The following list contains most of the Raise A Native sire line 3 year olds that were weighted on the EFH (Experimental Free Handicap for 2013).
The Raise A Native sire line is the best in generating Derby winners since 1969 when Majestic Prince won the roses. I realize that almost all of these runners go thru Mr. Prospector but don't forget Mr. Prospector's dad who was Raise A Native and don't forget that 7 Derby winners that carried the RAN sire line did not go thru Mr. Prospector in tail-male.
The following are horses that carry the RAN sire line and were weighted from 100 pounds all the way to the top weighted RAN sire line horse George Vancouver at 121. If any of these run well in a major prep race at 9 furlongs they become contenders for the roses. WHY? Because 18 Derby winners since 1969 carried the Raise A Native sire line. The only stallion coming close to that stat was the Nasrullah sire line (Bold Ruler sire line predominantly) who had around 8 or 9 Derby winners.
George Vancouver
Capo Bastone
Noble Tune
Balance the Books
Fortify
Gabriel Charles
Dundonnell
Pataky Kid
Really Mr. Greeley
Circle Unbroken
Positively
Really Sharp
Shakin it up
Weekend Hideaway
Carving
Dry Summer
Best of Birdstone
Mylute
One Firm Cat
Backstreet Hero
Dirty Swagg
Mr. Jawbreaker
Stormin Monarcho
The Drifter
Amerigo Vespucci
Will Take Charge
Fredericksburg
Hes a Rock star
Buckleberry Gray
Hazardous
Mac the Man
Ruler of Love
Simon Eyes
Under Review
Raise A Native Sire Line 3 year olds
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
stancaris.
Whered did Raise a Native stand, and who controled his breeding career?.
While I don't dispute the results, the Y chromosome itself is the same in all horses. Not just race horses. Shetland Ponies, Fijord Horses, and Shires. So what you are seeing is something that is not Y related, but is looking like it is Y related.
I'd guess that whoever was stading RAN knew their stuff, and made a lot of very good genetic matches. These are still being reflected today.
Whered did Raise a Native stand, and who controled his breeding career?.
While I don't dispute the results, the Y chromosome itself is the same in all horses. Not just race horses. Shetland Ponies, Fijord Horses, and Shires. So what you are seeing is something that is not Y related, but is looking like it is Y related.
I'd guess that whoever was stading RAN knew their stuff, and made a lot of very good genetic matches. These are still being reflected today.
Raise A Native
X Factor Fan:
1. Spendthrift Farm in Lexington, Kentucky is where Raise A Native stood. I honestly do not know who controlled his breeding career.
2. Are geneticists sure that every gene on the Y chromosome of Raise A Native was exactly the same as every gene on the Y chromosome of any other race horse. Have they done DNA sequencing of absolutely every gene found on the Y chromosome of racehorses? If so, then it must be other genes that help Raise A Native sire line to be so dominant. Perhaps it is other genes that work in conjunction with products of the Y chromosome that have something to do with the dominance of this sire line. It is not likely to be due to coincidence.
3. Raise A Native carried the genes of his champion dad, Native Dancer and he also belonged to the same female family as did the great Secretariat. Sec and Raise A Native both trace in tail female to the great conduit mare, Bill and Coo. Raise A Native tied two track records and set the 5 1/2 furlong record at Aqueduct in 1:02 3/5, a record that still stands today. He was a powerfully built son of Native Dancer who was voted champion 2 year old colt of 1963 by the Turf and Sport Digest (Hurry to Market was voted champion 2 year old in another poll). At stud he was a great sire of sires and three of his sons led the North American sire list: Exclusive Native in 1978 and 1979, Alydar in 1990, and Mr. Prospector in 1987 and 1988.
Of course the Mr. Prospector sire line is the most dominant sire line today but in looking over all the Raise A Native sire line winners of the Derby we find that 11 trace in tail male to Mr. Prospector whereas 7 Derby winners have no trace of Mr. Prospector in their sire line:
The winner, exacta, trifecta and superfecta of last years Derby was comprised of runners carrying the Raise A Native sire line. Coincidence? Not likely. They simply run better because they have more RAN in them on top.
1. Spendthrift Farm in Lexington, Kentucky is where Raise A Native stood. I honestly do not know who controlled his breeding career.
2. Are geneticists sure that every gene on the Y chromosome of Raise A Native was exactly the same as every gene on the Y chromosome of any other race horse. Have they done DNA sequencing of absolutely every gene found on the Y chromosome of racehorses? If so, then it must be other genes that help Raise A Native sire line to be so dominant. Perhaps it is other genes that work in conjunction with products of the Y chromosome that have something to do with the dominance of this sire line. It is not likely to be due to coincidence.
3. Raise A Native carried the genes of his champion dad, Native Dancer and he also belonged to the same female family as did the great Secretariat. Sec and Raise A Native both trace in tail female to the great conduit mare, Bill and Coo. Raise A Native tied two track records and set the 5 1/2 furlong record at Aqueduct in 1:02 3/5, a record that still stands today. He was a powerfully built son of Native Dancer who was voted champion 2 year old colt of 1963 by the Turf and Sport Digest (Hurry to Market was voted champion 2 year old in another poll). At stud he was a great sire of sires and three of his sons led the North American sire list: Exclusive Native in 1978 and 1979, Alydar in 1990, and Mr. Prospector in 1987 and 1988.
Of course the Mr. Prospector sire line is the most dominant sire line today but in looking over all the Raise A Native sire line winners of the Derby we find that 11 trace in tail male to Mr. Prospector whereas 7 Derby winners have no trace of Mr. Prospector in their sire line:
The winner, exacta, trifecta and superfecta of last years Derby was comprised of runners carrying the Raise A Native sire line. Coincidence? Not likely. They simply run better because they have more RAN in them on top.
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
I"m pretty sure Pan Zaretta can give a up to date report on the equine Y chromosome. However it is my understanding that yes, it has been sequenced, and the only gene left functioning are related to sex.
If you are interested, try reading Adam's Curse by Sykes. This is about the human Y, where there is some difference in the Y's. But for a overview on what Y's do, it is a great introduction.
Think about TB breeding.
A colt is running to keep from turning into a gelding. Not fast enough, not nice enough, ugly, or not fashionable, and he's out of the gene pool. Let's say that only a third of the colts born any given year escape the knife.
And this third isn't equal over the entire population, but skewed to "popular" sires. Just how many sons of AP Indy with minimal race records are standing today?
So a stallion like RAN was a good racehorse, stood in Kentucky at Spendthrift, a major farm, had access to good mares, and had a good manager setting up his future mates.
And he produced lots of fast good racehorses. More of his sons survive to sire the next generation. And because the genetic selection was done with either care or luck, more of this generation survive to sire the next generation.
It doesn't take to many generations to skew the percentage of "sirelines" . Eclipse is a historic example, of the kind of genetic bottleneck.
Mr Prospector was very fast, and sired speed, and early speed at that. At a time when that is what the market wanted. He also had a lot of foals in his long, long career. There was a colt from his last crop that was born 30 years after Mr. Prospector's birth year.
If Domino has lasted more than 2 breeding seasons, there might have been a bottleneck there too.
Horse breeding patterns in the wild support this pattern. Very strong selection on the male, with mostly reproduction selection on the female. (If the female in the wild isn't able to produce, or raise a foal, she's out of the gene pool)
Again, I'm not disputing your research. But there might be other reasons for the success of any given sirelines.
If you are interested, try reading Adam's Curse by Sykes. This is about the human Y, where there is some difference in the Y's. But for a overview on what Y's do, it is a great introduction.
Think about TB breeding.
A colt is running to keep from turning into a gelding. Not fast enough, not nice enough, ugly, or not fashionable, and he's out of the gene pool. Let's say that only a third of the colts born any given year escape the knife.
And this third isn't equal over the entire population, but skewed to "popular" sires. Just how many sons of AP Indy with minimal race records are standing today?
So a stallion like RAN was a good racehorse, stood in Kentucky at Spendthrift, a major farm, had access to good mares, and had a good manager setting up his future mates.
And he produced lots of fast good racehorses. More of his sons survive to sire the next generation. And because the genetic selection was done with either care or luck, more of this generation survive to sire the next generation.
It doesn't take to many generations to skew the percentage of "sirelines" . Eclipse is a historic example, of the kind of genetic bottleneck.
Mr Prospector was very fast, and sired speed, and early speed at that. At a time when that is what the market wanted. He also had a lot of foals in his long, long career. There was a colt from his last crop that was born 30 years after Mr. Prospector's birth year.
If Domino has lasted more than 2 breeding seasons, there might have been a bottleneck there too.
Horse breeding patterns in the wild support this pattern. Very strong selection on the male, with mostly reproduction selection on the female. (If the female in the wild isn't able to produce, or raise a foal, she's out of the gene pool)
Again, I'm not disputing your research. But there might be other reasons for the success of any given sirelines.
skewed?
X Factor Fan: I agree with your points above but that doesn't change the fact that the Raise A Native sire line is one of the most dominant lines today.
Interestingly, Native Dancer is the sire and broodmare sire of the two most dominant sire lines today. Raise A Native (Mr. Prospector) sire line and the Northern Dancer sire line respectively. These two lines make up over 50% of the stakes winners today.
Interestingly, Native Dancer is the sire and broodmare sire of the two most dominant sire lines today. Raise A Native (Mr. Prospector) sire line and the Northern Dancer sire line respectively. These two lines make up over 50% of the stakes winners today.
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
is the closed breeding of the thoroughbred good or bad
X Factor Fan: Is the preponderance of the Nasrullah, Northern Dancer, and Raise A Native sire lines in todays thoroughbred good or bad? More than 70% of all stakes winners in North America carry one of the three sire lines listed above.
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Given that I believe that sire line is a meaningless term. Can't answer the question.
What is more important is the percentage of these key horses in a pedigree. Which of course is a almost meaningless term. As this only reflects what could be in the horse in front of you, not what is in the horse.
What I do believe is that Raise a Native had the right combination of genes and luck to both be a very good race horse, and was in the right place at the time where his mix of genes suited the racing market. Ditto with the others on your list.
By selecting for these qualities--short early speed-- the gene pool has more of these genes, and less variety. These comments apply to the US TB. racing is different in other countries.
This is both good and bad. Good for the breeders, as with more potential early speed genes in the breeding pool, then the chances of getting early speed increases. So breeders can sell their early speed horses, which in turn can run in early speed races. Happy breeders, owners, and trainers.
The downside of this is that the "classic horse" will be harder to produce. If you think of early speed x late distance as the formula to produce the "classic horse" , the with the smaller number of late distance horses in the gene pool, the chances are smaller that this "classic" combination will be produced. The lack of a current Triple Crown winner would tend to support this idea. Not enough data to call it a theory.
You might want to take a look at a few horses in your study, and look at not just the sirelines --males only, but look at how many times these horse show up in the total pedigree.
What is more important is the percentage of these key horses in a pedigree. Which of course is a almost meaningless term. As this only reflects what could be in the horse in front of you, not what is in the horse.
What I do believe is that Raise a Native had the right combination of genes and luck to both be a very good race horse, and was in the right place at the time where his mix of genes suited the racing market. Ditto with the others on your list.
By selecting for these qualities--short early speed-- the gene pool has more of these genes, and less variety. These comments apply to the US TB. racing is different in other countries.
This is both good and bad. Good for the breeders, as with more potential early speed genes in the breeding pool, then the chances of getting early speed increases. So breeders can sell their early speed horses, which in turn can run in early speed races. Happy breeders, owners, and trainers.
The downside of this is that the "classic horse" will be harder to produce. If you think of early speed x late distance as the formula to produce the "classic horse" , the with the smaller number of late distance horses in the gene pool, the chances are smaller that this "classic" combination will be produced. The lack of a current Triple Crown winner would tend to support this idea. Not enough data to call it a theory.
You might want to take a look at a few horses in your study, and look at not just the sirelines --males only, but look at how many times these horse show up in the total pedigree.
sire lines do not exist???
X Factor Fan: I myself just cannot believe that sire lines do not exist because recent research indicates that every male horse has identical DNA codes on his Y chromosome. Really? 100% identical DNA codes have been found in all racehorses with no exceptions.
The process of genetics is much more complicated than that. Genes on certain chromosomes (perhaps the Y chromosome) influence genes on other chromosomes (autosomes) and visa versa. I do not think it is a big stretch to believe that the Raise A Native sire line is superior to other sire lines regarding the Triple Crown events. History supports this view.
Sidenote: Horses with the Raise A Native sire line have accounted for 18 Kentucky Derby winners whereas when Raise A Native is on the broodmare sire line we get only 2 Derby winners: Mine that Bird and Barbaro.
Having Raise A Native on the sire line has gotten 18 Belmont winners whereas when Raise A Native is on the Broodmare sire line there have only been 3 Belmont winners: Union Rags, Ruler on Ice, and Point Given. (and two of these were RAN/RAN (Ruler on Ice and Point Given)
Why has the sire line of Raise A Native been so much more influential than the broodmare sire line in the history of the above two long distance races?
I do not have an answer to that question but the bottom line is still the same: The RAN sire line is superior in getting Derby and Belmont winners (also Preakness winners)
The process of genetics is much more complicated than that. Genes on certain chromosomes (perhaps the Y chromosome) influence genes on other chromosomes (autosomes) and visa versa. I do not think it is a big stretch to believe that the Raise A Native sire line is superior to other sire lines regarding the Triple Crown events. History supports this view.
Sidenote: Horses with the Raise A Native sire line have accounted for 18 Kentucky Derby winners whereas when Raise A Native is on the broodmare sire line we get only 2 Derby winners: Mine that Bird and Barbaro.
Having Raise A Native on the sire line has gotten 18 Belmont winners whereas when Raise A Native is on the Broodmare sire line there have only been 3 Belmont winners: Union Rags, Ruler on Ice, and Point Given. (and two of these were RAN/RAN (Ruler on Ice and Point Given)
Why has the sire line of Raise A Native been so much more influential than the broodmare sire line in the history of the above two long distance races?
I do not have an answer to that question but the bottom line is still the same: The RAN sire line is superior in getting Derby and Belmont winners (also Preakness winners)
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Take a look at the production numbers:
A stallion can produce hundreds of offspring, over his breeding career. And with books of a hundred mares a year, literally thousands. A mare can produce many fewer offspring., lets say 10 over her lifetime.
So let's say Mr Studly our major race horse has 1000 foals half male, half female. 75% of his daughters go on to produce foals of their own. Giving a net result of 500 mares X 75% x 10, or about 3,750 foals in the second generation.
Of the 500 colts, 70% don't make it to the stud farm, but the 30% that do have 1000 foals of their own. 500 x 30% x 1000 give a net result of 150,000 foals.
If you go ahead and apply the same formula to the next generation, the disparity get bigger. The sireline numbers are always going to be larger than the damsire numbers, even when the maternal grandsons make their way to stud.
What is true is that the Y chromosome is more efficient at transmitting genetic material to the next generation.
So looking at the numbers of RAN winners, of course the direct male numbers are going to be larger, as the starting number is larger. A very interesting number to look at would be the percentage of winners over total number of individuals in each set.
As for the Y's. Yes, the equine Y is pretty much the same in all horses. And the coding bits are the same. This may be because the domestic horse is a relatively recent development. True wild horses have 66 chromosomes, domestic horses 64. The theory is that a copy error happened in a herd of wild horses, that resulted in two chromosomes sticking together. Over time there was a mixed herd of horses, some that had 66 chromosomes, some with 65, and some with 64. Over more time a herd of horses with only 64 chromosomes was produced. This gave rise to the current domestic horse. It has been speculated that all domestic horses can trace back to one stallion from this herd. ( I wonder if there is something about the conjoined chromosome that makes the horse easier to domesticate)
I don't know if anyone has sequenced the Y chromosome of the other equines. Would be interesting to see what sort of changes or similarities the other Y's have.
Getting back to RAN and his Y. The same chromosome should be in all of the descendants of the Darley Arabian. All of them (if the stud books are accurate) In terms of success, this Y has managed to take over most of the TB gene pool.
A stallion can produce hundreds of offspring, over his breeding career. And with books of a hundred mares a year, literally thousands. A mare can produce many fewer offspring., lets say 10 over her lifetime.
So let's say Mr Studly our major race horse has 1000 foals half male, half female. 75% of his daughters go on to produce foals of their own. Giving a net result of 500 mares X 75% x 10, or about 3,750 foals in the second generation.
Of the 500 colts, 70% don't make it to the stud farm, but the 30% that do have 1000 foals of their own. 500 x 30% x 1000 give a net result of 150,000 foals.
If you go ahead and apply the same formula to the next generation, the disparity get bigger. The sireline numbers are always going to be larger than the damsire numbers, even when the maternal grandsons make their way to stud.
What is true is that the Y chromosome is more efficient at transmitting genetic material to the next generation.
So looking at the numbers of RAN winners, of course the direct male numbers are going to be larger, as the starting number is larger. A very interesting number to look at would be the percentage of winners over total number of individuals in each set.
As for the Y's. Yes, the equine Y is pretty much the same in all horses. And the coding bits are the same. This may be because the domestic horse is a relatively recent development. True wild horses have 66 chromosomes, domestic horses 64. The theory is that a copy error happened in a herd of wild horses, that resulted in two chromosomes sticking together. Over time there was a mixed herd of horses, some that had 66 chromosomes, some with 65, and some with 64. Over more time a herd of horses with only 64 chromosomes was produced. This gave rise to the current domestic horse. It has been speculated that all domestic horses can trace back to one stallion from this herd. ( I wonder if there is something about the conjoined chromosome that makes the horse easier to domesticate)
I don't know if anyone has sequenced the Y chromosome of the other equines. Would be interesting to see what sort of changes or similarities the other Y's have.
Getting back to RAN and his Y. The same chromosome should be in all of the descendants of the Darley Arabian. All of them (if the stud books are accurate) In terms of success, this Y has managed to take over most of the TB gene pool.
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
Re: Raise A Native
stancaris wrote:Are geneticists sure that every gene on the Y chromosome of Raise A Native was exactly the same as every gene on the Y chromosome of any other race horse.
In genes, which code for proteins, there is no diversity in the human y chromosome or in the domestic horse y chromosome. The y is tiny and of single purpose, that being to turn the developing embryo, female by default, into a male. Natural mechanisms exist to 'discourage' mutations in nuclear DNA, including the y. The difference between the human and the horse is that there is enough diversity the in non-coding regions of the human y to distinguish between 'sire lines' at the genomic level. But so far the only non-coding region diversity in the horse has been found in ancient, pre-domestication, remains. Only one of the pre-domestication sire lines survived domestication, an event so recent as to preclude accumulation of significant diversity in the non-coding region, much less in the genes. The success of RAN and Mr. P.'s 'tail male' descendants in winning the KD has nothing to do with the y chromosome, but that certainly needn't preclude their presence on the topline from being of some predictive value.
Stan
If the Raise a Native Y chromosome is responsible in any way for success in the Derby what about Genuine Risk, one of only 3 fillies to win the race, she did not receive a y from Exclusive Native, how did she win without the all important y? For that matter, if the y is so important to superior performance how do all of the stakes winning, superior running fillies and mares do it without a y? The answer is that the y carries no performance genes.
DDT
If the Raise a Native Y chromosome is responsible in any way for success in the Derby what about Genuine Risk, one of only 3 fillies to win the race, she did not receive a y from Exclusive Native, how did she win without the all important y? For that matter, if the y is so important to superior performance how do all of the stakes winning, superior running fillies and mares do it without a y? The answer is that the y carries no performance genes.
DDT
y power
DDT: How many fillies have run in the Derby since Silver Spoon in 1959? The answer is ONLY 11. Why have there only been 11 filly starters in the run for the roses?
Because male horses in general are much stronger physically and therefore can run faster in general than fillies. What is the only macroscopic difference between males and females? The presence of the Y chromosome in males and its absence in females.
The Y chromosome contributes to performance. If it did not have any bearing on performance then one would expect equal numbers of fillies and colts in the Derby over the last 60 years.
Because male horses in general are much stronger physically and therefore can run faster in general than fillies. What is the only macroscopic difference between males and females? The presence of the Y chromosome in males and its absence in females.
The Y chromosome contributes to performance. If it did not have any bearing on performance then one would expect equal numbers of fillies and colts in the Derby over the last 60 years.
Stan
We are not discussing the physical differences between male and female horses in general, nor are we discussing the number of starters in the classic races, we are discussing the Y chromosome and its function. There are thousands of male horses born every year that cannot compete successfully in the classics. I could just as easily ask you how many Raise a Native line males that carry his Y were not successful in the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. The Y determines the sex of the foal, the remaining 63 chromosomes, including the X, and the genes they carry are responsible for the development of the foal.
DDT
We are not discussing the physical differences between male and female horses in general, nor are we discussing the number of starters in the classic races, we are discussing the Y chromosome and its function. There are thousands of male horses born every year that cannot compete successfully in the classics. I could just as easily ask you how many Raise a Native line males that carry his Y were not successful in the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. The Y determines the sex of the foal, the remaining 63 chromosomes, including the X, and the genes they carry are responsible for the development of the foal.
DDT