Is my TB Mare worth breeding?

[Calamber]

[QUOTE=Texarkana;7712330]
If you read back in this thread, you would see I was the first to post about his history.

Not trying to be snarky. Honest. I was regularly at Country Life in the early 2000s, I saw him lots and dealt with plenty by him. I think he’s awesome. But I don’t think he makes the OP’s mare “valuable.” Nor do I really want folks to perpetuate that thought, since it is very untrue. I would hate for someone to lose big bank breeding a mare predominately because of the broodmare sire.[/QUOTE]

You must have missed that he was top of the Honorable Mention list for the emerging Broodmare Sire’s list for 2013.

http://i.bloodhorse.com/downloads/special-reports/pdfs/top-10-emerging-broodmare-sires-710489257.pdf

[Texarkana]

So I did. Good for you. I will be truly happy for you when you make millions selling the OP’s foal. :lol:

[Calamber]

Enjoy your humble pie.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=Calamber;7712311]
If you were so careful to read a little more history of Malibu Moon you will know he did not get the powerhouse mares until much later, so, it is still time and could be that the 3 generation will exceed all expectations, such is the beauty of racing and breeding plus there are some very good nicks for this line. At this point I am sure none of this will matter to you because I think you are arguing just for the sake of it. I like Malibu Moon, I like the kind of horses and the temperament of the horses that he produces and I don’t think if the OP does due diligence on nicks that she will produce anything that would constitute a lost cause.

http://runroughshod.blogspot.com/2013/01/macoumba-and-malibu-moon.html

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/truenicks/archive/2010/06/28/moon.aspx

Have fun OP, I would love to see a picture of the mare if you have one.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you’re arguing against yourself now. If you’re saying that Malibu Moon isn’t a top broodmare sire yet because he didn’t get the really good mares until later in his stud careeer…well, this is one of those early mares. You know, from the unsuccessful group.

Bottom line: if a foal from this mare was catalogued in a sale, nobody would care who the broodmare sire was. And if OP is breeding to race, she would be better off starting with a mare who could run a bit herself.

[ellevt]

Question- slightly off topic.

Upthread someone said that broodmare sire is not a big motivator at the sales. Why is this the case? I was just thinking about last night, like how Secretariat was considered a “disappointment” as a stud. If people had realized how much impact Secretariat was going to have through his daughters, would he have covered more mares?

I know in the sporthorse breeding circles there are certain stallions that are highly valued as broodmare sires.

I guess from a sales perspective that’s too much of a long view? Seems like it would be worth the wait to try for an AP Indy or Storm Cat.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=ellevt;7712742]
Question- slightly off topic.

Upthread someone said that broodmare sire is not a big motivator at the sales. Why is this the case? I was just thinking about last night, like how Secretariat was considered a “disappointment” as a stud. If people had realized how much impact Secretariat was going to have through his daughters, would he have covered more mares?

I know in the sporthorse breeding circles there are certain stallions that are highly valued as broodmare sires.

I guess from a sales perspective that’s too much of a long view? Seems like it would be worth the wait to try for an AP Indy or Storm Cat.[/QUOTE]

Secretariat was deemed to have been a disappointment at stud only in that he did not reproduce himself. He bred a full book of mares every year he stood at stud.

There are several reasons that the broodmare sire isn’t a big motivator at the sales. First, because at the major sales venues nearly all the broodmare sires are top horses. So it isn’t a big deal. Second because a mare’s race record and her family are more important indicators of potentional in her offspring than her sire is. Third, because each good stallion has many many daughters (I believe that the numbers are a good deal higher than they would be in sport horses.)

Malibu Moon, for example, currently has 143 producing daughters. Top broodmare sire, Storm Cat has 341. Sadlers Wells has 495. So if someone wanted to shop for a foal by a particular broodmare sire, there would be many many to choose from–which is why the other criteria are weighed more heavily.

[Snowflake]

Here is my simple philosophy on breeding mares - whether they be for race or show: Does the mare perform at your desired discipline for the resulting foal at a level you’ll be happy maintaining with the offspring?

That said. You want a foal for the purpose of hitting the track. The mare was a dud on the track. Would you be satisfied spending the cash on breeding and training up the resulting foal if it performed no better than the mare. I think not.

Yes, there are what they call “improvement sires” out there but it’s still a crapshoot. In most cases, you get most of your stamp on the foal from the mare.

Breeding this mare for a race prospect would be akin to me breeding my heavy hunter for a grand prix dressage horse. Just isn’t a likely outcome.

[ellevt]

[QUOTE=LaurieB;7712980]
Secretariat was deemed to have been a disappointment at stud only in that he did not reproduce himself. He bred a full book of mares every year he stood at stud.

There are several reasons that the broodmare sire isn’t a big motivator at the sales. First, because at the major sales venues nearly all the broodmare sires are top horses. So it isn’t a big deal. Second because a mare’s race record and her family are more important indicators of potentional in her offspring than her sire is. Third, because each good stallion has many many daughters (I believe that the numbers are a good deal higher than they would be in sport horses.)

Malibu Moon, for example, currently has 143 producing daughters. Top broodmare sire, Storm Cat has 341. Sadlers Wells has 495. So if someone wanted to shop for a foal by a particular broodmare sire, there would be many many to choose from–which is why the other criteria are weighed more heavily.[/QUOTE]

Good explanation, thanks.

I had read that Secretariat produced about 600 foals… over a stud career of ~15 years? Seems low.

[Calamber]

[QUOTE=Snowflake;7713028]
Here is my simple philosophy on breeding mares - whether they be for race or show: Does the mare perform at your desired discipline for the resulting foal at a level you’ll be happy maintaining with the offspring?

That said. You want a foal for the purpose of hitting the track. The mare was a dud on the track. Would you be satisfied spending the cash on breeding and training up the resulting foal if it performed no better than the mare. I think not.

Yes, there are what they call “improvement sires” out there but it’s still a crapshoot. In most cases, you get most of your stamp on the foal from the mare.

Breeding this mare for a race prospect would be akin to me breeding my heavy hunter for a grand prix dressage horse. Just isn’t a likely outcome.[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of mares out there who were very successful at the track and never produced a lick. California Chrome’s dam is the opposite example. Jay Trump who won his share of jumping races was out of a mare who was just a “dud” mare bred to a TB stallion across the street because she would not get into the trailer for the other. One would think that all of this tittle tattle about top this and that would mean that only the very rich should or could be in the game and that is just not the case.

[Snowflake]

[QUOTE=Calamber;7713212]
There are plenty of mares out there who were very successful at the track and never produced a lick. California Chrome’s dam is the opposite example. Jay Trump who won his share of jumping races was out of a mare who was just a “dud” mare bred to a TB stallion across the street because she would not get into the trailer for the other. One would think that all of this tittle tattle about top this and that would mean that only the very rich should or could be in the game and that is just not the case.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are those random lucky breaks such as Jay Trump. What I was saying had nothing to do with being elitist but with being realistic about expectations. In my previous post, I never said anything about breeding “top stock” just asking about whether what the mare has done is an acceptable outcome for the resulting foal. Would it be worth it to duplicate her performance after a substantial investment? Because, the mare’s performance is that tangible measure of potential ability of offspring.

Personally, if I were breeding for a performer, I would rather take a proven, track successful mare and breed to the nicest stallion that is in my budget because that cross probably has the upperhand than the same stallion bred to a non-performing mare with all other things being equal. That being said, breeding is a crapshoot. You just never know what you’re going to get. You can only try to manage the process the best you can and make sound decisions on your breeding stock.

Like I said, I would be a fool to breed my heavy hunter mare for a grand prix dressage horse. It’s not that it couldn’t happen. Just that the odds of it are very, very slim. That’s the realistic view of it. (And personnally, while my heavy hunter mare isn’t a “top athlete”, I like her very, very much and would be happy to have an offspring of hers even if it maxed out at her current level - which is not much to speak of. But that’s breeding for my own purpose and pleasure - not to generate income or saleability.)

There are plenty of mares that have raced well enough with good enough breeding that are reasonably priced who would be better prospects to produce a runner than the one the OP mentioned. The odds that this mare will produce a Jay Trump or a Triple Crown winner are slim to none. And that’s just being realistic about what she has to offer in the breeding shed.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=ellevt;7713168]
Good explanation, thanks.

I had read that Secretariat produced about 600 foals… over a stud career of ~15 years? Seems low.[/QUOTE]

At the time he was standing at stud, 40 mares was a full book. Without all the advances in reproductive technology that we currently enjoy, it used to be normal for mares to be bred 2 or sometimes 3 times before settling. (So even though books are significantly bigger now, the average stallion isn’t working any harder than a stallion who stud at stud three decades ago.)

[justhoofit]

FWIW, Malibu Moon has been proving to be quite exciting in eventing pedigrees. Is the mare sound? Maybe you can free jump her and see what she has jump-wise?

It’s been mentioned before that she has a nice sport horse pedigree, and I agree. If she has the size and you can show some of her potential OF, then you might be able to produce some desirable foals out of the right stallions.

[ellevt]

[QUOTE=LaurieB;7713387]
At the time he was standing at stud, 40 mares was a full book. Without all the advances in reproductive technology that we currently enjoy, it used to be normal for mares to be bred 2 or sometimes 3 times before settling. (So even though books are significantly bigger now, the average stallion isn’t working any harder than a stallion who stud at stud three decades ago.)[/QUOTE]

Ah, makes a lot of sense! I am a youngin’ who has never known a world without ultrasound and HCG : )

[Linny]

[QUOTE=ellevt;7713168]
Good explanation, thanks.

I had read that Secretariat produced about 600 foals… over a stud career of ~15 years? Seems low.[/QUOTE]

When he was at stud, a full book was about 40 mares.

[Linny]

Look at the better broodmare sires, then break out which of his daughters earned them that status.
First, most top BMS’ are sires who were bred to very good mares, meaning that their have a preponderance of good blood. In many cases, they earn their status through sheet force of numbers. A sire like Mr. Prospector was a contemporary of Secretariat but lived long enough to be siring big foal crops as book size exploded in the late 80’s and into the 90’s. Having a lot of mares on the ground helps.
If Malibu Moon is earning a reputation as a BMS, it is based on his early and cheaper breedings which bodes well for those who have his better bred daughters. That said, it doesn’t mean every MM mare should be bred. My guess is that the ones who have good foals were from some of the nicer MD families.
If not much has come from the family for a few generations, it’s hard to believe that buyers would stake their fortune on Malibu Moon reviving the family honor.
She’s well bred for sport. I’d see if I could get her eligible for sport foals by a WB or sport TB if you really want to breed. It is unlikely that any foal she throws will be a viable commercial product. If you plan to keep the foal and race it, be sure to start it out with good schooling and an eye toward a riding career, post racing. I’d advise finding a statebred program that is suitable and looking into rules and eligibility. If your foal is dropped in a state that runs state bred restricted races often, you have a far better chance.

[halo]

This is a pretty interesting article regarding broodmares production, comparing racing ability vs. family.
http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/MythoftheFamily.htm

[Flying_Fox]

In recent decades only about 3% of all Thoroughbred colts ever see stallion duty of any kind, while close to 60% of the fillies will be bred oneday. Some of the best broodmares of all-time would simply never have been bred at all had they been stallions, since their race records or pedigrees simply were not exceptional…

I think there is an important genetic principle here that is familiar to agricultural breeders of plant and animal livestock, but much less so to racehorse breeders.
A broodmare with many exceptional genes may have been thwarted from racing by just a few negative genes–which in turn might be bred out a generation later with an appropriate mate. So a mare with a few racing problems MIGHT nevertheless be a great broodmare prospect. A mare with foot or breathing problems as a racehorse might be mated with a stallion very strong in those areas, with very positive results…

Or, a mediocre racemare may have a genetic make-up that combines extraordinarily well with one or more male lines, so that the offspring exceed the parents in performance. This is very well known to plant and livestock breeders. A very ordinary strain of red flowers might combine with an equally ordinary blue strain, producing an extraordinary strain of purple flowers. *But these purple flowers (hybrids) will not reproduce consistently well themselves, while their modest red and blue ancestors will continue to produce great offspring… Historically we have a good picture of what makes a great broodmare. If we are to put this knowledge to practical use we must look to identify the great broodmare prospects of the future. While pedigrees filled with names like War Admiral, and Sir Galahad III distinguished the best broodmares of the past, we might look for the names of Buckpasser, Hoist the Flag, Graustark, Nijinsky II, Alydar, Secretariat, and Dr. Fager to play a prominent role in the future. All are outstanding broodmare-sires whose pedigrees are filled with strong female influences: top broodmares and broodmare-sires… http://broodmaresinc.com/clustermares/

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=Flying Fox;7716937]

I think there is an important genetic principle here that is familiar to agricultural breeders of plant and animal livestock, but much less so to racehorse breeders.
A broodmare with many exceptional genes may have been thwarted from racing by just a few negative genes–which in turn might be bred out a generation later with an appropriate mate. So a mare with a few racing problems MIGHT nevertheless be a great broodmare prospect. A mare with foot or breathing problems as a racehorse might be mated with a stallion very strong in those areas, with very positive results…

Or, a mediocre racemare may have a genetic make-up that combines extraordinarily well with one or more male lines, so that the offspring exceed the parents in performance. This is very well known to plant and livestock breeders. A very ordinary strain of red flowers might combine with an equally ordinary blue strain, producing an extraordinary strain of purple flowers. *But these purple flowers (hybrids) will not reproduce consistently well themselves, while their modest red and blue ancestors will continue to produce great offspring… Historically we have a good picture of what makes a great broodmare. If we are to put this knowledge to practical use we must look to identify the great broodmare prospects of the future. While pedigrees filled with names like War Admiral, and Sir Galahad III distinguished the best broodmares of the past, we might look for the names of Buckpasser, Hoist the Flag, Graustark, Nijinsky II, Alydar, Secretariat, and Dr. Fager to play a prominent role in the future. All are outstanding broodmare-sires whose pedigrees are filled with strong female influences: top broodmares and broodmare-sires… http://broodmaresinc.com/clustermares/[/QUOTE]

The big difference between breeding plants experimentally and racehorses is cost. I don’t think that TB breeders are unware of genetic principles. But of necessity, they are also very much aware that every experimental breeding costs thousands of dollars and yields one result (if you’re lucky) which will then cost more thousands more (not to mention several years) before its success or failure can be proven on the track. Which is why TB breeders prefer to narrow the variables as much as possible before starting out.

As for the stallions to look for in mares of the future, those are hardly uncommon names to find in TB pedigrees. I’d be willing to bet that at least one of those horses, if not more, appears in the pedigree of 90% of the broodmares in Kentucky. So yes, there are broodmares with those stallions in their families who will produce successful offspring. There are also mares related to those stallions who will produce nothing but duds.

[Linny]

Sixty or more years ago, much of the TB breeding was private and horses were bred to run for their owners. Elite outfits owned most of the mares from top sirelines (Sir Galahad III, Broomstick, War Admiral etc) and only once a mare proved a dud might she be culled from the herd. (The exception being if a breeder ended up with far too much blood from a family if they produced a preponderance of fillies.)
Today, with much breeding being done with an eye toward sales, “elite” level blood is widely held. As LaurieB points out, today’s breeders are likely aware of the best way to utilize the mares they have. There are many bloodstock services around which study and distribute data on how families do with certain stallions or which base analysis of physical type etc. The issue is time and money. If you are taking a generational view (breeding to race and then return the horse to your farm to breed) it can take a long time (a decade or more) to determine that something doesn’t work.
Because so many horses are sold now, the “best” pedigrees show up all over the place. Man O’ War was never available commercially. In the 20’s or 30’s or 40’s if you had a Man O’ War mare or granddaughter, that was a big deal. Today, you can’t swing a rope in KY without hitting a mare with close up Mr. Prospector or Storm Cat or Unbridled or AP Indy. They put a ton of foals on the ground and because they were hot during a rising market even those sires’ modest sons found places at stud. That means that they are simply everywhere.

[SPRINGBORO]

I’m late to this party, but I would be very curious to know what happened to this mare.