Basics of Breeding
by Debi Garvin
There are many people producing llamas for a variety of reasons. Some are searching for a profitable enterprise, others may only be striving to create an ideal animal, and still others have mixed reasons. However, in today’s camelid world it appears that many people have entered into animal production without the proper knowledge base and foundation. Judging by many of the questions on list servers and also discussions at various venues, those with backgrounds in basic animal breeding and genetics are few and far in between. Not that knowledge cannot be acquired, but breeders must research and work at it. We currently have too few breeders and way too many producers. People who merely put two animals together to create more in the quest of either making money, experience the “joy of birth”, enact a “lifestyle change”, or chase the latest fad are simply producers, not breeders. These individuals should stick with production animals where one can eat the results and stay away from companion animals. If one really wants to breed sufficient research must be done to fully realize the impact of breeding decisions. People must also realize that breeding is not always a pleasant experience. If you breed long enough, you WILL have dystocias, abortions, stillborns, birth defects, and early deaths. If you are not prepared for the horrors and vet bills you may face, you should probably just get some neutered males and enjoy your animals.
If someone wants to be a breeder (and I mean a real breeder), he/she must do a substantial amount of research to determine what the “ideal” is in that breed or species. One must also have a working knowledge of faults and their relationship to functionality for the particular animal. The ideal animal must not only include conformation and desired type but also disposition. My ideal llama is tall and stretchy with a straight topline, abundant bone, medium wool of a silky nature combined with elegance and style (what I refer to as the WOW factor). This animal must also be easy to handle and have a pleasant disposition. Everyone’s ideal is going to be different but all should include conformation and disposition as the top two factors. Once one has their “ideal” animal defined, they should look at a lot of animals and evaluate their pros and cons, always comparing to the “ideal”. From here one begins selecting foundation animals for their breeding program, carefully evaluating how each animal will fit into the long term goals. When evaluating various traits, never place a superficial trait higher on your list than a functional trait, and never place a simple dominant/recessive trait higher on the list than one with an additive effect. For example, my “musts” (for llamas) would include correct conformation, straight strong topline, abundant bone, fluid movement, and pleasant disposition. My “nice to haves” would include silky fiber type, a stretchy look, and an elegant head. My “must not haves” would include any conformational faults, poor toplines, poor overall balance, any fiber type that is hard to maintain and keep clean, and poor dispositions.
When searching for our first herd sire, our critical criteria were conformation, movement, and disposition. We did not care about color or other superficial traits, as we were looking for a solid foundation. The stud we found met all the criteria we wanted but he did not have any head wool (which was the craze at the time), and therefore we bought him relatively inexpensively. This male was our foundation herd sire and ended up siring the 1999 ALSA National Grand Champion Medium Wool Male. The primary difference between breeding production animals vs. companion animals is that all production animals have a quantifiable end product, and are bred specifically to produce that end product. Companion animals, on the other hand, are bred for companionship (and in some cases performance traits), making disposition and correct conformation essential. For example, a dairy cow is evaluated solely on milk production – quality and quantity and those traits that support production longevity, such as udder attachments. These traits can all be measured objectively with very little subjectivity and/or opinion involved. Meat goats are measured by how quickly the animal reaches market weight, bone to carcass ratio, and which animal will dress out the best carcass – again all measurable quantifiable traits. In beef cattle, the measurements include feed efficiency, average daily gain, and various carcass traits. Each of these production animals is evaluated on measurable end products and end points. However, in most companion animals, the breeds eventually split into two categories – those that are bred for a functional purpose (more objective criteria) and those that are not (mostly subjective criteria). The functional breeders have to produce a measurable product or they fail. Examples of these include race horses (how fast can the horse run); hunting dogs (can the dogs really hunt and retrieve); and in the camelid industry, pack animals (can the animals pack and carry a load). Each of the three examples above includes end uses that have quantifiable, objective goals that add value to the animal, giving breeders a common goal and objective.
When people breed animals that have no quantifiable functional end product (as in the case of many companion animals), the measurement of excellence can vary as dramatically as people’s opinions or the current show craze. Many times the definition of “good animal” is based on marketing hype and promotion and has nothing to do with improving the overall breed, which in turn leads to fad breeding and tremendous market swings. Often these fads involve characteristics that have no functional value, but because they are the “in thing” and are highly promoted, people jump on the bandwagon, many times compromising generations of very selective breeding. These animals are often bred with no forethought regarding how the new trait or look will affect the long term health and longevity of the breed, often resulting in health issues such as those that are common in purebred dogs. Equally detrimental to any breed is breeding for extremes. Without an objective quantifiable product, the primary end use is how much money will be made in the breeder’s market.
Real breeders strive to acquire the knowledge base required to improve the breed with each breeding decision. This knowledge must include heritability, functionality and importance of each trait in the particular animal. One must also know which traits are polygenetic and which are inherited as a simple recessive or dominant gene, and make each breeding decision accordingly. One must also realize that not every animal is of breeding quality, and be willing to remove those animals from the breeding program.
ALL breeders should have a road map for where they are going and a clear plan for getting there. Every breeding decision one makes should be with the goal to improve the breed, not merely to make money. Breeding for the latest fad or fashion is always a “breeders market” and will always crash once demand is met or the fad is over. When the market crashes, you must look at what is left – do you still have a useful functional animal, or have you merely generated a new rescue situation. You must also ask during the height, and more importantly the decline of a breeders market, what happens to the 95% of males (and many of the females) that are not breeding quality? Do they have a use as a companion animal, or have producers of these new fads completely ignored the three most essential traits (disposition, conformation, and functionality) of a companion animal in search of monetary gain?