WFFS

[vineyridge]

Not really random. It’s human nature to cling to practices and beliefs that seem to have been beneficial in the past.

[Laurierace]

Except it has been proven to be both effective and beneficial but whatever.

[Elles]

@Jackie Cochran

I am so glad your stallion tested clear Elles.

I still think of him as a living flame. I hope he is doing well and I hope you are doing well too.

Thank you Jackie, I am fine and so is my boy. I made some bad choices regarding training stables unfortunately (with hindsight) but it looks like he is at the right place now. This is a two year old son: https://www.instagram.com/p/ByvfuUAo41R/

[JB]

@Elles he is LOVELY! :yes:

[Elles]

Thank you JB :encouragement:.

[beowulf]

@Elles

I had my Thoroughbred stallion tested and he is not a WFFS carrier, despite the fact that he has Bay Ronald 103 times in his pedigree.

And might that be because Bay Ronald is possibly not the source of all evil and also WFFS? :lol:

Your stallion’s son looks lovely! I always enjoy seeing the Spirit Lake updates.

[vineyridge]

Bay Ronald is the only horse in all the pedigrees? I’ll bet every pedigree is sprinkled with “unknown” if we look far enough back.

[Edre]

At this point I feel like if there were any current WFFS horses without Bay Ronald in the pedigree it would hbe been found by now. I’m sure people who disagreed with the release have been pouring over pedigrees to find something to discredit the statement but to my knowledge there has yet to be any horse found to be a carrier without him.

It’s also worth reiterating that the people who tagged Bay Ronald didn’t state WFFS began with him. He was an entry point for the gene into warmblood breeding. The origin of the mutation, as far as I know, is still being speculated as being older than that and possibly from Arabians.

Bay Ronald being prevalent in pedigrees is neither here nor there. It’s not as if your horse has a 50% chance of WFFS if they can be traced back to this distant ancestor. Statistically it is extremely improbable that all of his offspring were carriers. And of the carrier offspring not all of their offspring would have been carriers. It’s not hard to imagine that with the trendy nature of breeding that most breedinf offspring (of any stallion) have extremely little impact on a breed. (And on the flip side, there’s those two or three TB sires I always see cited as being almost inescapable in pedigrees.)

[beowulf]

@Edre

At this point I feel like if there were any current WFFS horses without Bay Ronald in the pedigree it would hbe been found by now. I’m sure people who disagreed with the release have been pouring over pedigrees to find something to discredit the statement but to my knowledge there has yet to be any horse found to be a carrier without him.

It’s also worth reiterating that the people who tagged Bay Ronald didn’t state WFFS began with him. He was an entry point for the gene into warmblood breeding. The origin of the mutation, as far as I know, is still being speculated as being older than that and possibly from Arabians.

Bay Ronald being prevalent in pedigrees is neither here nor there. It’s not as if your horse has a 50% chance of WFFS if they can be traced back to this distant ancestor. Statistically it is extremely improbable that all of his offspring were carriers. And of the carrier offspring not all of their offspring would have been carriers. It’s not hard to imagine that with the trendy nature of breeding that most breedinf offspring (of any stallion) have extremely little impact on a breed. (And on the flip side, there’s those two or three TB sires I always see cited as being almost inescapable in pedigrees.)

Don’t the people that announced these findings have an axe to grind…?

Aren’t they hawking a specific product?

Is it possible it is in their interests to find blame outside of their registry?

Where is the data?

Normally when there is an exhaustive study done, the data is at least published somewhere. Where it can be peer reviewed, and read by other parties. To my knowledge this report has not been released anywhere except within specific registries.

Kind of hard to prove people wrong when you don’t have the data in front of you.

And how do you account for all of the “Unknown” that pop up recently (some even more recently than Bay Ronald) in these horses with WFFS?

Given there is not a complete picture of most WB pedigrees, you can understand the skepticism.

Here is the article… No source linked:
http://www.eurodressage.com/2019/03/…-bay-ronald-xx

Again, these reports don’t explain why WFFS does not seem to be consistently found in TBs… Herod was a pretty big line for TBs… Bay Ronald is in lots of TBs today, part in thanks to Teddy and Bull Lea…

Then you have the person that is responsible for pioneering research into the origin, point out that Westfalian’s statement (that it came from DB/Furioso) is misguided…

@Nena Wenand

“Dark Ronald and/or Son of Law may have been carriers, but were not the source of the trait,” Wenand told Eurodressage. "Historic documentation shows that carriers were bred in the early 1800s.

[…]

You may want to qualify that the evidence that the trait derived from Arabians comes from historic breeding records from the 1800’s," Nena stated. "While we can’t ironclad guarantee that they are correct, the description of the affected foals and abortions/stillbirths is precise and the particular bloodline was certainly used in the various registries. There is a large-scale survey being done on Eastern European Arabians now which will tell us more.

To me, it seems like the registry played hot-potato with the blame and while the subject was still hot, tried to find a scapegoat outside their registry. Of course, your opinion might vary. Take the time to look back through the pedigrees of stallions known as carriers and you’ll see there is much shared ancestry, so how do they know it’s only Bay Ronald?

[Edre]

I can appreciate skepticism. I think it helps challenge and refine information and questions that drive a more complete understanding of any given issue.

All it would take to disprove the statement “Bay Ronald was the likely point of entry for the mutation into warmblood breeding” is one warmblood carrier without Bay Ronald. So far, I have not been able to find one on my own, and to the best of my knowledge no one else has come forward with one either.

Considering the origins of statements (and what they stand to gain or lose with whatever story) is again all very fair but on the flip side: the credibility registries stand to lose if they made a casual statement to flag a stallion without thorough pedigree research is enormous (and I don’t know what you mean by making research available for this - from my understanding they simply poured over pedigrees to find commonalities between horses found to be carriers? The data isn’t secret and the pedigrees are a matter of public record as well. I know that I probably wasn’t alone when this first came out in going over carrier pedigrees to see if a commonality could be found - but with the backing of a team, registries obviously could do so more thoroughly than individuals).

at the end of the day, if Bay Ronald was the point of entry for the gene in warmbloods that’s not an indictment on him or lessen the legitimacy of the line’s importance in (TB or WB breeding). That would be like attempting to criticize Donnerhall. He’s hugely impactful and his legacy as a sire is among the most significant in modern breeding. The fact that he was likely a carrier of WFFS does nothing to change that.

(And I believe earlier in this thread I linked to news releases that came from those doing the research themselves - it may have been the German branch of Westfalen that released a statement on it? If you wanted a more direct source for these claims rather than eurodressage… I’m pretty sure it was this tread but I’m stuck on mobile and lacking the dexterity to reallt look.)

[beowulf]

@Edre

I can appreciate skepticism. I think it helps challenge and refine information and questions that drive a more complete understanding of any given issue.

All it would take to disprove the statement “Bay Ronald was the likely point of entry for the mutation into warmblood breeding” is one warmblood carrier without Bay Ronald. So far, I have not been able to find one on my own, and to the best of my knowledge no one else has come forward with one either.

Considering the origins of statements (and what they stand to gain or lose with whatever story) is again all very fair but on the flip side: the credibility registries stand to lose if they made a casual statement to flag a stallion without thorough pedigree research is enormous (and I don’t know what you mean by making research available for this - from my understanding they simply poured over pedigrees to find commonalities between horses found to be carriers? The data isn’t secret and the pedigrees are a matter of public record as well. I know that I probably wasn’t alone when this first came out in going over carrier pedigrees to see if a commonality could be found - but with the backing of a team, registries obviously could do so more thoroughly than individuals).

at the end of the day, if Bay Ronald was the point of entry for the gene in warmbloods that’s not an indictment on him or lessen the legitimacy of the line’s importance in (TB or WB breeding). That would be like attempting to criticize Donnerhall. He’s hugely impactful and his legacy as a sire is among the most significant in modern breeding. The fact that he was likely a carrier of WFFS does nothing to change that.

(And I believe earlier in this thread I linked to news releases that came from those doing the research themselves - it may have been the German branch of Westfalen that released a statement on it? If you wanted a more direct source for these claims rather than eurodressage… I’m pretty sure it was this tread but I’m stuck on mobile and lacking the dexterity to reallt look.)

Do you think Bay Ronald is the only ancestor in common across all these WFFS carriers?

Given what we know about pedigrees and ancestries, that’s where I am skeptical. I don’t think it’s only from one horse.

I still strongly think there was an attempt here to pass the blame while the blame was still hot. I think some registries jumped their guns.

Proving that wrong is an enormous task – but it keeps being thrown around as if it were simple to do. It’s not. The amount of time it takes for a lay-person to dissect one pedigree of one WFFS carrier is enormous - this is something that requires the undertaking of multiple people, with software designed for pedigree and/or ancestry tracking.

Not something you can easily do on Excel.

[Markit]

Here’s something to think of.
My hunch is that the one source for the gene is TB stallion Sterling. To the gelderland population the gene came through Koss<El Rosso<Amor<Herrscher<Heristal<<Red Prince II<<<Sterling. Obviously Sterling’s best son Isonomy must have avoided the WFFS gene variant, otherwise the gene would be much more prevalent in the TB population, as well as Gainsborough (Bay Ronald grandson). One source is Foudroyant II TB (Son-In-Law grandson), I think (A.palatin>Grandioso & Condor). I also believe that Donnerhall was a carrier as many of his offspring are carriers. Whether the gene came to him through Manolete TB or Condor I don’t know. Both ways are possible. Also I think that Abendfrieden TB, Perser TB and Sinus TB were carriers…
When you wonder why the gene isn’t more prevalent in the horse populations I remind that the likelihood of having the affected gene after ten generations is about one (1) promille (1/1 000). So having the gene after that long time is seriously bad luck! And when you wonder that the WFFS gene should be more prevalent in the German TB population, I remind that TB mares have more infertility problems - aborted pregnancies. Likely due to this gene. Most of the affected foals are aborted early on and everybody have shrugged it off as normal.

[beowulf]

@Markit

Here’s something to think of.
My hunch is that the one source for the gene is TB stallion Sterling. To the gelderland population the gene came through Koss<El Rosso<Amor<Herrscher<Heristal<<Red Prince II<<<Sterling. Obviously Sterling’s best son Isonomy must have avoided the WFFS gene variant, otherwise the gene would be much more prevalent in the TB population, as well as Gainsborough (Bay Ronald grandson). One source is Foudroyant II TB (Son-In-Law grandson), I think (A.palatin>Grandioso & Condor). I also believe that Donnerhall was a carrier as many of his offspring are carriers. Whether the gene came to him through Manolete TB or Condor I don’t know. Both ways are possible. Also I think that Abendfrieden TB, Perser TB and Sinus TB were carriers…
When you wonder why the gene isn’t more prevalent in the horse populations I remind that the likelihood of having the affected gene after ten generations is about one (1) promille (1/1 000). So having the gene after that long time is seriously bad luck! And when you wonder that the WFFS gene should be more prevalent in the German TB population, I remind that TB mares have more infertility problems - aborted pregnancies. Likely due to this gene. Most of the affected foals are aborted early on and everybody have shrugged it off as normal.

Bold mine. Say what? TB mares have more infertility problems then… what other breed population?

When are people (g) going to stop trying to point fingers at a specific individual that existed ~200 years ago and realize this is a modern problem in modern horses and needs to be addressed with the current reproductive individuals vs horses that have been dead 200 years?

With the amount of ancestor inbreeding in TBs, I just don’t buy that WFFS came from a TB but somehow TBs as a whole managed to dodge the bullet. You cannot find a TB without Sterling or Gainsborough. You are talking about stallions that are ubiquitous in the breed and often, linebred more than once. Sterling is not a rare line in TBs. Isonomy isn’t rare either. Blandford comes to mind, and he’s going to show up in most modern pedigrees at least twice.

[LaurieB]

@beowulf

Bold mine. Say what? TB mares have more infertility problems then… what other breed population?

When are people (g) going to stop trying to point fingers at a specific individual that existed ~200 years ago and realize this is a modern problem in modern horses and needs to be addressed with the current reproductive individuals vs horses that have been dead 200 years?

With the amount of ancestor inbreeding in TBs, I just don’t buy that WFFS came from a TB but somehow TBs as a whole managed to dodge the bullet. You cannot find a TB without Sterling or Gainsborough. You are talking about stallions that are ubiquitous in the breed and often, linebred more than once. Sterling is not a rare line in TBs. Isonomy isn’t rare either. Blandford comes to mind, and he’s going to show up in most modern pedigrees at least twice.

Just to add to what @beowulf said, not only is infertility not a problem in TBs, most TB mares reproduce like rabbits. TB mares that are worth breeding (meaning they are producing superior runners) will usually have 12-15 foals in their lifetimes. A mare with reproductive problems is a rarity, not the norm.

[skydy]

@LaurieB

Just to add to what @beowulf said, not only is infertility not a problem in TBs, most TB mares reproduce like rabbits. TB mares that are worth breeding (meaning they are producing superior runners) will usually have 12-15 foals in their lifetimes. A mare with reproductive problems is a rarity, not the norm.

I think it is odd as well, that people think TBs have a poor fertility/production rate. The advent of new technologies has really kept live cover going strong success-wise, allowing mares to be covered once with success, instead of needing repeat covers.

Just from reading the COTH breeding forum ( I have never worked with A.I.) I have the impression that there are many more conception issues with A.I. and especially with frozen semen.

I have some misgivings about the extent of human intervention in breeding and its effect on the breeding soundness of future generations, but that’s a different topic.

[beowulf]

So remember when I said it was very unlikely it’s Bay Ronald and that it seemed like certain registries were just looking for a scapegoat … well —

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32323341/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/age.12972?campaign=wolearlyview&fbclid=IwAR3QuxMqnszIPVi5GvGp0zFi5B2iTp4gaROBON3SnS-IcngSkaOTyx_37wA

Suspected 1861 Hanoverian stallion … anyone want to take any guesses…? Flick?

[SusanO]

I saw that too and I too did not think it was Bay Ronald. He is too common in Thoroughbred pedigrees and I am not convinced there is some huge conspiracy concealing the presence of this genetic defect in Thoroughbreds. If this was happening the breeders would be all over it due to the money involved in the racing industry. And I always thought it was Hanoverian because it did not seem to be as prevalent in the Dutch horses nor the Holsteiners. I think it is some obscure stallion ( or mare) because after 150 years or so it is not more prevalent than it is now. Of course with Donnerhall and other popular modern stallions being carriers I am sure it increased in the warmblood populations.

I had read that a suspect was Alderman through Adeptus xx .Although Adeptus xx lived from 1884-1904 .If it was a thoroughbred it probably was an obscure one that did not figure into modern US pedigrees and Adeptus was bred at Herrenhausan ( wherever that is) and probably is not in modern TB pedigrees. Since we do not have DNA from the horses we may never know. I doubt it was Flick. He is in too many modern pedigrees for the defect to be the 10% of the population that they think.

[SusanO]

From the “Warmblood Guidebook” - " In the latter half of the 19th century, four stallions stamped the breed: Zernebog and Jellachich, and Norfolk and Flick. Up to 1914, two thirds of the Hannoverians traced to Flick or the Thoroughbred Adeptus xx. Many Hannoverians were inbred to these foundation horses, although later infusions of outside blood have replaced their influence." So if it was Flick why would there not be a greater percentage of carriers and why did it not run rampant in years past. Flick lived from 1865 to 1887 so he was not an 1861 stallion. I think it was a more obscure horse than a “foundation sire”. Maybe a mare that lurked in a widely used stallion’s pedigree. And not necessarily a dressage sire since it is in jumper pedigrees too. However in the past a stallion had to jump besides being a dressage stallion. Not so many specialists. Interesting!

[beowulf]

@SusanO

From the “Warmblood Guidebook” - " In the latter half of the 19th century, four stallions stamped the breed: Zernebog and Jellachich, and Norfolk and Flick. Up to 1914, two thirds of the Hannoverians traced to Flick or the Thoroughbred Adeptus xx. Many Hannoverians were inbred to these foundation horses, although later infusions of outside blood have replaced their influence." So if it was Flick why would there not be a greater percentage of carriers and why did it not run rampant in years past. Flick lived from 1865 to 1887 so he was not an 1861 stallion. I think it was a more obscure horse than a “foundation sire”. Maybe a mare that lurked in a widely used stallion’s pedigree. And not necessarily a dressage sire since it is in jumper pedigrees too. However in the past a stallion had to jump besides being a dressage stallion. Not so many specialists. Interesting!

What’s more interesting is the comment in the first study, that links WFFS with positive EBV + movement… Was it @JB that mentioned, we don’t know if being a carrier had any negative impacts…?

Furthermore, WFFST1 variant was found to be correlated with EBVs for gait-related traits as well as conformation and dressage.

:eek:

Here’s a study about WFFS in TBs. The sample is relatively small, but states 1.2% - 17 of 716 horses tested as carriers. And there were people claiming the TB industry was covering up WFFS… :rolleyes:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31502696/

[TKR]

Are Arabians being tested and the breeders even aware of this? I know they have other issues for which they are tested. What is going on with Trakehner testing? Is it now required or are they getting on board. I know that many didn’t think they were affected. Is there information for this breed of tested stallions/mares or just in the general WFFS site?