In this day and age of high technology, are registries keeping up?
What are the options for foals of cloned stallions? Gemini Twist?
Quarter horses? And others?
You might find some information here:
http://www.viagen.com/tag/equine-clone/
There is an article about sports horse registry.
I don’t think AQHA has allowed registration of cloned QH’s yet, I don’t even know if it was on the agenda for the 2011 convention.
From the AQHA rulebook:
- HORSES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION
(a) Horses produced by any cloning process are not eligible for
registration. Cloning is defined as any method by which the genetic
material of an unfertilized egg or an embryo is removed and replaced
by genetic material taken from another organism, added to/with
genetic material from another organism or otherwise modified by
any means in order to produce a live foal.
(b) Offspring resulting from an Appendix registered sire or
dam bred to another Appendix registered horse.
© Offspring resulting from an Appendix registered sire or
dam bred to a Thoroughbred sire or dam.
(d) The registration certificate of any horse having white
markings beyond the prescribed lines as listed in rule 205(d) shall be
subject to cancellation where the registration application fails to
indicate or misrepresents the horse’s actual markings and the horse
cannot be parentage verified as required by 202(i)(7) and 205(d).
(e) Effective with foals born on or after January 1, 2007, any
foal testing homozygous positive for HYPP (H/H) will not be eligible
for registration.
[QUOTE=MunchkinsMom;5592167]
You might find some information here:
http://www.viagen.com/tag/equine-clone/
There is an article about sports horse registry.
I don’t think AQHA has allowed registration of cloned QH’s yet, I don’t even know if it was on the agenda for the 2011 convention.[/QUOTE]
It was on the agenda, but if it passes I’ll be shocked. For the cloned offspring that compete in NBHA, NRHA, NCHA, or NRCHA - breed registration means nothing. That’s where the big money is and any breed is welcome.
[QUOTE=bugsynskeeter;5592258]
It was on the agenda, but if it passes I’ll be shocked. For the cloned offspring that compete in NBHA, NRHA, NCHA, or NRCHA - breed registration means nothing. That’s where the big money is and any breed is welcome.[/QUOTE]
I bet it eventually will pass. Someone will sue them and force them to allow the clones, just like they did when AQHA didn’t want to allow multiple ET offspring from a single mare in one year.
The Continental Studbook is working with Viagen, and are offering solutions for sport horses by cloned stallions.
Tim
Hypothetical question: I have a cloned stallion, from a stallion that I either own now (still living) or did own but is now deceased. What would prevent me from registering any offspring of the cloned stallion as from the original - I mean, DNA testing will point to the original stallion as the sire since the clone is a genetic duplicate, right?
And trust me, this is a hypothetical, I do not own any stallions, cloned or otherwise.
[QUOTE=MunchkinsMom;5592346]
Hypothetical question: I have a cloned stallion, from a stallion that I either own now (still living) or did own but is now deceased. What would prevent me from registering any offspring of the cloned stallion as from the original - I mean, DNA testing will point to the original stallion as the sire since the clone is a genetic duplicate, right?[/QUOTE]
Ethics?
Unless and until cloned stallions meet or exceed the performance records of the original, I will tend to regard them as inferior. Yeah, they may have the same genetics, but until they prove they can PERFORM the same as the original, to me they are NOT the same as the original.
It might be fun to consider this hypothetical scenario.
Let’s say the Vissers cloned Totilas before he was sold to Schockemoehle. Four little Totilas clones are born and registered with KPWN.
All the clones are approved for breeding at 3 years of age, and the Vissers start selling semen from these clones.
What does that do to the market value of semen from Totilas-prime? And when the resulting multitudes of “pseudo-Totilas” foals hit the ground, what does that do to the market value of the foals sired by Totilas-prime?
The financial ramifications are mind-boggling.
Even then, breeding is always a gamble anyway, no guarantee that the good performers will pass that on to their offspring.
Aside from that, I can see unethical people passing off the offspring of the clone as offspring of the original if the original has “star power” whereas buyers look for the offspring of a particular stud when shopping, and those horses sell for more money just because they were sired by “So And So”.
Somone better with math and market commodities trading experience than I am might be helpful here, just trying to sort that all out in my head made me a little dizzy.
[QUOTE=DownYonder;5592401]
Unless and until cloned stallions meet or exceed the performance records of the original, I will tend to regard them as inferior. Yeah, they may have the same genetics, but until they prove they can PERFORM the same as the original, to me they are NOT the same as the original.[/QUOTE]
You certainly know that the best performers aren’t automatically the best producers (clone or not clone)
So if the clone does not outperform the original, it doesn’t mean he will not produce the same quality offspring. IMHO.
[QUOTE=MunchkinsMom;5592346]
Hypothetical question: I have a cloned stallion, from a stallion that I either own now (still living) or did own but is now deceased. What would prevent me from registering any offspring of the cloned stallion as from the original - I mean, DNA testing will point to the original stallion as the sire since the clone is a genetic duplicate, right?[/QUOTE]
Indeed there is no way to distinguish the original’s offspring from the clone’s offspring, and yes, ethics will go against $$$, there is a big risk that $$$ will win…
I think that only geldings should be cloned in order to maintain their genes in the gene pool of the sport horse.
Again just my humble opinion.
The genetics of the clone are the same as the original. I don’t see any need for a clone to prove itself in the performance ring. It doesn’t prove anything. There are far too many factors that go into a great performance horse, factors that are nearly impossible to duplicate (I think impossible, but just leaving the door open ;)). If the clone isn’t as successful, what’s to say it’s not the life experiences, or some verrrry subtle lameness issue? What if he IS good, in and of himself, but he’s competing in an era where there’s someone or a few someones who are just that much better? Is he a failure then?
Would you breed from frozen from a top performance stallion from 20 years ago if you could?
I have no problem with stallions being cloned IF they died/were gelded before they had any or enough (however that’s defined) foals on the ground. Several very nice stallions died before proving themselves through their offspring, even if they themselves were proven performers.
[QUOTE=MunchkinsMom;5592346]
Hypothetical question: I have a cloned stallion, from a stallion that I either own now (still living) or did own but is now deceased. What would prevent me from registering any offspring of the cloned stallion as from the original - I mean, DNA testing will point to the original stallion as the sire since the clone is a genetic duplicate, right?
And trust me, this is a hypothetical, I do not own any stallions, cloned or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
This is more than a hypothetical. Mutterings in Arab world suggest that at least one National Champ halter stallion has been cloned since the original horse had fertility problems. The clone is still alive. Rumors were that owners were hoping to get the AHA to approve cloned offspring so that they could use the clone in lieu of the original. AHA didn’t go along with the plan. Lots of problems ensued.
You certainly know that the best performers aren’t automatically the best producers (clone or not clone)
So if the clone does not outperform the original, it doesn’t mean he will not produce the same quality offspring. IMHO.
The genetics of the clone are the same as the original. I don’t see any need for a clone to prove itself in the performance ring. It doesn’t prove anything.
WB registries do not license stallions based on genetics alone, but also on performance. If the stallion doesn’t meet certain required performance standards, he does not get approved (or if temporarily licensed, he doesn’t KEEP his approval). IMHO, cloned stallions should have to meet the exact same standards as the original – i.e., pass a conformation/movement evaluation AND meet the performance requirements. To do otherwise would turn the whole registration methodology of the WB associations on its ear.
And I would be hugely surprised if the big stallion stations went along with it. They wield a certain amount of influence with the registries, and I don’t think the Hanoverian Verband, for instance, would be too inclined to license Rotspon clones when they know the original version standing at Celle is bringing in a lot of money for the registry.
But why? The performance of the original stallion was proven. That means the performance genetics of that stallion was proven. Why does the clone have to re-prove that?
And I would be hugely surprised if the big stallion stations went along with it. They wield a certain amount of influence with the registries, and I don’t think the Hanoverian Verband, for instance, would be too inclined to license Rotspon clones when they know the original version standing at Celle is bringing in a lot of money for the registry.
That’s a political and financial reason, not a genetics/performance reason
The performance of the original stallion was proven. That means the performance genetics of that stallion was proven. Why does the clone have to re-prove that?
To keep the owners of the original stallion happy. :lol:
That’s a political and financial reason, not a genetics/performance reason
Yes, but the question was if the registries were going to approve them. Owners of the original stallions have a lot of money invested in them. I just can’t see them being too thrilled with the registries suddenly throwing open the door to clones who will compete with their stallions for breedings. And like it or not, the big stallion owners in Europe wield a lot of influence with the registries.
To put it in personal terms:
Let’s say you buy a promising young jumper colt named “Apollo”. You put a LOT of money into raising him, training him, getting him licensed, competing him, etc. Some years down the road, he has become one of the world’s very best show jumpers, competing and winning at the top shows and in top company. He becomes very in demand with breeders, and you are thrilled to be recouping some of the $$$$$$ you have poured into him over the years.
Then you learn that his breeder cloned him before selling him to you, and all the major registries are approving the clone based on the genetics and success of the original. Now that YOU have spent a small fortune getting the original to the top, are you really going to be okay with his breeder (or others) capitalizing on your success by standing his clone? 
What may be interesting in requiring perfomance by the clones is to really show what is genetics…and what is environment (i.e. training and riding).
Some clones will obviously be in a similar training program as the original…but it will not be exactly the same.
I think it may say a lot as to what is genetic with the clone (and will possibly be passed on) if they show the same/similar performance levels as the original. I wouldn’t expect them to be risked as much…but I do see the value in requiring the clone to show performance levels as that may indicate that the original was good/great in large part because of their genetics (shared by the clone) and not just because it was well trained and well ridden.
But you can’t train great performance if the genetics aren’t there, and it’s easy to stifle or ruin great performance with the wrong training.
