|
|
 Expert
Posts: 1409
 
| Didn't Charmayne have a Clayton foal she called Halo that she was considering running at the AMerican last year? I wonder how he is doing? | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | OregonBR - 2014-12-18 5:56 PM
I'm having trouble getting that link live. Sorry. 
Switch back to the Basic txt Editor and post it there.... :)
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/abthgp.html
Edited by komet. 2014-12-18 6:46 PM
| |
| | |
 Veteran
Posts: 292
Location: Northeast Nebraska | komet. - 2014-12-18 2:57 PM I must be missing something here.... I always figured a stallion proved himself by passing his abilities on to offspring... How is he to do this if nobody will send him mares to breed??? Because he is not proven yet? I mean... Secretariat showed the world what he could do... But as a sire he sucked!!! 
No, he didn't. | |
| | |
 I Don't Brag
Posts: 6960
 
| komet. - 2014-12-18 2:57 PM
I must be missing something here.... I always figured a stallion proved himself by passing his abilities on to offspring... How is he to do this if nobody will send him mares to breed??? Because he is not proven yet? I mean... Secretariat showed the world what he could do... But as a sire he sucked!!!
But time proved Secretartiat is was because the X factor (enlarged heart gene) is linked to the female genes. His get did not do so well but the NEXT generation fared much better. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 953
| I've been following the clones and IMO they haven't done nothing to even justify the stud fee, feed, training bills etc. I'm against cloning anyways and would never pay to breed to one. Judd's futurity horse scamper dat cash fell off the face of the earth after December of last year. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 234
| Scamper Dat Cat had a change in riders - I think he would have done much better if he had been able to stay with the original trainer who started him. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | QH<3er - 2014-12-18 9:20 AM
So why is it that the clones aren't being competed on? Or aren't doing well?
One factor I'm sure comes into play is that it costs about $150,000 to get one cloned. If you are cloning just for breeding, that's a lot of money to risk an injury that could end their life. Also, as others have said, the owners really have nothing to gain from it. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | OregonBR - 2014-12-18 5:55 PM Can one of you smart people explain how this affects clones vs the real thing.
But the goals changed dramatically in 2005. Research showed animal genomes were, at once, more simple and more complex than we thought. First, there were only around 20,000 genes, not the 300,000 or 100,000 originally projected. These genes only represented a 2% of the DNA on chromosomes. This was astounding because we thought that once we knew the sequence of genes, we would be able to understand the secrets of heredity. Instead, the key to understanding genes resides in the 98% of the genome that does not encode genes and which we had called “junk DNA”. While genes are similar between species, the junk DNA is unique to each species. So, to understand how genes work in horses, we needed horse “junk DNA” sequences.
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/abthgp.html
The human genome is similar to the horse genome in this aspect. It's kind of complex, but I will try to simplify it a little bit.
Our DNA basically is a code for proteins to be made in the body. These proteins are then processed by the body to make all of the chemicals we need to function, such as hormones, creating cells, healing, you name it.
In the genome, only a small part is actually known to code these proteins, which are referred to as "genes". The rest of the DNA in the genome, or all the DNA we have, consists of repeating nonsense sequences. Originally, these were thought to be meaningless (only the "genes" were studied). Now, these "junk" sequences are thought to have a role in gene function and gene regulation/gene expression (ie controlling when genes are expressed, or basically telling the body to turn on the genes to create proteins or stay silent).
So basically, when the project was started, they thought more of the genome were genes (probably due to length), but upon further study, they found a small amount are true genes, and now they are looking to further study the "junk" portions to determine how they affect phenotype by determining how the "junk" portions affect the "gene" portions. Clear as mud? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1611
| I dunno but the Steinhoffs have quite a few babies out of Another Shot coming along and even more bred back outta nice mares purchased from Judd.....so we shall see. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 112
| barrelracr131 - 2014-12-18 2:15 PM miss_n_cinch13 - 2014-12-18 11:24 AM I do not agree that gentics makes a clone "proven". Heart, desire, grit etc. in the arena makes them proven in my book. I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote.
The horse's reproductive material is exactly the same as the original horse. Breeding to a clone yields the exact same sperm as that from the original horse. For example, take Frenchman's Guy- he has been cloned- and the semen from the original horse, if tested, would be indistguishable from that of the clone. Just as identical twins have the "same" DNA.
Because the original horse proved itself, and the clone gives the same DNA to create a foal, that's why it's genetics are considered proven, since the exact same genes created the orignal horse.
There is 100% zero incentive to prove a clone, because the owners have everything to lose and not one thing to gain. Environment shaped the horse that the original became. Trying to recreate that would be next to impossible.
I can see why someone would want to clone a great gelding to see what it can produce. I'm not saying I would choose to breed to one.
*****In the case of Frenchman's Guy, yes I will agree his genetics are proven and have been for years now. But in the case of Hot Shot and Scamper, you can not yet say their genetics are proven (IMO). How many siblings of these two horses have excelled in the arena to prove their gentics and that they were not just once in a life time horses?****** | |
| | |
  Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | barrelracr131 - 2014-12-19 5:19 AM OregonBR - 2014-12-18 5:55 PM Can one of you smart people explain how this affects clones vs the real thing.
But the goals changed dramatically in 2005. Research showed animal genomes were, at once, more simple and more complex than we thought. First, there were only around 20,000 genes, not the 300,000 or 100,000 originally projected. These genes only represented a 2% of the DNA on chromosomes. This was astounding because we thought that once we knew the sequence of genes, we would be able to understand the secrets of heredity. Instead, the key to understanding genes resides in the 98% of the genome that does not encode genes and which we had called “junk DNA”. While genes are similar between species, the junk DNA is unique to each species. So, to understand how genes work in horses, we needed horse “junk DNA” sequences.
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/abthgp.html
Our DNA basically is a code for proteins to be made in the body. These proteins are then processed by the body to make all of the chemicals we need to function, such as hormones, creating cells, healing, you name it.
In the genome, only a small part is actually known to code these proteins, which are referred to as "genes". The rest of the DNA in the genome, or all the DNA we have, consists of repeating nonsense sequences. Originally, these were thought to be meaningless (only the "genes" were studied). Now, these "junk" sequences are thought to have a role in gene function and gene regulation/gene expression (ie controlling when genes are expressed, or basically telling the body to turn on the genes to create proteins or stay silent).
So basically, when the project was started, they thought more of the genome were genes (probably due to length), but upon further study, they found a small amount are true genes, and now they are looking to further study the "junk" portions to determine how they affect phenotype by determining how the "junk" portions affect the "gene" portions. Clear as mud?
So does that imply the reason why there can be such wide differences between full siblings?....because of the impact of the junk DNA in the expression of the genes?
IF so, would this affect the genetic potential of the clone offspring to express the genetics of the donor horse?
Did I understand what you said?  | |
| | |
I Don't Brag
Posts: 6960
| miss_n_cinch13 - 2014-12-19 9:25 AM
barrelracr131 - 2014-12-18 2:15 PM miss_n_cinch13 - 2014-12-18 11:24 AM I do not agree that gentics makes a clone "proven". Heart, desire, grit etc. in the arena makes them proven in my book. I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote.
The horse's reproductive material is exactly the same as the original horse. Breeding to a clone yields the exact same sperm as that from the original horse. For example, take Frenchman's Guy- he has been cloned- and the semen from the original horse, if tested, would be indistguishable from that of the clone. Just as identical twins have the "same" DNA.
Because the original horse proved itself, and the clone gives the same DNA to create a foal, that's why it's genetics are considered proven, since the exact same genes created the orignal horse.
There is 100% zero incentive to prove a clone, because the owners have everything to lose and not one thing to gain. Environment shaped the horse that the original became. Trying to recreate that would be next to impossible.
I can see why someone would want to clone a great gelding to see what it can produce. I'm not saying I would choose to breed to one.
This example is where I would be VERY piffed off if I had paid the stud fee to FG (which I did, but never got a foal), bred my outstandingly bred, black type mare, got a stud colt successfully on the ground, raised that colt, put him in training, campaigned him successfully all with the goal in mind, to stand him at stud. Just to now have to compete with not only FG, but ALL OF HIS CLONES, for mares to breed.
They are putting all of their clients breeding businesses at risk of going out of business.
IMHO of course.
Edited to add: All with no way to tell if semen comes from the actually FG or one of his clones, at least until they can develop a test for the factors contributed by the donor egg cell.
Edited by rodeoveteran 2014-12-19 10:37 PM
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 557
Location: Kansas and loving it | There is still no proof a clone will breed as its original. Several cutting clones as stallions and one mare have been bred. I have heard nothing at all. I think Smart Little Lena had 3 or 5 stallion clones and have heard nothing from the breeding side. Royal blue Boone and Doc Lynx maybe the others. I find nothing anymore about the cloning with cutting horses. Didn't a famous bucking horse Air wolf have a clone? | |
| | |
 Purveyor of unconventional wisdom
Posts: 17112
Location: CA | If there is just one great horse in the line, why would you assume that horse would sire many great horses. Scamper was an anomaly , no other from his line did anything all that great. And... if you look at the times at the NFR these days, he wouldn't have brought in a lot of money (agreed the ground might be better.. but still) Same for Hot Shot. They were totally luck of the draw. Right place, right time. If a clone is to be a true replica of the original horse, it would be the same color, same size...everything. As it stands with all the "chances" of picking up out side influence from the DNA... clones are more like brothers than true replicas. Just my opinion. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line