I mean, you just replace the breeders you have with new ones. They don’t take long to grow after all. Just found a large female mouse in my feeder bag the other day, so it isn’t like they can’t be replaced.
You do it the same way you breed quality animals of all kinds (dogs, rodents, snakes, lizards, horses, birds, fish). You find someone that has stock that isn’t inbred, that has the traits you want, and add it to your stock. Rinse and repeat and just keep adding more new blood that has good genetics. You don’t have to have experience with something or a degree to have done research on how things work (the glories of not being able to complete college because money). Breeding for traits without heavily inbreeding isn’t that hard, just takes more time and money. Things like large litter size isn’t a one-off occurrence that will be hard to find in most mammals. If you want, since @chesterhf is a geneticist, maybe she can explain how to do it so you trust her word. If @t_h_wyman has the time (it is fine if you don’t) he could chime in too.
Would I use the word “stronger?” No because of the lack of control group testing etc but they’re able to withstand many generations of inbreeding without negative visible effects.
You could also try introducing them like how you do some birds. Let them get used to each others presence first by keeping em in separate cages near each other, then introduce them in a spacious environment. Maybe one could also dedicate a full room to them monitor lizard style and see if they get along better.
We aren’t just talking about visible effects though. Most inbreeding effects aren’t visible, just the most shocking and upsetting. And the hardest to hide or ignore.
I shall quote some of what our geneticist that deals with heavily inbred lab mice on a regular so she doesn’t have to repeat herself. I also recommend playing a game called Niche if you wanna see an easy to understand example of how genetics work with inbreeding.
There’s no point in us saying over and over rodents are built differently if you don’t want to believe it don’t believe it. You’re responsible for your own animals. As long as your colonies are doing well then keep up whatever you’re doing.
If a geneticist is also saying that rodents aren’t built different (because they aren’t). Then why would you not believe the person that has gone to college, graduated, and gets paid to know these things? @chesterhf has actual lab mice, and access to a ton of info, yet you seem to not wish to believe what she says. Whatever makes it easier to sleep at night I suppose. I can’t personally breed rodents due to my asthma, but I definitely wouldn’t want a sub par colony if I had the choice.
There not? I think in humans you can see the results of inbreeding in humans in one generation. And I didn’t see anywhere a geneticist said that rodents are built the same as human.
Not the exact same as a human. You don’t see the effects of inbreeding in humans in one generation to my knowledge. Look at royal families from a while back and it took some generations to get really obvious physical issues. They are the same in the sense the genetics of inbreeding work the same. What animal do you think it is scientists studied/tested on to figure out all of what goes on when you inbreed? I am almost certain it was mice/rats. Why do you think Hilary posted the links she did?
Not the exact same as in, they don’t have an extremely complex brain that can have a ton of things go wrong that makes us slow and unable to function in society. Inbreeding genetics still work in the same ways though. Just not in as obvious of ways since rodents can’t speak.
This is not about rats, but since humans were brought into this discussion. I thought it might be a good read. I am finding it very interesting. Some of my family members a long time ago married first cousins and some of the mental issues did show up. It could happen to any species in my opinion. Even rats. I will leave it at that.
So the effects of inbreeding of first cousins were apparent after one generation. So I’m guessing the effects on actual siblings would be more profound after one generation.
If you read the article it says there is a higher chance there are mental issues, but not in every case. I think it is a luck (or bad luck) of the draw in this case. For physical issues it probably takes a few, not sure how many generations it took for Charles II. His family tree is a wild ride though lol.
This is a fallacious argument that is constantly thrown about when comparing two different organisms on the gross level when that is not the realm we are dealing with
Inbreeding effects are a genetic issue. And genetics is genetics is genetics. It does not matter is we are talking about humans or humpbacks or ball pythons or bandicoots or mice or moose
Inbreeding effects are the result of a loss of genetic diversity because there is no introduction of outside genetic material.
Mice and rats do not have some alternate genetic code that allows them to spontaneously generate genetic diversity de novo as a mechanism to combat inbreeding. Absent the introduction of unrelated genes (or the < 1 in ~30,000,000,000 or so chance of a perfect recovery mutation) you will absolutely develop inbreeding effects
Ummm… No, you most certainly do not see inbreeding effects in humans in one generation. Like with any closed system, it can take time for the effects to be know. Barring specific known issues (haemophilia, sickle-cell, etc.) five to seven generations is, typically, where it starts to become evident
That link is misrepresenting the actual findings of the study which were that offspring from cousin x cousin pairings may be at higher risk for common mood disorders. The important word there is RISK and in this contest it translates to ‘statistical chance’. This is not some “Eureka” moment however because it is simply confirming what is already known when it comes to inbreeding - i.e., there is a greater statistical chance of bringing together common alleles when closely related individuals mate. I mean… DUH! How do we prove a new recessive trait? By breeding two closely related individuals (parent x offspring, sibling x sibling) that we know are carrying the common allele.
Is this not then confirming there is a effect within one generation? If your odds are higher to develop a defect in one generation is not the higher odds a defect in itself?