Important news!! WFFS is finally recognized

[mvp]

@Manni01

Thanks and I can give you that statement back… For me its very tough to read your posts regarding this topic because IMO many times they don’t really have a big connection to this topic… It seems to me that you like more to show your expertise on the subject.

Yes, but the topic of population genetics is completely germane to the topic! I can’t possibly be the only person who thinks so. If you don’t know jack about population genetics and don’t wish to learn, what’s your basis for deciding whether I’m being pedantic or relevant?

[mvp]

@SnicklefritzG

It is ridiculous to accuse others of “not caring about the population” if their opinion is that a carrier is not “defective” or other negative description. Same thing re: people who say that a carrier is “defective”.

But from the perspective of making sure that the allele frequency of that lethal recessive allele is low in the population in future, i.e. that the vast majority of horses don’t become carriers, it really is harmful to those future generations to allow the allele to spread. Should that become the case, we will need homozygous dominant individuals to be available for breeding, and those will be rare.

And to consider a pretty extreme situation that could follow in theory: What if the number of homozygous dominant stallions out there-- now required by many, many mare owners are of a relatively in-bred group themselves? If that is so, we will have a bit of a genetic bottleneck in this population for many genes, all in pursuit of avoiding the lethal homozygous recessive condition that kills foals.

If, on the other hand, you begin selecting for that dominant allele now (so that you create more homozygous dominant individuals that you’ll need later), you have the chance (in theory) to do that from a range of individual animals whose ancestry is diverse. That means that group who share this one common feature of being homozygous dominant in this one gene has lots of genetic variation with in. If we decided that we had let the rest of the population become so full of carriers that we always needed to cross those animals with one of these rare, homozygous dominant one, wouldn’t it be great to have genetic variation at other gene loci in that group? Think of having a “founder population” of 1 individual versus 100.

Does that not make sense to you? What makes breeding carriers bad for the population is the way it allows the frequency of that allele (in other words, the number of individuals who are carriers) to increase over time.

[mvp]

@keysfins

No, you still don’t understand my point. Sorry, I cannot explain it in a way you can understand. So I give up.

Probably best if you just scroll by anything I post.

And, Manni, if you don’t want to learn a bit more about the science than you already know, it would be best if you ignored my posts, too.

Keyfins was not wrong. And neither was Sir Robert Baker, the breeder whose opinion Keyfins quoted. I googled the guy and can’t find a date for his life or that quote.

But he was right whenever he wrote! Look, folks have been working on the problem of selective animal breeding since Robert Bakewell started keeping performance records and pedigrees in 18th century England. You certainly can google up Robert Bakewell and read all about his place in the history of breeding theory.

All this is to say that you can have a pre-Darwinian view of inheritance (with caveats)’ a Mendelian view; or even know that genes consist of varied lengths of DNA. It doesn’t change the biology of the situation and the fact that individual animals contribute value to a breed or population by virtue of their genetic holdings in within the genetic context provided by the rest of the population.

You can describe this scenario in different terms (as the history of science attests), but the underlying causes and patterns in breeding patterns remain the same. Those are true in all times and all places, independent of me or you. You can dislike me or my way of putting things, but that won’t touch the science of the situation.

[Manni01]

@mvp

But from the perspective of making sure that the allele frequency of that lethal recessive allele is low in the population in future, i.e. that the vast majority of horses don’t become carriers, it really is harmful to those future generations to allow the allele to spread. Should that become the case, we will need homozygous dominant individuals to be available for breeding, and those will be rare. And to consider a pretty extreme situation that could follow in theory: What if the number of homozygous dominant stallions out there-- now required by many, many mare owners are of a relatively in-bred group themselves? If that is so, we will have a bit of a genetic bottleneck in this population for many genes, all in pursuit of avoiding the lethal homozygous recessive condition that kills foals.

Does that not make sense to you? What makes breeding carriers bad for the population is the way it allows the frequency of that allele (in other words, the number of individuals who are carriers) to increase over time.

You accuse me of being not willing to learn. What about you?? Did you read my post?? You are talking about a pure theoretical aspect and I agree with you on that, because that’s what happened in the past years. Because nobody tested and cared it spread :(.
What you ignore is the human point in the picture. Now IF people test and it is important to raise awareness without stigmatizing, things will change. Do you really think that any breeder will insist on using carriers without compromise?? Do you know the mind of every breeder? There are many aspects which go into a breeding decision and now the test is one more. IMO a breeder with a clear mare will probably prefer the clear stallion, now that he can hopefully look at a result from him. So that’s a lot better then before when he simply didn’t know. The breeder with the carrier mare will also choose a clear stallion in the hope that the next generation will give him a clear filly in order to continue which is also better then before when he didn’t know the status of his mare, he had the risk of getting a dead foal and only a .25 % of getting a clear foal, now he has 50%.

And all these carrier stallions, I guess it depends if they are outstanding and if people don’t stigmatize the carrier status too much people with clear mares will also use them for their other qualities and hope for clear offspring for future breeding with the good things withat the defective gene and without reducing breeding variety…That’s how it worked in dogs and I see no reason why it should work different in horses.
but you refuse to look at anything but pure statistics and theory. And with that you stigmatize the topic

[keysfins]

@mvp

I think keyfins was supplying more data than I had to substantiate my point that you were wrong about “nobody talking about this before 2 weeks ago.”

Exactly. :yes:

[mvp]

@Manni01

You accuse me of being not willing to learn. What about you?? Did you read my post?? You are talking about a pure theoretical aspect and I agree with you on that, because that’s what happened in the past years. Because nobody tested and cared it spread :(.
What you ignore is the human point in the picture. Now IF people test and it is important to raise awareness without stigmatizing, things will change. Do you really think that any breeder will insist on using carriers without compromise?? Do you know the mind of every breeder? There are many aspects which go into a breeding decision and now the test is one more. IMO a breeder with a clear mare will probably prefer the clear stallion, now that he can hopefully look at a result from him. So that’s a lot better then before when he simply didn’t know. The breeder with the carrier mare will also choose a clear stallion in the hope that the next generation will give him a clear filly in order to continue which is also better then before when he didn’t know the status of his mare, he had the risk of getting a dead foal and only a .25 % of getting a clear foal, now he has 50%.

And all these carrier stallions, I guess it depends if they are outstanding and if people don’t stigmatize the carrier status too much people with clear mares will also use them for their other qualities and hope for clear offspring for future breeding with the good things withat the defective gene and without reducing breeding variety…That’s how it worked in dogs and I see no reason why it should work different in horses.
but you refuse to look at anything but pure statistics and theory. And with that you stigmatize the topic

1. This is “theoretical” in the sense that this is possible to model mathematically, not in the sense of being untrue or radically speculative. Again, take a gander at some Wikipedia page of theoretical population genetics in order to appreciate how well-developed that field is. It’s some pretty old, useful and legit science.

2. I do appreciate that there is a human side to this. As I posted way, way back folks fought about the models used to evaluate the degree of genetic variability left in North American TBs precisely because there were some big political and economic consequences at stake.

But the livelihood of breeders of the fate of broodmares whose value drops because of their genetic holdings in some new context doesn’t touch the scientific facts of the situation. And so dissing the science in the name of an economic or moral agenda just doesn’t work very well. It’s just an Apples and Oranges situation. That said, whatever we do decide to do will be much worse if we ignore the science behind ignoring this newly discovered problem now. And furthermore, population geneticists have modeled the causes of change in allele frequency within a population since the 1930s or so. This is not a new concept.

And I lose because of the overlapping sets of constraints, too. I own an F-1 cross between Arabian and WB. In the current context comprised by her phenotypic quality, her genetic unpredictability and the rules of registration in Arabian world, plus the phenotypic and genotypic quality of other mares out there, this mare is a cull and has no value as a breeding animal. You see? Science, politics and economics are not lost upon me. I just see a reason to have everyone appreciate the technical aspects of the situation as they make their decisions about testing their animals or choosing nicks.

All that said, I think Kareen was quite right about how to deal with the politics of the situation. Those are real and, if I can summarize her point accurately, it will be unlikely if those who want transparency of wide-spread testing confront the European Verbands and Establishment directly. A more round-about approach (to making this data set strong and, therefore compelling) is the more effective way to go. But this is to accept and even understand the science first, and to negotiate an effective policy second.

[keysfins]

@mvp

It’s not too late. In fact, the key to having those studies of the recessive allele’s frequency in the population being low rather than high in the future is testing as many horses as possible now. BTW, if you breed a heterozygous individual to a homozygous (dominant) one, you’ll always have those odds of producing a homozygous dominant one. That’s a constant. The point is to limit the number of heterozygous horses out there.

So much of this is really simple Mendelian genetics and distinguishing between the consequences of one mating and the change of allele frequency in a population over time, and appreciating the difference between genotypic results and phenotypic ones.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but there are so many misunderstandings embedded in statements on this thread that could end if folks would review the basic science in play. You don’t have to take my word for any of this, but you do have to conform to the facts of population genetics.

Quoting your post because it is so important for readers to understand this. And I would also quote your posts in #336, #337 and #338. :yes:

I also would like to add that we need to leave judgement of a horse’s WFFS status out of things. Whether a horse tests clear or carrier is merely a piece of information. We should not say a piece of information is good or bad.

What a person chooses to do with that piece of information in breeding plans, for example, is where the information has an impact.

In an ideal world, I think we should not be using words like ‘fear’, ‘shame’, ‘worthless’, ‘secrecy’, ‘blame’ or other emotionally-loaded words about a breeder, horse owner, or a horse, in discussing this genetic issue.

Taking the WFFS issue as a genetic problem to solve is far more productive than stirring emotions, making value judgements, and using ‘emotionally loaded’ words, in my opinion.

That is not to say we cannot be happy that our horse tested clear, or that we cannot feel devastated if we have the misfortune of having a WFFS foal, or that we cannot offer sympathy and support for someone who has had that experience. We ARE human, so of course we will have emotions, and we each love our animals.

The key at this time, in my opinion, is to get breeding horses tested, and collect that information in a central way. Having that information available will help breeders make suitable choices for their animal.

It seems that mare owners are willing to test, maybe because the mare owner wants to have that information to make a decision on stallion choices. And maybe because it is the mare owner that could potentially see a WFFS-affected foal arrive, and wants to avoid that possibility.

If a stallion owner is reluctant to test or share the results, we need to find a way that makes it beneficial for the stallion owner to do so. We have praised those who tested and posted results here in NA, as being open and honest, and wanting the best outcome for breeders and the foals they produce.

And testing all foals will provide further information. Testing all three groups will help determine the prevalence in the population, which will show a bigger picture than an individual breeding.

All of this is, of course, only my opinion. Others have the right to have their own views.

But as MVP explains, it really does come down to basic rules of population genetics.

[SnicklefritzG]

Many different opinions have been expressed on this thread. Many people understand each other’s viewpoints but don’t agree with them.

Why don’t you have this conversation with Marydell ? Are you willing to tell her you think she “doesn’t care” or ask her how can she “not understand”?

Don’t assume that other people on here don’t have knowledge of statistics, genetics, or anything else. Many of us are hyper educated and don’t trumpet their academic credentials. Your comment is rude.

There are many viewpoints on this topic.

@mvp

But from the perspective of making sure that the allele frequency of that lethal recessive allele is low in the population in future, i.e. that the vast majority of horses don’t become carriers, it really is harmful to those future generations to allow the allele to spread. Should that become the case, we will need homozygous dominant individuals to be available for breeding, and those will be rare.

And to consider a pretty extreme situation that could follow in theory: What if the number of homozygous dominant stallions out there-- now required by many, many mare owners are of a relatively in-bred group themselves? If that is so, we will have a bit of a genetic bottleneck in this population for many genes, all in pursuit of avoiding the lethal homozygous recessive condition that kills foals.

If, on the other hand, you begin selecting for that dominant allele now (so that you create more homozygous dominant individuals that you’ll need later), you have the chance (in theory) to do that from a range of individual animals whose ancestry is diverse. That means that group who share this one common feature of being homozygous dominant in this one gene has lots of genetic variation with in. If we decided that we had let the rest of the population become so full of carriers that we always needed to cross those animals with one of these rare, homozygous dominant one, wouldn’t it be great to have genetic variation at other gene loci in that group? Think of having a “founder population” of 1 individual versus 100.

Does that not make sense to you? What makes breeding carriers bad for the population is the way it allows the frequency of that allele (in other words, the number of individuals who are carriers) to increase over time.

[mvp]

@SnicklefritzG

Many different opinions have been expressed on this thread. Many people understand each other’s viewpoints but don’t agree with them.

Why don’t you have this conversation with Marydell ? Are you willing to tell her you think she “doesn’t care” or ask her how can she “not understand”?

Don’t assume that other people on here don’t have knowledge of statistics, genetics, or anything else. Many of us are hyper educated and don’t trumpet their academic credentials. Your comment is rude.

There are many viewpoints on this topic.

I stand by the truth of the population genetics stuff. It’s not rude of me to know that, nor to think that others who are involved should hold that knowledge, too. You can disagree with the science if you want… but explaining why politics, money or feelings ought to determine what we do instead doesn’t quite trump the science.

I think I am, de facto, having this conversation with Marydell insofar as she’s a participant in this thread and can read my comments like anyone else. I have no idea whether she understands or cares (or not) about the population-level implications of breeding.

The reason to talk about the population genetics piece is to help anyone in the breeding industry-- including individual mare owners who don’t usually consider these aspects of choosing a stallion-- to be armed with the information they need to make better decisions, or to pressure breed societies to help them insure that they can find a stallion with the genetics they need. No one should be kept in the dark about this stuff. But as this thread makes amply clear, some folks really don’t understand it; some don’t care; and some actively refute the science with politics or accusing folks like me of having bad manners.

And as you can see from a post below this one, I am sympathetic to the horse owner whose horse becomes one we wouldn’t breed for reasons beyond personal choice or even a phenotype we like. As I said, I own one of those-- a horse who is a cull for bureaucratic and genetic reasons! I’m in the same boat as Marydell or Manni’s broodmare owners.

It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that there are different bases for disagreeing. Not liking the political or economic consequences of science doesn’t offer a legitimate reason for deciding the science is wrong or irrelevant. Science you don’t like has to be met with better science, that’s all.

PS— you have no idea what my academic credentials are. You don’t know who I am. Nor have I ever made the argument that you should believe me “because I said so and hold this or that degree.” I did, on the other hand, discuss some of the science I know. Your criticism is unfounded.

[mvp]

@keysfins

But as MVP explains, it really does come down to basic rules of population genetics.

I’d just like anyone signing a breeding contract to know what they are buying, that’s all.

I was not around for the Page Impressive thing, but I see lots of vitriol here and I’ll bet it was just as heated then. Yet at some point the AQHA did acknowledge the science and take steps to control the bad genetics within their breed. Why have this go the same way and take so long?

[vineyridge]

What is really needed is a fetal test that can be done when carriers are bred that will allow affected and carrier foals to be aborted before they are ever born. Aren’t there fetal genetic tests for humans?

There are.

Cell-free fetal DNA screening, also known as noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is a prime example. This screen provides more accurate information about the risk of conditions such as trisomies 21, 18 and 13 than is available from conventional screens. NIPT can also provide information about the risk of a series of other chromosomal and genetic abnormalities that previously only could be learned using procedures such as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis.

That would place the expensive squarely on the mare owners, though, since every lost mare pregnancy is lost money. But the burden is already on mare owners as long as stallion owners are unwilling to do anything.

[Manni01]

@vineyridge

What is really needed is a fetal test that can be done when carriers are bred that will allow affected and carrier foals to be aborted before they are ever born. Aren’t there fetal genetic tests for humans?

There are.

That would place the expensive squarely on the mare owners, though, since every lost mare pregnancy is lost money. But the burden is already on mare owners as long as stallion owners are unwilling to do anything.

Question why would you want to do that??? I don’t think a lot of people are crazy about carrier carrier matings (well if they test otherwise they don’t care) so why additional costs for tests if they are in danger to loose the foal anyhow… If you just don’t do carrier carrier matings, then you don’t have to think about anything like this…

How is your pedigree search going?? I would recommend that you join the FB group aber WFFS awareness… There many carriers are listed and that should give you great information for your research!! I wish you well for it. I know you love it and it might even be useful

[Manni01]

@mvp

I stand by the truth of the population genetics stuff. It’s not rude of me to know that, nor to think that others who are involved should hold that knowledge, too. You can disagree with the science if you want… but explaining why politics, money or feelings ought to determine what we do instead doesn’t quite trump the science.

I think I am, de facto, having this conversation with Marydell insofar as she’s a participant in this thread and can read my comments like anyone else. I have no idea whether she understands or cares (or not) about the population-level implications of breeding.

The reason to talk about the population genetics piece is to help anyone in the breeding industry-- including individual mare owners who don’t usually consider these aspects of choosing a stallion-- to be armed with the information they need to make better decisions, or to pressure breed societies to help them insure that they can find a stallion with the genetics they need. No one should be kept in the dark about this stuff. But as this thread makes amply clear, some folks really don’t understand it; some don’t care; and some actively refute the science with politics or accusing folks like me of having bad manners.

And as you can see from a post below this one, I am sympathetic to the horse owner whose horse becomes one we wouldn’t breed for reasons beyond personal choice or even a phenotype we like. As I said, I own one of those-- a horse who is a cull for bureaucratic and genetic reasons! I’m in the same boat as Marydell or Manni’s broodmare owners.

It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that there are different bases for disagreeing. Not liking the political or economic consequences of science doesn’t offer a legitimate reason for deciding the science is wrong or irrelevant. Science you don’t like has to be met with better science, that’s all.

I don’t think anybody is doubting population genetics… So not sure why you mention this. What might be a bit rude is that you apply it without considering other aspects and insist that it is what it is. A white dough might become dark when you mix chocolate into it… So it doesn’t make sense to insist that it is a white dough… And even when I am not as perfectly trained as you are in that field I still heard all these arguments before because they are circulating around breeders. We might not be Scientists but we do a rough picture about it… And its one part of the decision amongst others… not more and not less…

[Manni01]

@keysfins

Quoting your post because it is so important for readers to understand this. And I would also quote your post in #366, #367 and #368. :yes:

I also would like to add that we need to leave judgement of a horse’s WFFS status out of things. Whether a horse tests clear or carrier is merely a piece of information. We should not say a piece of information is good or bad.

What a person chooses to do with that piece of information in breeding plans, for example, is where the information has an impact.

In an ideal world, I think we should not be using words like ‘fear’, ‘shame’, ‘worthless’, ‘secrecy’, ‘blame’ or other emotionally-loaded words about a breeder, horse owner, or a horse, in discussing this genetic issue.

Taking the WFFS issue as a genetic problem to solve is far more productive than stirring emotions, making value judgements, and using ‘emotionally loaded’ words, in my opinion.

That is not to say we cannot be happy that our horse tested clear, or that we cannot feel devastated if we have the misfortune of having a WFFS foal, or that we cannot offer sympathy and support for someone who has had that experience. We ARE human, so of course we will have emotions, and we each love our animals.

The key at this time, in my opinion, is to get breeding horses tested, and collect that information in a central way. Having that information available will help breeders make suitable choices for their animal.

It seems that mare owners are willing to test, maybe because the mare owner wants to have that information to make a decision on stallion choices. And maybe because it is the mare owner that could potentially see a WFFS-affected foal arrive, and wants to avoid that possibility.

If a stallion owner is reluctant to test or share the results, we need to find a way that makes it beneficial for the stallion owner to do so. We have praised those who tested and posted results here in NA, as being open and honest, and wanting the best outcome for breeders and the foals they produce.

And testing all foals will provide further information. Testing all three groups will help determine the prevalence in the population, which will show a bigger picture than an individual breeding.

All of this is, of course, only my opinion. Others have the right to have their own views.

But as MVP explains, it really does come down to basic rules of population genetics.

Great so obviously you changed your mind and you are not calling breeders multipliers anymore… Thats basically what I was saying all the time…

[SnicklefritzG]

You completely miss the point. I said your statement about “can you not understand” is rude and condescending. It’s what an adult says to a child. We’re both adults, act like one.

@mvp

I stand by the truth of the population genetics stuff. It’s not rude of me to know that, nor to think that others who are involved should hold that knowledge, too. You can disagree with the science if you want… but explaining why politics, money or feelings ought to determine what we do instead doesn’t quite trump the science.

I think I am, de facto, having this conversation with Marydell insofar as she’s a participant in this thread and can read my comments like anyone else. I have no idea whether she understands or cares (or not) about the population-level implications of breeding.

The reason to talk about the population genetics piece is to help anyone in the breeding industry-- including individual mare owners who don’t usually consider these aspects of choosing a stallion-- to be armed with the information they need to make better decisions, or to pressure breed societies to help them insure that they can find a stallion with the genetics they need. No one should be kept in the dark about this stuff. But as this thread makes amply clear, some folks really don’t understand it; some don’t care; and some actively refute the science with politics or accusing folks like me of having bad manners.

And as you can see from a post below this one, I am sympathetic to the horse owner whose horse becomes one we wouldn’t breed for reasons beyond personal choice or even a phenotype we like. As I said, I own one of those-- a horse who is a cull for bureaucratic and genetic reasons! I’m in the same boat as Marydell or Manni’s broodmare owners.

It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that there are different bases for disagreeing. Not liking the political or economic consequences of science doesn’t offer a legitimate reason for deciding the science is wrong or irrelevant. Science you don’t like has to be met with better science, that’s all.

[keysfins]

@Manni01

Great so obviously you changed your mind and you are not calling breeders multipliers anymore… Thats basically what I was saying all the time…

You are incorrect.

I have not changed my mind and I never called any breeders multipliers.

Your interpretation of what I have posted is what is wrong. I can’t do anything about that.

[Manni01]

@keysfins

You are incorrect.

I have not changed my mind and I never called any breeders multipliers.

Your interpretation of what I have posted is what is wrong.

so why did you quote somebody who is calling some breeders multipliers if you never intended to call breeders multipliers… I am confused

[keysfins]

@Manni01

so why did you quote somebody who is calling some breeders multipliers if you never intended to call breeders multipliers… I am confused

Yes, you are confused, even though I explained the quote and how it relates to breeding goals.

I can’t MAKE you understand something you don’t understand, sorry. And I will not continue to argue or explain.

You may have your views, and others have their own, which may not be the same as yours.

Time for me to live the rest of my life, I have things to do today. :yes:

[trubandloki]

@Manni01

I think I will leave this discussion…

I totally understand what this post means… clearly you did not when you posted it.

[Manni01]

@trubandloki

I totally understand what this post means… clearly you did not when you posted it.

Great contribution to this thread …