|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
in her first couple of years as a broodmare she will have the best mating opportunities (assuming she is halfway decent herself) because she is an unknown in the shed....unless her foal run well those opportunities dry up, and the quality of the runner drops off. even crappy broodmares usually got the best chance for a good runner early on. I realize that isn't a biological explanation...but I don't really buy the whole 'dried up uterus' deal. |
Quote:
Basically all they are saying it is the female's oven (uterus) that is responsible for baking the cake properly. They dont say anything about the ingredients supplied from both mom and dad (genetics). Which is good to know because there is nothing about genetics involved in this particular study. Sorry for the talk down.Your explaination would be one of the first things you would query the authors about. The 55 to 60 thing v. the male would be something I would have to say why not 50/50 Oops I just realized you did not even ask about the uterus, you just said you dont buy it. |
Quote:
Just from the expierence of betting so many races with unraced maidens, I really prefer to bet against foals who dropped from old dams. The ones whos dams have produced a long list of winners from a long list of foals are notoriously bad bets. |
Quote:
I agree it works both ways....the problem with a mare that had good sucess with lesser stallions is that the matings were usually pretty well planned to give her the best chance and then when she hits with a runner they send her to whatever big stallion is trendy....without giving enough thought as to how she might cross on him IMO. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Virtually all stallions excelled on the race track....and for just $5,000 you can breed to a multiple Grade 1 winner like Jade Hunter, who's sired a slew of top horses before (Horse of the year Azeri, Three-time Grade 1 Yagli, Halory Hunter, Stuka, Midway Road, Diazo, etc) For $5,000 you can also breed to a Real Quiet, who came within a nose of winning a triple crown...and has thrown Grade 1 caliber horses like Pussycat Doll, Wonder Lady Anne L., and Midnight Lute. An all-time great stallion like Storm Cat has a $500,000 stud fee, and inspite of the incredible book of mares he gets every year, he has just two eclipse award winners...a couple of 2-year-old fillies who fell apart as 3yo's. Obviously some stallions are better than others...and sure Storm Cat's a lot better than a Jade Hunter or Real Quiet...but there isn't as much seperation as there are with mares in my opinion. From a bettors standpoint....when I judge a pedigree, I put minor emphasis on the sire himself and huge emphasis on the tail-female line. IMO, nothing else matters. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The mare does contribute more genetically. And it is a very important bit of genetic information. Information that would greatly affect stamina, the genes associated with cellular respiraton. Its in the mares egg already in her mitochondria. I have seen a few papers on this, but I was suprised there were not more, suprised. There has to be more work on this that is not published with all the money that goes into breeding. Or maybe not, since the market seems to be driven in ways I do not fully understand. Theoretically mares should play more of a role in stamina. Theoretically, but I would back this guess with some convinction because those genes in the mitochondria code for some very important enzymes that affect efficient use of oxygen by muscles. I do not have any numbers to back this up. But the mare side should be super important. This is why I would have asked why not 50/50 from a genetic standpoint. Its is not 50/50 genetically. |
Quote:
I guess if they look good as yearlings, and have the desired pedigree (which again, I am totally perplexed by much of this) they sell. And the horse is going to go through enormous physiological changes. A gamble that escapes me. So I must respect people who can pick out a horse that has run, buy it, and make the horse better because they see potential. Congrats Mr. Simon. |
Quote:
I can give numerous examples of mares who produced SWs early and late in their broodmare careers (Somethingroyal, Dahlia) or who didn't produce a stakes horse until later (Bird Town and Birdstone were foals number 8 and 9 for Dear Birdie). This is a case where one must consider the individual rather than the population figures. |
Quote:
If you are trying to breed a racehorse, the risk of failure is much greater and it will take a longer time before you find out. If you stand stallions as sires of runners, it will be four years before the first foals hit the track. The odds of a given stallion being a top sire of runners is low. Compare that to standing stallions as sires of sales yearlings. If your stallion is popularly bred and you can get vast numbers of good mares to him, you're making big money in year one. Assuming the foals are decent-looking, it doesn't matter if they can't outrun a goat. No one will know for at least four years, during which time you're making a lot of money, and by the time the stallion is exposed as a moderate sire of runners, you'll have an exciting new young sire of sales yearlings. Breeding sales yearlings is a much surer bet, with a faster return. |
Quote:
|
In the olden days, the axiom was that you breed a young, unproven mare to an older, proven stallion, and an older proven mare to a young, unproven stallion. That way, a breeder could tell which parent was to blame if the offspring turned out to be lousy and cull the appropriate animal. Naturally because of genetic variation, the breeding has to be repeated at least a couple of times to fully test it.
Nowadays we see far too many unproven mares bred to unproven stallions, merely for big bucks in the auction ring. Then when the offspring run well (or badly) they both get the credit (or blame) and nobody knows which one is worth keeping. Then there are those mares who can produce runners even 'if she was bred to the teaser' and can make a bad stallion look good. And of course, hardly anybody repeats matings anymore - you have to go to the lastest 'flavor of the month' stallions to bring the biggest auction prices. Believe me - I have friends who advise breeders and it's like pulling teeth to get them to send their best mare, who has had a good SW by a so-called second tier stallion, back to that same stallion. They feel it's so old news; they want the hot young stallion for their mare, the one that was making headlines most recently, not the proven commodity. |
Quote:
By "breeding for racing" I assume you mean breeding good mares to a lot of excellent distance race horses turned sires....the result of which is typically slowpoke, plodding offspring who get outpaced. Storm Cat is always the one sire people talk about when it comes to "breeding sales yearlings." However, as late as 1993, Storm Cat's stud fee was just $20,000, and it wasn't like his offspring really excelled at yearling sales early on. In 1990, the first crop of Storm Cat yearlings averaged $54,769 In 1991, the second crop of Storm Cat yearling averaged $78,735 In '92, the 3rd crop averaged $74,050 It wasn't until '93, when they averaged $109,000 that he hit six figures. By comparison, the $6.7 million earning, stoutly bred, great race horse Alysheba...stood for $75,000 and his first crop of yearlings sold for an average of $175,000. People who know how to handicap understand that speed wins horse races. Storm Cat offspring often have excellent early speed and can carry it beyond sprint distances. That is why he's excelled at stud and become such a hot prospect. He didn't start to get the best book of mares, and sire the most expensive of yearlings, until his offspring first established themselves as exciting race horses. |
breeding sales yearlings is all about the first crop sire...
it's true that pretty much any storm cat that goes through the ring will bring $$ but for the commercial breeder the potential for profit isn't really in the big ticket sires it is in the first year sires in the 40-60k stud fee range...those yearlings are the real bread and butter of the breed to sell market...they might make more $$ on an ap indy or a storm cat but they will often get a better ROI on a 1st year stud. |
I can certainly understand why a freshman stallion prospect, who has a stud fee in that price range, would look like a more attractive buy than a "proven commodity" for the same price.
If I was a buyer, and looking to buy a good racehorse, and saw two I liked equally, I'd obviously want the freshman stallion, if it was one I felt had good upside, over the proven commodity stallion. |
as an example...of the 30 storm cat yearling offered at auction last year 12 of them failed to bring bids equal to the stud fee...
there were 6 "home runs" but obviously for a commercial breeder thats a fairly big risk to take. and his 2YO numbers at auction are AWFUL...which makes sense since only the real train wrecks show up there...but still... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.