IRISH BLOODSTOCK FORUMS :: View topic - Genetics, chromosomes, and gobbledegook

admin»Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:57 am
Welcome back Dawn Run and please post your ??paper?? for our scissors cutting or praise! Reply

Megabucks»Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:00 am
Welcome back Dawn Run! I hope your Australian hibernation was floodless, brush-fire less and earthquake free. Reply

Dawn Run»Mon Mar 07, 2011 15:21 pm
Good to be back but great to have seen the likes of Black Caviar and Sepoy. Also had a few days in the upper Hunter at Vinery. Fine farm and loved Testa Rossa and Big Brown. Didn't get to Singapore but our horse there has won 4 out of 8, and been Sing Group placed twice. The prizemoney is enough to pay a dividend after all expenses and after paying for this years' nom to Big Brown. Now it's back to a maiden hurdle at Naas where there's bound to be a Willie Mullins. Enjoy Cheltenham everyone. Reply

Dawn Run»Mon Mar 07, 2011 15:16 pm
There has been an interesting thread about aspects of the very basis of breeding, and that is genetics. Sadly, the thread only goes to demonstrate the almost complete lack of knowledge of the science behind genetics on the part of most breeders. I include myself in that category. However I do believe in science and the progress that scientists continually make towards an increase in knowledge. There has been remarkably little science applied to the thoroughbred in the 300 odd years since the 6 foundation mares and 2 stallions began it all. Please don?t quibble over whether it?s a mare or stallion either side of those beginners. I can look it up but haven?t the time. And isn?t that part of the problem? Like most of us, I have other things and practicalities to deal with on a daily basis. But why is it that we as breeders have allowed a small number of people to set themselves up as ?knowlegeable? when by my standards they are just not. It is only in the last 10 years or so that science has been applied to the breeding of horses. By science I mean proven and tested by people with superior brains to mine. When Walton and Cochrane split the atom, it wasn?t just a good idea on a Monday to do it. They did it after years of studying the relevant physics and maths etc. They did a primary degree, then a Masters, then a PhD, and then post-doctoral research to bring them to the point where they knew more than anyone had before about atoms and how to split them. How many breeders or breeding/pedigree consultants have put themselves through that level of study? How many of them even have a primary degree in science, let alone a further specialist qualification in the science of genetics? I would venture very few. Yet trade magazines carry adverts aplenty by people purporting to know how to help you breed a better foal. Some are even flat-earthers or creationists who openly denounce science. The basis for most of their practice is the Stud Book and the randomly arrived at practice of laying out a generational pedigree with a top and bottom line, the male staff and the female distaff. Next time you engage one of these people, your first question should be along these lines ? ?How many matings did you advise three years ago, and how many of these produced the intended result ie a superior racehorse?? The silence will be deafening. The problem is that as frail humans we strive to get the right result and so will distort the truth in the same way alcoholics go into denial when confronted with their problem. A scientist will form a hypothesis (founded upon superior knowledge) and will then try to prove it. Research scientists know that very many hypotheses founder when the results of their research do not prove their case. That?s how research goes. Proof of a hypothesis is then given recognition by peer review ie other scientists worldwide study the research result and agree/accept its validity. It?s not very long ago that science discovered errors in the General Stud Book. Some may have crept in unwittingly, others with mal-intent, during the process of delivering the necessary breeding info to the Stud Book authority. No changes have been made to the Stud Book in the light of this new knowledge. Basing mating decisions on the stud book bloodlines is therefore fallacious. Convention can be a mighty obstacle to truth. The new genetics is not the Holy Grail. It doesn?t make any claim to be a provider of a superior racehorse with every mating. But it undeniably gives breeders the opportunity to increase their chances significantly of getting that result. A simple blood test will give you scientifically proven information about your mare and her potential offspring that cannot be gained by any other method. You ignore the new science at your financial peril. Hope and wishful thinking have cost us all in the past. Help is at hand! The overall research cost of one of the new tests is close to 5,000,000 euro. Much of that has been provided by government research funding and leading- edge university research facilities and equipment. The snake oil salesmen will not convince me anymore (I have paid for it once, as the bishop said to the actress) and I will no longer breed without use of the new science. The latest research will not only increase your chances of producing superior racehorses but it will also save quite significant sums of money not only at the breeding stage (as you re-arrange your broodmare band) but also for the buyer/owner of a yearling. 25% of the worldwide foal crop will not win a Group race as a 2yo. These horses can be indentified by a simple blood test. There is no point in this cohort of yearlings going into training out of the sales/early January. They can wait until April/May to start off. That is 4-5 months training fees saved. Trainers do not like this notion, your savings are their loss. I?m sorry for the forum members who find genetics difficult but it?s not surprising. Genetics is a complex subject but it not unfathomable. Sadly there is any amount of gobbledegook out there masquerading as genetics which is misleading and plainly untrue. So forget your magic sire crosses that produce, say, 20% stakes winners etc ? the real truth of that phrase is that 80% of those crosses fail. It?s a tedious task to go through the Return of Mares, stakes winners tables etc to get to the real facts which is why the myths gain a hold. And please forget the large heart stuff. A yearling that I sold failed the heart score test for a leading UK trainer. She ticked all the other boxes, else he wouldn?t have gone to the expense of the heart score test, and he didn?t bid. She made 70,000 and went on to be 4th in the Marcel Boussac, ran in 2 Classics, won a Gr2 at Royal Ascot, won a further Gr3 and was sold for 700,000. Heart score my hindquarters. And while I?m at it, what scientific qualifications has Marianne Haun? She?s a sad case at present but you might as well believe in The Rapture. I regret I am not qualified to answer questions directly, and this subject is too wide to get into a tit-for-tat forum session. So don?t shoot the messenger. I?m just a believer. In science. And some of my best friends are bloodstock agents who could use another string to their bows even if they reject 90% of a catalogue on the width between the eyes! Reply

MYOPI»Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:44 am
My Goodness !! Did you write that on you long flight home! A lot ot what you write is sensible and a lot is gobbledegook. If we all got it right - would there be more Group winners? No there would not. Would the quality of the unplaced horses be any better? Yes, probably. At the end of the day there can only be so many Champions but if we all succeded - what would be the point? Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:28 pm
There may not be an increase in the absolute number of stakes winners but I would like to be the one breeding them and so am embracing the new science against unresearched and unproven advice. Reply

Little Man»Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:09 am
It is hardly a new SCIENCE is it. What is SCIENCE anyway? Surely SCIENCE gets its qualified name from proven results? This new SCIENCE as you call it has no proven results has it? I am not knocking it however, but I am uneasy about it being hailed as a scientific FACT when it most certainly is not. Where are the papers showing the proven results etc..? It might be brilliant - I hope it is - but please, call it what it is, unproven research. Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:28 am
For weekend reading here is a list of the scientific papers published in 2010, and one in 2009. These are technical papers but the conclusions of proof of the hypothesis are arrived at after scientific and statistics accepted practice. The sample size of the numbers of horses used in the research exceed the standard statistical requirements and were collected worldwide. You can access these papers from www.equinome.com Targets of selection in the Thoroughbred genome contain exercise-relevant gene SNPs associated with elite racecourse performance. Hill EW, Gu J, McGivney BA, MacHugh DE. Animal Genetics. 2010. 41 (Suppl. 2), 56-63 A genome-wide SNP-association study confirms a sequence-variant (g.66493737C>T) in the equine myostatin (MSTN) gene as the most powerful predictor of optimum racing distance for Thoroughbred racehorses. Hill EW, McGivney BA, Gu J, Whiston R, Machugh DE. BMC Genomics. 2010 Oct 11;11(1):552 A sequence polymorphism in MSTN predicts sprinting ability and racing stamina in Thoroughbred horses. Hill EW, Gu J, Eivers SS, Fonseca RG, McGivney BA, Govindarajan P, Orr N, Katz LM, MacHugh DE. PLoS One. 2010 Jan 20; A genome scan for positive selection in thoroughbred horses. Gu J, Orr N, Park SD, Katz LM, Sulimova G, MacHugh DE, Hill EW. PLoS One. 2009 Jun 2;4(6):e5767 Reply

barney»Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:49 am
What blood test are you referring to? Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:30 pm
University College Dublin campus company - Equinome Ltd. Reply

Red Light»Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:59 am
Whereas I applaud all research I have to say this Equinome blood-test is an expensive, unproven nonsense. I have heard it costs at least ?1000 per mare (correct me if I am wrong) but worse the result is useless on its own. The mare blood-test is only usefull when matched with the stallions blood-test result. The problem is, the stallions are not signed up for the bloodtest and do not advertise it if they have taken the test. It is just a waste of money and has no use unless ALL stallions blood-test results are known. Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:43 am
It's a bit silly to say that the test is an expensive unproven nonsense. I have already mentioned the gross approx cost of the test and I would have thought the proprieters would be entitled to see some return. How expensive is it to use the 'wrong' stallion? Unproven it is plainly not. I have listed the published scientific papers in another posted reply. If you believe it is nonsense that's fine by me but it doesn't say much about your intellect nor your interest in learning. What you say about it being useless without the stallion category is not true either. If the stallion is considered to be in any of the categories, then you can at least remove your tested mare that can produce the unwanted category foal. The first stallion to have his Equinome category published is Intense Focus, standing at Ballylinch Stud. See their website under the 'news' tab. He is a CC category. If you have a CC mare mated to him you can only get a CC foal. Other stallions have been tested and some farms have disclosed the result on request of the mare owner. I don't know the current price of the test but it is lower than at launch with the increased demand for the test. Reply

Red Light»Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:59 am
Thanks for your reply. In time, the Equinome System may well prove to be a truly valuable asset - I hope it does. However, I see it as a tool for avoiding 'mistakes' rather then breeding Champions. That, in itself, would be very usefull. I accept your promotional efforts just as you accept my queries. I see the Equinome System as a large jigsaw but for me right now there are too many missing pieces. The jigsaw can only be complete if/when ALL stallions are categorised. Reply

Squid»Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:22 am
It is very interesting and I respect your opinion. You are promoting a different angle and quite right to do so but I am uneasy that you knock the best efforts of others. The truth is we are all on a learnng curve both in life and in breeding horses. With horses we get such little chance to ever know the results - for instance how many great horses have been bred that got killed etc as a yearling? Imponderable. We can just do our best and hope for the best and the best always has that bit of luck on their side no matter what the scientists think! Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:34 pm
I disagree that all we can do is hope for the best. And I don't mean to knock the uninformed, it's a free market and if people want to buy their advice that's fine for them but not for me. Yes we are on a learning curve which is why I'm recommending the new science rather than pot luck and gobbledegool peddlers.[/u] Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:52 am
I only knock others trying to do their best if they use false premises and incorrect science. Yes, we're on a learning curve so let's learn from the latest research. Nowadays it is no longer necessary to hope for the best when it comes to mating selection. Of course it would greatly help if stallion ratings were published. But the reality is that considerable sums have been spent on buying stallions pre Equinome tests and the test may show that they are in a different category than hoped. A pedigree of past generations will guide you as to a horses category but it won't give you the fact. If you want an edge over everyone else, then I would prefer to use qualified genetics research scientists rather than psuedo experts who might be doing their best with their limited knowledge. Reply

Sheikh»Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:14 am
I?m curious.

Quote:

25% of the worldwide foal crop will not win a Group race as a 2yo. These horses can be identified by a simple blood test. There is no point in this cohort of yearlings going into training out of the sales/early January

Does this mean 25% have no possibility of winning a Group race as a 2yr old due to lack of precocity and the genetic test can indicate this?

Quote:

Please forget the large heart stuff. A yearling that I sold failed the heart score test for a leading UK trainer. She ticked all the other boxes, else he wouldn?t have gone to the expense of the heart score test.

When they did the heart score test was it a physical examination or a calculation. ? I believe most of these calculations to be self-fulfilling prophecies but surely there is such a thing as a large heart? Is it just the current means of assessing the likelihood of its presence that you are sceptical about? Reply

Enzed»Tue Mar 08, 2011 14:42 pm
Hey Sheikh, there's a few disciples running around raving that the Y chromosone is "where it's at" and giving convoluted stuff re genetics (that only Einstein could understand) whilst at the same time rubbishing the importance of the X chromosone as the basis from which derives racing ability............... there's a dude (an Orstalian) Byron Rogers who waxes poetically & lyrically on this Y chromosone theme and deluges a lot of sites with posts - and yes, he has something to sell too .......... Dawn Run sounds like 'she' is quoting verbatim from one of the Y treatese. Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:26 pm
No, I'm not y fan and am not quoting Byron Rogers. I am supporting the science of genetics against people talking what they think is genetics when it simply isn't Reply

Enzed»Tue Mar 08, 2011 17:03 pm
Dawn Run, instead of flicking my eyes across your proffered words in your above treatese (and firing from the hip ), this time I carefully read every word / nuance .......... and must admit my curiousity is piqued. I have looked up the site Equinome Ltd....... and placed it in my favourites for future ref........ and was interested to read Dr Emmeline Hill's background and impressive CV and her work in the field of molecular genetics - and would consider utilising the genetic profiling / gene testing (of blood sample). It may indeed be helpful. And I DO 'get' the connection between Charmain Hill & her grand-daughter Emmeline Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:58 am
Yes, much better to deal with Equinome's qualified scientists rather than me who is first year failed. I think I've said elsewhere that I have in the past used a pedigree consultant. I am now reasonably up to speed on the application of the Equinome test. So I speak from personal experience and would prefer the new science based methods of selection to that offered by the non scientists. Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:48 pm
It was an ultrasound scan from which measeurements were taken and an opinion formed. Bizarrely the technician tried to deny me access to the box during the scan but was overruled by the trainer. Yes, some horses have very large hearts, some have been weighed etc at autopsy. With ultrasound an live image can be viewed on screen. I'm skeptical about the meaningful interpretation of the scans with reference to racing ability.In my filly's case, either the technician formed a wrong opinion or else the trainer interpreted the opinion wrongly. The filly was crossed off the trainer's list on the basis of heartscore (I was told that she had 'failed' the test) yet she became a highclass racehorse. Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Tue Mar 08, 2011 16:24 pm
What I think this proves is that the heart in a horse does not develop fully until 3 years old and scoring yearlings is just dull. It is not simply heart scores either but heart capacity in relation to stride length and body mass and all the other elements of bio dynamics. I just wish I could understand the genetics better. I try to read as mcu as possible and when I think I get a little bit I read something else and I'm not sure about any of it at all. It is very very complex and few geneticists have been able to expain what they have found in a manner which I can understand. What I need is Equine Genetics for Dummies. Of course unravelling the coding was a fantastic breakthrough and will lead to advances but when we all breed genetically better or superior horses which one will cross the line first. The one with a big heart, the one with straight legs, the one with a wide jaw........... Reply

Dawn Run»Tue Mar 08, 2011 15:51 pm
On a bell curve thoroughbreds are generally 25%sprinters, 50% middle distance, and 25% stayers. The stayers don't mature as early and the growth of muscle mass is different. Reply

Sheikh»Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:37 am
Thanks for answering my questions. I think I remember years ago that you did follow the 'X' theory or factoried it in anyway ? I thought the average optimum distance for the racehorse was just over 7f but that could have been in the U.S. ? I'm inclined to think the heart score balls up was related to all the different factors mentioned by posters. Reply

Sheikh»Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:47 am
...or in other words, it's not reliable. Reply

Irish Paddy»Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:48 am
Are these results refering to winners or Group winners? The curve you refer to is very interesting and if this new theory is intime proven right, then I could see the day when horses in a sale could be so classified and have the classification printed on the catalogue page. Am I wrong to call this new approach a theory instead of a proven fact of science? Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:08 am
The science, therefore the theory, behind the test is proven. It is genetically impossible for a CC mare covered by a CC stallion to produce anything other than a CC foal. A CT stallion on a CT mare can produce a CC, CT, and TT, you won't know until birth. A TT stallion on a TT mare can only produce a TT foal. A foal's category will not change during its lifetime. What type of horse are you onjectively trying to produce? That's the question, and one answer to help you in achieving that objective is to categorise your stock. Reply

Justamoment»Sat Mar 12, 2011 20:10 pm
So a CT mare could produce any of the three types when covered by any of the three type Stallions? I am wondering how many mares would be CT ? Do you know Dawn Run what percentages are from the mares classified to date - I mean what prcentage ate CC and CT and TT ? That would be very interesting to know those percentages. Reply

Little Man»Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:13 am
On that point "25% of the worldwide foal crop will not win a Group race as a 2yo. " Foe goodness sake, what does that mean? That statement is rubbish as only a tiny percentage of two-year-old races are Group races anyway, so what does that statement mean? Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:57 am
I mean that around 25% of the foal crop will be in a genetic category that that will not mature sufficiently (physically) to win a group race at 2. It means also that if you have a 2yo in that category there is no point in putting it into training until spring (April/May) in the hope that it may win at group level. It might also mean that it will be less likely to breakdown as you would now know that its phenotype does not suit early training. Reply

Little Man»Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:57 am
Thanks. That would be very useful information. I guess all Breeze-Up 2-y-o's should be CC...... Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:40 am
I am not the expert but there are 2yo races towards year end that would suit a CT. But the big prize sprint trip races would be better tried with a CC. But I emphasise again the test is not an ability test so a group winning dam over sprint trips and a top performed sire over sprint trips will put a shine on the overall animal. Reply

Mill Reef»Wed Mar 09, 2011 16:36 pm
Dawn Run - I agree with your words that "So forget your magic sire crosses that produce, say, 20% stakes winners etc ? the real truth of that phrase is that 80% of those crosses fail. " But before knocking it let us remember it is all we have to go by until your new proposal posted above. Certainly I am intrigued and what you report is fascinating but surely it is not yet fact? It seems to me that your proposal will at best, eliminate having horses in training that are too immature. That is useful in itself yes. But how does that make the other horses more likely to be the Group winners? You have lost me on that one so please help me understand why I would expect to breed BETTER horses where all I can see is that I might breed less 2-y-olds that are unable to perform at 2 years. Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:01 am
The Equinome test is not a test for ability, it is a test for optimal trip. However, the TT category does not produce 2yo group winners. I hope I didn't imply thatb you would breed BETTER horses using this test. You will though be better able to achieve your objective to breed early speedy 2yo's, sprinter/milers, or middle distance horses. Reply

Mark One»Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:01 am
Can we please start from the beginning? I am completely lost! First - we get a blood test on the mare- right? That test will categorize our mare into one of three caregories. All horses are in either of the three categories - am I still right? From this knowledge - knowing the category of my mare - I can have her covered gy a one of three category stallion and the produce will only be best at a known in advance distance....is that right? Reply

Sheikh»Thu Mar 10, 2011 13:17 pm
I think the foal has to be tested to see what attributes he has inherited. I think I'll sit back and watch this one, there doesn't seem to be any obvious benefit to it at the moment but it's heading in the right direction. Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:06 am
If I read your question correctly - yes all round. You need to know the mare and stallion category and have the foal tested. Only coverings of mare and stallion in CC or both in TT will result in a guaranteed same category. Mixed category matings are liable to random chance at conception so a CC/CT will produce either a CC or a CT. Reply

Little Man»Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:03 am
Hold on now a minute - this is new to me - you have just written that the resultant foal MUST be tested to determine if the result is correct ?? That is a bit rich. I thought this new science is stating that for instance a CC stallion over a CC mare MUST produce a CC foal - yes? Therefore why on earth would you have to pay a huge fee again to test the foal? I might have read you wrong and this above foal would not have to be tested? Hence you mean only foals of mixed categories need the test - yes I think that must be it. Reply

Dawn Run»Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:05 am
A CC on a CC can only produce a CC. A CC on a CT cannot produce a TT and a TT on a CT cannot produce a CC. Draw up a table with CC in the vertical column and whichever category in the horizontal and you can see what gets what. Like a mileage chart for distances between cities. You still seem determined to slam Equinome. ie @That's a bit rich' Why not evaluate the positives they introduce. I'm not a salesman for Equinome and I am not a scientist. My replies to further queries are my personal evaluation of the science. My English syntax is the best I can do on a forum site, I'm not here to answer exam questions. I'm sorry if I am not entirely clear in every sentence. Reply

Little Man»Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:58 am
Okay I withdraw it's a bit rich and replace with it is too expensive for my pocket! Also it is not my plan to discredit the system but is more of an effort for me to try to justify the expense and perhaps a bit annoyed with MYSELF for not being in a position to apply the system to my mare. Somebody above asked an interesting question about percentages of mares tested to date and in which category the percentages to date are. Do you know ? Reply

daraabah»Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:30 am
...impressive record for your filly DR, what's her name? Reply

Eclipse»Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:45 am
Remember Daraabah, at the end of the day, every purchased yearling has many interested buyers who decide 'enough is enough' for whatever reason and stop bidding. Reply

daraabah»Fri Mar 11, 2011 18:02 pm
...errr...have woken up now,,,of course she's Dawn Run!! .....but curious as to the reasoning behind her mating..... Reply

Hi Ho Silver»Fri Mar 11, 2011 18:21 pm
No it couldn't be Dawn Run. She was brilliant but a National Hunt Racing and Cheltenham heroine and certainly did NOT win at Royal Ascot! Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:11 am
There is no CC horse among the winners in a significant National Hunt yard. The Equinome samples were primarily of flat horses as its test categories show. Reply

Platypus»Thu Mar 10, 2011 21:48 pm
DAWN RUN where are you? I am fascinated by this thread/subject. You have been asked so many questions! Please reply to them as I am so very curious by this subject and welcome all research etc., into breeding. Reply

Torquil»Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:43 am
great to see/read your posts again Dawn Run. Even the Irish Consulate in Sydney has been assisting Equinome Ltd to flog their process around the Australian horse industry, and Dr Emmeline Hill herself has been out in Oz spreading the word. I still don't see breeding horses a "science" and lean more to the "luck of the draw" when AA's tadpoles burrow into BB's eggs at the right time of the moon and Saturn is in line with the Southern Cross, thereby ensuring a repeat of Bernborough, Sunline, Sepoy or even Dawn Run !! I also don't go overboard on breeding the best to the best, as many heavily raced fillies do not produce foals of their own ilk/ability. Reply

Enzed»Fri Mar 11, 2011 20:26 pm
Agreed Torquil, maybe Dr Hill (and Dawn Run himself ) has been worldwide promoting this new angle on science. You & Paddy are very much aware of my theory re champion mares and their off-spring ..... I always held the opinion that the constant racing atr the highest level races the goodness out of them and they (most of the time) don't prove good as broodmares (although everyone - suckers - buy their progeny). I'll extend this further and say it is the lesser sisters of this Champion that is more likely to produce Group winning progeny OR daughters of this Champion mare .......... hence we have HABIBTI & her half sister EIGHT CARAT ......... ....... however there are exceptions as always - URBAN SEA for example..... Reply

Enzed»Fri Mar 11, 2011 20:33 pm
Just another thought, Torquil.... has any Owner of a Champion racemare ever given the thought that IF he were to give his/her mare a year OFF on the lush pastures or up on the hills (in other words, completely forget about her for 12 or 15 months after retirement from the racetrack ) thus maybe ensuring that nature rebalances itself, restores the juices and enable the mare to rid her system of the cocktails of pharmecutical drugs that they feed them whilst racing - that's NOT SCIENCE, just common sense !! Reply

Dawn Run»Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:10 am
You're right, breeding horses is not a science. But science can help in the process which is open to all sorts of luck along the way to the winning post. Science can now help a breeder to sway the odds further in his/her favour. I don't think very much research science has been brought to the business. Particularly in genetics which is fairly fundamental to the whole thing. Reply

Irish Paddy»Sat Mar 12, 2011 19:12 pm
It certainly is all very interesting and I feel Equinome, to succeed, must get the stallion owners on board first. Once the category of all stallions is freely available then I would think mare owners will gradually follow. Would Equinome consider making the blood-test for stallions FREE ? and retain the right to publish the figures? I realise though that some stallion owners could be shocked and disappointed if their stallion is categorised in the wrong category! I would really like to know the category of my mares but the cost is prohibitive for my operation - especially for any mares from ten year old upwards. My curiosity would also dearly like to know NOW what categories my yearlings are in, but again that would not be practable. Reply

Dawn Run»Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:07 am
I would imagine Equinome would consider just that if they were asked by the stallion owners. But as you say, there's alot at stake for them. It would be to their advantage to do the test before future purchases. Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:58 am
LIke many on the forum who have little knowledge of genetics I struggle. Not with the science, I can see that is sound and well researched and very very relevant. What I struggle mostly with is the marketing. It is sold as the SPEED GENE, which is a gross misrepresentation. The test does not tell you if a horse is fast or slow only what is likely to be its optimum distance, and this is a) extremely limited information and b) something which most mare owners will have a pretty goo idea about, (likewise stallion owners or stallion users). If I have a mare who raced for 3 seasons and won over 8 furlongs, clearly and palpably did not get 12 furlongs nor was precoscious enough to win over 5 or 6 furlongs at 2 I hardly need to spend a grand to place her in either of the 3 categories. Similarly if a horse like Equiano wins over 5 and 6 furlongs and no further I doubt if he would be too difficult to place either. I don't think the cost is excessive it is a small price to pay if you value the information and in some cases that would be very interesting and helpful. This is of course only the begining but it would stand more chance of sucess if its marekting were more ethically presented. Reply

Enzed»Sun Mar 13, 2011 15:27 pm
Agreed TOTH, I struggle with an understanding of genetics......... some racemares are easy to categorise (you've given examples) and whilst I am NOT a student of DOSAGE, I find I do understand it's concept and numbers it comes up with. There are always strange things at work in the genes (always exceptions) and inexplicable dosage contradictions (eg MUFHASA, a sprinting gelding son of PENTIRE (middle distance oriented I wd have thought - and generally leaves stayers ) ... has won 2 of NZ's top GRp one sprints in consecutive years 2010 & 11 - ie twice...... the 1200m Telegraph Hcp @ Trentham; the 1400m Lion Brown Sprint @ Te Rapa............ TOTH, perhaps Jeremy Hill would ask his daughter Dr Emmeline Hill if she would kindly ask a few questions that have been raised on here...... after all, he has admitted to being a non-expert on genetics, just a keen observer.... I've always found it simpler in life to go straight to the horse's mouth, so to speak [/u] Reply

Enzed»Sun Mar 13, 2011 21:45 pm
if she would kindly ask a few questions that have been raised on here...... should read answer a few questions...... Reply

Gone West»Mon Mar 14, 2011 16:33 pm
Good idea. Maybe we should start a new thread listing out the questions we would like more info on? Reply