Ill-bred wrote:bdw0617 wrote:the more I learn about breeding the more I see that his viewpoints on female familes and mine arent' THAT different. they are different but not by much.
The idea that genetic material could be carried through a female family from generation to generation is proven. mtDNA is passed on through females with very little mutation.
mtDNA's effect on racing aptitude is the question.
you are missing hte point. I didn't say it didn't... of course I am sure there are traces of mtDNA of my great ansestors in my blood, i'm positive of it. But everything at an end of the day comes to a head with my mother and my father. I'm not stocky because of my great great great grandfather, my father is built like me. I have his hands, I have my mothers complextion and face, i get my athletic ablilities from my dad (which is a good thing), my mind from my mother.
point is, i can write out a list of 100 traits and I'm sure about 90% of them I get from either or, and a couple from the enviroments (which is something that NEVER gets talk about here)
in ohter words, at times, like he said, you have to draw the line between what's USEFUL and what's too my information to where it's a hobby.
Take Rags to Riches. I don't need a 10 page pedigree report to see that if you take better than honor and bred her to AP Indy you can have a damn good horse on your hands.
the most important thing I believe is, and this is to me paramount, is that your female back class doesn't guarantee the mare that she actually passes thoose desired genes on. Look at curlin's family and how it took a downhill slide to hell at about curlin's 3rd dam. was actually a very productve family up into then... that damn for whatever the reason may be d id not pass on genes.
Being able to run is one thing. Being able to pass on the ability to run is another. It's not always that cut and dry so spare me, but that's the just of it.
I think the best way to look at a mare is to not look at the dam's SW foals, but to look at the mare's
siblings to see if any of them do a good/decent job of throwing runnres. that's why I'm so high on sun king. they bred that damily from everything to sadlers wells to well..lol, charasmatic, and get runnders regardless. his own sisters producing million dollar RACE HORSES, NOT SALES.
anyway, that's my theory, and i'm still working on it, but to me it makes the most sense. Just because I am smart doesn't guarantee you taht my kids are going to be smart or that they will have smart kids either.. what matters is my ability to pass on the gene that lets's my kids pass on the smart gene, if that makes sense.
I hate it when a website clouds the issue with facts! This site does present some stats that make you say Huh? But the bloodstock analysts, trainers and money people still go after the big names at the sales, facts be darned!
if you really think about it, and I was thiniing about this as I was lying down to go to sleep last night (pitiful I know), there are three subindustires in the entire industry.. the breeders, the stallion farms and the racing industry. Now, within thoose three industires there are even more subindustires, i.e pinhookers with farms/selling, track owners wtih racing, but when you break it down..
ONLY ONE OF THE 3 SUBINITIES IS MAKING A SERIOUS IF ANY PROFIT.
that of course being the stallion farms. It'sw hy they run the entire chain, because they are the ones calling the shots. tracks can't offer more money for races because it has no more money. Breeders have to basically take what's there in front of them.
so the question I ask is, one isnt' supposed to be bigger than 2. if you have two subindustires struggling inside of a 3 pronged industry, something has to give.
My conclusion is that stallion farms do a better job of marketing than race tracks and breeders combined, x 3. go to bloodhorse.com right now and i guarantee you there is some banner of an overpriced stud on the top of the page, showing it's skwed stats and inflated price and let you put the dream together that you can get "that" or get "in" on the action.
See stud farms dont' sell horses as much as they sell hopes. they go after uppermiddle class/wealthy people who have excess money to spend and want to be on center stage on derby day. they charge what they charge not because that's what it's worth, but becuase they can.
let me show you something...
and i'm not saying it's right, or wrong, I'm just saying it is what it is.
smart strike (and I love me some smart strike) runners avg'd $68k this year. his stud fee going into next year is $150000
AP indy 54k, stud fee $300k
Distored Humor= $37k stud fee $300k
let's get to more of the bred to race horses:
tiznow is right at where his stud fee is per foal, but you haven't factored in one additional cost yet
real quiet's fee is $10k, his avg runner avg'd $30k, but you take midnighte lute and pussycat doll out..
see where I'm going? how can you make a profit when your wholesale price (the breeding) costs more than the retail value (the horses actual racing career)
something has to change. it has to. the tail cannot wag the dog. Now granted, let's say I have a little money in the bank and I really like Smart Strike and I have a stakes placing mare ith some speed, and I want to bred her to him..t hat's my decision. but that would be for me and i'm doing it for pure sport. what about the commrecial breeders who live like this and have to see at least $250k at the sales for it to be meaningful then the poor owner who needs to damn near break half a million dollars to see a profit!