Re: RC: here we go again

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/3/00 4:04:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
Eenergonzillen@AOL.COM writes:

<<  When it all comes down to it, I think that 
 a horse's bloodlines have little to do with what kind of endurance horse he 
 is going to be.  I know that people can look at a horse's pedigree to get an 
 idea of how his reletives compete, but bloodlines still don't tell you for 
 sure that every horse out of "this mare" and by "that stallion" will be a 
 good endurance horse.  >>

Everything that a horse is genetically capable of doing comes from his 
ancestors.  No, a pedigree is not a precise blueprint of what a horse will 
be--what it is is a set of possibilities.  You can't make him something that 
he doesn't have the genetic capability of being.

That said--the biggest problem with pedigree study is that folks expect 
quality from fame, without taking the time and trouble to learn what those 
horses back there--and I mean ALL of those horses back there--are really 
like.  Fame and quality are not synonymous--they may sometimes be related, 
but not always.  You have to look farther than the sire or dam--you have to 
look at the whole genetic picture.  And even then, it is a matter of 
probabilities--since no one family has a black-and-white lock on quality for 
a given discipline.  By the luck of the draw, you can round up enough good 
genes in a "poor" pedigree to have a great horse, or enough poor genes in a 
"good" pedigree to have a poor horse.  But your chances are a lot better if 
you start with families that have more good genetic material to offer than 
bad.

Heidi