Lack Of Performance And Relatives More Important Than The Stallion?

The three big broodmare sales in Australia – Magic Millions National, Easter and Melbourne – are like broodmare sales almost everywhere: the majority of the mares are culls.

I’m always interested in why mares don’t produce runners of quality which might prevent them from ending up in these sales. Most mares possess bloodlines which still give them some hope of leaving a good runner if they happen to meet the stallion whose own genetic contribution is positive.

Because many more stallions prove ineffective than effective, the mare has got a devil of a job to begin with.

Over the years it’s struck me that many of the mares which seem to ‘fail’ have been schlepped around from stallion to stallion, often not given a chance with the same stallion twice.

I was taught that if you think a mating is a particularly good one then it should be executed more than once, because the chance of the gene pairings you seek being delivered first time of asking is a longshot. So by repeating the mating you increase the chances of one of the foals inheriting the goodies because you have had two dips into the well.

I’ve taken out some numbers from this year’s Magic Millions National Broodmare Sale. On the first two days (455 mares catalogued, selected because they possess a very strong page, were good racemares or have been successful producers) there were 137 which had either produced a minimum of four live foals and were carrying a service, or empty mares which had produced five foals or more.

Of these 137, 40, or almost 30%, had never been to the same stallion twice in their stud careers so far.

I didn’t delve into who they visited when they missed or slipped as it’s only live foals which determine whether a mare is successful or not.

Thirty percent is a reasonably high figure.

There are circumstances which prevent a mare returning to a stallion, such as he’s dead, didn’t shuttle again, the service fee doubled or perhaps he’s moved to the other side of the continent. However, I think a minimum of five seasons is a sufficient length of time for a breeder to demonstrate he has the power of his convictions by repeating at least one mating to get a couple of foals on the ground by the sire of his choice.

Because there are many mares who don’t see the same stallion twice suggests their owners are playing sales roulette rather than testing out their beliefs – what was wrong with last year’s stallion choice?

Of the 40 mares in those first two days who had never seen the same stallion twice, one mare had visited eight different stallions in a row. Of the 97 with a repeat mating in their produce record, one mare had revisited only once in 13 years at stud, in other words she had seen 12 different stallions.

Then I looked at the fifth, and last day, of the sale (289 catalogued) on the same basis. These are the tail-end charlies who generally have neither quality performance, imposing pages nor successful produce records.

At first glance, results were surprising: of the 115 eligible mares, only 18% (21) had not been to the same stallion twice. Yet despite this higher incidence of repeat matings these mares were failed producers, tending to disprove my theory. The mares catalogued in this section were predominantly from Queensland studs which stand their own stallions plus a liberal sprinkling of Gerry Harvey’s Baramul Stud culls where presumably sending the mare back to the same stallion twice or three times is more a function of getting the mare in foal, and hoping, than a ‘planned’ mating.

Two factors characterised these fifth day mares compared to the mares in the first two days’ sample.

Overall, they lacked close relationship to other good horses, and they were deficient in racing ability. From this I draw the conclusion that it’s these two factors which counted against them as a group rather than the pattern of matings. So the combination of mares with less successful relations and weak racing ability, coupled with the 80% or thereabouts chance that the stallion serving them will be less than memorable, tends to perpetuate an unsuccessful cycle.

I guess we all knew this in our waters but it’s interesting to look at numbers and see if they support the contention.

Admittedly, my sample is small and the maths probably flawed (see my earlier post ‘Watt Did He Say?’), but I think the general conclusion is fair.

Personally, I'm not keen on the breeder who constantly mates his mare just to minimise sale downside. Much of the time these mares are going to a succession of unproven yet ‘fashionable’ stallions so it’s little surprise they end up in a cull sale sooner or later.