This is in relation to an article I found at
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~aciro/bragg.html

In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that I
had not considered.

It was pointed out of course that the F1 generation for a mixed breed would
be stronger than a purebred, but the concern seemed to be that for later
generations the purebreeds would prove to be genetically more fit.

I included an article in the other thread from petsmart, but it was nailed
with an ad hominem attack that didn't counter the substance. Therefore, I
now offer up a more thoroughly thought out article that I would hope is more
immune to the ad hominem attack. I would like to know where this article
has gone wrong, and why.

Thanks!

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~aciro/bragg.html

I'll quote specific passages of the article as responses to this message.

David

In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament) that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament) that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament) that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament) that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

HOWDY EMI'LL CRATEALL
When I want your opinion,
I'll give it to you.

--
Thankyou,
Nevyn
_________________________________

Nevyn E.D.
Veterinary Nurse & Animal Trainer


"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Canine Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would Not Obtain Consistently
Reliable, Fast, Effective Results For All Handler's And All Dogs"

- Jerry Howe
________________________________
"Emily Carroll" wrote in message
...
In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the
quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered
if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that
I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders
disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the
same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they
are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be
found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going
to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to
the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you
are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament)
that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits
one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

HOWDY EMI'LL CRATEALL
When I want your opinion,
I'll give it to you.

--
Thankyou,
Nevyn
_________________________________

Nevyn E.D.
Veterinary Nurse & Animal Trainer


"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Canine Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would Not Obtain Consistently
Reliable, Fast, Effective Results For All Handler's And All Dogs"

- Jerry Howe
________________________________
"Emily Carroll" wrote in message
...
In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the
quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered
if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that
I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders
disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the
same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they
are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be
found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going
to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to
the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you
are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament)
that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits
one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

HOWDY EMI'LL CRATEALL
When I want your opinion,
I'll give it to you.

--
Thankyou,
Nevyn
_________________________________

Nevyn E.D.
Veterinary Nurse & Animal Trainer


"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Canine Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would Not Obtain Consistently
Reliable, Fast, Effective Results For All Handler's And All Dogs"

- Jerry Howe
________________________________
"Emily Carroll" wrote in message
...
In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the
quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered
if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that
I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders
disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the
same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they
are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be
found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going
to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to
the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you
are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament)
that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits
one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

HOWDY EMI'LL CRATEALL
When I want your opinion,
I'll give it to you.

--
Thankyou,
Nevyn
_________________________________

Nevyn E.D.
Veterinary Nurse & Animal Trainer


"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Canine Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would Not Obtain Consistently
Reliable, Fast, Effective Results For All Handler's And All Dogs"

- Jerry Howe
________________________________
"Emily Carroll" wrote in message
...
In a separate thread, (the petition one) I veered slightly offtopic and
asked if purebred dogs would in fact be genetically inferior as compared
to
mongrels (or at the very least equivalent). I have always found the
quest
for genetic purity in dogs to be somewhat disconcerting, but I wondered
if
there was something I was overlooking, some advantage in purebreds that
I
had not considered.

While I don't have time to read that whole article (bookmarked) at this
time, a quick note on the subject.

A breed of dog is something that is finite, in that there is an overall
picture of that breed that is being attempted. Different breeders
disagree
on the small print, in details, but they basically are looking for the
same
overall package. A breed is a good thing for many people, in that they
are
looking for a particular set of characteristics that usually cannot be
found
in a mutt. For example, a mutt that behaves like a Basenji is not going
to
make most families or pet owners happy.

So, doesn't it make more sense to breed out the bad genes and increase the
good in dogs in general, within any breed? To do one's best to keep to
the
dogs that don't carry or produce these problems, and do the research to
ensure that the dogs you breed are healthier than their parents?

In a way, this is similar to breeding to a totally different breed--you
are
still getting the "good" genes in the dogs that are produced, without
introducing new "bad" genes that may not have existed in a strain before,
and without losing the breed type (which includes health & temperament)
that
breeders and pet owners want, and that the standard asks for?

Consider fish breeders. They continually inbreed for generation upon
generation (mainly because there is no choice without introducing traits
one
doesn't want to include in their strain). I recall an article (which I
didn't bookmark) where strains typically get smaller and weaker until the
10-15th generation, after which the breeder (if still going) has
successfully bred out most of the bad stuff and the fish start getting
larger, stronger, and healthier in successive generations.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

David H wrote:
It was pointed out of course that the F1 generation for a mixed breed would
be stronger than a purebred,

Inaccurate. Not "stronger". The F1 would be more heterozygous, but
that's about all.

but the concern seemed to be that for later
generations the purebreeds would prove to be genetically more fit.

There wouldn't be purebreds in later generations, though, would there?

I included an article in the other thread from petsmart, but it was nailed
with an ad hominem attack that didn't counter the substance. Therefore, I
now offer up a more thoroughly thought out article that I would hope is more
immune to the ad hominem attack. I would like to know where this article
has gone wrong, and why.

Well, start with assuming facts not in evidence and go from there.

The author uses "purebred" as synonymous with "conformation-bred", which
is in no way accurate or comprehensive.

The author has an interesting yet inaccurate view of inbreeding and how
it occurs. Inbreeding *always* increases in any population of finite
size once a foundation population is defined. This increase is an
artifact of how inbreeding is defined and calculated.

"The logical consequence of this isolation is the next characteristic:
inbreeding." This is not true. Inbreeding is not the consequence of
isolation, nor is it exclusively the consequence of the "founder event".
Inbreeding is the logical consequence of designating a particular
"founder event", in defining a starting point or foundation population
for a breed or strain.

Inbreeding is the logical consequence of record-keeping. The more
generations you have records on, the more inbred the average individual
in the contemporary population becomes.

"Most registered breeds are less than a century old as registered
breeds; many are but fifty or sixty years old. Yet nearly all breeds now
show levels of expression of genetic defects that must be considered
unacceptable." "Yet"? Is there something that is supposed to connect
the age of a breed with the quantity of genetic defects found in that breed?

"Yet in the long term, if genetic isolation is maintained, it will
necessarily lead to degeneration through genetic drift." Not
"necessarily". The premise is faulty, leading to a suspect conclusion.

Then there's the superfluous invocation of Nazi-ism. Emotionalistic
claptrap. The human comparisons are irrelevant. Oooooo, doggie racism!

"Breed purity", btw, is not the real issue. That's merely an ancestry
thing. Breed viability is the real issue, and the goal is to maintain
both the breed and the viability.

Hardy-Weinberg "Without trying to explain the equation and its
operation here, we can still say in general that the net result is that
heterozygote organisms will be much more numerous than homozygotes in a
Hardy-Weinberg population." In a 2-allele case, under Hardy-Weinberg,
the only time heterozygotes even equal homozygotes is when p=q=.5 -- for
every other value of p and (1-p), homozygotes outnumber heterozygotes.

p=.999; q=.001; p^2+q^2=.998 (homozygotes); 2pq=.002 (heterozygotes)
p=.501; q=.499; p^2+q^2=.50005; 2pq=.49995

Three or more alleles produce somewhat different results. Does this
argue in favor of heterozygosity, or merely a mulit-allelic case? If,
in fact, heterozygosity is universally favored in Nature, why aren't all
species multi-allelic at all loci?

--
Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001),
Ranger, Duke,
felines, and finches