Following on from breeding from a youngster...

[alleycat]

The discussion on whether or not to breed from unproven young horses has been raging on an earlier page and I never realised it.

It was interesting to read the later posts as an observer, though; and a couple of things come out of this for me.

Firstly, Shilasdair has obviously bought something with an ejector seat at some time, and still feels sore about it.

Secondly, whilst it would be great, in an ideal world, for breeding stock to start by having a successful competition career, I strongly suspect finances alone are sufficient reason for this not to happen.

So: Shilasdair- what happened? And did it hurt?

Also, if we were to performance-prove our youngsters before breeding, what level of performance would be considered worthwhile- and what would it cost? See, I don't think just being basically rideable, or even especially nice to ride, is worth any more than general judgenment, really; any horse ought to be basically rideable; and some that haven't been, have produced good offspring.

I can't help feeling that any assessment without competition is on much the same level as the breeder's own judgement; perhaps with a little more objectivity (in theory, anyway) but without the advantage of familiarity.

So that leaves competition. So, breeders- what does it cost to campaign a young horse, especially if you're a breeder rather than a rider? Am I right in thinking we're talking thousands, here? Also, if competition success were mandatory for broodmares, what would breeders then feel they would need to charge for foals? What would the foal of a successful competition mare be worth? What would ET add to the cost of producing a foal, and could you offset it in prices charged for any but top class mares?

Those of you who buy youngsters and bring them on to compete, would you be prepared to pay more for the offspring of a successful mare than for the offspring of something wellbred but unproven?

My own feeling is that there is going to be a big mismatch here, and that both breeders' and buyers' pockets are just not as big as their ambitions; but I'd like to see what sort of costs we are talking about.

 

[JanetGeorge]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, if we were to performance-prove our youngsters before breeding, what level of performance would be considered worthwhile- and what would it cost? See, I don't think just being basically rideable, or even especially nice to ride, is worth any more than general judgenment, really; any horse ought to be basically rideable; and some that haven't been, have produced good offspring.

....

So that leaves competition. So, breeders- what does it cost to campaign a young horse, especially if you're a breeder rather than a rider? Am I right in thinking we're talking thousands, here? Also, if competition success were mandatory for broodmares, what would breeders then feel they would need to charge for foals?



[/ QUOTE ]

You're right - the cost would be prohibitive. Let's say you've bred two nice 3 year olds and they've cost you - and it's a pretty minimum estimate - £5,000 each to that point.

One you put in foal - unproven. She produces a nice youngster at 4 which you sell as a weanling for - say - £2,500. It's probably covered it's cost of production and Mum's keep for 12 months.

The other, you back and bring on quietly until she is 4 and ready to start low-level competition. That brings her production cost up to - say - £6,000. Then, lacking a rider, you send her to a 'name' on competition livery at £200 a week. By the time she's 5 and notched up a couple of placings at Prelim/Novice she's cost you a further £2,000. Another year at the competition livery yard, she's Elementary and qualified for the Regionals at that level and she's cost you - in total -£10,000

The other mare has now produced a further two foals, sold as weanlings at £2,500 and has covered her keep and production costs. So she's STILL only cost you £5,000

Your competition mare injures herself before the Regionals and notches up a further £1,000 in vet diagnostics and treatment before you decide to retire her to stud. You put her in foal to a good dressage stallion and manage to sell her first weanling for £3,500 on the strength of the good dressage stallion and the fact she almost made it to the regionals.

Which mare is the better value?? Even at this early point, the mare with no competition history - who has paid her way for the last 3 years - is streets in front.

Buyers will not pay sufficient premium for a foal with arguably better potential (because Mum competed) than for a foal that looks just as nice but whose Mum has always been a broodie.

 

[no_no_nanette]

Really interesting to see the costs laid out as above, and being just an amateur breeder, not in it for money but for love, I think that (going on my own experience) professioanl breeders must REALLY struggle to make a living from breeding. I guess that its a bit easier if you are a professional rider who breeds on the side, and you are able to produce your own youngsters ... but as JanetGeorge says, if you have to factor in the costs of producing and competing a young stallion/mare - it all gets prohibitive!

Even as an amateur, there is of course the question when choosing a stallion of "Famous/Fashionable - or perfect for my mare but not famous and not fashionable?"!!! We are a bit in that situation at the moment, and the choice is not easy! I know that if we go down the "Perfect for my mare but not famous" we will get less for the foal when selling ....

 

[TarrSteps]

I think (as I - controversially - said on the other thread) that there is a difference between performance testing/grading/approvals and competition testing. I DO think breeding animals should be held to a high standard and the information should be easily available, both for individuals and for lines and programs. While a good index is not a guarantee it does seem to be born out that, on majority, horses bred for a specific job tend to do it more successfully on average. I'm also more inclined to trust a codified inspections process assessing conformation, temperament, athletic ability, health, foals etc. under relatively objective conditions and done by hopefully knowledgeable people, than a competition report which can be influenced by so many factors, many having little to do with the individual horse.

I'll admit proper performance testing preparation is not cheap but it is codified and relatively short term, which at least allows for easier budgeting - the owner knows what will be expected, when it needs to happen and has an acknowledged receipt of success. For "buyers" it allows one to compare apples to apples and to judge a horse against known criteria.

Having been involved in registries that use open competition for approvals I know how difficult and inaccurate it can be: Did the horse win against a deep pool? How capable was the rider? Was the horse actually just squeaking through but fantastically produced? Did the horse show a whole bunch of times (at great expense) or rack up a super record with only a few outings? Was there an injury or external factors interfering? Did the horse *really* hold up or was great management (even up to surgery) a factor? Did the owner simply lack the funds to promote the horse properly? Not to mention that it tells one nothing about temperament, conformation etc.

(I'll even agree with the accusation that such a system puts a foal on the ground for the testing which is "unknown" but at least in that case the breeder is HIGHLY motivated to produce a fantastic foal as this can move a mare up the ranking considerably.)

All that said, I'll agree it comes down to the money. As the OP says, I can't see too many people wanting to pay the premium for breeders to compete all their horses. While it may be a reason to breed a particularly successful mare I'm not even sure it's a given route to breed improvement, which would be supported by the number of truly spectacular mares who have failed to reproduce themselves even with top pairings and management.

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
I think (as I - controversially - said on the other thread) that there is a difference between performance testing/grading/approvals and competition testing.
<snip>
a competition report which can be influenced by so many factors, many having little to do with the individual horse.

I'll admit proper performance testing preparation is not cheap
<snip>
it allows one to compare apples to apples and to judge a horse against known criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nothing controversial about that I would think, except for the fact that it is very difficult to organise standard performance testing at a central testing station here -- BBWA did it for a few years at Fichtners for their own stallions and then had to stop becuase only a couple were forward each year, and the NASTA test for TBF contains no residential requirement -- so unless we are talking about sending a stallion abroad for testing its pretty hypothetical for UK owner/breeders.

The real problem with a performance test system that relies solely, or in major part, on competition records -- or even worse allows horses that have 'failed' a performance test or earlier grading/licencing/approval at any stage to retain/improve on their original inspection result -- is that in the case of stallions too many mare owners (particularly susceptible first time breeders) are swayed by an impressive competition record produced by a poorly conformed and/or questionably bred horse. Lingh is a prime example of this as are some of the ungraded entires (stallions would be too positive a word for them) competing in dressage in the UK just becuase their riders think that the judges will be impressed by their presence and mistake an overdeveloped crest for a correctly flexed poll!

[ QUOTE ]
Having been involved in registries that use open competition for approvals I know how difficult and inaccurate it can be: Did the horse win against a deep pool? How capable was the rider? Was the horse actually just squeaking through but fantastically produced? Did the horse show a whole bunch of times (at great expense) or rack up a super record with only a few outings? Was there an injury or external factors interfering? Did the horse *really* hold up or was great management (even up to surgery) a factor? Did the owner simply lack the funds to promote the horse properly? Not to mention that it tells one nothing about temperament, conformation etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, from what I hear from CSHA and CWHBA stallion approval (even organisation approval and recognition of a 'breed') can be pretty contentious :-(. We may have our disagreements and an amazing (many would say excessive) number of studbooks here but at least we don't have the degree of coflict that exists in Canada!

[ QUOTE ]
I'll even agree with the accusation that such a system puts a foal on the ground for the testing which is "unknown" but at least in that case the breeder is HIGHLY motivated to produce a fantastic foal as this can move a mare up the ranking considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many grading systems incorporate this, whether or not they have a mare test embedded into their performance testing system.

[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I'll agree it comes down to the money. As the OP says, I can't see too many people wanting to pay the premium for breeders to compete all their horses. While it may be a reason to breed a particularly successful mare I'm not even sure it's a given route to breed improvement, which would be supported by the number of truly spectacular mares who have failed to reproduce themselves even with top pairings and management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree there again. As I said in an earlier post I may be Matinee's no 1 fan but I do wonder just how good she will be as a broodmare and Ratina Z did not produce much in her later years either, although her foal conceived at 2 years old (ie befoe she was even backed let alone competed) did go on to become a graded stallion. Some (but of ccourse by no means all) mares that have bred via ET have also had subsequent problems with their hormones I believe and as this can seriously affect their competition results one does wonder whether this is worth all the effort either.

 

[TarrSteps]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, from what I hear from CSHA and CWHBA stallion approval (even organisation approval and recognition of a 'breed') can be pretty contentious :-(. We may have our disagreements and an amazing (many would say excessive) number of studbooks here but at least we don't have the degree of coflict that exists in Canada!


[/ QUOTE ]

The government is involved and there are differing opinions on how to define the official terms so it's all rather a disaster now.

There are - valid - differences of opinion and attitude in the two groups but unfortunately, although it has undergone some revisionist history now, it started out as a personal dispute which resulted in a "break away" movement which means there are people emotionally invested in NOT finding a workable amalgamation. All quite sad for breeders.

At the heart of it are some of the same issues you point out for the UK, namely the impossibility to following the Continental model unilaterally for all sorts of reasons. This makes it hard for the people who hold the "do it the proven way" opinion to make it work and leaves the "home grown" group without a successful model to follow. (Complicated in Canada by issues about using horses registered in other books as breeding stock - in other words following the time tested warmblood breeding method of using the best anyone has to offer.) But at the same time the "big" studbooks keep going as they have been . . . a difficult situation to get a level playing field. We shall see.

In the end I suppose it doesn't matter if people breed good, successful stock.

On the competition mare conversation, it seems even less successful in racing, which one would think would be easier since the criteria are narrower. Big winning mares rarely if ever reproduce their own calibre. And in the US there have been a couple of incidents now of show hunter mares being retired to stud or undergoing ET only to produce VERY average individual. Too bad it's not a more exact science!

 

[alleycat]

I found Janet George's costings and comparison very useful, and pretty much in line with my own suspicions.

But Janet, suppose the mare didn't get injured; suppose she made it successfully into the higher levels of competition; not necessarily to become an absolute & freakish worldbeater, but to be a contender. Would the cost of production pay off then, in the worth of her foals? Or would you find yourself selling the mare, as being worth more than her potential offspring?

 

[alleycat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also more inclined to trust a codified inspections process assessing conformation, temperament, athletic ability, health, foals etc. under relatively objective conditions and done by hopefully knowledgeable people, than a competition report which can be influenced by so many factors, many having little to do with the individual horse.


Having been involved in registries that use open competition for approvals I know how difficult and inaccurate it can be: Did the horse win against a deep pool? How capable was the rider? Was the horse actually just squeaking through but fantastically produced? Did the horse show a whole bunch of times (at great expense) or rack up a super record with only a few outings? Was there an injury or external factors interfering? Did the horse *really* hold up or was great management (even up to surgery) a factor? Did the owner simply lack the funds to promote the horse properly? Not to mention that it tells one nothing about temperament, conformation etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

My feeling is that assessment in the first scenario- at a grading or performance test- is actually LESS objective and accurate than in the second, when you are considering horses that have won at the highest level. These horses may have had all the luck and the best of opportunities (and doubtless there are plenty of animals out there who have had neither) but if they have competed successfully, you do at least know they can do it; you simply don't know that, with the animal that wins a grading. Nor do you know if the grading winner would need medication if in full and long term work in varied conditions (such as the competition horse meets) or whether it will give its last ounce of effort in a competitive situation. I also suspect the "high index- therefore it performs" scenario is self-fulfilling in that if you want to pick a performer from a bunch of unproven horses, then you clutch at clues like its breeding index, and the horses with the best pedigree get the best chances.

I also think breeding from competitive mares must enhance the breed long term; I suspect the phenomenon of poor performance at stud isn't an absolute; there may be physical differences between what makes a good broodmare & a good competition horse, but I think the big problem for any top performer, mare or stallion, is statistical; if its outward genetic characteristics are ideal, and its a horse in a million, whats the betting that its hidden genetic characteristics will also be that good? One in a million? Those of its mate? One in a million again? Will the sire and dam complement each other? If the genetic mix was so unusually good last time you are unlikely to achieve it again , let alone improve on it. Good stallions get far more chances at stud than good mares and sometimes produce nothing as good as themselves; so it seems to me that ex top class competition mares at stud really have to get lucky if they are not to be thought failures. However, their favourable genes are dispersed within the breed and do crop up in later generations; and I think breeding from them must eventually be worth it.

So on the face of it I'm all for competing mares; but two things are against it; time and money. I suspect the outlay and lost income as Janet George described is only worth it if you think you have not just a good mare but an absolute world beater and if you also have the resources to be able to prove it; and even then its a gamble.

 

[JanetGeorge]

[ QUOTE ]

But Janet, suppose the mare didn't get injured; suppose she made it successfully into the higher levels of competition; not necessarily to become an absolute & freakish worldbeater, but to be a contender. Would the cost of production pay off then, in the worth of her foals? Or would you find yourself selling the mare, as being worth more than her potential offspring?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd end up selling the mare if the right offer came along! The risks in breeding are SO great - the mare may be a difficult breeder, she may lose the foal, the foal may die for no good reason at some stage, or injure itself, or just turn out downright fugly! And even if it's a stunner, you STILL have to find the buyer who'll pay a realistic price!

Or maybe I'd go with my heart rather than my head and keep her - to see if she WILL produce the goods!

I'm hopeless like that! I've just turned down a VERY good price for a home-bred filly who is in-foal with her first. My justification is that she's the best pure-bred filly I've bred, she's probably marginally 'better' than her mother who is already a Hornby Select mare - in fact, based on her grading scores as a 2 year old, she MAY be the best mare I own. So if I'm serious about breeding quality Irish Draughts (which I am) it doesn't make sense to sell her. BUT, I'm going to be a nervous wreck until she foals safely - in case I've jinxed her. And when I see the foal, I MAY just go out and shoot myself!

That's breeding!

 

[volatis]

I think we'll end up with a slightly mixed approach. I have two fillies that will be covered next year and lightly backed and then both will come into work after weaning and do a little competing so that they can do a mare performance test. If the homebred one looks like being the little star we hope she will I might decide to give her a few years under saddle to get some good results. As she is homebred it's good advertising for our breeding policy if she does well.

I have another cracking homebred Trakehner filly who is only a yearling. She's got such superb bloodlines for a broodmare and is a stellar individual that I think she'll just have 1 year out to do her mare performance test and then be a full time career broodmare. Breed the best and ride the rest!