b4breeding

(The art and science of breeding Part 1 of 3) There are some breeders who pay scant attention to pedigree matching and believe it is less scientific than pinning the tail on the donkey.

Maybe. But evolution tells us one thing very clearly – genes do matter.
Like most things, in my view, there’s a bit of science and a bit of art in breeding.

The ‘science’ part is relatively straightforward. Science informs the advice we get about what we feed our mares and foals, health issues, fertility, biomechanics and so on. There is also a wealth of hard statistical data on the relative success of sires, progeny percentages, and so on. Add to that an impressive array of breeding theories that have some decent research behind them – such as the theory that large heart genes are carried on the X chromosome, and consequent debate about whether a large heart is vitally important for the type of short distance speed racing we are increasingly preparing horses for.

Frank Mitchell’s easy to digest book “Racehorse Breeding Theories” summarises many of the key breeding theories that use a ‘scientific’ approach (i.e. rigorous research and working methodically with data to try to find results that are repeatable – a system for success).

Don’t skip over the foreword to this book, written by Jim Squires of Kentucky. It is a beautiful statement of the huge gap that is still left between the search for scientific evidence and the actual breeding of a brilliant race horse.

Right now I am going to divert into a couple of weird and wonderful analogies that illustrate the balancing science and art when it comes to breeding – and the importance of not underestimating small ingredients that punch above their weight.