This message is from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BRIAN C JACOBSEN)
Hi Steve!
Good to hear from you! It's been a while since you have posted a
message.
You bring a very timely warning about the possible dangers of A.I.
Without the proper motivation for using it, it can very definitely be bad
for a breed. Your illustration using the Quarter Horses is a good
example. Here are two more examples; The popular show horses right now
have huge, muscular bodies set on tiny little feet and legs because some
people think that looks nice. Also, the mouths of some QHs are being
ruined because one of the most popular stallions throws many foals with
parrot mouth (undershot jaw) - yet his offspring continue to win at shows
and more and more people are breeding their mares to him via A.I.
The interesting thing is, at the same time, the everyday backyard QH or
the team roping or team penning or barrel racing QHs, in general, are
sound horses with good minds. This reveals that there is a schism
between the show animals and the using animals. Why is one segment
going to pot while the other continues to have decent horses? Because
one segment bases it's breeding decisions largely on performance ability
and soundness, while the other bases them solely on what somebody thinks
looks nice.
This illustration brings me to the first point that can be drawn out of
Steve's post;
A.I. is a tool.
It can be used for the good or bad of a breed. If just left up to the
vagaries of human fancy, the use of A.I. will invariably decrease the
quality of a breed. Why? Because there is often a difference between
the most well-rounded, sound-of-body-and-mind horse vs. the flashiest,
biggest, loudest, most impressive-looking horse. And which are most
people naturally drawn to? The biggest flashiest one. But which is best
for the breed? Usually, the good-in-many-aspects-but-outstanding-in-none
horse.
So how can a Breed Society or Registry (or whatever governing body is in
place) ensure that the animals it oversees are headed in a good
direction?
There must be a plan.
It has been said that If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. By
extension, If you fail to plan for the good of a breed, you plan for the
failure of the breed. The show Quarter Horse industry is failing to
plan for the good of the breed, and when someone attempts to use those
horses for some kind of performance (trail riding, team penning, etc), in
general, the horses fail. The using QH segment is following a loosely
organized plan, and those horses are remaining decent. If we Fjord Horse
owners, on the other hand, will follow a well-thought-out, well-organized
plan, we can succeed where the other breeds are failing and keep the
quality of our horses high.
The dairy industry is a good example of this planning. Though it is true
that much of the genetic diversity has been removed from dairy cows, it
can be argued persuasively that it has been for the best of the industry.
Dairy breeders have aggressively selected for the cows and bulls who
consistently outproduce what came before them and reproduce these
qualities in their offspring. At the same time, they have not sacrificed
the qualities that are necessary for the well-being of the cows. Good
feet and legs, for example, are heavily stressed. Udder quality is
another important goal; Even if a cow set world records for milk
production, if her udder did not hold up for more than a year or two,
producers would stop using her genetics. The winners in dairy shows are
based not only on the cow herself, but also on carefully measured
performance criteria, and the same performance criteria applied to
several generations of her offspring. Call it the ultimate Evaluation if
you want to.
Which brings me to the next important point:
If it can't be measured, it can't be improved.
That statement isn't original with me of course, and I don't know who to
attribute it to. I think everyone agrees that Evaluations are important,
so I won't dwell on this point. But let me say that, similar to what
Steve asserted, A.I. without Evaluations will not lead to continual
improvement of our breed. However, A.I. with Evaluations will.
History shows we don't need to be overly concerned about the loss of
genetic diversity in the Fjord Horse. See Mike May's 11-17-98 post for
one example. Another is that, even though the breeding in Norway and
Holland has not been based on A.I. in the past, it is in effect a very
similar system. They have a small number of stallions licensed to breed
many mares. And it has worked well for years. The fear that only a
handful of Fjord stallions would be used if A.I. became widely available
in this country is unlikely to be realized because we have so many
different uses and personal preferences. It would take more than just a
few stallions to satisfy all these different uses and preferences.
The concern about the decrease in genetic diversity leaving a
