Originally Posted by
dizzy
mitch i am dissapointed that you think a debate on the genetic viability of the breed is rubbish. If you are refering to my comment regarding incest then rest assured that has nothing to do with the moral issue in this instance but the science of the issue. How can vvv refer to such a comment as a disgrace yet advocate passionately on this forum in favour of incestuous matings?
[vvv] dot, i suggest that you get some perspective here & try to get your facts straight before you go publicly attributing positions to me that i have not and have never taken.
it's one thing for me to suggest that imo it is not an issue (which i did) and it is another thing entirely for you to then state that i have passionately advocated same (which i quite clearly have not). Apology accepted in advance.
the taboo on such practices as incest and close relatives marrying did not come originally from the pulpit, though no doubt there has been plenty a passionate sermon on the subject delivered by many men of the cloth, but from human beings centuries ago recognising that the produce of such unions were in many instances "not quite right" and often much worse then that.
[vvv] ????....and all that off topic is applicable/relevant to the breeding of performance horses because...?
how is it that the standardbred is immune to the perils of inbreeding when no other breed or species is?
[vvv] dot, for starters here's where you run into a significant terminology error.
inbreeding in the true sense involves two individuals with the same immediate maternal line. Anything else is effectively linebreeding, even as close as it may be...however it is not inbreeding as such.
horse have over 90 genetic diseases, how can you assert without study that animal husbandry is the sole cause of low foaling rates?
[vvv] there's another terminology issue here. not low foaling rates.
rather low live foal registrations. there is a huge difference to be had dot.
from the point of mares being declared ptif through to the point where their resultant foals are registered we (aus) annually lose around about 12%.
the stallions are getting mares in foal on average at around a 72-73% hit rate annually. If by whatever means we somehow managed to get that up to 80% or so we will never do better given the widespead adoption of semen transport here in aus. the problem at hand is that we annually only register 61-62% live foals from all mares served. Not all of that is attributable to husbandry issues but an overwhelming proportion of it most certainly is. Ring a few of the studs and ask them yourself. They will tell you some horror stories. It is a major problem.
the troops manning the various state breeders associations will, in a private moment, tell you the same...as for that matter will the hra breeders panel & the associated groups.
after all you said the stallions did their job, the mares went in foal how is it that all losses should be attributed to poor animal husbandry and not at all to a possible flaw in the genetic make up of the embryo?.
[vvv] further to my reply directly above, that's the first line of defence & a very effective one too. It's how nature rids itself of a lot of that which was not meant to be & without doubt that occurs every season & with every breed of horse but it is by no means widespread.
being moderately to poorly cared for & being left to foal alone & unassisted in a paddock out the back of whoop whoop followed up by often limited to zero post foaling care is not a genetic aspect however. That sort of thing accounts for the vast majority of losses. As i said, don't believe me. Ring the studs and ask them.
vvv i am glad that you are reading but to use a blog as the basis for your assertion that there is no danger in inbreeding if their different physical types is well absurd.
[vvv] trust your eyes and your observance of the physical attributes of that which is stands in front of you, not bits of paper.
save significant environmental interference, for the purposes of horse breeding it is more than reasonable to suggest that their phenotype is representative of their genotype. I learnt that in high school biology btw.
bee writes an excellant blog, i have read all the information contained on it but bee also makes no effort to hide the fact that she is a journalist and not an expert on breeding.
[vvv] there is no such thing as an expert on breeding.
if there were, said persons would have all the good horses. There are however some keen and insightful observations which serve to fill in a few pieces of the puzzle from time to time. Bee's observations are right there amongst them, no question imo.
so you would take the writtings of a journalist over the opinion of a genetist employed by one of the us's most pre emminent breeding establishments?
[vvv] dot, seriously. The genetics talkin' guy was in the paid employ of the crew there. Do you think he will ever come out and disagree? C'mon. If you couldn't read that push from ken jackson & his man re: Christian cullen for what it really was then geeze... it was very much like the greens carbon tax push.
create a fear of that which is not actually there and then offer up salvation. It's a legitamet advertising tactic i guess... But that makes it no more correct. They've got their own cc up there anyway now. Somebeachsomewhere.
your thesis on genetic variability based on differences in physical type is flawed as you don't consider the issue of dominance. The horses you list may in fact have very similar genetic make up inherited from their sires but if the dam's genes were the dominant ones for physical appearance then they may and do appear physically very different.
[vvv] all either of us can do, all any of us can do is make our judgements based initially on the phenotypes that we are presented with and then followed by subsequent observations of the style/type of foals that they then produce when they are bred to given styles/types of mares.
as i said above, save significant environmental interference, for the purposes of horse breeding it is reasonable to suggest that their phenotype is representative of their genotype.
art major is a very prepontent sire of type so most of his stock are very similar in appearance, so do we take it automatically that they are the same in genotype?
[vvv] prepotency by definition is the ability of an individual to essentially over ride the other parent in a mating & produce progeny which resemble or carry the features of that individual, in art major's case his phenotype and seeing as how phenotype can be reasonably said to represent genotype, well...i've said it twice already. Prepotency can also exist in a dominant or a recessive form depending on the trait involved and it need not neccessarily be a desirable thing that a given horse is prepotent for, a sire that is prepotent for passing on his bad feet or his crap temperament for example.
as to your view that 2x2 and 3x3 breeding on the sireline is favourable to the racing prospects of the offspring
[vvv] i don't recall ever saying that it was a favourable thing either dot...but why would you stop putting words in my mouth now? why depart from your now time-honoured game plan? what i recall as having suggested was is there such a thing as too much of a good thing or along those lines. Please feel free to cite an example that says otherwise.
here is a little fact for you to consider, along with all the other breeders who favour it. John bradley published two books in the mid nineties containg the 101 best racehorses and sires in the breed history from around the 1940 to 1990. Not one of those 101 champions is bred 2x2 on the sireline. Not one of those sires is bred 2x3 on the sireline. There is 1 bred 3x3 on the sireline, most happy fella. There are 3 trotting stallions bred 2x4 on the sire line so less 3% of the horses profiled. Add modern day examples such as mach three, art major bettors delight and rocknroll hanover the stats don't get any better. There is one sire valley victory that did produce his best stock to mares by speedy crown so on a 4x2 cross to speedy crown. I'm sure you see it differently vvv but all in all not a lot to recommend inbred matings on the sireline. Feel free to table your examples of champions bred in your prefered fashion.
[vvv] that's a chicken and egg scenario if ever i saw one dot.
for reasons mostly commerical, a lot of which has to do with the chicken little, the sky is falling brigade and not as a result of any significant grasp of genetics, by and large people don't try it to begin with so therefore there are no yearlings bred that way so they don't show up in the stats. Owners of pacing fillies have the same problem in nsw getting a start against their own sex. The races are not programmed so the fillies aren't nominated and the fillies aren't nominated so the races aren't programmed. Similarly, it proves absolutely nothing.
there is something to be said however for linebred matings through sons and daughters of superior producers, that way the genes on both the x and y chromosone may recombine in a favourable fashion in the offspring.
[vvv] by what you've explained as your definition of inbreeding that would actually be inbreeding and not line breeding.
to suggest that it's inbreeding just because it's taking place up close but that is linebreeding because it's a bit further back is absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
but you don't like tesio or is it because you don't inderstand.
[vvv] tesio the pc program to which i referred allows those who do not fully appreciate the nature of inheritance to over simplify and then pigeon hole that which is way, way more complex. it also serves to create an over reliance on pretty screens & printouts in place of actually looking at the physical attributes of sire and dam and acting accordingly.
the tb's consider him the most successful breeder of all time, but no he didn't write a 101 version for everyone to copy, nor was pedigree the sole consideration in his matings and success, you have to work at it a bit harder then that.
[vvv] tesio the breeder was a very smart man who must be somewhere absolutely laughing himself silly at all the people who have taken every word he said as breeding gospel. The fact is he put out just as much misinformation as he ever did actual information.