Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part V (Conclusion)

TrueNicks — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:14:23 GMT

In the conclusion to the series, Dr. Fishman discusses his choice of Big Brown for a 2009 mating and offers encouragement to his fellow Thoroughbred enthusiasts.

Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part IV

TrueNicks — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:33:35 GMT

In part IV of the series, the breeder of a recent black type winner reveals many of the pedigree and conformation considerations that he deliberated for the stakes winner's dam.

Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part III

TrueNicks — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:07:04 GMT

Successful breeder Dr. Robert Fishman continues recounting the story of a stakes winner. In this post, we read about the many stallions considered for the young mare Refrain, in the seasons leading up to the emergence of Girfrienontheside.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Alfonso — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:50:00 GMT

Dear Mr Fishman,

at last have I understood. The example you have used with La Troeine is something similar to what I tried to write in my firt post. I understand now that we are in the same side.

I feel that inbreeding or linebreeding should be studied together with the analysis of all the horses in the line (from the horse which is inbreed, to the resultant foal). Are there traits that are being expressed by all that horses?

As you call, the basic genetics, say that each father/mother puts 50%, grandfathers, 25%, then 12,5, then 6,25, 3,125,....

A 5x5 according to ptobability should impact with a 6,25%, but we don't know which traits are being described in that genetic information. On the other hand, there some sires, and their sons, which mark with something very typical of the line and it can be that the mare also have it. Why shouldn't we try to reinforce that?

I have always seen a lot of similarities withing descendants of Princequillo, Ribot and Alibhai and I think that it is no casualty that the great horses having one of them, usually have another of this three. Tom Rolfe, Key to the Mint, His Majesty and Graustark,Sulamani, can be a current case, the best Secretariat Risen Star, and the best of his progeny Star Standard, etc...

There are some cases where it seems important to add certain lines. It can be because of the inbreeding, or because of the nicking, or because this individuals print strongly their stock, and so do their descendants.

So my position is that myths should be not followed blind. Sometimes they have been written by people who were trying to give an explanation for something they were seing that was proving effective in breeding. Probably that efectiveness was real, but not general. It was something that happened with some very particular names. Here is were observation is mandatory.

I don't accept blind, some breeding theories. I knew the probabilities we talked about, but I also think that they are only that, probabilities. As I tried to explained and has been better represented by the 5x5x5x5 La Troiene, one individual can have nothing of La Troiene, but it also can happen to have a lot more of La Troiene than expected by probability.

Observation is very important. We cannot see everyting as you stated, but I believe that people as Mr Ensor, who have been looking for horses their all lives, have a lot to teach. Intuition comes to people that have been working their whole lives. There is a trainer here that always says that he doesn't mind pedigrees. He buys individuals. I don't support this, but it is true that he has bought very poor pedigrees and then has had a lot of good runners. What does this man see in the horses? a bit of intuition and a lot of years looking for horses.

About stallions, I have seen both types. Good stallions that printed so much their progeny, bad stallions with the same characteristic. Good stallions with very diverse progeny and bad stallions with also very diverse progeny. The worst stallion that we have had here, delivered stock nearly exact to him and the only good one, had nothing to do with him.

We are part of a business where it is sometimes difficult to identify good stallions. Some of them are so well suported by their owners that it is impossible that thy don't deliver high class stock. For example, I don't think that Giant's Causeway is extraordionary. He is far from that, but he has so many stock out of high class mares that he is leading the american sirelist. On the other hand, Unusual Heat or previously Dynaformer, are stallions that have had to make their way from poor mares at the start. Theese ones are really improvers of mares. I have always wondered what would happen to some top stallions if they received the mares of the first crop of Danehill, Dynaformer, Unusual Heat, Monsun, and so on. Perhaps they would have remained unnoticed. Looking at AEI and CI with a sufficient number of foals we can see if the stallion is improving the mares progeny earnings. But earnings is something a bit tricky because one sire who has the Dubai World Cup winner, will appear as an improver even if he downgrade mares. I prefer to analyse the timeforms/beyer speed figures/etc.. The impact of a good horse doesn't change the stats so much. I wonder if there is a place here where one can by somethng similar to AEI/CI but that relates average timeform for a sire's progeny compared to average timeform for the mares he has covered when they have visited other stallions.

In some way, as Mr Ensor, I preffer

a stallion to print his progeny.

Dr Fishman, Mr Ensor, thank you very much for this interesting post.

Alfonso

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Dr. Robert Fishman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:03:41 GMT

Dear Alfonso,

I'll try to respond to your points as best I'm able. We do have a bit of a language barrier, so I'm not certain that I grasp fully your positions... Yes, coefficients of inbreeding are only approximations. We really only know for certain that a sire and dam contribute approximately equally to their offspring. Once you depart from the first generation onward things become ever more uncertain (when it is "ruled" only by the laws of probability). I suggest you (and others) google "Meiosis" and follow the schematics and/or discussion. So, it is possible, though unlikely, that a horse may be noted as 5x5x5x5 La Troienne when in fact it actually possesses none, or nearly none of La Troienne's genes...Full siblings, on average, possess 50% identical genetic material-same as sons/daughters to each parent (again, read up on Meiosis). This is an example of what I'm trying to convey--this is rudementary genetics, and all breeders should have this knowledge--it may dispel some false beliefs/practices...As far as who contibutes more, the sire or dam- It's my belief that they contribute approximately equally. Yes, I do agree somethat with your 1 and 2 points, but my readings indicate that MDNA's contribution is relatively minor. Yes, there is much greater genetic variation in the dam vs the sire (for the reason you mentioned). Incidentally, and I'll divulge one of my pet (heretofore unpublished) observations-i.e. since the pool of mares is many multiples to that of the stallions, it seems reasonable to conclude that the finest genetic material of all should be found within some mares, rather than among the stallions. Problem is, they (those mares) are far more difficult (essentially impossible) to identify, presently.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Dr. Robert Fishman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:32:09 GMT

Dear Mr. Ensor,

Your name is well known to me, and in years past during your days at Fasig we did occasionally cross paths. I have great respect for many of the horsemen I've encountered including yourself. One of my early mentors was the wonderful and wise Olin Gentry who taught me so much. I also agree that science (its present proven facts) offers little in comparison to the body of knowledge accumulated by experienced horsemen. My point was, however, that in those areas where there is true scientific fact, it should supercede anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I'll cite one of your positions as example, and will admit that the issue is far from resolved scientifically/logically. You appear to be an advocate for the virtues of a stallion "stamping" his get. As a sales inspector you have no doubt factored that preference into your selection process when qualifying yearlings for a Saratoga Select Sale. I'll admit that there may be some validity to your position, but contend that it is at least equally possible that you are incorrect. In support of your position I would offer that most high caliber stallions were exceptional runners, that their observed overall "look" may have played a role in their racing success, and, therefore, offsping which tended to mimic that look might have an edge over those that didn't. On the other hand, we know that the outward physical appearance of a horse tells only part of the overall picture of their relative merit. Some horses, also, perform excellently despite their less than "acceptable" looks. Many horses with identical pedigrees look quite differently, yet perform similarly well-one example would be Graustark and His Majesty. Genetics tells us that the sire and dam contribute relatively equally to their offspring. Yes, some sires can be homozygous/dominant for certain physical traits (readily observable, or otherwise), and often this contributes to their prowess as a stallion.-But, for the most part, had little to do with their success as a racehorse (speaking genetically). I feel, however, that such are the exceptions, and that most top stallions are indeed top, for (genetic) reasons other than their ability to "stamp" their offpring. You say that 80% of the yearlings you inspected more resembled their sires. I know that this is your honest belief, but I strongly doubt this to be the case. Consider that you (and others) are far more familiar with the "looks" of the stallion than the mare. Most often you have never seen the dam of the yearling being inspected (but often you've had exposure to its sire). We tend to see in things that which is familiar to us. I've often felt as you did about certain yearlings, or runners, only later to have corrected myself after observing its dam. As said, on average, an offspring should inherit equal shares from its sire and dam (this is a genetic "known"). Yes, it is possible that certain sires may dominate for their oveall "look", but another can dominate positively for other physical attributes (cardiovascular, etc.) not observable in the "look".

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Larry Ensor — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:24:33 GMT

Dr. Fishman,

I completely agree with you in regards to false presumptions both in breeding and rasing Thoroughbreds. Being brought up in an "old school" horse family I have fought many a battle trying to dismiss many of the practices of horsemanship held near and dear because that is the way it has always been done. My wife and people that have worked with me have often heard me say many times, show me the science. I also agree about the power of the printed word, especially coming from those who have been anointed an "expert" either by themselves or those in a position to appointed them as such. In our business experts seem to come and go on a regular bases. But I don't think you should discount, at least not completely, those of us who do have years of experience both in pedigree and horsemanship. Which I feel strongly go hand and hand. Though I am only a student of genetics and feel I have a sound enough understanding of the process and the science I would not agree that what we do know is so absolute as to discount or supersede a persons opinion based on years of observation and or study. Especially given the fact that the majority of what we do know about the animal world is based on years of observation and study.

Respectfully.

Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part II

TrueNicks — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:37:56 GMT

In part II of a short series, guest writer Dr. Robert Fishman continues his account of breeding black type winner Girlfrienontheside. Here, he offers background information about the half-siblings of her dam, his homebred mare Refrain.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Alfonso — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:52:14 GMT

Dear Mr Fishman,

I am not sure of understanding properly your answer. Of course there are genetic certanties, but also it is true that probability is a major player in genetics. We know the probability of something to happen, but we don't know what happens in an individual case. What drives dominancy? We know the probability of gen sharing of full brothers, but....What's ther real share of Cacique, Banks Hill, Intercontinental or Dansili? Can we know it? If we don't, inbreeding coefficients and other facts may be wrongly calculated in the future. Build up a pedigree similar to the Roberto one with this siblings. What could we expect? What genetic information will throw this horses to their progeny? What will dominate?

I don't know by your answer if you believe as the genetist, than the sire is more important than the dam, but then I cannot uderstand why the timeform curve of a crop follow the curve of the timeform of the mares and not the one of the stallions which are nearly always over 120 (english timeform). I have always thought that there are two possibilities and I don't know which is the right one, but it happens.

1. The mare puts more in the foal because she breed it and she teachs the foal. Or because of the Mitocondrial DNA, or because of the sex-linked traits, or whatever.

2- The mare limitates the quality because while nearly all the sires have been top performers, there is a wide range of quality in the mares.

What do you think?

Regards

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Dr. Robert Fishman — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:42:43 GMT

Much (perhaps, most) remains unknown about the precise mechanisms involved in racehorse breeding. We do, however, have access to some pieces of this puzzle, and among them are those areas of genetics that have been proven to be factually correct. Facts such as these should supercede others derived through anecdotal observation and/or study. Many false presumptions will be discarded if one devotes more time to what science has already offered. Through the years I've often read and heard observations from "experts", or those with years of experience that had no basis in science or logic. The voices of experience, and the printed word, can be persuasively powerful. Their messages, however, are often inaccurate or misleading.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Larry Ensor — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:51:35 GMT

I grew up in a family that made its living with horses, show, race, sales, etc. So when I decided to try and make a career on what I thought would be the easier side of the business, bloodstock agent, advisor I became quite the student of breeding and breeding theories. Reading everything that I could get my hands on. I went to just about every sale there was in any given year inspecting the results of other peoples efforts by the hundreds and following many when they made to the race course. I spent a year in Europe working for a top bloodstock agency in their pedigree research department. In the early 80's all pedigrees were researched and written by hand which made it quite easy to commit to memory. After a few years I could hold a conversation with the best of them. Now, almost 30 years latter in reflection the best part of that education was the conversation. If the resulting horse could be sent to the track several days after it was born then maybe just maybe one could take stock in their process. And that is assuming that one is able to have complete control of how the mare was cared for during gestation. But, as we all know there are just so many things that are beyond the breeders control after conception. In other words the breeding of race horses is far from an exact science. There is no way it can be. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that having a sound understanding of pedigrees and results, theories and conformation are not useful tools. Experience has told me that it makes for good conversation more then it does for results on the race course. Breeding the best to the best is about the best advise anybody can take stock in.

One of the most prolific stallion of the modern era was Danzig. Yes, he was by one of the greatest stallions of all times. But he was also one of the weakest bred sons of Northern Dancer. Besides being very fast and showing a lot of talent he LOOKED like a son of Northern Dancer. As did just about all of Northern Dancer stakes winning sons. Nijinsky being one of the few exceptions both on the race course and the breeding shed. That being said, I take a lot of stock in sires that stamp their get. And I found over the years from inspecting thousands of foals and yearlings this continues to hold true and should constitute roughly 80% of the horse standing in front of the inspector. The other roughly 20% the dam, dam sire. This is assuming that the inspector has looked at enough horses over the years to interpret what they are looking at. Not only the sire of the horse, but to have had enough experience to have looked at the get of the dam sire. Be it alive or dead so as to know what was typical of that stallions successful race horses. I firmly believe utilizing this knowledge when planning mating gives one a superior advantage. Of course there will always be exceptions. Again, this not an exact science. Some very good sires seem to have no rhyme or reason to their get. Some good mares always throw more to themselves then the stallion. A good judge will know this having looked at the family over the course of generations. The draw back to all of this is the generally excepted fact that it takes a number of years of trail and error before coming up with the stake horse. The numbers seem to suggest that if a mare has not produce a good horse by the age of 12 the odds get exponentially longer. In the mean time we as breeders are producing a lot of unwanted horses. A troubling fact. I don't think one should really try and correct conformational defects but rather try and complement what the mare and stallion have going for them. Unless of course the are breeding for a lead line contest. Most of the very best broodmares that I have seen were not the prettiest of pictures. Rather ordinary for the most part.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Alfonso — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:51:11 GMT

Dear Dr Fishman,

first of all thank you for your answer. Perhaps my poor vocabulary has made my answer a bit un structured.

When I talk about observation, I also consider the behaviour, the will to win, the aptitud to stay longer, endurance, racing type (Tactical speed, Turn of foot, power,..), elasticity, big stride,.. They are the way the Genotype is expressed in one individual and some depend also in external parameters as breeding, handling and training. Of course there are recesive gens, not expressed but that can be passed to the next generation as you suggest with Paso al Frente and the knee offset.

Of course, we can only see the impact of some of the expressed genetic information. But to some extent, we can imagine others by looking at the training, racing and so on.

I missed one explanation talking about the observable traits and horses that lack of genetic information of some names of their pedigrees. I was talking about, what's the probability of a recesive gen (it¡s the name in spanish, perhaps I am using it wrong) to be hided along five generations? We have two choices, or that gen doesn't exist in the genotype of that horse or it is so undominant that it would be very difficult that it will be expressed by any horse.

I believe in linebreeding and inbreeding, but not as a result of looking at the colours of the pedigreequery. I think deeper analysis should be done. Of course one can never know everything about an horse, moreover when it has been bought at auction. With no more information, nicking, inbreeding to

great horses and so on, seems to me better than not to think about it.

When Denver County came to Spain, I wrote an article suggesting the matings with mares carrying Buckpasser and Northern Dancer lines. Looking at the horse, I thought tha Mr Prospector was a bit risky to be duplicated. However one of his best sons here is Atlantico who has a close inbreeding over Mr Prospector and hasn't inherited the knee offset.

One example of what you say about what can be seen and not, can be well represented by Dyhim Diamond, who stands in Spain and is the sire of Turtle Bowl, Bannaby and Milanais (the first two G1 winners and the third place at G1 level). Everytime I visit the stud where he lives, I can see that all of his foals are very easy to recognise. All of them inherit huge muscles, good bone and easy behaviour. On the other hand, I think the heart and lungs depend on the mother. He was himself a sprinter, but depending on the mare he can get sprinters, or stayers as Bannaby (G1 Cadran winner over 20f)

If one has a mare, high in class but weak in muscles, Dyhim will repare that, as he does with nearly all his progeny.

But of course pedigree should be analysed. One friend of mine asked me which stallion would I use with his Grand Lodge mare. I sugested Dyhim Diamond because of the cross inbreeding over Habitat and multiplying the somethingroyal. But also, the mare was delivering weak but classy foals, having one Gran Premio scorer. The result has been a wonderful foal. Months after the mating, Reve de Soleil, was third in a group 2 in Uk, being out of a Grand Lodge mare.

I think that we know little about inheritance and nearly all is based in hypithesis. The spanish breeder association invited one reknown genetist in other fields to iluminate us for better breeding. He started saying that all our myths were wrong. He said also, that the sire was more important than the mare!. When I showed him a curve that proved the the timeforms of all the horses in a year follow the timeform of the mares and not the one of the sires, he said that that was impossible and not true, because all his theories were wrong then.

What I mean is that even scientists, deep studiers of genetics, are based to some extent in hypothesis and really don't know important matters of horse breeding. And that's the marvellous things about thoroughbreeds.

I will continue researching pedigrees, observing parents, analysing AEI/CI and other valuable information and trying to use all the weapons we have. The result, who knows, but to have luck, one should seek for it, as you did with your mare.

Regards

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Dr. Robert Fishman — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:29:34 GMT

Dear Alfonso,

Your remarks touch upon some meaningful issues. It's important that we understand the distinction between geneotype and phenotype, and its nuances. A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait. "Observable characteristics" also include those that can be made "visible" by technical procedures, i.e. those that exist in reality, whether or not we have the means to detect them. So, although a descendant may APPEAR to more resemble one ancestor, should not imply that it inherited a greater proportion of that ancestor's less evidently expressed genes. For example, an offspring may appear to more closely resemble its dam, but it may possess a cardio-pulmonary system more "dominated" by its sire...On a somewhat separate point-genetic inheritance involves several mechanisms, simple dominant/recessive among them. We are a long way from fully understanding how many physical attributes are inherited. For example, I doubt that we have a good handle on the mechanism of inheritance for offset knees or "calf-knees". Each may involve one allele pair, or several, and could be solely governed by dominant/recessive means or by that and others...What we are able to "observe" is a reflection of the genome, and we should make use of this in our decision process with an understanding that our picture is incomplete. For example, are those Denver Countys without offset knees any more likely to transmit the defect than others whose lineage is free of it?

Your mention of Denver County prompts me to offer some clarification- Conformation and type played a larger role in the selection of Inlaw, and her subsequent matings, than has often been my direction with others. Her physical attributes (with racing ability) were of such a degree to demand some effort at preserving them. Due to this, and her pedigree makeup, pedigree considerations played a lesser role here. I do not advocate such emphasis on conformation/type for most matings. Every mating should be designed with the potential "home run" in mind. The process is very much about give and take, and in which areas to focus for your best shot. Take, for example, the case of Denver County's "Paso Al Frente", a runner previously considered for purchase by my client. Look closely at his sire's pedigree, sire performance, and race record, as well as that of his dam's. Paso Al Frente was a star in Chile, and by far the best representative of his sire and dam. Now look closely at Paso Al Frente's pedigree. Is he not likely a poster boy for the merits of multiple line-breeding? His dam's pedigree offered much to effectively "bite back into", and with Denver County there was a potent source. Of the "give & take" one could say that the close Mr. Prospector inbreeding, and the multiple Buckpasser/Tom Fool line-breeding (Buckpasser and Tom Fool had knee issues, as does Denver County) were risks--"takes". The "gives" (positives), however, prevailed--Tom Fool and Buckpasser can also be outstandingly positive influences, as often are War Admiral, La Troienne, Black Toney, Swaps, etc. The plan of attack/hierarchy of criteria in formulating this mating was undoubtedly quite different than that which produced Refrain (or Inlaw's other foals).

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Alfonso — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:08:42 GMT

Dear Mr Fishman,

first of all, I must apologize for my English, which is far from good.

I appreciate very much the article you have written because even if ones agrees or not with it, it reveals the facts that you took into account when breeding Girlfrienontheside.

Somehow I agree with you with observation and physical issues. I love breeding theories but suported by observation. Sometimes we think because of probability that an ancestor placed in the third generation has an x probability of delivering his gens, so if we inbreed over him we increase that probability. The truth is that even is quite unprobable, there are horses that resemble only to their dam or their sire, and they also throw mainly those gens to their stock. Observation helps a lot here, because we can talk about linebreeding to native Dancer, but there are horses, that after generations, lack of native Dancer gens (at less expressed). With those individuals there is no risk of duplicating them. In my opinion the problem is more Raise a Native than native Dancer the one that is transmitting the unsoudness.

Here in Spain, we have Denver County as a stallion, a horse that has a horrible offset in his knees. Most of his progeny inherit that trait and the few ones who doesn't are quite smart.

In my opinion, line or inbreeding is quite usefull is the producers have something evident of the names one is duplicating. If not, it doesen't matter.

regards

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Dr. Robert Fishman — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:55:02 GMT

Dear Mr. Zabrowski,

Thanks for reading, and appreciate your comments, suggestions, and question.-

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I was not implying that the value of "nicking" is confined to the area of like or complimentary phenotypes. Rather, it was (is) my contention that the above is one of among many potential causes for a + nick. I did offer line-breeding "nicks" as another example and one essentially unrelated to observable physical considerations. Effective nicks are, no doubt, the result of many other causes/mechanisms. Observable physical structure and line-breeding are, perhaps, the two easiest to identify, but they shouldn't be accorded a greater role merely because we are limited in our ability to discern a rationale for others. This could be said for pedigree analysis in general (not to mention any area of investigation)...Regarding your question/comments about Native Dancer. I do have reservations about Native Dancer relating to issues of soundness, particularly foot soundness. These concerns derived from observation and others' (farriers, etc.) accounts during my nearly fifty years in the sport. As you're aware, his name permeates many of today's pedigrees, and I don't buy the argument that much of this unsoundness has been selectively "bred out". I'm not suggesting that one should necessarily shy away from him-he is a fine influence for many qualities-but one should take care (consider the individuals, etc.) when contemplating multiple line-breedings to him. As far a Inlaw's specific case- Gold Seam had thin walls, and had the need to run with glue-on shoes. Accounts indicate that his feet were responsible for some of his defeats-all on turf, I should add...I also feel that you (and many others) overrate Native Dancer's genetic "importance". (As an aside-I should add that pedigree analysis is also a quest to identify the most valuable alleles). He was a great racehorse, and a very good stallion; he was not a great stallion. He is a fixture in pedigrees today due mainly to Mr. Prospector (a paternal grandson)/Raise A Native (a son), and Nothern Dancer (a maternal grandson). The role of Native Dancer's alleles in their succes is arguable...Ryan, I do agree that composition is not my forte. That said, my piece was not intended as an expose on my breeding theories. It was offered as a chronologic honest stream of thought on how two generations of thoroughbreds came to be. Here and there, I did digress on occasion, but only as it related to these specific horses. I did elaborate a bit on nicking, as this is the customary topic of the blog.

Susan: I hope I've addressed some of your questions. I did read Mr. Porter's learned reply to your post. He may be correct (likening it to a line-breeding "nick" of sorts) but, as said, I wouldn't apply it carte blanche (not that Alan suggests this). With regards your question about feet-not everything can be discovered through the naked eye (even one schooled). A detailed account of the horse's history would prove quite helpful, but such is, unfortunately, hard to come by. As in most aspects of this sport, there is no substitute to being a keen observer-the closer you follow it, the more accurate will be your conclusions.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Alan Porter — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:09:36 GMT

Hi Susan,

At Pedigree Consultants we see a lot of success with doubles of both Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector, which gives four crosses of Native Dancer. It probably works because Northern Dancer is a Nearco/Native Dancer cross, and Mr. Prospector a Native Dancer/Nearco cross.

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Ryan Zabrowski — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:34:07 GMT

Thank you for this article Dr. Fishman and I look forward to reading Parts II through V.

I found your content to be interesting, however I find your writing style as unorganized. I spend about half of my professional time reading research and white papers and encourage you to adopt a format of contention/belief, proof/evidence, and summary. I believe your contention is nicks are important but they must only be expected to be effective in large samples when breeding like or complimentary phenotypes.

My question to you is simple: Why are you glad that there wasn't an overabundance of Native Dancer? Native Dancer set three track records as a two year old--ponder this. Native Dancer is responsible for the fastest horses in the past 50 years. IMO, he is our Eclipse, St Simon, and Phalaris. I want as much Native Dancer as I can get. I will be checking everyday for Part II!

re: Developing a Stakes-Winning Thoroughbred Filly, Part I

Susan — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:30:44 GMT

"I was glad there wasn't an overabundance of Native Dancer" - but whenever you breed Northern Dancer, you get Native Dancer. If one has Northern Dancer, should one avoid any other sources of Native Dancer in the pedigree? Also, how does one know the health of a particular stud's feet - short of one with obvious problems like Big Brown? Can one inspect a potential stud's feet before booking a breeding? (Obviously I have never bred a Jockey Club foal before!)