Breeder, Sort Of

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Stephanie — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:19:53 GMT

It will not hurt the mare or foal for paperwork to change hands before the foaling. It will not disturb her to care for her foal for a couple weeks and then both of them move. the best interest of the horse IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM was callously treated!!!

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Anne Mayea — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:38:06 GMT

I find commercial horse breeding very distressing on many levels..

But most of all that people callously sell brood mares right before or after they foal - without any regard to the mare's well being. Horses are herd animals and like familiar surroundings when foaling and caring for their foal..

I would think I would rather keep the mare and be the real breeder..

I feel that the best interest of the horse should come first - not breeder name technicalities.

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:45:10 GMT

As former breeders, we found the JC breeder rule an incentive to buy in-foal mares. We'd foal, rebreed and sell both mare and foal. Risk and reward - equal. My family has bred and sold dairy cattle. The cattle breeder is the owner at time of conception and the breeder's "Prefix" becomes part of the animal's name upon registration by the new owner. Frankly, I'd rather be on record for planning/selecting a mating, than for purchasing someone else's theory.

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Alex — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:59:38 GMT

Scott - Thanks for the thorough reply. I actually meant the question more generally...is anyone doing that kind of statistical analysis on ANY aspects of the breeding industry? Are people doing statistically valid studies on things like whether money is better spent at yearling auctions vs. two year old auctions, whether a broodmare's racing results are more or less significant in predicting future success of her children than the success of her previous children, whether AEI/CI is the best predictor of future success for sires, etc.?

Scot's reply: You will find some of this statistical analysis in TBH MarketWatch. Your last comment hit on an important point: sample size for individual sires is often too small to be statistically significant for most research studies. One of my goals as research editor is to initiate studies that might identify trends based on larger classifications ("sires with AEI at least 1.5 times CI vs. sires with multiple graded wins vs. sires with inbreeding at least 3x3" or "crosses of Mr. Prospector-line sires vs. Northern Dancer-line sires over female family #1") rather than on individual horses. Part of the fun of horse racing is that it can't all be explained or perfected by looking at numbers -- but looking at numbers does give you an upper hand. It's about time to see how much of an advantage real in-depth review could yield.

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Alex — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:22:23 GMT

It seems like there are a lot of people doing analysis of pedigrees, without anybody really applying statistical analysis and 'scientific' research methods to the data to see which theories and patterns have predictive value.

For example, people spend a lot of time finding examples of successful 'nicks' between various sires and broodmare sires' lines...but I've never seen an attempt to determine whether the past results of these have statistical significance based on the sample size and variance of the data. I've also never seen a study that did backtesting on an unbiased sample of nicks that had similar results to see if there was any predictive value.

Am I just unaware of an existing body of research (very possible), or is nobody using these techniques to study racing pegigrees?

Scot's reply: Several good questions. Thus far, no nicking program has looked at all horses bred on a particular pattern, so no valid statistical analysis has been possible. The TrueNicks system, which does look at every attempt at a particular cross, will change that. TrueNicks evaluates solely on overall statistical performance of the cross. (For example: Barbaro rates a C based on the average performance of the overall Dynaformer / Mr. Prospector cross -- big name horses don't get special treatment!) Now that a nicking program has been devised using a complete statistical database, you can be sure that you'll see studies that examine predictive value. When that happens, I'll point to the reports here at The Five-Cross Files!

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Redmond — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:50:00 GMT

Well-known breeder, Rob Whiteley, questioned the rule in an article written for BloodHorse a year or more ago. No readers took up the matter. Fair to assume nobody cares.

Fact is, the system suits the bureaucrats at The Jockey Club, so it is unlikely to change.

Must disagree with BELLWEATHER'S rating of TJC folks as "some of the best". Has he ever tried describing the markings on a Registration form? Even when it's own tips and definitions are followed, the TJC pedants will write the Certificate another way. Example - if you write a marking is 'Higher on the right', the Cert will read 'Lower on the left'.

If TJC is "best folks", we are in real trouble.

By the way, 'weird' is spelled wEIrd; or does the Jockey Club disagree?

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Bellwether — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:57:40 GMT

lets move on here...no problem with that rule...the jocky club folks are some of the best folks in this game of wierd ones!!!

re: Breeder, Sort Of

portbay — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:24:21 GMT

You obviously wanted to sell the mare before she foaled. The current rules provide much more flexibility and I am sure these considerations are factored into the price of the pregnant mare giving you much more liquiditiy in the sale. If not for this allowance you might have been left no option but to foal her yourself and then try to sell the foal and new born filly. Depending on how the new filly looked---you might not have been able to sell her at all.....The current system provides much more liquidity

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Caleb — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:39:10 GMT

This is an odd rule. And I believe only TB's have the rule presented this way. QH's the breeder is mare owner at time of breeding (get it "breeding", thereby breeder the one who decided on the "breeding"). The standard understanding should be owner at time of breeding and the seller throws in the co-breeder as an added sales incentive not the other way around. Weird world we live in.

re: Breeder, Sort Of

LanceS — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:25:17 GMT

I've always found this to be an odd rule. Other animal breeds I've been involved with (dairy cattle, beef cattle, dogs, other horse breeds) all consider the breeder to be the owner of the dam at the time of mating. I think Thoroughbreds are pretty unique in using time of foaling as the determinant.

re: Breeder, Sort Of

Gracie — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:21:32 GMT

It would make sense when selling privately an in-foal mare to include a clause for the seller to be listed as co-breeder. Most mare purchasers would not object to this.

Scot's reply: Good point! That's a good solution for situations like this. In the case of my Broad Brush mare, the new owner wanted to be the sole breeder and that was factored into the price for the mare/foal package.

Breeder, Sort Of

The Five-Cross Files — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:07:50 GMT

Blog trackback