Here are my two cents on your questions.
Line breeding is "supposed" to work best when you stay within the same line. This is of course true two or more generations into line-breeding.
I feel the positions held in the pedigree are an earned spot, not a planned spot. As in one of the previous example pedigrees, where the mothers of the two best Rolex sons where used to narrow the pedigree, the doe chosen have proved/earned they were the two doe, out of 20, that worked best with Rolex. The key is to breed a group of unrelated animals to one particular animal and select only the doe that produce the best results. These are the animals that you continue to breed with. You would also use these doe for corrections. For example; one year you would breed all 20 to Rolex. The following year you would breed them all to a different unrelated buck. Now you have two or three different lines all from the same the doe that you can cross and still be controlling 50% of the equation.
In Genesis, Noah contributed his blood/influence for over 900 years. I know of many cattle blood lines that are still breeding with 50% of the blood from ancestors from well over a 100 years ago. The question really isn't how long, per say, but rather how well is the line performing that will determine when a slight out cross should be used.
Now you are seeing the light. We select our breeding stock, both buck and doe, by what they have on their head as well as what the dams sire has their head. It only makes sense to line-breed the doe. The down fall to this is this is a much slower process as one doe can only produce 2-4 fawns each year, were as a buck can produce hundreds each year to select from. Again, looking back to the example pedigree where only the two most proven doe where selected, you can see that we are in fact starting to line-breed on the doe in the third generation by making crosses on the mothers side as well.
We selected the full sisters of the best buck and the second best buck. We crossed the best bucks full sister with the second best buck from Rolex. We are also crossing the second best bucks full sister with the best buck from Rolex. We are still at 50% of Rolex blood and 25% of each unrelated doe. Now we are, in a sense, controlling genetic influences and working on controlling predictability.
You have to remember that Rome was not built in one generation. Line-breeding is a life long commitment but in the long run will produce animals with higher percentages of predictability.
In that last pedigree I posted in the old forum, it was in-breeding to Rolex by 62.5%. If an inbreeding takes place, you can cross a uncle niece and bring that coefficient back to 50%. In-breeding is used to intensify or make a correction to the line by capturing more of the genetic code of one single animal with the desired traits.
As Fred pointed out, there are so many unknowns in antler development that we are basically just touching the tip of the iceberg as far as understanding what it takes to grow big deer. However, I have not seen a full fledged breeding program dedicated solely to true line breeding. From what I have seen, the initial first cross or two have been proving that great antler development and a certain degree of predictability are being achieved. None the less, these animals are then scatter-breed and thus genetically saturated for the predictability that was started to be bred into them.
This is understandable as it is only human nature to take the biggest and cross it with the biggest in hopes for even bigger. Yes, we are getting some bigger deer by breeding this way, but how much bigger could they have been is the true question if they would have continued to line-breed them.
A line-breeding program isn't really something you can sit down and plan out for the next 10 years. A line breeding plan is based on the selections from each generation. A good buck in this generation may not be able to produce for the next generation. Selection is based on the animal itself, and not how a pedigree "will look" four generations from now. As was said early on, a pedigree is only a record of ancestors - nothing more!
A good, solid line-bred line will continue to produce better each year and with more predictability.
I am excited of the possibilities for Rolexby10. The pedigree (record of ancestors) indicates the possibilities. Now taking it to the next level is the option of the owner as well as through other breeders that have a group of "proven doe" closely relating any of the animals in the first 3 generations of his pedigree. This is only my opinion of course, as I have NO monetary investment or ownership what so ever in the deer itself or any of the genetic ties.
<EDIT ADDED
Also, concerning anchor doe, if you look at the attached example pedigree you will see how unrelated doe #1 "earned" her position as anchor doe by being the dam to the best son of Rolex.
.
Liveoak said:
Line breeding is "supposed" to work best when you stay within the same line. This is of course true two or more generations into line-breeding.
Liveoak said:
I feel the positions held in the pedigree are an earned spot, not a planned spot. As in one of the previous example pedigrees, where the mothers of the two best Rolex sons where used to narrow the pedigree, the doe chosen have proved/earned they were the two doe, out of 20, that worked best with Rolex. The key is to breed a group of unrelated animals to one particular animal and select only the doe that produce the best results. These are the animals that you continue to breed with. You would also use these doe for corrections. For example; one year you would breed all 20 to Rolex. The following year you would breed them all to a different unrelated buck. Now you have two or three different lines all from the same the doe that you can cross and still be controlling 50% of the equation.
In Genesis, Noah contributed his blood/influence for over 900 years. I know of many cattle blood lines that are still breeding with 50% of the blood from ancestors from well over a 100 years ago. The question really isn't how long, per say, but rather how well is the line performing that will determine when a slight out cross should be used.
Liveoak said:
Now you are seeing the light. We select our breeding stock, both buck and doe, by what they have on their head as well as what the dams sire has their head. It only makes sense to line-breed the doe. The down fall to this is this is a much slower process as one doe can only produce 2-4 fawns each year, were as a buck can produce hundreds each year to select from. Again, looking back to the example pedigree where only the two most proven doe where selected, you can see that we are in fact starting to line-breed on the doe in the third generation by making crosses on the mothers side as well.
We selected the full sisters of the best buck and the second best buck. We crossed the best bucks full sister with the second best buck from Rolex. We are also crossing the second best bucks full sister with the best buck from Rolex. We are still at 50% of Rolex blood and 25% of each unrelated doe. Now we are, in a sense, controlling genetic influences and working on controlling predictability.
You have to remember that Rome was not built in one generation. Line-breeding is a life long commitment but in the long run will produce animals with higher percentages of predictability.
In that last pedigree I posted in the old forum, it was in-breeding to Rolex by 62.5%. If an inbreeding takes place, you can cross a uncle niece and bring that coefficient back to 50%. In-breeding is used to intensify or make a correction to the line by capturing more of the genetic code of one single animal with the desired traits.
As Fred pointed out, there are so many unknowns in antler development that we are basically just touching the tip of the iceberg as far as understanding what it takes to grow big deer. However, I have not seen a full fledged breeding program dedicated solely to true line breeding. From what I have seen, the initial first cross or two have been proving that great antler development and a certain degree of predictability are being achieved. None the less, these animals are then scatter-breed and thus genetically saturated for the predictability that was started to be bred into them.
This is understandable as it is only human nature to take the biggest and cross it with the biggest in hopes for even bigger. Yes, we are getting some bigger deer by breeding this way, but how much bigger could they have been is the true question if they would have continued to line-breed them.
A line-breeding program isn't really something you can sit down and plan out for the next 10 years. A line breeding plan is based on the selections from each generation. A good buck in this generation may not be able to produce for the next generation. Selection is based on the animal itself, and not how a pedigree "will look" four generations from now. As was said early on, a pedigree is only a record of ancestors - nothing more!
A good, solid line-bred line will continue to produce better each year and with more predictability.
I am excited of the possibilities for Rolexby10. The pedigree (record of ancestors) indicates the possibilities. Now taking it to the next level is the option of the owner as well as through other breeders that have a group of "proven doe" closely relating any of the animals in the first 3 generations of his pedigree. This is only my opinion of course, as I have NO monetary investment or ownership what so ever in the deer itself or any of the genetic ties.
<EDIT ADDED
Also, concerning anchor doe, if you look at the attached example pedigree you will see how unrelated doe #1 "earned" her position as anchor doe by being the dam to the best son of Rolex.
.
