Genetically Greater Males to Genetically Lower Females

[Eric Alan]

Does this rule of thumb always apply? Is it a guideline I should try to stick to once I start breeding? I understand the logic behind it, but if I have the opportunity to add an amazing single-gene male to my collection (GHI, OD, Black Head, etc), is there any reason I shouldn't want to add him in to the plan simply because he would only be a single-gene male being bred with my two- and three-gene females? Or, am I interpreting the guideline too narrow-minded and "genetically greater" may actually mean "more desirable", thus answering my own question?

Thanks for your insight in advance!

[bcr229]

"Genetically greater" is used in the context of "more expensive". It's a financial decision based on minimizing input costs, not on the number of genes in the sire or dam.

As an extreme example, buying one GHI male and several bee females makes more sense than buying a bee male and several GHI females.

[OctagonGecko729]

I'd say the general guideline is just to purchase more expensive males then females. The way I do it is I spend as much on the male as I do all the females hes going to. So, an example: $10,000 Male goes to 5 $2000 females. You have to take into consideration how large the male is going to be when his girls are ready. A 2000g male can easily breed 10+ females especially with an ultrasound going. So I would write that out as $10,000 (2000g) male to 10 $1000 females. Usually though, your investment boys are going to be under 1200g when the females are ready and personally I only feel comfortable assigning a male that size 5 girls max. I'm sure there are breeders out there that have taken 500g males to 10+ females as well, but there are very few folks that can do that in a professional manner that keeps the male healthy.

[MrLang]

Value > # of genes. It gets slippery due to the rate of price decay but it is otherwise a decent rule of thumb.

[Pythonfriend]

yes, if the morphs involved are all more or less the same price, the male should have more genes. but if there are significant price differences, it means that the male should be more expensive.

even then, there are exceptions. for example, when someone wants to get into breeding and just happens to have a male black pastel and a female pastel lesser, instead of buying a better male, one option would be to just breed them and hope for a double-gene or triple-gene male hatchling. with the right odds, one clutch may be enough, and males reach sexual maturity so fast that switching to the better holdback male can be done within a year.

thats the thing with a "rule of thumb", it generally applies and it makes sense, but real life is so complex that sometimes there have to be exceptions.

[Royal Hijinx]

It depends on the route you want to go. Buy your banger male or make him?

I have done both, and both have their ups and downs. I am swapping out my Hypo Mojave male with his son who is a Hypo Black Pewter Mojave. Better in both value and genetics. I will be able to sell the sire AND the rest of the clutch so I wind up ahead.

If you are going on a simply max bang for the buck, then it does make sense to buy a killer male and put him to some females. With that said, don't put your 5K male to 5 Normal females. Make sure you have the oprotunity to IMPROVE on that male. (Caveat here is that if you do use a Normal, make darn sure she has some trait you want add to your gene pool like reduced pattern, massive egg layer, etc..., just breeding any ol female just to make carbon copies of the Sire is irresponsible IMO and part of the reason we are in a pricing mess, but I digress...).

[grcforce327]

When did the opposite of "greater" become "lower"? Does that mean the opposite of "lesser" is 'higher"?

[Eric Alan]

When did the opposite of "greater" become "lower"? Does that mean the opposite of "lesser" is 'higher"?

When you signed up for BP.net! Genetically lesser BPs are already kind of a thing.

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

I tend to agree with breeding genetically higher males to lower genetic females.

My personal example is 2.0 Bananas. I purchased them last June and July. They were bred to:

0.1 Enchi, 0.1 Spider, 0.1 Pinstripe, 0.1 Pastel, 0.1 Clown, 0.1 Pied and a super cool 0.1 Normal that I love!! One Banana was also thrown to a 0.1 Albino who had been paired with a 1.0 Albino Enchi (only saw the Albino Enchi lock once in 6 pairings). Banana x Pastel eggs are in the incubator and so are the 0.1 Albino eggs (that clutch will be a surprise).

I ended up selling both Bananas for 80% of what I purchased them for when half those females ovulated. With those funds I purchased 6 lawn contracts (yes, I have a lawn service and work as a RN as well). The lawn contracts will net me $10K this year, so I have already made more than my $$ back before a single Banana egg has hatched.

Everyone has their own way about doing things, but I feel that the general game plan is to breed higher end males to lower end females. This year we have added a few proven breeders to the plan..... 1.0 Nuclear Pinstripe and 1.0 SuperBlast. They should be here tomorrow from Mike Wilbanks. I should also produce a few triples this year with any luck at all from a 1.0 Sugar Fire, 1.0 Nuclear, 1.0 Enchi Fire and 1.0 Enchi Pastel. My recessives are a different ballgame. Already hit on the Black Pastel Pied, looking for a Nuclear Clown with 10 eggs in the incubator from a Butter Het x 0.2 Fire Hets and we have 0.2 more Pieds due soon to our Black Pastel Het Pied.

Next purchase is a 1.0 Enchi Pied who will get some action with my Pied girls and a few other girls this fall to make some Hets for myself.

Here is the super cool Normal girl bred to the Bananas:

[Eric Alan]

I love reading about everyone's breeding plans! It makes me so excited to go from my small group of ladies to being able to add some testosterone to the mix. It was getting quite one-sided here between my wife, our dog, cat, and four female BPs! Just don't tell my wife about this "genetically greater" bit - she may take it the wrong way.