I thought y’all might find the conclusions interesting. I’m not quite sure how this would carry over to WB breeding, but I’m quite certain that it does.
One thing that the study found was that foals born to dams between the ages of eight and eleven were more likely to be better performers.
I’m quite certain it would carry over in some ways to WB as well… how fascinating - the age thing really interests me. I’m at work so skimming but cannot wait to settle down at home and read this.
Thanks for sharing!
I haven’t finished the whole article yet, but first impression:
This study basically supports what thoroughbred breeders have believed for centuries. Hence the emphasis on the dam line in catalog pages and the trends we see in the market.
ETA: I just finished the article. I thought it was a good read. I still think much of it jives with what folks have said for centuries. Some points I disagree with, only because horses and their situations are not as “black and white” as the data suggests. For example, the idea that “poor performance mares possibly should not be used as broodmares” I generally agree with, but there are sooooo incredibly many exceptions where it’s not as simple as just culling the non-stakes horses.
I’d also like to see the data on the “poor sires” category, since while I understand they performed a statistical analysis on the data, I imagine the population size was incredibly small.
I keep thinking how fascinating it would be if someone could repeat a similar study utilizing embryo transfer, which obviously can’t be done with thoroughbreds.
Of the 4 categories, the “elite mares” and “poor stallions” is an anomaly. Not many people with top mares breed to poor stallions, so the number in that group must be small and might skew the entire study.
Also, “poor mares” are often bred to “elite sires” if they come from a top female line. In fact, many mares are pulled off the track or never sent to the track if they do not train well as 2 year olds. So the racing history of the mares does not represent the true quality of a mare’s genes.
Bottom line, I think this study is too narrowly defined to accurately represent TB breeding.
Even the age comparison does not hold water. There are many more foals who are average or below average than those who end up being top race horses. Hence, breeders will tend to send an older mare to cheaper stallions if the first 3 - 4 offspring are not stakes winners. One mare we had was booked to Cigar his first year at stud (she was hastily re-booked to another stallion when Cigar’s infertility was confirmed). By the time she was 14, we were using $20k stallions since she had foaled nothing of distinction up until then.
So, she was given a higher chance of succeeding in her first 4 years than she was in her second 4 years. She was just as poor a broodmare for her entire reproductive years. In fact, one might argue that she was poorer in her early years since she was bred to more sucessful stallions during those years and yet she still did not produce top foals.
I don’t think that this study of TB mares can be directly correlated to WB breeding since in the sport horse world it takes MANY more years to find out of a match was successful. Even then, the difference in stud fee between top sires and second tier sires is much smaller than it is in TB breeding. So mares who are “unsuccessful” are not necessarily bred to less successful sires in their later years.
Also, in the WB world, “elite” mares often pass on their genes via ET. And that brings the whole issue of nature v. nurture into the equation.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8187271]
Of the 4 categories, the “elite mares” and “poor stallions” is an anomaly. Not many people with top mares breed to poor stallions, so the number in that group must be small and might skew the entire study.
Also, “poor mares” are often bred to “elite sires” if they come from a top female line. In fact, many mares are pulled off the track or never sent to the track if they do not train well as 2 year olds. So the racing history of the mares does not represent the true quality of a mare’s genes.
Bottom line, I think this study is too narrowly defined to accurately represent TB breeding.
Even the age comparison does not hold water. There are many more foals who are average or below average than those who end up being top race horses. Hence, breeders will tend to send an older mare to cheaper stallions if the first 3 - 4 offspring are not stakes winners. One mare we had was booked to Cigar his first year at stud (she was hastily re-booked to another stallion when Cigar’s infertility was confirmed). By the time she was 14, we were using $20k stallions since she had foaled nothing of distinction up until then.
So, she was given a higher chance of succeeding in her first 4 years than she was in her second 4 years. She was just as poor a broodmare for her entire reproductive years. In fact, one might argue that she was poorer in her early years since she was bred to more sucessful stallions during those years and yet she still did not produce top foals.
I don’t think that this study of TB mares can be directly correlated to WB breeding since in the sport horse world it takes MANY more years to find out of a match was successful. Even then, the difference in stud fee between top sires and second tier sires is much smaller than it is in TB breeding. So mares who are “unsuccessful” are not necessarily bred to less successful sires in their later years.
Also, in the WB world, “elite” mares often pass on their genes via ET. And that brings the whole issue of nature v. nurture into the equation.[/QUOTE]
Right. They are using stats so as pointed out, there is more to the equation then age or winners.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8187271]
Of the 4 categories, the “elite mares” and “poor stallions” is an anomaly. Not many people with top mares breed to poor stallions, so the number in that group must be small and might skew the entire study. [/QUOTE]
Which was exactly my point on why I wanted to see the data. I imagine the population size and number of stallions in the “poor” category are both too small to draw an accurate conclusion. This study was done in Australia, and I don’t know all that much about their breeding scene beyond the major players. However, even in the US outside of Kentucky, the majority of stallions would fall into this study’s “elite” category. Malibu Moon and Pioneering are about the only stallions who immediately come to mind and would fall into the “poor” category by their criteria.
Also, “poor mares” are often bred to “elite sires” if they come from a top female line. In fact, many mares are pulled off the track or never sent to the track if they do not train well as 2 year olds. So the racing history of the mares does not represent the true quality of a mare’s genes.
I very much agree. But for the purposes of this study, they did not include “unraced” in the data mares for the very reasons you stated. They were not in the “poor mares” category.
For this study, they considered anything “poor” if it did not finish 1st-4th in an Australian blacktype race.
I agree with you that this study was too narrow to draw any broad conclusions, but at the same time, it still falls within the same lines of the research of Tesio, etc. The big difference is that this study wants to say stallions are almost unimportant. Any breeder would disagree with that notion.
I think the big take away here is that this provides further indication that mares are just as important as stallions. Everyone “knows” that, yet breeders, especially in the sport horse disciplines, don’t always seem to practice it. That’s partly due to the logistics-- lots of people can breed to an “elite” stallion, but few can afford to actually purchase an “elite” mare. But I also think it’s undeniable that many people make concessions for poor quality mares and expect the stallion to improve on her.
Even the age comparison does not hold water. There are many more foals who are average or below average than those who end up being top race horses. Hence, breeders will tend to send an older mare to cheaper stallions if the first 3 - 4 offspring are not stakes winners. One mare we had was booked to Cigar his first year at stud (she was hastily re-booked to another stallion when Cigar’s infertility was confirmed). By the time she was 14, we were using $20k stallions since she had foaled nothing of distinction up until then.
True, but there are also mares who go the opposite direction. I found this study’s results interesting only because in my casual observation, it seems like most mares have their “best” foals within their first 3 foals. I supposed that would place them at the low end of that 8-11 age range.
I think the biggest problem with comparing TB data to WBs is that WBs aren’t bred for a single, specific purpose. Also, the WB breeding and competition world is incredibly small compared to racing. There are relatively few opportunities to compete at the top levels of show jumping, dressage, or eventing. While it is still incredibly hard to compete and win in a blacktype race, there are many more opportunities to try. And the data is further complicated when you consider things like hunters, equitation, amateur horses, etc. Then you factor in the role of training: while good training is important in TBs, it is critical for sport. Bottom line-- there’s almost no way to quantify the data in the same manner.
In light of this study, it’s interesting to look at the dams of the 12 Triple Crown winners.
7 were unraced or earned less than $500.
None earned more than $35,000.
4 were winners.
2 were black-type winners.
7 were 5-8 years old when they foaled their TC winner
Of course, you have to consider that most of the data is from 37+ years ago, but it’s still interesting to consider that most of these mares had unimpressive racing careers. Way different story for broodmare careers though.
The thoroughbred times (now defunct) had a similar studies published about better race mares making better racehorse (when differences are accounted for) and they also did a study I remember of brothers-again once things were factored (quality of the mares evened out etc.)–the successful runner brother outperformed the unsuccessful runner brother in the stud shed. I saved it somewhere…
(This is not the one I remember but it is one of the many studies in that area:http://www.favourstud.com/fs_article.php?id=21)
Tesio thought that super race mares rarely made good broodmares. He believed that each animal has a “built-in” amount of “vital energy”, and if it was expended in racing, it couldn’t be used for breeding. We know now that isn’t true at all; but, in fact, many super race mares don’t produce exceptional foals. Certainly good and even very good mares produce superior foals, but the super ones don’t produce their own quality in the main.
Stallions, on the other hand, because of the number of foals, often can reproduce themselves as far as quality goes.
It’s a good thing nobody told Somethingroyal. She was 18 when Secretariat was born.
Also not mentioned is nutrition. Could it be the elite mares were fed better during pregnancy and lactation?
How about access to superior training/trainers for the foals of elite mares? Owners of such mares usually have the funds to ensure these youngsters have the best possible opportunities while owners of “poor” mares often times do not.
Apparently Lady Sterling didn’t get the memo either. She was 17 when she foaled War Admiral.
Of the Triple Crown winners, only 2 were foals of dams between the ages of 8 and 11: Omaha and Count Fleet.
I respect these researchers for their efforts, but I question the validity of their results due to the vast number of variables (nutrition, training, injury/illness, opportunity, to name just a few, for the dams and foals) affecting racing performance that they were unable to take into account.
Do you think nutrition would vary that greatly to cause huge differences in later performance? Nutrition is pretty standardized in the xx industry I thought-Just as is how to start youngsters and training racehorses–it is pretty standardized across the board. And talent is easy to judge–who goes the fastest soonest as a rule-- so its not like developing other types of horses in sports which can take years, special handling etc. .
To me, good race horses are a gift and tend to survive even the worse trainers (or the owners dump the trainer) – it is rare a good horses is said to only have gotten there because of its trainer–usually it is the other way-the horse makes the trainer. Soundness/hardiness is also an element in being a decent enough horse to get to the races and surviving your humans handlers. I do not see why one would want to factor injuries out.
I did see another study that rebutted the older mare do not produce good horses–but maybe that study has no validity either–many mares are not producing at that stage except the ones that have already produced well and the breeder might know by that time what is clicking
I think using Triple Crown winners to support/refute an argument is incredibly short-sighted. You’re talking about the absolute tiniest microcosm of the breed. And while it can be considered the pinnacle of accomplishments in North America, it’s a feat that requires just as much luck as ability. The breed has been much more heavily influenced by non-Triple Crown winners.
And numbers don’t lie-- you can’t refute that the majority of thoroughbred mares have their best performing race foals younger in life as opposed to older. There will always be exceptions, though. If there weren’t exceptions, everyone would just retire their mares at 13 years of age.
However, I don’t know if the trends in age can be extrapolated to sport horses, only because the disciplines are so incredibly different. A race horse’s success is predominately determined by raw, physical ability. Yet physical ability is just one piece of a very complicated puzzle for a sport horse.
Numbers don’t lie but they are just numbers. It is only when you assign a meaning is there a context. And stats are notorious for being subjective.
I too am leary of the age factor results. I think you would need to cross reference the quality of stallions used to include the human factor of stallion choice.
I will preface this by saying I know nothing about racing and or racing predigrees, but as a long-time breeder of warmbloods I think just looking at the mare (or the stallion) limits the conclusions one can draw. I believe that looking at the mare and her dam and grand-dam, etc. will give you a much clearer idea of what the mare will produce. A foal is not just a product of a mare and stallion… there are grand- and great-grandparents that definitely contribute to the overall picture.
I only said it was interesting to look at the dams of the TC winners, not that they were representative of the breed as a whole. Far from it. By this study’s definition, most of these mares would have been classified as “poor,” but they all produced elite runners. Clearly, as Lord Helpus stated earlier:
“…the racing history of the mares does not represent the true quality of a mare’s genes.”
I stand by my earlier statement that there are many many variables that affect racing performance, which makes it difficult if not impossible to draw a lot of concrete conclusions from a study like this.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
