Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Inbreeding hogs in never a good ideal!!

Example

pastel pinks

evans/lazik hypos

and the 1st 10 years with the common albino line we have today..

these same mistakes were made and look how were paying for them today. Hogs do not tolerate inbreeding.

((Common Misconceptions))
"In-breeding causes genetic diseases" - (NO)Breeding closely related animals increases the possibility that any bad genes in a line will show up.(YES) It does not 'cause' genetic disease.
"Out-crossed snakes are healthier" - This is only partly true. There is a known phenomenon called Hybrid Vigor. Two animals of unrelated strains breed and the offspring is often bigger and grows faster than it's linebread cousins. This method is often used by farmers in order to get their animals to market sooner But one of the biggest misconceptions of hybrid vigor is that it applies to all animals of mixed heritage. Hybrid Vigor only applies to the animals that are the direct offspring of the crossing of the unrelated strains. In other words if you continue to breed animals of different strains there generally will not be any additional increase in hybrid vigor. If the unrelated strains share common genes for genetic disorders, hybrid vigor will not over ride the risk of the disorder showing up. Out-crossing can also cause problems if widely divergent physical types are mixed due to differences in growth rates and bone and muscle sizes. So I think just this one time will be ok. I am certainly not discounting the fact that an excess of inbreeding has lead to certain problems in certain lines, and I have no intention of making a habit of inbreeding my snakes. I just don't see one time to be the demise of my entire line. But I certainly appreciate the input and your concern.
-----
D.Dedrick

Maybe I just misread that, but what are the problems with with the PPA, Hypos, etc? I don't recall ever hearing of any genetic defects with any Hognose lines.

RE: Purple line normal femal 07 ,, look down at this post from a memder. I to would like to know in full detail my self.
-----
D.Dedrick

I'm going to ask but I'm not really confident that some of the better known breeders are going to respond.
How many times have you had a bad clutch due to inbreeding?
How many times have you had eggs hatch and had to put down the hatchlings because there was something wrong that was probably due to inbreeding?

It seems that every year this topic comes up and the usual response from those that are new or just entering the hobby is to avoid inbred stock like the plague. What they fail to understand is that we are dealing with recessive genes. In order to prove out any of the known recessive genes there was at least one time that the breeder did some inbreeding. That special male was bred back to his daughters to prove out the gene. That special female was bred by a son to prove out the gene. The first breeding provided a het and then the het was bred back to the original male or female to prove out the gene.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a breeder that is no longer with us. He shared some info about a hog breeding that he tried, Albino x Albino. The results were not good. Some died in the egg and others were deformed. This breeder helped me a few times and the knowledge and experience he shared with me has helped me many times. So in my opinion there is something about breeding hogs that are related that we need to be cautious about but the fact is that some inbreeding has to be done to prove out a recessive gene.

I think something also needs to be said about which gene it is. Some are much stronger than others from the start. If you look at ball pythons(only because there is way more genes to play with) you can see problems with them.

Spiders wobble and they don't have to be inbred for them to express it. Caramel albinos kink bad when they are inbred, super cinnies duckbill. The big breeders didn't have anything to say until it was so widespread that they couldn't hide it anymore.

The genes we breed for are usually just abnormalities that we like. Sometimes this weakens the genetic ability of the animal and sometimes it doesn't.

>>The genes we breed for are usually just abnormalities that we like.
>>Sometimes this weakens the genetic ability of the animal and sometimes it doesn't.

Great Charlie!
and this is the reason, why everyone of us should think about which animal you choose for breeding and which one is "only a pet"!

Stefan
-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

I can say that last year I bred an extreme red albino with a normal albino female and she gave me 17 eggs all of which hatched and were perfect. It may be because of the two different albino parents but I would do it again.

BTW David...Hybrid Vigor applies to Hybrids which is in no way related to this discussion on inbreeding ..infact hybrid vigor couldn't be further from this topic.
There are many documented diseases and disorders caused by repeatitive inbreeding..so it isn't a misconception. For example the Amish are well known for genetic disorders due to this.

Also if pastel pinks and hypo's were a strong line you'd see more of them..but you don't and they have been around for many many years.
Many pastel pinks die before they reach adulthood or they have balance issues. Hypo's have had reproductive problems but they seem to be doing better through outcrossing, but there still rare comparetivly.
Generally the more patients you are the better the results.
-----
Justin Mitcham
ExtremeHogs.com

I hadn't heard that about the Pink Pastels. I was going to pick up a hatchling this year, but I may have to reconsider. Always wondered why they were still so rare...

>>BTW David...Hybrid Vigor applies to Hybrids which is in no way related to this discussion on inbreeding ..infact hybrid vigor couldn't be further from this topic.

Actually, Justin, that isn't really correct. In science, "hybrid" doesn't just mean the cross between two different taxa. In just means the cross between two unlike parents. Take two different inbred strains of research mice and breed them together. Although the parents are the same species, the offspring are a hybrid line becuase they come from two unlike strains. He is completely correct in saying that breeding two linebred strains of hognose could produce hybrid vigor. However, hybrid vigor is NOT always seen in offspring from unlike parents.

>>There are many documented diseases and disorders caused by repeatitive inbreeding..so it isn't a misconception. For example the Amish are well known for genetic disorders due to this.

Inbreeding increases the EXPRESSION of genetic disorders. It does not CREATE the mutation itself. I believe you missed the point of his post.

KJ
-----
KJUN Snakehaven
Pituophis.net
KJUN.us
Snakemorphs.us

OH BOY GEEZE...KJUN..
you are right technically speacking but you are still wrong where this conversation comes to play..
For one anyone here can pull out the dictionary and come up with any definition to fit there post since most words usually have multiple meaning and uses..technicallky speaking..or just to argue.

In OUR industry the term "Hybrid Vigor" almost exclusivly used to describe hybrids either at the species level or at the sub-species level...
The term hybrid vigor was not used correctly and still isn't being used correctly in this discussion even if technically it can mean what the poster is trying to say. We can sit here all day long and come up with many different ways to mold these words to fit the arguments.
There are two biological definition for hybrid.
In biology, hybrid has two meanings.[1] The first meaning is the result of inter-breeding between two animals or plants of different taxa. Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses. Hybrids between different sub-species within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different genera are sometimes known as intergeneric hybrids. Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids). The second type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This second meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding. In plant and animal breeding, hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This rearranging of the genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization.

So KJUN and David please point me out where people are regulary using the term HYBRID VIGOR IN OUR industry to decribe cultivers of a single species or sub instead of hybrids?? I think you both know exactly what I mean...and are missing the point. I am not confused on the science here.

Also in our own species interbreeding is taboo and looked down upon..if it is so ok then why has it been so looked down upon both from a Biological, religious and legal point?
Mice have been proven to be able to smell other mice which are inbred and thus refuse to breed with them..seems also that mother nature is pretty opposed to the ideal in general..wouldn't you say?

And yes we all know the very act of interbreeding doesn't by iteself cause genetic disorders..my point is it raises the chance and why do so??..and if given the option most well versed breeders should avoid it..were not cultivating a recessive here so it isn't really necesarry.
On a side note my methods of breeding hogs, and the robustness of my lines speak for themselves. There always theory then there's actual real world results, and often they are not easily reconciled with each other!! I have made a huge effort to add new genetics every part of the way...and look at the results I have had!
-----
Justin Mitcham
ExtremeHogs.com

>> you are right technically speacking but you are still wrong where this conversation comes to play..

Wait a second, and lets laugh at ourselves. He used the technically correct definition, I understood what he meant (you didn't), and I am the one that is wrong for explaining that he WAS correct? Yeah, we do need to laugh at ourselves over this....lol. By comparison, most John Q. Public say snakes are poisonous, but we know they are actually venomous. because most people USE the term poisonous wrong, does that me poisonous is now the RIGHT word for it? Of course not. I don't care how many people use the term one way, that doesn't mean using it the other way is incorrect.

>>For one anyone here can pull out the dictionary and come up with any definition to fit there post since most words usually have multiple meaning and uses..technicallky speaking..or just to argue.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I took your post as just an attempt to argue with his original premise.....and your basis was to nitpick (incorrectly) on word usage. I just explained his definitions were correct. ...or were you explaining a little Devil's Advocate meaning behind your original post? If so, sorry I missed that I took your original words literally. I apologize if that is the case. Otherwise, I really am confused.

>>The term hybrid vigor was not used correctly and still isn't being used correctly in this discussion even if technically it can mean what the poster is trying to say. We can sit here all day long and come up with many different ways to mold these words to fit the arguments.

Yes, you can mold them any way you want and claim your definition is correct because many hobbyists use it that way, but that doesn't MAKE it correct (see poisonous reference). ...or are the thousands of researchers that use the term hybrid vigor to describe the result of crossing two inbred strains of mice incorrect? Do you really believe hobbyists know the definition better than the scientists that, as a group, coined and originally defined the term? I doubt it.

Come on and relax, Justin. Nobody is saying you don't know what you are talking about. Not even close. I'm just saying your definition of hybrid vigor may be correct for SLANG use, but that doesn't make the original definition used incorrect in the least little bit. It's like some yokel saying "That snake aint venomous - it's poisonous."

>>There are two biological definition for hybrid.

It's plagarism to quote without citing. LOL.

>> The second type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species.

That's where he is correct.

>>So KJUN and David please point me out where people are regulary using the term HYBRID VIGOR IN OUR industry to decribe cultivers of a single species or sub instead of hybrids?? I

Why? Are you saying if most people use a term incorrectly, people that know better should not use the terms as they are intended? Are you saying that everyone should call snakes "poisonous" because it is the more common use of the word. I know this analogy isn't perfect because your definition isn't wrong (poisonous is), but it is the best I could come up with in short notice.

AGAIN, your use of hybrid vigor isn't wrong, but neither was the original use. To tell him that his use was wrong is ludicrous....as it would be for me to say YOUR use is wrong. The original posrter explained himself well and correctly. If anyone misunderstood, it was because THEY were the one lacking knowledge....and it was their chance to ask questions - not correct him for being RIGHT in a way they didn't understand.

>>think you both know exactly what I mean...and are missing the point. I am not confused on the science here.

As you should have known exactly what HE meant. I'm not attacking you or anyone, but your post DID look like an attack on him and/or his ideas. Why? If you knew what he meant (which you would have if you really did understand the science - and also know he was correct), why didn't you just say, "I believe in our hobby hybrid vigor should be reserved for crosses among separate taxa" instead of just calling him, erroneously, WRONG? Don't you see the difference there?

>>And yes we all know the very act of interbreeding doesn't by iteself cause genetic disorders..my point is it raises the chance and why do so??

But what you said was, "disorders caused by repeatitive inbreeding" implying the disorder was CAUSED by inbreeding when, technically, the expression was a result of it - not the creation of it. I only bring this up because the OP saids inbreeding wasn't the cause of the mutation, and then your post had the definite tone of say, "Yes, it is!" I'm sure you just mistyped based on your responses here, but I hope you can see why myself (and others) took your original post to be opposing his statement that inbreeding doesn't CAUSE the mutation. No biggie - we are all unclear in our posts at times.

KJ
-----
KJUN Snakehaven
Pituophis.net
KJUN.us
Snakemorphs.us

Great follow-up to an insightful post. Thanks KJ for clarifying the finer points of Davids post!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Boy this is fun to watch

-----
Brent Bumgardner
bwbumgardner@aol.com
703.431.1776
Superconda Website

She´s a beauty!!!
more pics please Brent.
-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

"Boy this is fun to watch"

What is, your awesome hog or this train wreck?
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

>>Inbreeding increases the EXPRESSION of genetic disorders.
>>It does not CREATE the mutation itself.

Great post!!!
I could´nt say it better

an other example:
ALL the cute "Gold Hamster" origin from an gravid female, that was colected in 1930. She and her 7 babys were the beginning of billions of pets.

-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

>>ALL the cute "Gold Hamster" origin from an gravid female, that was colected in 1930. She and her 7 babys were the beginning of billions of pets.

You are exactly right. Inbreeding CAN produce wonderful results, but it requires scientific culling AND some species can handle it more than others. Species that inbreed commonly in the wild (due to their dispersal rates) - like rodents that often colonize new islands with a SMALL number of founders - due better than those that don't.

BTW, I believe that number on the hamsters is correct, but all 7 didn't make it into the breeding pool. It was actually LESS than that in the US - especially when you consider that only a subset of their great-grandchildren made it here:

From Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2nd edition:
"Practically all Syrian hamsters now in use as laboratory animals originated from
one litter captured in Syria in 1930. Only 3 littermates, 1 male and 2 females, were
retained in captivity, and it is the progeny of these 3 animals that were first
imported to the United States in 1938."

"All Mongolian gerbils available for research were derived from 20 pairs trapped in
eastern Mongolia in 1935. ... imported 11 pairs to the United States from the Tokyo
subcolony in 1954."
-----
KJUN Snakehaven
Pituophis.net
KJUN.us
Snakemorphs.us

Thanks for your post!
sometimes it is really hard work for me, to explaine something.

I did not know, that only 3 of them were used for breeding. That make the whole "Gold Hamster"-thing more interesting.

There is an other point of view, that is in my opinion also very interesting:
Most people who do not like the whole color- and patternbreeding (it dos´nt matter if morph or linebreeding) have dogs or cats

just to think about it
Stefan
-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

This is how I was taught.
Inbreeding is brother to sister, it will intensify good and bad genes quickly. In general livestock terms one inbreeding from completely unrelated stock rarely produces small size and bad genes showing up. Second inbreeding of those offspring is higher risk.
Linebreeding is mother to son, or father to daughter. Most people line breed (I think, I hope). It is slower to enhance a look or color but much safer. Rarely produces weak, small offspring.
Outbreeding any two unrelated animals
Amanda

Both are inbreeding and both have similar chances of resulting in increased expression of mutations. On average brothers and sisters share ~50% of their genetic information with each other. This number is of course an average based on theory. At the same time each child is also 50% related to each parent (they did get half of their genetic information from each). The difference between sibling-sibling and parent-offspring breeding is that sibling breeding increases the possibility of expressing mutations (both deleterious and non) from both parents whereas parent-offspring breeding increases the possibility of expressing mutations from only the one parent. To further complicate the issue there are also linked genes, etc.
-----
Kyle

15 Milks and Kings
3 Hognose
4 Kenyan Sand Boas
3 Rat Snakes
2 Geckos

I've been working with linebreeding and inbreeding mice and cattle for sometime and I believe there is a difference.

Linebreeding a son to a mother is "safer" because if original mother and sire were distinctly unrelated, then the son shares at most 50% of his DNA in common with his mother, thus reducing the chances of weak offspring.

Inbreeding a brother to a sister is "less safe" because both have the same parentage and could, theoretically, statistically, share all the same DNA except the sex chromosomes, thus increasing the chances of weak offspring.

I understand the jargon of "safe" and "weak" are not very specific, but I am trying to stay in context with the previous posts.
-----
1.0 normal ball python
0.1 greyband hybrid kingsnake
0.2 crazy cats
1.0 husband

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter whether it is inbreeding or linebreeding they will, on average, share 50% of their genetic material. The assumption is with linebreeding that the mother or father does not have recessive mutations that are deleterious. At the same time statistically the brother and sister could be totally unrelated (if you really think about the way that chromosomes segregate during sex cell formation).

Biologically speaking both are good ways to get expression of potentially negative mutations. There really is no difference. I am not saying that linebreeding or even inbreeding is a horrible thing to do in this hobby (this is after all how we prove our interesting mutations). All I am saying is we cannot say one is better than another without genetic evidence and rigorous testing. Theoretically speaking they are exactly the same.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the number of chromosomes is not constant among species. Humans have 23 pairs, mice have 20 pairs, I think, and cows even more than that. Different numbers of chromosomes can modify the impact of inbreeding. So making broad conclusions about inbreeding should always be used with caution. I am unaware of anyone that has looked at inbreeding in snakes scientifically although it would be interesting.
-----
Kyle

15 Milks and Kings
3 Hognose
4 Kenyan Sand Boas
3 Rat Snakes
2 Geckos

The real problem is the selction of the breeding-pairs.
When you only use pairs with no genetic defects [without the desirable one ], than linebreeding and/or inbreeding should not end in an "dead end"

for example:
it is genetic proven, that all humans origin from only 3 different females!!!

just to think about it and
only my 0,2$

Stefan
-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

>>for example:
it is genetic proven, that all humans origin from only 3 different females!!!

What? I have not heard this, where did you hear this?
-----
Kyle

15 Milks and Kings
3 Hognose
4 Kenyan Sand Boas
3 Rat Snakes
2 Geckos

when I remember the right way, it was a BBC-docu.
In that docu they talked about the DNA from "Mitochondrien".
They sad, that these typ of DNA is very strong (there are only 1 mutation in many of thousand years) and will only transmit through the female "egg-zell"(?spelling). And when they check it backwards, they came to 3 different strains. That means 3 different females.

-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

The only documentary I can find that makes such a claim is referring to a species of fowl, not humans.

This article indicated they have found over 600 strains of mitrochondrial DNA in African-evolved human beings alone.
-----
1.0 normal ball python
0.1 greyband hybrid kingsnake
0.2 crazy cats
1.0 husband

Thanks for the link!
But Sorry, you´r wrong:

>>Over 600 complete mtDNA genomes from indigenous populations across the continent were ANALYZED.

and it is more intresting and dramatic than I thought:

>>MtDNA, inherited down the maternal line, was used to discover the age of the famous 'mitochondrial Eve' in 1987. This work has since been extended to show unequivocally that the most recent common female ancestor of everyone alive today was an African woman who lived in the past 200,000 years. Paleontology provides corroborating evidence that our species originated on this continent approximately 200,000 years ago.

>>Paleontologist Meave Leakey, Genographic Advisory Board member, National Geographic Explorer in Residence and Research Professor, Stony Brook University, added: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction."

-----
Greetings from Berlin
Stefan & Raimo

R.B.E.
Reptiles-Breeding-Enterprise.com

Hello All
As most of us know there is ONLY two of these in the world
and both hatched out of the same clutch,breeding these together has crossed my mind,would anyone like to comment?

-----
Brent Bumgardner
bwbumgardner@aol.com
703.431.1776
Superconda Website

I probably would not. It'd be cool to have an entire clutch of patternless Hogs, but odds are you can hatch out a decent amount with just the normal Anacondas you have. I'd use the female for crosses. Breed her to an axanthic or something and get an entire clutch of Anacondas het-for-whatever.

Then again, more patternless Hogs = less value = me more likely to afford one. So on that hand... lol

As we all know there are ONLY two of these in the world and both hatched out of the same clutch,breeding these two together has crossed my mind,would anyone like to comment?

-----
Brent Bumgardner
bwbumgardner@aol.com
703.431.1776
Superconda Website