# Lou colleta



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Has anyone purchased any of Lou colleta's birds. From everything I read he has some of the best HVR's around.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

soundmajorr said:


> Has anyone purchased any of Lou colleta's birds. From everything I read he has some of the best HVR's around.


 Yes, I am quite certain that people have purchased his pigeons as his name is quite well known. See: http://www.siegelpigeons.com/news/news-loucoletta.html


----------



## First To Hatch (Jul 19, 2009)

If your looking for HVR I would contact Ray Jones as well and see who you can get the best deal from.


----------



## Alamo (Nov 22, 2008)

Lou Colleta and Lou Arcuri(Pittsburgh,Pa) were great friends...Traded/bred/sent many birds out to Futurity & OLR`s....Won alot of $$ over the years...Lou Arcuri passed away a couple of years ago...Colleta`s pigeons are top shelf,all the way !!.....Alamo


----------



## Roger Siemens (Nov 12, 2011)

wow, sounds like my kinda birds, i liked the last line of the link smithfamily posted, is lou colleta still living? i might have to do some looking, not that i need more birds, but i ve bin giving a few good birds to a new fellow in our club, with the hopes he races.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Lou is still living. He did respond to my email in a timely manner. i know he has some of top if not the top HVR's around.


----------



## Josepe (Jan 10, 2011)

I beleive Lou sold out(don't know if it was entirely)to Kirby Harold of Kripple Kreek Loft.Link attached to Kirby's site:
http://www.kripplekreekloft.com/toppage8.htm


----------



## bbcdon (Oct 16, 2007)

I talked to him on the phone a couple of weeks ago. I was told he was one of the best for advice on fertility problems with older birds. He was very helpful, and a nice guy.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Hey bbc how's it going? Was he able to assist you with the fertility issues? I'm currently going through this with 2 of my birds.


----------



## Roger Siemens (Nov 12, 2011)

well its always good to know the good fellows, that make time to help out and answer questions. guess i ll drop a line.


----------



## bbcdon (Oct 16, 2007)

soundmajorr said:


> Hey bbc how's it going? Was he able to assist you with the fertility issues? I'm currently going through this with 2 of my birds.


Here is the advice he gave me: give 1 tablet daily of each of the following meds for 7 days, then mate them up.....calcium, alfalfa, aeromycin(aka chlor-tetracyclin). Hope it helps.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

thanks bbc. is this for the hen or the cock, or both?


----------



## bbcdon (Oct 16, 2007)

soundmajorr said:


> thanks bbc. is this for the hen or the cock, or both?


This is for a hen.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Josepe thank you. I contact kirby at kripple kreek loft and he was more than reasonable with price. I wont say the price arrangement we made since it is his business, but it was a great price. I know the pair of birds that i am getting babies from as well.


----------



## Josepe (Jan 10, 2011)

You're welcome.Glad things worked out.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

This past year I bought two nestmates from Kirby Harold, very nice birds. I also got another cock of the same HVR bloodline and another nice bird. Lou. Colleta is the real deal, a pigeon man who knows breeding, and a gentleman!


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

thats good to hear JIM. Mind me asking what pair of parents did you get your birds down from Kirby?
He told me i will be getting birds off of *Cinnamon ARPU 73094 and The Bronze AU BBL 416*.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

The nest mates are grkids of Cinnamon when mated to the 700 cock on their sire's side. Bottom is Chocolate 500 x Simply Red. The other cock is a double grson of Cinnamon x Seagull on the top and The Bronze on the bottom. That hen is 1097 HAAS. I have one baby from him now that I am hand raising, first time parents were not doing the best feeding. The baby looks good though. The guy I got the third cock from is in Oklahoma.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Nice. Very good Pedigree on those birds. All of his birds have good pedigrees in terms of breeding and racing. How did your birds do? better in the short or long distance? I know they are tough birds bread for long distance.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

The nest mates are still too young to breed, I got them young. The third has only the one baby that I am hand feeding. I always thought of them as all distance but exceptionally at long.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

Ok, I understand. Yeah based off the results, they sure do look like all around birds. He was won from all distances. I fly in the FVC, which hosts the snowbird race. LOU has done quite well previously in the snowbird. so i know they are all around birds.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

I got a 2004 cock that placed 8th in the GHC against 10, 000, he was a gift from his handler Bob Rowland. Bob had no pedigree and the breeder couldn't remember the breeding. I bred him to my best hen, and then again to their daughter. That pairs daughter placed 15th @ 250 and seconds off 1st @ 400 in the Flamingo. As I closly breed that family, the more I think the original bird given to me was HVR.Just a guess but with nothing else to go on. I have a pic of the Flamingo hen on my page and maybe her dam who looks almost exactly as the sire. They are a brown or bronze grizzle, or red check sheilds.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

that grizzle with red in it is really nice. could be that family just based on color. of course all a guess, but a good one at that lol.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

That is the dam to the one I am hand feeding and the daughter of Mahogany Sand. Her mate is a double grandson of Cinnamon. The baby is a dark ash shield with a red tint. Still too young to tell for sure how much red.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

seems like you have a good family line going there, hopefully it continues to improve. i purchased 4 from Kirby. all from the same parents. i will fly them this year.hopefully they do well for me. it would be nice to add these long distance birds to my family of birds. and to put them to the test in sprint races and middle distance races as well.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

Good luck with them. What color are they, do you know yet? I am guessing you haven't gotten them yet.


----------



## soundmajorr (Apr 13, 2012)

oh no i dont. i actually just placed the order yesterday. so he will be pairing the birds up now.cinnamon is broze and the dad is all bronze, so id imagine probably the same color. but who knows.


----------



## triple7loft (Nov 22, 2012)

What is the web site address ?




Jimhalekw said:


> I got a 2004 cock that placed 8th in the GHC against 10, 000, he was a gift from his handler Bob Rowland. Bob had no pedigree and the breeder couldn't remember the breeding. I bred him to my best hen, and then again to their daughter. That pairs daughter placed 15th @ 250 and seconds off 1st @ 400 in the Flamingo. As I closly breed that family, the more I think the original bird given to me was HVR.Just a guess but with nothing else to go on. I have a pic of the Flamingo hen on my page and maybe her dam who looks almost exactly as the sire. They are a brown or bronze grizzle, or red check sheilds.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

Pigeintalk page. Click on my name, public profile, then photo album. The red check shield is on the first page and her dam Mahogany Sand is page two.


----------



## bob prisco (Apr 26, 2012)

*Hvr*

What was crossed into the HVR birds to obtain the grizzle and red color ?


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

Bob I don't know what the grizzle and red are. If you read the previous post on this subject it should explain.


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

I do like the bronze color. I might have to get a pair.


----------



## kalapati (Aug 29, 2006)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> Yes, I am quite certain that people have purchased his pigeons as his name is quite well known. See: http://www.siegelpigeons.com/news/news-loucoletta.html



Hi Warren,

The link you attached about Lou Colletta is interesting. Just wondering on one of the paragraphs below, does he meant he sends young birds to one loft races from these inbreds?

http://www.siegelpigeons.com/news/news-loucoletta.html












kalapati
San Diego


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

kalapati said:


> Hi Warren,
> 
> The link you attached about Lou Colletta is interesting. Just wondering on one of the paragraphs below, does he meant he sends young birds to one loft races from these inbreds?
> 
> ...


Sure sounds like it to me. Generally held belief or perhaps myth ? Is that a line bred / Inbred Family can not be competitive in the races. Ludo Claessen, Steven van Breeman, Lou Colletta and others including myself, have tried to educate the pigeon fancy of the Realities vs the Myth for years. Someday maybe the rest of the fancy will catch up to what some Masters have known for decades.

From article : "Lou sent the birds to his mother, and when he returned home began his racing career anew. The progeny of those three birds founded Lou’s loft. They were easily better than anything he had ever flown before. In fact, they were so good that Lou decided that *he needed no other bloodlines*. They won at short and fast and long and hard. From those early years, Lou has progressed with these birds, *keeping them extremely inbred, a practice he continues to this day*."

My thinking exactly, disregard the naysayers, if you already own the best, why dilute with something of lesser quality ?


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

There is a lot more to inbreeding than breeding the same birds together over a period of time and still fly them sucessfully as inbreds. One can go very wrong with not understanding inbreeding and performance.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Xueoo said:


> There is a lot more to inbreeding than breeding the same birds together over a period of time and still fly them sucessfully as inbreds. One can go very wrong with not understanding inbreeding and performance.


 That is very true, as is the fact that any tool on a Master's tool belt can be used incorrectly and harm can result. From the perspective of a person who has been a member of management of a tree service firm, a tool such as a chain saw can be an instrument of death and dismemberment if used incorrectly or improperly. 

Same thing can be said with many of the tools that a pigeon fancier has at his or her disposal. And with very complex tools, the mysteries of which can not ever be fully known, certainly come to bear when we discuss inbreeding. The evidence suggests, that in very skilled hands, it is a tool which can produce world class results.


----------



## ERIC K (Mar 29, 2010)

. For race purposes, I’ll send them out as crosses. 

Lou's words from the story!


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

ERIC K said:


> . For race purposes, I’ll send them out as crosses.
> 
> Lou's words from the story!


Crossing inbreds for performance is a basic breeding concept, along with 20 other concepts. That is why one can't just read a short story and think it's the end story, without knowing the details.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

ERIC K said:


> . For race purposes, I’ll send them out as crosses.
> 
> Lou's words from the story!


 I have a different take on this, then you may have, or perhaps many others.
I think he means exactly what he is saying. The fancy will on average reject it, but then again maybe that is why they are average ?

"Asked *how his best money-winning birds are bred*, Coletta replies that he selects birds the way he feels they should be mated. "I mate not by pedigree but by type. I look at throat selection first, then the eye, wings, muscle, and feather quality. To me, *pedigree is the last thing because my birds are so inbred, and the success is still there with the inbreeding*, so that’s not an issue with me."

At least with Lou Coletta, it would appear he doesn't say anything about crossing. He is flying a straight bred family of pigeons. One could argue he is doing just the opposite of what you are suggesting, as he is flying, for lack of a better word "Purebreds".


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> That is very true, as is the fact that any tool on a Master's tool belt can be used incorrectly and harm can result. From the perspective of a person who has been a member of management of a tree service firm, a tool such as a chain saw can be an instrument of death and dismemberment if used incorrectly or improperly.
> 
> *Same thing can be said with many of the tools that a pigeon fancier has at his or her disposal. And with very complex tools, the mysteries of which can not ever be fully known, certainly come to bear when we discuss inbreeding. The evidence suggests, that in very skilled hands, it is a tool which can produce world class results*.


The same can also be said about the skilled hands of a breeder who does not believe in inbreeding, so, would we conclude the success one has is not the method, but the man?


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Xueoo said:


> The same can also be said about the skilled hands of a breeder who does not believe in inbreeding, so, would we conclude *the success one has is not the method, but the man?*


 Any two people can come to your home with the same tools on their tool belt. The results of their individual handiwork can vary considerably. So I am thinking the same could be said for someone going under surgery. Believe me, a skilled surgeon could use the very same tools, but I am afraid you would be disappointed with my results. Thus the typical pigeon fancier would conclude that the tools or methods I use are no good. They be wrong of course. They may even attempt to do open heart surgery on their wife, and when she dies, they might just say they don't "believe" the tools to be any good. That is of course, not the case at all, they simply have no clue as to how to use the Master surgeons tools. Same with inbreeding, most will never master, so they assume the tools are ineffective.

Pigeon fanciers all have the same tools at their disposal, but as everyone knows with vastly different results. So I would conclude, *you are correct, it is not the tools nor the methods, but the skill in which those tools and methods are used* just like if you asked me to remove your gall bladder.

So for the average fancier, I would say they are not going to be able to use these tools effectively, that is simply just a mathematical fact. Regardless of the tools or methods they attempt to master, the vast majority simply will only produce average results regardless of the tools or methods they believe in or don't believe in. The Master's have already demonstrated that in skilled hands the methods can work. History provides plenty of evidence that most will not be successful, regardless of what tools or methods they may attempt to imitate.

In conclusion, just like a Carpenter or Surgeon or Pigeon Breeder or any other skilled Master, it is not their tools or instruments which makes them a Master, it is the knowledge and skill in which they employ these tools. So for most pigeon fanciers, the tool of inbreeding, may be of only passing interest, as most can never possible use it as well as the great Masters, as that is why they are the Master and vast majority are just..well average. So "believe" in the carpenters hammer, or don't "believe" in it, unless you have some idea how to use it, it will have really be of little value or use to you. Same with the tools that pigeon fanciers can use, or just look at it, or choose not to master it's concepts, or just plain choose to believe that the rock you have been using to pound nails is indeed the best tool for the job, the choice is of course up to the individual.

For me the choice is pretty simple. Since many Master's have been successful with the concept of a closely related family line, and have used inbreeding to set the traits they want in their family. I'm not going to attempt to reinvent the wheel. I am going to attempt to Master the tools of my chosen field, which is the breeding of Champion racing pigeons by using and *Mastering* the same tools and methods as the Master which developed my successful inbred family of pigeons. If one is not willing to Master the skills needed, then it does not matter what tools he attempts to use, or does not even try to use, he or she is doomed to failure.


----------



## triple7loft (Nov 22, 2012)

So Warren can you explain do you think he sends out inbreeds or crosses to the races ?
I may just be reading into this to much......

Jason



SmithFamilyLoft said:


> I have a different take on this, then you may have, or perhaps many others.
> I think he means exactly what he is saying. The fancy will on average reject it, but then again maybe that is why they are average ?
> 
> "Asked *how his best money-winning birds are bred*, Coletta replies that he selects birds the way he feels they should be mated. "I mate not by pedigree but by type. I look at throat selection first, then the eye, wings, muscle, and feather quality. To me, *pedigree is the last thing because my birds are so inbred, and the success is still there with the inbreeding*, so that’s not an issue with me."
> ...


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Xueoo said:


> The same can also be said about the skilled hands of a breeder who does not believe in inbreeding, so, would we conclude the success one has is not the method, but the man?


 I guess I could ramble on endlessly and write volumes, you do have a valid point. Inbreeding as a tool could be pretty much ignored by a very skilled successful pigeon racing fancier. It is certainly not any kind of a requirement to be successful, as I think your point is, there are many roads or paths besides a fairly conventional or traditional idea, of breeding around one of your most successful Champion or Champions, where as if you lucky, the sons and daughter and grand children have and produce those "genes" which help them win races. Which may in fact have little to do with their successful race record. Of which in local racing I am convinced may account for only a very small %. The loft, the management and skill in managing and executing with a system that works for them, loft location, type of competition, the way the wind blows on race day, may hold majority of reasons for success. We have some pro's here in UPC, that could win with maybe just about any YB kits they might start with in any given year. They might win with anyone's birds in a 130+ combine excepting maybe a rare few. Any number of loft's could be provided a collection of weaned YB's that could be collected from all of the greatest loft's in the world, and they still gonna be on bottom of race sheet.

My point being, whatever system or method one is using in attempting to breed a better racing pigeon. How in the heck would one know, with any degree of certainly, that his or her breeding methods, systems, ideas, theories, etc. etc. are in any way shape or form, really impacting in a positive way, what is actually being produced, outside random chance ? 

I might have an emotional attachment to ideas I have already embraced, as I am sure you have as well. Who is to say, that neither your pairings or my pairing are currently anywhere close to ideal ? Take some of the most important breeders who contributed greatness to their birds, and have most influenced your current colony. I suspect if these men walked into our lofts and examined our pairings, birds, etc. I suspect neither of our selections, pairings, etc. would all meet with their approval, and they would most likely be correct. 

Right, wrong, or indifferent. I have adopted the same line of thinking as a Lou Colleta at least from what I have read about him so far, which has not been allot. *You acquire the best you can, and you retain the best decedents for future generations without a lot of outside introductions unless one finds better. *The higher the quality you start with, the more challenging and difficult it becomes to find suitable outside birds for breeding as they most typically are inferior. I started with birds from a fancier in Holland and he rarely introduced any crosses, because it was exceeding difficult to find anything better then he already had. So when he did find them they would be in the lofts of some of Europe's finest loft's, which were doing pretty much the same thing, and had same challenge. As some of the best in the world were already in their lofts. Loft's like Klack, Mueleman, and lesser names when they produced National Ace's and Supercracks. No evidence he ever got hung up on strain, name, pedigree or race record either. If he "liked" a bird, it was usually a very good bird, as he could see what others could not. He discovered gems sometimes in the strangest of places, but as it turned out they produced the needed genes and thus became part of the family tree. Perhaps a bit like a good healthy tree, constantly growing, changing, evolving. 

Certainly there are other and different ways, there just seems to be a shortage of good examples where very successful fanciers avoided breeding pigeons together if they had any mutual relatives in their backgrounds. I guess in theory it can be done, I just am not familiar with those great Master's who bred from all unrelated pigeons. Perhaps if I did, I could embrace the idea as a realistic alternative. 

I think instead we are looking at grey areas where absolutes are maybe hard to find. And I suspect we are talking degrees and how one even defines or thinks what something like "Inbreeding" really is. Count me in the camp of all those great Master's that build great families by retaining those that could win races and produce winners. I will provide an example. 244 Red Bar, is a multiple diploma winner, best being 1st Place at 296 miles. (She Inbred) Her daughter picture not shown, is a multiple 2 x's 1st Place winner, but then what would one expect for her to produce ? Her parents were both inbred, and winners who produced winners, as were her grand parents, and great parents, many (inbred) relatives back to the late 1960's. 13 generations of family members bred to winning family members. Thousands of diplomas and prizes. 
So, given a choice of breeding one of these prize producers to a relative I know can produce as well, or a totally unrelated pairing ? I guess I am just like guys like Ludo or Lou in my thinking, why bother unless you somehow manage to find something better then what you already have. And it just rarely happens, so not so much an ideology, as it is that my best birds just happen to come down from some of the same birds. You think such a "strain" or "Family" could thus produce more "good" out of turn ? Apparently, some of us think so, perhaps we are just delusional and it just our luck ?

What's 13 or so generations of "inbreeding" winners together look like ? I would almost have to attempt to download a file to show number of times relatives show up more then once in her family tree.


----------



## triple7loft (Nov 22, 2012)

Warren,

So do you think he is racing inbreeds or crosses ????




SmithFamilyLoft said:


> I have a different take on this, then you may have, or perhaps many others.
> I think he means exactly what he is saying. The fancy will on average reject it, but then again maybe that is why they are average ?
> 
> "Asked *how his best money-winning birds are bred*, Coletta replies that he selects birds the way he feels they should be mated. "I mate not by pedigree but by type. I look at throat selection first, then the eye, wings, muscle, and feather quality. To me, *pedigree is the last thing because my birds are so inbred, and the success is still there with the inbreeding*, so that’s not an issue with me."
> ...


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

I know he has different families other than HVRs.


----------



## re lee (Jan 4, 2003)

A person has to remember as you inbreed your birds you also make different family groups. And also selection comes from results. Crossing a family line is a cross line. But not nesessary A strain line where that would be a OUT CROSS line. within a loft you may have 3 or more family lines going and use a bird from another line or out cross line as needed. And build and select from there. X amount of pairs over x amount of years can show X amount of selection Moving to fast to build a inbred line does not mean better birds moving that line slow with the right selection. Maintains the better results. Starting a line ANY line Often you start with unrelated birds. And it has been said for many many years Do not use over 3 different lines to start a line of birds. And sometimes best to go to the desired source. And the related sources meaning buy only from others that have that needed line. As there birds to started from the same source. Cross line breeding you introduced that NEW blood. But also introduced those new FAULTS that you in race birds can not see but have to test for. In brreeding has its faults If bred to tight. But any person knows You introduce birds as need and breed them into the different lines and family group lines. They become related as the line deepens a person can not out cross every year Not that many so called strains out there. So some where inbreeding is getting done


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

*Are you afraid of in-breeding ?*

Apparently Lou Colleta is not. But, apparently some of you most definitively are, so I thought perhaps I would share an article with you. Maybe this will help some of you get over your fear of having a common relative show up on both sides of a pedigree.

If we are going to use terms such as "In-Breeding" as people are going to say things like "I don't believe in IN-Breeding" then we might just define what "In-Breeding" is. Now, Robert you gave an example of different branches as within the same family, maybe that is what Lou does, maybe not. If an ancestor shows up more then once in a pigeon's ancestors, then at some level in-breeding has being used. The homing pigeon itself was developed at some stage of it's development with inbreeding, and it is continued to this day by breeding with other homing pigeons descended down from common ancestors. Like I said before, we are talking degrees of inbreeding which seems to go over some people's heads. 

If we say for the sake of discussion, that the definition of inbreeding is having the same relative on both sides of a pedigree, or who shows up more then once on the side of the pedigree, then we are talking about inbreeding. Since most pigeon fanciers don't have a good solid 200 or 300 years of accurate breeding records to consult, like we might have with Thoroughbred horses, we just have to say for our purposes, is any relative within say maybe the last ten or twenty generations. If that is the case, then perhaps regardless of what one believes or chooses not to believe, they are working with inbreeding and it's evidence is within their pedigrees and their DNA. 

Degrees of inbreeding are measured by inbreeding coefficient, it is apparent from some of the postings that most would not be familiar with their colony's inbreeding coefficient, they may just shrug and say they don't believe in inbreeding or in things like inbreeding coefficient, breeders of other bird species from my perspective, are light years ahead of your typical pigeon fancier, in terms of the understanding of the science of genetics. 

The Dr. who wrote this article is working with the breeding of a different specie, but the science and principals are the same. I thought it would be helpful since I seem to run into pigeon guys all the time which will claim they don't "believe" in things such as "In-breeding" even when they often own and keep a colony of pigeons developed through the use of inbreeding. I don't know why such things cause people to go into denial. I suppose there are still some out there that will insist that the earth is flat, and any evidence to the contrary is of no use, their minds are made up, and you can't change what they choose to believe. Such is the case with this breed the homing pigeon, that breeders have developed 

http://www.alpacas.com/AlpacaLibrary/Inbreeding.aspx

*Are You Afraid of Inbreeding?*
By Dr. Pierre Baychelier
Alcazar Suri Stud

First published in: Alpacas Australia, Issue 43, Autumn 2004

This article has been reprinted with the kind permission of Alpacas Australia Magazine



There are advantages and disadvantages in the use of inbreeding and outbreeding in domestic animal reproduction. Both approaches complement each other and, when used rationally, can help breeders progress in their genetic gain.

A quick reminder.

What is inbreeding?

*Inbreeding is the mating of relatives. This means that any inbred animal has at least one common ancestor on its dam’s side and on its sire’s side.
*
Homozygosity & heterozygosity

In superior animals, such as Mammals, and therefore alpacas, half of the genetic material is inherited from the sire and the other half from the dam. When a given gene inherited from the sire is the same as the one inherited from the dam, the animal is said to be homozygous for that gene. If the two genes are different, the animal is heterozygous for the gene.

*The chief effect of inbreeding is to increase homozygosity in the progeny. The proportion of genes found in homozygous combination is higher in inbred than in non-inbred animals.*

Consequences of inbreeding

There are interesting positive consequences with an increase in homozygosity, as it produces more homogenous animals, which “breed true”. In particular, prepotent sires are highly homozygous animals, with many dominant genes. *Inbreeding, at least to a certain degree, is the only way to create and fix a breed.
*
However, inbreeding has a bad name because it also increases inbreeding depression (which is the same as saying it decreases hybrid vigour).

Inbreeding depression & Hybrid vigor

Inbreeding depression is the expression of unfavourable recessive genes in homozygous combinations. This leads to what we commonly refer to as genetic faults, for example polydactyly or choanal atresia. However the effect can be more subtle but still quite undesirable: for example infertility or subfertility, failure to grow properly, or lack of resistance to infection.

Hybrid vigor is the opposite. It is the masking of unfavourable recessive alleles in heterozygous combinations. Hybrids are quite robust and usually very fertile.

The reason why unfavourable genes are usually recessive has to do with evolution (natural selection), which eliminates unfavourable dominant genes rather quickly.

What is outbreeding?

Outbreeding (also called outcrossing) is the exact opposite to inbreeding. Its chief effect is to increase heterozygosity. The progeny exhibits hybrid vigor, however there is a lot of variability in these animals: *The outcome of outbreeding is less predictable, compared to the results you can expect from inbreeding.*

A few important points

Outbreeding does not eliminate the unfavourable recessive genes but only masks them. It allows these genes to persist in a population, where they can reappear at any time down the track.

Note also that inbreeding does not create these unfavourable recessive genes either but only brings them to the fore. It may be useful to a breeder to know what kind of recessive genes are present in his/her herd.

Finally, it is important to understand that neither inbreeding depression nor hybrid vigour is heritable. They can be “undone” at any time. The two following examples will illustrate this very point:

Two inbred animals can produce a vigorous hybrid. For example, an inbred Peruvian mated to a totally unrelated inbred Chilean will give a cria exhibiting strong hybrid vigour. Conversely, two vigorous hybrids can give an inbred animal. For example, 2 F1’s (vigorous hybrids) from the same two parents, mated together, give an inbred F2.

What should you choose?

*If your aim is to develop animals that breed true, with highly prepotent sires, and predictable progeny – in other word, to develop a line – you will have to inbreed. *However, you should also be prepared to cull ruthlessly as inbreeding may bring to the fore some unwanted recessive genes.

If your aim is to breed show champions, it may be a good idea to outcross. Hybrid vigour is a definite plus in the show ring. Similarly, if you wish to breed large herds of commercial animals, outbreeding is also the path to follow. Hybrids need very little medical attention and often can fend for themselves remarkably well.

In practice, many breeders will use both techniques. For example, if an inbred animal were not perfect on a conformation point of view, breeders would often choose to join this kind of animal to a totally unrelated mate, in an attempt to correct inbreeding depression by outbreeding.

A bit of mathematics may help make a decision.

The inbreeding coefficient

Inbreeding can be measured. The immediate advantage is that you can plan your mating so that inbreeding remains below a certain limit. For example, a stud may decide not to breed animals more than 25% inbred. This is actually quite high as this corresponds to the product of a daughter mated to her sire (or a son to her dam).

The inbreeding coefficient is defined as the probability that both genes of a pair in a given animal are identical (homozygous) by descent. This is the same as saying that it is the probable proportion of a given animal’s genes to be identical by descent. Being identical by descent means that the two genes on the maternal and paternal chromosome are copies of the same ancestral gene.

It is beyond the scope of this article to explain how this coefficient is calculated; however a few examples will illustrate the usefulness of such a coefficient.

The stud Laius mated to the dam Jocasta produced a male cria, Oedipus. Oedipus was then mated back to his mother and produced a female cria, Antigone. Antigone is inbred and her inbreeding coefficient is 25%. This is often written as follows: F (Antigone) = 25%. The arrow diagram below illustrates the relationship (males in blue, females in red).



Antigone is likely to have inherited some genes, in homozygous combination, from Jocasta. The inbreeding coefficient measures this likelihood. One member of the pair came directly from Jocasta; the other one was transmitted from Jocasta through Oedipus. Note that the original gene, present in Jocasta, may or may not necessarily be present in a homozygous combination within Jocasta. Twenty five percent (25%) of Antigone’s genes are probably identical by descent i.e. are copies of a given gene in Jocasta.

Oedipus was mated to Jocasta another time and produced a male, Eteocles. Of course, Eteocles is also 25% inbred like his full sister Antigone.



What happens now if we mate Antigone back to her sire Oedipus (to produce “Octagon”) or to her brother Eteocles (to produce “Hexagon”) or to her grand-sire Laius (to produce “Pentagon”)? Will the products be more inbred or less inbred than Antigone?

Mating Antigone back to her sire will result in a cria, Octagon, with an even higher inbreeding coefficient than herself: 37.5%. If this cria is a female and is mated to Oedipus again, the resulting cria will be 43.75% inbred… etc. These intuitive results are better explained on graph 1 below.

Graph 1 - Inbreeding coefficient when mating daughters back to the same sire



On the other hand Antigone mated to her grand-father Laius will only result in 12.5% inbreeding for Pentagon, whereas Antigone mated to her brother Eteocles will result in 37.5% inbreeding for Hexagon.



Who could have predicted that Hexagon and Octagon would have the same degree of inbreeding, without the use of the inbreeding coefficient? The reason is that Antigone and Eteocles are already inbred to the same ancestor, Jocasta. When mating a “normal” brother to his “normal” sister, it results in 25% inbreeding only.

Let’s go to another alpaca stud, Olympus alpacas. The arrow diagram below illustrates the relationships:



As you can see, a half-sib mating results in 12.5% inbreeding (“Polymnestra”) and a full-sib mating results in 25% inbreeding (“Heledeuces”). Compare this latter result with the mating of Antigone and Eteocles described above. They are full brother and sister but, because they are already inbred to the same ancestor Jocasta, their product will be more inbred (37.5%) than the product of “normal” brother and sister (25%).

Practical consequences

*The use of the inbreeding coefficient helps you measure and therefore limit inbreeding in your herd.*

The more you know about the ancestry of the animals you are using, the more accurate your calculations will be.

The example presented above in graph 1, where all daughters are mated back to the same sire is an extreme one, only presented to make a point. In practice, breeders are more likely to use at least two or three males.



Figure 1 - Schematic representation of a two-sire rotation system

Using a two-sire rotation system as illustrated in Figure 1 would limit inbreeding dramatically, compared to using only one sire, as expected. The graph below gives the inbreeding coefficient of the progeny resulting from such a system. A three-sire system is also presented for comparison.

Graph 2 - Inbreeding coefficient in the progeny resulting from three different mating systems



Again, a two-sire rotation, or even a three-sire rotation, can be regarded as extreme cases, as it would not be expected in practice that such stringent systems would be adhered to blindly (some of A’s daughters will not be mated to B and some of B’s daughters will not be mated to C). They are however useful examples, showing that the use of three sires in a stud can limit inbreeding to about 7% (negligible) and still achieve a reasonable degree of homogeneity in the progeny. This of course only works if the two or three sires used are not already related.

Concluding remarks

All the figures presented above are theoretical calculations and are only probabilities. Reality can sometimes vary substantially from prediction but these calculations can help you make decisions with a certain level of confidence.

*Keep in mind that outbreeding is not an insurance against genetic faults and that inbreeding does not always lead to catastrophe. The outcome actually depends a lot on the genetic health of the base population.
*
References

BOURDON R.M. – Understanding animal breeding – Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997
RADICE B. – Who’s Who in the Ancient World – Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, 1971
May 2003

Address correspondence to:
Dr. Pierre Baychelier
Alcazar Suri Stud
PO Box 254
Lithgow NSW 2790 AUSTRALIA
[email protected] or www.alcazar.com.au

© Alcazar Suri Stud 2003


Alpaca HomeView CartContact Us > SearchYour Account


----------



## re lee (Jan 4, 2003)

remember the line starts with line breeding then inbreeding. And same inbred lines can be maintained as different family lines even though they have common ansestors. And then group lines where you have distant relitive lines used and worked torward family lines Those fad bird hurried inbred birds are not what a person wants. Inbreeding line breeding done right gives the best results. Just as select cross line breeding can. BUT the research tested by past greats shows what lines cross well with there birds just have to read study and test.


----------



## ERIC K (Mar 29, 2010)

Warren I'm sure with your "STRONG HANDS" in ten years you will have just what you want a family of birds that are so inbred that Ludo himself could buy from you and start where he left off before his final sale. The main problem I see with this thinking is that you will be stuck with that not what will win in the future. They once said that a man will never break the four minute mile. I think that will happen with any racing animal. Birds for no apparent reason will win and win , people will breed from these and will cross them into their families and create something new and better than what came before . It could be something simple like a freakish gene that expresses itself to make the hybrid bird faster and stronger than anything on the planet. You could call it natural selection if you want , or survival of the winning est, where only the best are kept and used to reproduce ( same as you). With your breeding plan you are trying to control the process and it has been proven to work if done right ,(many born ,many culled) but at the same time by limiting the amount of genes that are available to your stock no matter how good you think they are the out come will be just as limited and at some point you will find that you need to bring something new to cross with your inbred family to move forward which is why people have success with the best to best breeding in the first place, and I would guess is a faster process that years of inbreeding then out crossing. 

For an example look at any sled dog that runs in the Iditarod, they look almost nothing like the traditional sled dogs of the past, all hybrids that can be reproduced into it own family of sledding machines .


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

Just to make it clear, I inbreed as much as I do any other method. Been doing it some 20+ years with different breeds of birds. That is why I don't advocate somebody going into "inbreeding" just for the sake of following a successful breeder' method. You really have to understand the good and bad of inbreeding to be able to make the correct choices. 

There is also a misconcept of what is considerd an inbred. A bird sharing a common ancestor 6 generations back is not an inbred. To be called an inbred, I believe it has to be at least first cousins, maybe second cousins or closer. I don't think you can call a bird with 1/4 of the same blood on both sides an inbred as there are 3/4 of other blood in there. Hard to explain without a chart. 

In Lou Colleta's example of the 3 original HVR birds, if he were to breed from those 3 birds' progeny together exclusively for 10 years, then I would say they have to be inbred as there are no outside blood introduced. If one knows how to breed, one can make several lines out of those 3 birds and not be inbred. One cock and 2 hens can easily create 3 or more distinct families without having them be inbreds. If those 3 birds were full siblings, then they would be inbreds however they are bred.


----------



## Roger Siemens (Nov 12, 2011)

ok here is a question guys, this is my first few years with birds, i ve got birds from proven fliers, some at the top of their game, i ve almost no birds that are even in the same gene pool i have 60 birds should i start thinking about a breeding program into a family. some of the pairs were mated when i got them, i wanted to breed them to birds that i got from every one else? would this help or should i try to keep them in families.

my plan was to get a huge team and then breed off my ten best pairs and give the rest to next guy starting out.


----------



## ERIC K (Mar 29, 2010)

Roger do you get the Racing Pigeon Digest ? There is some good information about breeding in there by Dr Wim Peters. I personally started the way you did with birds from local fliers some with race records , some off proven racers and some off other lofts breeders. Most of the prisoners I got were already mated and I have kept them that way. If they breed junk they go . The others that survived the last few years of racing with me have been aloud to take a mate and breed free choice. The duds seam to cull themselves so I'm sure you will have a better idea of who to keep next year. Not all race birds are good breeders and not all breeders produce good racers. I would race them all and keep the best and breed best to best or keep the best and let them free choice breed next year. Keep this up year after year and you will soon have a good team. I wouldn't worry about family unless the previous owner gave you something proven already and you feel it helpful to try this line straight . I believe that you will be better off with unrelated crosses so keep that in mind for you future. Inbreeding bring no new genes to the gene pool and the longer one tries this the fewer the number of new combinations which can happen.


----------



## Roger Siemens (Nov 12, 2011)

i have really good birds i m very happy with how every one has helped me got good birds. i also have herd that if one pair does not produce good babies switch out the pair with new mates, and sometimes the right hen cock combo helps. where do i find the racing pigeon digest? i do have some great old mags. from the UK from 80s to 2005


----------



## ERIC K (Mar 29, 2010)

Roger Siemens said:


> i have really good birds i m very happy with how every one has helped me got good birds. i also have herd that if one pair does not produce good babies switch out the pair with new mates, and sometimes the right hen cock combo helps. where do i find the racing pigeon digest? i do have some great old mags. from the UK from 80s to 2005


Yes don't give up on the nice ones, some guys switch most of their breeders every year, although they do keep the best pairs that click and build around them. You can call the Digest at 1-888-797-0997. They say Canadian $75 a year and US $44. a year.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

ERIC K said:


> Warren I'm sure with your "STRONG HANDS" in ten years you will have just what you want a family of birds that are so inbred that Ludo himself could buy from you and start where he left off before his final sale. *The main problem I see with this thinking is that you will be stuck with that not what will win in the future. *They once said that a man will never break the four minute mile. I think that will happen with any racing animal. Birds for no apparent reason will win and win , people will breed from these and will cross them into their families and create something new and better than what came before . It could be something simple like a freakish gene that expresses itself to make the hybrid bird faster and stronger than anything on the planet. You could call it natural selection if you want , or survival of the winning est, where only the best are kept and used to reproduce ( same as you). With your breeding plan you are trying to control the process and it has been proven to work if done right ,(many born ,many culled) but at the same time by limiting the amount of genes that are available to your stock no matter how good you think they are the out come will be just as limited and at some point you will find that you need to bring something new to cross with your inbred family to move forward *which is why people have success with the best to best breeding in the first place,* and I would guess is a faster process that years of inbreeding then out crossing.
> 
> For an example look at any sled dog that runs in the Iditarod, they look almost nothing like the traditional sled dogs of the past, all hybrids that can be reproduced into it own family of sledding machines .


 It might be true what you say. But, then I am not concerned about the future, I am concerned about today. Not looking to move forward, just maintain. They are winning in OLR's and winning local club awards. I am not really concerned about decades down the road when fanciers will say they own "pure" Warren's....I be dead by then. If I live long enough where it appears a cross is needed, then I will introduce a cross. The winner of I believe it was $160,000 a few years back at the was it "Vegas Classic" ? Was a 1/2 Ludo. People forget if you want a good cross, you need to have two good straight lines. Simply crossing mediocre pigeons from mediocre lines was never a recipe for success in my book. But that is what most fanciers do, cross two average typical pigeons and expect miracle results. 

As time goes on, there may be another great European fancier who has developed a great family and perhaps a great specimen may be found among such a colony. If it turns out that this new future stain is equal to or better then what I already own, then perhaps the crossing of those lines could produce the next "Super" line. 

In the mean time, I don't know how else to set the winning traits within a line, without some inbreeding. Just don't know how one develops a family by breeding totally unrelated pigeons together which themselves have no common ancestral relatives.

When a "Pure" line begins to lose it's competitiveness due to inbreeding depression, that simply makes the line all that much more valuable as breeders. In the mean time, the ability to withstand a high degree of inbreeding is a trait which I think can be immensely valuable.

I keep hearing this "best to best" business. Personally, I think it is a myth. Everyone claims to breed "best to best", but if that is the case, we would have immensely better racing pigeons today then we did 10 years ago or 20 years ago. If you go visit 20 lofts, you will see that the average pigeon fancier may actually have junkier birds then we had 40 years ago.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Xueoo said:


> Just to make it clear, I inbreed as much as I do any other method. Been doing it some 20+ years with different breeds of birds. That is why I don't advocate somebody going into "inbreeding" just for the sake of following a successful breeder' method. You really have to understand the good and bad of inbreeding to be able to make the correct choices.
> 
> *There is also a misconcept of what is considerd an inbred. A bird sharing a common ancestor 6 generations back is not an inbred. To be called an inbred, I believe it has to be at least first cousins, maybe second cousins or closer. I don't think you can call a bird with 1/4 of the same blood on both sides an inbred as there are 3/4 of other blood in there. Hard to explain without a chart. *
> 
> In Lou Colleta's example of the 3 original HVR birds, if he were to breed from those 3 birds' progeny together exclusively for 10 years, then I would say they have to be inbred as there are no outside blood introduced. If one knows how to breed, one can make several lines out of those 3 birds and not be inbred. One cock and 2 hens can easily create 3 or more distinct families without having them be inbreds. If those 3 birds were full siblings, then they would be inbreds however they are bred.


 The inbreeding coefficient can be measured out far beyond the 6 generations you mention. A bird sharing a common ancestor 6 generations back, is an inbred, because of common ancestor. Now one can choose to ignore it, or say it is something it is not, but it is inbreeding.

That is the whole purpose of the inbreeding coefficient, so that the degree of inbreeding can be measured. This is where I find breeders of parakeets far more knowledgeable on the subject of breeding then your typical homing pigeon fancier. I use breeding software designed for the parakeet fancy, because they will look at things up to 32 generations back. Typical homing pigeon is lucky to have a six generation pedigree, and so to their owner six generations back is ancient history. I typically don't bother much beyond 8 generations, but I can measure the influence on a cock bird, not six generations back, but back to the 1970's and shows up 113 times in some of my pigeons pedigrees. That is just one relative, there are dozens more that show up a few times, to many dozens of times to above example of 113 times. 

Now, besides just thinking yes, this in an "inbred", one can measure with preciseness the actual degree or amount of inbreeding. If a single relative shows up more then once, be it six generations or 32 generations ago, it is still inbred. With the inbreeding coefficient, once can intelligently say for example, this bird's inbreeding coefficient is for example .05 just like my 2012 YB Champion. Anyone familiar with this tool would know instantly that this "purebred" Ludo is not very inbred at all. In five generations, eight relatives showed up from two to four times. So many would call this an "inbred" but not really knowing why or to what degree.

Thankfully science has come to our aid, and so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. All one has to do is to make use of the tools which are already available. Such tools allows one to develop a closely bred line, using the inbreeding coefficient as a tool to manage the degree of inbreeding one has within their colony.

In your example of taking 3 pigeons and developing 3 different lines all without the use of any inbreeding is just plain silly. You would have to show me the pedigree along with the inbreeding coefficient calculation to show how such a thing can be done. I mean one could start with sixty different pigeons and form a genetic line around all sixty, but of course they are going to be sixty different inbred lines.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

re lee said:


> remember the line* starts with line breeding then inbreeding. *And same inbred lines can be maintained as different family lines even though they have common ansestors. And then group lines where you have distant relitive lines used and worked torward family lines Those fad bird hurried inbred birds are not what a person wants. * Inbreeding line breeding done right gives the best results.* Just as select cross line breeding can. BUT the research tested by past greats shows what lines cross well with there birds just have to read study and test.


What is line breeding other then less inbreeding ? Back in the day before they could measure such things such as coefficient, they simply came up with a term which in reality means a low breeding coefficient. Different family lines, are only less related, but still related. 

And I do agree with you, that inbreeding and it's various degrees, is how we developed every domesticated animal used by man kind. Every breed of pigeon, dog, cat, chicken, etc has all been achieved by varying degrees of inbreeding. Why pigeon fanciers assume that homing pigeons are different somehow, I haven't a clue. Without inbreeding you wouldn't even have racing pigeons or any other breeds of pigeons.


----------



## re lee (Jan 4, 2003)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> What is line breeding other then less inbreeding ? Back in the day before they could measure such things such as coefficient, they simply came up with a term which in reality means a low breeding coefficient. Different family lines, are only less related, but still related.
> 
> And I do agree with you, that inbreeding and it's various degrees, is how we developed every domesticated animal used by man kind. Every breed of pigeon, dog, cat, chicken, etc has all been achieved by varying degrees of inbreeding. Why pigeon fanciers assume that homing pigeons are different somehow, I haven't a clue. Without inbreeding you wouldn't even have racing pigeons or any other breeds of pigeons.


But as a person starts there OWN family group. They start line breeding and move forward to inbrreding. And follw the stages of inbreeding As they build there line of birds. And they use this concept as they working needed outside blood later down the line. Where others make the BIG mistake they breed hard to highly inbreed to FASt to certion birds. You see this all the time only the different auction sites. And often those birds are papered TIGERS. pedigree looks great Bird gets lost flying around the block. And sells to the unaware.Inbreeding is an ART infact breeding is an ART and years go by and balance is given when done right. What a person also needs to look at is the proper cross line. The line that breeds well into the exsisting line. AND Perhaps that is a line that was crossed line the past as many line have some relation in the past. remember the old wegge line how many lines spread from there. Even the janssen birds Past is future future is past. results yesterday are the same today. Just ideas brings results. And ideas must be tested. Birds are starting to be changed in looks but the need is the same. Man plays a role that bring results. The pigeons just are being a pigeon


----------



## Kastle Loft (May 7, 2008)

Warren (or anyone else),

I'd like to know, using the inbreeding coefficient, what you consider a low to medium to highly inbred bird. I have some birds that have 37.5% to one particular ancestor and I would consider that to be pretty high. Many of my others are more in the 12.5 - 20% range. I have a few others that might be more in the 6.25% range - so they may be inbred to a degree, but a pretty low one in my opinion. Low enough to not be a factor worth considering when pairing??

Just curious for you to go into more examples on what percentages has worked well for you. I believe I read in one of Ed Minvielle's articles that he liked working with the high 20s to low 30s%.


----------



## Xueoo (Nov 20, 2009)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> The inbreeding coefficient can be measured out far beyond the 6 generations you mention. A bird sharing a common ancestor 6 generations back, is an inbred, because of common ancestor. Now one can choose to ignore it, or say it is something it is not, but it is inbreeding.
> 
> That is the whole purpose of the inbreeding coefficient, so that the degree of inbreeding can be measured. This is where I find breeders of parakeets far more knowledgeable on the subject of breeding then your typical homing pigeon fancier. I use breeding software designed for the parakeet fancy, because they will look at things up to 32 generations back. Typical homing pigeon is lucky to have a six generation pedigree, and so to their owner six generations back is ancient history. I typically don't bother much beyond 8 generations, but I can measure the influence on a cock bird, not six generations back, but back to the 1970's and shows up 113 times in some of my pigeons pedigrees. That is just one relative, there are dozens more that show up a few times, to many dozens of times to above example of 113 times.
> 
> ...


If inbreeding can be defined as stated above, then there is no more debate on the subject, as mine and yours and others definition of inbreeding is different. 

As per the last statement, maybe I need to clarify that. In your opinion it is still "inbred", as it is to a point. The distinction I was trying to make, and I'm sure breeders who know the concept behind it, can understand my point, is that one male bred to 2 females can start 3 or more lines of birds by "linebreeding" to all three original birds and create three families without having to cross back to either of the other two original parent. Also hard to explain if one doesn't know the concept. A bird who is linebred (inbred) to it's offsprings past the 6th or so generation is considered genetically pure, thus it is different from the other two lines bred the same way towards the other two parent. The distinction I was try to make was that those three lines can be independant from one another genetically even though they shared the same common father. One line of the father and one line each for each hen and you can branch it out there endlessly by "linebreeding". Each line will be inbred but each line will also be genetically not inbred from the other lines if they are not crossed back and forth. To some, 99.99% unshared blood is still "inbred" so take it for what it's worth. 

This concept, SFL, is one I encourage you to look into and incorporate into your breeding program, as it will preserve a good birds genetics. You can duplicate or replicate a birds genetics by *linebreeding only*.

Edit: just wanted to add, how silly is it when a common ancestor 32 generations ago outcrossed for 30 generations can still be called an inbred?


----------



## Kastle Loft (May 7, 2008)

Xueoo said:


> If inbreeding can be defined as stated above, then there is no more debate on the subject, as mine and yours and others definition of inbreeding is different.
> 
> As per the last statement, maybe I need to clarify that. In your opinion it is still "inbred", as it is to a point. The distinction I was trying to make, and I'm sure breeders who know the concept behind it, can understand my point, is that one male bred to 2 females can start 3 or more lines of birds by "linebreeding" to all three original birds and create three families without having to cross back to either of the other two original parent. Also hard to explain if one doesn't know the concept. A bird who is linebred (inbred) to it's offsprings past the 6th or so generation is considered genetically pure, thus it is different from the other two lines bred the same way towards the other two parent. The distinction I was try to make was that those three lines can be independant from one another genetically even though they shared the same common father. One line of the father and one line each for each hen and you can branch it out there endlessly by "linebreeding". Each line will be inbred but each line will also be genetically not inbred from the other lines if they are not crossed back and forth. To some, 99.99% unshared blood is still "inbred" so take it for what it's worth.
> 
> ...


I love this thread, btw. I have "restarted" my own loft this year with 5 pairs of birds from the same "family". They are as close as I can afford to world-class stock and many have excellent race records themselves. They all have common ancestors. Some are full siblings, some are half siblings, some share grandparents, and some share great-grandparents and beyond. I very much look forward to testing them, skimming the cream, and employing some of these very ideas here over the years. 

But you make an excellent point about the definition of inbred and line bred. If we are not speaking the same language, it's tough to have a conversation.

Everything I've read uses a much tighter definition of inbred than what Warren is using: The mating of direct relatives (mother to son, father to daughter, full sibling to full sibling, etc). Anything other than that would be differing degrees of line breeding.


----------



## re lee (Jan 4, 2003)

Kastle Loft said:


> I love this thread, btw. I have "restarted" my own loft this year with 5 pairs of birds from the same "family". They are as close as I can afford to world-class stock and many have excellent race records themselves. They all have common ancestors. Some are full siblings, some are half siblings, some share grandparents, and some share great-grandparents and beyond. I very much look forward to testing them, skimming the cream, and employing some of these very ideas here over the years.
> 
> But you make an excellent point about the definition of inbred and line bred. If we are not speaking the same language, it's tough to have a conversation.
> 
> Everything I've read uses a much tighter definition of inbred than what Warren is using: The mating of direct relatives (mother to son, father to daughter, full sibling to full sibling, etc). Anything other than that would be differing degrees of line breeding.


No mother son father daughter ECT are closley inbreeding. You start in breeding useing uncles aunts ECT. You start the line breeding from unrelated birds Then moving them over to related family groups. You can a have relitive show up on both sides that is several generation back. But use a family group. And yeas they are distantly related but not in the close family group. But clos enough to move over to the each group. That builds different lines with the same line. Several people make the mistake of bring the line to tight early. reducing its over all strenghs Much faster. NOW sometimes it is used to dig back for a certion needs. I believe Van breeman did this also Rebuilding his line of birds


----------

