your views on breeding sibling hets

[axlandslash44x]

aparantly theres more chance of getting ab albino by breeding brother and sister Hetr's as other albino hets might not be the same strain

what are your thoughts on this?

is this just plain wrong _ inbreedingetc

makes me feel abit sick. but how normal is it and does it get better results

there nowhere near 4th gen by the way

[Iliria]

as long as both siblings are healthy and good feeders i dont see a problem with it

[Moshpitviper]

Most of the rarer stuff in the uk that is becoming more commonly bred by our mob is related closely, seriously the gene pool is shallower than a spiders piss puddle. can ANY of us vouch for the lineage of our animals or are they all related to some degree?

hmmmmm (strokes imaginary beard)

[Ssthisto]

I'll just quote what I've said before:

Breeding siblings CAN increase the incidence of negative recessive traits cropping up... but two healthy siblings bred together, who are ready feeders and grow well, can produce offspring who are equally strong and healthy.
----------------------------------

All inbreeding does is show the recessive traits that an animal has - it does not CREATE defects. If neither parent animal carries the defective genes, the offspring won't either.

And it's equally possible and even PROBABLE that you can get genetic defects from unrelated lines. For example:

Colourblindness in humans is a recessive sex-linked trait on the X chromosome. This means that it takes one copy of Colourblind to make a male colour blind (because he's only got one X and the Y chromosome doesn't carry the same code - so it only takes one to get it) - and two copies of Colourblind to make a woman colourblind.

My younger brother and my father are both colour blind.

This means two things:

1. My father carries colourblind on his X chromosome, and since he donated one X chromosome in making me, I HAVE to be carrying the colourblindness gene (he doesn't have an X that doesn't have the trait).
2. Because my father gave his Y chromosome in order to get my brother and my brother's X chromosome came from my mother... my MOTHER also carries the colourblindness trait, but is only heterozygous for it. There was a 50% chance I could have been born colour blind too.

No inbreeding in my family that I know of - certainly my parents weren't their own grandkids or anything - but there's a negative recessive trait cropping up in an unrelated pairing.

Same thing happens with snakes - if they've GOT the negative genes to begin with, it doesn't matter if they're bred to their sister, their mother, or a totally unrelated animal - if the negative genes are there, there they are.

Now, the reason negative recessives become a problem in inbreeding is simple. Say you start off with two unrelated animals, each of whom has a gene pair coding for eye size. One animal has a negative recessive gene, say, for producing eyes of reduced size. This negative gene is represented by a black marble - all 'normal' genes are blue. Put the four marbles in a bag, then draw a random two. There's a 25% chance you'll get the black marble on the first marble you choose, and a 33% chance you get it on the second. You can only get one black marble at a time (because one parent was het for the 'reduced eye' trait) but more than one offspring can get this trait.

If you pick two "black marble" pairs - where there's a black marble in each pair - imagine how much more likely it is you'll get a black marble - or TWO black marbles (and thus a visual 'reduced eye' animal) - on the next draw.

On the other hand... if you pick one Black Marble pair and one normal pair... you won't get any 'reduced eye' animals in the next generation. And if you pick TWO normal pairs... you've eliminated that gene from your collection entirely.
--------------------------

You get right down to it, if you've got two healthy heterozygous albino animals.... then it should not matter whether they are siblings or distant cousins.

[t0by]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

I'll just quote what I've said before:

Breeding siblings CAN increase the incidence of negative recessive traits cropping up... but two healthy siblings bred together, who are ready feeders and grow well, can produce offspring who are equally strong and healthy.
----------------------------------

All inbreeding does is show the recessive traits that an animal has - it does not CREATE defects. If neither parent animal carries the defective genes, the offspring won't either.

And it's equally possible and even PROBABLE that you can get genetic defects from unrelated lines. For example:

Colourblindness in humans is a recessive sex-linked trait on the X chromosome. This means that it takes one copy of Colourblind to make a male colour blind (because he's only got one X and the Y chromosome doesn't carry the same code - so it only takes one to get it) - and two copies of Colourblind to make a woman colourblind.

My younger brother and my father are both colour blind.

This means two things:

1. My father carries colourblind on his X chromosome, and since he donated one X chromosome in making me, I HAVE to be carrying the colourblindness gene (he doesn't have an X that doesn't have the trait).
2. Because my father gave his Y chromosome in order to get my brother and my brother's X chromosome came from my mother... my MOTHER also carries the colourblindness trait, but is only heterozygous for it. There was a 50% chance I could have been born colour blind too.

No inbreeding in my family that I know of - certainly my parents weren't their own grandkids or anything - but there's a negative recessive trait cropping up in an unrelated pairing.

Same thing happens with snakes - if they've GOT the negative genes to begin with, it doesn't matter if they're bred to their sister, their mother, or a totally unrelated animal - if the negative genes are there, there they are.

Now, the reason negative recessives become a problem in inbreeding is simple. Say you start off with two unrelated animals, each of whom has a gene pair coding for eye size. One animal has a negative recessive gene, say, for producing eyes of reduced size. This negative gene is represented by a black marble - all 'normal' genes are blue. Put the four marbles in a bag, then draw a random two. There's a 25% chance you'll get the black marble on the first marble you choose, and a 33% chance you get it on the second. You can only get one black marble at a time (because one parent was het for the 'reduced eye' trait) but more than one offspring can get this trait.

If you pick two "black marble" pairs - where there's a black marble in each pair - imagine how much more likely it is you'll get a black marble - or TWO black marbles (and thus a visual 'reduced eye' animal) - on the next draw.

On the other hand... if you pick one Black Marble pair and one normal pair... you won't get any 'reduced eye' animals in the next generation. And if you pick TWO normal pairs... you've eliminated that gene from your collection entirely.
--------------------------

You get right down to it, if you've got two healthy heterozygous albino animals.... then it should not matter whether they are siblings or distant cousins.

WOW!!!your one smart cookie.Great info thanks.

Billy

[bothrops]

Originally Posted by axlandslash44x

aparantly theres more chance of getting ab albino by breeding brother and sister Hetr's as other albino hets might not be the same strain

what are your thoughts on this?

is this just plain wrong _ inbreedingetc

makes me feel abit sick. but how normal is it and does it get better results

there nowhere near 4th gen by the way

Ignoring the inbreeding bit, I'll just add this.

There are at two 'strains' of albino, one is the Kahl strain and one is the Sharp strain (named after the original breeders). The two lines are not compatible so if a kahl strain is bred to a sharp strain you will not get albinos but offspring 100% het for both strains!

However, if you breed a het Kahl strain with a het Kahl strain there is absolutely no difference in your expected offspring if you breed 'unrelated' pairs or full siblings. The odds are identical i.e. each offspring has a 25% chance of being albino a 25% chance of being normal and a 50% chance of being het.

The same would go for Sharp strain.

The only scenario that full sibs would give a better chance would be if nobody recorded which strain was which (but then I would also question the 'het' status of the snakes and anyway, most can tell the difference between animals of each strain.) and so then full sibs would gaurantee the same strain.

As for 'related snakes', ALL Kahl albino animals are directly desended from a single male aquired by Peter Kahl in 1989. Having aquired one of a group of four (3:1) bought by a large consortium of boa breeders in 1983 who had failed to get them to breed. Peter bought a group of normal adult females and put them all together, two female produced litters. The normal (het albino) offspring were powerfed and the following year (!) were put back with their father. In 1992 one of the females gave birth to 22 babies, three of which were albinos. As far as I know, all Kahl strain boas are decended from these animals (and therefore their father, the original male). So whether you like it or not, you are crossing relatives, although many breeders outcross to introduce 'new blood' to counter some of the inbreeding issues experienced with early albino x albino breeding projects.

Cheers

Andy