Value of a mare..

[The Indomitable DrugS]

When evaluating the value of a broodmare...people shouldn't forget that their best foals are very often one of their first four.

If you look at the 50 ranked horses of the 1900's, 32-out of-50 (64%) were one of the first three live foals dropped out of their dam. 40-of-50 (80%) were one of the first four live foals dropped.

Rags to Riches was the 4th foal dropped out of her dam.

Sure all the females Better Than Honour drops from this stage on will have tremendous residual value..and any colt with some talent will have stallion potential...however, statistics would suggest her future foals might not compare favorably to the ones she has had so far.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

When evaluating the value of a broodmare...people shouldn't forget that their best foals are very often one of their first four.

Biological explaination? Damn I cant stop.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Biological explaination?

Sorry, I'm only a gambler....and one without much of a formal education at that.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Biological explaination?

Perhaps the following might be helpful to you (it sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to me)

Originally Posted by Some Nut

Age and Parity of Broodmares at Parturition, and Racing Performance of Offspring

Several reports have been published on epidemiological studies carried out on this topic in the USA and U.K. In these countries, the age and parity of dams are regarded to be important factors because it is thought that the dam contributes 55 to 60 percent to the performance of her foal, while the sire donates 40 to 45 percent. Although it is difficult to fairly compare the results of these reports because they use different investigative methods and subjects, we would like to briefly present some of these studies in order to describe a general trend.

The results of one study show that the age of dams at the time of parturition of 1,420 racehorses that had won graded races in Western countries between 1992 and 1994 was 6 to 9 years old. Another study in the United States investigated the parity of the dams at the time of parturition of 680 racehorses that had won graded races. The results of this study showed that many of these horses were born as early parities. The ages of the dams at the time of parturition of racehorses that had won graded races in the U.K. were 7 to 11 years old. Another U.K. study investigated 100 broodmares and 1,196 of their offspring. For this study each broodmare had to fulfill the following criteria: she had to have produced eight or more live foals between 1947 and 1986, and at least two of these offspring must have obtained a Timeform rating of 110 or more. It was found that the best racehorses were born when the dam was 9 years old, and it was her fourth parturition.

Based on the above data, it is said that the age of 16 is the optimum retirement age for broodmares, with respect to the quality of their progeny. This is consistent with the suggestion by Ricketts, who based his analysis on changes in the uterus. All reports suggest that foals born as early parities and from younger mares may be more successful on the racetrack than those born as later parities from older mares.

In Japan, we investigated horses with respect to the age of broodmares at parturition and the racing performance of the offspring, although we did not set the selection criteria as restrictively as was set in the U.K. study. We used the Standard Starts Index (SSI) set by the Japan Bloodstock Breeder's Association as our racing performance index. SSI is a numerical expression in which the earnings of each racehorse per flat race (start) are compared with the average earnings of active racehorses of the same breed, gender and age. SSI allows us to compare the racing performance of racehorses over different generations. The results showed that the SSI of racehorses born when the dam was between the ages of 10 to 12 was high. The graphs on page 7 show the parity and age of dams at parturition for 72 racehorses that won six prestigious Japanese races between 1990 and 2001 (Japanese 2000 Guineas, Japanese Derby, Japanese St. Leger, Tenno Sho: Spring, Tenno Sho: Autumn and Grand Prix). Race performance tends to be better in foals produced at parities 1 to 5, and in racehorses born when the dam was 6 to 12 years old. As such, it is appears that the data from the studies conducted in Japan show a pattern similar to those conducted in Western countries. This suggests that the intrauterine environment, which fosters the embryo and fetus, greatly influences the racing performance of the offspring, and that aging and repeated parturition are detrimental to the uterus."

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Biological explaination? Damn I cant stop.

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.

Originally Posted by paisjpq

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.

No that actually is a heck of a reasonable explaination that is not biological that the authors above probably took into account if they did their study properly.

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.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by pgardn

No that actually is a heck of a reasonable explaination that is not biological that the authors above probably took into account if they did their study properly.

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.

you run up against the nature vs. nurture debate which is really what they are talking about IMO when they say the mare contributes more...not much different than a woman who goes to the sperm bank and then raises a child on her own....she obviously has a greater bearing on the childs success than the father despite equal genetic contributions.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

you run up against the nature vs. nurture debate which is really what they are talking about IMO when they say the mare contributes more.

I believe the mare contributes a great deal more to the pedigree than the sire...but I never thought of it having anything to do with nature vs nurture.

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.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I believe the mare contributes a great deal more to the pedigree than the sire...but I never thought of it having anything to do with nature vs nurture.

Both very good points(Pas and Drugs) I think. I dont think enough about the business side and that makes perfect sense.

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.

[Riot]

The 55 to 60 thing v. the male would be something I would have to say why not 50/50

Maternal mitochondrial DNA ... the dam (dogs, horses, pigs, flying zebras) contributes just a little bit more ...

Originally Posted by Riot

Maternal mitochondrial DNA ... the dam (dogs, horses, pigs, flying zebras) contributes just a little bit more ...

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.


posted earlier in the thread.

[Riot]

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.

The old horseman's saying is, "Stamina from the mare, speed from the sire".

In pure bred coursing dogs (performance, running dogs), the maternal line is incredibly important to me, for at least 3-4 generations, but further back than that, also. Again, the tail-female line.

I'm basically looking for a sire that is safe enough to not screw up what's there, by adding health and conformation problems It's difficult in a small numbers "purebred" breed, consisting essentially of dogs inbred within the US for a hundred years, that are rarely actually tested for performance nowadays.

Sounds not so different from the Jockey Club Stud Book, and the history of a horses' lifetime racing career, really.

I'll take a proven performance-laden pedigree over a hot, young, popular sire. I look heavily at coefficients of inbreeding, and I breed on paper via pedigree analysis, then try to find a sire suitable (see what males are out there from what I want)

But with dogs, vs horses, you get several chances within a litter to see what comes through.

The guys that breed longdogs and lurchers out on the prairies of the west, strictly based upon performance - the non-pedigree performance dogs (greyhound, saluki, borzoi combo types) - interesting that they don't characterize it as scientifically as I do, but they do essentially the same thing. It works.

It worked for the Hancock family, too.

posted earlier in the thread.

I'm a bit slow some times, sorry ... exactly what you said I'll look and see if I have anything interesting regarding non-published work hiding in my file cabinets.

I think Pais makes an excellent point, also, one that must be considered.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

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.

It works both ways....the broodmares who gets production from low-profile sires early on....will get mated to much classier stallions later on...and those foals often tend to be extreme busts.

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.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It works both ways....the broodmares who gets production from low-profile sires early on....will get mated to much classier stallions later on...and those foals often tend to be extreme busts.

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.

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.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

When evaluating the value of a broodmare...people shouldn't forget that their best foals are very often one of their first four.
.

This is only true ON AVERAGE. And one must remember that many mares have only a handful of foals, so their small numbers average out vs. those mares who have many foals.

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

This is only true ON AVERAGE.

I tried to stress that.

[Pedigree Ann]

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Breeding sales yearlings is a much surer bet, with a faster return.

I never really bought into this.

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.

[paisjpq]

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

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.