Line-breeding and in-breeding thoughts & reasons - Page 11 - The Horse Forum

 254Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #101 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 09:58 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,438
• Horses: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Druydess View Post
More inbreeding facts by Dr. Rif’at Hussain, breeder of Thoroughbreds for several decades. It'll take a while to get through.

have a very inbred christmas | bloodstock in the bluegrass

Inbreeding and its advantages and disadvantages in racehorses may produce certain desirable characteristics such as speed, stamina, soundness, constitution, character, etc.

What one reads today in the trade journals is notable either for a lack of accurate information or an incomplete account of the practice of inbreeding. The analysis usually provides a very limited and overly simplistic view of inbreeding and what it can do for the breeder in fulfilling his aim of producing smashing racehorses.

There is, however, one fundamental fact that must be kept in mind – that inbreeding is the only tool that we can use to manipulate the genetic puzzle to obtain substantial improvement in the racing ability of the modern Thoroughbred provided it is done in a carefully planned and deliberately well thought out manner.

Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them.

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)
MsBHavin and Arab Mama like this.
Shoebox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:00 PM
Started
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,249
• Horses: 0
I agree with Farmpony. I also want to know what opinions are on one stud being used widely in one breed. An example cited was Raffles, of whom I know nothing of (other than that Raffles is a pretty fun name). So, clearly it sounds like it worked for Raffles to be bred to many mares of his breed (again I will be researching this when more awake). That said, it can also cause massive problems such as the case of Impressive. So, is it better to have one stallion cover most of the mares of his breed in this day and age?

I know that many may point out that Justin Morgan's horse started the Morgan breed and everyone and their uncle bred a standardbred out of Hamiltonian. That was many, many years ago where breeds were just being started and lets face it finding out about another stallion in another part of the country (much less the world) was a big deal and getting a mare to that stallion may have been unthinkable. So, assuming you are not starting a new breed, but working with an established breed is it wise to breed a tone of mares to a single stud resulting in a large group of half siblings? Thus forcing or making it difficult to do something other than line breed.
rookie is offline  
post #103 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:02 PM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,827
• Horses: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoebox View Post
Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them.

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)
I'm not saying it. Dr. Hussain is. It's an article presented for others to peruse.

For those who don't like me-- it's mind over matter; I don't mind - - and you don't matter.
www.obsidianarabians.com
Druydess is offline  
post #104 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:07 PM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,827
• Horses: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by rookie View Post
I agree with Farmpony. I also want to know what opinions are on one stud being used widely in one breed. An example cited was Raffles, of whom I know nothing of (other than that Raffles is a pretty fun name). So, clearly it sounds like it worked for Raffles to be bred to many mares of his breed (again I will be researching this when more awake). That said, it can also cause massive problems such as the case of Impressive. So, is it better to have one stallion cover most of the mares of his breed in this day and age?

I know that many may point out that Justin Morgan's horse started the Morgan breed and everyone and their uncle bred a standardbred out of Hamiltonian. That was many, many years ago where breeds were just being started and lets face it finding out about another stallion in another part of the country (much less the world) was a big deal and getting a mare to that stallion may have been unthinkable. So, assuming you are not starting a new breed, but working with an established breed is it wise to breed a tone of mares to a single stud resulting in a large group of half siblings? Thus forcing or making it difficult to do something other than line breed.
I think it would have to be looked at on a case by case basis rookie. I don't think one stallion should be bred to any and every mare out there. Raffles was a success also because he produced so well that it earned him the right to keep producing. Any decisions about a continued breeding career with any stallion would be predicated on what is being produced.

For those who don't like me-- it's mind over matter; I don't mind - - and you don't matter.
www.obsidianarabians.com
Druydess is offline  
post #105 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:08 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 896
• Horses: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoebox View Post
Are you saying inbreeding is the ONLY way to improve racehorses genetically? That's completely illogical and untrue. There are MANY ways geneticists can figure out different genes, genetic issues and ways to fix them.

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you!)
And of all the crippled racehorses coming off the track, I wonder how much of that is attributed to inbreeding...
Arab Mama likes this.

People with true credibility and integrity don't need to tell other people how great they are.
MsBHavin is offline  
post #106 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:12 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,438
• Horses: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Druydess View Post
I'm not saying it. Dr. Hussain is. It's an article presented for others to peruse.
That's very narrow minded of him, then. I could take a cow, cross it with another unrelated cow (with all the favorable traits of course), and keep doing so until I get a genetically superior cow to the one I started with JUST like one potentially could with inbreeding. Saying the only possible way EVER to improve a breed is by inbreeding is silly - one could just as easily do the same with completely unrelated horses (or cows or dogs or what have you) let alone whatever methods geneticists have developed now (that I have forgotten about since last semester. Should have kept my notes.)
Golden Horse and MsBHavin like this.
Shoebox is offline  
post #107 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:13 PM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,827
• Horses: 8
He makes good points/facts though; not everyone is going to agree on every point.

For those who don't like me-- it's mind over matter; I don't mind - - and you don't matter.
www.obsidianarabians.com
Druydess is offline  
post #108 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:14 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 896
• Horses: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoebox View Post
(that I have forgotten about since last semester. Should have kept my notes.)

I would have loved to read them!

People with true credibility and integrity don't need to tell other people how great they are.
MsBHavin is offline  
post #109 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:18 PM
Started
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,249
• Horses: 0
Okay, Druydess I think that's true of any stallion that what they produce should dictate how much they produce. Than again we have the case of Impressive where the genetic mess that follow his success as a sire was not found until years later. It seems an inherent flaw in the breeding of horses that you start breeding next years foal crop without knowing much about this years crop. Lets say you have a stallion who does very well in his discipline. He is bred to 20 mares and sires 20 foals. The owners "like the look" of these foals and those twenty mares are bred back, along with twenty more mares. So at the end of two breeding seasons you have sixty foals out of one stallion and none of those foals have done anything to indicate that they are healthy, sound, trainable or going to out-perform their sire. Many issues that limit a horses career don't show up until that horse is 5 year or older. Its only a serious deficit that prevents a foal from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping and being cute which is basically all people really expect a foal to do. So, in those cases you can have a horse cover a large portion of its breed without actually knowing what he produces.

The true mark of a great stallion is that he out produces himself. The problem is that most stallions have produced themselves so much that you don't know if its the odds or the horse that are the cause of the greatness. If you produce enough foals eventually one of them will do something correctly. So, do you think changes should be made to limit how many mares a stallion can cover in the first few years of breeding?
NdAppy, Golden Horse and MsBHavin like this.
rookie is offline  
post #110 of 160 Old 09-20-2013, 10:24 PM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,827
• Horses: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by rookie View Post
Okay, Druydess I think that's true of any stallion that what they produce should dictate how much they produce. Than again we have the case of Impressive where the genetic mess that follow his success as a sire was not found until years later. It seems an inherent flaw in the breeding of horses that you start breeding next years foal crop without knowing much about this years crop. Lets say you have a stallion who does very well in his discipline. He is bred to 20 mares and sires 20 foals. The owners "like the look" of these foals and those twenty mares are bred back, along with twenty more mares. So at the end of two breeding seasons you have sixty foals out of one stallion and none of those foals have done anything to indicate that they are healthy, sound, trainable or going to out-perform their sire. Many issues that limit a horses career don't show up until that horse is 5 year or older. Its only a serious deficit that prevents a foal from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping and being cute which is basically all people really expect a foal to do. So, in those cases you can have a horse cover a large portion of its breed without actually knowing what he produces.

The true mark of a great stallion is that he out produces himself. The problem is that most stallions have produced themselves so much that you don't know if its the odds or the horse that are the cause of the greatness. If you produce enough foals eventually one of them will do something correctly. So, do you think changes should be made to limit how many mares a stallion can cover in the first few years of breeding?
I'd be a lot richer if I had the psychic ability to know every eventuality.
All good points, but there's never a guarantee. I also don't see regulation being a reality- breed registries won't stand for it, and I believe people are just greedy and unethical enough to kill the ones they think aren't good enough if there's a quota.

For those who don't like me-- it's mind over matter; I don't mind - - and you don't matter.
www.obsidianarabians.com
Druydess is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?
Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.



User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Old Thread Warning
This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The worst reasons for breeding your mare. Golden Horse Horse Breeding 73 04-23-2013 11:47 AM
Line breeding Crossover Horse Breeding 5 10-17-2011 12:33 AM
Line-Breeding/In-Breeding candandy49 Horse Breeding 7 05-26-2011 04:25 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome