Rasmussen Factor

Get advice on your broodmares and stallion selection.

Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn, Diane

aethervox
Allowance Winner
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:39 am

Postby aethervox » Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:15 am

Shammy Davis wrote:I know this is a little off the subject but I was following a copy of Breeding to SF by Faversham & Rasmussen on Abebooks. The copy sold for $600.00 I've only read a few commentaries on the theory, but for that price I'd expect major accomplishments in my breeding program.


Welcome to the world of antiquarian books! :D Because it's rare and out of print, the price is outrageous. Look at what Marianna Haun's books are going for (over $175). :shock:

merse
Allowance Winner
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:19 am
Location: Maryland

Postby merse » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:42 pm

Welcome to the world of antiquarian books! Because it's rare and out of print, the price is outrageous.


Wow, maybe I should put my two Richard Stone Reeves/Patrick Robinson books on eBay (Decade of Champions & Classic Lines) - the Classic Lines is a first edition signed by the author. Anyone have any idea on those prices? Might be worth a cheap stud fee around Christmas time.

Shammy Davis
Chef de Race: Classic
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am

Postby Shammy Davis » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:40 pm

I was interested in what Merse had to say about breeding to SF. When it comes to breeding the basics are the basics are the basics. Often a gut feeling will get you further in this business than a $1K tab to a pedigree adviser or bloodstock agent.

I've spent more time than my wife would like reading about breeders and their programs. I've come to the conclusion that many just had a good eye for horse flesh. I think that basing your program (ala Estes) on good racers is key, but also think (ala Chenery, Phipps, Hancock, etc.) knowing throughbred families is extremely important. The odds are a great deal better when these two elements are a the top of list prior to deciding upon a mating. And that's just the paperwork. The horseflesh elements are vital.

Unfortunately for the industry, the learning process has been particularly slow for new investors and that makes the old system lethargic and often unmangeable. The sales are beginning to have a high % of RNA. In other industries, it is called waste.

As far as old books, the MFH of our daughter's hunt gave me a first edition copy of Abram Hewitt's GREAT BREEDERS. I knew the value in $$, but I was overwhelmed with the true value of the gift also. I've read it over and over again, each time turning the pages more carefully. Even at that, I'm still a wanabe.

LB
Eclipse Champion
Posts: 2388
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:57 am
Location: Kentucky

Postby LB » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:40 pm

Shammy Davis wrote:The sales are beginning to have a high % of RNA. In other industries, it is called waste.



I don't understand what you mean. RNA simply means that the seller put a higher value on a horse than buyers did on that particular day. It doesn't imply, in any way, that a horse who is bought back will have fewer chances to succeed.

An RNA is no more than a financial failure to come to terms. Horses have RNA'd for millions of dollars; no one expects them to go to waste just because they don't sell.

jagger
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

RF

Postby jagger » Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 am

Have studied RF extensively and still have not made any conclusions either way. That being said, it only seems logical that the more good DNA in a pedigree the better. So, if you have a choice of having Somethingroyal on both sides or Somethingroyal and undistinguished mares on the bottom, top and bottom with Somethingroyal would just seem to be better.....unless you factor in "hybrid vigor". It's just too tough for me. Somethingroyal is interesting in that there exists a Somethingroyal daughter negative nick of sorts. There have been 60 horses who have won at least 1 G3 race who have been inbred to Somethingroyal in the first 4 generations. Of these 60, only 2 were through daughters and then in both instances it was on the dam's side. So, it is probably not enough, if you believe in RF, to just have an excellent mare on top and bottom. You must research further and find out what success there has been through the daughters of the particular mare that is being studied. My Goldmine database is >1yr old, I think, and so my numbers may be off a little. This is not unlike the negative Northern Dancer nick that was discovered recently. There have been 1918 horses who have won at least 1 Gr3 race who were inbred to ND. Of these, only 133 were through a daughter on the top of the pedigree, 180 through a daughter on the bottom of the pedigree and only 15 were through daughters on both sides.

In conclusion, I think just like stallions, some mares are going to be more successful when inbred than others. To make a blanket statement that inbreeding to even very successful mares is a good thing, for me, is just not statistically true.

JMHO. Good luck in trying to decipher for yourself the merits of RF.

xfactor fan
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm

Postby xfactor fan » Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:25 am

After reading all sorts of views of the RF, my conclusion is that there is something going on, but it is probably a lot more specific that just inbreeding to a good mare.

It may be that when you get a mare that is tail female to the target mare --and would have the same mtDNA--mated to a male that is also tail female to the same mare--also the same mtDNA--there is some selection for type going on.

In other words, the stallion with mtDNA "F" has regular DNA that works with this type of mtDNA. Ditto the mare. So there is a selection for regular DNA that has racing success with mtDNA "F"

Or it could be something going on with the regular DNA totally unrelated to the mtDNA.

Is there a list somewhere of successful horses that are supposed to have the RF?

Shammy Davis
Chef de Race: Classic
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am

Postby Shammy Davis » Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:58 am

LB, I see your point.

I was thinking in terms of annual profit and loss. Clearly, you make a good point, but I'm suggesting that if you as a breeder are dependent upon selling your yearlings, etc. and they don't sell you are taking a financial lost for some period of time. If say you were a vegetable wholesaler and you didn't sell all your produce, then they would eventually become waste and you take a loss or a write off.

My point is that eventually a TB has to have use. It doesn't necessarily have to be racehorse, but the breeder needs to find a buyer or user for the horse to get it out of his/her stall or pasture, so that more breeding can proceed. Otherwise, there is no usefulness for the horse. Thus, you have waste.

I'm using the term "waste" in a broader sense.

Shammy Davis
Chef de Race: Classic
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am

Postby Shammy Davis » Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:33 pm

http://www.equicross.com/Inbreeding_to_ ... _Lines.htm

This all looks very confusing to me. I would think that it would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack.

Shammy Davis
Chef de Race: Classic
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am

Postby Shammy Davis » Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:50 pm


Tappiano
Grade II Winner
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:28 pm

Postby Tappiano » Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:32 pm

It's going to be very interesting to see what we get with a third strain to Swoon's Tune. It's not up close anymore but it's 6 x 6 x 7. It will also be 6 x 6 x 6 to Ribot.

Shammy Davis
Chef de Race: Classic
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am

Postby Shammy Davis » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:44 am

Is RF just theory or has it been implemented into a resource format like dosage? Breeding to SF was published in 1999. Inbreeding to female lines is nothing new. Lord Derby's program comes to mind. Gladys Phipps and her brother *.* Mills certainly believed in breeding to superior females. I recently read an interview with Seth Hancock where he eludes to the same.

As recommended to me by Xfactor, I just finished the The King Ranch Quarter Horses book by Denhardt and though their program was significantly different and more controlled, there was great effort to select just the right mares for particular breeding herds. I recommend it but warn it is a slow read.

For many years, I hunted and bred Chesapeake Bay Retrievers and I had a great deal of success through inbred female lines, but dogs and horses are like apples and oranges. With canines you see the problems much sooner because of litter sizes. With canine inbreeding, it also takes longer to see if a line is successful. I've noticed in the TB industry that it only takes a couple of outstanding horses to make the book for a stallion and as a rule we made not look as closely at the mare and her line.

I'm always afraid of a theory that is straight line effort. Looking at a horse on paper does not tell the whole story and is often confined to a very few people.

Just one other point, that I believe is important and that I learned from the canine world. Breeders are more significant in the direction a line takes than we would like to think. I learned that breeders of CBRS who did not hunt were more likely to dwell on titles etc. than the athletic and instinctive elements of a particular line. Often the results were terrible.