Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 88

Thread: The 64 breeding system

  
  1. #1
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post The 64 breeding system

    I have received numerous emails requesting details about my 64 breeding value system. As I could not possibly provide details individually to all of those who emailed me, I will explain the 64 system here on Sabong for anyone who might be interested.

    The 64 breeding value system is a numerical breeding formula that I originated to aid in estimating the genetic contribution and breeding value of a particular individual or individuals used in linebreeding or inbreeding mating schemes. The idea came to me one night while I was studying the pedigrees of Thoroughbred racehorses.

    The idea of the 64 value system came about as a result of three things. Numer one: All racehorses possess 32 pair of chromosomes for a total of 64. Number two: All racehorses have 64 ancestors in the 6th generation of their pedigree. Number three: The number 64 is one of the very few numbers that can be reduced to 1 by the simple method of reduction division.

    It occured to me that if Northern Dancer carried 64 chromosomes in his genetic make-up and each of his parents contributed 32 of these chromosomes, then each of his parents also inherited 32 chromosomes from each of their parents and so on down the line. By the simple method of reduction division, I found it possible to assign a non-fractional numerical breeding value to each of the 126 ancestors in Northern Dancer's six generation pedigree. Each breeding value number is hypothetically equal to one chromosome. For example, an individual with a breeding value of 20 would have (hypothetically) contributed 20 of the 64 chromosomes carried by Northern Dancer. It is by no means an exact science, but it has proven to be a very valuable breeding tool for me.

    Here is how the 64 breeding system works:

    All ancestors going back to the 6th generation are assigned a breeding value number based upon the generation in which they appear. An individual appearing in the first generation (either of the two parents) is assigned a breeding value of 32. An individual appearing in the second generation (each of the four grandparents)is assigned a breeding value of 16. Third generation ancestors (each of the eight great-grandparents) are assigned a breeding value of 8. Fourth generation ancestors receive a breeding value of 4. Fifth generation ancestors receive a breeding value of 2. Sixth generation ancestors receive a breeding value of 1. Ancestors beyond the 6th generation receive no breeding value number.

    The value of the 64 breeding system is that it allows you to easily estimate the genetic contribution of any one ancestor or all of the 126 ancestors who appear in a six generation pedigree. With inbreeding and linebreeding schemes, this is especially valuable.



    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 03-21-2002).]

    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 03-21-2002).]

    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 03-28-2002).]

  2. #2
    Senior Member Camarines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink

    Interesting. Highnoon, can you submit this to the Magazine section so that administrator will have it put on the magazine folder for easy access?

  3. #3
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    The website at the end of this page contains a four generation pedigree of American Pit Bull Terrier, Ed's Hope. Her pedigree is a classic example of linebreeding at its best. I will attempt to explain my 64 breeding value system using the individuals in Ed's Hopes' pedigree.


    The way my 64 breeding value system works is actually very simple. Each of the 60 names appearing in Ed's Hopes' four generation pedigree are assigned a breeding value number according to where they appear in the pedigree. The two individuals appearing under the parents column (Garner's Frisco Rom and Garner's Shotsie II) are assigned a breeding value of 32 each. The four individuals appearing under the grand-parents column are assigned a breeding value of 16 each. The eight names appearing under the 3rd generation column are assigned a breeding value number of 8 each. The sixteen names appearing under the 4th generation column are assigned a breeding value number of 4 each. 5th and 6th generation ancestors would receive breeding value numbers of 2 and 1.

    The name of Garner's Frisco Rom appears three times in Ed's Hopes' pedigree. His name appears once under the parents column , once under the grand-parents column and once under the 3rd generation column. Using my 64 breeding value system, Garner's Frisco Rom receives a total breeding value of 56 when you add up his numbers - 32, 16 and 8. What this means is that Ed's Hope received an estimated 87.5% (56/64) of her chromosomes and genes from Garner's Frisco Rom.

    Garner's Frisco Rom, in turn, was linebred to the outstanding sire and pit dog, Garner's CH Chinaman Rom. The name of Garner's CH Chinaman Rom appears 6 times in Ed's Hopes' pedigree. His breeding value numbers are 16, 8, 8, 4, 4, and 4 for a total breeding value number of 44. What this means is that Ed's Hope received an estimated 68.7% of her chromosomes and genes from Garner's CH Chinaman Rom.


    You can use the 64 breeding value system with any form or method of breeding and one of the nice things about the system is that you can do the numbers on paper before actually making any matings. The system that I use with my gamefowl is a bit more complicated than the one I have shown you here. Some of my chickens have pedigrees going back 14 generations and none of them trace back to more than 8 foundation individuals. It can sometimes be a job trying to keep the numbers balanced. But anyway, this is how the system works. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
    Click on: www.edsbulldogs.com/HOPESpedigree.htm







    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 03-28-2002).]

  4. #4
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post


    Highnoon,

    First of all, thank you for sharing your idea. Your 64 breeding system theory caught my interest that I took the time analyzing and studying it. Based on your above example, I made some calculations using the 78 chromosomes (chickenís number of chromosomes), and the resulting percentage is not far from your 64 system results. Which means your 64 breeding system is relatively applicable for chickens too.

    However, I have some questions regarding the representation of your 64 breeding system. From what I understand, what youíre calculating here is the percentage of chromosomes that is inherited by an individual from his ancestors, not particularly the genes from a common ancestor. Will a chromosome percentage truly indicative of the degree of inbreeding? Coz as I understand (please correct me if Iím wrong), inbreeding is the measure of gene homozygosity on loci, meaning the more homozygous an individual is the more it is inbred. Isnít it possible that you can have a high percentage of chromosomes but at the same time have a low percentage of homozygosity on loci? Coz it may be possible that the genes on most chromosomes would be heterozygously paired on most loci.


    Thanks,

    Jrtras

  5. #5
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post



    Well in the end you will still be looking /evaluate for the acceptable characteristics. The end question would be Does it work?

    IMHA
    Victe

  6. #6
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    Jrtras,

    My 64 breeding system is not designed to calculate degree of inbreeding. It is only designed to estimate the number of chromosomes derived from any given ancestor going back to the 6th generation. As is the case with any mathematical breeding formula, there is no way to predict which chromosome of each homologous pair will be transmitted to a gamete during meiosis. It is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that a brood cock could transmit 39 P chromosomes (chromosomes derived from paternal origin) to one gamete and 39 M chromosomes (chromosomes derived from maternal origin) to another gamete. In actual practice, however, the probablilities of genetic chance almost always win out over the possibilities of genetic chance and what we end up with is a gamete containing a reasonable balance of P and M chromosomes.

    Speaking of balance, take a look at the numbers and fractions of my 64 breeding system and see how they balance out top to bottom and bottom to top.

    1 individual = 64 or a whole number of 1
    2 parents = 32 each or 1/2 the mating
    4 grand-parents = 16 each or 1/4 the mating
    8 3rd generation ancestors = 8 each or 1/8
    16 4th generation ancestors = 4 each or 1/16
    32 5th generation ancestors = 2 each or 1/32
    64 6th generation ancestors = 1 each or 1/64


    While the 64 breeding system is perfectly designed for racehorses, it can also be used as a workable system for gamecocks and dogs as well.

    Now as to the question of how to go about estimating the degree of inbreeding using the 64 system. The way I do it is the easy way. I simply do it by the numbers. The higher the number any ancestor receives, the higher the degree of inbreeding to that particular individual. In the case of Ed's Hope, the numbers show her to be extremely inbred to Garner's Frisco Rom. Frisco received a number of 56. I consider any number above 32 to be a high number. I have generally had the most success with inbreeding by following the late Frank Shy's theory of breeding in small but repeated doses.




    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 03-31-2002).]

  7. #7
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like


    That means its just a mere mathematical formulation which maybe in the end relies heavily to some great gamefowl breeders methods. It's very elementary and very linear arithmetic logic which leads to the same endless experiments. Not precisely for gamefowl breeding consumtion. And you know its not if you are really is gamefowl sportsman. Its just one of the many methods that mislead simple minds that gamefowl breeding requires a very scientific mind.

    The formula is so basic and easy to follow... If only its useful for gamefowl, anyone of us could have found a heaven in you!

    Its not applicable to gamefowl. Thats all I'm trying to say!

  8. #8
    tsampoy
    Guest

    Cool

    IMHO,the only proven and effective way to know it as successful is single mate every winning line and produce them in hundreds.the bigger the selection numbers the better.fight them and record their winning percentage per markings.one can apply all scientific theories of breeding but a real proven hen don`t come in bunches.they come seldom and their worth is gold.a famous american breeder once admitted that in his almost 50 years of cocking and breeding career he was able to produce only 14 real proven hen.meaning you can pair those chromosomes thousand times but only mother nature can decide what she`ll produce.sometimes an ace will just pop up from a hen in a barn sired by number of cocks in tie cord .purely accidental.

  9. Thanks coalminer69 thanked for this post
  10. #9
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs up

    Originally posted by Highnoon:
    Jrtras,

    My 64 breeding system is not designed to calculate degree of inbreeding. It is only designed to estimate the number of chromosomes derived from any given ancestor going back to the 6th generation. As is the case with any mathematical breeding formula, there is no way to predict which chromosome of each homologous pair will be transmitted to a gamete during meiosis. It is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that a brood cock could transmit 39 P chromosomes (chromosomes derived from paternal origin) to one gamete and 39 M chromosomes (chromosomes derived from maternal origin) to another gamete. In actual practice, however, the probablilities of genetic chance almost always win out over the possibilities of genetic chance and what we end up with is a gamete containing a reasonable balance of P and M chromosomes.

    Speaking of balance, take a look at the numbers and fractions of my 64 breeding system and see how they balance out top to bottom and bottom to top.

    64 = 1 Individual cock or hen (1)
    32 = 1/2 parents (2)
    16 = 1/4 grand-parents (4)
    8 = 1/8 3rd generation (8)
    4 = 1/16 4th generation (16)
    2 = 1/32 5th generation (32)
    1 = 1/64 6th generation (64)

    While the 64 breeding system is perfectly designed for racehorses, it can also be used as a workable system for gamecocks and dogs as well.

    Now as to the question of how to go about estimating the degree of inbreeding using the 64 system. The way I do it is the easy way. I simply do it by the numbers. The higher the number any ancestor receives, the higher the degree of inbreeding to that particular individual. In the case of Ed's Hope, the numbers show her to be extremely inbred to Garner's Frisco Rom. Frisco received a number of 56. I consider any number above 32 to be a high number. I have generally had the most success with inbreeding by following the late Frank Shy's theory of breeding in small but repeated doses.



    Highnoon,

    Thanks for explaining it further, itís been of help. Others may not see its relevance to gamefowl breeding, but there are also those that see its merit and usefulness. I appreciate your help. Thanks again.


    Jrtras



  11. #10
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post

    Originally posted by tsampoy:
    IMHO,the only proven and effective way to know it as successful is single mate every winning line and produce them in hundreds.the bigger the selection numbers the better.fight them and record their winning percentage per markings.one can apply all scientific theories of breeding but a real proven hen don`t come in bunches.they come seldom and their worth is gold.a famous american breeder once admitted that in his almost 50 years of cocking and breeding career he was able to produce only 14 real proven hen.meaning you can pair those chromosomes thousand times but only mother nature can decide what she`ll produce.sometimes an ace will just pop up from a hen in a barn sired by number of cocks in tie cord .purely accidental.

    Tsampoy my friend,

    you are 100% right!!!

    Though you are stationed abroad, you still remember the things you learned in our sports. You may not be near 100% Knowlegeable in our sport but I can see you practice your intellect soundly that others may not see the gold in you.

    I can see the positive traits in you, the relevance of some of your thoughts that others would choose to dishonor.

    As you have simply remind us that record is necessary and humbly introduce only some hundred to consider,that already entails a lot os sensible mind to digest!


    I just cant elaborate on how I breed just because the methods were just more or less 50/50 from the books and from my own formulation. It's somedream strain I may not accomplish but who knows?


    tsirs!

    victe


  12. #11
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    tsampoy,

    I agree with you that proven hens don't come in bunches and I agree with you that such hens are very very valuable. Would you not then agree with me that the chromosomes of one of these champion producing hens are more valuable to a breeding program than the chromosomes of an ordinary hen? Would it not then make more sense to increase the numbers of these valuable chromosomes in your bloodlines through linebreeding/inbreeding as opposed to diluting your chromosome/gene pool with the chromosomes/genes of ordinary hens?

  13. #12
    tsampoy
    Guest

    Cool

    hello all my sabong friends,
    of course the selection group is reduced if a fowl is well line bred and thus have almost similar chromosomes.but that word "almost" still consist of too many number combinations. breeding is like a LOTTO game.say for example 45 numbers,how many combinations do exist out of these numbers?how much more if we are about to pair 32 chromosomes with the same numbers?if winning in a LOTTO is one in a million then we can also say that finding the exact right pair would also be one in a million.

  14. #13
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink



    I am not a well rounded designer but I would and I can design anything lifeless and mechanical because I know I can, iT would be very difficult but doable and finite.

    Breeding a particular gamecock strain as you specified would boil down to mere approximation. They can win a lot but maybe less or better than what you expect.

    Now this is my daring advice to would be breeder:

    1. Be sure you can fixed first some controlable variables so you will not be confused whether you have a mediocre, average or relatively superior breed.

    Now I would not dare to tell you what are they for if you can not guess what are these, you would'nt appreciate it anyway!![img]//sabong.com.ph/UbbNonCgi/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]


    tsirs!

    victe

  15. #14
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    tsampoy,

    Your analogy of comparing gamefowl breeding to a 45 number lotto game would have some merit if a gamecock's 78 chromosomes combined in random order. But this is not the case. A gamecock's chromosomes DO NOT combine in random order. They can only combine in homologous or matching pairs. What this means is that a chromosome from homologous pair #3 cannot combine with a chromosome from homologous pair #7 or homologous pair #25 etc.. A #3 chromosome can only combine with another #3 chromosome and a #15 chromosome can only combine with another #15 chromosome etc. etc..

    When linebreeding parent x F1 offspring, the odds of attaining homozygosity for each pair of homologous chromosomes is 1 in 4.



    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 04-02-2002).]

    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 04-02-2002).]

    [This message has been edited by Highnoon (edited 04-02-2002).]

  16. #15
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post



    I sense danger here!!!


    How theories are fed to readers in a very optimistic view without the statistical data and documented results!

    ...and the other man... pls pls pls hold it......


    I close me now bye!


    victe

  17. #16
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    Victe,

    Smile. Have Fun. Be Happy.

  18. #17
    tsampoy
    Guest
    this pairing of like chromosomes sounds so simple but not in reality.yes,it does apply on limited areas of breeding gamecocks.like for example the dominance of grey fowl when bred to red fowl,or the dominance of white feet when bred over yellow feet,or the pea comb over the straight comb fowl.these are just examples that can influence the outcome of any gamefowl breeding in terms of feather colors,feet color and type of comb.in these areas the pairing of chromosomes has its value.but when it comes to fighting style and disposition the pairing of chromosomes has little role on the outcome.suppose we breed a flyer over a grounder,or a rusher to an angat sarado.how would you explain the pairing of chromosomes in this area.you can not say 100 % that first generation offsprings 1/2 are flyers and the rest are grounders.or you can not say 1/2 are rushers and the rest are angat sarados.until now it is impossible to foretell or assess that it will be the result of breeding because if it is then it would be easy to produce those what many want as angat sarado fighting style.you just can`t pick a pair of fowl and say if i breed this would be the result.there is nothing like that in breeding gamefowl.yes,they can read all genetic books they want and apply the theory of pairing like chromosomes.yes it applies and has influence in feather colors,feet color,comb type and maybe shape of the body.yes,the knowledge of gamefowl genetics has played a great role in the development of 45 days old chicken.but we should not forget that we are breeding gamefowl here and not cantonese that is intended for food consumption.

  19. #18
    tsampoy
    Guest
    james mcwhite,bob howard,ray alexander,johnny jumper are not genetic followers as they said and claimed.of course all are capable of breeding gamecocks but not all will be a real breeder.real breeders follow their feelings in breeding gamefowl.feelings that is carefully developed through long years of actual breeding.in their brains are registered what they should look for in any breeding material.the physical appearance and how they move and their winning performance in the pit will tell these breeders if they are worth breeding.they have their own personal breeding secrets that they wouldn`t share to anybody.the only thing that they are willing to share with anybody is the tale of 68 chromosomes.the lemon 84 was not produced through the theory of long genetic breeding,it is purely accidental my friend.

  20. #19
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm back[img]//sabong.com.ph/UbbNonCgi/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]


    Tsampoy, nice recapped

    What I know from my little experience and from my small flock and from unselfish famed breeders who can write. The easiest way to set a strain is by focusing only on one or two obvoius trait. If you want power then the 64 breeding system is very much acceptable. For speed yes 64 breeding system could also apply, for intellegence, gameness, flyer. grounder etc. yes, 64 breeding system might as well be perfect! Horses are breed to run, that entails a lot of leg power. Other factor can be verified physically by giving the horse an "executive check-up" a lot easier then. After some physical check up, the 64 breeding system will proceed smoothly as progmamed.


    But if you choose to combined the criteria one by one then thats something else. Commercial breeders as far as I know sells battle crosses for Fighting for some obvious reason they already know.


    Assuming that #15 chromosomes pair only with # 15 chromosomes then all of these pairs will still combine to form the genetic make up of the individual. Would you not consider Cytogenetics, mutation etc?

    Though I admit, the thread is a welcome educational material, it misleads some readers to something endless despair without the proper pre-caution or additional information.


    who among us would dare to stick his neck to something very technical that average reader choose to skip for reasons he is not well informed about the subject?


    Previously,one of our friend unintentionally gave us equations that has no whole # solution. That wasted a lot of time for those who solve it. But this is something else, very specific which you can follow. This one will waste your sabong life time and some of your earnings if you succumb to it without proper precaution!


    tsirs!

    victe

  21. #20
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    tsampoy,

    I have discussed all manner of things pertaining to gamefowl at great length with my cocker friends such as Bob Howard. I do not believe that Bob has ever tried to keep any breeding secrets from me and I certainly would not try to keep any breeding secrets from him. What is there about chromosomes and genes that should be kept a secret anyway? All gamefowl have the same numbers of chromosomes and genes. The only genetic difference is that between the sexes and the sex chromosomes. All that my 64 breeding system is intended to do is to ESTIMATE the total genetic contribution of any given ancestor going back six generations in a gamecock's pedigree. It is intended only as an aid to selection and combination. If you would like to post a four, five, or six generation pedigree of your best fighting cock on this site, I will show you how my 64 breeding system would apply to that particular breeding scheme.



  22. #21
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question

    Originally posted by victe:


    Previously,one of our friend unintentionally gave us equations that has no whole # solution. That wasted a lot of time for those who solve it. But this is something else, very specific which you can follow. This one will waste your sabong life time and some of your earnings if you succumb to it without proper precaution!


    tsirs!

    victe

    Victe, are you referring to me? If itís not me youíre referring to, well sorry for butting in...but if itís me, then thank you for considering me as your friend. Anyhow, Iíve already butted in so I might as well give my opinion on the subject.

    First of all, I donít know what kind of danger youíre sensing with regards to Highnoonís 64 breeding system. What Highnoon has presented here is just some sort of representation in estimating the genetic contribution of a given ancestor in a pedigree. He is not by any means pushing or dictating anyone to follow a certain breeding method or mating procedures. His system is dependent on the pedigree of an individual, which means anyone who would consider using his system still has to have his/her own breeding procedure to make up a pedigree.

    So I donít see any cause to be so alarmed.


    Cheers!

    Jrtras


  23. #22
    tsampoy
    Guest
    in complementary breeding you follow your feelings and not the theory of genetics.this feelings as i said was gradually and carefully developed by yourself in the trial and error method employed in your past breeding experience.you get this feeling by spending more time in their pens observing how they move and act.this feeling you can not attain by reading volumes of genetic books of breeding gamefowl.one example i can give that genetic breeding has nothing to do is the selection of future broodhen.would you believe that most of the time the most tamed quiet hen produce better gamefowl than the hen which is wild and hard to catch inside a pen?well that`s from breeding experience and not from the genetic books.there are thousand kinds of protein type that comprises the brain cell.each plays a factor on how we act,think and behave.even the twins although same in appearance have different personality,they act,think,and behave differently.

  24. #23
    tsampoy
    Guest
    here`s one example again that has nothing to do with genetic breeding but still effective and holds true in real breeding.a hen turned loose in the range will throw better offsprings than a hen that is always confined in a pen.

  25. #24
    Highnoon
    Guest

    Post

    tsampoy,

    The feeling or feelings that you talk about is what I call "Breeder's Intuition". This is something that can neither be learned nor taught to any great extent. Certainly not from a book. It is like a 6th sense. Some chicken men have it and some don't.

    In reply to your comment that a hen turned loose on free range will produce better offspring than a hen that is always confined to a pen... This would depend upon whether we are talking about one hen or two different hens. If we are talking about one and the same hen, I am in complete agreement with you. If we are talking about two different hens, however, genetics is by far of greatest importance.


  26. #25
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post


    Itís true and I do agree that you donít need to know or has to be well versed in genetics in order to breed better fowl. But knowing and learning about genetics gives you an advantage, so why not take that advantage. For breeders that has scientific mind, genetics is just a fascinating field to study and learn of, and I think it does help them in their quest of producing better gamefowl.

    As there are great breeders of gamefowl that are not followers of genetics, there are also master breeders that practice genetics in the likes of Bobby Boles, William McRea, Hugh Norman, and Harry Parr, to name a few.

    Hereís an excerpt from Floyd Gurleyís book which I think worth posting. The book is entitled ďThe Scientific Breeding of GamefowlĒ pp. 104-105

    ďOne author seemed to claim that not knowing any genetics will not hurt you and might just help you since many of the old-time breeders seemed to do very well without knowing anything at all about genetics. If there is anything you can believe, it is that ignorance does not pay off. You may learn something and then reject it, but refusing to learn at all just doesnít seem the way to go. Besides, if you breed at all, you are making use of genetics whether you want to or not because you are applying criteria of selection to modify in some manner your fowl. Now, doesnít it make sense to learn what has been found out about methods of selection and how genes are modified and maybe apply that to your situation?Ē

    Cheers!

    Jrtras


  27. #26
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post


    Oppss sorry...nag-double post.

    [This message has been edited by jrtras (edited 04-04-2002).]

  28. #27
    tsampoy
    Guest
    if there is any method proven effective in assessing the winning performance of your fowl it is the "PIT TEST".it is ok to know the basics of breeding like linebreeding,inbreeding,complementary breeding in crossbreeding.but if you go deep into this genetic theories you tend to lose your focus in actual practical breeding.you might end up a rocket scientist.

  29. #28
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink


    Like any endeavor you must have an end goal, and thatís what you strive at...your end goal. Itís no doubt that every gamefowl breederís goal is to produce pit fowl that wins in a pit, itís very logical that to breed gamefowl you have to pit test them. If you will apply your genetics theories in creating broiler chickens, then thatís what youíll get...poultry meat.


  30. #29
    Member Simurgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink

    Originally posted by jrtras:

    Victe, are you referring to me? If itís not me youíre referring to, well sorry for butting in...but if itís me, then thank you for considering me as your friend. Anyhow, Iíve already butted in so I might as well give my opinion on the subject.

    Victe: Sorry accepted with all my heart


    First of all, I donít know what kind of danger youíre sensing with regards to Highnoonís 64 breeding system.


    Victe: Its written just re-read it


    What Highnoon has presented here is just some sort of representation in estimating the genetic contribution of a given ancestor in a pedigree.


    Victe: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express some ??? 1. Which ancestor and how to specifically can we estimate something we cannot even document as "it is"? What criteria/indication/proof that we have quantify the data we are estimating??????? Me... I will be glad if i can be enlightened and say I am wrong!

    He is not by any means pushing or dictating
    nyone to follow a certain breeding method or mating procedures.


    Victe: There is no argument for this. Not one said the otherway.


    His system is dependent on the pedigree of an individual, which means anyone who would consider using his system still has to have his/her own breeding procedure to make up a pedigree.


    Victe: Thanks for your Pre-caution in his behalf.

    So I donít see any cause to be so alarmed.


    Victe: To be alarmed and so alarmed differs in its degree of meaning.


    Cheers!

    Jrtras


    If we argue on some claims based on theorical formulation, then what should follow is a concrete preliminary results/evidence that indeed, it is applicable. It will not end there for each one of us happened to know there was never a formula for an acceptable estimates. We can of course make an individual specie having uniformity in its genetic make-up and almost no variation just like the near extinct species. Its already documented and "estimates" in its genetic uniformity has already been established (though represented in still complicated scheme).

    But... uniformity in what? Yes! by accident and human stupidity their genes became uniform with all those negatives such as reproduction problems, health etc.

    For chickens, gamecocks specifically. Again, its something else...BOW!


    tsirs!

    Victe

    (P.S. Sorry my ISP problem still catching up. I was out for a few days)

  31. #30
    CyberFriends jrtras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile

    Originally posted by victe:

    If we argue on some claims based on theorical formulation, then what should follow is a concrete preliminary results/evidence that indeed, it is applicable. It will not end there for each one of us happened to know there was never a formula for an acceptable estimates. We can of course make an individual specie having uniformity in its genetic make-up and almost no variation just like the near extinct species. Its already documented and "estimates" in its genetic uniformity has already been established (though represented in still complicated scheme).

    But... uniformity in what? Yes! by accident and human stupidity their genes became uniform with all those negatives such as reproduction problems, health etc.

    For chickens, gamecocks specifically. Again, its something else...BOW!


    tsirs!

    Victe

    (P.S. Sorry my ISP problem still catching up. I was out for a few days)

    Originally posted by jrtras:

    Victe, are you referring to me? If itís not me youíre referring to, well sorry for butting in...but if itís me, then thank you for considering me as your friend. Anyhow, Iíve already butted in so I might as well give my opinion on the subject.

    Victe: Sorry accepted with all my heart

    Jrtras: I gladly accepted you too in my heart...di kaya tayo matsismis nito?


    First of all, I donít know what kind of danger youíre sensing with regards to Highnoonís 64 breeding system.

    Victe: Its written just re-read it

    Jrtras: Maybe my IQ is low, honestly, I still donít see it.

    What Highnoon has presented here is just some sort of representation in estimating the genetic contribution of a given ancestor in a pedigree.

    Victe: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express some ??? 1. Which ancestor and how to specifically can we estimate something we cannot even document as "it is"?

    Jrtras: Itís written just re-read it. LOL!

    But to seriously answer your question, as explained by Highnoon his system estimates the genetic contribution of a given ancestor based on a PEDIGREE. As explained, you must first have a pedigree record of a particular individual you wanted to estimate before you could apply Highnoonís system. A PEDIGREE, in a laymanís term, is in fact a DOCUMENTED breeding record of a specific individual. So documentation starts with you, as breeder, not at Highnoonís system.


    Victe: What criteria/indication/proof that we have quantify the data we are estimating??????? Me... I will be glad if i can be enlightened and say I am wrong!

    Jrtras: As I stated in my previous post, I consider Highnoonís system as some sort of a representation, it shouldnít be regarded as a statistical formula. Personally, I would compare Highnoonís system to that of bloodline pedigreeing (e.g., 1/2 Hatch 1/2 Roundhead, or 1/4 Brownred 3/4 Grey, etc.), except that the former used genetic representation.

    No, youíre not wrong...youíre just missing the point.

    He is not by any means pushing or dictating
    nyone to follow a certain breeding method or mating procedures.

    Victe: There is no argument for this. Not one said the otherway.

    Jrtras: Iím glad we agree on this.


    His system is dependent on the pedigree of an individual, which means anyone who would consider using his system still has to have his/her own breeding procedure to make up a pedigree.

    Victe: Thanks for your Pre-caution in his behalf.

    Jrtras: Youíre welcome. Honestly, I donít know why Iím speaking in his behalf, as if Iím defending my own thesis! LOL!

    So I donít see any cause to be so alarmed.

    Victe: To be alarmed and so alarmed differs in its degree of meaning.

    Jrtras: Thatís true, sorry for exaggerating...I guess I was alarmed too.



    If we argue on some claims based on theorical formulation, then what should follow is a concrete preliminary results/evidence that indeed, it is applicable.

    Jrtras: I agree.

    It will not end there for each one of us happened to know there was never a formula for an acceptable estimates.

    Jrtras: Not true...there are some statistical formula like computation for inbreeding coefficient, heritability, variance and covariance coefficient.

    We can of course make an individual specie having uniformity in its genetic make-up and almost no variation just like the near extinct species. Its already documented and "estimates" in its genetic uniformity has already been established (though represented in still complicated scheme).

    Jrtras: Uhumm...Iím listening.

    But... uniformity in what? Yes! by accident and human stupidity their genes became uniform with all those negatives such as reproduction problems, health etc.

    Jrtras: True, uniformity can happen by accident or human stupidity but believe me, it can also happen and can be done through human ingenuity...of course, with positive results.


    For chickens, gamecocks specifically. Again, its something else...BOW!

    Jrtras: You got to believe in magic...cloning is now a reality... [img]//sabong.com.ph/UbbNonCgi/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

    Cheers!

    Jrtras



    [This message has been edited by jrtras (edited 04-06-2002).]

Similar Threads

  1. Drip system
    By DA3791 in forum Chicken Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 16th, 2014, 11:40 AM
  2. Watering system
    By red1 in forum Chicken Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 17th, 2013, 11:35 PM
  3. DIGESTION SYSTEM
    By hlw_1366 in forum Usapang Manok
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 1st, 2012, 08:26 AM
  4. PMA, Time to review the system?
    By gensoriano in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2007, 08:50 PM
  5. Padrino system
    By Kidd Sentencia in forum Usapang Manok
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 21st, 2006, 08:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •