porter’s pedigrees
There was some credibility to bloodstock theories after all The first of a three-part series by Alan Porter on the latest bloodstock and genetic research
T
HERE WAS AN extended period of time when theories of thoroughbred breeding were a matter of keen debate, spawning much discussion in sporting publications, as well as numerous books. Although discourse began in the early days of the breed, when I first became involved in that side of the thoroughbred industry, back in the mid-1970s, there was still plenty of lively debate as to how different pedigree methodologies can be utilised to produce a great horse. Certainly over the last two decades, discussion on the best way from a pedigree standpoint to breed a runner has definitely been much less apparent. This is probably down to several factors. One is that for those who are not private breeders, commercial considerations have probably become a much greater influence in the decision making process than any theory of breeding. Another, at least in the US, is the predominance of automated on-line nicking programmes that rate a mating on the basis of the sire/broodmare sire, or sire-line/ broodmare sire line cross, with similar programmes offering a variation on the theme, popular in Europe and Australia.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the progress made since the completion of the equine genome and greater awareness of genetics. With regard to the latter, nature might abhor a vacuum, but speculative theory – of which there was much with regard to thoroughbred breeding – flourishes in one, at least when that vacuum is caused by a lack of empirical evidence. There’s no doubt that since awareness of genetics has increased, and data has become more readily available to create metrics to measure performance, scope for speculative philosophising, at least that with any credibility, has greatly diminished. That said, many of those who propounded pedigree theories – even if reasoning behind those
Lord Wavertree: founder of the Irish National Stud was a strong advocate of Lowe’s work
80
www.internationalthoroughbred.net
theories doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of current science or statistical analysis – were good observers. Although they may have “seen through a glass darkly” and been inclined to mistake the sign for the thing itself, more modern studies and genetic knowledge does show there was often something to what they had seen. One of those theories, which holds a kernel of truth – but was dismissed, rather ironically, long before the modern advances in genetics – was the system devised by the Australian C. Bruce Lowe. In the late 1800s Lowe examined existing female lines back to their earliest documented sources. He discovered around 50 distinct founders, and then arranged those families in numerical order. That order was based upon the number of direct descendents of each founder that had won the Derby, Oaks
