BREEDING FORUM

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:16 pm**

I am constantly amazed when I run analytical reports on various breeding strategies just how different the outcomes can be. I have been talking to breeders for years and most of them have pretty set ideas about how to do the job, but I find increasingly they are just not thinking it through properly. I know some breeders who have for a lifetime thought that inbreeding was the right thing to do. They might argue that concentrating blood lines by duplication increases the probability of getting the desired traits from the stallion (or mare) you are inbreeding to. Others believe that out crossing is the right method as it helps with hybrid vigour. In some recent work I have done on inbreeding in the 3rd and 4th generation it is clear that inbreeding to some horses is phenomenally successful however inbreeding to another ancestor is an absolute disaster. What we need to try to contemplate is that with mare a) In breeding to ancestor b) may be a smart strategy. With mare c) and ancestor d) the very opposite may be true. I believe that more enlightened breeders need to rid themselves of their rigid perceptions and consider that the variables are wider than the simplistic approach suggests and that everything starts and ends with the mare. She has a pedigree and by using data the breeder can find the key to what might be her best chance of producing a good racehorse. To give you just a snapshot of the data and its variation inbreeding to Danehill in the 4th generation is over - (minus)35% as successful in terms of stakes winners than when he is present as a single ancestor. Inbreeding to Nureyev in the 4th generation is +(plus)78% successful in terms of stakes winners than when he is present as a single ancestor. These 2 stallions were almost the same in terms of % stakes winners where they were single ancestors.