More colts than fillies, What am I doing wrong?

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8637070]
<<The sex ratio varied significantly from parity in both directions. Although differences were not significant for mares of condition 1, 1.5, 3, and 3.5, mares of condition 2 gave birth to significantly fewer sons than expected (binomial test, p <.01) and mares of condition 2.5 gave birth to significantly more sons than expected (binomial test, p <.05). >>

The big statistical difference in that study was at a body score of 2. Do you really want to starve a mare down to a body score of 2 just to increase the odds of getting a filly? At body scores 2.5 you actually got MORE colts. So you not only have to starve your mare, you better make sure you starve her GOOD because if you only slightly starve her you increase your odds of a colt.

This data actually proves exactly the point I was making in my first point. That you can’t extrapolate that because a starving mare (body score 2) has an increased chance of a filly that a fit/show condition mare (body score 3) will also have an increased chance of a filly.[/QUOTE]

From the study:

Body condition scores were estimated by visual body fat distribution based on an 11-point scale from 0-5 with 0.5 gradations. [] Scores of 0 were very poor and scores of 5 were obese. [] Body condition scores at conception approximated a normal distribution, with the modal scores of most mares being 2.5 and a range of 1 to 4.

So if a score of 0 is “very poor,” a score of 5 is “obese,” and the modal score of the mares in the study was 2.5, then a body score of 2, which is one measurement gradation below the mode, is hardly descriptive of a “starving mare.” This is simply your interjected bias.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8637118]
The data from the very study you rely upon disproves that you want it to prove. You want to prove that “show fit” mares will have more fillies. That’s not what the study showed. [/QUOTE]

No - I simply stated that mare body condition affected foal sex ratios.

@vxf111;8637118

It showed that very poor condition (body score 2 our of 5) mares had a statistical increase in fillies. Period. No increase in fillies for higher scores, which would be more akin to how we’re accustom to keeping domestic horses.

Where 0 is “very poor” and 5 is “obese” and 2.5 is the where most mares scored.

[QUOTE=vxf111;8637118]I can’t help it if the study you rely upon says something different than you want it to! It’s right there in the abstract.

If you want more fillies you have to starve your mare to a 2 body score until she’s pregnant. I don’t know any vets who would support doing that.[/QUOTE]

I can’t help if you can’t read the study to properly understand how body condition was measured – 0 is a starving mare, 2.5 is the norm, 2 is just less than the norm. Me thinks you’re blinded by the egg on your face.

[vxf111]

Are ad hominems really necessary?

Those scores are scores for wild horses. There was a not a single horse observed who was over 3.5 at conception. And no mares under 1 actually had a live foal. Not necessarily equivalent to the conditions in which we keep domestic horses. I doubt you go to many farms with broodmares and see a lot of what would be scored as 2s and 2.5s on that scale. We mostly don’t keep horses in that condition. What may be a 2 for a while horse is almost certainly thinner than we consider acceptable for well-kept domestic horses. 2.5 was the modal number for that population. That does not equate to 2.5 being what we think of as an “average” condition horse.

This is likely the type of body scoring they were using (since the UK seems to like the 1-5 score and the US prefers the 1-9)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjImpLMla3MAhVLOyYKHQ-SC4YQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bhs.org.uk%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fbhs%2Ffiles%2Fpdf-documents%2Fcondition-scoring-leaflet.ashx%3Fla%3Den&usg=AFQjCNFX3uuIVlMZk4kv0zg2Zl2YIy5uSA

A score of 3 is good. A score below that is ‘moderate.’ I doubt many of us would look at a horse that looked like the picture of a 2 and think “she looks like a good condition broodmare.”

There were a lot of broad sweeping claims on this thread. Not to call anyone out by name because it’s irrelevant… but the claim was based on the study showing POOR CONDITION wild mares had more fillies… keeping a domesticated broodmare in show condition/trim would increase the chance of having a filly.

I piped in, not having read the study, that there’s a significant difference between poor condition and trim/fit.

Indeed, the study supports what I said at the outset. The only score at which there was an increased number of fillies was 2 out of 5. That’s scoring of wild horses. I venture to say most of us would be upset to have our domesticated horses at a 2/5. We are much more comfortable seeing horses at the heavier weights. I do not think many people would look at a broodmare at score 2 and think she looked acceptable/good for a domesticated broodmare.

BUT, even more importantly, the study showed no increase in fillies at other scores. Which is what I was saying from my very first post. That a result you find in POOR condition does not equate to a similar/same result in NON-POOR conditions. And that’s exactly what the study showed. At 2.5/5 you had MORE colts. At all other scores-- you had no statistically significant difference.

So based on that study, if you can somehow get your mare down to a 2 and reliably keep her at a 2, I suppose you might increase your odds of a filly. No saying what negative impact the decreased condition/nutrition will have on the foal or the dam. But you better be careful because if you let her get up to a 2.5, you increase your chances of a colt. If you miss the mark and she’s at 1, 1.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, or 5-- you wasted your time entirely.

And this is assuming that the results of a study in wild horses even correlate to a finding in domesticated horses when there are so many other variables at play.

I don’t have egg on my face. The study supports what I have been saying all along. I can’t make anyone accept it or understand an argument if they refuse to. All the namecalling in the world won’t help.

[Bent_Hickory]

This study (and others) speaks for itself. People can decide for themselves.

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8637113]
That’s not a study. It’s an article/blog post ABOUT a study and there’s no data provided. It’s not specific to the issue being asked about on this thread, which is whether “show fit” condition mares have increased numbers of fillies. At least the study on the Australian horses is an abstract of a study, specific to horses, and specific to body condition on offspring sex. With all due respect, that article is interesting but not terribly specific to the question posed on this thread.[/QUOTE]

It is an article written and released by Stanford University Medical Center. It is not just an internet blog and is based on the results of a published article (highlighted as it seems that you have trouble noticing things that do not support your position). By all means look it up and give the Phd’s some critique on their findings, don’t just accept the summary.

And the question of “show fit” was brought up by you, not the OP and one that I do not find relevant to anything. And with all due respect, if you can not see how the research I posted applies to mares, then you need to be more familiar with the topic. Which was evident when you kept mentioning depriving food from pregnant mares. Unless you are dealing the Common Reed Frog, changing sex after conception absolutely makes no sense.

In analyzing 90 years of breeding records from the San Diego Zoo, the researchers were able to prove for the first time what has been a fundamental theory of evolutionary biology: that mammals rely on some unknown physiologic mechanism to manipulate the sex ratios of their offspring as part of a highly adaptive evolutionary strategy.

“This is one of the holy grails of modern evolutionary biology – finding the data which definitively show that when females choose the sex of their offspring, they are doing so strategically to produce more grandchildren,” said Joseph Garner, PhD, associate professor of comparative medicine and senior author of the study, published July 10 in PLOS ONE. The results applied across 198 different species.

The scientists assembled three-generation pedigrees of more than 2,300 animals and found that grandmothers and grandfathers were able to strategically choose to give birth to sons, if those sons would be high-quality and in turn reward them with more grandchildren. The process is believed to be largely controlled by the females, Garner said.

Having a different opinion is what makes this board useful. Not reading what is posted and dismissing theories (most of which you didn’t bother to notice) that you do not take time to understand, while belittling posters that did read it

Why not put a pink ribbon in her mane while she’s being bred? I am an internet nobody and I am telling you that my anecdotal experience is that this is a sure fire way to get a filly. They did this study where they fed flamingos pink shrimp and it made their feathers pink-- so I extrapolate that putting a pink ribbon in your broodmare’s mane will turn her foal into a filly.

and see value in it (only 198 species) all the while arguing points like not feeding pregnant mares and “show fit”???(nothing to do with losing condition) …it is hard to respect those viewpoints.

[vxf111]

stoicfish, the link you posted is to someone describing a study/results from studies. And while the topic is very interesting, it’s not particularly germane. It discusses things like reptiles holding on to different types of semen so that the best semen is used, why male lions mate the way they do, and various other “natural selection” mechanisms that have nothing to do with the question asked. Some species of frogs can change sex. That is apropos of nothing when it comes to breeding horses. So while it was an interesting read, there wasn’t anything about it that addressed the question asked on this thread which was whether there is anything that can be done to increase the odds that a mare has a filly. I don’t think anyone (I certainly wasn’t) is arguing that nature doesn’t play any role in the way a species develops. Certainly that article supports such a statement with which I don’t disagree. I was pointing out that deciding to arbitrarily cut back a mare’s calorie intake based on a study showing that wild horses had more fillies when they were below ideal caloric intake sounds foolhardy and likely to cause more risk than benefit.

[SportArab]

There’s also a connection between age of stallion and mare and gender of babies. Older mares and stallions tend to have more fillies, statistically speaking. From my perspective this seems to be true. My guy, who is 22 this year, has been producing only fillies for the past three years. We’ll see what we end up with this year or if the streak has ended. He even produced a filly out of a mare who had previously had five colts and one filly.

[ShadowsMom]

I had all colts for 3 years and now this is my 3rd year of fillies. I still have one to go and really, really hope it is a colt for a change. I have younger mares this year and am using mostly younger stallions than when I got colts. I think it is just the luck of the draw…Sure hope my luck changes…

[SportArab]

Age is one of the proven connections. It’s been known about stallions for a while, but the research on older mares producing more fillies is pretty new.

[gumtree]

Haven’t read all the comments. Interesting opinions being offered up. None of which I have found to hold much water.

I am in the TB breeding business and colts generally sell better than fillies depending on pedigree. We are only foaling 4 of our own mares this years. So far we have had 3 fillies. Bummer. 1 by a second crop stallion, 1 by a 3 crop stallion and 1 by a stallion in his mid teens. Average age of the mares 10. All 3 were bred in March. 1 on the chubby side, 1 on the average side, 1 is always on the lite side of things.

The next mare is due any day. Bred in late May, she is 20 and so is the stallion.

Considering the Jockey Club keeps detailed records, mare’s age, cover and foaling dates, age of the stallion for every registered foal born every year out of every mare. It shouldn’t be difficult nor time consuming to gather and put out a statistical study on the subject. It would make for interesting reading at the very least.

[SportArab]

There have been several statistical studies relating age of mare and/or stallion to gender of foals. It’s been long known that younger stallions produce more colts on average and older stallions more fillies.

The mare study came out about a month ago, showing older mares have more fillies.

[Samotis]

Well my tb mare has had 4 colts in a row!

3 different stallions all different ages and breeds!

One stallion was in his teens and other was very young. All boys

I am breeding her this year after a couple years off. So we will see if she can break the streak!!!

She has always been in good condition and not losing condition as everyone is saying.

Only reason I want a filly is to replace her soon!

[gumtree]

[QUOTE=SportArab;8651507]
There have been several statistical studies relating age of mare and/or stallion to gender of foals. It’s been long known that younger stallions produce more colts on average and older stallions more fillies.

The mare study came out about a month ago, showing older mares have more fillies.[/QUOTE]

Can you provides links?

[SportArab]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139358

Your wish is my command.