|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
A scientific explanation to the crossing thing?
A scientific explanation to the crossing thing?
Page:
1
Alan Bliven
300 posts
Nov 28, 2005
2:22 PM
|
IMHO, combining two of the same glaring weaknesses from each family can be a disaster, regardless of how good the other points are in each family. If the brilliant scientist and the nuclear physicist both have a family history of most of them dying of cancer, more than likely their children will too, even though they most likely will be brilliant. But if he were to marry an athlete who's family all died healthy and of old age, that cancer problem may be stopped at his generation. In genetics it's good to balance faults with strengths to even each other out and not to combine two faults.
----------
Alan
|
birdman
91 posts
Nov 28, 2005
2:58 PM
|
Maybe because 'mother nature' doesn't see the propensity to roll as being a positive thing as we do? Rolling is actually a cultivated fault, and in order to be maintained,has to be selectively bred for. That's why we 'circle the wagons' around certain key birds,inbreeding and linebreeding, trying to condense the gene pool and hopefully produce more of the same in the shortest amount of time. Perhaps crossbreding, by enlarging the gene pool and increasing genetic combinations, allows mother nature to find ways of correcting the rolling fault?
Let's say you have to pick 5 random numbers out of 100 (this is an inbred family with a condensed gene pool) and you will win the jackpot. Now try picking the same 5 numbers out of 200 (crossbred family with enlarged gene pool). Which would give you better odds of winning (or producing good rollers)? Which would give you the biggest odds of losing? It's not scientific but that's the way I see it.
Russ
Last Edited by birdman on Nov 28, 2005 3:01 PM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
274 posts
Nov 28, 2005
7:09 PM
|
Scientific advantages have yet to my knowledge to have given anyone who has won any fly, be it club or international, a clear cut advantage, setting their birds apart from the masses. For a roller flyer, life can be simple or complex. Its all in what you make it to be.
There is only one principal that brings truth to building a family of birds. That is to fly them, make good selections, breed them and repeat this over and over and over again.
If the scientific thoughts and principals in general in this discussion were to contribute to the specifics of perfection, someone somewhere would have figured that out by now, especially given the level of knowledge we have at our disposal today. Every family of rollers and every top flyer in the world that has ever been or will ever be, has and will breed their share of culls and general misfits that fall outside of the boundaries of our not only our own personal standards, but those of the hobby in general. Everyone one of the best cultivators of the best families will admit to experiencing similar overall percentages as the common less successful flyer.
With rollers, we cultivate a fault and do our best to try and balance out the variables to suit our fancy. It is a constant balancing act that will forever be changing. Jerry Higgins has a belief that I feel is quite solid. His belief is that if given the chance, Mother Nature will always try to take the roll away and return the birds towards more of a solid state of normalcy (stiffs).
That's my .02 for the evening.
Brian.
|
Double D
86 posts
Nov 28, 2005
8:32 PM
|
Shaun,
I've been thinking about the same thing, more from a standpoint of finding the proverbial "magic potion" that would give me an advantage. However, as much as I wish there was some basis is fact to what you are talking about, my gut tends to agree with Brian. If it was out there, it would have already been found. The fact that there's a large possibility that two champions could produce nothing but culls leads me to believe that in spite of man's study, knowledge, and understanding, it is what it is.
Darin
|
rollerpigeon
Site Moderator
418 posts
Nov 29, 2005
4:02 AM
|
From my perspective, “science” is all over the hobby of breeding and training rollers. Isn’t a part of science to base things on observation, i.e. that which can be proven\demonstrated over and over with a certain level of predictability? Yes.
So the question in my opinion is do pigeon breeders in order to improve their stock use methods developed from the scientific technique of observation? Again the answer is yes, and why is it? The reason is because it has worked in the past and it will work in the future. For example:
•Breeding best to best
•Line-breeding and selection to increase certain traits
•Culling to reduce certain traits
•Feeding specific grains to influence flight, performance and health
•Combining certain color patterns to impact performance
•Recognizing weather conditions/patterns that can cause losses during flying
Scientific methods have provided the roller hobby with techniques that prove themselves time and time again when practiced.
Is there a “magic bullet” to breeding better rollers? Not at this time there isn’t. But, what we do have are tried and true scientific techniques to steadily improve a stud of birds, over time, when consistently practiced in the loft.
With scientific advances, there may one day be a genetic bullet discovered. I doubt it though as the cost of such a project would be so enormous and the monetary gain so minimal that unless there was some broader market application to produce a tastier chicken wing or plumper turkey at Thanksgiving it would never get funded.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by rollerpigeon on Nov 29, 2005 4:05 AM
|
Shaun
209 posts
Nov 29, 2005
4:48 AM
|
So many different observations - all so valid.
OK, none of us imagine there's a magic formula; if there were, we'd all be using it and it would still be just as hard. The Beatles, etc, used 4-track recording equipment, back in the 60s. I've since owned 16-track which would have made them weep, had it been available to them at that time. Nowadays, the sky's the limit - multitrack means bugger all, as it's available to all. Once everyone has access to the improved version, all that happens is that expectations increase in direct proportion to what's available to the masses.
Sorry for the rambling; let's get back to rollers. I'm still intrigued as to why pairings from different successful families don't immediately produce at least as good as themselves (and, let's assume there's no awful background lurking). I read that Graham Dexter and George Mason, many years ago, experimented between their respective, successful birds. Results? Crap.
It's that 'why should that be' that I'm most intrigued by. Is it mother nature, saying of rollers: "you're freaks of nature; I'm doing my level best to return you back to what you should be"?
Brian, here's one for you in film-based photographic terms. Is it the same prospect that if you mate (both great camera kit) a Mamiya 7 medium format with a Pentax 7 medium format - both which are capable of fab transparencies, the pairing would be weird? Or cars, perhaps - you take a hybrid of a Lamborghini and a Ferrari. The result? Weird.
What do you reckon?
Shaun
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
275 posts
Nov 29, 2005
8:07 AM
|
•Breeding best to best
•Line-breeding and selection to increase certain traits
•Culling to reduce certain traits
•Feeding specific grains to influence flight, performance and health
•Combining certain color patterns to impact performance
•Recognizing weather conditions/patterns that can cause losses during flying
Tony, those are not scientific principals, those are common sense proceedures of successful animal husbandry.
Shaun, you kinda lost me of where the topic is going with the camera and car thing. Of course, if you can figure out which MF cameras to mate together to produce a 645D, I'll buy that pair..lol.
Brian.
|
Spud
7 posts
Nov 29, 2005
8:31 AM
|
Animal husbandry is a science. I think somtimes we think of science as only test tubes and DNA. Being a great breeder of any animal, well to me it's more of a art form. Some people can just see birds that will "nick".
|
rollerpigeon
Site Moderator
419 posts
Nov 29, 2005
9:21 AM
|
"Tony, those are not scientific principals, those are common sense proceedures of successful animal husbandry".
Hey Brian, thanks for replying to my post. I never said these items were scientific “principles”. But that the methodology that is followed IS science. Here is what I found looking up the definition of “science” on Dictionary.Com. Please read particularly items #2,3 and 4:
sci•ence n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
To illustrate it could be said, “…when a pigeon fancier breeds best to best, he is practicing a scientific method of breeding that is intended to maintain or improve his family of pigeons”.
The items I listed are tried and proven methods used everyday by pigeon fanciers all over the world. Whether realized or not, they are practicing a scientific method anytime they attempt to learn more through any observation of their birds.
I stand by my original post.
-------------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Shaun
210 posts
Nov 29, 2005
10:03 AM
|
Brian, I think I've started to answer my own question. This is what I meant: if you were able to put together, for example, the best of two great cameras or cars, that wouldn't necessarily mean that you'd end up with a better product. Despite the fact they're both at the top end of their given fields, they've undergone generations of very separate development; someone can't just come along, pick the best features of each, join them together and assume the end product will be as good as, or better than, the respective individuals.
I recall looking at an artificial human picture; someone had cleverly formed a face from some of the world's prettiest women - best eyes, nose, chin, etc. The result? Weird.
Do we know of anyone who has simply 'joined together' two established roller families and, without too much input, has managed to produce a great 'new' roller family?
Shaun
|
J_Star
124 posts
Nov 29, 2005
11:35 AM
|
Shaun,
To answer your original question, would it be that most finciers don't know how to incorporate an outcross bird to their well inbreed family? Therefore, end up breeding toward the outcross? or even, Although the birds might look the same but in reality, their ancestry are far a part!!
The best way to bring in an outcross is by using a bird from an offshoot line of the same main inbred strain. Since the offshoot line is not closely related as the inbred line and developed from the same foundation stock which have the same genetic kinship, the outcross would expected to be less disturbing in effect than a completely unrelated outcross.
It is always safer to bing in a hen which shows the quality that the inbred family already has and shows the particular quality that the fancier is lacking in his own strain. A new hen will improve viogour and employ the surplus cocks in the loft if there are any. The outcross must always follow a perid of inbreeding. The policy is still the same where by selecting the most desirable young from the outcross to blend into the strain.
Always, the breeder need to test mate the outcross and if the progeny shows the qualities desired, then and only then inbreed these young into the strain. Usuallly, brother to sister or half borther to half sister matings are more likely employed when test matings an outcross.
Jay
Last Edited by J_Star on Nov 29, 2005 11:39 AM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
276 posts
Nov 29, 2005
11:58 AM
|
Okay Tony, you win..LOL.
I don't consider animal husbandry and the nuances involved with it as being science. I guess I am just more realistic with my agenda and do my best not to overwhelm the situation with complicated measures.
Shaun, you can cross some families well, while others won't cross worth a crap. I have two lavender selfs in one of my kits that are the result of a jump mating in the open loft. There was only one ash red cock in there so I know who the culprit was. The cock and hen are so far apart from one another, I figured these two youngsters would be garbage. Go figure, right now they are doing really good, better than the offspring from the intended pairings on both sides!!! Sometimes it just works that way. I don't try to figure out why it works that way because ultimately I don't feel that the knowing why will contribute to breeding better rollers.
Kenny has been on a rampage lately about breeding better rollers and I kinda have to agree with him. Why they roll won't make better rollers, the search for the perfect body shape won't make better rollers, just as the search for the golden path that leads genetically to something we want so bad, will not make better rollers.
Look at it like this, with rollers, we are playing with fire, not skirting the realm of perfection.
Brian.
|
merced guy
24 posts
Nov 29, 2005
12:14 PM
|
Hey guys good debate with all points having some validity than others, also good explanation on some points too, but from all of our knowledge and combine experiences there is always that great unkown even with the backing of the scientic principles and good pratice of animal husbandry. Somes times one theory will prove valid over another and other times the reverse. Sometimes the outcomes favor mother nature and sometimes it favors us the breeder. it goes back to the nature vs nuture debate. we want to think there is a middle ground, but there isn't, why? Crossing breeding is good when there is a "CLICK" this click is all mother nature. Now if we are talking about line breding then thats a differrent story---and it may have to do with who the cultivator is or what traits is being cultivated. I agree with Brian's view about Jerry Higgins point. Yes we are cultivating for something that isn't suppose to be there, so it wuld make sense to say that with rollers we are working backwards with mohter nature. my two cents
in the sports
thong
|
Shaun
211 posts
Nov 29, 2005
1:06 PM
|
Hey, all great stuff, guys. I've really enjoyed the input. We've run the full gamut from the 'Why doesn't it happen as expected?' to 'Given that it doesn't happen as expected, here's how we can improve the odds'.
I think we all agree that no-one can expect a quick fix, regardless of what's paired with what. Rollers just don't seem to conform to breeding principles which might apply elsewhere.
Many thanks.
Shaun
|
Double D
87 posts
Nov 29, 2005
1:08 PM
|
Not to be-labor the point but wouldn't the definition of "scientific method" dictate that certain "inputs" will give you a certain "output"?
Regardless of the methodology, science strives to prove "absolutes".
In my mind, this isn't possible with rollers. You may have a cock and a hen that when bred together produce two champions in one round, absolute crap in the next, and one champion and one cull right in the same nest the last round. The next year, the same pair might produce 4 culls out of 6 eggs.
The results could not be defined as scientific absolutes, hence, can the methodology followed be defined as scientific method? Just a thought.
Darin
|
Ballrollers
196 posts
Nov 29, 2005
1:57 PM
|
Joe Bob Stuka, in my mind, is one of the most consistent and successful with outcrossing different families to improve his breeding stock. To his original Turner family, he first crossed in Roger Baker birds, for style and wing position, then Jaconettes, for kitting and slow flight, some VanDeboshe and now Starley; each for some subtle improvment. I discussed this breeding approach with him in some detail. In each outcross he was looking for specific performance characteristics displayed by particular individual birds, that he felt would be an improvement in his family. Invariably the F-1 progeny were not what he was looking for, he says. If it displayed the characteristic he was looking for (say slower flight), he usually lost some other aspect of performance, like depth, speed or frequency in the F-1 offspring. He then breeds that bird back to the original family (the Turners) that possessed the best overall quality, depth and work rate. He said he ALWAYS has to come back to the base family to bring back those basic qualities, and then work with the F-2 progeny to see if he was successful in incorporating the new desired trait. His base family was tightly inbred and he prefers to use tightly bred families to bring in an improvement, to reduce the number of undesireable traits; but he will try anything as a crap shoot!(as long as it is a side project). Perhaps many of us are too impatient with the outcrosses expecting the goods to show up automatically in the F-1 generation. It appears that some dilution of roll factors does, in fact, occur. Hence the need to bring it back in. YITS Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Nov 29, 2005 3:08 PM
|
J_Star
125 posts
Nov 30, 2005
4:25 AM
|
This is a very interesting topic indeed. I would like to ask each one of you, if there come a time where you have to bring in an outcross to your inbreed studs for a specific quality you are requiring, how would you do it? What would be your plan on processding with it? This will help us all to understand the many ways of bring an outcross. Please take a shot at it...
Thanks
Jay
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
278 posts
Nov 30, 2005
11:57 AM
|
Jay, that will depend on the available options.
If you can only get one bird, then I guess you can kind of figure out what the breeding proceedures will be. Maybe it will be two birds, it all just depends on the specific situation.
I have one friend that went to a popular guys house and go eight brother cocks off of the foundation hen. He is mating all of these cocks to his inbred family hens this year for the outcross.
Brian.
|
J_Star
126 posts
Nov 30, 2005
5:31 PM
|
Brian, I was more interested to hear about the methods used of the outcross system in lofts of others. It can be done with one or two birds but as you said about your friend, he is more likely outbreeding not outcrossing. There is a scientific (yes..science (lol)) way to successfully outcross, such as the method JoeBob is using per Cliff's post. I was just wondering if the list is willing to share their proven or not so proven methods and promote further discussion about this topic. Discussing the sucesses and the mistakes of others would help promote better breeding rollers. Isn't that what we all want is to promote the hobby of the BR as a unique and exceptional birds? and the way of doing it is by better breeding.
Is it possible that the list never outcrossed before or maybe they were not sucessful using the outcross system in their loft? just wondering...I personally don't think it is that hard if you know the proper concept and the dos and don'ts.
Shaun, I kind of disagree with your last post in the way that we can control the outcome of things just as we want them. Think of it as you are writing a computer program, and the program will only do what you told it to do. Sometimes the performance of the porgram does not give you the intended results but that is only because you told it to do such that by accident... hence the term 'bugs'. Until you work out the kinks 'bugs' in the prgram you won't have a perfect product.
Jay
Last Edited by J_Star on Nov 30, 2005 6:11 PM
|
Velo99
173 posts
Nov 30, 2005
5:32 PM
|
Ok Guys.
I am starting my family this year. I have a big ol bad boy prepotent cock I will breed 5 hens to. The second round will be from the feeder cock which is the cock from last year which I already have seen offspring from.Double the procedure for four rounds.All of the offspring are related via the hens or foundation cock. I would think if one were to use an outcross it would have to be a cock,equal to or better than the foundation cock.
MTC YITS
v99
Last Edited by Velo99 on Nov 30, 2005 5:36 PM
|
J_Star
127 posts
Nov 30, 2005
6:18 PM
|
Kenny, per your post, you are inbreeding two lines of your studs with common ancestry, the hen. This is how you will start an offshoot of your main family to be used for future outcrossing and minimizing any disturbance with the introduction of an outcross. Good luck Bro...
Jay
|
Bill C
15 posts
Nov 30, 2005
8:49 PM
|
Shaun, Earlier you asked if anyone has developed a good family of birds out of two crosses. Tom Hatcher had crossed Plona birds with another family of birds and they were fast and deep rollers. I'm not sure he flew in competitions though. The other family ( might be Mc Fae?) I cant think of the name right now. I think they were an English family and that was why he called them the continentals as the off spring.
A lot of us when we start out cross birds because that is all we have to work with in some cases. The results are usually, wanting to get better birds after a few years.
I still breed from some earlier birds I have raised out of crosses and it takes some time to get the real champion bird out of them but when you do, then mass produce them in hopes of getting a click pair that will reproduce the same or better.
Also as I understand, that a guy named Gary Richards in Az judged a kit of rollers that were crossed from Ken Easiley and Tom Hatcher birds crossed. Ken told me that Gary told him those birds were phenomenol. But these were good birds to begin with and a guy who has talent in picking his breeders. I am not trying to promote crossing any birds to see what happens but most guys do. I actually think most of us want to inbreed but just need time to get the best birds to begin with. I have the birds I will ever need. Either I will make good rollers in a few years or I would be just guessing the rest of my life. Good Luck! Just thougt I would mention something from the past. Bill
Last Edited by Bill C on Nov 30, 2005 8:54 PM
|
siddiqir
105 posts
Dec 07, 2005
12:46 PM
|
These birds are very complex. Most of the time science would not go with them. Need to judge your birds and make start from there or just learn from trail and error.
|
Post a Message
|
|
|