Here’s where it shows all of the common ancestors of Secretariat: http://sporthorse-data.com/d?i=608779&blood=10"a=
So when it is it no longer line breeding or inbreeding? There’s a lot of common ancestors in his pedigree.
side note: 18 foals from Somethingroyal?? :eek:
For some odd reason, Northern Dancer has been an exception to paulmc’s statement about not wanting only sires when inbreeding. He’s actually better when coming only through his sons.
And Somethingroyal couldn’t race her way out of a paper bag. Both she and her dam were exemplary broodmares, but her sons seemed to have been better lines than her daughters, unlike (say) Pretty Polly or Agnes.
[QUOTE=back in the saddle;7163371]
Here’s where it shows all of the common ancestors of Secretariat: http://sporthorse-data.com/d?i=608779&blood=10"a=
So when it is it no longer line breeding or inbreeding? There’s a lot of common ancestors in his pedigree.
side note: 18 foals from Somethingroyal?? :eek:[/QUOTE]
I guess we need a geneticist to weigh in here, but to me, when you have the line breeding that far back, it probably doesn’t mean much, in terms of actual production of characteristics.
Note that he doesn’t really have any common ancestors till G:4…most are even farther back.
When you start going that far back in TBs, ALOT of the horses are going to have ALOT of common relatives because there simply weren’t that many TBs and they were all in the same country.
I read somewhere that 90% of ALL TBs have Eclipse in their pedigree (and I may have that name wrong…maybe it’s Herod…I’m sure Vineyridge will correct me on this…:))…so imagine what todays horse looks like in terms of “linebreeding” to Eclipse if you traced the pedigree that far back.
In fact, TBs are all related — IF you go back to the beginning. There were only a handful of foundation stallions used, after all.
But are those genes still “active” after 200-300 years? To look at the modern TB vs those original types, I would have to say “no.”
So I don’t pay alot of attention to anything farther back than G:5 or 6…except as a point of interest.
BITs: as a PS, perhaps TBs are not the best breed to illustrate this, because they closed the studbook fairly early on (late 1700’s or early 1800’s). Maybe Viney knows exactly how many horses were in that stud book at that time? After that “linebreeding” was almost a foregone conclusion.
I think one of the reasons you don’t see it as much in WBs, in because they have always maintained an open or semi-open studbook, so new stock was constantly brought in. Since PERFORMANCE was the goal, all sorts of horses could fit the bill.
In fact, way, WAY back a Turkoman horse (Akhal Teke) stood at one of the major studs…I think it was Trakehner…and later this same stud went to Ireland where he stood for one of the highest stud fees of the age. But that “age” was something like 1785 or VERY early 1800’s.
The Teke people brag on this alot, but the fact is I doubt that stallion is much influence these days, since many of the stock that stood at that station died during the conflict during WWII…
[QUOTE=paulamc;7163131]
the most powerful configuration you can have in a pedigree is full brother and sister - almost all the top stallions have this and this is why sandro hit and donnerhall are so good together. the sire Lukas in sandro hits dam line is a full brother to Landtanne in Donnerhall - 5 x 5 [/QUOTE]
I went to look at one such pedigree and you’re saying it can be pretty far back in the pedigree. (I don’t know why this database isn’t giving credit to the common ancestry)
http://sporthorse-data.com/d?i=10453923
Lukas is 6th gen
Landtanne is 6th gen
So the common stallion is Lugano I 7 x 7
That far back matters? He comes through the mare line of Sandro Hit and the dam sire line of SD’s dam.
Re: TBs
IIRC, it’s now 95% with Eclipse tail male. There was a Y Chromosome mutation between Eclipse and his grandson Waxy or Whalebone, and the vast majority of modern TBs come from that Eclipse branch. The King Fergus branch is now almost extinct.
It’s been said that there is actually more Herod than any other of the foundation sires when all the pedigree is considered. IIRC, it’s in the neighborhood of 17%.
I’ve just read that most of the TB genes come from 27 different stallions way back in the beginning–about 75%, IIRC. There are, IIRC, counting all the non-GSB branches, fewer than 200 mares in the foundation of the breed that are still found in pedigrees. There were many mare lines that have gone extinct, just as there are many extinct sire lines. But the founders can still be found in many modern pedigrees.
One of my favorite early non-GSB mares is a Spanish mare named Croucher who was imported to the US in the 1700s from the Caribbean (I think?) and is found in more than a few of the lines that have survived. I have a vague theory that she may be one source of the “speed” allele that is taking over the modern breed. She’s in Nearco, Lady Josephine, Tourbillon, Orby, and Hastings–and many others as well–but she is extinct tail female. She is also in Steel Dust, a founder sire of the QH.
Of course, the closer the ancestor the more likely it is to have influence. BUT, and I was just thinking about this, there is a known grandparent effect, where grandparent genes in the junk DNA are expressed instead of the parents’ ones. There is still so much we don’t really know about the process of inheritance that I would never completely discount ANY ancestor. especially not one whose influence could be reinforced by inbreeding/linebreeding.
The reasoning behind sex balanced breeding is that it allows for the possibility of homogyzous gene expression in the offspring, which is not possible unless the same gene comes from both the sire and dam.
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;7163426]
I guess we need a geneticist to weigh in here, but to me, when you have the line breeding that far back, it probably doesn’t mean much, in terms of actual production of characteristics.
Note that he doesn’t really have any common ancestors till G:4…most are even farther back.
When you start going that far back in TBs, ALOT of the horses are going to have ALOT of common relatives because there simply weren’t that many TBs and they were all in the same country.
I read somewhere that 90% of ALL TBs have Eclipse in their pedigree (and I may have that name wrong…maybe it’s Herod…I’m sure Vineyridge will correct me on this…:))…so imagine what todays horse looks like in terms of “linebreeding” to Eclipse if you traced the pedigree that far back.
In fact, TBs are all related — IF you go back to the beginning. There were only a handful of foundation stallions used, after all.
But are those genes still “active” after 200-300 years? To look at the modern TB vs those original types, I would have to say “no.”
So I don’t pay alot of attention to anything farther back than G:5 or 6…except as a point of interest.
BITs: as a PS, perhaps TBs are not the best breed to illustrate this, because they closed the studbook fairly early on (late 1700’s or early 1800’s). Maybe Viney knows exactly how many horses were in that stud book at that time? After that “linebreeding” was almost a foregone conclusion.
I think one of the reasons you don’t see it as much in WBs, in because they have always maintained an open or semi-open studbook, so new stock was constantly brought in. Since PERFORMANCE was the goal, all sorts of horses could fit the bill.
In fact, way, WAY back a Turkoman horse (Akhal Teke) stood at one of the major studs…I think it was Trakehner…and later this same stud went to Ireland where he stood for one of the highest stud fees of the age. But that “age” was something like 1785 or VERY early 1800’s.
The Teke people brag on this alot, but the fact is I doubt that stallion is much influence these days, since many of the stock that stood at that station died during the conflict during WWII…[/QUOTE]
just want to chime in that tbs were intentionally line-bred, not because there “weren’t a lot to cross” with, but because it was proven that they produced exceptional horses this way.
p.s on the topic of tekes, are you by any chance talking about EL? his lines are still around, producing fabulous and extremely talented jumpers. i believe they were carried through the dam line most notably.
http://www.sport-horse-breeder.com/stamina-lines.htm
Don’t know how scientifically valid but an interesting examination of proposed effects of repeats in pedigrees 4th generation and further back.
(I think I misread the Dutch because of the willingness to add in from other stud books)
this is a huge topic and i am no expert but its the tesio pedigree system i am talking about - spelt out in www.sport-horse-breeder.com
yes northern dancer has been better through his sons for sure but there is a reason for this and as i am doing this for sporthorses, not TBs per se, then i dont have the reason at hand
from what i remember about Secretariat, he is far more like his dam sire Discovery that Bold Ruler becasue discovery was more “inbred” than Bold Ruler
linebreeding should be built up in the engine room - 4th to 6th generation. the belief that once you are past the third generation the ancestors have no effect is just not true
if you have the same horse built up in multiples and i mean multiples in the 8th generation, it is going to come through as if it sits in the 4th generation - provided it has a conduit in the engine room
all the top stallions are inbred to superior females. and have multiple sex balanced line breeding - this is what makes them powerful producers
Danehill for instance - has a son and daughter of the mare Natalma within 5 generations
De niro has a son and daughter of the mare Waldrun, capitol 1 is inbred to the mare Vase, weltmeyer the same
i am not the expert here - kathleen kirsan who wrote the sporthorsebreeder website is - i am just a student of the tesio principles and i have been doing this for 2 years only
People always freak out when inbreeding and line breeding is spoken about without realising how many of the top stallions are like this. Look at Inshcallah - 1 x 2 - very close, so is Matcho, Ferdinand, Lauries Crusador is extremely tightly bred
Ramiro and Landgraf are outcrosses that work because both sides of the pedigree are inbred and carry their own dominances
again i am not the expert - refer to the website
Paulamc
just had a quick look at Secretariat, he is not a total outcross although the duplications do not start until the 5th generation and beyond. He has multiple lines of Galopin and 21 lines of Isonomy sex balanced which taps into Discoverys pedigree strengths - close up he has two Isonomy sons - through 3 daughters
Secretariat does not have the full siblings close up that discovery has which is why Discovery shines through in his phenotype
paulamc
[QUOTE=beowulf;7164289]
p.s on the topic of tekes, are you by any chance talking about EL? his lines are still around, producing fabulous and extremely talented jumpers. i believe they were carried through the dam line most notably.[/QUOTE]
No, El wasn’t even around then. I have to check my notes, but I think the horse’s name was something like Turkoman Atti. This was back even before Russia annexed Turkmenistan (which was in 1850 IIRC), so no one was keeping any kind of records (in Turkmenistan) or even a stud book.
I don’t think the Turkoman stallion had a known pedigree (most of the foundation stallions of the TB breed did not), was just considered a “turkoman” horse acquired somewhere in the East.
[QUOTE=paulamc;7164888]
just had a quick look at Secretariat, he is not a total outcross although the duplications do not start until the 5th generation and beyond. He has multiple lines of Galopin and 21 lines of Isonomy sex balanced which taps into Discoverys pedigree strengths - close up he has two Isonomy sons - through 3 daughters
Secretariat does not have the full siblings close up that discovery has which is why Discovery shines through in his phenotype
paulamc[/QUOTE]
I’m assuming AllBreed Pedigree will highlight the similar relatives, so from what I can tell, Secretariat has zero linebreeding till G7 or G8…which puts those horses back in the the 1890’s; even then it’s pretty light.
So do you really think those genetics are at play 120 years later, when he has dozens and dozens of other non-related horses that come afterwards? Personally, I doubt it.
Re Tesio. He was no doubt a brilliant breeder…and a lucky one as well. I’ve skimmed some of his writings, and others adhere to his principals as if they were magic. But not many people have duplicated his success, so I feel there might be more at play here.
But we are still learning so much about genetics.
I just watched a special on human genetics and get this: they have discovered that certain actions taken by the GRANDPARENTS (like being deprived of food during critical developmental stages) can effect the GRANDCHILDREN. Example: grandchildren of men who were deprived of food from (about) ages 8-15 have a far, FAR higher likelihood of developing diabetes!
Is that weird or what?
Yep, epigenetics - there is talk about it in the thread about Gem Twist as well.
Personally, I agree and absolutely think that horse ancestry will come into play - despite what you may or may not believe, the ancestry will always be there (even if the paper is not). In the case of linebreeding, doubly so. A horse is always going to be an offspring of something, a compilation of certain genes, which is a result of its ancestry. A classic example of ancestry that still affects people today is ‘Adam’. That expression is a lot older than 120 years…
Bold Ruler is a grandson of Discovery, and so is Native Dancer and so is Intentionally and so are Hasty Road and Traffic Judge. All have been extremely influential in TBs.
[QUOTE=beowulf;7165077]
Personally, I agree and absolutely think that horse ancestry will come into play - despite what you may or may not believe, the ancestry will always be there (even if the paper is not). In the case of linebreeding, doubly so. A horse is always going to be an offspring of something, a compilation of certain genes, which is a result of its ancestry. A classic example of ancestry that still affects people today is ‘Adam’. That expression is a lot older than 120 years…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam[/QUOTE]
And how does it affect people today? Other than being related to someone who lived over 100,000 years ago? Where are the traits that come from “Adam”?
See, it’s not the fact that the individual is in the pedigree, it’s if the end result is influenced by that individual. And, while we are all carrying around our genetic package, without linebreeding, one is not likely to be influenced by our great=great-grandparents (4th generation). It’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely.
I do not possess the same knowledge you do about breeding, but if we are not likely to be affected by things that far back, why are tail females/males, broodmare sires, linebreeding, and all of those tactics used? Why even study epigenetics at all? After all epigenetic studies span not over just one or two generations but many – there are reasons traits expressed in grandparents and great-grandparents resurface in recent offspring, and it is because the genetic strand is still influenced by them. “Stamped” is a word that comes to mind.
The trait that came from “Adam” was a chromosome mutation, which was passed from “Adam” to us.
[QUOTE=beowulf;7165084]
I do not possess the same knowledge you do about breeding, but if we are not likely to be affected by things that far back, why are tail females/males, broodmare sires, linebreeding, and all of those tactics used? Why even study epigenetics at all?[/QUOTE]
Epigenetics is a brand new discipline and we have yet to find out how & why it affects humans, much less animals.
But for your first question, some people DO believe that, let’s say (as an example) that having Secretariat in the 3rd generation is going to produce something. I personally do not.
But if you concentrate on those genetics doubled up or tripled up or whatever, you, you hope they have more of an influence. Again, I pay very close attention to whatever is in those first 4 or 5 generations.
After that, I personally do not think you are going to see much influence, even from multiple linebreeding. I bought several Arab horses from a breeder who linebreeds like crazy to one particular stallion from the '40’s. Several of the horses had many, MANY crosses to this horse.
Other than the fact they were chestnut, none of these horses looked, moved or otherwise presented a homozygous phenotype, nor were they alike in temperament.
So (to me), all those crosses to that particular stallion did not bear fruit.
However, others do think differently. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Breeding is as much “art” and intuition as it is “science.” Not to mention the fabled “Breeder’s Luck.” THAT I believe in.
again this is a huge topic. for me I was looking for something, other than just picking stallions I liked and putting them over mares, which is basically what I was doing and what most breeders do
I followed tom reids articles for a while as they at least give you something to go on but he is big on culling mares that produce foals in the bottom 15% two years in a row
I had one mare who first up bred the best foal I had ever bred, but then had two very ordinary foals. following toms view that mare needed to be culled, but I looked at it like it was my fault for choosing the wrong stallions
then I found the tesio stuff and it was like a light went on for me
tesio did not share his views and it is only the pedigree experts that have worked out what he was doing
I then looked at an 8 generation pedigree of all the good foals I have bred and they were all bred accidentally along these tesio lines
all the average ones were almost total outcrosses
so for me it works - I have scientific proof of why it worked too
you can bring in all these other theories and ways of looking at things but I don’t need any thing else to convince me .
I can now see why all the great stallions are what they are and all the ones that fail - why this is so
I can also see which ones will fail and which ones will go on to be great. and this is enough for me
what else is there - breeding type to type doesn’t work, using stallions only from elite dam lines has not worked for me, nor has using mares that have produced FEi horses
its all about the individual mating
most breeders I have discussed all this with don’t want to know, maybe its too much work for them, maybe they have o ther ideas they want to stick to and that is fine, everyone has to work things out their own way
I simply cannot believe that more people don’t subscribe to this theory as the proof is there if you bother to look for it
Paulamc
[QUOTE=paulamc;7165098]
I simply cannot believe that more people don’t subscribe to this theory as the proof is there if you bother to look for it
Paulamc[/QUOTE]
Paula – There are TONS of breeders who have faithfully followed Tesio’s methods over the years. Very few of them have produced the huge number of successful horses that he did.
It is not “scientific”, because it cannot be proven over and over again. In other words, the results should be predictable each and every time a certain “protocol” or method is used. For example, if you use a sex balanced version of linebreeding each time using good stock, you should get even better stock, right? Well, we all know that’s not the way it works. And full siblings should be the same quality, since they have the same pedigree, right? Again, we all know it doesn’t work that way. So even Tesio’s methods do not meet the definition of “scientific” if you define the word this way.
I agree that breeding is far more than just picking a stallion one likes. But if there was one absolute “method” to producing champions, I’m pretty sure everyone would be using it.
I’d like to read Tom Reid’s article about culling…how does he define “the bottom 15%?” Does he mean in term so being graded at inspections?
Again, as far as Tesio’s theory, I would like to know why one of Secretariat’s full sister never amounted to anything in terms of race, although she did produce 2 stakes winners. So you have 3 horses with identical pedigrees. One (The Bride) was a total wash-out. Then Secretariat, who was one of the greatest racehorses that ever lived. Then another sister…Syria Something (I’ve forgotten) who was a very solid race mare. So why the difference in quality? After all, they have the same pedigrees…
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
