum..LOL


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

MsBHavin said:


> Don't forget the hollow earth nutters...they insist that the Mayans are all hiding in there with the dinosaurs and that's why NASA won't post pictures of the poles.
> 
> This whole thing reminds me of guy I worked with who swore left & right, up & down that the way he handled acid spills was a 100% guarantee to work because it always worked for him, that was his proof.
> 
> ...


This reminds me of a guy I used to work with who swore the way he handled acid spills was the be all & end all. But science & others felt otherwise. Regardless of how much documentation he was shown, no one could convince him otherwise.

Until we went on an acid job, similar to a lot of others. Long story short, he had to accept that he'd been lucky all those times. Even though every safety precaution was taken, several of us still ended up with burns, & it got pretty ugly. We were lucky no one was hospitalized.


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

Anyone who needs to know more about inbreeding/linebreeding might benefit from speaking with those well-versed on the topic. I have found Denise Gainey and Arlene Magid to be invaluable resources. Denise is a wealth of knowledge, with years of research with regard to compatible crosses and complimentary bloodlines. She herself just produced an exquisite colt by this very method and he is quite something. Arlene, who does breeding consultant work, can advise people who may not have as much knowledge. An expert on such matters, she has decades of experience to draw on. She is worth the money.
As was mentioned, the internet is not always the best source; people's opinions are nice, but they're only opinions- often presented with a bias (as is human nature) and not much research, unfortunately. When it comes to real life, I find people like Denise and Arlene, as well as other friends who are actual (successful) breeders to be the real meter as far as making correct, educated choices. They've taught me such a great deal of knowledge and perhaps they, or people with a similar level of expertise might be more helpful to those seeking accurate information based on experience and practical, applied knowledge.
With something as important as potential lives being brought to this earth, real experts are who I would turn to to make such important decisions.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Shoebox in your conversation with the professor did you tell him about the creation of several breeds and how they were created from one or just a few stallions? Shalom


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A fair amount of rude and off topic remarks have been removed from this thread. We could close this one and let it go, but the topic and discussion of this thread is the kind that our forum is designed for. Here, we can discuss something that is really of interest to persons who put their whole heart and soul, not to mention a ton of money , into horses. 

The concepts are not just how do I lead my horse, or bond with him, or which color looks good on him. This is a high level discussion, bringing in science and traditional practices from ancient history. Participants may be pretty firm in their beliefs on this breeding practice, so firm that they should be easily able to understand the firmness with which the other person holds on to their opposing position. Please do not let frustration reduce you to insults.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

This is why I will probably never try my hand at breeding... In addition to it being difficult and a roll of the dice, it's entirely too political for me... xD

As far as my opinions on the matter... I look at the result. If I have a nice horse with some line breeding, cool. If it has none, cool. I'm not in horseback riding for the papers...

A really interesting thread, though. I learned quite a bit on a subject that I'm not very familiar with.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> It's kind of like saying that humans are inbred because we all descend from Adam and Eve, who if I remember only had two sons. Well anyway, you get the idea, we are either descended from monkeys, or we are inbred:wink:


The bible specifically mentions three sons Cain, Abel and Seth and then add that they had many sons and daughters, one would assume after the first three. Jewish tradition I believe holds that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters. After the fall of Cain for murdering Abel the first mention of marriages that fit the definition of inbreeding is of Seth's sons to Cain's daughters depending on how you translate scriptures.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I can't imagine what the human race would be like if we'd been manipulated through in/line breeding FOR specific genetic characteristics, verses for tribal or national relations building.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Qrtrbel my people are more inbred than those barefoot hillbillies we make fun of. Shalom


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

I dont think there is any breed of Modern horse today, that has not been linebred or inbred.
I think that over line breeding and in breeding will bring out less diserable traits as people no longer 'cull' the foals with problems and they get sold and some are bred.. 

Someone commented about people and inbreeding.. well Hitler would have, had the sick sob survived.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Qrtrbel my people are more inbred than those barefoot hillbillies we make fun of. Shalom


Haha...I have tried to avoid bringing up your inbred traits a lot of times...:rofl:

I haven't read the whole thread, so pardon me if I am redundant. Line breeding is an excellent breeding tool to perpetuate desired traits AND/OR to eliminate undesired traits. However, line breeding requires more expertise than conventional breeding, and I don't recommend that novices line breed.

This mare, a former broodmare of mine, is an excellent example of line breeding...

One Freckle Appaloosa


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

I'd like to sincerely thank tinyliny and the other mods for keeping this thread open and all the work that entails. It would have been a shame to close it. I am very much enjoying it and I hope we can all continue to offer information and opinions respectfully.



QtrBel said:


> The bible specifically mentions three sons Cain, Abel and Seth and then add that they had many sons and daughters, one would assume after the first three. Jewish tradition I believe holds that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters. After the fall of Cain for murdering Abel the first mention of marriages that fit the definition of inbreeding is of Seth's sons to Cain's daughters depending on how you translate scriptures.


Many people do not want to accept this part of biblical accounts. Inbreeding is a given in this scenario, and was again culturally acceptable until recently.



dbarabians said:


> Qrtrbel my people are more inbred than those barefoot hillbillies we make fun of. Shalom


db-- you kill me! :rofl:


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

stevenson said:


> I dont think there is any breed of Modern horse today, that has not been linebred or inbred.
> I think that over line breeding and in breeding will bring out less diserable traits as people no longer 'cull' the foals with problems and they get sold and some are bred..
> 
> Someone commented about people and inbreeding.. well Hitler would have, had the sick sob survived.


:lol: There's not breed of domestic animal that isn't the produce of in-breeding, line breeding or in-line breeding. How do people think man domesticated animals?
To over simplify the process :lol: an animal that behaved less wild than the rest and was more accepting of humans or willing to be with humans or more willing to do what a person wanted was bred and then inbred with the offspring in the effort to create more that were like that. A trait was desired, found and bred for which would by necessity require that the original be bred to it's offspring that contained the same trait and the offspring of their offspring (and so on and so forth) as the domestic (dog, horse, cattle, sheep, goat, cat, chicken, duck, rabbit, etc, etc, etc,......) came into being. After domesticating them we then worked to "customize" them more defined traits by inbreeding, cross breeding, line breeding to create different "breeds" of a domestic animal (e.g. the Arabian horse, Friesian horse, Icelandic horse, Mastiff, Bloodhound, Border Collie).
Do people think that all these animals just "magically" appeared :lol:. Humans have been doing this (obviously quite successfully) for longer than our recorded history.
As for passing on negative traits :lol:, the Nazi had a solution for that which they did put into practice, but it wasn't inbreeding (anyone who had an undesirable trait was sterilized so it couldn't be passed on). This breeding solution was rejected by many. Of course for a most of human history in most societies those with obvious undesired conditions were openly culled by being left to die (if not killed) after birth (but I think the last of those ended in the 1800's....I hope :lol Passing on negative traits is not unique to line breeding. In point of fact it's breeding outside a line that ultimately spreads many negative traits quicker to a greater number of whatever specie. If a trait only exists in a specific line then it's breeding outside that line that moves it into even more lines (that's true of every animal...including humans).
It's a two edged sword. To improve breeds (including people) you want to breed for more diversity so that the end product has more desirable traits to draw from (the best from each parent), but along with that we risk passing any or all negative traits from each parent. To maintain traits you need to breed to maintain that trait, but that limits the gene pool you can draw from. It all comes down to what you're wanting as your end product.

:lol: Ok class, be sure to read the rest of chapters 4-6. There will not be a test, but you are responsible for knowing the material :rofl:


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

FABulous post its lbs!!

Well spoken! Very clear and concise explanation. It is forgotten, sometimes I think, that we have indeed been practicing inbreeding since animal domestication. There are always pros and cons with every breeding. As you said, it all depends on the goal.

Bring on the quiz!! :clap:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

The taboo about closely related humans reproducing with each other is very strong and has colored our thinking about animal husbandry.
Then we have HERDA and HYPP along with SCIDS to be concerned about. Rightfully so.
I use inbreeding to set uniformity in my herd with great success may I add.
I took Rushing Sam and bought Cassius to use as outcrosses on any fillies I keep of Stars.
Though they are still distantly related enough to highlight the good traits all 3 stallions have. Shalom


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

A very interesting article on the particular inbreeding practice of Arabians and their resulting consistent type:

http://www.desertarabian.org/PDFs/readings/Inbreeding_Linebreeding_Quotes.pdf

Selected Excerpts Discussing Inbreeding and Linebreeding in Arabian 
Horses
*The fact that pure breeding over long periods was impossible without inbreeding has its
explanation in the fanatic insistence of the Bedouin on the purity of the blood…In spite
of their utmost refinement Arabian horses are at the same time notorious for their 
persistent disposition, which is mainly due to the following reasons: Inbreeding and 
selection have not only removed bad characteristics from the heredity…but have almost
led to inbreeding resistance. Without inbreeding the pure bred Arabian would not have
become what it is today. Most of the outstanding breeding qualities of this race are the
consequence of inbreeding. Because of the special conditions under which the horses
were raised, inbreeding did not only do no harm, but also led to a homozygosity of 
characteristics and a consolidation of the breed which is unknown to any other 
thoroughbred race…so that the Arabian reproduces his characteristics, i.e. his virtues
more faithfully and effectively than any other race.*
H. Seydel, quoted in Asil Arabians VI, Olms
Verlag, Hildesheim, 2007

Breeding Arabians is not so different genetically speaking from raising other breeds of 
horses, or for that matter, pure-bred cattle or dogs. Every breed has certain strains with 
predominant qualities and characteristics, which breeders seek to unite in a single
individual. Whenever a perfect (distinctive) specimen was created, incest-breeding was
adapted to fix the type. The man of the desert arrived at the same means for establishing 
distinctive types within certain strains as the civilized man in the creation of modern
breeds.
C.R. Raswan, The Raswan Index. William
Byrd Press, Richmond, Virginia, 1969

INBREEDING IS NECESSARY:
The word inbreeding embraces the mating of father to daughter, brother to sister and son 
to mother – only three relationships. However, inbreeding is also referred by breeders
as the mating of animals more closely related than the average of the breed. If like begets
like, which is the beginning theory of breeding, it is truest where the relationship is
closest.
Many people can tell quickly by glancing at a horse…who bred it or whose type it is, 
because certain breeders have developed a specific type which is easily recognizable. 
Usually this has been accomplished through some form of inbreeding.

LINEBREEDING:
The word linebreeding does not encompass nearly the broad coverage for which it is
commonly used. It is breeding within the family so that the relationship of the dam and 
sire is not more distant than second cousins, or great great grandparents. Linebreeding is
also referred to as a form of inbreeding in which the blood of particular individuals is
concentrated in the herd without an attempt to rapidly inbreed.
The basic rule of all geneticists, scientists and successful animal breeders is that the best
breeding results are obtained by breeding close relatives to each other.
Judith Forbis. Authentic Arabian 
Bloodstock. Ansata Publications, Mena, 
Arkansas. 1990
Let us summarize. Inbreeding leads to the more frequent recurrence of parental allele
combinations in children. Line breeding results in the reduction of the number of alleles
(per gene locus) in a breeding group, which increases the frequency of the remaining
alleles and thus the recurrence of allele combinations of parents in their children. All this
leads to a higher genetically determined similarity between the generations. Now it is
clear that a top animal is a top animal because it is rare. Why does a breeder spend one
million dollars for a particular stallion? Because he knows the animal has something the
others lack. Top animals always have rare alleles, especial on the highest level of the
genom hierarchy. That’s why these breeding methods are so very important.
It’s not merely a question of displacing average values, as the quantitative geneticists
imply. We breed individual animals, not average values. Hence, the point is to 
reproduce the hereditary make-up of top animals in their offspring, and this is only 
possible by inbreeding and line breeding – that’s the consequence. Now you understand 
why the most magnificent horse of all time – the Arabian – reveals so much inbreeding in 
its pedigrees.
F. Bakels. The Asil Arabian in the Light of
the New Genetic Knowledge. Olms Verlag, 
Hildesheim, 1980

I believe by virtue of centuries of Bedouin breeding, due to their stringent requirements, Arabians have evolved in a unique way no other breed has, therefore making the breed highly prepotent. In the case of Arabians, inbreeding and linebreeding were not only highly successful, but demonstrably consistent in their results.
Is this to say everyone should go out and linebreed/inbreed? Of course not. But we can learn how a culture- so different than ours- created a breed standard that no other culture has. And they did this by inbreeding. The existence of the breed itself speaks to the method's undisputed success.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Qrtrbel my people are more inbred than those barefoot hillbillies we make fun of. Shalom


And there in lies the difference between discriminate and indiscriminate... that was supposed to be the wink wink smilie but it didn't happen.
I just realized there was much more to this thread than what I replied to. Going back to read


----------



## southislander (Feb 28, 2012)

*line v's in*

the only difference is line doesn't have the deformities ...ie you got lucky 
like a in bred litter of pups there will be some that are ok and some with undershot jaws ,screwed up hips heart defects 
inbreeding is wrong even if you call it line breeding


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

southislander said:


> the only difference is line doesn't have the deformities ...ie you got lucky
> like a in bred litter of pups there will be some that are ok and some with undershot jaws ,screwed up hips heart defects
> inbreeding is wrong even if you call it line breeding


In-breeding does not cause deformities.


----------



## southislander (Feb 28, 2012)

Chiilaa said:


> In-breeding does not cause deformities.


yes it does
undershot jaws and screwed up hips for a start 
look at inbred humans


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

southislander said:


> yes it does
> undershot jaws and screwed up hips for a start
> look at inbred humans


No. It doesn't. I am one of those against inbreeding, but even I will agree with that. Read the thread instead of just commenting, and you'll realize WHY. It does not CAUSE deformities, it brings hidden problems to the surface. For instance, one bloodline has the genes for screwed up hips hidden that nobody knows about. If you outbreed, that's not a problem because the dominant gene for proper hips in the other horse covers it. If you inbreed, there is no dominant gene to cover it, so the recessive hip problems come to the surface and you have a wonky foal. Makes it no better in my opinion, but saying it causes genetic deformities is just not correct.

Read up, the last half of the thread is where it's discussed in depth. THEN come back and feel free to comment.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I could not have said it better myself Shoebox.
You get my vote for class president. LOL 
Southislander there are good reasons for and against inbreeding. Many were discussed here on this thread.
Reading the entire thread is a good idea if you want to join the discussion. Shalom


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

Shoebox said:


> No. It doesn't. I am one of those against inbreeding, but even I will agree with that. Read the thread instead of just commenting, and you'll realize WHY. It does not CAUSE deformities, it brings hidden problems to the surface.* For instance, one bloodline has the genes for screwed up hips hidden that nobody knows about. If you outbreed, that's not a problem because the dominant gene for proper hips in the other horse covers it.** ONLY if the the horse you outcross to doesn't have the same hidden gene!* If you inbreed, there is no dominant gene to cover it, so the recessive hip problems come to the surface and you have a wonky foal. Makes it no better in my opinion, but saying it causes genetic deformities is just not correct.
> 
> Read up, the last half of the thread is where it's discussed in depth. THEN come back and feel free to comment.


If there is not genetic testing for the undesired trait, there is no guarantee that the horse you outcross to has a homogygus gene to override it. Also, if the original horse does not exhibit the undesired trait then they must have at least one dominate gene that they can pass to offspring. It's really just a numbers game. And you also have to keep in mind that the numbers are that of the whole population and aren't always obvious in small numbers. For example, my first husband and father of my children has brown eyes, I have blue. According to the punnett square 1 of 4 children would have blue eyes, both my kids have blue eyes. So, I "beat" the odds (if you desire blue eyes) but somewhere out there, there is someone else who got no blue eyes in the same situation.


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

Here is a neat video from a hackney breeder on line breeding.
Heartland Hackney Farm


----------

