dosage profile / gsv and mating numbers

[b2w]

I've been looking at a few stallions to cover my mare coming season. The pedigreequery hypo mating tool gives me following info;

My mare's figures are ; 3-9-15-1-0 DI=2.29 CD=0.50 GSV=72.80

Stallion 1:

3-3-10-2-0 DI=1.57 CD=0.39 GSV=61.07
Conduit mare 6-5-5-8-6 speed=11 stamina=15 index 0.88 triads= 16-18-19

(first season sire)

Stallion 2:

7-4-11-0-0 DI=3.00 CD=0.82 GSV=66.76
Conduit mare 4-5-5-6-8 speed=9 stamina=14 index 0.67 triads= 14-16-19

(4th season sire)


Stallion 2 has better numbers by my reckoning of the numbers as DI is bigger. And the GSV is better.

BUT Stallion 1 doesnt have any produce contibuting to its gsv and yet is still not bad ?

What sort of conclusions would you guys make from these numbers for a possible mating?

[LB]

I know this isn't what you're asking, but my conclusion would be that you ought to look at your mare and at the stallions you're considering and choose the best match for her based on physical compatibility and a complimentary blend of pedigrees. The numbers you've cited have minimal value unless other factors have been taken into consideration first.

[b2w]

Both of the stallions are a suitable match in other ways (conformation and pedigree).

[LB]

In that case, I hope that someone who places more credibility in the usefulness of those numbers than I do, stops by and gives you an answer.

[Roger]

Both of the stallions are a suitable match in other ways (conformation and pedigree).

What are you going to do with the foal? To me the best use of these numbers is to point towards one of the aptitudes, but then again many times a slanted dosage without performance to back it up is a lie.

[b2w]

The aim is to produce a miler that can win in good company:)

The slant towards the speed side looks great and the conduit mare's profile seems to indicate the stamina.

Perhaps a better distribution across profile (something like 3,6,6,6,2) would be better?

Lots of if's and buts going on in my head.... just thought I'd try to get someone else's take on these numbers.

[Fireslam]

What are you doing, playing bingo? If you want to play with numbers, play with numbers. You'll never get an answer from anyone if you dont provide some actual horses.

[b2w]

It is the numbers that I am trying to make sense of at the moment.

[Roger]

I think everyone has a different idea of which dosage would be the best. Some like and even distribution like 8-8-8-8-8 and then there are those like me who think you are better getting a 0-40-0-0-0 if you want a miler. I agree with LB that the numbers are just one of many tools and I even think that even with a dosage like the one I like is just numbers if the you don't have good milers up close in the pedigree. If you took a poll, it would be interesting to see just what people thought.

[b2w]

I've found a couple of snippets of info which offer some guidance based on history;

(from Racehorse Breeding Theories by Frank Mitchell, PhD.. p209 )

Dosage figures for North American Open stakes races between 1983-2001.


For distance 8-10F Sample size 11706. Average values

DP 7.63 - 4.72-10.09-1.70-1.00 (25.15)
DI=3.07
CD=0.67

The table further breaks down the study into age / distance etc / race class etc.

[Roger]

thats interesting, thanks. It kind of backs up my idea of stacking into one aptitude.

[b2w]

hmmm...how?

[Strategic Maneuver]

Well, in my opinion, which is worth zilch, I like the numbers from stallion#2 better because the numbers are what I perceive to be more balanced.

[Roger]

hmmm...how?

distance was 8 to 10 furlongs or mostly in the classic range which had the highest number in the profile

[Patuxet]

Dominant Classicity describes a dosage profile in which the total number of Classic points exceeds the total of all the other points in the profile.

http://www.bettingmarket.com/dominantc.htm