The inheritance of working instinct

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Discussing the Lift got me thinking which seemed to merit a separate heading.

 

There've been many studies on the heritability of desirable sheep traits: viz rate of growth, carcass rate etc. There haven't been any studies of the inheritability of various Border Collie behaviors. Worse, while there are many, many Border Collies bred, there are only a handful of people I'd call Border Collie "breeders" and I am emphatically not one of them.

 

Suppose You are mating two very similar successful open trial dogs:

 

What follows is my observations over the years, expressed in percentages which make the whole thing seem more scientific than it is.

 

Crouch: 99%

eye: degree varies from sticky to loose eyed but in some form 95%

 

Keenness: varies 95%

 

Biddability: 90%

 

Header/gatherer: 90%

 

Balance: 80%

 

Wide running: 70%

 

Pushiness: 65%

 

Timidity: 65%

 

Natural Outrun: 60%

 

Natural square flanks: 60%

 

Hardness or softness: 50%

 

Power: 40%

 

Sheep kindliness: 30%

 

There are trivial behaviors that predictably follow certain matings: sulkiness, looking back at the handler to name two.

 

I hope others will argue with these figures and offer their own.

 

 

Donald McCaig

[MyTDogs]

 

What follows is my observations over the years, expressed in percentages which make the whole thing seem more scientific than it is.

 

 

Is this percentage the likelihood of inheritance? Or something else...sorry, it is early for this novice to read technical stuff

[Gloria Atwater]

Is this percentage the likelihood of inheritance? Or something else...sorry, it is early for this novice to read technical stuff

 

 

I'm with Cindy, I'm not quite sure I get the question.

 

For example, are you hypothesizing that if a mated pair are both strong-eyed, it's 95% likely their pups will be strong-eyed? Or are you theorizing that if a pup is himself strong-eyed, it's a 95% certainty that at least one of his parents are strong-eyed? (Meaning a pup is unlikely to inherit a trait that's not manifest in at least one of the parents.)

 

.... And did I even make any sense? Too early, must have more coffee.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Pam Wolf]

I for one do not consider sulkiness trivial!

[stockdogranch]

...and I took it to mean that each of these "traits" that Donald mentions are "predictable" according to the percentages. So for example, eye, in general, is 95% predictable, with the random 5% being a crapshoot.

 

If that's what Donald's meaning is here, I might disagree with quite a few of the percentages. Maybe he'll enlighten us...

A

[Liz P]

I have to agree. I'll take a dog with heart but a less than ideal package of instincts over a sulky dog with the right mix any day. Occasionally you are blessed with a dog that has both, and they are priceless.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Sorry to be opaque. Ms. A, has my meaning and I do hope she'll disagree. Far as I know these are new considerations and my suggestions are just that. Let's have yours - not which is the most desirable but rather, how likely that a dog and dam will reproduce it.

 

Donald McCaig

...and I took it to mean that each of these "traits" that Donald mentions are "predictable" according to the percentages. So for example, eye, in general, is 95% predictable, with the random 5% being a crapshoot.

 

If that's what Donald's meaning is here, I might disagree with quite a few of the percentages. Maybe he'll enlighten us...

A

[Liz P]

Would it not be easier, and less controversial, to just say a trait has low, moderate or high heritability?

[stockdogranch]

Not much time, as I need to get ready to do the lengthy commute to the dreaded day job. But I'll start with "power"--I believe the original estimate was a mere 40%...I just can't buy that one. I would put the heritability of power at a much higher percentage, maybe somewhere like in the 85-90% (or more) range. I don't think I'm just pulling this number out of thin air; this would be based on dealing with dogs bred for quite a bit of power (working cattle, and I do NOT mean the "dash n' slash" version, either) over a number of years...hmmm...now I guess this means we have to get into defining "power," and I'm sure we all have our own definition in mind. I'll explain what power is to me later, after dealing with college freshmen, and I'll be curious to see how others define it.

 

The other traits will give me lots to ponder while I drive...

A

[glennkopp]

 

There haven't been any studies of the inheritability of various Border Collie behaviors.

 

Donald McCaig

 

 

Scroll to the top of the screen, click BC Health, then Breeding and Genetics and you'll find "Heritability of Herding-Related Traits (by C. Denise Wall, Ph.D., and Mellissa DeMille, Ph.D)" www.stilhope.com/heritabilitysummary.htm

 

They may not have it all figured out, but it has been studied.

 

Glenn

[PennyT]

I just checked "Eminent Dogs" for a quote about the percentage of pups in a border collie litter that will work. Donald told us that out of a litter of six, only five will work. That has not been my experience. I suspect that in most cases if five will then so will the sixth and that if three won't, chances are the other three won't amount to much.

 

A characteristic Donald listed as having low heritability, looking at the handler, was likely bred for by people using a lot of hand signals in the American west and bred against by people preferring whistles. It's hard to guess because something like that is so easy to make better or worse in training depending on what you want. I'd be willing to bet money the trait is highly heritable and that kindness to stock is as well.

 

I've often wondered if working dams exert more influence than we know how to measure.

 

Penny

[Tea]

I bred horses for years, and that bottom line, dam line, was always the one you looked at.

[coyotecreek]

I bred horses for years, and that bottom line, dam line, was always the one you looked at.

 

Tea, I agree... we bred horses..and now have cattle and sheep..I look for a VERY strong bottomline..which is not something alot of people do..they want to breed their average female (of whatever species) to a phenomenal male and then think the offspring will come out little duplicates of the sire..the dam plays a huge role IMO..to have a stellar female is to be truly blessed..

[MyTDogs]

Tea, I agree... we bred horses..and now have cattle and sheep..I look for a VERY strong bottomline..which is not something alot of people do..they want to breed their average female (of whatever species) to a phenomenal male and then think the offspring will come out little duplicates of the sire..the dam plays a huge role IMO..to have a stellar female is to be truly blessed..

 

See this is interesting to me...(I learn so much here! ) I am not a breeder- I'd surely be kennel blind as a bat. Apparently I'm not a very good shopper either. I always thought the sire had more influence on the pup's abilities. Most famous dogs are indeed Dogs not Bitches...why is that? At this year's finals, what was the ratio of dogs to bitches? Seems to me most big hats run Dogs- make them great & then breed them to a "good" female who may not have trialed/worked as much because she has taken lots of time of for pups or whatever.

 

It just seems like if the bitch has so much influence on the pups then more folks would seek out/develop stellar females & they would get recognition like dogs do.

[workindogs]

Interesting....many of the GREAT trial bitches have been poor producers or not produced at all (ie nothing).

 

Tho' I understand from strength in the bottom to be a powerful strong pedigree (strong genetic background) as well as being a strong working example herself....not necessarily a GREAT trial bitch. This is what I've looked for to match with my successful Open trial dog.

[stockdogranch]

Interesting...the guy I got my #1 bitch (as a pup) from some years back and I have always felt that the "good stuff" in these lines comes from and is passed through the bitches. He's bred WAY more than I have, and he feels the boys are kind of "hit and miss," while the girls are very predictable and consistent. That's why I have a house full of bitches

A

[MyTDogs]

Interesting....many of the GREAT trial bitches have been poor producers or not produced at all (ie nothing).

 

Can you tell me any of their names? PM or public is fine with me.

 

Perhaps this inheritance thread is over my head...but I will be needing, wanting, a new dog in the near future & I am trying to make a more educated choice this time around.

 

Thanks,

[Smalahundur]

The female line carries contributes more genetic material to the off-spring; the extra nuclear DNA only comes from the mother, also the X chromosome carries more info than the Y.

 

I am afraid Donald´s predictability numbers are not gathered in a way that make them usefull, as he states they are based on his observations. Does that mean on what he remembers from the litters he has seen in his lifetime? Data can hardly come less reliable than that (please don´t take that as an offence, I do believe you have a lot more experience than, well at least me, and probably a lot of other board members too, it is just that human memory makes for very poor data storage in general).

 

Apart from that there is also the terminology problem, and the quantification method. What exactly do you mean by loose eyed, and when does a pup score that trait, is it absolute as in is the dog loose eyed or not, or gradual for instance on a scale of one to ten the dog scores etc. etc.. Then you have a more solid basis for your percentages.

 

And then there is the number crunching, find as many litters as possible, use your standard measuring methods, best do this for some generations.

 

So yes, there is in my opinion no other way to approach this subject than a solid, methodological sound, scientific research.

 

Donald asks for a discussion of his numbers, and for others to give theirs. This is as good as impossible without knowing what his numbers mean, different interpretation of terminology/percentages are the reason for that. You will never know you are discussing the same thing or not.

 

Liz´s proposal makes sense; without this exact quantification, discussing what traits are more genetically based than others.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Ms. 'Smalahundur writes (in part):

 

"So yes, there is in my opinion no other way to approach this subject than a solid, methodological sound, scientific research."

 

I'd welcome such studies funded by who? While scientific method provides our best predictions of certain kinds of events, we all make zillions of judgements, including to which dog we breed to without waiting for scientific studies.

 

I admit and admitted the weakness of my observations. That means they are, more debatable by rational folk than say ,evolution or climate warming, not that they are without merit.

 

 

She also wrote:"Liz´s proposal makes sense; without this exact quantification, discussing what traits are more genetically based than others."

 

Fine with me. Your estimates, please.

 

Donald McCaig

[Mark Billadeau]

The natural component of many of the traits listed will be difficult to assess since many will require some training & exposure to stock to expose the traits. This means nurture (how the exposure was done, the demeanor of the trainer, the demeanor of sheep, the terrain, the weather, etc) now has influenced these traits. One would get a sense of the nature part of these traits by observing many dogs in the same lines.

 

The other difficulty is the precise definition of the traits that will be used to assess nature vs nurture. Take for example "eye". In my limited breadth of experience with dogs I have found "eye" to be manifested in several ways in dogs. Dogs that have been described with eye may not react the same way in the same situation.

 

Another example: What is power? A dog walks onto the field and the sheep start squirming 450yards away at the top of the field. Is this power, presence, something else? How is power different than confidence?

 

As far as which has more influence (sire or dam) over the offspring, I suspect it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe the sire has the more influence, then you are more likely to breed the best possible sire to an average dam. The traits of the better dog are more likely to be seen in pups that work well. If you believe the dam has more influence, then .......

 

 

[Smalahundur]

Hi Donald.

Ms Smalahundur is actually a mister . For me and other icelandic speakers obvious, hundur being a male word in that language, of course not so for the rest of the world.

I did not say your observations are weak or without merit, far from it. Experience, especially a lifetime of it is valueble.

My only point was it is not possible to put it into percentages the way you did.

[PennyT]

"Discussing the Lift got me thinking which seemed to merit a separate heading."

 

The dogs I have had that were superior at the top without much help from me, meaning they had good natural lifts via intuition or stock sense or taught themselves quickly, have also been kind to stock, usually only aggressive as necessary and sweet with lambs. In fact, I always thought the qualities went together as a package: authority at the top, creation of trust there, and kindness to sheep in general.

 

I don't know if this is true because my experience is more limited than someone who breeds a lot of pups or runs through a lot of pups looking for that great one.

 

Edited to add: The dogs that create trust, have power to spare, yet are kindly are not necessarily the best or great dogs; other factors come into play like quirkiness, sulling up, and so on. I do think that good and great dogs have the first set of characteristics I mentioned and that they tend to be found together.

 

Penny

[coyotecreek]

Interesting...the guy I got my #1 bitch (as a pup) from some years back and I have always felt that the "good stuff" in these lines comes from and is passed through the bitches. He's bred WAY more than I have, and he feels the boys are kind of "hit and miss," while the girls are very predictable and consistent. That's why I have a house full of bitches

A

 

Now, I dont breed dogs..again, my observation is with horses, cattle and sheep.

A great female, IMO, is one who is from proven stock, is proven herself,(if applicable, in competition...no applicable for my sheep and cattle!) AND is a proven producer..that is like candy for me to have a female like this!!! LOL

 

The reasoning I would wager you see more dogs versus bitches is perhaps personal preference? no dealing with heat cycles and "moodiness"..simply easier to keep her "barefoot and pregnant" at home then trialing her? I know some horse trainers dont like mares..dont know...my husband prefers females over males..(in dogs)

 

Which is fine..a female can still be a superior female without being trialed, thru her lines and offspring?

 

a superior trialing female may not make a superior producer..and vice versus..its great to get them both together in one package..but alot of times, you simply dont.

[Eileen Stein]

Ms Smalahundur is actually a mister

 

Yes, that's one of the problems with injecting honorifics into a setting where they're incongruous, isn't it?

(Don't mind me, folks -- I'm sure Donald won't. He and I have tussled about this in the past.)

 

I took a quick look through the Open dogs in this year's Sheepdog Finals and came up with 78 males and 70 females. Don't know if this was a typical year, but that's not a very significant difference. I think personal preference does play a part with some handlers whether they run males or females. There's also a little bit of a financial incentive to run males -- if they look good you can make more money on stud fees from people wanting to breed to your dog, than you can from selling your bitch's pups.

[MyTDogs]

I took a quick look through the Open dogs in this year's Sheepdog Finals and came up with 78 males and 70 females. Don't know if this was a typical year, but that's not a very significant difference. I think personal preference does play a part with some handlers whether they run males or females. There's also a little bit of a financial incentive to run males -- if they look good you can make more money on stud fees from people wanting to breed to your dog, than you can from selling your bitch's pups.

 

Wow I am surprised...it seems like on Sat/Sunday (the webcast) there were not so many females. Perhaps that is my own bias clouding my memory.

 

I prefer female dogs & it seems like most famous dogs are male.