# What is more detrimental?



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I see many people comment on pedigrees and breeding practices. I have question:
Which breeding practice is more detrimental to breed; the practice of inbreeding( say 1-2 or 2-2) which includes brother to sister or father/mother to daughter/son; or backmassing( where when you go back 8 or more generations you might find one or two dogs 10 to 15 times ).
In particular in terms of health, temperament, that seems to be the reasons I read that bad breeding practices result in.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

I think back massing is worse as it can severely limit the gene pool. And it would be harder to breed away from. 

That said, inbreeding can cause a backmass on those lines. So hmmmmmmm.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

I'd think extensive back massing for the same reason as @gsdsar said.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Depends. How similar are the pedigrees of the dogs being inbred? Father/daughter where the motherline of the daughter is very very different from the pedigree of dad would be less of a concern than a similar breeding where the daughter's motherline is pretty much the same lines. It would also matter how the resulting offspring were then used in a breeding program. Would these dogs be outcrossed into other lines or would the breeder be bringing them back to the same lines. 

Inbreeding and backmassing can damage the genetic diversity of the breed. With that can come health and temperament issues and also damage the overall vigor and soundness of the breed. 

* vigor isn't the word I want, but can't think of the right word.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

I agree with what is being said but when you look at backmassing from a Wright's or Hardiman's inbreeding coefficient POV, it all seems so minor.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

it is not a mathematical equation.

the value resides in who that animal is , what they bring to the table , the reason for the selection and the manner in which those lines have been brought forward or are intended to be brought forward in the future of a planned program.

it is a darn good thing that some of the old lines, the Lierberg's , can still be tapped in their postitions in the background to help keep stablitily , and balance .

time goes one way . 

but if you select from lines which have a continuity in purpose you can maintain those desirable attributes.

read the pedigree and you can see the amateur or the master .

any animal chosen for tight line breeding has to be thoroughly understood . There has to be some logic to the selection. 

there are pedigrees that one could look at that are little more than the appearance of that generations most popular studs or winners at the big events 

you can have back massing to consolidate a function , a temperamental quality, a physical type - it does set type.

you have no control over the back massing .-- but you should understand it 

you can be active in decision making, whether as a breeder or a buyer , when it comes to the the current pairing


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

it is all about the strategy of the pedigree and close examination of the mother line .


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Very interesting, I see many people advise others on inbreeding or backmassing, so I am curious as to what the rationale for their advice originates from. I'm always interested in a perspective that reflect practices that translate into the betterment of the breed. Unfortunately, though many have opinions of the bad of inbreeding or backmassing; when it comes to explaining the whys and wherefores....many are silent. 
It would seem to me, ( as indicated) that inbreeding on a dog should also reflect whether the dog inbred on was an outcross, or maybe the result of linebreeding, or even the result of inbreeding. So to my limited understanding, to pass judgement on a 1-2 or 2-2 breeding, and not have any knowledge of these elements, or the traits( weaknesses&strengths) of the inbred dogs, would be lacking the minimum information to give informed advice. Nothwithstanding, the many other factors that will influence the breeding, I find it difficult to understand the BASIS for some of the opinions on breedings or pedigrees newer people often want opinions on. So my OP is trying to understand why people think what's there is there....?


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

I look way back. I know for a certainty that issues can come forward 9 and 10 generations. Dwarfism for example. The root of the problem is pretty known to be 3 specific dogs who were widely used. It can pop up generations later. University of Utrecht in the Netherlands did studies on the genetics of GSDs for this, and swore they never saw it in "working dogs" "never in a dog wiht Busecker Schloss" was a DIRECT statement. So I sent samples and pedigrees. They were astounded at first - then pinpointed it to dogs in the 8th and 9th generations on both sides...this was a Pike daughter to a Yoshey son whose dam was a Busecker Schloss dog.

It is generally acknowledged that heavy linebreeding forward to backmassing on Lance of Fran Jo introduced many problems to the ASL. The same thing is happening in WGWL in my opinion by studying pedigrees of dogs with issues - be they temperament or health. I had a 3 hour conversation with a trainer last evening who is looking for a new dog...started preferably.....will not TOUCH a dog with <popular well regarded male - 2 specifically> in the pedigree. I am loathe to even name a dog long dead as people get so defensive about a dog 4 or 5 generations back in their dogs pedigree. Three dogs were owned by this person who had <male1> and all three had similar behaviors that caused the dogs to be washed out - plus quite a few others were observed - yes, many many dogs with <both males> have done great and were wonderful, but too many were not. What people do not acknowledge or want to believe is that some of those major, to drool over kennels in Europe still cull pups and young dogs with nerve issues. I know a couple of US breeders who frankly state they will cull nervy pups to get a couple of good ones. We don't here. We buy them from Europe when they want to lessen their loss/maximize their gain from a litter. We have ALL seen so many posts here, and from elsewhere, where a novice comes on proudly citing a dog they are importing from <Rockstar!!> - and find later that they were sent a puppy who would never last long enough be taken to a club in Europe. I can't begin to recount the communications I have had with people who got stuck with a nervy or defective pup from a big breeder in Europe.....

I am careful in that I have 4 to 5 generations of family that has no backmassing on certain dogs....I have "clean" pedigrees. I am getting inquiries about breeding a male I have that a friend has been training for a couple of years - lol he has PROMISED to get his titles this year....he is clear of 4 dogs who are now major jam-ups in pedigrees. He has some 8 - 10th generation backmassing - Lierburgs, Ex Reidstein, haus Himple....

At this point I am cautious about any backmassing too heavily on ANY dog.....not just the major 4.....

My next litter has a 3-5 I think on Xito Maineiche, and I do plan on doing a 2-3 linebreeding on my Xito daughter down the road....have had many healthy dogs from this family so far - no allergies, no digestive issue, no soft ears, missing teeth....mix of Czech, Belgian, DDR and WGR


Lee


----------



## EMH (Jul 28, 2014)

Breeding seems like a classic case of "hypothetical vs. practice". 
Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with a 1-2 or 2-2 inbreeding or heavy back massing. 
However, when we start to apply these breeding hypotheticals and turn them into practice, that's when things begin to get very muddy very clearly. 
"Is the dog being linebred 2-2 on heavily linebred on himself?" 
"Is he a total outcross?" 
And I believe it is this muddiness that steers people to adopt the opinion of "2-2 breedings are bad". 
To put this in trading/investment terms, a 2-2 breeding is a lot more "volatile" insofar that you can get strong expressions of certain traits or "extreme" swings towards certain types of behaviors. But the level of risk for the breeding to go "bad" is also higher. I think it is this "volatility" that people are saying is bad, but then generalize it to mean "2-2 = bad" without realizing the basis of said generalization. A lot of this requires a good bit of intelligence to understand the abstract complexity of it all. Hopefully that makes sense?


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Breeding and pedigrees get more confusing the more I try and learn and study them. I thought it was widely believed that after three generations the traits are no longer relevant to the new pups. Just a clue where the traits from the first three lines came from. I thought that line breeding can possibly bring some of those traits back. And inbreeding is the same as line breeding except it has the possibility of amplifying those traits good or bad. So wouldn't this all depend on which dogs someone was referencing.


----------



## Deb (Nov 20, 2010)

I think what it really boils down to is you have to know your pedigrees and the dogs in them. For one pedigree, a backmassing from specific dogs could possibly be a disaster, while with a different pedigree with backmassing could possibly bring forward traits you want. The same with linebreeding or closer breedings. No matter what type of pedigree you're looking at, you need to know the dogs in it.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

carmspack said:


> it is not a mathematical equation.
> 
> the value resides in who that animal is , what they bring to the table , the reason for the selection and the manner in which those lines have been brought forward or are intended to be brought forward in the future of a planned program.
> 
> ...


So then what really does Wright and Hardiman's tell you?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Lee,( Wolfstraum), that was an excellent post you wrote in my opinion, and it just begins to consider factors that are important in reading or advising on a pedigree or breeding. Those points you make about Europe and American breeders are very true. Knowledge of the dogs from first hand reports are important. The hidden negative things that seem to follow many popular dogs are important, the prepotence of said traits of dogs that are either linebred or even an outcrossed have to be considered. In order to reputably advise someone on a breeding or pedigree requires a LOT of understanding of this breed, that cannot come from a narrow exposure to one line or another. What say others?


----------



## Deb (Nov 20, 2010)

I've seen many who only look at the dog in the pedigree. The more you know dogs and lines, the more I feel you need to also look at a more 'whole picture' whenever possible. I've found when I look at a pedigree and I also know about some of the littermates from the same litter I feel like I have a better picture of what the dog is capable of producing. If Dog A is a nice worker, solid temperament, and his littermates were also the same, I feel more confident in what Dog A might produce. But if I know of his littermates only one other dog worked well and there were temperament problems with another, one was oversized, etc.. then I'm not going to have as much confidence in what Dog A might produce. Looking at a pedigree with knowledge of lines and knowledge of 'behind the scene' dogs, tells you so much more. People with this kind of knowledge have the ability to look at a pedigree and tell you the type temperament you might get, whether the dog might be a good worker or that 'these lines are known for being excellent herders', etc.. There are no short cuts to this knowledge, no books to read, only a long time in the breed, studying and sharing of knowledge between breeders and a true love of learning.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I agree Deb, another "disease" ( figuratively) of many American high end breeders is the unreal expectation that if any of the pups have serious faults, then the breeding is disaster. Take for example if a litter of 10 has two dogs that are dysplastic....then some would view this negatively. I view it as 80% non dysplastic and this is very good breeding from that perspective. Say two out of ten pups have weak nerves.....again 80% have sound nerves and in big scheme of things weak nerves will never be eliminated completely from any line....but 80% good is much better than 20% good as some lines produce and falls within acceptable bell curve to me. Some things in this breed are ever present but good breeders,imo, will minimize in their breedings the weaknesses FIRST and FOREMOST, where average or specialty breeders will still place specialty goal or color or heart tug as basis for there breeding choices.
So, a clear understanding of realistic expectations of breeding or pedigree also has to accompany the formation of the opinion of a breeding.
There will never be perfection in breeding, and seeking that elusive goal has led many reputable breeders into proverbial rabbit hole of lack of genetic diversity.


----------

