Danno, Mary thank you for your concerns but I am quite happy for VVV to leave his comment there, for it says nothing about me but speaks volumes about him. Rest assured it is impossible for my parents to read it or become offended also.
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? 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.
How is it that the standardbred is immune to the perils of inbreeding when no other breed or species is? Horse have over 90 genetic diseases, how can you assert without study that animal husbandry is the sole cause of low foaling rates? 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 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. 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. 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?
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. 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?
As to your view that 2x2 and 3x3 breeding on the sireline is favourable to the racing prospects of the offspring 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.
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. But you don't like Tesio or is it because you don't inderstand. 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.
