The Genetics of Race Horses : The Frontal Cortex

Profile

Jonah Lehrer is a contributing editor at Wired. He's also written for The New Yorker, Seed, Nature, and the New York Times and is a contributor to Radiolab. He's the author of Proust Was A Neuroscientist. His new book is How We Decide.

My Books

Search

The Genetics of Race Horses

Posted on: December 20, 2007 12:55 PM, by Jonah Lehrer

I always assumed that the best race horses simply had the best genes. It seemed like the kind of domain where nature trumped nurture, where the genetics of fast twitch fibers and heart size was more important than the details of training. But my assumptions were exactly backwards:

The offspring of expensive stallions owe their success more to how they are reared, trained and ridden than good genes, a study has found.
Only 10% of a horse's lifetime winnings can be attributed to their bloodline, research in Biology Letters shows.

By far the biggest factor was the horse's environment - the way they were trained, the choice of races entered and which jockeys were employed.

Hat Tip: Kottke

Find more posts in: Life Science

Share on: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/59103

Comments (7)

Yet I bet more than 10% of the horse's dollar value and eventual stud fee can be attributed to bloodline.

Posted by: Emily | December 20, 2007 1:10 PM

Yes, all the current racehorses are descendants of 3 stallions and ~100 mares about two centuries ago. Thus, all thoroughbreds are essentially clones - the same deck of cards reshuffled over and over again. Sure some of the reshufflings make byas and others chestnuts, some are sweet, some are nasty, and yes, some may be a little faster than others, but the differences are miniscule, i.e., so small that environment can easily trump those differences.

Posted by: Coturnix | December 20, 2007 2:40 PM

Aren't the racing horses a pretty small subset of all horses? A trainer or jockey couldn't make a Clydesdale win, but race horses have been bred and selected for their fast-twitch fibers and endurance tuned far beyond the genotypic horse.

It seems that once you are racing a pool of 30th generation racehorses, then nurture would have a significant effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughbred or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Quarter_Horse

Posted by: dave X | December 20, 2007 2:41 PM

Most thoroughbred breeders really don't know much about the genetics, anyway. First off, many mares are never raced at all. Then handicapping makes it hard to judge the horses - and the habit of racing them as adolescents means it's hard to judge their ability and how they'll pass it on. Think of the number of brilliant stallions whose sons are mediocre. It's not for nothing that Tbred breeders talk about "catching lightning in a bottle" - it's a crapshoot.

Posted by: The Ridger | December 20, 2007 10:54 PM

I am not surprised that you are surprised! I would have thought the same thing, but I was in bodybuilding for 10 years and saw the nurture side first hand. I trained at Gold's gym in Venice California, amongst the biggest and strongest in the world. I also trained professional bodybuilders there.
Genetics is sited by those that don't move up the ranks as quickly as they would like, not knowing the real secret. The secret is train like you are trying to kill your body and then give it all the nutrients it needs to survive and grow. Genetics plays a certain role, you have to have 2 arms and 2 legs, etc., but it is what is done to your physiology that makes the difference.
Look at Arnold. I saw the first file he ever made and even he would agree that he was about the most awkward, nervous actor anyone had ever seen. He used the same determination in the films as the bodybuilding and look where he got.
Psychology has been debating nature or nurture for decades, and they both have their place. But in the physiological realm, bodies were made to adapt.
Dave Briggs :~)

Posted by: Dave Briggs | December 21, 2007 12:36 PM

Not exactly playing fair with the stats, but, in almost any form of competition, 10% is a huge advantage. The Kentucky Derby takes about 2 minutes to run, but a horse that is 12 seconds off that pace isn't going to be on the track. Genetics may "only" account for 10% of the difference, but when the margin of victory is 1% and less...

Bottom line? To be successful enough to make money in a competitive environment you need all the help you can get. Starting out with a strong bloodline isn't going to ensure success, but that 10% is an edge people want.

Posted by: Vnend | December 22, 2007 10:44 AM

Not surprising to me. (I was tempted to sign as Bob Bafford, the famous horse trainer, but, um, ...my upbringing prevented me.)

Posted by: Pawlie Kokonuts | December 22, 2007 9:44 PM