Well done Eqinome/Dawn Approach

in terms of faulty science, taking one instance as the start of a new scientific paradigm is probably up there
How many horses running today have been prepared using equinome and how are they performing relative to the rest of the population is probably the place to start this analysis

Would you like to declare your interest in equinome or is this just a random 'fan' based posting

Genome aftertiming.  It had to happen.

Im not going to spell out the benefits on a public forum. Suffice to say the market for bloodstock is highly inefficient. Heavily odds on that an equinome test could improve your chances of owning a decent one. Or you could try giving a "top" (oxymoron) bloodstock agent your 5%.

FYI there are a certain type of horse (T:T) that wins less than 3& of 2yo races. Is it worth having it in full training at £2k a month?

there are women who are having their breasts removed at 21 years old because geneticist's are telling them they have a cancer gene. I would try eating healthily and not smoking and hope for the best.

If I fancied a horse that had this TT gene (or whatever), i would buy it. Some of them win at 2 and 3 don't they?

If I fancied a horse that had this TT gene (or whatever), i would buy it. Some of them win at 2 and 3 don't they?

Buyers have been using this same philosophy for 100s of years. The market for unproven bloodstock is still highly inefficient. Less than 5% of T:T's win at 2. Give me a C:C from a good sprinting family that walks badly over a T:T from a sprinting family that all the agents say is a great looker any day of the week.

As you know it is all fairly new. I am trying to get myself ahead of the curve on this subject so to speak. Lots of information on their website and links to scientific studies if you enjoy reading them.

We have not even mentioned that they are now grading the genes as well. So in 100 live foals from a stallion you will get your %'s in terms of C:C, C:T and T:T BUT you will also get different gradings. They are grading them from 1 down to 5. A grade 1 horse is over 50% more likely to win a listed race (or higher) than horses from other grades.

It is my opinion that breeders could be selling off Grade1 C:C horses for  not a lot of money at all. The drawback being that there is no way of finding out what genes a horse has unless you buy it first!

Although I am an advocate of genetic testing I find the idea of pinning ultimate significance on one sole gene strange, particularly since it relates to a distance aptitude and not quality or ability.

Pedigree analysis is what got Jim Bolger to where he is now and  quote "While some of my best fillies didnt prove at all successful at stud,I had begun taking chances with pedigrees that were a little dormant in the first and second generations...I wasnt afraid to take a chance on those ,provided that no bad sire was evident in the first four generations,thats worked very well for me....."
Not saying anything bad about Eqinome because it does look interesting but it doesnt seem to me to be the be all and end all.. The post Guineas Derby talk seems to be a lot of chat about looking at pedigree and temperament more than what his eqinome chart said and he is the co-founder and director.

i am an advocate of genetic testing to give you an edge. However once a horse is in full training as a 3yo after running multiple times at 2 it will tell you nothing the trainer doesn't.

Areas where you could get an edge by using are equinome are obviously in buying unraced bloodstock and deciding what to keep/sell if you are a breeder.

A few comments on this thread suggesting the test only tells you distance aptitude (C:C, C:T or T:T). my understanding the new tests also grades or groups the genes. Grade 1 horse 50% more likely to win a listed race.

You have 2 Green Desert colts out of a listed winner. One is a C:C with grade 1 genes and the other is a T:T with grade 5 genes. The stats are showing the much better bet is the former. They will go through the ring at the same price though.

"First horse to win a classic after having their genes analysed by this Irish start up"
if i am not mistaken New Approach actually holds this title but equinome weernt in public domain at that stage

From what I have read on the subject Equinome cant tell you whether your horse is going to be good or bad

You need to read more then. They are already grading horses. Early results are showing grade1 genes 50% more likely to be a listed winner or higher. I would suggest you have already made your mind up though, no place for genetic profiling in horses. Bloodstock agents clearly have the game by the balls.

Here is a link to the equinome sales pitch:

http://www.equinome.com/pages/equinome-elite-performance-test.html

If you are like me you will prefer to read the peer reviewed research (paywall):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2011.02201.x/full

"You have 2 Green Desert colts out of a listed winner. One is a C:C with grade 1 genes and the other is a T:T with grade 5 genes. The stats are showing the much better bet is the former. They will go through the ring at the same price though."

Do me a favour. Even if this is true they certainly won't be going through the ring at the same price as everyone will have that information and the CC fella will fetch 5 times(or whatever) as much as the TT one. In the end there will be no benefit to anyone except the genetics company.

Bert, I find your unbridled enthusiasm for Equinome a little disconcerting and your unwillingness to accept anyone else's opinion a little bit vulgar. The bare truth is that the sample size is not great enough and the success to date does not conclusively point to a panacea for all of breeding's imponderables. Equinome may well turn out to be the most important development in the history of breeding but it's still early days right now.

Or have I missed something? Was there a public share option on the company that I don't know about and you snaffled them up by the thousand? Or are you in some way related to the directors? If the latter, I'd probably have you down as a T:T (slow to come to hand, not of much interest) or are you afflicted by the unyet undiscovered BS:BS gene - a double dose of bullsh*t?

Hi Bert, I'm sorry if any comments I have made may show any animosity to you as this is certainly not the case. I am very pleased that you have raised this issue because I feel genetics testing will not help anyone except equinome.

Just imagine you are off to the sales with £200k to spend. Then a £600 test is peanuts, so everyone in this price bracket will have a test done. If its a TT no one will bid on it (or at least not at anywhere near it's pre-genetics value). But TT and CC only give's the horse's propensity to acheive a standard. So say the said yearling sold for £50k it doesn't mean he won't acheive greatness just there's less chance of it. If there were 10 yearlings that we value at £200k pre testing and after a test we find 5 were TT and 5 were CC, the five with TT genes now sell for £50k and the CC ones sell for £350k you still end up with £2m spent (plus the equinome costs of course). The outcome maybe that only 1 TT type is a group horse and 3 CC types are group horses but no one really gains as the market adjust for this in the yearling costs.

If you are a breeder you will test all yearlings and make sure everyone knows if it's a CC type.In the end all horses will have to have this test if it is as accurate as they say and all gains will be nullified. The only slight advantage I can see with it is at the very low end. I could breed to very cheap stallions, shoot all the TT types at birth and send CC types to the sale which will probably make me a profit, but of course I could have shot the Derby winner that would have made a real difference to me!

Whatever our views on the issue of genetic testing one thing is for sure; it is not going away. They have invested a lot of money in the company and it seems to be gathering a bit of momentum (new australian sales office). I will be very interested as to how it pans out in the coming years.

If tests start undermining the sales ring it would not surprise me to see horse federations banning the testing of unraced horses.

Bert

it wouldn't e bad for sellers but a disaster for the sport. As a breeder you would factor the price in to the stallion probably getting a free return on negative types. No foals at the value end of the market (maybe any end) would be reared with a negative gene test. How could you possibly rear a showcasing or a multiplex for example? you would never sell it.

In the end, even if only genetically favourable types made it to the track there can still only be one Derby or Wokingham winner. It is a counter productive technology. There will be absolutely NO benefit to the sport only to eqinome.

Equinome analysed records for 2 year olds in a single trainers yard (Elite Yard). This analysis showed that CC and CT horses earned 4 to 5 times more than TT horses as two year olds. Importantly the TT horses have the same potential for Group race performance in their 3 year old and mature years.
These type of claims need closer examination because we all know statistics can be used in many different ways, particularly when a commercial organisation presents them to sell a product.

What I would like to know is;

How many horses were tested?
Were all horses in the yard,including unraced horses tested?
What elite yard did they analyse?
What sort of % strike rate does the trainer have?
Is the trainer known for winning with 2 year olds and mature types?
Where can we see these results and is it available?