 |
Re: [RC] Selecting for longevity in endurance competition - heidiThis is, in fact, a perfect example of why you don't just want to look at "lines" or "families." All of the horses that you mention were very prolific. Well, no, it is an example of looking at "lines or families" in the wrong way. One doesn't simply count the numbers of individuals of that family that do well--as you say, it could simply be a prolific family. One looks instead at the percentages of successes within lines and families, and one also looks at the failures within that line or family. Then one starts to look at crosses between families--does this family show up in more successes than the family with which it is crossed, etc. One of the telling things in looking at endurance pedigrees is that the old-line horses (not just CMK, but also Babson, pre-WWII Polish, Sa'ud, etc.) when bred within themselves show up among successful horses FAR more often than their representation in the gene pool would suggest that they should. Then one looks at the modern show lines--when bred only among themselves, they show up far LESS often than their preponderance in the gene pool suggests that they should. Then one looks at the crosses--and again, the older lines show up in successful horses despite top crosses away, when the lines represented by the top crosses show up on their own hardly at all, despite their commonness in the gene pool. This tends to be true in looking at pedigrees of the individuals of other breeds that do well in the sport, too--the recent discussion of Scotch&Soda was a good case in point. No modern halter winners in that pedigree at all, but instead just good old-fashioned working lines. It is all too easy to look at pedigrees and not find a "super sire" and then simply discount breeding as being meaningless. It's a little bit like finding a great piece of literature that is written in another language, and writing it off as worthless because one does not want to take the time to learn the language in which it is written. NONE of the horses you mention is noted for producing endurance horses with longevity. This doesn't mean that none of them has produced endurance horses with longevity, just that nobody has done the pedigree research to determine if/whether this is the case. Additionally, since these horses were, until recently, not even tried on the endurance circuit, you are unlikely to find much data with respect to them being successful, or unsuccessful at it. Actually, Czort has had several descendants on the endurance circuit--only a handful of which have had success, and most of those have been outcrosses. Again, one has to look at the WHOLE pedigrees of successful horses, and look at the frequency at which those horses appear both in the gene pool and among the "also-rans" of the sport. Especially since the reason that they haven't much been tried is that many of them have been successful at what they WERE bred for, and therefore haven't "ended up" in endurance. A great many horses "end up" in endurance--but again, where people fail in studying endurance pedigrees is in looking at those entry-level horses, and the frequency of pedigree types there, and then comparing that with the pedigrees of the successes. There is, actually, virtually no unbiased research into what "lines" are successful in endurance and which ones aren't; and I am not sure that the necessary data even exists to be able to do it. It isn't just a matter of looking at the pedigrees of horses that are successful, since this may just be an indication of what are the lines of the horses that people even "try" to use for endurance. You would have to compare the percentage of successful horses of one particular line to the percentage of non-successful horses of the same line (i.e. you would have to know the pedigrees of all starters, not just the "winners"). While you are right that those of us who have done such studies have not been good about generating numbers, there ARE those among us who have done exactly that. And while I do happen to breed one particular line that HAS proven successful, I also would submit that I have been very open in identifying other lines that are likewise successful, and that I also studied the pedigrees of successes and failures FIRST, before deciding to breed those lines. And yes, Kat, there was a time when I studied the pedigrees of the majority of the starters at rides (those I could get), and compared them to the horses that both ran up front successfully and competed consistently for many years. Although I don't take the time to be as complete any more, it is no big secret that the starting pool very much reflects the overall picture of the American gene pool, but the pedigrees of high mileage horses, Tevis and Haggin winners, or any other group of "successful" horses that I've looked at does NOT mirror the American gene pool. That in itself is evidence that families and lines DO make a difference, and that it is only a matter of having time to crunch the numbers to determine how MUCH of a difference. And you can't just be looking at Arabian pedigrees either (i.e. you can't confine yourself to just the Arabian "family"), because there is certainly evidence that horses of non-arabian blood are also successful with respect to longevity in endurance competition. Certainly, some of the highest mileage AERC horses are half arabians (Tulip, Astro Aries come to mind), an Icelandic (Remington), a Spanish Mustang (Geronimo's W arrior), and considering the fact that there are so few starters of non-arabians compared with arabians, this is SOME indication that longevity as an endurance horse is not an Arabian trait at all. It certainly is not solely an Arabian trait--but see my previous comments in looking at the pedigrees of the successful horses of those breeds as well. Those I've looked at have been pretty representative of old-time breeding, just as the successful Arabian pedigrees have been. Granted, there are plenty of high mileage arabians as well (probably more than non-arabians), but are they proportionally represented with respect to their starters??? I don't know. No, they are not. And I feel that I've looked at enough starter pedigrees to say that with a high degree of certainty. With respect to the prospect that you are looking at, you would do far better to look at the individual horse than at its pedigree. You have mentioned some horses in its pedigree that are noted for their ability to throw athletic horses, and you describe a pedigree that doesn't look much like anybody was trying to produce a show halter horse, so it is "good enough" to consider that the individual might be a good endurance horse (i.e. you haven't mentioned anything in its pedigree that makes me think, oooh no, stay away from that :)), but then Steph Teeter's horse Great Santini has a pedigree that screams halter/show horses (although he does trace back to both Czort and Wielki Szlem), and I happen to know that he was specifically bred to be a halter and/or Park horse, so, judging from his close up family I wouldn't choose him; however, has has been competing in endurance for going on 8 years now, has over 2000 miles (so not super high mileage, but it has also included at least one Pan Am plenty of top tens and quite a few BCs) and to my knowledge he has never taken a lame step. Just goes to show that there are good apples in bad barrels, as well as bad apples in good barrels. You are right that one never argues with success. But if Santini was intact, would I breed to him? Not on your nelly. The variables that go into making an endurance horse with longevity are so complex and have so much intricacy (not to mention the fact that it is VERY dependent upon how the horse is managed), coupled with the fact that virtually nobody has selected specifically for this ability, that looking at pedigrees is unlikely to tell you much at all about whether the horse will be a good prospect. The classic breeders of many breeds selected for this--so you increase your odds by selecting horses that have not been greatly altered from classic breeding. It's that simple. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|