UKC Forums - Repeat Crosses....how often do they work?

Pages (8): « First ... « 5 6 [7] 8 »
Show all 186 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- Redbones (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=51)
-- Repeat Crosses....how often do they work? (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928305231)

Posted by Troy Arnold on 06-06-2014 01:19 PM:

Think about this now. 2 great coonhounds make a cross and out of say 8 pups one gets titled. How many people are going to repeat that cross? Now if the first cross hits a homerun and say 4 out of 8 title you think hey we got something here and you do it again. The chances of that happening again are slim but it has nothing to do with a repeat cross not being as good because its the second time around. Point is you dont make a repeat cross if the first cross wasnt great. So I ask who has made a repeat cross where the first litter did not turn out very good? Plus if your running numbers maybe percentages would be better than number of titles in a litter.

Such as the Acex Kate above. 5 out of 7 pups title=71%
2nd Cross. 6 out of 10 pups titled=60%
How are you determining your research with so many variables in this subject. Only true way to determine this is to have multiple sets of great coonhounds cross and repeat wether or not the first cross produced any titled dogs or not.
Of course if we go off number and chance like you say and 2 great reproducing coonhounds cross with very little success then the odds the repeat cross would be great would be even higher right? Lots of variables in this age, who handles them, how many pups in a litter, deaths of pups before they get titled, and much more. Dont get me wrong if its what you believe in then keep going this is just my opinion. I would say your research does support what your saying but people just dont repeat a bad cross to equal out the numbers in this. Good discussion though.

__________________
Troy Arnold

Redbones
CH Baptist Baxter
Baptist Bella

Posted by Richard Lambert on 06-06-2014 02:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by tja51horns
........I would say your research does support what your saying but.....

Yeah, it is very hard to argue with numbers but a lot of people still try which is great because it stimulates thought and discussion. At my age, I need stimulation to combat my Oldtimers disease.

Posted by timber hunter on 06-06-2014 06:19 PM:

I disagree

because there are to many variables:

1. Did those pups get into competition hunters hands

2. Were they started the same way at the same age

3. Who was the handler of the hound in competition

4. A coondog is always a coondog regardless if it earns any titles.

5. Did the pups end up in the hands of people with lots of money and little time.

My personal opinion is that if a cross works well 1 time it will work well again. Who is to say that it will not be better than the first cross that maybe produced several top hounds?

Just my opinion

Thanks John

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 06-06-2014 09:02 PM:

John,
This question of this thread has some very specific criteria and is not set up to judge pleasure dogs or how good a dog is based on someone's opinions. It deals strictly with the number of titled dogs from first time crosses that produced 2 or more titled dogs vs the number of titled dogs who come from those same crosses which have been repeated.
It assumes that if some of the pups from the first crosses went to competition hunters, which would be the case since at least 2 titled out....that on average roughly the same % of pups from a repeat cross would make it into the hands of competition hunters.
It just doesn't make sense to me after studying over a hundred and fifty cases across all breeds that I can only identify two times where a second cross has ever equalled a first time proven cross on the number of titled dogs......that is a little over 1% success ratio.
If this practice were sound and a second cross was just as good as a first cross in terms of the dogs that are able to title....that ratio should be closer to 100%
I know a lot of breeders do not want to hear things like this....especially if they have a stud dog and they spend a lot of money to purchase a nice proven reproducing female to breed to their male multiple times (as has been the practice of many a stud owner for decades now) but if it is almost a certainty that a repeat cross will not equal a first time cross...then why do we keep making them???
I think in the past it was because of money. The demand was great for pups from "proven" repeat crosses and a breeder could charge a premium price for those pups that were sure to be as good as the first cross....but few ever are.
Listen folks, I am not trying to put a dent in anyones wallet or make any enemy's here. I am always looking at ways we can improve this breed and to me this question on repeat crosses has opened a door on a way we as a breed can increase our percentage of good pups that we produce from the very best females we can identify.
Let me give you an example of how we might change our breeding practices to improve our % of titled dogs based on the facts gathered on repeat crosses.

Lets take 10 of the best reproducing females that we can find...
Make 10 of the best crosses we can make...
Lets say those 10 crosses produce 6 pups each for a total of 60 pups
Lets say 25% of these pups title (because they are from the best crosses we can make) for a total of 15 titled dogs.
Now, lets repeat those same crosses and based on the facts of what we have found on the success of repeat crosses equalling first time crosses...we produce 60 more pups and 1 pup from those is able to title (based on hard fact numbers from in depth research)
So now we have 120 pups produced.....and 16 have titled!
Now lets take those same females that produced 15 pups from a total of 60 from their first cross and breed them to different males...the best we can find to match them up with and they produce 60 pups from these second crosses.
Now some of these crosses will be better and some will be worse but lets say the average pretty well stays the same because these are the 10 best reproducing females we could find....so we have 60 more pups and 15 or so title out.
If we can believe this concept....by not repeat breeding we have produced a total of 120 pups from the non-repeat crosses with a total of 30 titling out.
So 16 titled pups from repeat crosses vs 30 from not repeat breeding.

When I look at both of these sceneries....one is based on fact because it has been done time after time...and is almost sure to fail...the repeat cross method.
The other has also been done...but has not been studied as well but in my opinion has the best chance for success and I can give a few examples.
Moonlight Kate....bred to different males all but once...produced titled dogs out of every cross and is #1 historical reproducer.
Pepper Ann....bred to different males (even more than Kate) and has titled dogs out of every cross old enough to have been in competition very long.
I even have an example of failed repeat crossing that hits close to home for me.....
Deana, mother of my Breanna female was bred to Bo 3 times 6 months apart. The first litter was a proven success and produced two Gr.Nt.Ch. dogs from those that lived.....the 2nd and 3rd crosses have produced no titled dogs and all crosses are past the three and a half year old Mark.
I made this thread, and many others to try to get people thinking outside the box.....to take a hard look at our breed and identify whats working and whats holding us back from reaching our potential. I am not telling anyone how to breed....just showing other folks some things I have discovered in my quest to reach some of my goals to produce better redbones. Maybe someone else will discover something that myself and others have not seen and they can share it with the rest of us for the benefit of the breed. Good luck everyone....shane

__________________
Shane Maxey
Proud lifetime member of the NRA
Banshee Wildlife Products
Hoosier Outlaw / Moonlight Redbones
1994 American Redbone Coonhound Association Hunter of the Year
My first 3 redbones raised from pup's were:
Dual Gr.Ch. Outlaw Billy the Kid
Dual Gr.Ch.- PKC Ch. Outlaw Timber Girl
Dual Gr.Ch. Outlaw Scarlett Fever
(((( Current Favorites ))))
2013 AKC Ladies World Champion
Gr.Nt.Ch.- PKC Ch- AKC Ladies World Ch Ky Moonlight Breanna
Gr.Nt.Ch. - PKC Ch. Ky Moonlight Woody
Dual Grand Moonlight Deana
Dual Grand Ch.- PKC Ch. Moonlight AfterShock
Dual Grand Nighty Night Amber
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Big Time Britt
Gr.Nt.Ch Outlaw Billy Jean
Gr.Nt.Ch-PKC Ch.-2015 PKC Red Days Champ Outlaw Cherry Bomb
Gr.Nt.Ch Outlaw Breeze
Gr.Nt.Ch.Gr.Ch. All Grand Outlaw G-Man (over $20.000 won in PKC & CHKC) 2019 Southern Redbone Days Overall Champion
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Outlaw Mac
Gr.Nt.Ch. Classy Cali (Heavy Outlaw bred)
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Cat Scratch Fever
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Addiction
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Overdose
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Jinx
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Banshee
"Always outnumbered...Never outgunned!"
To enjoy lots of pics and videos of out redbones, find me on Facebook
as Shenandoah Maxey

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 06-06-2014 09:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by tja51horns
Think about this now. 2 great coonhounds make a cross and out of say 8 pups one gets titled. How many people are going to repeat that cross? Now if the first cross hits a homerun and say 4 out of 8 title you think hey we got something here and you do it again. The chances of that happening again are slim but it has nothing to do with a repeat cross not being as good because its the second time around. Point is you dont make a repeat cross if the first cross wasnt great. So I ask who has made a repeat cross where the first litter did not turn out very good? Plus if your running numbers maybe percentages would be better than number of titles in a litter.

Such as the Acex Kate above. 5 out of 7 pups title=71%
2nd Cross. 6 out of 10 pups titled=60%
How are you determining your research with so many variables in this subject. Only true way to determine this is to have multiple sets of great coonhounds cross and repeat wether or not the first cross produced any titled dogs or not.
Of course if we go off number and chance like you say and 2 great reproducing coonhounds cross with very little success then the odds the repeat cross would be great would be even higher right? Lots of variables in this age, who handles them, how many pups in a litter, deaths of pups before they get titled, and much more. Dont get me wrong if its what you believe in then keep going this is just my opinion. I would say your research does support what your saying but people just dont repeat a bad cross to equal out the numbers in this. Good discussion though.

It seems that everyone who disagrees with the numbers here does so with assumptions that this or that may have caused the repeat cross ( which in their minds is just as good as the first cross) not to produce as many titled dogs. But when the cold hard facts and numbers are crunched....the success rate of repeat crosses is less than 2% in over a hundred fifty cases and many more when you consider the posts from others on this thread and Paul's work at ukc. And keep in mind....we are only looking at crosses that were deemed successful because they produced several titled dogs the first time they were made...so the dogs involved are proven reproducers.
If I were a stud owner ( which im not) and I cared about my dogs reproducing % , based on the research I have done on repeat crosses....I would never make one because there is a 98% certainty that it will not produce as many titled dogs as the first cross. I would rather breed to other good reproducing females and take my chances on another good first time cross.
Troy to answer your question about has anyone made a repeat cross if the first one wasn't known to be good....yes it happens all the time.
As I said in another post Danny crossed Deana on Bo3 times 6 mo. Apart and there was no way of knowing if the 1st or 2nd cross would be a homerun when he made the 3rd cross. It happens all the time because when people make a cross and there was a big demand for the pups and they didn't have enough to go round....they repeat that cross 6 months later to supply the demand....I know of several times this has happened in the last couple years just in our breed.
I am a facts man....and I understand this flies in the face of the way breeders have always done things and it SEEMS exactly opposite of what it should be....but the numbers just dont lie and the evidence is overwhelming ....even if we can find 10 or 20 more cases of a repeat cross producing equal or higher numbers of titled dogs....it will still be a very low % success rate...so why do we keep doing it? I guess it is a decision that every breeder has to make...but if you want your dog to reach high on the products list....you may want to reconsider repeat crosses as a way to get it there.....shane

Posted by Troy Arnold on 06-06-2014 10:38 PM:

Thanks for more info on your experience with repeat crosses I can see what caused you concern in this subject to try and research it. I have a good question for you that my dad and I are in the process of right now. Now this is beagles not coonhounds but I would guess it be same but we bred my 11 year old male beagle (best we have ever had) to my dads female and she only had 1 pup. We both wanted pups out of this cross and the 1 pup is doing so good we bred her again last month. So my question is have you seen many cases of very small litter first time and then repeat cross?

I believe you just had this with BJ having 1 pup. Which was disappointing because I was on list but would you consider try to cross with Red with her again? I know this kind of thing happens and didnt know if you had any info on these situations.

__________________
Troy Arnold

Redbones
CH Baptist Baxter
Baptist Bella

Posted by elvis on 06-07-2014 02:38 AM:

I have seen it many times. Repeat crosses rarely work as good as the first one.
I , like many others, had to learn it the hard way. It doesn't make any sense, but its a fact jack.

Posted by HERSHSHUNTIN on 06-07-2014 04:51 AM:

SO MY QUESTION is and does anyone have experience with breeding to a litter mate to the first stud, just as an example Shane bred Billy Jean to Grateful dead Red, Red has a full brother I believe -Don Barnett's Deuce dog who is also a Grnite also, how do you think these pups would compare, if Billy Jean had say 7 pups from each sire?
I know I just recently bred my Nt ch. Grch female to Grnt Rocky Top Jet, if they turn out real well, I could breed to his littermate, Grnt Rocker, wondering if anyone in any breed has any input on how their experience's have worked out.
there are other that I can think of, Shock and Big D, ROCKER and JET, Dead Red and Deuce, and didn't Rabble Rouser have a gr nt brother? there are probably others, but these are just some that popped into my head. I am not meaning to leave anyone's studs out. I just wondering if anyone has any input on such crosses, they would not be repeat crosses, but as close to being a repeat as you'll get . I am just wondering if it could work to better the breed. or if anyone has tried it. HERSH

__________________
Herschel Burt

hershtwo@yahoo.com
Life member NRA
Current dogs
GR CH NT CH RED MIGHTY 90-Bo/Sierra
NT.CH.GR CH BEYOND BILLY HTX --Billy the Kid/ Amber
GR CH 1ST & 2ND place wins 90/4 LIFE GUN-HTX==-Willy BOY/Bigtime Britt
Dogs I have owned
Nt ch Gr ch HERSHS HUNTIN RED IKE
NT CH CH HERSHS HUNTIN BUDDY
GR NT CH MILLERS DIRTY RED
NT CH CH LYNN'S CREEK JULIE
GR CH HERSHS HUNTIN RED KATE
CH NITE CH AMBRAW RIVER TIMBER ROCK
NT CH HERSHS HUNTIN RED CLEM
NT CH ROCKY TOP CHERRY

Posted by Don Barnett Sr on 06-07-2014 05:17 AM:

LITTERMATE STUDS

John Dell have the cross. Red and Deuce have bred the same half sister female. Johns pup are only 4 months old now. We will see how it turns out. Moose will bred this same female as soon as she comes in. Musis maker is a littermate to Rocky.

Posted by Turpin Redbones on 06-07-2014 07:23 AM:

I noticed this phenomenon many years ago on some of the crosses we made. I'm not a competition hunter, so, I have no hard numbers but I have watched many litters over the years and usually the second litter is not quite as good. I also raise and train a few border collies for cow dogs and I've seen the same thing in them. Most people are skeptical and say genes are genes but, there seems to be a difference. There are no clear cut answers to breeding working dogs and the more I learn, the more I realize how littler I know.

Posted by Mark Zepp on 06-07-2014 01:19 PM:

Shane -

What are your thoughts on the stud dogs age.....does he reproduce as well as a two year old vs a ten year old? Not sperm count, obviously, but do any of you have evidence that says the stud dog reproduces the same at various ages?

Why is it always the woman's fault? (That's what your wives are telling you all the time anyway!!)

__________________
Mark Zepp

Posted by Bill Lash on 06-07-2014 02:01 PM:

Hersh

Nt ChGrFdCh GrCh Lash's Keystone Red Jenny was bred to GrNtCh GrFCH, GrWCh GrCh Morans Midnite Red A-Won And Gr.NtCh South Branch Pete who were litter mates, the results were very similar, She was also bred to GrNtCh Hayes Ramblin Red Bato with similar results, the only ones out of all three litters that didn't make coon dogs were the ones that weren't given the chance, I know that at least 6 were local and were used for hide dogs only or just as pets. Hind sight I should have borrowed a couple of them and put titles on them. Jenny was an exceptional reproducer and I think that 'ol' mississippi pot pie had something to do with the treeing that she threw into her pups she also had blaskee/ finder dogs on her sires side and I think that's where the nose came from, the males were all exceptional tree dogs also. There are some real nice dogs around that still carry some of this old blood, GrNtChGrFChGrCH Wades Red Busko is one of them would like to see a couple more litters out of him and a similar bred female,I would bet you would see some nice ones.

__________________
bill lash

Posted by oklared on 06-07-2014 02:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Zepp
Shane -

What are your thoughts on the stud dogs age.....does he reproduce as well as a two year old vs a ten year old? Not sperm count, obviously, but do any of you have evidence that says the stud dog reproduces the same at various ages?

Why is it always the woman's fault? (That's what your wives are telling you all the time anyway!!)

MARK YOU WOULD NEED TO ASK EVE, JUST KIDDIN

__________________
HOME OF 2010 HIGH SCOREING REDBONE FEMALE, DUAL CH Y2KD, #7 REPRODUCING RED FEMALE
NT.Ch. WINNER AT REDBONE SEC. 2008
3RD PL. NT.CH. 2009 BATTLE OF BREEDS AT ADA OKLA.
4TH PLACE R.Q.E 2010
2ND PLACE OVERALL AT ZONE 4 AND DOUBLE CAST WINNER 2010
WENT TO 2010 WORLD HUNT
AMERICAN REDBONE ASSOCIATION HIGH SCOREING REDBONE FEMALE OF THE 2010 WORLD HUNT
OVERALL HI SCOREING DOG AT 2010 BBCHA BLUE TIC SECTIONAL
GR.NT.CH. AT 12 and A HALF
MADE-EM SEE RED

Posted by Richard Lambert on 06-07-2014 04:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by HERSHSHUNTIN
SO MY QUESTION is and does anyone have experience with breeding to a litter mate to the first stud.....HERSH

Some females are going to have nice pups no matter what you breed them to so this would be hard to answer. We bred Sally to Rabble, Haze and Deuce and got nice litters from each. Is this because Rabble, Haze and Deuce are good reproducers? Or are they good reproducers because we bred Sally to them?

Mr Zepp, it depends on who you ask. If you ask a stud dog owner it is always the females' fault. If you ask a female owner, it is always the stud dogs fault. I guess that it depends on your perspective. Your wife has one and you have another. I know that if anything goes wrong around here, it is her fault.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 06-07-2014 05:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Zepp
Shane -

What are your thoughts on the stud dogs age.....does he reproduce as well as a two year old vs a ten year old? Not sperm count, obviously, but do any of you have evidence that says the stud dog reproduces the same at various ages?

Why is it always the woman's fault? (That's what your wives are telling you all the time anyway!!)

Good question Mark....but I dont really have an answer. I have not really liked into it. I will say that my first inclination is to say that it age might have something to do with litter size but probably not the quality of the pups.
This is pure speculation, but the reason I say this is because most males rarely get bred to much until they have finished out and are 4-5 years old and have a few pups from their first litter or two that are turning the crank.
Does anyone know how old Rabble was when he produced the litters that moose, haze, griz, Rocky, red, deuce, and rage and peanut came from?

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 06-07-2014 05:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by HERSHSHUNTIN
SO MY QUESTION is and does anyone have experience with breeding to a litter mate to the first stud, just as an example Shane bred Billy Jean to Grateful dead Red, Red has a full brother I believe -Don Barnett's Deuce dog who is also a Grnite also, how do you think these pups would compare, if Billy Jean had say 7 pups from each sire?
I know I just recently bred my Nt ch. Grch female to Grnt Rocky Top Jet, if they turn out real well, I could breed to his littermate, Grnt Rocker, wondering if anyone in any breed has any input on how their experience's have worked out.
there are other that I can think of, Shock and Big D, ROCKER and JET, Dead Red and Deuce, and didn't Rabble Rouser have a gr nt brother? there are probably others, but these are just some that popped into my head. I am not meaning to leave anyone's studs out. I just wondering if anyone has any input on such crosses, they would not be repeat crosses, but as close to being a repeat as you'll get . I am just wondering if it could work to better the breed. or if anyone has tried it. HERSH

Hersh this is also something I have wondered about and something people should consider. We bred Bree to Jet and it looks to be an outstanding cross so we could go back to Rocker and see if we get the same results. I bred B.J. to G.D. Red and could go back to Deuce and if I took anything to Griz I could then go back to Rocky if the Griz Cross was a home run. In theory this should produce similar results to first time crosses on litter mates.....but I dont trust theories much in breeding so I need to try it or see more evidence that it works before I am convinced....but I would probably try this myself....especially if the first cross was a home run.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 06-07-2014 05:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Hoosier Outlaw
.......... moose, haze, griz, Rocky, red, deuce, and rage.......

Oh my goodness what a "list"......Rabble must have been bred to a bunch of nice females.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 10-10-2017 08:56 PM:

This topic always gets a conversation started...so back to the top!
Anybody have any new information to add?

Posted by Pastor Mike on 10-10-2017 09:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Hoosier Outlaw

Does anyone know how old Rabble was when he produced the litters that moose, haze, griz, Rocky, red, deuce, and rage and peanut came from?

Tom had told me that pigeon was the first outside (meaning outside from local pleasure hunters) female to be brought to rabble. Pigeon had her litter on 11/12/05. All of the dogs you mentioned came after pigeons litter. I'm not sure how old rabble was at that time but I would guess between 5 and 6. I would say rabble produced his best from ages 5 to 10. I'm thinking that he was born in 99. One cool thing I do remember was that rabbles birthdate was 11/12.....and pigeons litter out of rabble was born on 11/12. Pigeon and Raven were full sisters with Raven being older. Tom and I talked about that several times.

My shadow female was born in August of 2003. Tom had made that cross with his own female. When I sent in her puppy papers, rabble had about 50 pups and 1 nite ch. shadow went on to be his first grand nite ch.

__________________
Soggy Bottom Redbones

GRNTCH GRCH 'PR' Soggy Bottom The Frog Dawg (current reproducers list)
NTCH CH Soggy Bottom The Bull Dawg
Soggy Bottom T-Top Miss Dottie
RIP
GRNTCH GRCH Soggy Bottom T-Top Haze HTX (Former#1 Reproducer)
CH Soggy Bottom T-Top Stella
GRNTCH GRCH Soggy Bottom T-Top Shadow
NTCH CH Soggy Bottom Bomber's Red Wire (Pigeon- former #1 Reproducer)
NTCH GRCH Red Cedar T-Top Lexus
CH Soggy Bottom T-Top Locket

Mike Laster
540-392-2441
pastorlaster@aol.com

Posted by j myers on 10-11-2017 04:14 AM:

I think American Days Overall Female Nt ch Hastings Holler Oak Skeeter was from the 3rd or 4 th cross of Steve-O and Chile.

__________________
Nt Ch Turnback Creek Ike (JonxMissi)
Nt Ch Turnback Creek Kitty (single reg)
NtCh PR Turnback Creek Jammer RIP
(Steve-0 Chile cross first litter, C0-owned with Kim B Jones)
NtCh PR Hatcher Hill R.J.
RIP old friend

Posted by CerberusTA on 07-24-2018 06:34 PM:

I believe too many variables to determine within the results we have, if we had a proper measuring stick then I think we could see into the crystal ball a little better, I do not believe titles are a good measuring stick because just as we do not grow up in the same house and act or look the same so as it goes for Coondogs. I believe I read somewhere 50% is in the breeding 50% is in the training/raising, don't believe those numbers are sound but I do believe in the way its leaning because it is fact/proven that mental development is crucial at certain ages of any living being, genetics give the opportunity but stimulation brings out the possibilities. but to argue another point about genetics where some argue no matter what you get the same when you breed a to b, this is not true if it was all beings bred on regular from a to b, mother to father would be the same. all sisters would look and act the same, all brothers would look and act the same...definitely not true even from the same litter or twins from other species. I do believe you can find a measuring stick though to prove your results from crosses but not from titles, I think you must first be able to determine a coondog and im not sure titles are best way cause not all dogs get hunted in competition, not all dogs get handled the same, and I could be wrong but im sure there are dogs with titles that don't deserve them. Maybe from averages of scores from hunts? but then again variables of inconsistency flood the gates. there should be an even better measuring stick, but what is it? You have to create a scenario where every dog has the exact same opportunity and I don't believe that's possible. So the only thing I can think is major hunts, how did these dogs place/score at major hunts? But how many of these dogs were using to measure are in these major hunts consistently? Maybe we have to look at similar crosses for the lines to help prove blood production, but as far as repeat cross, not sure unless we had someone with enough tools to actually train and handle entire litters. There will always be a variable without lab testing, and the testing being able to determine abilities we utilize in a hound such as drive, strike, stamina, and so on not too include instinct cause how do you measure that? I think I will end this post cause I tend to ramble as synapsis cross paths regularly causing my train to go off...?

__________________
Kevin Young 270-734-2479
KyPetTransport
Young Brothers Hauling

Posted by Royce Taylor on 08-06-2018 06:04 PM:

Repeat crosses only produce same or similar results if either the sire or dam are what is defined as a prepotent.

Definition of prepotency. 1 : the quality or state of being prepotent : predominance. 2 : unusual ability of an individual or strain to transmit its characters to offspring because of homozygosity for numerous

The eggs the female ovulates are not genetically identical, neither is the sperm. A litter is basically a sample of millions of possibilities.

To help imagine the possibilities, consider this:

A normal ejaculate contains a minimum of 70% progressively motile sperm. Semen concentration is measured in millions of spermatozoa per milliliter of semen.

A sperm cell from a male dog fuses with an egg cell from a female dog. Each dog's gamete carries 39 chromosomes. The zygote that results from the fusion of the gametes contains 78' chromosomes�one set of 39. chromosomes from each parent.

__________________
Royce Taylor
1997 ARCHA Hunter of the Year
Taylor�s Redbone Kennel
662-538-4763

Posted by Torey Wood on 08-06-2018 07:58 PM:

In my opinion, if there is any truth to the claim that quality of pup reduces with subsequent breedings, it lies with the dams ability to grow the pup in utero. This would mean a more mature dam grows the fetus in a different way than a less mature dam. Just to throw out some possibilities, the placenta is more or less efficient at passing nutrients from the dams blood supply to the fetus. Or dams hormone levels are different during gestation from her previous litters, and therefore those hormones effect fetal development. I have zero knowledge that supports the above examples, they are just for illustration.

If there is any truth to the above, I would highly expect that it would be the case for other species as well. And if that is the case I would expect industries like equine, swine, beef, and dairy to have research and documentation on this phenomenon. To my knowledge this is not the case. I believe it is a long shot for the above to be true.

While it is unlikely that any two sperm or eggs have the same genetic material, it is a sample of the contributing parents DNA. The parents have two complete sets of chromosomes. The sperm or egg has one set of chromosomes that is made up of parts of each of the parents chromosomes. This is what makes the sperm and eggs all different. But all of that genetic material comes from the parent.

After the sperm and egg combine we get the genotype(genetic material) that that pup will have its whole life. Each pup in the womb will have different combinations of their parents DNA. At this point you can see that not each pup is created equal. Some have greater potential than others. One pup that may have UKC World potential may get damaged. Perhaps the umbilical cord gets pinched and the potential is reduced because of oxygen deprivation to the fetal brain. That pup may be a Grade A turd eater now.

Back to the combinations of sperm and egg DNA. We have all heard of proven crosses. Each egg is different when it comes to the specific genetic sequences. Same with the sperm. But of the sperm or eggs from the same donor, in the grand scheme of things they are a lot alike. After all they came from the same two sets of chromosomes. In a way of thinking each sperm or egg has different hunting potential. Some sperm happened to get better combinations of the parents DNA. But then it must combine with the egg which has its own potential. How these two sets of DNA �match up�, may make the combined potential go down. For example if BB King and Dolly Parton had a kid, that kid may not be able to sing worth a lick or they may be the next [insert your preferred artist here]. BB King and Dolly Parton are both great artist. But they are great in their own way. It is all about how the DNA �matches up� or �comes together�. Some parts of the DNA will compliment the other and some parts of the DNA will conflict with the others.

Remember above when I said individual sperm and eggs are a lot alike, this is where the proven cross comes in. The �a lot alike� portion of the similarity is what allows for the repeatability for proven crosses. And for that matter, repeatability of proven BAD crosses.

Maybe Usain Bolt and Serena Williams would be a better example�.. Oh well. Have a great day.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 08-06-2018 08:54 PM:

I've studied alot ot these repeat crosses over the years. The actual measurable results are counter intuitive to what most people think it should be. I dont know why that is...I just know that in fact....it is. People give all kinds of reasons why repeat crosses never produce as good as the original cross...like well, maybe they didnt go to competition hunters or maybe they didnt get the same chance as the first cross and the list goes on and on.
The cold hard facts are that after studying many, many repeat crosses that produced great results the first time....I have only found one case where the results of a repeat cross where better than the original cross.
Peoples opinions of how good dogs are .....are well, wholly unreliable.
So I narrowed the criteria I use down to competition dogs who have earned titles. I concentrated on crosses that produced several titled dogs from the original cross as a baseline. Most of the crosses I looked at had produced 3 or more and were across all breeds.
Many of these crosses were on my radar because one or more of the offspring had won big hunts like world championships, breed says, purina race, big money in pkc, etc.
Now of coarse when a breeder has a very successful cross like that...they will get people wanting to buy pups from the same cross if they repeat the cross again. As has been common practice for years and years for "most" breeders...they do just that and often sell them for more money because it's now a "proven" cross.
So at that point the 2nd cross is usually in higher demand than the first cross was and in theory, should wind up in better hands because of the higher demand from experienced people who saw the success of the original cross and want a chance to repeat that success.
So the facts dont lie....and the facts are this....95% of the time, those repeat crosses will not produce an equal.or higher number of titled offspring as the original successful cross. Why? That's the big mystery. But I'm telling you...I have bred dogs since the mid 80's and I have seen it happen over and over and over again. I am not the only breeder who noticed this phenomenon and refused to repeat the mistakes most other breeders make on repeat crosses. Berton Oney a lifelong English breeder always told the same tale I am telling you. John Wick wrote about it in the early 80's in his walk with wick book. Russ Bellar feels the same way as well as another half dozen long time breeders that I know personally. Sure...its a money maker for a breeder...because of a cross is famous...people will pay a premium to get a pup from a repeat cross. But it is almost a certainty that there wont be as many "great" pups from that repeat cross than as came from the original cross. So why risk it?
Why even make the same cross when you could breed to a different stud and probably have a 50% or better shot at producing an equal or better litter. why repeat when there is a 95% chance of worse than the original results?
Now let me just say this before people start cussing me.
You can get a really great dog from a repeat cross. I have seen this happen. On an individual basis...it could be better than any of the winners from the first cross. But the evidence shows that it's very rare...and when you track the whole litter...it will not produce an equal or higher number of titled winners like the original cross.
In my mind....if everything is the same between the crosses...the repeat crosses should actually beat out the original crosses on titled dogs because there should be more and better people lined up to get those pups from a proven repeat cross and they will put more time and effort into making them great because they already know what came out of the first cross...but that hasn't been the case.
In the same way that a litter can produce a world class big hunt winner....who has littermates that were so bad they had to be culled .....so too can a repeat cross produce much worse than a first time cross.
I suppose the reverse could actually be true as well...but nobody repeats crosses much that were totally worthless the first time around....and there isnt enough data to track them.
It seems to me that somehow...some way....the dna and characteristics just dont match up the same in repeat crosses. If the results were 50/50....then I'd say that's as good as the odds on any first time cross...but my research shows them to almost certainly produce a lower percentage of great dogs like the original cross of your lucky....and maybe none of that quality of your not so lucky.
I've made several big winning crosses in the redbone breed over the last 6 or 7 years...but this is why none have ever been repeated and never will be.
I will however do the next best thing and breed a littermate ot one of the parents back to the sire or dam of a successful cross. This seems to work well.
The way I look at it is this... if you have a female that has proven she can reproduce a litter with several great dogs coming out of it, then breed her to another great stud with similar traits and try to make another great litter. Dont take the easy way out to make money by selling pups from a "repeat" cross when the odds are against it ever repeating the success of the original cross.
That's just my opinion as a breeder.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 01-02-2019 09:37 PM:

Well it's been 6 yrs since this thread started. Quite a few people early on said repeat crosses are as good as the original cross and planned to make more repeat crosses....so let's hear about the results...
Anyone out there make a repeat breeding where the original cross produced 2 or more titled offspring and the repeat cross produced an equal or greater number of titled offspring? If so I would really like to hear about it.

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 PM.

Pages (8): « First ... « 5 6 [7] 8 »
Show all 186 posts from this thread on one page