Tony Morris article today

where is the evidence of population genetics in the thoroughbred?

anecdotally, and I apologise as I haven't read the Morris article, the breed in the US is deteriorating thanks to the use of various medications on unsound stock that carries to future generations. I have read in the past that the thoroughbred hasn't "progressed" when you take Derby times, for example, into account but as we have what's regarded as a "pure" breed then no tinkering (a la genetic experiments) around the edges is allowed. My guess is that for the breed to progress: faster times, taller horses, stronger limbs etc., then changes such as AI would have to be allowed (as in cattle and pigs) so that the breed can find the next human Usain Bolt. Alas, he equine version - Usain Colt - managed just a 2yo maiden win from 7 starts.

Are you in the horse breeding business, RoyalAcademy?  AI would benefit stallion owners as it allows more mare covers.  Do the people who pay for racing want or need an improved breed?  Thousands of high ability horses might kill interest in the sport/business.

Take it I'm just an avid, interested observer kincsem. My post was to widen the debate as I am uncertain what tinkering, if any, is or has been allowed with equine genetics.

I do find it interesting that racehorses are running no faster today than the 1930's and given that we have had interval training, Martin Pipe, the Owning Hill (!), treadmills, Michael Dickonson, advances in steroids (!!), not forgetting our old pal MAZ and an assortment of other advances over recent decades this hardly suggests "progress" in the accepted sense.

AI will never be allowed as long as their is a living breath in the lungs of the current crop of dominant stallion masters: there is just too much at stake to have a Galileo not allowed to dominate when (relatively) limited books of mares are covered annually and, in any event, the mare population is just too small. A recent debate in the Irish Field started somewhat provocatively by Lord J.H.N.D. Irwin (the ex-Goffs man could be accused of biting the hand that previously fed him) called for the introduction of thoroughbred AI and I do't recall too many industry or other voices adding their support. Ironically, the arguments ranged against him in the IF letters page were not very convincing when you stripped out the vested interest imperative.

There's many here far more qualified and experienced than me to comment on these matters.

Morris is dead right, there are far too many pattern races. I can think of at least 6 European Group 1s that should be Group 2s. The number of Group 1s has completely devalued the Group 2 as an entity. One of the most horrible phrases for any racing purist is 'we're going to travel to get a bit of Black type.'

Dermot Weld's quest to land Famous Name a Group one bordered on the desperate and pathetic.

Listed filly handicaps would be a good place to start any black type cull

There is an interesting article by Geoffrey Riddle on the Racing UK website about the upgrading/downgrading issue. The International Rankings are used to monitor Group races and (in theory at least) decide whether or not a race goes up or down in status. The article highlights certain Group 1’s in danger of losing their status.

When I was looking to buy a broodmare at auction recently, I did my homework and tried to find the best possible mare for my budget. I took into account conformation and pedigree but when it came down to assessing the racecourse merit of the mare I looked at the rating rather than whether it was or was not a listed performer. In essence the question is; would you buy a Group placed mare with a rating of around 85 or rather buy a mare that did not perform at Group level but managed a rating of 95?

I suppose it might depend upon what you are looking to achieve, the best possible progeny or the most commercial progeny. If the latter then maybe you might go for the black type performer above the higher rated.

To come back to the original question as to where Morris get his information. I don’t know for certain and have done no research personally but the International Classifications have been going long enough to enable researchers to look at the data and produce statistics to prove/disprove this assertion. It would be a fairly straightforward task to compare these stats with ratings produced by the likes of Raceform or Timeform to add further weight to the findings.

AI can be used in pigs but we never used it for Nucleus Herd genetic improvement as no male was allowed to sire more than 20 litters (or about 200 offspring) before being replaced by the best boar in the next batch off test. That is the whole point of population genetics which is just the opposite of Pedigree breeding which I suppose is what horse breeding still is.

Sageform,

I haven't read the article but on the topic of breed improvement the thoroughbred cannot be directly compared with other stock. The key difference is that all thoroughbreds come form a small pool of horses that have not been added to in over 300 years (other than some very small experiments). The genetic pool is fixed and has been for a long time. It is possible that the fastest horse from this gene pool has been bred. Clearly improved training techniques may get more speed from the horse and give the impression of improvement and drugs may play a part in this too.
My guess is that any real improvement in speed now will come at a cost to the horse such as lighter bone etc.

The reduced in numbers of stallions and concentration on a few fashionable lines won't help this situation. The majority of breeders have to be commercial and can't afford to introduce different and more obscure lines to try and improve their lines as the market will won't buy them. AI will have no effect on this just make it worse.

I partly agree with the last post but we did start with quite a small pool of pigs from the best pedigree breeders back in 1965 and made limited introductions subsequently. The main reasons that I see for the apparent lack of progress in thoroughbreds are the level of inbreeding and the very low heritability of what we are trying to measure. Apart from sprinters, it is a good question as to what we are trying to measure. Stamina is a rather nebulous concept and I suspect that it is more mental than genetic. I also have a background as a middle/long distance athlete and my capacity to run at an even pace and to hurt myself in training led to my best performances being achieved at the age of 41 after 23 years of trying!

I don't think inbreeding is the issue, it's what we are inbreeding to. Clearly Northern Dancer provides most of the inbreeding in the current thoroughbred. If he contains the best genes of the breed then it is the right thing to do. This is the same as fixing a type into stock such as pigs and sheep. If you think another stallion contains these genes then inbreed to it, but as I have already said this will be an expensive experiment.

The thing about precocity, is that we are breeding to win classics which requires horses to be at their best at 3. This is the name of the game. So if you can breed a 6yo that can win age for weight races that may well be considered a success in it's own right but you are not really winning the game.

An excellent point made by intergoal. What mare would you buy, an 85 rated Group placed performer or a 95 rated handicapper? This is the type of anomaly that the breeding world throws up on a regular basis. Lets say both were full sisters, which mare's progeny would make the most money?
About 10 years ago Horse Racing Ireland had a policy whereby they wanted to increase the number of Black Type races from 5% of all races to an incredible 11%. This they achieved, although the worldwide average is about 5%. Some cynical people would suggest that this policy was introduced to facilitate a small but influential number of breeders who have a significant influence on the HRI board. How was this policy allowed to be introduced when there are less horses in training today than 10 years ago? Over the past few years, in Ireland, it was not uncommon to see horses rated in the 80's achieve black type status. Even today at the Curragh the Group 3 was won by a 95 rated horse and the Group 1 was won by an 110 rated horse. I think these type of results are what Tony Morris is referring to. Too many average horses getting lofty reputations.

dont know anything about breeding horses, choosing either an 85 or an 95 rated mare to buy, as regards to the progeny's
potential ability, the pedigree could be much more important factor then the rating, difference between 85 and 95 may
not be of significant enough value. whereas the pedigree has to be the most important factor. do think ratings are very
important generally, not so sure it would be the guiding principle for breeders.

Because there is no overall policy governing horse breeding, individual breeders may make decisions based on  a variety of factors. Smaller breeders wish to keep their costs to a minimum, stallion owners are trying to maximize the early success of a new stallion while the biggest owner breeders like Juddmonte and the Aga Khan can take a longer term view and produce 50 quality foals each year with the expectation that a few will be Group class with the others having a good resale value. I always note that the Aga Khan in particular uses a wide range of stallions to avoid a narrow gene pool.

The Aga Khan uses a system called the Vuillier Dosage system for selecting his stallions. This revolves around identifying ancestors that have contributed to the best horses of the time and duplicating them in the planned foal. This system of line breeding was put forward by Vuillier in the 1920's and the Aga Khan of the day employed Vuillier and effectively privatised the system. It worked very well for the Aga Khan over the years and allowed him to use less popular stallions to win big races, although the gene pool he selects from is indeed quite narrow. However there are 2 points to note:

1-He has enough money to absorb failures that the smaller and even the much larger commercial operations couldn't. Even the likes of Juddmonte maintain a much more commercial attitude than the Aga Khan

2- Most importantly in relation to this conversation his stock is no more successful than the likes of Coolmore and other highly commercial operations.

So in conclusion, I still maintain that there may well be very little improvement to come from the thoroughbred and the fact is that you probably have just as much chance breeding a champion from a commercial operation as any other system. If this is the case you would have to be very eccentric or plain crackers to breed stock that when sold couldn't cover the cost of the feeding bill.

So long as the trainers and agents who make most of the buying decisions have their own opinion of what to buy and what not to, the breeder of unfashionable pedigrees needs an outstanding physical specimen or put the horse in training and hope. The breeder of Annecdote (see below) was offered an insulting 1000 guineas. She is now worth more than many of the fillies that ran in the race of that name! I loved his reason for not selling her "at age 90 what would I do with the money" Great story.

anyone notice how "group 1 horses" never target group 2 or 3 races which they would easily win. the ballydoyle camp are best for this.

They certainly do. Watch how many Arc contenders turn up for the September stakes or the trials day at Longchamp. The trouble is they have a penalty if they have won a G1 and are often undercooked as well.