Why is my horse considered "inbred" and why specific to his case is that bad?
   

       The Horse Forum > Horse Breeds, Breeding, and Genetics > Horse Breeding

Why is my horse considered "inbred" and why specific to his case is that bad?

This is a discussion on Why is my horse considered "inbred" and why specific to his case is that bad? within the Horse Breeding forums, part of the Horse Breeds, Breeding, and Genetics category
  • In breeding horses does the stud go the mare or visa versa
  • What is considered inbreeding for horses

Like Tree2Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    01-02-2012, 10:29 PM
  #1
Foal
Question Why is my horse considered "inbred" and why specific to his case is that bad?

Why, specifically in my horse's case, is his pedigree looked upon poorly?
www.allbreedpedigree.com/LZM+Toby+Hancock

Also some pics are posted.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg more toby 001.jpg (60.1 KB, 463 views)
File Type: jpg more toby 003.jpg (57.2 KB, 447 views)
File Type: jpg more toby 005.jpg (37.6 KB, 414 views)
File Type: jpg more toby 008.jpg (37.0 KB, 407 views)
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    01-02-2012, 11:20 PM
  #2
Yearling
I'm not good with pedigrees except with a few different lineages. Normally, in horse breeding inbreeding isn't horrible. Infact, it is practiced. Fathers bred to daughters, mothers bred to sons. It is to improve certain traits within that lingeage. It doesn't do any damage to a horses health, foals normally come out healthy as can be. Looking at his pedigree, as far as my eyes could tell, there was no inbreeding. Someone else will ahve to tell you on that.
     
    01-02-2012, 11:35 PM
  #3
Weanling
Prancing hancock was in there twice on the mares side, as great grandfathers, I wouldn't technically class the horse inbred, in the dog world it would be line breeding BUT line breeding really is a nice word so the public doesnt think of drooling idiots be it horses or dogs lol. If there is ANY relation its inbred. But if I remember the research correctly, it takes 37 generations before you will get any kind of deformities, (again this is dogs). BUT that's not to say that there wont be genetic diseases that crop up. If you cross a mother to son, and they are both carriers, higher chances of the resulting offspring having the issue. You are doubling upi the good and the bad. Make sense?
     
    01-02-2012, 11:39 PM
  #4
Yearling
Quote:
Originally Posted by InStyle    
Prancing hancock was in there twice on the mares side, as great grandfathers, I wouldn't technically class the horse inbred, in the dog world it would be line breeding BUT line breeding really is a nice word so the public doesnt think of drooling idiots be it horses or dogs lol. If there is ANY relation its inbred. But if I remember the research correctly, it takes 37 generations before you will get any kind of deformities, (again this is dogs). BUT that's not to say that there wont be genetic diseases that crop up. If you cross a mother to son, and they are both carriers, higher chances of the resulting offspring having the issue. You are doubling upi the good and the bad. Make sense?

Ah, did not see him twice. Well in this case, no, your horse isn't really "inbred". My mare has Doc O'lena on both her sire and dams side. Meaning she has Doc Bar and Poco Lena on both sides. I mean, it wouldn't be smart to inbred a mother and son if they both were carriers for a genetic disease. Mostly it is done if they both have what an owner wants. Conformation and so forth, by breeding them together would bring out the better qualities. That is why when shopping for a stud, you go for what he has that your mare doesn. Vise versa, does your mare have what he doesn't?

Again, not sure what is going on in your horses pedigree.
     
    01-02-2012, 11:58 PM
  #5
Green Broke
I see a LOT of Hancock horses, but I don't think that really means inbreeding. Cinny has a lot of Doc in him and I don't think he's considered inbred, and have never heard him called that. I really didn't think it mattered too awfully much in horses unless there was a very bad trait being passed down.

Don't horses in the wild, technically inbreed for eons anyway? I mean, usually a band of horses had one main stallion and every year he got with all of his mares whether or not they were mothers, daughters or sisters? They only run off the stud colts, not the fillies....

If I were a breeder, I wouldn't do it, but that's my own personal choice. Doesn't mean anything is wrong with it.
     
    01-03-2012, 12:06 AM
  #6
Weanling
There are 4 horses that are shown twice in the pedigree.

Horse #1: Great great grandfather Prancing hancock on the mares side.

Horse #2: Great great grandfather and ggg.grandfather seminole charley on the mares side

Horse #3: GGGG.grandfather Driftwood on the studs side.

Horse #4: GGGG grandfather Baldy Joe on the studs side.
Genetically if one animal appears twice the animal is considered 'inbred'. BUT the percentage is VERY low. Most breeders ( again talking dogs here but would assume its relatively the same) would call the pedigree a linbreeding, since the inbreeding doesn't occur in the first few generations. The term inbred means : to produce by breeding closely related individuals. So if you had cousins in the pedigree it would be inbred. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The term line breeding was brought about by breeders as the general public dislikes hearing the term 'inbred', as in humans its a bad thing.


In dogs I have done father -daughter breedings. Once and then all the off spring was outcrossed. When I breed dogs I go for phenotype ( type to type) more then I do for pedigree breeding. But that's just me.
Posted via Mobile Device
     
    01-03-2012, 12:10 AM
  #7
Showing
Linebreeding or inbreeding, it makes no difference, the definition is still the same except "line bred" is usually used to describe a supposed 'quality':roll: animal and "inbred" is usually used to describe the junk animals.

With that being said, I see a bit of line breeding back a few generations but it's far enough away and a limited enough number that it won't effect your guy. It's kind of like when people claim that their horse is Doc Bar bred like it's supposed to prove something, even though Doc Bar may be 4 generations off the papers LOL. Once you get past about 2 or 3 generations, the ancestors really don't mean much.
Ladybug2001 likes this.
     
    01-03-2012, 12:20 AM
  #8
Weanling
I think inbred animals don't necessarily mean they are poor, its just the general publics perception that they are poor. I have used inbreeding in my lines.

There is nothing wrong with your horse's pedigree, the inbreeding is far enough back, and wasn't done an outrageous amount.

In Smooth Fox Terriers (my breed) almost every smooth in Australia and North America goes back to Ttarb the brat. So technically they are all 'inbred' but its SO far back its doesn't matter.
Posted via Mobile Device
     
    01-03-2012, 05:39 AM
  #9
Foal
Thank you, I have been using the forums to try to figure out some differeent things and you all have been very helpful
     
    01-03-2012, 06:12 AM
  #10
Yearling
Usually inbreeding doesn't cause any damage ut it does significantly increase he chances of genetic abmomalties apearing.

I have two very inbreed colts and my new stallion has a lot of inbreeding in his pedigree all three are very well breed well conformed ponis.
Grindins Shooting Star Shetland Pony
Napier of Belmont Shetland Pony
Enrique of St Ninian Shetland Pony
     

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is considered a "good" sliding stop? Bugs Bunny Reining 3 07-04-2011 06:53 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0