too much of a good thing?

Joltman · Postby **Joltman** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:39 pm

I recently ran a couple of 5X hypo matings and wound up with the following for one of the matches

Storm Cat 2S x 4D
Storm Bird 3S x 5d
Terlingua 3S x 4D
Northern Dancer 4D x 5S x 5D
Secretariat 4S x 5S x 4D
Mr. P 4D x 5S x 4D
Bold Ruler 5S x 5D
Somethingroyal 5S x 5D

Inbreeding to three of the most dominant sires in recent decades.

Two questions --

1. How common is this much inbreeding in a hypo?
2. Is it too much?

(Some of the ancestors like the Somethingroyal are simply the result of the Secretariat inbreeding)

jm

ElPrado · Postby **ElPrado** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:24 pm

Don't make the same mistake Louis keeps making of using every horse all the way back in a pedigree. He doesn't know how to read a pedigree and never has read one correctly. If you count a horse in one generation and the same horse comes up another time it counts. What does not work is if you keep counting all of their sires and dams multiple times. That is what we keep trying to explain to Louis. We need a bigger hammer to get it through to him.
Louis tries to count a sire, his sire, his grand sire, his great grand sire.....
it is more like twice in the 3rd generation x 3 times in the 4th generation, which would be 2x3. You don't need to go any farther than that, you're just wasting your time. You've already said it correctly.

Joltman · Postby **Joltman** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:13 am

I just reproduced the 5x data.

What is of note is the inbreeding to All 3 of the big boys - ND (via Storm Cat and others), MP, and Secretariat - all fairly close. I've seen lots with one or two, but rarely all 3.

I would also be curious about the thoughts on other stallions that might show up in a 4 or 5 cross where there were 3 or more separate stallions showing up.

jm

Shammy Davis · Postby **Shammy Davis** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:31 am

http://www.sport-horse-breeder.com/pedi ... ition.html

DDT · Postby **DDT** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:06 am

Joltman

Here are a few, there are plenty more out there.

El Merito
3X5 Northern Dancer, 4X4 Raise a Native,
4X5 Hail to Reason, 5X5X5 Native Dancer,
5X5 Nashua

Dang You Cactus.
3X4 Seattle Slew, 4X4X5 Buckpasser,
4X5 Nashua, 5X5 Nearctic

Details R Sketchy
4X5 Mr. Prospector, 5X5 Secretariat, 5X5 Northern
Dancer, 5X5 Raise a Native

Taylor Marini
3X3 Storm Bird, 4X4X5 Northern Dancer,
4X5 Secretariat, 5X5 Bold Ruler

Big Polk a Dot
4X5 Secretariat, 4X5 Mr. Prospector,
5X5 Northern Dancer

DDT

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:32 pm

joltman wrote:

I recently ran a couple of 5X hypo matings and wound up with the following for one of the matches

Storm Cat 2S x 4D
Storm Bird 3S x 5d
Terlingua 3S x 4D
Northern Dancer 4D x 5S x 5D
Secretariat 4S x 5S x 4D
Mr. P 4D x 5S x 4D
Bold Ruler 5S x 5D
Somethingroyal 5S x 5D

Inbreeding to three of the most dominant sires in recent decades.

Two questions --

1. How common is this much inbreeding in a hypo?
2. Is it too much?

I don't see 2x4 to Storm Cat that often. Is it too much? I think inbreeding like most equine genetics remains a crap shoot. Inbreeding allows for genetic sameness. If you get positive attributes passed on via same ancestors it's a good thing. If poor attributes (i.e. bleeding; bad feet etc.) are passed on to the resulting foal it's not a good thing.

Barcaldine · Postby **Barcaldine** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:42 am

I have several foals and yearlings inbred 3 x 3 Storm Cat and am very happy with the physical specimens. No offsets and good temperaments, not to mention the very strong constitutions that SC is known for.

IMO inbreeding to superior ancestors is the best way to upgrade average stock; however, it is very important NOT to use individuals which exhibit the negative traits of the duplicated horse.

dublino · Postby **dublino** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:14 pm

Heres a free tip, if the mare is not a Graded Stakes winner or 1/2 sibling to a G1 winner don't breed from it.

Boom, the breeding industry just died a death...............

Barcaldine · Postby **Barcaldine** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:15 pm

Dublino,

While I agree with the gist of what you said I dont believe breeding quality racehroses is as simple as you imply. Based on your strict requirement only the Sheiks, Hancocks and a few other families would qualify, and we all know they breed their fair share of plodders.

I decided three years ago to give away all but one of my mares and start over with young, quality mares, although none is a G1 SW! I now have a minimum requirement of every purchase that the first dam must either be a G2 SW or better and/or be the producer of same. The only exceptions I have made to this rule are a listed stakes winning mare by Malibu Moon that has no graded black type in her first dam, and an aged Danzig mare who is a G2 producer. Other than that my broodmare band of 25 mares adheres to it.

It's too easy to make a case for buying/keeping marginal and sub-marginal mares. All mares are well-bred, if you go back far enough in their pedigrees. So for me to stay productive in this game I have found it necessary to cull and critique my mares by a definable standard.

dublino · Postby **dublino** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:01 am

Its not that simple at all but with Graded stakes winning mares and 1/2 siblings mares to G1 winners and using a top 10 sire you will get about 25 - 30% Graded stakes foals.

DDT · Postby **DDT** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:20 am

dublino

Name one top 10 stallion that sires 25-30% Graded stakes foals. If it were that easy even you could breed a stakes winner, let alone a Graded stakes winner. All one has to do is examine the production records of filly and mare champions over the last 50 years to discover that the percentage of Graded stakes foals produced by them is nowhere near that figure.

DDT

Joltman · Postby **Joltman** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:57 pm

I think the 'regression to the mean' principle kicks in even with the best of the best. Your chances are better, but declining. The cost/benefit ratio definitely favors the highest quality mares in terms of racing and breeding production. Few of us can get to , let alone stay, at the very top.

jm

Patuxet · Postby **Patuxet** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:57 am

I have to agree with Joltman. In the half century I've been around this sport I've yet to see any statistical support for the notion that mares which are 1/2 siblings to G1 winners or out of G1 winners enjoy any breeding advantage. Other than mares which themselves showed exceptional racing ability, all other categories of brood mares tend to produce to the arithmetic mean of the breed.

The rule of thumb is still "breed the best to the best and hope for the best".

dublino · Postby **dublino** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:47 am

DDT wrote:dublino

Name one top 10 stallion that sires 25-30% Graded stakes foals. If it were that easy even you could breed a stakes winner, let alone a Graded stakes winner. All one has to do is examine the production records of filly and mare champions over the last 50 years to discover that the percentage of Graded stakes foals produced by them is nowhere near that figure.

DDT

Take a chance to read again what I posted.

dublino · Postby **dublino** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:48 am

Patuxet wrote:I have to agree with Joltman. In the half century I've been around this sport I've yet to see any statistical support for the notion that mares which are 1/2 siblings to G1 winners or out of G1 winners enjoy any breeding advantage. Other than mares which themselves showed exceptional racing ability, all other categories of brood mares tend to produce to the arithmetic mean of the breed.

The rule of thumb is still "breed the best to the best and hope for the best".

Yes the do, 1/2 siblings to G1 winners and graded stakes winning mares have a higher % of Graded stakes foals.