Dam Influence

C

chaumi

Rookie
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
1,223
Location
East Midlands
Have focussed a lot on sires over the last few years with some great results, but never really looked deeply into dam influences.

Question is - am I missing a trick? Is Dam influence worth considering? Maybe in conjunction with sire?

As an example - take Hurricane Twister about a week ago at Roscommon. Everyone knows Captain Rios can go well on soft ground. So we've got an 11 runner low class handicap, nothing special in it, heavy ground, and a Captain Rio running trading at 38. Fill your boots time right.Sluiced up (and did it again yesterday but obviously a much lower price)...

But if I'd looked into the Dam would it have given me more clues before the first win? Increased confidence to take the risk and go bigger?

Can't help feeling there's something hiding here, but not sure how best to approach it.

Any ideas welcome.
 
Last edited:
Some would say its all about the dam as a good sire by a useless mare won't give you a champion but an average sire with a good dam could give you one. I'd say Urban Sea would be a good place to start. She produced multiple winners by different sires. The horses themselves were probably all different but that is likely to be the stallions influence. The Sadlers Wells line all seem to produce the same sore of stamp of horse. Its why Scorpions were in demand this year.
 
Any pedigree analysis must of course take account of the dam side. The dam is all important (accounting for half of an individual’s genetic make up) especially if the stallion is not exerting prepotent influence. However, because the sample of progeny from any given mare is so small conclusions are often unreliable and consequently the attention often focuses on the dam sire (with an invariably hugely greater and consequently more reliable progeny sample).
 
Cantoris said:
...a good sire by a useless mare won't give you a champion...
Click to expand...

I don't think you mean this. Perhaps you mean a good sire matched with a useless mare won't give you a champion. If you have a good sire "by" [or again in this context should be "out of"] a useless mare it rather negates what you are saying.

Not sure I'd necessarily agree with the point anyway though, plenty of mares that for one reason or another that have been unable to show their worth on the racecourse and have been poor performers can still throw out useful performers of their own.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
I don't think you mean this. Perhaps you mean a good sire matched with a useless mare won't give you a champion. If you have a good sire "by" [or again in this context should be "out of"] a useless mare it rather negates what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, you know what I mean. I was thinking of Urban Sea and the Galileo x Urban Sea and "x" clearly came out as "by" in my world. But you know what I mean

SteveM said:
Not sure I'd necessarily agree with the point anyway though, plenty of mares that for one reason or another that have been unable to show their worth on the racecourse and have been poor performers can still throw out useful performers of their own.
Click to expand...

I'd agree but they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule. But if you have a bad mare that has produced a few bad offspring, I'm not sure bringing her to Galileo would mean you end up with a decent animal. There can always be exceptions, like the horse bred for 5 furlongs that wins over 3 miles.

Personally, I think stallions are like jockeys, there is not a lot between the good ones but there is a gulf between the good ones and the next ones. I also think some bloodlines are more reliable than others. Darshaan mares were all in a few years ago and now the Danehill mare line has produced three or four group winners in a month. It ebbs and flows a bit like the form of some stables. There's no exact science and sometimes its just a lucky run.
 
Cantoris said:
But if you have a bad mare that has produced a few bad offspring, I'm not sure bringing her to Galileo would mean you end up with a decent animal.
Click to expand...

Ah indeed so... I had it in mind that by "useless" you were referring to performance on the racecourse. A mare that had already produced bad progeny would be less likely to throw out something decent I'd agree. Nevertheless a change of stallions can work wonders!
 
But what about the oft quoted stamina influence of the dam? Isnit just an equal balancing part of the equation or is (as is sometimes suggested) a greater influence? Ive never been sure
 
In fact, you might argue the dam has the bigger influence, as she will also raise the individual and so has an environmental, as well as genetic, influence on her progeny. Some would also argue the age of the mare when foaling is a big factor - the uterus of an older mare being sometimes less efficient. As SteveM points out, mars will only ever have a limited amount of progeny compared to the average stallion.
 
Has anyone ever conducted a study on the success of a mares progeny by her age when foaling and order of birth (I.e. first, second, third).

Just my own view but I always think the earlier foals in a mares breeding career (excluding the first) tend to be the best. Urban Sea is not a good example of this however!
 
clivex said:
But what about the oft quoted stamina influence of the dam? Isnit just an equal balancing part of the equation or is (as is sometimes suggested) a greater influence? Ive never been sure
Click to expand...

Neither side of a pedigree has a monopoly on prepotent influence. It occurs where it occurs and is unique to that particular pedigree.
 
Last edited:
What was Brigadier Gerard's breeding? I ask because I have a faint recollection of reading something along the lines that no-one would have thought of purposely breeding him for commercial purposes etc etc May be confusing him with another however.
 
As Stevem points out, prepotency is just as likely to come from the dam as the sire.

In fact, because there are far more mares at stud than stallions, the most (and least) prepotent horses will be mares. A larger population will have more members at the extremes of the "prepotency distribution curve" than a smaller one.

As for the age of mares and their earlier foals being, in general, better than their later ones, there may be something in this, but there's also an element of self-fulfilling prophecy about it.

If mare owners believe it to be true, they will tend to send to send their older mares to cheaper stallions. Solemia is topically interesting in this regard - Poliglote was probably the least fashionable stallion her dam, Brooklyn's Dance, visited (at the age of 19), but the resulting foal was easily the best she produced.
 
simmo said:
What was Brigadier Gerard's breeding? I ask because I have a faint recollection of reading something along the lines that no-one would have thought of purposely breeding him for commercial purposes etc etc May be confusing him with another however.
Click to expand...

His sire Queens Huzzar stood at The Queen's Highclere Stud. A top miler he won Lockinge and Sussex Stakes at 3.
His dam LA Paiva was a daughter of Prince chevalier.
Her gggrandam was Pretty Polly, legendary racemare and broodmare.
Mr Hislop wrote a book "Breeding For Racing" 1976 pointing out how BG was bred to be a champion.
At stud he retained control of BG and only let owner breeders Mares breed from him; so the horse had little or no progeny sold at the sales!
Imagine that happening now.
Light Cavalry was his only classic winner (I think) for Jim Joel; St Leger in 1980.
 
edgt said:
At stud he retained control of BG and only let owner breeders Mares breed from him; so the horse had little or no progeny sold at the sales!
Imagine that happening now.
Light Cavalry was his only classic winner (I think) for Jim Joel; St Leger in 1980.
Click to expand...

That's amazing but then the Darley stallions were once private too weren't they? So essentially owner bred progeny. Big Bad Bob was a private stallion too but for obvious reasons.
 
Grey said:
It's not obvious to me why he was private. Was there some sordid secret?
Click to expand...

He wasn't good enough to be considered a commercial stallion so it was more her own view that she wanted to give him a chance with her own mares.
 
Grey said:
It's not obvious to me why he was private. Was there some sordid secret?
Click to expand...
He used to hang around the paddocks where under-age fillies were grazing and persuade one to come back to his private field shelter with him.
 
On the topic of when the mare produces her best progeny. I played with this a little bit and found a general trend for it be in the the third quarter of her foals. Then you get mares who have a record for consistent production (Urban Sea, Brooklyn's Dance, Jude, Maryinsky) who put your stats off.....
 
I've tried to collate the relevant points from the discussion in one go, apologies to anyone who has made a point that I've missed.......

‘’Any pedigree analysis must of course take account of the dam side. The dam is all important (accounting for half of an individual’s genetic make up) especially if the stallion is not exerting prepotent influence. However, because the sample of progeny from any given mare is so small conclusions are often unreliable and consequently the attention often focuses on the dam sire (with an invariably hugely greater and consequently more reliable progeny sample)’’


‘’ prepotency is just as likely to come from the dam as the sire.’’

‘’In fact, because there are far more mares at stud than stallions, the most (and least) prepotent horses will be mares. A larger population will have more members at the extremes of the "prepotency distribution curve" than a smaller one’’.

‘’As for the age of mares and their earlier foals being, in general, better than their later ones, there may be something in this, but there's also an element of self-fulfilling prophecy about it’’


‘’Neither side of a pedigree has a monopoly on prepotent influence. It occurs where it occurs and is unique to that particular pedigree.’’


‘’In fact, you might argue the dam has the bigger influence, as she will also raise the individual and so has an environmental, as well as genetic, influence on her progeny. Some would also argue the age of the mare when foaling is a big factor - the uterus of an older mare being sometimes less efficient. As SteveM points out, mars will only ever have a limited amount of progeny compared to the average stallion’’.


‘’Personally, I think stallions are like jockeys, there is not a lot between the good ones but there is a gulf between the good ones and the next ones. I also think some bloodlines are more reliable than others. Darshaan mares were all in a few years ago and now the Danehill mare line has produced three or four group winners in a month. It ebbs and flows a bit like the form of some stables. There's no exact science and sometimes its just a lucky run’’.


‘’plenty of mares that for one reason or another that have been unable to show their worth on the racecourse and have been poor performers can still throw out useful performers of their own’’.


‘’On the topic of when the mare produces her best progeny. I played with this a little bit and found a general trend for it be in the the third quarter of her foals. Then you get mares who have a record for consistent production (Urban Sea, Brooklyn's Dance, Jude, Maryinsky) who put your stats off.....’’




So all this serves (I think) to tell us...

Of course the Dam has an influence as you'd expect. But as we know there is no exact science, or all of us would only ever be backing winners all day. No chase, no fun!! Well, maybe not 'no fun' but definitely the thrill gets diminished if you're not fighting for it.

The samples are too small in general, the fluctuations in prepotency (great word) not possible to be certain of. Impossible to tell who out of the parents exerts the greatest influence.

So is the only way to make use of a combination of sire/dam influence by analysing past results, looking for races where an unexpected result occurs which involves a (potentially foreseen) strong sire offspring winning (or running well)....and then looking to see if there are further clues in the dam.


A good example maybe:

The 4.35 Navan 10th Oct

There's a Whipper offspring running - Morga. Ran well FTO about 5 days earlier. Every chance he could turn out to be nice, so theoretically might be worth an interest at the 13s/14s available.

About 1f out he looks like collecting, only to be chinned (well, lengthed) by a Dubawi runner - Dubaya - in the last 50-100 yards, both well clear.

The exacta paid a mouthwatering €900 odd, though unlikely with 15 runners that anyone might have gone for it.

So is there anything in Dubaya's breeding (on top of the obvious Dubawi influence) that might have alerted us before the race to the potential.


2-y-o (03May10 b f)
Dubawi (IRE) (9.1f) — Charlecote (IRE) (Caerleon (USA) (10.7f))
 
Last edited:
Chaumi, was the ground soft? Both of those sires I would associate with soft ground horses, particularly Whipper. Wizz kids performance at Longchamp is a good example of a whipper who relished the soft going.
 
Back
Top