[wyldterv]

Originally Posted by prairienights

I don't know enough about horse linebreeding to carry on a decent debate about it, but I do know quite a bit about genetics, genetic disorders, and how breeding closely related individuals can amplify many of these problems. Certainly there are some benefits, but I think the risks have to be looked at very closely.

I don't know if there's a specific percentage of blood from a specific line for one to justify the use of the term inbreeding in the horse world, but either way, it *is* a form of inbreeding and the same risks come with it. Yes, it can be done responsibly for the benefit of the breed and line, but having 37% of the blood related to one sire is, in my opnion, unhealthy.

But yes, we all have our own opinions, and that mare is *definitely* inbred.

Ahhhhhh but it needs to be noted that linebreeding and more indepth inbreeding (and yes line breeding is a FORM of diluted inbreeding!) can just as easily lock in POSITIVE heritable traits and create lines that are solid for NOT having a particular undesirable trait.

The key is understanding what line and inbreeding can and can not do and to be responsible in culling the stock that have heritable charactistics that are undesireable out of all breeding period.

You are actually at a HIGHER risk of finding genetic outcroppings when breeding unrelated lines since not many things can actually be tested for genetically at this time so the only way we find out xyz horse has been a carrier is to cross it with another carrier line and often outcrosses will show where unknown weaknesses lie

ALL breeding needs to be done in a well researched, thoughtful manner IMO to try to minimized undesirable traits and amplify desirable ones.

Originally Posted by cminor

I have seen a lot of inbreed horses in my time and they do tend to be a little crazier than normal. I have a halter bred horse out in the pasture that was a gift to us and he is breed closer than what I would like, and it shows.

Huh, that's interesting, I live with VERY linebred and a few truly inbred dogs and have trained and worked with literally HUNDREDS of dogs over the past 31 yrs (yes I trained my very first German Wirehaired Pointer for Field competition all by myself at age 10! ) and unless the dog has lines that have poor temperament to begin with (and in which case should be be bred on anyway) the well bred line and inbred dogs do NOT tend to be 'psycho' at all, just the opposite, you can very well predict what their temperament is going to turn out like because they are so strongly bred to have that temperament.

SO if you're seeing linebred and inbred horses with temperament issues, it is not the line and inbreeding itself causing the issue, it's the fact that someone is breedign back on a line that had poor temperament to begin with and should not have been bred period.

[doublebarr]

Linebreeding (inbreeding) done right is a beautiful thing. But linebreeding done right has to be done with a STRONG cull program and a LOT of knowledge through life and books.

Cattle are strongly linebred in many instances for the betterment of the species as a whole, as long as you also keep outcrossing as needed and maintain a healthy (read as large) number of "outside" stock avaliable.

Pigs have been linebred too deep and one day the swine industry will get a BAD wakeup call.

Dog are a GREAT example of PROVEN good linebreeding practices as well as HORRIBLE practices. The consencious (spl?) breeders have done an excellent job of doing amazing research and study and continously produce EXCELLENT examples of their breed. The "puppy mills" are the worst offenders.

Before throwing out "general assumpions and statements" it really pays to completely research everything in the "lines" background. Meaning, just because you had a "bad" linebred (inbred) horse, it does not equal the linebreeding is at fault. Research all the horses lines and the descendents of those lines (meaning all avaliable research on the foals and foals-foals from those same "type" crossings) before making assumptions that may actually be based on one particular "horse" or "line" and not the fault of the "supposed inbreeding".

Study Hank Wisecamp and his program. Study the King ranch and their program. Study MANY old breeders (of different breeds also, Arabs, Drafts, etc.) where the information has had years to develop and understand the whole, rather than just your little environment.

[Timber_blaze]

I think inbreeding, linebreeding, and just plain breeding in general is plagued by people who think they can have a pretty stallion with "good" papers and a pretty mare with "good" papers and make a buck off breeding. This is where the entire horse world loses. Irresponsible breeders of all breeds, events, and riding styles cause genetic problems, temperament problems, and the current slaughter debate. Unfortunately, there's no cure for human stupidity and irresponsibility.

Here's a random question. What the heck does IMO mean? I keep seeing it, and I can't figure out what it means!

[prairienights]

Originally Posted by doublebarr

Study Hank Wisecamp and his program. Study the King ranch and their program. Study MANY old breeders (of different breeds also, Arabs, Drafts, etc.) where the information has had years to develop and understand the whole, rather than just your little environment.

I'm not speaking from "my little environment," in fact I've never purchased a heavily linebred horse because it doesn't appeal to me. And as I have stated earlier in this thread, I do not know enough about specifically linebred horses to carry on a truly intellectual debate over it. However, as a student of agricultural sciences, I have studied the benefits and the downsides of linebreeding anything. From that, I would prefer not to own or to breed a linebred animal.

I have *also* stated earlier in the thread that I recognize the immensely benificial results of linebreeding in establishing homozygosity and increased allele frequency of positive traits. These are things that I have studied in classes from agricultural specialists, I've helped with genetic research at my university's vet school, and I've generally done some research on my own. In short, I know the pros and cons. I know there's a vast difference between linebreeding done well and linebreeding done poorly. I know that it requires research (any type of breeding takes research). I know that, if done well, it can produce healthy and improved offspring.

However, in my opinion, it's still not the best breeding plan. Now I'm not saying King ranch has it all wrong or that breeding Poco horses is wrong, but there are so many breeders who are striving to stuff as much blood from one line into foals, and there's no possible way that I would want a horse with 37.5% of related genetics in one horse. That is too much.

Linebreeding is not a form of inbreeding, it *is* inbreeding. Breeding aunts, uncles, stepbrothers, cousins, even second cousins is inbreeding.

[doublebarr]

Originally Posted by prairienights

However, in my opinion, it's still not the best breeding plan.

Then eluciate us! What is, in your opinion, the best breeding plan?

How would you breed for "specific traits" such as in cattle to get a healthy end product that produces consistantly?

What is your "formula", since you "have studied it" for best breeding practices?

And, note, I never said linebreeding was not inbreeding. I specifically put it as:

Linebreeding (inbreeding) done right is a beautiful thing. But linebreeding done right has to be done with a STRONG cull program and a LOT of knowledge through life and books.

And, if you haven't "studied horse breeding" enough, then how do you KNOW what is "too much" of something within specific horse lines?

[lvmypnt]

Originally Posted by doublebarr

Before throwing out "general assumpions and statements" it really pays to completely research everything in the "lines" background. Meaning, just because you had a "bad" linebred (inbred) horse, it does not equal the linebreeding is at fault. Research all the horses lines and the descendents of those lines (meaning all avaliable research on the foals and foals-foals from those same "type" crossings) before making assumptions that may actually be based on one particular "horse" or "line" and not the fault of the "supposed inbreeding".

As I stated before IMO there is a difference between line-bred (which is what I would classify the stallion) and in-bred (which the mare definatley is).

Yes, I agree you can get very desirable results from line-breeding and in-breeding. That is why people do it to obtain what they call "perfection", but a lot of the times when horses are bred as tightly as that mare the opposite happens. So In my opinion why risk it with breeding that tightly.

My husband and I had a very hard time selling that mare because of the in-breeding. Every ones response was pretty much "i am all for line breeding, but she is bred way to tight."

I guess what I am saying is there is a very good possibilty that you will get the total opposite of what you are breeding for when a horse is in-bred vs. nicely line-bred. So why risk it?

[doublebarr]

Originally Posted by lvmypnt

I guess what I am saying is there is a very good possibilty that you will get the total opposite of what you are breeding for when a horse is in-bred vs. nicely line-bred. So why risk it?

Because WITH A STRONG CULL PROGRAM! you can end up with what Hank Wisecamp did. A line that consistancy produced to EXCEPTIONAL type who's reputation is still going strong. The legacy of the Skipper W breeding is legendary and for good reason.

Done right linebreeding/inbreeding (HELLO! I said it's one and the same) is a VERY GOOD IDEA!

[wyldterv]

Originally Posted by prairienights

...Linebreeding is not a form of inbreeding, it *is* inbreeding. Breeding aunts, uncles, stepbrothers, cousins, even second cousins is inbreeding.

Yes it IS inbreeding but it is a diluted form of inbreeding and that's a quote from a world recognized expert in the field in genetics studies in canines that I had the good fortune to sit in on a lecture held 3 yrs ago now in Seattle, WA at an International Scientists meeting (sometimes living with a Rocket Scientist pays off in other areas, lololol)...

FOR discussion purposes there is a difference in linebreeding and what lay people call inbreeding. TRUE inbreeding is mother x Son, Father, Daughter or brother x sister breedings. Those are the most concentrated breedings you can do genetically with full brother x full sister being the most concentrated genepool.

It can be VERY valuable to do a Full sibling to sibling cross to proof out a line BUT when doing something that concentrated you need to be prepared to completely cull out any undesirable genetic traits. It is not a technique for the uneducated, impatient, nor weak of heart.

I'm curious why, when SO much research actually points to the BENEFITS of strongly linebred stock in a created genepool (which is what all purebred animals are, a created genepool) and how in fact, linebreeding actually helps MAINTAIN genetic diversity within breeds because different lines will bring different strong traits (and of course hopefully they are good traits when done properly) to the table to blend with one another, versus very diluted lines where it is very difficult to know where true issues and true strengths lie, as to why you'd be so worried about it?

The true key to a healthy bloodstock is to have several STRONGLY linebred lines that vary from one another that can then be predictively bred back into one another to add things each line may need.

That's not my opinion, that's what current research and centuries of breeding has proofed out

[lvmypnt]

Originally Posted by doublebarr

Done right linebreeding/inbreeding (HELLO! I said it's one and the same) is a VERY GOOD IDEA!

Again, IMO line-breeding ("done right") and in-breeding are different. I have no problem with line-breeding. I do have a problem with in-breeding.

[wyldterv]

Originally Posted by lvmypnt

Again, IMO line-breeding ("done right") and in-breeding are different. I have no problem with line-breeding. I do have a problem with in-breeding.

BUT how can you be for one and against the other when, technically they are the same thing ?