All Breeding Theories Are Just "Crap"?

[Patuxet]

Tony Morris, the internationally famed British pedigree commentator, posted the following to [email protected] during a discussion of which stallions appear most frequently as third dam sires in pedigrees. I suspect it's but the opening salvo across the bow of every significant pedigree analyst and will ignite a firestorm of reaction.

All very fine, George, so long as nobody takes any notice of it. As I'm sure you know, it means nothing to a practical breeder.

If anyone really wanted to look for something totally useless in a pedigree, the sire of the third dam would be a good choice. Those horses are there in good, bad and bloody awful pedigrees. They have no impact at all, unless it is through a really significant descendant. And we all know who they are.

The sooner people get around to realising that sire and dam matter most, and that what is there in the background generally counts for nothing, the better.

But all the while people invent - and I mean invent - crap like True Nicks and GSV - breeders will remain in the dark, if they believe them. We have waited a long time for the geneticists to get involved with the athletic animal; for many years they didn't want to know.

But they are involved and can enlighten us now. And, besides much else, they are confirming what should have been obvious to anyone who was one of a family or who had a family of his/her own.

The greatest statistician who ever got into this very esoteric game of ours, David Dink, proved, and I mean proved - years ago - that breeding was a crapshoot. There is no man-made theory that matters a toss. Anybody who believes in one wants his/her head testing.

Forget all the drivel that the theorists offer, because it is drivel. Nature never conforms to the "rules" that the theorists give us.

Think and do as you please. I've just devoted the best (best?) part of half a century thinking about the Thoroughbred. And maybe I'm wrong. I don't suppose I'll be around when everyone recognises the truth, and I'm pretty much past caring now.

But one day, when I'm long gone, there will be people who say "that bloke - what was his name,? - was right. We've made a horlicks of the game."

[dray33]

In his own words: If he believes it's been "proved - years ago - that breeding was a crapshoot. There is no man-made theory that matters a toss." then the statement "Those horses are there in good, bad and bloody awful pedigrees." is a contradiction of thought. How can you argue pedigree theory is irrelevant, then discuss levels of quality in the pedigree? Either it matters, or it doesn't. If it matters, and humans are choosing the matings (not nature), then the "quality" of pedigree falls mostly into human hands, and thought. It's a dice roll, for sure. But theories support decisions to improve the odds. I know this, mating father to daughter is rarely a good idea. Mating genetic flaw to genetic flaw isn't a good idea either. So something must matter.

[oliverstoned]

The more I look, read, and study about horse breeding the closer I get to his point of view. An example, has Three Chimmneys staff pedigree experts resulted in unusal success for them? How about these expert recomendations farms use on their websites as to which mares will work best with their stallions, it's the same tecnique fortune-tellers use (mention everything , use generalizations). If Buddah is a A+++ and Montbrook is a F guess where I'm going.

[Linda_d]

I think that I largely agree with Morris. The sire and dam have all the genetic material that they're ever going to have, and they got it from their sires and dams. If the grandsires and granddams aren't/weren't good performers and/or producers of good performers, the chances of the sire and dam producing good performers diminishes, especially if said sire and dam weren't good performers themselves.

The operative word here, though, is "more likely". There is no "sure thing" in genetics. I think that the breeding theory that probably works best is the old one that says, "breed the best to the best and hope for the best".

[ASB]

You don't have to look any farther than the proven class of a dam-line to see that back generations can and do matter.

We see terrific families go cold for a generation or two and then fervently start up with class animals again. We should know enough about genetics now to realize that we only know very little about them.

In human terms, you often see a trait or talent crop up in a child that maybe a grandparent or great grandparent had, even if the actual parents did not. These show up with (usually) no inbreeding or linebreeding in the genetic makeup of the human family.

Now take something like thoroughbreds, whose entire existence has been built and recorded and crossed over and over again. The likelihood said traits will pop up more prevalently is good.

Who's to say different combinations and marriages of genes don't activate qualities and traits. Anyone who talks in absolutes about breeding and genetics has no real grasp in genetics, in my opinion.

[Patuxet]

I need to rearrange the Morris chairs. This was written by the internationally famed British pedigree commentator. Simon Morris is the man responsible for Tesio Power. My apologies.

[madelyn]

I thought the quote was a bit too tame to be from Tony Morris

[LB]

Tony Morris, the internationally famed British pedigree commentator, posted the following to [email protected] during a discussion of which stallions appear most frequently as third dams in pedigrees.

Patuxet, while you're making corrections...I'm pretty sure there are no stallions that appear as third dams in pedigrees.

[Venusian]

Morris is, as usual, full of good sense.

I'm prepared to go back 4 generations. It's interesting and fun to go further, and you can learn a lot about the history of the thoroughbed, but pointless in terms of anthing else.

Of course, "nicking" and 'dosage" are nonsense, as any genticist will tell you, but there seems to be no shortage of gullible people around keeping the snake oil salesmen in business.

[Mahubah]

Actually, Morris has held this position for quite a long time, so hardly new news there. He has a lot of fun going rounds with some of the folks who are really into deep pedigree analysis.

There's common sense to his position, although it's perhaps a bit exaggerated. The sire and dam are of course extremely important, but it's also important to know what may be lurking in the background as all the traits that a given sire or dam can throw do not always show up in the potential parent's performance or phenotype. The further back you go, the less likely that a particular ancestor's traits will emerge if they haven't already cropped out, so in most cases the traditional five-generation pedigree is quite enough information IMO unless there's some pretty serious deep line breeding going on. And if the parents and grandparents of the proposed foal are all mediocre individuals, I wouldn't count on fancy pedigree patterns to rescue the mating. Ignoring possible recessive traits isn't smart, but neither is ignoring what's obviously on the table.

Nicks, in the sense of a particular compatibility between a sire and broodmare sire, do occasionally pop up but are rarer than usually advertised. The main problem seen in many of the nicks that get trumpeted are that they are based on pretty small sample sizes; maybe they're pointing to something worth investigating, but maybe the first three or four tries just got lucky. When they do hold up over enough numbers to really mean something (like the Fair Play/Rock Sand cross), you usually find that there's a compatibility in conformation, temperament, and/or racing aptitude that is probably the key. Anyway, just my two cents.

[Pan Zareta]

I thought the quote was a bit too tame to be from Tony Morris

Oh, it's from Tony allright. But he was in tactful mode.

[Roger]

When they do hold up over enough numbers to really mean something (like the Fair Play/Rock Sand cross), you usually find that there's a compatibility in conformation, temperament, and/or racing aptitude that is probably the key. Anyway, just my two cents.

I think these traits are the keys to any sucessfull breeding theory. Some stallions and mares work together and to me these are nicks. To a lesser extent stallions to broodmare sires maybe a little, but its not the names, its the traits.

[oliverstoned]

This from the latest Big Brown ad:

“BIG BROWN’s intense pedigree should make
him a particularly prepotent stallion. Inbred 3 x 3
to Northern Dancer, he should really pop with Mr.
Prospector-line mares, or with Halo, Roberto,
Seattle Slew, and Blushing Groom strains.”
-Anne Peters, Pedigree Consultant

Yeah that covers just about all the bases, thanks Anne
HeeHeeHe

[llbean]

Big Brown will also nick well with mares that have four legs.

[Mahubah]

Which hits the first responsibility of the stallion staff at a farm -- get the book filled. There are some extremely knowledgeable people, Anne among them, working at the major farms. but their advice has to be taken with the caveat that their job is to represent their employer's interests first and the mare owner's second. Obviously, they'd like it best if both turned out happy, since a mare owner that gets a good foal for his/her purposes is a lot likelier to be a repeat customer, but the first thing is to make their employers happy, and that's going to color the judgment of even the most honest.