Next article in Horse International magazine

[tom]

As the breeding columnist for Horse International magazine, I write an essay for each edition. In the June 2008 (Vol. 5) issue an article will appear entitled, "Every Man a Rembrandt! Every Breeder a Melchior!" The article is on the uses and mis-uses of breeding indices and rankings. Hope you find it interesting and informative.

The article can also be found on my blog, which can be assessed through the News page at http://www.morningside-stud.com (http://www.morningside-stud.com/)

Tom

[BravAddict]

Thank you so much, Tom! I really enjoyed that article; the statistics of livestock science are really fascinating. All in all do you wish that the selection criteria of the studbooks were more transparent?

[tom]

Thanks.

What are your concerns vis-a-vis transparency?

[BravAddict]

I'll PM you but need to sit on that a bit.

[siegi b.]

I have the same question since Tom's article was about scoring not selection of stallions..... Not sure it was necessary to make the semen agents look like uneducated vultures - in my opinion it is the breeder that should educate him/herself enough before making those breeding decisions. Semen agents to me are merely a convenient vehicle for getting access to stallions in Europe, nothing more and nothing less.

It was interesting to see the differences in information gathered and offered by the different studbooks, and I also agree that the KWPN provides very good data.

Good job!

[Oakstable]

Aren't the indexes leading to a consolidation of the gene pool?

Most of us breed to stallions we have never seen. We rarely see what Stallion X actually produces, certainly in a country this large.

[BravAddict]

As a summary, I think that transparency (as in, the difference between "good conformation" which is very vague, and "back at knee/over at knee" which is quite specific) is really key to the selection process. If members of the jury are rewarding and penalizing different things, then the indices will not reflect reality. I think a statement like the one I just made prompts a (short-sighted) reaction: "Oo but we should preserve the differences of opinion." Such mystique doesn't serve the horses, or breeders, or buyers. We should strive, through research, to base our standards on objective truths so that there are fewer culls, and that culls are of a higher quality (meaning they are better protected from miserable lives.) And these objective truths about conformation, movement and jumping do exist; what is in question is our ability to identify them.
I wondered whether you agreed, or if you had a more articulate way of expressing this.

[tom]

Siegi, my comments about agents were not directed at all agents -- read it again. It is directed at agents who themselves are novice/inexperienced breeders, or who do not breed themselves, who are not simply offering the services you describe (i.e. import semen in bulk) but also offer breeding advice and "guarantees" as if they were highly experienced breeders themselves and, and even more important, experienced using the specific stallions they are offering. Yes, breeders need to educate themselves about indices, rankings, and the qualifications to offer advice by those agents that freely offer advice. You make your own decisions because you are experienced. There are many others who are not.

Oakstable, I think you are correct about consolidation. The rankings and the indices lead to a very limited pool of stallions that breeders consider when importing semen AND also when importing breeding stock.

BravAddict, I think I understand what you are saying. But I'd say, don't put too much faith in the wisdom or ability of inspectors, etc. There are real measurement problems. And how many international competitors did these inspectors breed themselves?

[BravAddict]

Inspectors are fallible human beings. But, as to international competitors, here's another application of transparency: some registries are interested in international competitors, others are interested in other markets (or multiple markets). They ought to make it known which, no?

[tom]

The WBFSH requires members to provide a mission statement so their preference for producing international athletes versus amateur horses is revealed.

However, if we look at their "revealed preferences" (to borrow a term from microeconomic theory) we often see a dis-connect between what they say they want to do (in the mission statement) and what they actually do in their policies and procedures and breeders' practices (revealed preferences).

Some studbooks try to bridge the gap and state that they want to breed both international and amateur horses. I think the German studbooks and breeers (such as the Hanoverians) have the best chance of consistently bridging this gap because of their deeply ingrained value of rideability. As I have written before, just compare how the Germans asssess 5- and 6-year-olds in the Bundeschampionate for showjumping versus how the French, Dutch, Irish, Belgians, and WBFSH/Zangersheide do it.

So I perceive more and more horses being bred that are difficult to ride. The best ones go to professionals and that solves the problem. The less talented ones go to young riders who cannot handle them or struggle to learn how to ride them. The ones with no talent for sport go on the bar-b-que.

The same argument holds for dressage horses, I believe.

[Oakstable]

Tom,
So are you saying that all the studbooks, except for the Hanoverians, tend to produce a higher percentage of difficult horses because they are targeting the professional rider?

Sally

[DownYonder]

Tom,
So are you saying that all the studbooks, except for the Hanoverians, tend to produce a higher percentage of difficult horses because they are targeting the professional rider?

Sally

I didn't get that sense at all from what he said. His comment was "I think the German studbooks and bree[d]ers (such as the Hanoverians) have the best chance of consistently bridging this gap because of their deeply ingrained value of rideability."

He was using Hanoverians as an example and my interpretation is that he feels the other German studbooks such as Holsteiner, Oldenburg, Westphalia, Trakehner, etc., etc., also fit into that category. Am I correct, Tom?

[Oakstable]

The distinction may be between German studbooks and non-German.

I don't think it is any secret that the Dutch horses are aimed at international competition.

The studbook is very successful in both jumping (#2) and dressage (#2).

[Foxtrot's]

Tom - I have read your article and the rest of your blog. Usually in these types of articles my eyes start to glaze over - yours was well written in an easily understandable English and very informative.
Thank you. (I'd take a guess that I could understand your written word easier than your spoken word??!!)

I wish it was easier to obtain information on various stallions' scores in a form that was understandable to the lay person; as a rule we only have the marketing versions from the producers.

Myself, the interior qualities - I think - are improving. I've only recently come to warmbloods since they have become so much more rideable than the old thunkers of the past thirty years. Perhaps the more competitive ones might be tougher (more for pro rides but which pro does not want a good minded horse?), but the less competitive horses seemed so dull.

But you are right - if you breed only for the lookers the the pendulum will swing the other way.

[Equilibrium]

Tom,
Yes I tend to enjoy your articles as well because they are easy to understand. As you know, I am a novice and strive to do better in my breeding so it is quite a help.

Firstly, on the subject of Burggraaf on Irish mares. Really wouldn't have taken a genius to realize big heavy Irish mares would not be his best matching. Maybe mares which had a good dose of blood or were, gasp, TB's might have found better quality in the foals.

I also like your comments on soft mouth. But you can breed for a soft mouth all you want and if you send your horses to an idiot to be started you could loose that and worse make a horse which could be very rideable be not so rideable. This is one of my big issues in any game. Plenty of people to ride but not enough qualified people to start youngsters. Not enough to give them confidence. I don't care what kind of horse your breaking, the key is confidence. They don't have to be trotting perfect circles in a month, they don't need lunged in all sorts of gadgets. They need confidence and trust in a rider. The other stuff will come naturally if you let a horse to come to you instead of the other way around. That's why I break mine early, anywhere from 2 1/2 to 3. They get lots of time off in between different parts of the breaking. This way when it's time for them to move forward, they are easy willing, and quite rideable. Too many young horses are ruined with a learn everything now mentality. This would not help any horses rideability.

Ask any showjumping rider in the world the horse they'd most like to own and the answer would be Shutterfly. And yet some of those professionals would have a hard time riding him. Yes, we should most definitely be breeding for rideability. I also tend to think more riders need to learn to ride the more difficult types. Spend time with a good person who breaks babies, learn to ride youngsters. I would probably be considered a crap rider in most people's eyes. I've had some injuries and am not very pretty, but I can and do ride youngsters very well from the very beginning. I've seen the bad side of waiting until they're 4 and expecting them to have it alltogether because they are older and have been left to mature. I've seen youngsters forced into keeping their head down and always having to go correctly from the get go, getting frazzled. Some of situations would force any horse not to be very rideable when in fact they may have been very rideable. So breeding would not be the only factor here.

My thoughts only so take it with a pinch of salt. But rideability to me means more than just breeding for it.

Terri

[BravAddict]

My thoughts only so take it with a pinch of salt. But rideability to me means more than just breeding for it.

But learned experiences, such as crappy riding, are not inherited and so could not be part of an index, which is a mathematical model of heritability. For an index to be perfectly reliable, the trait it was measuring would have to be perfectly understood and up to the action of a single gene. Since that's hardly feasible, the goal is to identify traits that are *more* heritable, I believe.

Tom, what motivates a studbook to lie about their goals?

[tom]

Tom,
So are you saying that all the studbooks, except for the Hanoverians, tend to produce a higher percentage of difficult horses because they are targeting the professional rider?

Sally

No, Sally, that is not what I believe or am saying. DownYonder has it correct: am I making a point about German versus non-German breeding. The German studbooks and breeders, it seems to me, put a very high priority on rideability. They reward rideability in the young horse classes including the Bundeschampionate and punish difficult to ride horses. So I believe, on average, the Germans are best able to breed for both professionals and amateurs. And more precisely they are more likely to breed both international athletes and good riding horses for amateurs.

[tom]

Tom - I have read your article and the rest of your blog. Usually in these types of articles my eyes start to glaze over - yours was well written in an easily understandable English and very informative.
Thank you. (I'd take a guess that I could understand your written word easier than your spoken word??!!)

I wish it was easier to obtain information on various stallions' scores in a form that was understandable to the lay person; as a rule we only have the marketing versions from the producers.

Myself, the interior qualities - I think - are improving. I've only recently come to warmbloods since they have become so much more rideable than the old thunkers of the past thirty years. Perhaps the more competitive ones might be tougher (more for pro rides but which pro does not want a good minded horse?), but the less competitive horses seemed so dull.

But you are right - if you breed only for the lookers the the pendulum will swing the other way.

Thanks Foxtrot.

With the internet a lot of these indices can be accessed for free but the statistics are often misunderstood. The KWPN does it right (as usual!!): in the published form of their index there is a comprehensive discussion of how to interpret the statistics. A novel concept! Let's help breeders consume the data and statistics correctly.

[tom]

Thanks, Terri.

Re Burggraaf: well maybe not a genius but 8-10 years ago the bright lights at ISHD were using UK taxpayers money on Burggraaf and I don't recall anyone else challenging their wisdom at the time.

I understand what you are saying about the proper education and development of young horses and how they can be ruined. But as BravAddict suggests these bad experiences are not inherted; in fact they are probably randomly distributed so the effects would be experienced across the population of young horses. (In other words, if we see progeny of Stallion A being very difficult to ride, and progeny of Stallion B being easy to ride, it is probably safe to assume that Stallion A progeny were not handicapped by SYSTEMATICALLY having their riders drawn from the pool of bad riders, and vice versa.)

Tom

[tom]

Tom, what motivates a studbook to lie about their goals?

I don't think they are purposefully trying to deceive the public. These are some of the realities as I see them:

1) Some studbooks are run by people who either are not breeders or are not very good breeders. Within this group of studbooks the officials who write mission statements probably do not realize the difficulties involved in trying to develop policies and procedures and a breeding culture that results in the production of both international athletes and amateur riding horses.

2) Some studbooks may have both goals for commercial and historical reasons. They are run by real experts but commercial exigencies and tradition force them to try to straddle both markets.

[fannie mae]

Inspectors are fallible human beings. But, as to international competitors, here's another application of transparency: some registries are interested in international competitors, others are interested in other markets (or multiple markets). They ought to make it known which, no?

i'ld say it is a fair assumption to make that each and every sport horse registry in the world aims for the best and that is international competitors - just that such demand can only be based on reliable grounds with some prominent examples visible - so the smaller verbands simply fight a harder fight to promote their breeds based on "international competitors" - matter of supply and demand - smaller breed, smaller population, lesser density of progeny around the further out the competition curve you go...

and no, there is no distinction being made between "amateur horses" versus "professional horses" and there shouldn't (as this has been mentioned in this topic before, too.). as it should be selfunderstood that any horse of excellent talents (no matter what discipline) should come with aspects of good ridability (mind, mouth etc) in the first place.
since if they don't, they simply lack excellence.
and if they lack excellence they shouldn't breed in the first place.

no use for a ferrari if gas&break don't work or only do so with special manual knowledge.
as there are only a handful of special manual riders (intl comp) out there to be served - compared to the sheer number of foals being produced per year by all the verbands aiming at intl comp a very small fraction... lets say 500 foals per year find their way to intl riders - what about the remaining 30.000-50.000 who are produced in germany only?
exact breeding figure for germany only in 2007 was 47.000 registered sport horse breedings.
the exact number for entire europe should reach up to 100.000 per year.
and how big is the intl comp market numberwise?
doesn't that make you think?


are breeders seriously considering to breed for that tiny less than 1-percent-fraction of the market?
plus, considering the fact that intl sport usually does not buy foals but focus on a market of 4-6 yr old horses - so what happens to 30.000-50.000 foals waiting for the intl comp come lookt at them only in germany????

thus, it should be a selfunderstood "must" for any verband out there to provide ridability along with skills of excellenc with respect to jumping or dressage in order to get the young crop on its way in the first place. as only than they become visible and interesting for interntl comp.

since the breeding&marketing concept of the hannoverian verband has been mentioned in this respect before it should not come as a surprise that it is the hannoverian verband who engages a concept of marketing to hobby/pleasure/amateur riders in order to finally get rid of the broad based acception "intl sport horses are suitable for professionals only" - as such lable is a stigma rather than a marketable advantage given a verband of a size like this whith close to 15.000 foals on the ground per year.
why?
because they understand that the broad base of breeders cannot survive when breeding for 1% of the market only (neither can any verband in the long term) - they need to be able to access 99% of the potential market out there in order to keep the market alive.
and the most simple provision for that is ridability and a reliable concept of marketing it as such.
they have started a concept of sales days and auctions for "hobby riders" only (lower priced bracket) being well aware that such concept does not pay for the verband immediately - it is being sponsored by the local verband communities, if only by the impact of work they put in it.

however, it all boils down to the simple understanding that the best breed can only claim to be of excellent standard if gas&break do work throughout the entire population, for ANY rider, that is - the understanding is:
if you are an excellent rider you will of course find the suitable ferrari within that breed for any purpose, anyway.

the florestans and lauries' and brentanos and rubinsteins and rohdiamants of the world are being bought by intl comp BECAUSE everybody else can deal with them, too - not DESPITE of it...
same logic applies vice versa:
some hotter stuff stallion get is being avoided by pros for the same reason:
rather than dealing with xyz get the same working effort pays out a lot more when outspoken ridability is selfunderstood.

this is probably more important in dressage than in jumping but then again:
where is the biggest (foal) money being made - ?


i find that a very healthy attitude since 10.000 breeders simply can't serve a handful a of intl comp all together, even though the quality of what they produce might well be worth it.
but you need to keep 10.000 breeders up and running in order to entertain the valuable broad mare base in order to keep producing the super star horses of the future who will eventually arise from this mare base again and again - rather than being cloned or embryo transfered....


... and one word to the understanding of indices:
i find it very important to distinguish with respect to what an individual stallion produces on a certain given mare base - tom made a very valid point on that and yes, it is a lack that indices (no matter how well thought of) simply don't bridge.

come to think of sacramento song and his initial breeding career in holstein which was of doubtful impact only. same stallion moving to hannover meeting on the G-line and developing his own sire line: sandro, silvio and nowadays prominent s-line.
it might still be a matter of discussion if and how far these horses in further development do suit the broader demand of ridability and if in the end this line was/will be a plus to the breed but fact is:
underlying marebase does make a huge difference.

same is true for sir shostakovitch who didn't leave the greatest impact at the beginning of his carreer in holstein either but proved to be of much better fit in trak and elsewhere - however, meeting on smaller populations overthere comparable numbers with those being provided by the "other" s-line mentioned before are hard to find - still, indices simply lack a major part of the equation and that is suitability of mare base.
since this is a very distiguishing factor specially when it comes to adding tb or half tb stallions to the breed (no coinicidence that both my choosen examples happen to be tb/half tb stallions) specific mare base does provide for the final results turning out to let the stallion live or die in nowadays fast living breeding world - and once "died" (poor reputation due to get based on statistic factors) he can barely ever be reanimated for the good elsewhere on a different mare base as it still used to be the case only 20 years ago.

and it will become harder to figure out year by year for statsitical purposes given the wide spread semen transfer techniques simply dilute any solid information being based on a unique marebase being a mis-fit or fit for any given stallion.

as such, selfunderstood ridability becomes an even more important factor for future breeding - and tom's example on how the germans judge the quality of 4-6 yr old sport horses on a score rather than a fault concept plays an important role:

any genious stallion covering 300+ mares per year looses a lot once prove has it that only the 10% of his crop ending up in professional or semi pro hands prove to be of 80% or above scores when genious meets talent...

that means that 90% of breeders having used this stallion (semen brokers or own conviction of no better knowledge) basically keep sitting on their young get in the future.
as the 99% market of amateur and hobby riders most certainly won't touch these horses.

there are a few "hot" stallions in my area flooding the breeding magazins and brochures these years - their first kids are now growing into the "critcal" age where wheat is seperated from the chaff.
and yes, they do have a quota of 10%+ of highly succesful get in semi/professional hands and these are the ones being marketed big times, everyone speaks&writes about them.
but it does make me think big times,too, when i see none of their kids in amateur hands being succesful at all - they are not even shown by amateurs in basic classes.
it does suggest that something is going terribly wrong here with respect to breeding culture and heavy misunderstanding ("misunderstandibility") of indices and statistics in the first place.

same is true for the FNyear book and any index built on a concept that is based on total numbers:
stallions are being quoted with x-amount of get in s-class (intl)
- looks impressive (or poor) at first sight.
but total numbers of breeding are not given.
so if a stallion of 300+ mares per year in the end shows a quota of below 1% of ttl get in ntl classes (a single digit of horses in my example; percentage figured out with respect to his assumed ttl number of breedings and you need to have some kind of insight knowledge in order to figure that out) and at the same time a lesser known and low marketed stallion shows a quota of 5% based on a fraction of ttl breedings only compared to popular stallion number one - that should tell you s.th. about misunderstandability of indices, too.

so yes:
transparency is the major factor of all and does need to be supported by the number of ttl get from any given stallion being quoted -however, i don't see this happen as it does cut both ways and the lobby of stallion owners will do anything they can to not let it happen by the verbands.

[omare]

Interesting article and posts! Thanks!

[Sakura Hill Farm]

This is all both informative and gives food for thought. Thanks for these posts.

[BravAddict]

and no, there is no distinction being made between "amateur horses" versus "professional horses" and there shouldn't (as this has been mentioned in this topic before, too.). as it should be selfunderstood that any horse of excellent talents (no matter what discipline) should come with aspects of good ridability (mind, mouth etc) in the first place.
since if they don't, they simply lack excellence.
and if they lack excellence they shouldn't breed in the first place.

no use for a ferrari if gas&break don't work or only do so with special manual knowledge.
as there are only a handful of special manual riders (intl comp) out there to be served - compared to the sheer number of foals being produced per year by all the verbands aiming at intl comp a very small fraction... lets say 500 foals per year find their way to intl riders - what about the remaining 30.000-50.000 who are produced in germany only?
exact breeding figure for germany only in 2007 was 47.000 registered sport horse breedings.
the exact number for entire europe should reach up to 100.000 per year.
and how big is the intl comp market numberwise?
doesn't that make you think?

are breeders seriously considering to breed for that tiny less than 1-percent-fraction of the market?
plus, considering the fact that intl sport usually does not buy foals but focus on a market of 4-6 yr old horses - so what happens to 30.000-50.000 foals waiting for the intl comp come lookt at them only in germany????

thus, it should be a selfunderstood "must" for any verband out there to provide ridability along with skills of excellenc with respect to jumping or dressage in order to get the young crop on its way in the first place. as only than they become visible and interesting for interntl comp.

since the breeding&marketing concept of the hannoverian verband has been mentioned in this respect before it should not come as a surprise that it is the hannoverian verband who engages a concept of marketing to hobby/pleasure/amateur riders in order to finally get rid of the broad based acception "intl sport horses are suitable for professionals only" - as such lable is a stigma rather than a marketable advantage given a verband of a size like this whith close to 15.000 foals on the ground per year.
why?
because they understand that the broad base of breeders cannot survive when breeding for 1% of the market only (neither can any verband in the long term) - they need to be able to access 99% of the potential market out there in order to keep the market alive.
and the most simple provision for that is ridability and a reliable concept of marketing it as such.
they have started a concept of sales days and auctions for "hobby riders" only (lower priced bracket) being well aware that such concept does not pay for the verband immediately - it is being sponsored by the local verband communities, if only by the impact of work they put in it.

however, it all boils down to the simple understanding that the best breed can only claim to be of excellent standard if gas&break do work throughout the entire population, for ANY rider, that is - the understanding is:
if you are an excellent rider you will of course find the suitable ferrari within that breed for any purpose, anyway.

the florestans and lauries' and brentanos and rubinsteins and rohdiamants of the world are being bought by intl comp BECAUSE everybody else can deal with them, too - not DESPITE of it...
same logic applies vice versa:
some hotter stuff stallion get is being avoided by pros for the same reason:
rather than dealing with xyz get the same working effort pays out a lot more when outspoken ridability is selfunderstood.

this is probably more important in dressage than in jumping but then again:
where is the biggest (foal) money being made - ?


i find that a very healthy attitude since 10.000 breeders simply can't serve a handful a of intl comp all together, even though the quality of what they produce might well be worth it.
but you need to keep 10.000 breeders up and running in order to entertain the valuable broad mare base in order to keep producing the super star horses of the future who will eventually arise from this mare base again and again - rather than being cloned or embryo transfered....


... and one word to the understanding of indices:
i find it very important to distinguish with respect to what an individual stallion produces on a certain given mare base - tom made a very valid point on that and yes, it is a lack that indices (no matter how well thought of) simply don't bridge.

come to think of sacramento song and his initial breeding career in holstein which was of doubtful impact only. same stallion moving to hannover meeting on the G-line and developing his own sire line: sandro, silvio and nowadays prominent s-line.
it might still be a matter of discussion if and how far these horses in further development do suit the broader demand of ridability and if in the end this line was/will be a plus to the breed but fact is:
underlying marebase does make a huge difference.

same is true for sir shostakovitch who didn't leave the greatest impact at the beginning of his carreer in holstein either but proved to be of much better fit in trak and elsewhere - however, meeting on smaller populations overthere comparable numbers with those being provided by the "other" s-line mentioned before are hard to find - still, indices simply lack a major part of the equation and that is suitability of mare base.
since this is a very distiguishing factor specially when it comes to adding tb or half tb stallions to the breed (no coinicidence that both my choosen examples happen to be tb/half tb stallions) specific mare base does provide for the final results turning out to let the stallion live or die in nowadays fast living breeding world - and once "died" (poor reputation due to get based on statistic factors) he can barely ever be reanimated for the good elsewhere on a different mare base as it still used to be the case only 20 years ago.

and it will become harder to figure out year by year for statsitical purposes given the wide spread semen transfer techniques simply dilute any solid information being based on a unique marebase being a mis-fit or fit for any given stallion.

as such, selfunderstood ridability becomes an even more important factor for future breeding - and tom's example on how the germans judge the quality of 4-6 yr old sport horses on a score rather than a fault concept plays an important role:

any genious stallion covering 300+ mares per year looses a lot once prove has it that only the 10% of his crop ending up in professional or semi pro hands prove to be of 80% or above scores when genious meets talent...

that means that 90% of breeders having used this stallion (semen brokers or own conviction of no better knowledge) basically keep sitting on their young get in the future.
as the 99% market of amateur and hobby riders most certainly won't touch these horses.


I agree that it seems foolish to breed specifically for such a limited market. I do not agree, however, that amateur horses and international caliber horses have the same qualities. It seems to me that there is a point at which characteristics which befit an ammy horse are deleterious to a horse's potential for international competition. Through research, the KWPN found that there came a point where the characteristics of a dressage horse and the characteristics of a jumping horse become divergent/mutually exclusive (please do not misquote me and suggest that I wrote "The characteristics of a dressage horse and the characteristics of a jumping horse are mutually exclusive." Anyone.) Most notable are the interior qualities, "reactivity" in particular. Is every "great" jumper reactive? Probably not. Is it a statistically identifiable trend? Absolutely.
I am an amateur. I would not especially like to ride Cumano. If someone offered to let me ride him, I would politely decline. I might like to admire him, and would note how much he retroflexes his hindlegs over a jump, but a great part of his capability is in his reactivity. This brain wiring is highly heritable and makes for horses which do not like to touch rails. The high heritability of this trait - and others - is what allowed jumper breeding to accelerate so rapidly. But until we have a more sophisticated understanding of how mental/character traits in horses are inherited, we accept that along with this quality comes the other part of reactivity: spooking, squirrellyness, etc.

I think that discussing breeding in terms of statistics disturbs some people who make it their life's work, because so much of breeding is emotional. The acts of foaling out a mare or raising a young horse are emotional and highly personal. The activities of a studbook, which must remain economically viable and in-tune to the market to succeed and benefit its breeders (and protect the horses) are not especially personal.

As to the Ferrari analogy...why do people buy Ferraris? Not because of the gas and brakes, but for romance and status. For the same reason many people are attracted to horses that are too much for them, I imagine. I'm sure plenty of people crash the gears on their Ferraris.

So while I agree that registries *should* cater to amateurs, it seems that getting horses under international riders is their best method of becoming "known." I've gotten a bit wandery so I'll stop there. I know nothing of semen brokering.