[QUOTE=Kaeleer;3363090]
Oh my goodness, yes! I’d forgotten that when I posted. Thanks for the reminder.[/QUOTE]
:lol: No problem.
Phyxius, You probably already know this but mitochondrial DNA is inherited almost exclusively from the mother, and there are studies showing that this inheritance pattern makes it so that the mother has more of her DNA passed down to her offspring than the father. There have been recent studies (which I am not pulling up -no time to do a pubmed search) that show that this results in a phenotype whereby the dam has more of a influence than the sire.
That is why the importance of maternal lines is the new, hot thing. There are also a few inherited diseases (with more to be discovered) that are passed down solely through mitochoncrial DNA.
This is also another way in the future that we might think about breeding certain breeds of one sex to another, depending on the pre-potency of the dam and the influence of mitrochondrial DNA (which admittedly is not fully worked out).
No offense Jill, because you know I like you…but I take any medical published fact as fiction since everything in nature now has a study saying it causes cancer. I loved studying bio and chem and physics in school, but when I took a history of science class at UMD I got completely turned off. Bio and chem sciences are more of a philosophy to me now than anything else. When there is incontrovertable proof I’ll believe it.
Also, male pattern baldness is passed down through females too. (Humans of course, but a commonly known example none the less.)
When choosing a mare and stallion to breed I believe BOTH are equally important.
Jill you bring up a very good point. While of course it’s very important to consider both the dam and sire, many breeders over the centuries have stressed the importance of maternal lines, if for no other reason than that the mare is around the foal the first few months of its life. It will interesting to see how much of a role mitochondrial DNA plays in phenotype.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;3362814]
I can’t imagine taking a draft cross crosscountry, unless your idea of a fun outing is having your horse catch a knee and flip over. [/QUOTE]
Please come tell my draft x TB that he’s really not supposed to jack his knees up to his eyeballs o/f, and that he really isn’t a big-strided, easy gallop. He just went out about a month ago on his first XC school and was doing Training coops, rolltops, and banks. (Who was saying that draft crosses were only good for under Training?)
He’s probably not the “norm” (if there were such a thing) for draft crosses. He’s 5yo, 16.2 and fits nicely into my Medium/NARROW tree dressage saddle and 48" girth. He wears an 81" blanket. He’s really NOT any bigger than my OTTB - same saddle, same girth, same bridle (two holes difference in the cheekpieces, throatlatch and flash; three holes in the caveson), and the TB wore a 78". The only significant difference is the legs and feet; my cross has larger (not full-draft-size, but def. bigger than a TB) feet and more substance to his legs. OH…and he inherited a more TB-style neck. I wouldn’t have taken him home if he had had a thick drafty neck or a coarse throatlatch.
His heritage is questionable. Some friend of the lady I bought him from dropped him off as a 3yo and then moved to California.
Either way… just wanted to share my green bean with you a bit. Like I said…he’s probably not the norm, and most of the generalizations many of you have been making are going to hold true… but not always. Keep an eye out for the unsuspecting heavier boned, super-dappled bay with a hind sock. On second thought… don’t. It’ll make it easier for us to pass you by. 
mp - thanks for the compliment. I happen to think she is a pretty special little horse.
Once, long ago, I did trace some of her lineage farther back than what appears on her registration papers. As best I can tell, through the Al Marah line, there is a connection to Al-Marah Sea Captain, A-M Indraff, Raffles, and Skowreneck. So yes, there is a little bit of Crabbet breeding back there. Its probably so far back that it doesn’t count much, but its there.
Because they can.
A lot of the horses that end up like you describe are from breed stock that has some pretty poor conformation- for example, percherons are supposed to have thick necks, but they are supposed to be of a decent length. If you breed a percheron with a 6" neck, you can’t then blame the fact that you’ve crossed a draft for the fact that the baby gets a 6" neck too. The problem was that you bred a horse with a trait you didn’t want passed on 
If you take the least saddle-friendly drafts and try to breed them to TBs, you’re gonna end up with a lot of the funky traits of the draft. If you take lovely saddle horses and breed them to TBs, you’ll end up with something nice
eta: I will use my non-expert eye to guess that FH would not be breeding this type but maybe something more like this type.
Except for sex-linked genes. Women can only give an x chromosome. Men can give an X or a Y.
And the mitochondrial stuff, but I think most people overestimate the impact of that.
On what basis do you assert that “most people” make this over-estimation?
Are you asserting that the impact is minimal? If so, on what basis do you assert that?
In fact, what is it that you’re trying to say here and what is the basis for your saying so?
The research I have done has shown a lot of impact on an extremely cell-specific level, but I’ve yet to see research that shows that mitochondrial DNA has any huge impact on physical characteristics or temperment.
If you’ve seen clear published research on this, please share! I haven’t (and I’ve looked, but not through a DB search or anything).
I presume you mean “temperament”? What research have you done? Any published studies?
And you still haven’t answered the rest of my questions. You made an assertion about “most people’s” beliefs. Maybe I’m being nitpicky, but it bugs me no end that you make broad-sweeping statements in your posts using words like “most” and “all” and “many”. Those are quantitative terms and unless you are sure that you are correct in those assertions, it is both inaccurate and misleading to use them.
The fact that you use those terms to justify the opinions speaks volumes.
Perhaps he is the one TB/ draft cross I have seen that I liked.
Edited to add: I’d still take a good TB over a TB/ draft cross any day of the week, unless it’s an exceptional draft cross. I’ve seen more draft crosses who were clunky, if not downright dangerous (hanging knee) jumpers, than I have cared to see.
Actually you’ll still have a chance of getting a horse with mismatched parts. Not many drafts are lovely saddle horses. It’s not what they are bred and used for for the most part. A link to one or two or even ten web sites doesn’t change that.
Sigh.
When a breeder first brought up the issue of mitochondrial DNA to me, I was really curious, so I went in search of papers, articles, anything that would show that it actually had an affect on anything other than cellular function. I found nothing. If something exists I’d love to read it, but I remain skeptical.
Beyond the above comment, all you’re doing is trying to pick another fight Kaeleer. This isn’t one I care that much about, sorry.
Can you and Kaeleer talk about your use of the word “many” here? She seems to think broad generalizations are OK about draft horses, but not about mitochondrial DNA.
I patently disagree with you, based not on 1, 2, or 10 web pages but on discussions with people with broad experience with this type of horse. Many drafts DO make lovely saddle horses. If you really believe there’s no such thing as a nice draft saddle horse, you’re missing out.
Ambrey, while it is POSSIBLE to get a good draft/light breed cross, it is more difficult to get CONSISTENTLY good results when crossing two such dissimilar types. Because even drafts with the phenotype you want can still carry genotype from several generations back. And that genotype can produce features that aren’t desirable in a saddle horse. That’s why there aren’t a lot of breeders doing the 1/2 draft-1/2 TB or 1/2 Arab crosses. They’ll breed a good draft/TB cross to another TB or to a WB. Because breeding the good F1s gives them a better chance of getting the features they want in a riding horse.
bearcombs, if I read your post correctly, you’re not even sure your horse is actually 1/2 draft and 1/2 TB? Not picking, just curious. My friend’s Belgian/Arab cross loves to jump and can really move out. You’d never think it to look at her – she is about 15.3 and heavy-bodied with only a very slightly Arab cast to her eye and head to give a clue as to her breeding.
Yes, we’ll have to disagree. For the most part pure drafts don’t make fine riding horses. They’re too big, and too clunky.
The horse in the second link is butt high. He doesn’t look like a youngster either but perhaps he’s not done growing. I can forgive croup high in an OTTB because they have the athleticism to overcome it.
Exactly.
I think that’s probably why certain breeds are so much better than others (those patterns of dominance and homozygosity I was talking about). Modern Percherons, for example, have been around for a long time, and there are lines that go back quite a ways. That would be different from breeding the light boned offspring of a light and a heavy draft.
But these are things all breeders need to consider to turn out quality stock! Look at any of the “bloodline based” breeds, and you’ll find that someone will manage to come up with a breeding program that routinely turns out mutants (I’m using this humorously, not literally ;)).
In the end, the more you know your bloodlines, the more consistent your product will be. At least, this is what I’m told
