Bulldog Breeds Forums banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I'm not really sure if their is one answer to that. Because it depends on the bloodlines and the individual dogs. I only know about APBTs, my breeding knowledge is limited there so I'm uncertain on other breeds.

Linebreeding is inbreeding, but its not as tight, its a less tight form of inbreeding and thats why the term linebreeding was creating. To describe the breeding of dogs from the same bloodline vs dogs who are say brother and sister being bred.

I know a dog who is tightly bred and from a half brother sister breeding and his structure is horrible, his eyes are all far apart and loony, he doesn't seem to have drive or ability at all, and seems rather stupid. He seems to have an ok temperament, but wouldn't trust him in all situations like I would other dogs.

On the other hand many bloodlines are tightly inbred and linebred and thats how they've got to be a consistent bloodline.

If you take CH Venom in my signature he is a great example of the breed (IMO of course). His sire is from a father/daughter breeding and his dam is from a son/mother breeding. As well the daughter of the f/d breeding and the mother in the s/m breeding are littermate sisters. The litter turned out great and I'd say it was a good breeding.

I can name numerous good bloodlines, great individuals and breedings with good results that are the product of linebreeding or heavy inbreeding. But I also know of others that produced poor quality dogs, so it really depends on the genes. I know outcrosses that have sucked as well.

I would also like to get some Norrod blood. I was just talking about this. CH Dutchess is from a son/mother breeding, she was bred to CH Red Dog who's line was the same on bottom and inbred he had been outcrossed as the top was different. They were bred togother and a brother and sister from that litter bred together. A friend of mine had a female from this who he outcrossed and another friend got a female from that. I saw a litter off her female and they have been doing very well and still holding true to the bloodline. I almost got one as a pup but decided not to, and wait in the future I will get something off of her instead and them may get something from my other friend to put with it. He has littermates who's sire was a son of CH Gambler to his half sister and dam was from CH Red Dog x CH Dutchess and he will be breeding them together. The dogs I know and seem to be quality to me, they don't lack, the good genes have been set in.

There are a lot of other bloodlines with heavy inbreeding that I have liked the results such as Old Family Red Nose, Bolio, Honeybunch thats just a few there are many others.

But then I have seen inbred dogs with poor build, lack of brains, weak structure. The bad traits were magnified and the breeder didn't stop breeding when their was a problem so the dogs got worse and worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Breeding daughter to father is the norm, people don't normally inbreed tighter than that. If you do, you have to be prepared to cull. I think you have to be prepared to cull in any type of tight inbreeding, you never know especially with bulldogs - lots of crap that can pop up when you go really really tight, but you can get some really nice results out of it too, which is why it's done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
redbull said:
Breeding daughter to father is the norm, people don't normally inbreed tighter than that. If you do, you have to be prepared to cull. I think you have to be prepared to cull in any type of tight inbreeding, you never know especially with bulldogs - lots of crap that can pop up when you go really really tight, but you can get some really nice results out of it too, which is why it's done.
is there anything tighter then father to daughter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
There's also many ways to line up a ped without tight inbreeding all in 1 or 2 generations. you can still inbreed/linebreed safely over multi-gens. At one point you're going to find out what's bad in that blood though (and also what's good). I think the majority of breeders don't take it to that much of a science though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Be prepared to cull and kill off most of the litter.

Everything gets exaggerated or stamped in. All the crap comes to the surface. All the good traits get even more exaggerated.

In my opinion, NO pets should be line or in bred. There is no point, except to stamp in phenotype.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Phenotype? Um, I'd say it's stamping in a little more than a dog's looks.

More like a true genotype of that bloodline. You crunch on those genes, you're going to get a dog that is very typey in ALL it's traits. Or a dog that will reproduce it's traits. That's the point of line-breeding, it's not just for show lol. Genes make up a lot more than a dog's phenotype.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,187 Posts
Tight linebred dogs are usually used for outcrossed breedings. The 'stamped' genotype is more likely to pass down in an outcrossing, to better the lines. So when looking to add new blood to your broodstock, do alot of research, find the best dog possible that is tight linebred. More of that dog's genetics will get into your breeding program.

What is the old standard for linebreeding foundation dogs? 3 unrelated dogs, 2 females, 1 male, the F1 bred back to the male, the F2 from bitch A bred to the F2 from bitch B... so it makes (Im way off here) The sire of the dam is also the grandsire... or something like that... I'd have to look it up to be sure... but something along those lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
redbull.....I said pets dogs. Show dogs are line bred to preserve what is already there and retain consistency. Inbreeding is used to create something more intense, in terms of the expression of each gene. Invariably, this is their phenotype since that is the ONLY thing judged.

Performance dogs are inbred to create a more intense expression of any particular gene. Perhaps, it is their desire to hunt, etc. Many also do this, pit bulls anywasy, to bring out the bad stuff so it can be culled out of their lines.

I have had a chance to work with some competitive lab retriever trainers. My ex boss was one of them. His dogs looked like labs but way way thinner and more intense. He inbred with care and when he did, he kept all the pups. He culled very heavy. The closer you breed, the more pups you have to cull.

So, for those that want to breed, do you want to deal with that? It is hardest part of breeding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
I know people who linebreed and don't have to cull. It's not common to have to cull in every litter. It depends on how close you want to go and how often you go that close. It's completely ethical and every breeder should linebreed to an extent to keep type consistent. Linebreeding does not mean that culling is necessary, only very tight inbreeding means that you may need to cull. You breed a dog to his aunt for example, tight but still not as tight. You breed a dog to his grandam's daughter, out of a completely different sire and that's still linebreeding, but no necessary cul most likely. You have the grandsire the same on both sides of a ped, another example of linebreeding without likely chances of needing to cull.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,670 Posts
bigut,

the best breeders are breeders that cull heavily. IMO it would be more unethical to constantly outcross because all you are doing is covering up problems, rather than allowing them to surface, so you can hopefully eliminate them from the line.. Of course there is always a time for outcrossing but in no way does outcrossing assure that you won't have problems and not need to cull!

There are scatterbred dogs out there with problems too. When someone constantly outcrosses you can never really know where the good and bad traits come from..its a guessing game. Think about it this way.....if you have a scatterbred dog with a heath issue, then you try and go back and find where it is coming from, think about how difficult that would be if there were no common dogs in the pedigree...same with the opposite scenario..say you have a scatterbed dog that is really nice and you want to breed it, how do you know where all those nice traits are coming from in a pedigree like that? With scatterbred dogs you have to do so much more research and the consistency just won't be there even if you breed back to something up close in their ped. It would really take a while to crunch up those genes and get some consistency when starting with a scatterbred dog.

Think about it this way..you have a dog you really like and you want to breed it. You are breeding it because you like the dog, therefore you like its genetics, right? So doesn't it kind of defeat the whole purpose of breeding it if you turn around and breed it to something totally unreleated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Lisa said:
bigut,

the best breeders are breeders that cull heavily.

At the same time, you shouldn't have to cull heavily once you remove issues from the blood you are working with. Use the good, cull the bad. Then you are mainly only working with good blood. You need to introduce new traits, outcross, then inbreed to remove unwanted traits, then you're better off than before. By that point you should have a large enough range of dogs (owned, co-owned, etc) to work with that you don't need to heavily inbreed at each breeding. These methods are of course ones used when working with a fairly raw breed, like the AB, etc. Lots of breeds out there have many established lines already. All pure-bred dogs are inbred to a certain degree. It's just a necessity.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top