mandah 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2011 How many New Zealand-bred stallions or stallions who were based in New Zealand feature on this list? What about New Zealand-bred or New Zealand-based mares on the reines-de-course list? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phar Lap Fan 104 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 In Varola's list, Foxbridge appears and Spearmint has a tenuous connection but no N.Z.-bred horses are there. For mares, Eight Carat is likely but she was imported. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandah 0 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 Thanks, I thought Sir Tristram might have had enough of an influence to make it on to the updated list. Maybe one day? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breeder 609 Report post Posted February 8, 2011 Mandah NZ/Aust stallions have been added to the original list by dosage enthusiasts in a reasonably authoriative way ( that is, they follow a set proceedure and criteria before a horse is added to the list). They are used in the dosage section of Tesio Power where you can click on the NZ/Aust section. Sorry, I cannot remeber the name of the guy in Australia who is the key person involved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brogers 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2011 Dosage is based on a law of heritability (Galton) that has been proven inaccurate as far as how we know inheritance works today. Francis Galton's "Law of Ancestral Heredity" theory was developed further by Karl Pearson, and their work was important in the development of modern statistics, giving us the term regression, modern notions of partial and multiple correlation among other things. As good as their work was on statistics as it related to genetics, their work on heredity was ultimately eclipsed by the development of modern quantitative genetics, which based itself securely on Mendelian principles. Using Dosage, as it stands today, in thoroughbred breeding is a complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reng 0 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 I agree, but disagree too. Dosage is a pretty blunt tool, but it's still useful to get some sort of guide to the distance capabilities of a pedigree. Especially for people new to racing who aren't familiar with pedigrees. It's blunt because it works in averages and therefore is only a very rough guide. But better than nothing, and is easy to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breeder 609 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 I agree Reng. It is like most "theories" on breeding, it is a useful guide or piece in the puzzle. I certainly would not "bet on it" and think putting figures to the original work ( like in the scale on Tesio Power ) was not that useful but the grouping of the stallions according to their aptitudes was useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey 214 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Dosage is based on a law of heritability (Galton) that has been proven inaccurate as far as how we know inheritance works today. Francis Galton's "Law of Ancestral Heredity" theory was developed further by Karl Pearson, and their work was important in the development of modern statistics, giving us the term regression, modern notions of partial and multiple correlation among other things. As good as their work was on statistics as it related to genetics, their work on heredity was ultimately eclipsed by the development of modern quantitative genetics, which based itself securely on Mendelian principles. Using Dosage, as it stands today, in thoroughbred breeding is a complete waste of time. my understanding of Mendel's worki s from peas? i think...where you need to breed on average 4 times to get the genetic bit you are seeking - on average? is this correct... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ye Zhi Hao 0 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Very few genes are being expressed under Mendelian Laws. Polygenic inheritance or quantitative trait loci (QTLs) would certainly be the major factor in the expression of phenotype. Being diploid, there will be a Mendelian interaction going on with some of the gametes, but unless these are SNP, they will be expressed through a combination of other gametes in a Qantitative trait loci. There has been a revolution going on in biology that rivals the revolution seen in computers and information technology over the last few decades. The understanding of genetics and biological functions is increasing at very high rates, and the information has become very in depth and complicated. You can pretty much disregard everything that has been written before 2010, it is obsolete now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brogers 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Very few genes are being expressed under Mendelian Laws. True, traits are usually expressed under polygenic circumstances, but the inheritence of these genes is invariably Mendelian. Being diploid, there will be a Mendelian interaction going on with some of the gametes, but unless these are SNP, they will be expressed through a combination of other gametes in a Qantitative trait loci. If we are talking about aptitude and/or separating out the best horses from the rest, it is unlikely that these will be common variants expressed via common pathways. It is more likely that they will be rarer SNP variants. There has been a revolution going on in biology that rivals the revolution seen in computers and information technology over the last few decades. The understanding of genetics and biological functions is increasing at very high rates, and the information has become very in depth and complicated. You can pretty much disregard everything that has been written before 2010, it is obsolete now. Genomics is certainly under Moore's Law which means that the understanding of genomics doubles every couple of years. Not sure if you can disregard everything that has been written, but certainly some of the technologies used are becoming obsolete fairly quickly and sequencing technology is getting cheaper all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ye Zhi Hao 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2011 If we are talking about aptitude and/or separating out the best horses from the rest, it is unlikely that these will be common variants expressed via common pathways. It is more likely that they will be rarer SNP variants. It is very unlikely that a rare SNP variant is the factor that is separating the best horses from the rest. Of course I would like to find a super mutant freak that can be used for an evolutionary genetic drift. I was exaggerating to stress the point that most of the books and material used is more than 30 years old and very outdated. Of course the basic concepts are sound and are useful to begin with, use Wikipedia to get some background. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygosity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
