Incest Is Best???????–Conclusion

The following is the conclusion to a series I started with my original post Incest Is Best??????? In that post and four others that followed I listed all weanlings, yearlings, and two-year-olds sold at public auction in North America in 2003-2007 inclusive who were closely inbred.

Over the five years I have now found ten foals inbred 2×2, 218 foals inbred 2×3, 74 foals inbred 3×2, and 1,846 foals inbred 3×3.

Some people believe that 2×4 and 4×2 are approximately the same as 3×3 (I have some doubts about that myself). So I included those two groups as well and have found another 537 of the former and 164 of the latter. I have omitted foals inbred to females but listed them separately in another post.

The categories listed are 2×2, 2×3, 2×4, 3×2, 3×3, and 4×2. Within each category the 68 qualifying stakes winners below are listed alphabetically by the sire to whom they are inbred (the name in parentheses), then the number of Performance Points earned by each stakes winner. Before looking at the stakes winners though I need to list the prices for the various groups, which I will summarize below.

Category      Foals      Gross                Average          Maverage          Price Index

2×2                  10      $78,000              $7,800                65.90                   0.40

2×3                 218    $12,077,871        $55,403             125.21                   0.77

2×4                 537    $48,911,672        $91,083             191.82                   1.18

3×2                   74     $4,118,131          $55,650             167.20                   1.03

3×3               1,846    $118,862,828     $64,389             166.27                   1.02

4×2                 164     $14,744,868        $89,908            237.17                   1.45

Totals           2,849   $198,793,370      $69,777             171.70                   1.05

The most closely inbred group (2×2) was by far the cheapest and yielded zero stakes winners from ten foals. No surprises there. The overall average for all 70,714 foals was $54,140. All of the categories listed above (except 2×2) were higher than that. The overall maverage for all 70,714 foals was 163.11. All of the categories listed above (except the two most closely inbred, 2×2 and 2×3) were higher than that.

The 2×4 and 4×2 groups were the most expensive, with averages of $91,083 and $89,908 respectively and maverages of 191.82 and 237.17 respectively.

The average for all 2,849 closely inbred foals of $69,777 was much higher than the overall average of $54,140. The maverage for all 2,849 foals of 171.70 was only slightly higher than the overall maverage of 163.11. These 2,849 foals had a Price Index of 1.05. That means they sold for prices about 5% above average. Therefore, their racetrack results should have been slightly above average as well.

Now let us consider the 68 stakes winners in order to determine what the racetrack results really were. I will summarize those results after the lists below.

Stakes Winners

2×3—Shut It Down (Mr. Prospector), 273, Keystone Point (MP), 244.

2×4—Stella Mark (Alydar), 416, Quintons Shocker (Damascus), 196, Doncaster Rover (Danzig), 650, Send Me an Angel (Halo), 244, Roman Ruler (Mr. Prospector), 2,521, Budge Man (MP), 422, Golden Strategy (MP), 761, Laila’s Punch (MP), 344, Victory Tetsuni (MP), 424, Dubai Distinction (MP), 255, West Coast Coach (MP), 177, Not for Silver (MP), 698, Ole Pegasus (MP), 225, Dijeerr (Northern Dancer), 514, Sureki Shinsukekun (Northern Dancer), 600, Croisiere (Seattle Slew), 296, Slew by Slew (Seattle Slew), 336, Yearly Report (Seattle Slew), 1,936.

3×2—Ebony Rose (Affirmed), 273.

3×3—Gladiatorus (Blushing Groom), 5,242, If It’s Meant to B (Blushing Groom), 231, Successful Outlook (Blushing Groom), 311, Octave (Caro), 2,761, Unbridled Behavior (Caro), 296, Plutonium (Dixieland Band), 309, Culinary (Icecapade), 672, Beat the Chalk (In Reality), 323, Slew Motion (In Reality), 324, Storm Forcast (In Reality), 237, Baronage (Mr. Prospector), 215, Distintoydiferente (MP), 120, Karakorum Splendor (MP), 547, Lemon Maid (MP), 663, Speedy Gone Sally (MP), 547, Luhuk’s Dancer (MP), 283, Silver Prospector (MP), 347, Teagues Fight (MP), 1,854, Urban Guy (MP), 375, Head to Toe (MP), 381, Iuturna (MP), 343, Woozy (MP), 223, Amazin Blue (MP), 289, Casanova Killer (MP), 381, Sea of Pleasure (MP), 257, True Quality (MP), 688, Boots Ahead (MP), 589, Insolito (MP), 128, Infinite Resource (MP), 305, Glenwood Canyon (MP), 441, Katie’s Love (Northern Dancer), 349, Lycurgus (Northern Dancer), 389, Le Rossignol (Northern Dancer), 236, Always for Love (Northern Dancer), 460, Cat Junior (Northern Dancer), 813, Lacewell (Nureyev), 486, Cosmonaut (Seattle Slew), 2,298, Lady Attack (Seattle Slew), 313, Thoroughly (Seattle Slew), 159, Master Command (Secretariat), 2,337, Dicky’s Cat (Storm Bird), 417, Ingrid the Gambler (Storm Cat), 211.

4×2—Buddha Lady (Fappiano), 251, Scat Daddy (Mr. Prospector), 2,734, Blazing Rate (MP), 634, Sensation (MP), 382, Turf War (MP), 826.

Category       Foals       Stakes Winners      %        APPPSW        PPI

2×2                  10                     0                    0                0                 0

2×3                 218                    2                  0.92           259             0.11

2×4                 537                   18                 3.35           612             0.98

3×2                  74                      1                 1.35            273             0.18

3×3               1,846                  42                2.28           670             0.73

4×2                  164                    5                3.05           965             1.40

Totals           2,849                 68                2.39            659            0.75

APPPSW stands for average Performance Points per stakes winner and is a measure of the quality of the stakes winners within each group. I have updated the stakes winners, of which there are now 2,409 from 70,714 foals (3.41%). Those 2,409 stakes winners averaged 615 Performance Points apiece.

Note that 4×2 is the only group with positive results (PPI of 1.40), and that is thanks mainly to Scat Daddy (2,734 Performance Points), which gave this group an average of 965 Performance Points per stakes winner. In terms of percentage of stakes winners from foals, even this group was below the norm (3.05%, compared to the norm of 3.41%).

Now let us combine the data into one chart comparing prices with results.

Category               Price Index               PPI

2×2                               0.40                    0.00

2×3                               0.77                     0.11

2×4                               1.18                     0.98

3×2                               1.03                    0.18

3×3                               1.02                    0.73

4×2                               1.45                    1.40

Totals                           1.05                    0.75

The PPI (result) for each group is lower than the Price Index. Even the 4×2 group did not exceed its expectations based on price. The 4×2 group sold for prices about 45% above average and yielded results only about 40% above average. Not bad, but not positive relative to its prices either. Overall, all 2,849 foals sold for prices about 5% ABOVE average and achieved results about 25% BELOW average. Decidedly NOT good.

If you combine the 2×4 and 4×2 groups, those 701 foals had a maverage of 202.43 and a Price Index of 1.24. Included among those 701 foals were 23 stakes winners (3.28%, below the norm of 3.41%). Those 23 stakes winners averaged 689 Performance Points apiece (well above the overall average of 615). That works out to a PPI (result) of 1.08, not bad but still below its Price Index of 1.24.

So this group sold for prices about 24% above average and achieved results only about 8% above average. Not bad, but a lot better than the results for the 1,846 3×3 foals (Price Index of 1.02, PPI of 0.73). So 3×3 is clearly worse than 2×4 or 4×2.

The 68 stakes winners among those 2,849 foals averaged 659 Performance Points apiece (well above the overall average of 615). This is largely a function of having more than its share of stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points (see lists).

I have heard it said that inbreeding (particularly close inbreeding) produces better stakes winners overall but fewer stakes winners overall. In baseball terms, more home runs but a lower overall batting average. Might be some truth to that. That is what the numbers seem to indicate anyway. But in terms of overall batting average (PPI versus Price Index), close inbreeding is definitely not a good strategy. Incest is definitely NOT best.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Incest Is Best???????–Conclusion

  1. George says:

    Please my email address to

    Sent from my iPhone

  2. jim culpepper says:

    Effective inbreeding programs must involve very large starting populations which are screened for inferior and superior traits through mating full and half sibs,and parent to offspring etc. Inbreeding in subsequent gnerations will identify resistance to inbreeding depression and to stack favorable genes. The King Ranch used inbreeding successfully, but everything about equines militates against the method, including reproductive math and especially the disposal of culls.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s