Thank you all for the suggestions! I’ll be looking into them as I have time.
Tim - I understand what you are saying and I am not arguing that a horse that has competed to any level is a better producer than a career broodmare. I am saying for my purposes and preferences I would like to find a mare (or program that uses mares) that has both competed to 1.30+ and is a proven producer. I understand that 1.30 is not the end all be all height - it was something that DiAnn Langer had said to me when I asked her thoughts on selecting broodmares/ young horses. As for the percentage of 1.40 horses Fragance du Chalus produced it would be 44% assuming that she did have 20 offspring at or above 1.40 out of 45 offspring total. That’s a pretty good percentage to me - especially when comparing to the percentages of many top stallions who are often in the 15% ish range (using data from Horsetelex).
@beowulf I’d like to second your comments thanking Tim for sharing knowledge… the topic of motherlines and broodmares, and what people look for is always of interest to me
The comments regarding marketing and embryos from top competition mares make quite a bit of sense to me.
As for the statistics concerning Mylord Cathargo’s dam, I’m curious if there is any sort of information available about recipients used for the majority of these embryos? Were most of the foals who were actually born from the recipes in Europe, or in NA? Recip herds in NA can be very diverse… I know nothing about Europe though. There have been a few recent articles about subtle impacts linked to the recip in terms of both temperament and size of the foal they delivered and nursed until weaning (I saw something a while back about embryos implanted in draft recip mares, and pony embryos implanted in horse recip mares).
Another question… is there much of a market yet for embryos from specific career broodmares, who come from excellent producing, established motherlines, that do not have competition careers of their own?
My question would be is the 15% because the offspring of top stallions can’t perform in the range you’re looking for or don’t (for so many different reasons)? Not every single offspring of a top stallion is going to a competition home at the level you’re looking for.
I would hazard a guess it is because they do not rather than cannot. Not all owners have the funds, ability or want to bring their horses up to that level and with stallions producing more than mares there is a wider range of situations represented in their offspring.
That being said, I am a numbers person and love looking at the percentages for both stallions and mares. My favorite stallions are right around 15-20% which is good enough for me!
Yes. But in how many of these cases was the human the limiting factor?
I’m far less scopey and capable than either of mine. If they had landed in a professional home I’m sure more could have been accomplished … but instead they very capably pack me around the 1 to 1.10 ring without batting an eyelash. I don’t think this means they cannot do it, just that we haven’t done it as unfortunately real life and reality has intervened.
I agree with others that the OP’s thinking may be flawed, but I certainly appreciate the conundrum. You DEFINITELY want super high quality mares in a breeding program. Good mares are the root of quality in a breeding program. However, mares that have spent much of their lives as performance horses can frequently turn out to be quite disappointing as broodmares. Many top producing mares are career broodmares, with little in the way of sport results. OTOH it’s really important to weed out breeding programs that are breeding “rejects.” It is a common and depressing strategy for some breeders to accumulate seemingly well bred mares that have failed out of sport careers due to soundness issues or mental unsuitability and hope to “improve” upon them by breeding them to well reputed stallions. There’s a huge difference between this vs. breeding programs that are retaining high quality, top producing mares to use for breeding.
Of course, if the OP is looking at breeding programs that are using reproductive technology and recipient mares to create offspring from top mares the “who is the best broodmare” question may have a different answer. But, even in that instance the data may be skewed, because when someone has a lot of cash to spend on reproductive technologies, they also have a lot of cash to invest in marketing and developing young horses to the maximum of their potential.
I have two mares that are mid to late teens that were in sport, one to 1.55 the other to 1.45, and I am hopeful that we can get them settled in foal this year. Not successful last season. Often mares that have spent years on the circuit taking regumate and other drugs have significantly more issues with fertility. Breeding mares like this is expensive, and one must jump through some big hoops hoping to get it done! The other factor is that often using frozen semen that is commercially more attractive to buyers on this mare is even more difficult, due to the heightened inflammatory response it can cause. So, now you are breeding to a domestic stallion because you need fresh cooled, and those are not nearly as sexy to buyers, so can be harder to sell.
Sure there are folks out there breeding their retired mares now, and if they had $$$ to buy her as a 6 figure horse, they have $$ to pull out all the stops and use the newest technology. Most small breeders (like myself) do not have those options.
I’d rather breed a young mare that’s not had a sport career yet, assuming she’s from good genetics and damline- taking the chance. Young bodies cooperate and tolerate pregnancy far better than older ones.
I am sure my younger mares could do well in the performance ring, with someone that has financial means to take them as far as they can go. However, my bank account does not allow for cutting edge reproduction technology, and if I have to wait until they are mid teens to have access to their genetics, its not worth it to me.
Will just keep doing my thing here in VA, hoping that I’m breeding better with each generation and making the best choices to produce quality horses. Until I get sick of it, or go broke I guess.
[QUOTE= As for the percentage of 1.40 horses Fragance du Chalus produced it would be 44% assuming that she did have 20 offspring at or above 1.40 out of 45 offspring total. That’s a pretty good percentage to me - especially when comparing to the percentages of many top stallions who are often in the 15% ish range (using data from Horsetelex). [/QUOTE]
20 out of 100 is not 44%, it 20%. She had over 100 embryos. Furthermore, stallions number don’t matter as much because they breed a ton more mares, and the stallion owner doesn’t make the selection, the mare owner does. You can’t compare stallion numbers and mare numbers. When a good mare produces about 10 foals in her life, each one counts. A stallion with over 10% 1.45 and above is a really good stallion. I wouldn’t even look at results below 1.4m. A mare with a 10% is on average only one offsp
I questioned your preferences because I hear this sport mare statement all the time, and it has zero basis in fact. Now production in sport is a whole different ball of wax. There should be production in the Stamm or motherline. It doesn’t have to be out of or even G. daughter, but close enough to know that the motherline is producing.
Now if you had said I am looking for a filly out of a top stamm with production up close, I would fully support this. This is grounded in facts that show continued production.
8 of the top 10 placers at Royal Windsor Rolex GP yesterday were out of career broodmares.
Just chiming in to say I third the rec for Elizabeth Houtsma and Hillside H Ranch. I know she has a lot already sold, but I think she has some still for sale too. She currently has my 2yo filly who is just growing up and Elizabeth is teaching me the ins and outs of how she determines what to breed, who to breed to, etc. Plus we have a mare of hers on a lease right now that was in the Young Jumpers with a pro and now getting miles with an ammy who wouldn’t have had the opportunity to ride such an amazing horse if Liz hadn’t been such a great friend and business partner. So, long story short, give her a call, it is well worth it!
Fun Fact: Mylord Carthago’s mother produced 100 embryos. How many top sport horses did she produce out of that? Less than 20% 1.4m+. She competed at 1.4m and didn’t produce at a higher rate than any other mare.
It is not the first time I read these numbers and they are absurd. As mentionned above, in 2014, she had about 45-50 products. Even if that doubled in the past five years, those younger products would not be of age to compete so your 20% thing would mean nothing. Also, many of Fragance’s filly were sold directly into breeding. This line is exceptionnal, and it did not start with Fragance. Many very succesfull branches have come from her second dame Ifrane and her other daughters. You must also look at the production of Fragrance’s daughters, grand-daughters and so on which is alos exceptionnal.
I haven’t been here on the forums in…years? But I had a friend give me a heads up that my program had been mentioned. Yes, we use a lot of sport mares and yes, most are sold in utero. Thanks to those of you who had kind words about my breeding program
Hello Cumano, Joris said himself that he had collected more than 100. All mares have some fillies go into breeding, so this means nothing. I will say that Joris has a much better chance of getting horses in to sport than most, so he would have no excuses to not get a horse into sport. My point was she has the best chance to get them into sport, and her numbers are no better than anyone else.
In a recent article, describing the number of foals, Joris is quoted as follows: “A lot, I think she has more than forty five, and out of that, about twenty good competition horses who jumped more than one forty. She produced three incredibly good stallions, Mylord Carthago, Norton d’Eole (one year, Mylord and Norton were both in the top ten stallions in France!) and Bamako, all three jumped 1.60. (Mylord is of course by Carthago, Norton by Cento and Bamako by Darco) She has now a lot of grandchildren who are stallions…”
Collecting embryos and live foals aren’t necessarily the same number.
Regarding broodmares and sport - Holstein seems to be an exception when it comes to using mares that were in sport. The Belgians, Dutch and French frequently combine sport and breeding.
She just died and they are still refering to less than 50 products, and I disagree that her production is not impressive. Mares do not give embryos like cows. You can flush one embryo (rarely more) about once a month (lets say 8-10 month in the year in Belgium), with success rate anywhere between 50-70%, and once you have an embryo, you get again 50-70% pregnancy rate, just do the math. Her impact on belgian breeding is easy to validate, and is spread in many very large houses. Just a quick, not scientific at all, verification on horstelex shows about 20 horses with results above 140, and at least 11 daughters (out of 25) with products who jumped 1m40 and above (most of them with numerous products).
Frangance’s case aside, I agree that the production of the dame line, is more reveling on the mares’ value than her results. I would rather have a mare that was never backed from a good dame line than a GP mare from a line that produced nothing else. This being said, I don’t think that they are mutualy exclusive and I think that now that mares can show, a performance record is just another indicator of a mare’s quality.
Also, I think we should go further than just listing the number of horses jumping in a line to assess a mare. We need to put it in perspective with the number of products in a specific dame line. Some very good mares were just placed with breeders who did not have the volume. Just for exemple, Oekie, Big Ben’s dame, was with a small breeder who bred out of her every other year. She prouduced 2 GP horses in the 80’s and 6 broodmares, who themselves did not have many products, but some very very good ones amongst them. The quality just started to show 10-20 years later simply because there was not a lot of production and it didn’t have much visibility. But since, the dame line was purchased by top breeders, De Brabander amongst them, and they started giving the line the opportunity to blossom and since then, its production is just crazy (Candy, Millar, Dixson just to name a fiew). I think you should assess a line as a whole. When I see a great sport mare from a line that has not produced, but is very narrow, I consider it as a good gamble. Not much production but not much opportunity to produce, and yet, the performance shows that something must be in the genes. It is a high risk, high rewards game that I don’t have the financial means to play, but I could understand how a wealthy pioneer could try to find the next gem.
I totally agree, I am ok taking a risk on a mare from a line with little production due to circumstances or age, of I like the type and the pedigree rather than a mare from a line with width that still hasn’t produced much. Great post.
Another vote for Klondike Victory Farm. www.kvf.ca They have several broodmares that have competed at high levels, some with amateur riders, and their offspring are having excellent results as well with their new owners.
In the jumper world, the average number of horses that reach 1.40m is 2%. So a mare that produces anything above that is already an above average performance producing mare.
That said, like some of you have mentioned, good “breeding” is a combination of 3 major elements:
Knowing what you are breeding for (i.e: commercial, amateur market, professional market, etc…)
A full analysis of both sire and dam’s info
Having the funds and proper human ressources to produce the horse and give the horse an adequate environment.
If you breed trying to produce a high perf. horse, then, IMHO, the analysis of both parents is even more important and needs to be based equally on performance (keeping in mind the 2% ;-)), pedigree (blood lines and crosses that work or not…) and conformation of each horse. This proper analysis is not something you can learn over night but requires many years of experience, so my recommendation would be to consult professionals that have that kind of experience (even if it costs you a bit to do so). It will be a lot more productive than consulting COTH (sorry…) which is usually a bit all over the place and hard to follow.
A good breeding program is only good if it works for you and what you are trying to achieve. It is totally different from one farm to another depending on the goals and the funds available of each farm and therefore the numbers of mares your breed and foals you produce. A farm that produces 30+ foals a year does not operate their breeding choices the same way than a farm that does 2 or 3. So beware of the stats and % beyond the crucial one: 2% will end up jumping over 1.40m
Finally, a lot (if not most) of the success in a high perf horses is due to its management and life in general.
That is pretty much impossible to fully control.
So don’t forget to have fun while doing it!
She was able to out produce herself with at least five 1.6 m horses. There is a significant difference in jumping 1.45 vs 1.6 m - I respect any mare that can produce a 1.6 m jumper.
Edits to add: Cumano thanks for the insight on Big Ben’s family-I think it is really interesting to see a mare family be developed. That is a great way to learn for the rest of us.
and OP, to answer your question more directly, I would go to breeders/trainers you know and trust or referred to you by people you know and trust to buy a young prospect.
Kate MacPhail at Takoda Farm in NY has at least one broodmare that would fit your criteria, possibly more. She’s also a really great person to deal with.
