Join up at Bet Easy - Click here - Bet Easy is Thoroughbred Village’s premier betting partner - Join here now
Forum Home Forum Home > Horse Breeding - Public Forums > Stallions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Lonhro - A trend appears
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Click here for the Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.

Lonhro - A trend appears

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
take2 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote take2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2010 at 3:58am
Originally posted by James0330 James0330 wrote:

Just like to talk about Lonhro who is as most of us would know was a wonderful racehorse who won over 5 Million in prizemoney and 10+ Group 1's winning up too 2000m.

I as others may have noticed a trend with him as a sire (Standing under the Darley banner)... that is the inability to sire any quality Middle Distance Stayers or horses that can perform at the top level (G1) over 1600m+.

Lonhro comes from a quality Middle Distance family, his Sire Octagonal won the AJC Derby & 2 BMW Stakes over 2400m at G1 level aswell as numerous other Group1 events at or around 2000m and his Grandsire is ofcourse Zabeel who has produced countless top line stayers who are renowned for big stage success in major staying classics. Octagonal is also as we know from the best Australasian family in the Stud Book with the likes of Don Eduardo (AJC Derby), Tristalove (Australian Oaks), Danewin (Multiple G1 2000m Winner), Kempinsky (VRC Derby Placegetter), Viking Ruler & De Beers. Lonhro's female family is represented chiefly by top sire Grosvenor (VRC Derby) aswell as National Gallery (WATC Derby), Mahaya (AJC Oaks) & Requiem the winner of the Saab Handicap.

Back to Lonhro, his oldest crops are rising 5yo which i know is young for a sire however has given us time to see this trend. Lonhro has only sired two winners at 2000m+ and the furthest of those was at 2025m by a horse in Rowland who has a stamina laden female line. This maybe the root of the issue in that he is largely being bred to sprinter milers (Due to Darleys obsession with speed). Lonhro should in theory however still be siring more 2000m+ due to his pedigree and racetrack performances.

Of course there is Denman who won the G1 Golden Rose over 1400m (A race for the breeding industry IMO) however could not run out the 1600m of the Australian Guineas. I think Denman can run 1600m however in top class company his sire may fail him as he has seemed to inherit Lohnro's inability to perform at top level high pressure races (Well noted for his performance in the Cox Plate).

He is though churning out the winners from his large crops but has developed a niche in siring a multitude of metropolitan, Listed, Group 3 and 2 winners at distances primarily from 1000m to 1600m which as mentioned is i believe largely due to not having the real mental toughness to withstand high pressure racing as all top liners require and the female families of these horses primarly sprinter miler orientated.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Lonhro will not:
Produce a G1 2200m+ WINNER
Produce a Sydney or Melbourne Cup PLACEGETTER
Produce a G2 2400m+ WINNER
Produce a G1 Queensland Derby, VRC Derby or AJC Derby WINNER
Produce a VRC Derby PLACEGETTER
Produce a Cox Plate WINNER

I dont see how a horse with Lonhro's racetrack performances (5 Group 1 2000m Wins) and coming from a classic Middle Distance Staying family on the Maternal & Paternal side cannot transmit that on to his progeny regularly at Group Level over 2000m.

Ideas & Thoughts?

 
i could say the same in regards to what most stallions will produce as you have,but i will go a little further and say the vast majority of stallions will not produce results in your selected races
dont put mouth in gear before engaging brain

www.ozisafety.com.au
Back to Top
Sponsored Links
Click here to view the promotions at Bet Easy.


Back to Top
furious View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 13536
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote furious Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2010 at 4:15am
Lonhro must of got out of bed on the wrong side today.  Beaded went soooo close to a second G1 winner for him.  I might be wrong but I'd like to see how his daughters went with Redoute's or the other way around.  Redoute's loves the Sir Tristram blood and the 8 family and Lonhro is from the Sir Tristram sireline with Sir Ivor 8g, Relic 8-f, Raise a Native 8-f and from  the 8 female line of Gay Poss.  Could be interesting to see the results.
Back to Top
djebel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 37341
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote djebel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 2:09am
Originally posted by James0330 James0330 wrote:

Good point 'Biggles'. Lets hope so :)

Does anyone think that Lonhro is passing on his trait of not being able to face an 'Acid' test?



ConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfusedConfused


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.

Back to Top
djebel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 37341
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote djebel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 2:52am
This thread inspired me to have a look at Lonhro's efforts.

He already has a handful of mares ( 23 ) at stud and probably the stoutest bred is Lonnies Girl out of a Last Tycoon mare who in turn is out of Arborea unfortunately she never saw a race track in competition. She has been sent to Danewin. Clap

Love First has gone to Dylan Thomas.

Sacred a 2005 foal is a very interesting broodmare. 4x3 for My Tricia.

Segolene who one might have expected on pedigree to get 1600+ has visited New Approach.


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.

Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 12:28pm
Originally posted by James0330 James0330 wrote:

 I dont see how a horse with Lonhro's racetrack performances (5 Group 1 2000m Wins) and coming from a classic Middle Distance Staying family on the Maternal & Paternal side cannot transmit that on to his progeny regularly at Group Level over 2000m.

Ideas & Thoughts?


Quiet easily.

Presume that there is one gene that tells you what you are capable of (not if you are good at it, just capable of it) on that one gene you have a message from your sire and a message from your dam. The message can be either an S (sprint) which allows you to get up to 2000m or D (distance) which allows you to go beyond 2000m. You could be

Ss - got the sprint gene from your sire and dam and you are a sprinter
Sd - got the sprint gene from your sire or dam so you sprint but the other copy is a recessive distance gene that you can pass on to your foals
Ds - got the distance gene from your sire or dam so you stay but the other copy is a recessive sprint gene that you can pass on to your foals
Dd - got the distance gene from your sire and dam and you are a stayer.

Let's resume Octagonal was a Ds. He got the distance gene from Zabeel and a sprint gene from Eight Carat but the latter was in recessive form. Let's presume Shadea was a Sd - she got the sprint gene from her sire and the distance gene from her dam but she expressed as a sprinter.

So when you mate an Ds to a Sd the possible outcomes are

25% Ss
50% Sd or sD
25% Dd

Thus there is a 25% chance that a foal by Octagonal out of Shadea is a sprinter and is double copy for the sprint gene. If Lonhro is an Ss, which seems likely, then when he goes to stud, his foals MUST get a sprint gene. They have no choice. Lonhro's full brother Neillo may well be a sD which means he expresses as a distance horse but he has a recessive sprint gene. He could also be a Sd, either way, he has expressed differently and his foals have different aptitudes. 

I have made a couple of assumptions ( it is multigenic not a single gene; there are actually 4 options, not 2 and there are dominant, recessive and co-dominant issues)and generalizations here but you should get the idea. If Lonhro is double copy for sprinting on the gene, and I don't know if he is because I am unaware if he has been tested, then it is impossible for his foals to get ground at the highest level of competition (any horse can get 2 miles if the competition is weak or nonexistant) as he must pass on the sprint gene to his foals. There have been plenty of double copy dominant sprint gene stallions like Rory's Jester, Zeditave, etc so it is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that 2000m tops their progeny out.

I don't believe that as a horse gets older he get's more stayers, it just doesn't work that way. What is more likely is that he is a Sd (like say Redoute's Choice and his own sire Danehill) and he is getting more mares that are Dd or sD which means that a greater proportion of his foals are sD or Dd and able to get ground.

Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 8:34pm
"double copy dominant sprint gene stallions like Rory's Jester & Zeditave".

Don't tell me you now say our A-NZ Dosage version has been right all these years.

Surely it's the same thing, except we were there years ago.

I knew we could convert you in time.




Back to Top
djebel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 37341
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote djebel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 10:55pm
brogers, Is what you are talking about, what Jim Bolger invested in ?

http://www.equinome.com/


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.

Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2010 at 12:33am
John,

Ha! No chance. It is a long, long way from the same thing. Any system that gives Danewin and Commands the same rating like Dosage does is lost on me. One was a 2000m horse that couldn't win at top company under a mile and the other was a 1200m horse that struggled to get 1600m. 

It is the same with Brain Ratings, they are good but once you know that full brothers raced differently and breed differently the rating becomes pretty useless.

Djebel,

The concept (Equinome) is the same but I believe it to involve more than one gene.

Byron
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2010 at 8:35pm
Dosages are about the average of the breed. So that, in general terms, one can make some sort of prediction on aptitudinal type, based on results at the track.

The Equinome thing has a very long way to go before standing a test of time as Dosage has. As I have said before, Equinome could build on the data established by Dosage, which is always an evolving document, as history showS.

So what if I now said Danewin is an Intermediate/Solid influence and Commands a Brilliant/Intermediate influence. Their race records, while different we all agree, did overlap to some degree, as do their sire records. Danewin too sires a good proportion of his SWs under 1600m. They were different physical types no doubt, which may contain the real answer. Over to Equinome.

But back to Lonhro.

Octagonal is no great influence for stamina overall, reflecting the influence of Eight Carat I think, which in turn possibly had a lot to do with her grand sires Relic & Klairon. Again IMO. Not sure how one would test that for the Ss or whatever thingy.

In addition, we could point to L's dam, Shadea, a top class two year old herself by a major speed influence in Straight Strike by another far greater one in old Mr Prospector.

Of Lonhro's 18 (I think) SWs, maybe half or so are from SW mares which themselves won at under 1600m. Others such as Denman, are from mares with predominantly speed pedigrees, so this may then become the main focus.

The background stamina in Lonhro's pedigree may be "swamped" ( for wont of a better term) by his own brilliance, a factor of Shadea (etc) and Eight Carat (etc) & ultimately the speed influences of the dams of his SWs. This could change of course now that Lonhro is under the Darley banner and may serve a different aptitudinal type of mare.

Just some thoughts, but  not totally based around Dosage.

But some thoughts totally based on Dosage learning. 
Back to Top
kingston View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kingston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2010 at 11:49pm
Originally posted by brogers brogers wrote:

John,

Ha! No chance. It is a long, long way from the same thing. Any system that gives Danewin and Commands the same rating like Dosage does is lost on me. One was a 2000m horse that couldn't win at top company under a mile and the other was a 1200m horse that struggled to get 1600m. 

It is the same with Brain Ratings, they are good but once you know that full brothers raced differently and breed differently the rating becomes pretty useless.

Djebel,

The concept (Equinome) is the same but I believe it to involve more than one gene.

Byron
I'm not so sure about that.
 
If you mean G1 when you refer to "top company", Danewin never raced in top company below a mile.
 
However, his stakes record at 1200m-1400m starting with his 3yo season was enviable. A very good and consistent G2-G3 sprinter.
 
Commands on the other hand only had 2 goes at a mile or longer - both in top company. He ran 3rd in the Caulfield Guineas behind a couple of handy ones, and then went berko in the Cox Plate. Inconclusive at worst.
Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 3:45am
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

So what if I now said Danewin is an Intermediate/Solid influence and Commands a Brilliant/Intermediate influence. Their race records, while different we all agree, did overlap to some degree, as do their sire records. Danewin too sires a good proportion of his SWs under 1600m. They were different physical types no doubt, which may contain the real answer.

John,

That is my point. When they were yearlings according to Dosage Danewin was no different to Commands. But as racehorses and now as stallions, by your own admission, they are different. Genetics, such as Equinome, can tell you this once they are born not 10 years after the fact.


Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
take2 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote take2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 6:47am
i wonder what everyones opinion of danehill was when he 1st went to stud, on how far his progeny would get?
as someone said somewhere else, a stallion doesnt produce longer runners as he gets older, but, a stallions progeny CAN and DO win over longer distances as they get the chance to compete over them. (as they get older and more mature)
i alays thought that danehill was a stouter influence than most people did,and he has proven that
dont put mouth in gear before engaging brain

www.ozisafety.com.au
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 8:56am
Hi Byron

While that MIGHT be the case, in hindsight the most likely scenario (based on Equinome's conclusions) is that Danewin & Commands are both CT (to use Equinome's terms), rather than one say CC or TT. There are only 3 options I think.

Did Equinome actually test any full relations ?
Back to Top
Progold View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Progold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 11:26am
While Commands and Danewin may have performed over different distances, both performed within a range that is compatible with their dosage profiles, although perhaps at the different ends of the spectrum.  Maybe dosage used in combination with a physical assessment of the horses would have led to a correct interpretation of the aptitude of each.  Dosage, of course, being a tool to assist in our understanding of the thoroughbred.
 
In spite of their differing distance aptitude, they were similar in their development with both perhaps typical 3yo types in spite of both racing at 2.  Interestingly, Danewin had the superior 2yo record of the two.  Danewin, although winning as a 4yo, was largely finished his career by the end of his Spring 4yo season, and actually had more starts as a 2yo.  The high classic rating of course is evidence that both were bred to fit a similar pattern. 
 
Should we be ignoring the human factor of the training of both, with one trained by John Hawkes and the other by Bob Thomsen who may have had different perceptions?  Had both been trained by the same trainer, is it possible that the outcome of their careers may have been different?
 
Both stallions are by Danehill, so Byron's argument would lead us to believe that Danehill's influence was vastly different in both cases (whereas dosage would actually say that it was consistent with Danehill's overall influence).  If a dominant stallion like Danehill's influence is so diverse to the extent perhaps to be non-existent, the entire breeding industry model that relies on stallion influence could be seriously flawed.  The choice of accepting the time honoured lessons of dosage, or rejecting a stallion model of breeding would make for interesting reading.
Back to Top
don View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote don Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 7:36pm
As strange as it may seem to some every horse has a mother [who contributes a bit more than 50%]
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 9:30pm
But if her sire was Vain (as in the case of Denman's dam to keep it on topic) then her aptitudinal contribution to her foals is invariably swayed way towards "speed".



Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 1:37am
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

Hi Byron

While that MIGHT be the case, in hindsight the most likely scenario (based on Equinome's conclusions) is that Danewin & Commands are both CT (to use Equinome's terms), rather than one say CC or TT. There are only 3 options I think.

Did Equinome actually test any full relations ?

John,

As I said earlier, I believe distance aptitude is polygenic so there is more than one gene involved but to reply to your statement, in the case of Equinome's findings there are only three options as the gene is coded with bases cytosine (C) or thymine (T). The sire and the dam have a pair of these so they can be C:C C:T or T:T. When mated they pass on one, if they are C:T they could pass on the C to their foal or the T to their foal, with the mare or sire contributing the other half as the case may be. I don't know if Equinome tested full relations but I do know that they tested multiple horses by the same sire who was a C:T according to their test and the sire in question didn't dominantly provide one over the other, hence his foals could be good milers, or if the mare passed on a T the same as the sire, best over jumps.

Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

Both stallions are by Danehill, so Byron's argument would lead us to believe that Danehill's influence was vastly different in both cases (whereas dosage would actually say that it was consistent with Danehill's overall influence).  If a dominant stallion like Danehill's influence is so diverse to the extent perhaps to be non-existent, the entire breeding industry model that relies on stallion influence could be seriously flawed.  The choice of accepting the time honoured lessons of dosage, or rejecting a stallion model of breeding would make for interesting reading.

Progold,

The statement "Byron's argument would lead us to believe that Danehill's influence was vastly different in both cases" is not remotely close to the truth. As it relates to aptitude, Danehill's influence on his foals was equal to every foal he ever sired. He could only pass on 50% of what he had to any foal. The resultant foals were equally as influenced by the genetic code found in their mother (moreso if you believe mtDNa haplotypes have an influence on performance, it hasn't been proven yet but it may be the case). 

Both you, I and a horse are bound by genetics and genetics is not like mixing paint, it is like selecting marbles. Dosage would have us believe that if the sire is blue and the dam is red that when we mate them, we end up with purple. That flies in the face of every genetic tenet known to man. If a sire has the ability to make a horse a stayer or a sprinter and the mare has the ability to make the horse a sprinter or a stayer then it is like having four marbles, two red and two blue in a sack and picking out two randomly. You might get two red, two blue or one red and one blue.

Danehill's influence as far as aptitude is concerned was the same, he put two marbles into the sack....no more, no less. How they come out of the sack depends totally on what went in from him and the mare.

"....the entire breeding industry model that relies on stallion influence could be seriously flawed"... 

Again, you are misconstruing things to suit yourself here. Danehill and for that matter Encosta de Lago, Redoute's Choice and Zabeel are easily explainable with genetics and inheritance. 

Let's say for argument that there are 10 genes that relate to superior performance in the thoroughbred (there are more but 10 will do for this case). To be a G1 horse you need to have 7 of these. You could have them in any position so one G1 winner might have position 1,2,3,6,8,9,10 filled in while another could have 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 -either way is going to mean you are a G1 horse. You could have the good performance gene in one copy (so let's say it is Good:Bad) which means that you got the good copy from one parent and it expressed and the bad copy from another parent but it is recessive. You could also have the good gene in double copy as both parents gave it to you so you are G:G. Either way, as long as the good copy is expressed you are ok.

So as a racehorse you are good on the racetrack but when you go to stud you have to send those good genes to your foals. So let's presume that you are a stallion and all 7 of your good genes are in the G:B format so you pass on a G or a B to your foals. The chance of the stallion passing all 7 genes in G format to his foals is 128/1. This is why a lot of good racehorses fail. A stallion like this, while great on the racetrack, has to rely heavily on the mares that they are given to have good genes in the same areas (i.e position 3,5,6,7,8,9,10) preferably in G:G format, or the mares have good genes where they are missing them (1,2,4). 

So what makes Danehill, Zabeel, Redoute's Choice and Encosta de Lago so special? Well, what is likely is that instead of having their 7 in G:B format, they have these performance genes in G:G format (at least some of them but not all of them). Because they are G:G, their foals must get a G gene from them. Thus, they sire more good horses. The sire that has the most performance genes in a Good:Good format is the best sire. 

This also explains nicks. Let's say for example that Redoute's Choice is a G:G sire in positions 1,2,4 and 7 and a G:B sire in 3,8 and 9. He has 7 of the bases but in three of them (3,8,9) he could pass on the B (bad) gene. Now let's say Zabeel is a G:G sire in positions 3,8 and 9 (along with others in different form elsewhere). Because he is a G:G in positions 3,8 and 9, all his offspring get this G (good copy). So when Zabeel daughters are mated to Redoute's Choice, every Zabeel daughter carries a G gene in 3,8,9 which helps Redoute's Choice because he has a 50% chance of passing a G gene on or a B gene in that position. 

While every Zabeel mare would have the G gene from her sire she may have a B gene come from her mother. This means that you would have a G:B (Redoute's) mated to a mare carrying a G:B which gets back to the four marbles in the sack. There is a 25% chance that the foal will be a G:G on that one position, 50% chance it will be a G:B and a 25% chance it will be a B:B. If it is that simple then why don't nicks work 75% of the time? Well, we just looked at one position (gene) and in the case above we are talking about 3 genes in Redoute's Choice having the potential to pass on the bad gene so it is the same effect we talked about above only this time it reduces the chance each gene being good so if it is 75% chance then with another gene added it is 56% and another makes it 42%, etc. 

Of course all of this is only 30-50% of the picture. If the mare isn't fed right or the foal lies in the mare incorrectly or it isn't fed right, then this all compromises the picture. Good horsemanship and sound genetics go hand in hand.







 
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
Riceman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1501
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Riceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by brogers brogers wrote:

[QUOTE=John H]

Of course all of this is only 30-50% of the picture. If the mare isn't fed right or the foal lies in the mare incorrectly or it isn't fed right, then this all compromises the picture. Good horsemanship and sound genetics go hand in hand.

Byron, your post is the best simplistic layman's explanation about the challenges and workings of genetics one could post I reckon. Hopefully, people will take the time to read and digest.
 
But, your final para is the key and goes to the heart of what I've been saying for years with my 10% genetics 20% environment 70% luck formula.
 
What has yet to get proper attention in the field of genetics is the role of enzymes as they affect the display of genetic potential. And enzymes are directly affected by the environmental factors and the chemistry at play from such. The environmental factors are not purely the environment but take into account the raising, training, and sustaining components as well.
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 6:21pm
I'm glad you think so Riceman (and we all know your vague point) because the way I see it Byron has moved from explaining things in terms of Ss (etc) to CT (etc) to now GB (etc). Red and blue and purple ? For heaven's sake.

Remind me again what Equinome is actually saying.

 I know. That CC + TT could make purple !

Not one of us doubts that environmental factors are critical to the end result and also that there will inevitably be advances in the study of equine genetics which will improve our understanding of thoroughbred breeding. Even we Dosage boffins !

To give you a heads-up, a few months back I posted a list of stakeswinning full relations & made the point that many were raced by their breeder & trained by the same trainer & were therefore reared & trained under similar conditions, As well as have much the same distance requirements (hey), again in a majority of cases. At about the same rate as the Equinome results I would guess except Equinome is very, very limited in what it is actually saying, IMO.

So back to Lonhro, the fact that so many of his SWs were reared & trained under the same "environmental" (inc mating planning) conditions is extremely important to his results on the track, as well as the aptitudinal issues already mentioned.


Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 2:04am
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
brogers View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brogers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 5:04am
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

I'm glad you think so Riceman (and we all know your vague point) because the way I see it Byron has moved from explaining things in terms of Ss (etc) to CT (etc) to now GB (etc). Red and blue and purple ? For heaven's sake.

Remind me again what Equinome is actually saying.

 I know. That CC + TT could make purple ! 

John

You are obviously missing the point...it can't be purple

You got a one from the sire and one from the dam, so the horse is  one of these is then expressed in the horse as DOMINANT over the other resulting in the horse having the aptitude of the sire or the dam whichever gene is dominant in the allele. 

You don't get a mix of the two, you get one from each parent and then one of the two is dominant over the other. 
Abel Tasman...Keen Ice...Divisidero....Verrazano...Catchy.....Lord Fandango...
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 10:10am
Byron

T:T (red) on C:C (blue) = 100% CT (neither red or blue - hence purple)

This is exactly the criticism you levelled at Dosage unless I am missing the point.

It is certainly not black and white anyway.
Back to Top
Progold View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Progold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 11:14am
If I could just make the point that Dosage is not a study of genetics.  Yes, we all realise genetic inheritance, but we are talking potenital aptitude (as well as the oft forgotten developmental issues of dosage especially important in Varola's work).
 
Quite simply, there aren't any good performance genes and bad perfomance genes.  If racing ability was a single inherited trait, or even a combination thereof, it would be a very simple process to breed to these.  Jus think if it was a grey horse you wanted, or a grey horse with a short neck, or a grey horse with a short neck and short cannons etc etc.  Not that hard to breed in a few generations irrespective of the combination.  Quite simply, racing ability is not genetically inheritable as such.  The best it could ever do is predispose a horse to superior racing ability subject of course to Riceman's other factors that have to always be acknowledged.  In the case of Danewin and Commands, how much was this a factor of their own racing performance?
 
With RC, EDL, Danehill and a theory that they express these good genes more often, it would be almost impossible to believe a concept where a mare would produce a better runner by another stallion (occasionally a pretty ordinary one but enough to produce a SW to get the mare her opportunity at these expensive stallions).  Just have a look any Saturday at the list of stallions with runners at Sturday metropolitan meetings.  It doesn't really reflect the wonder of the Sire's Tables all that well, even though a Sires' Table is apparently a measure of the ability of a stallion to pass on these "good" genes more often.
Back to Top
don View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote don Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

Byron

T:T (red) on C:C (blue) = 100% CT (neither red or blue - hence purple)

It is certainly not black and white anyway.
 
Never can be purple =is either TC or CT
 
Back to Top
John H View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 5:57pm
That equation is a direct quote from the Equinome website. They do not differentiate between CT or TC, by the way.

I think what both Byron & Don are saying then is that either T (red) or C (blue) will be dominant, with Byron saying the horse will have the aptitude of the sire or the dam, depending on what's what.

But that is not what Equinome has found, is it ?

They say that CT horses perform in a different manner to both CC horses & TT horses, being middle distance specialists in general terms. They are not in general specialist sprinters or out-and-out stayers as would be inferred if C or T were dominant, the way I think Byron implies.

CT horses are neither dominant red or dominant blue the way I read the Equinome data.

They might not be purple (which is just used as an example BTW being neither red or blue) either but they seem to race that way.

At least that would be my impartial reading of the Equinome results.




Back to Top
Progold View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Progold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 11:22am
Talking about the expression of individual genes can also be misleading.  If we cross a thoroughbred with an arabian, we don't get either a thoroughbred or an arabian.  We get a horse with a mix of genes which is neither thoroughbred nor arabian. 
Back to Top
reng View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 11:25am
Ultimately it is unknown whether a 'good performance' set of genes behaves like skin colour (with a blended result) or like tongue rolling (either can do it or can't).  Or perhaps somewhere in the middle.
The problem with Opportunity is that it wears overalls and looks like work.
Back to Top
reng View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 11:26am
that should be HUMAN skin colour - horse coat colour is a set of either/or genes!
The problem with Opportunity is that it wears overalls and looks like work.
Back to Top
Run For Fun View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Run For Fun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2011 at 5:35pm
Vigorous debate has always been welcome here Isis.
 
However personal abuse or denigration such as that above is totally unacceptable, and certainly won't be tolerated in the longer term.
 
Am absolutely certain I speak for the majority in saying so, and thus encourage you to positively contribute your knowledge and ideas to the forum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
It's hard to soar with eagles...

Cheers
Back to Top
djebel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 37341
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote djebel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2011 at 5:51pm
Originally posted by Run For Fun Run For Fun wrote:

Vigorous debate has always been welcome here Isis.
 
However personal abuse or denigration such as that above is totally unacceptable, and certainly won't be tolerated in the longer term.
 
Am absolutely certain I speak for the majority in saying so, and thus encourage you to positively contribute your knowledge and ideas to the forum.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Thumbs Up In fact its bordering on stalking. Thumbs Down

I get the impression Isis knows his/her breeding, we want to read his/her knowledge on the subject, this constant "stalking" for want of a better term is disappointing.




STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.059 seconds.