I’m especially interested in your opinion, Tom.
Will the Irish stud book be affected or will this not be an issue?
I loved Cruising, I had no idea they cloned him. I would have loved to see more pictures with the article.
…why did they clone him, though?
Here is a video of them and some more info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ckX-PdUnI
It is very interesting.
[QUOTE=Didi;8019925]
Here is a video of them and some more info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ckX-PdUnI
It is very interesting.[/QUOTE]
That’s for sharing the video! That was definitely interesting. And she answered my question quite well. She is a hoot!
Skydy, if you go to
https://www.facebook.com/WarmbloodStudbookOfIreland
you will find a statement the Warmblood Studbook of Ireland made last Wednesday, February 11, reminding breeders/members about the studbook’s view on clones. (We knew about the clones and that the announcement was going to be made on Friday or Saturday but we did not mention Cruising in our statement as we did not want to rain on anyone’s parade.)
Cruising was a super sport horse and sire. But he left no stallion sons of any significance for breeding, and the mare base in Ireland today is very different than it was 30 years ago when Cruising was born. So irrespective of the pros and cons of clones vis-a-vis sport and breeding (a debate that is NOT happening in Ireland in the official media, both equestrian and non-equestrian, but only on social media where I estimate a 70/30 - 60/40 split against the clones) pinning the hopes of the future of a studbook on thirty year old genetics is foolhardy, in my opinion.
The ISH Studbook changed its rules a few years ago to permit clones, with no discussion or debate. So the Cruising clones have been registered by ISH, I am told, and their progeny can be registered by ISH along with the progeny of any foal sired by any stallion born into (not approved, but born into) a studbook that is a member of the WBFSH and any foal sired by a stallion born into a studbook approved by the Irish Minister of Agriculture (such as miniatures, Appaloosas, etc.)
It is a different planet than serious breeders are used to.
[QUOTE=tom;8019958]
Skydy, if you go to
https://www.facebook.com/WarmbloodStudbookOfIreland
you will find a statement the Warmblood Studbook of Ireland made last Wednesday, February 11, reminding breeders/members about the studbook’s view on clones. (We knew about the clones and that the announcement was going to be made on Friday or Saturday but we did not mention Cruising in our statement as we did not want to rain on anyone’s parade.)
Cruising was a super sport horse and sire. But he left no stallion sons of any significance for breeding, and the mare base in Ireland today is very different than it was 30 years ago when Cruising was born. So irrespective of the pros and cons of clones vis-a-vis sport and breeding (a debate that is NOT happening in Ireland in the official media, both equestrian and non-equestrian, but only on social media where I estimate a 70/30 - 60/40 split against the clones) pinning the hopes of the future of a studbook on thirty year old genetics is foolhardy, in my opinion.
The ISH Studbook changed its rules a few years ago to permit clones, with no discussion or debate. So the Cruising clones have been registered by ISH, I am told, and their progeny can be registered by ISH along with the progeny of any foal sired by any stallion born into (not approved, but born into) a studbook that is a member of the WBFSH and any foal sired by a stallion born into a studbook approved by the Irish Minister of Agriculture (such as miniatures, Appaloosas, etc.)
It is a different planet than serious breeders are used to.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Tom.
Does the ISH studbook require DNA verification of parentage for foal registration?
You’re welcome. No, they do not.
I suppose that will make it easy for them, then. If they did require verification they’d be up a creek… 
I don’t understand.
I believe that they would not be able to tell one clone from the other, or either clone from Cruising per DNA testing.
ISH typically takes DNA and does parentage testing as part of the foal registration process but they also register many foals and older horses without parentage testing.
ISH won’t be able to verify any foals parentage from those three horses as they have the same DNA, but from what you say, they don’t seem find accurate recording of a foal’s parentage to be important… I am puzzled by what seems to me to be a nonchalant attitude.
I was wondering how they would deal with that problem. That issue seems to be one of the reasons that breed registries refuse to admit clones.
Tracking parentage would seem to be extremely important where cloned horses are concerned, however the nature of the clone makes it impossible to verify parentage between clones or the horse they were cloned from.
Was that difficulty a consideration when the WSI decided against admitting clones to their stud book?
(BTW, you have some very lovely babies on your website!)
The semen from the clones will be identical to Cruising’s semen. The clones themselves are not identical as there is genetic information from the mare that is present but the semen they produce is Cruising semen. As to registration you would send in hair to confirm the parentage to Horse Sport Ireland or to IDHSNA just like any other registry. The parentage would confirm to Cruising. I am not sure about the status of Cruising clones in the IDHSNA but he was approved as RIDSH, the son of approved Irish Draught stallion Seacrest, as are the clones sons of Seacrest…they are individually Cruising. PatO
As to there being no way to prove it was Cruising’s semen or the clones…that is true because it IS Cruising’s sperm. There is no NEED to differentiate as the semen from each of the clones and Cruising is the same semen. In this particular case the colts are being raised by the same family who raised Cruising although I am sure they were treated as a more precious animal than Cruising was prior to his discovered ability to jump. It is an interesting time we live in. The colts will get the chance this year to be bred to mares who were proven crosses to Cruising. It will be fun to watch. patO
[QUOTE=columbus;8020670]
As to there being no way to prove it was Cruising’s semen or the clones…that is true because it IS Cruising’s sperm. There is no NEED to differentiate as the semen from each of the clones and Cruising is the same semen. In this particular case the colts are being raised by the same family who raised Cruising although I am sure they were treated as a more precious animal than Cruising was prior to his discovered ability to jump. It is an interesting time we live in. The colts will get the chance this year to be bred to mares who were proven crosses to Cruising. It will be fun to watch. patO[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that anyone can be sure that there will be no need to prove which “clone” sires which horse, since the cloning of sport horses is in its infancy and the performance (both breeding and in competition) of the offspring of clones is, at this point in time, quite unknown. It will be quite awhile until we have any data and when we do (due in no small part to the very small population under study) it will be limited.
I don’t think it is wise to take for granted that parentage is unimportant, even amongst clones. It seems to me, that when one is messing with mother nature on the DNA level, that extraordinary care should be taken.
Being unable to determine which clone (or if the horse that was cloned) sired a foal seems to me to be a VERY big problem if any proper research is to be done.
However one feels about cloning , I’m sure everyone agrees that the accurate research and study of reproducing (breeding) clones should be part of the process.
It is early days yet. Much too early IMHO to assume that parentage amongst clones doesn’t matter.
[QUOTE=skydy;8020188]
ISH won’t be able to verify any foals parentage from those three horses as they have the same DNA, but from what you say, they don’t seem find accurate recording of a foal’s parentage to be important… I am puzzled by what seems to me to be a nonchalant attitude.
I was wondering how they would deal with that problem. That issue seems to be one of the reasons that breed registries refuse to admit clones.
Tracking parentage would seem to be extremely important where cloned horses are concerned, however the nature of the clone makes it impossible to verify parentage between clones or the horse they were cloned from.
Was that difficulty a consideration when the WSI decided against admitting clones to their stud book?
(BTW, you have some very lovely babies on your website!)[/QUOTE]
The ISH Studbook has spent a lot of (taxpayers’) money over the last twenty years using blood typing and then DNA profiling to prove parentage. They were one of the first studbooks to do so, and it is an important contribution they made. The problem is that in their quest to sell a passport and register any and every four legged animal with a forelock they register many foals without verifying parentage.
For example, a breeder uses an unapproved stallion born in Germany or the Netherlands and brought to Ireland. The resulting foal can be registered in the Main Section of the ISH Studbook. Since the stallion has not been inspected or approved, there is no DNA profile. That does not matter. ISH will register the foal without proving parentage and will not require that the parentage of the unapproved stallion be proven by DNA analysis.
The point you make about being unable to differentiate the progeny of clones versus the donor is the reason why WSI prohibits entry into the Irish Warmblood population any animal (foal, mare, stallion) born after the clone is two years old unless it can be proven without doubt that the animal to be registered does not have a clone in its pedigree.
That is a strange approach to keeping a stud book (the ISH method).
The AQHA finally won a decision on the lawsuit against them that was trying to force them to register clones.
If the AQHA (who have mismanaged the HYPP disaster so completely) can see that the clone issue is a can of worms, as far as a studbook is concerned, then anyone should see it.
Of course if verification of parentage is unimportant to a studbook, then clones will pose no problem for them…
The semen IS Cruising semen
While there are no exact physical clones because of the presence of donor mare DNA, however small, the semen IS Cruising’s semen. The cloning process does not change the semen DNA. It does not matter which of the 3 Cruising bodies the semen comes from. Admittedly it is hard to grasp but the semen is Cruising semen. unadulterated. Look at how semen is produced to understand. There is not a gene pool where the genes randomize and non- Cruising DNA can be mixed with the donor mares DNA. In sperm it is direct as there is no mitochondria in the sperm. Cruising, Cruising Encore, and Cruising Arish all contribute identical DNA in the sperm. PatO
[QUOTE=columbus;8021812]
While there are no exact physical clones because of the presence of donor mare DNA, however small, the semen IS Cruising’s semen. The cloning process does not change the semen DNA. It does not matter which of the 3 Cruising bodies the semen comes from. Admittedly it is hard to grasp but the semen is Cruising semen. unadulterated. Look at how semen is produced to understand. There is not a gene pool where the genes randomize and non- Cruising DNA can be mixed with the donor mares DNA. In sperm it is direct as there is no mitochondria in the sperm. Cruising, Cruising Encore, and Cruising Arish all contribute identical DNA in the sperm. PatO[/QUOTE]
I think that most of us do understand that the clone (s) and it’s source have identical DNA. Honestly, we get it and we realize that therein lies the difficulty in keeping the stud book accurate. It is impossible to do so when clones are introduced.
Of course if verification of parentage is unimportant to a studbook, then clones will pose no problem for them…
???
I am not sure I understand. I think it is obvious who the parent is when using a clone. It may not be obvious that it is a clone. But that is another concern, not a parent verification issue.
I would be surprised if there wasn’t some sort of marker in clone DNA.
