Cruising Cloned

convert

I heard this on the radio on the way home this evening. Cruising has been cloned, and the clones are now 3 year olds. There's even an article about it in the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/irish-show-jumping-stallion-cruising-cloned-1.2103359

And the Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/two-clones-born-from-legendary-irish-bred-stallion-cruisings-dna-at-100000-each-30990711.html

Not quite sure what I think about it, to be honest.

Ave Sodalis

The equine world is gonna be saturated with Cruising. He had a fair amount of offspring when alive and although he's great for the quality of sport and breed, I'm hoping they restrict the breeding of the clone more. We're a small island and although we export many horses, too much of the same genes in a population is never going to end well.

Ah_Yeah

I think it's amazing. Scientifically speaking.

byhookorbycrook

Yes, scientifically, but considering the problems Dolly the sheep had, I can't see a future siring too many offspring from these two boys.http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/feb/15/genetics.animalrights

qt3.14

Worldwide ban on clones actually racing though.

byhookorbycrook

Yes, but these are sports horses.

Ave Sodalis

qt3.14 wrote: »

Worldwide ban on clones actually racing though.

Racing and sport horse are considered two seperate sports, despite involving the same animal so different rules apply. You're not even allowed AI for race horses.

Dolly was the first clone but there's been plenty others, even within the equine sector. Statistically, it's not guarenteed by any means with a very low success rate. However, thus far, there haven't been many side effects after birth in horses that have been seen in sheep and cows. Some yes, but not as many.

sipstrassi

Not sure how I feel about it.

First thought was how this affects those who own breeding stock by Cruising. Their value is (was!) in the fact that they are all there is of him. So have they all been devalued? I would say to an extent they have but not greatly maybe.

Cloning is a relatively new science and it will be a while I think before it can be definitively said that a cloned horse is no more likely to age or develop illness (or whatever) than a 'normal' horse.

I've only recently gotten into breeding and I don't think I would go there.
Also, if you are breeding to sell, it seems that stallions with Irish breeding are not fashionable anymore (especially I suppose if your mare has ID in her) so there may not be a market either.

It's hard to know really, isn't it?

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

a very low success rate

There haven't been nearly enough analyses to substantiate this position.

Mary McCann didn't go to this expense for reasons of emotional attachment to the great horse. There are compelling scientific arguments in favour of the technology, pending future confirmation in the scientific literature.

Ave Sodalis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There haven't been nearly enough analyses to substantiate this position.

Mary McCann didn't go to this expense for reasons of emotional attachment to the great horse. There are compelling scientific arguments in favour of the technology, pending future confirmation in the scientific literature.

Do you know how many embryos it took to get Prometea? Over 300. The next clone, Pieraz, the success rate went up to 15%. However, on average, the cloning success rate for animals is about 20% (over all animal species). There's reports that in one particular establishment, the success rate of equine cloning is 40% but that's just one establishment. It still remains a current problem that cloning fails more often than it works. They haven't released information about the number of attempts it took to clone Cruising but I would be willing to bet that there were more failed attempts than the two successful ones.

There's compelling arguments in favour of cloning, and there's compelling arguments against. I'm still leaning towards the against side in the case of Cruising, especially given that there's two clones.

Joey.

Apparently there were 11 successfully grown embryos, after implantation 5 of these were still viable but 2 were later lost. One was a red bag delivery, giving us the final two clones. But that's just what they had in the paper so who knows how accurate the information is.

I'm finding myself very much against cloning, but especially for the purpose of breeding. I'd love to see these compelling articles for it, if anyone could kindly point me in the direction

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

Do you know how many embryos it took to get Prometea?

I assumed you were referring to the success rate of the progeny line.

Why would you oppose cloning on the basis that it costs owners a lot of money to secure the viable embryo? I'm sure their stud managers and veterinary team are well able to appraise them of the financial risk.

And still, armed with this information, these enterprising breeders push on. Well done to them.

Ave Sodalis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assumed you were referring to the success rate of the progeny line.

Why would you oppose cloning on the basis that it costs owners a lot of money to secure the viable embryo? I'm sure their stud managers and veterinary team are well able to appraise them of the financial risk.

And still, armed with this information, these enterprising breeders push on. Well done to them.

Nope, success rate of actually cloning.

I'm not sure if the question about finance is aimed at me but I haven't opposed it based on cost. If someone wants to spend money on horses, I dunno why there would be opposition to it based on cost when it's not them spending the money.

My opposition is based on genetics and how breeding two Cruisings at the same or near same rate as the original Cruising will lead to saturation of the gene pool and given that we're such a small island, there's a higher risk of inbreeding.

convert

This story is being covered on Ear to the Ground this evening, 8.30pm on RTE 2.

Joey.

I'd like to throw my thoughts out there, a major ramble but any input is welcome whether you agree or disagree with me! I speak purely from a Layman's point of view, it should be noted. This goes on to be about cloning in general, not all of it is strictly relevant to Cruising. If anything I say is inaccurate, please correct me. I am very happy to be wrong on this topic!

Cruising was foaled in 1985, I believe. That makes his DNA - the DNA of these rising 3yo horses - over 30 years old. To what extent has this DNA been damaged or suffered mutations over the years? I'm not a scientist so I don't know if that's even the case, but it certainly doesn't seem to be without significant risk. Yes, the horses appear normal, but could they be harbouring unseen genetic disruptions? What could this mean for their progeny? What is the long-term survivability/fertility/soundness etc. of cloned horses, their progeny and subsequent generations? Is it all sunshine and roses as some seem to make out? Or could it potentially have serious consequences for the sport horse industry in X years down the line?

As sup_dude says, we are a small island with a not insignificant amount of Cruising progeny. How is it more beneficial to keep using the same old DNA (in the form of these clones) for breeding, rather than existing Cruising/other Irish offspring to try to improve the quality of our horses? It takes generations, yes, but if we further reduce genetic diversity we will have an awful lot of trouble with soundness and other ailments in years to come.

To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disclosed whether these horses are going to be inspected, regardless they will be bred this season. I don't believe there is even a requirement that they be inspected? (Off on a tangent here) Similarly with the clones of geldings, where even the original horse was not inspected. Having the same genetics as an international horse is nowhere near a good enough reason for this, in my opinion. Especially in the case of clones of high performance geldings-these horses are not gelded for fun, and were likely to have been gelded as they were deemed unsuitable for breeding. There have in the past been happy accidents that reached high level competition when it was not expected, but this does not mean that they should be bred from.
As a matter of interest, what kind of horse has E.T Cryozootech turned out to be? I haven't seen or heard anything since his early photos, and to be perfectly candid, it was glaringly obvious why he was the clone of a gelding!

Now, we have 2xGem Twist, 2xJazz, 2xCruising, Top Gun/Levisto/Chellano/Air Jordan Alpha Z, Ratina Alpha/Beta/Gamma Z, to name very, very few...it's Xerox for horses! If we keep breeding from the same old blood, are we going to truly progress in sport horse breeding? Is it not an admission of failure?

Okay, back to the beginning with the genetic make-up of the cloned horses. If we have the answers and it's all safe as houses, great stuff altogether! Howandever...without knowing these answers myself and having the business of cloning totally transparent*, I have a big fear that as more horses are cloned=fall in price of cloning, making such horses available to the public for breeding could, potentially, result in catastrophic failure. It may or may not be a high risk activity, but it is absolutely not a no-risk activity, when compared with the usual breeding process.

*I recall reading last September that biopsies had been taken from Cruising, but there were no immediate plans to do anything with them. Arish and Encore were already 2 years of age. I know many people don't have a problem with breeders keeping their business their own, but when it comes to cloning horses that will become part of Ireland's breeding programme, I certainly do.

aaaaaaand breathe...If you made it through all of that - well done! I deeply hope that my concerns on this prove to never be the case.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

Nope, success rate of actually cloning.

I'm not sure if the question about finance is aimed at me but I haven't opposed it based on cost. If someone wants to spend money on horses, I dunno why there would be opposition to it based on cost when it's not them spending the money.

My opposition is based on genetics and how breeding two Cruisings at the same or near same rate as the original Cruising will lead to saturation of the gene pool and given that we're such a small island, there's a higher risk of inbreeding.

In the first sentence, you indicate that your opposition is founded on a weak clone-birth rate.

All of a sudden, in the final sentence, your opposition is based on a risk of inbreeding.

In relation to the criticism of a weak birth rate—so what? It is the right of owners and other stakeholders to take-on a personal risk to themselves personally or their stud.

In relation to the criticism of inbreeding on such a small island, the argument is equally specious. Despite the existence of artificial insemination technology for many years, inbreeding amongst Irish sport horses remains low; for Irish Draughts, which we would expect to be particularly saturated because of the dominance of King of Diamonds, the index for inbreeding is actually lower than the American or UK inbreeding indices. Why? Because Irish breeders take responsibility in these matters. I trust Irish breeders to be responsible, because it is in their own interest to be responsible, and it is part of their character.

To suggest that cloning will have a significant effect on figures like these, when it is so prohibitively expensive, and when AI already exists to nobody's detriment, is ridiculous.

Ave Sodalis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In the first sentence, you indicate that your opposition is founded on a weak clone-birth rate.

All of a sudden, in the final sentence, your opposition is based on a risk of inbreeding.

In relation to the criticism of a weak birth rate—so what? It is the right of owners and other stakeholders to take-on a personal risk to themselves personally or their stud.

In relation to the criticism of inbreeding on such a small island, the argument is equally specious. Despite the existence of artificial insemination technology for many years, inbreeding amongst Irish sport horses remains low; for Irish Draughts, which we would expect to be particularly saturated because of the dominance of King of Diamonds, the index for inbreeding is actually lower than the American or UK inbreeding indices. Why? Because Irish breeders take responsibility in these matters. I trust Irish breeders to be responsible, because it is in their own interest to be responsible, and it is part of their character.

To suggest that cloning will have a significant effect on figures like these, when it is so prohibitively expensive, and when AI already exists to nobody's detriment, is ridiculous.

No, my only opposition is based on genetics. I posted the first comment. I was just pointing out that there is a low success rate in response to byhookorbycrook.

I thought Cruising was already overbred in my opinion. Yes, Irish breeders are relatively responsible in the bigger and larger studs. However, if you start looking at the lower end owners, it's a different story. Also, Irish Draughts are different to Irish Sport Horses.

As to the last sentence, what's it being expensive got to do with it? They're already cloned so that expense is over and done with. I'm talking entirely about the Cruising clones where if they are bred at the same rate as their original, there is a serious risk of inbreeding.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

, Irish Draughts are different to Irish Sport Horses.

I have used them by way of example, given the perception of stallion dominance and the smaller, restricted pool. If we don't have a problem with inbred RIDs on this small island, it isn't clear why a much more diverse pool such as the ISH should have a problem.

As to the last sentence, what's it being expensive got to do with it? They're already cloned so that expense is over and done with.

If it costs 100k to successfully clone an animal, possibly after previous failed attempts, the animal is in theory going to command cover fees that are unlikely to result in saturating the domestic gene pool. Especially if you can procure good semen from abroad much more cheaply.

Ave Sodalis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If it costs 100k to successfully clone an animal, possibly after previous failed attempts, the animal is in theory going to command cover fees that are unlikely to result in saturating the domestic gene pool. Especially if you can procure good semen from abroad much more cheaply.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, yeah it cost that much each but how much did Cruising make in coverings? How much are each of his clones going to make? They're only 3 now but they've about 20 years of breeding ahead of them. Cruising's covering fee was about €2000. Now, they're the exact same genetically, so they'll be passing on the same genes so I can't imagine the covering fee being much less but lets say for the sake of argument, it's lowered to €1000 until the progeny prove themselves. Now if we have say only 20 coverings a season for the first while, that's only going to take 5 years for them to make those costs back.

mothoin

One giant leap forward for science, one major step back for Irish breeding. If Mary McCann really wanted to support traditional Irish breeding and all that malarky, she would have concentrated on breeding a replacement for cruising, not just cloned him.