Ahh ... interesting ... Australian owner/breeder challenging JC Live Cover rule ... [Archive]

rodawn

Jan. 2, 2010, 01:18 PM

The big subject on the link that was posted is also about "diluting the genetic pool", which I think is a gross misrepresentation of facts. AI does not dilute the gene pool, rather is broadens it - the more horses available to breeding, the bigger the potential gene pool combinations because now all the stallions in Great Britain, France and Australia would now be open to US and Canadian breeders, and vice verse; with the live cover rule, a breeder here would have to ship their mare over there. Otherwise, they are restricted to what's here and usually to what's fairly near by.

The other side of the coin is that they're afraid everyone will want to breed to one particular stallion. That may or may not be true. For a while there, everyone loved the Cat and sons. Next year it will be some other favourite, so not sure the rush to one stallion will be an ongoing thing. It might for the first few years, but then people will settle as they get used to the idea of shopping world-wide for the the right racing stallion for their mare.

The more stallions offered to the breeders (world-wide), the bigger and stronger the gene pool, the more diverse the possibilities and the better the quality of breeding available to TB racing breeders.

They should study other breeds on that whole concept, since the Arabian industry very nearly imploded on itself until the market opened up to European bred Arabians which once again strengthened the genetic blood stock.

Expense with regards to shipping of semen is minor and not even a relevant point. Shipping frozen semen from Europe is not expensive - maybe $750 round trip. Certainly a heckuva lot less than shipping a mare and/or mare-foal from Seattle to New York to the stud, plus daily board and care fees, and then shipping her all the way back home, hoping she doesn't lose the embryo on the way.

I agree with Fairview - shipping and boarding is big extra income for the industry that they want to protect. I think, if the tightwads were really interested in protecting the TB blood stock, they need to look much closer at opening up the gene pool. The other aspects of the (boarding, shipping) business will just need to adjust with the times.

Equilibrium

Jan. 2, 2010, 01:32 PM

Agree with Rodawn and FHC.

The real reason AI is just not happening is because of the business the boarding barns bring in. Lowering the gene pool and over breeding are not the real issues. There was supposed to be so many people not covering their mares in 2009 and when I looked at all the mare returns for Ireland didn't seem to be the case. Staggering numbers for a small island.

The gene pool would open up. You could cover you're mare in America with Monsun if you so desire. You could search anywhere for bloodlines you wish to improve and compliment your mares. Well smart and clever breeders would. Maybe not so much with the "lets just make a quick buck breeders." How you're supposed to make any money by covering your mare with a stallion that will potentially have 200 foals on the ground in any given year is beyond me, but there you go.

Beyond stud fees, farms make huge bucks by boarding mares sometimes year round. The big farm here, that we shall not speak it's name, makes a serious amount of money by having horses all over Europe coming to be bred. Bring in AI and they have quite a bit of real estate to be sold and that's no joke.

I got into a discussion on this topic on a TB board a little while ago. Most of the people on the board don't own horses and simply wanted AI because it was just so darn easy. I spelled out that AI isn't as easy as you all think. Most of us here on the sporthorse board know how easily it all goes pear shaped. Semen deliveries ending up lord knows where, dodgey semen, vet can't get to you,and one t isn't dotted correctly and customs strips the semen off you at the airport ( my personal favorite!).

That being said, it might actually stabalize these big huge books when people can make decisions based worldwide. I just don't know, but I think the option should be there.

Terri

vineyridge

Jan. 2, 2010, 02:18 PM

Yes, it's true that the various forms of AI would definitely affect the economics of thoroughbred breeding for racing, but I have to point out some downsides to it.

1) The average fertility of thoroughbreds is relatively low. Some figures that have been thrown out are that only about 60% of TB breedings result in live foals as it is. It seems to be fairly well proved that live cover is "more effective" in getting pregnancies than the various forms of AI, as well as being less expensive. While I agree that AI might preserve some of the more infertile lines by concentrating semen or allowing petri dish fertilization of eggs, on average do we want to preserve lines that cannot perpetuate themselves naturally?

2) I disagree that AI would benefit the breed by spreading genes worldwide. As it is, there are hundreds of regional lines, many from less than the very best runners. Stallions have to be at least adequate racers to get mares as it is. These less than great stallions can produce superior performers. I'm thinking particularly of Cee's Tizzy out in California who is the sire of Tiznow. Another example would be Slew City Slew. Those regional differences are vital in preserving lines that aren't necessarily "Kentucky quality." What happens now is that the actual import and export of breeding stock is based on performance in the shed. Good breeders may end up in Kentucky, while lesser breeders may be exported to Turkey and Korea. But the genes of the exports are still there to be re-imported later. (South America is a good example of that.) If anyone with access to 100k can buy semen from the top studs worldwide, then the concentration of those sire lines will become even greater than the existing situation with shuttle stallions. So instead of having several thousand (or more) breeding stallions, the racing industry will end up like the Holsteiners with only one or two really productive lines and all the others will die out. Unless regional breeding is preserved, there is too much chance that the gene pool will become too concentrated on whatever is currently in fashion for the sales ring.

JER

Jan. 2, 2010, 02:30 PM

But 'regional stallions' in the US tend to be 'sons-of' (and not the best sons-of), so I don't know that it actually promotes genetic diversity. You can go anywhere and find a third-rate son/grandson of Storm Cat or Mr. P or Seattle Slew.

Allowing AI could help the cause of the true alternative stallion -- the stallion who is a total outcross or has hard-to-find bloodlines.

AI could also help promote TBs for sport. Most racing farms can't be bothered to collect (I've looked into this) and don't offer a discount for non-racing offspring (this happens in other countries). Which puts a number of TB sires who might be good for sporthorses out of reach of the sporthorse breeder.

In the UK and Ireland, dual-and multi-purpose stallions still exist because there's nothing more than a few hours' drive away. You can bring your mare over for live cover, then bring her home. This is simply not the case in much of the US.

I'm looking forward to the day when the JCs worldwide join the 20th century. Never mind that we're already in the 21st. There is nothing new or unknown about AI and the associated technology.

But we're talking about the state of Kentucky here. The state where they built a Museum of Creationism. :eek:

belambi

Jan. 2, 2010, 02:38 PM

I believe it would be very good for the genetics. It would make it worth while particularly for a country like Australia, whose use of the top sires, is governed by whether they are shuttle stallions or not. Also, I can straight away think of 7 USA stallions who I will immediatly use, none of them mainstream,but all suitable for my breeding program.

Fairview Horse Center

Jan. 2, 2010, 03:52 PM

1) The average fertility of thoroughbreds is relatively low. Some figures that have been thrown out are that only about 60% of TB breedings result in live foals as it is. It seems to be fairly well proved that live cover is "more effective" in getting pregnancies than the various forms of AI, as well as being less expensive.

That 60% is all horses, not just TBs.
Live cover is definitely not more effective than AI, and when you have to send a mare out - board, shipping, nursemares :( and the risk at haing your mare not at home where she is most comfortable, live cover is WAY more expensive.

LaurieB

Jan. 2, 2010, 04:54 PM

You are correct, the reason that the JC sticks to live cover is 100% due to economic concerns. Nobody in the TB industry disputes the technology.

There was a seminar given by Dr. Twink Allen at Keeneland this past fall on this very subject. The bottom line is that Thoroughbred breeding and sales are big business in central KY, and everyone is scared to death that allowing AI will destroy that business here.

This post pretty much sums it up.

AI for TBs gets debated endlessly online as if "someone" somehow needs to be convinced that it's a good thing.

The bottom line is that the "someone" in charge doesn't care. The only entity that can change the rule is the Jockey Club and since they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, AI is not going to happen.

Vineyridge, Slew City Slew is not a regional sire. He stands at Airdrie Farm in Midway, KY and has for many years.

TrueColours

Jan. 2, 2010, 04:57 PM

That 60% is all horses, not just TBs.

You beat me to it Darlyn .... I was going to post the exact same thing ... :)

It seems to be fairly well proved that live cover is "more effective" in getting pregnancies than the various forms of AI, as well as being less expensive.

Hogwash. I dont know of any data that supports more / easier pregnancies with Live Cover rather than AI. As well - if we are talking shipping a mare from 30-60 minutes away, getting her covered and bringing her home again - I agree - it would be cheaper, but if you are talking shipping hundreds or thousands of miles - no way. AI will win hands down from a cost perspective.

There are several TB stallions I would use for one of my mares in TX and CA. Would I ship her there with a foal at side to get covered? Not on your life but would I breed to them if AI was permitted? In a heartbeat ... :)

Considering that many (all???) of the "old boys" that have the mega huge spreads in KY also hold prominent positions on the JC board of directors, it is going to be one of those "over my dead body" scenario's to get ANY of them to get dragged into the 21st century and if anyone tries, it will be accompanied with a lot of kicking and screaming to be sure ...

Other than the loss of revenue for said mega huge farms that have hundreds of stalls for visiting mares, and the accompanying fallout for the service sectors that support these large farms that have the mares coming to visit for foaling and/or rebreeding ( vets, blacksmiths, vanning companies, feed companies, etc, etc) are the financial implications for the State itself. The taxes on the revenues collected that go into the State coffers and also most importantly - the State run breeders incentives programs that necessitate the mare foaling in that State to participate in those programs

So you can also bet your bottom dollar that if there is a whiff of anything like this being passed, the JC board of directors will call upon their friends and allies in the Senate and explain the serious implications of having anything like this pass and everything from National Security and Im sure to the Taliban (and I am saying that tongue-in-cheek by the way ... ;) ) will be cited as reasons for never allowing the Live Cover rule to ever be abolished

Its a shame. There is NO reason why the large farms and / or any Stallion Owner could not set their own parameters and rules for breeding to their stallion(s), as in "If you want to breed your mare to Fluffy the Wonder Stallion, we are offering Live Cover only and your mare MUST be shipped to our farm for breeding otherwise we will have to regretfully decline servicing your mare at this time"

That would be the logical resolution to this issue but unfortunately I dont believe that logic will enter into any part of this - now or ever ... :no:

But what happens if/when the Australian courts find in favor of the plaintiff? That would open up Pandora's box for another "trade related" lawsuit against the American (and other ) JC's for stifling the Australian's ability to trade and sell on the world stage. Once a court precedent has been set to allow AI in Australia (if it does in fact get passed) then the American JC is going to have one helluva'n interesting and expensive battle on their hands trying to explain their stupid gene-pool-limiting rationale and once that is thrown out as absolute bunk, how they will address and win the trade related lawsuit launched against them

And this - BTW - has been addressed (and lost) in North America before

I was very much involved in this one back in 2000-2001 when Lauren Efford of Goldhope Farm bred some TB mares AI to a TB stallion, declared on the paperwork that they had been shipped to Texas and were bred Live Cover, and when it was discovered 2+ years later that was not the case, the JC yanked the registration papers on all of them - including the colt that I had bought from Lauren that was now no longer registerable

She did take this to court and used the "limitation of trade" argument as well, and she lost against the Jockey Club.

I dont know if it would be different now, or if a precedent is set first in another country, if that would then put a North American lawsuit against the JC into a different light

It will definately be interesting to watch how this all unfolds, and what follow up lawsuits then emerge if he is successful in Australia ...

bloomingtonfarm

Jan. 2, 2010, 05:01 PM

This has to happen just for the sake of these numerous foals that are being pulled away from their dam and send to thrash so their dams could be used as surrogate mare for those valuable TB foals.

TrueColours

Jan. 2, 2010, 05:23 PM

Here are links to the stories / court documents on the North American case(s). I dont know if the same arguments are being used in Australia or if he is trying a different approach instead ...

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/superior/out/s04004_02.pdf

http://www.acba.org/scripts/cr2br.pl?/article/02051703.art

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/6867/foal-papers-denied-for-ai-bred-palominos-case-heading-to-court?id=6867

http://www.sptimes.com/News/053001/news_pf/Sports/Sports_briefs.shtml

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0442P.pdf

ne1

Jan. 2, 2010, 06:10 PM

good grief viney. i suspect you really do know your stuff, but it wasn't at all evident in that post.

you need a much better grip of what ai has done for the sport world, how it has worked and what the state of the holsteiner breed is before throwing out hogwash like that. your analagous comments were nonsense.

yes, we propagate lineages with known low fertility, and then jump them at the olympics. because with the current breeding technology, we can. this isn't cattle breeding, where fertility is a huge consideration and two missed cycles puts a breeding cow on the hamburger truck. there are genetics which can be difficult to reproduce, but are worth a lot of work trying, because they are otherwise valuable when they are successfully passed down. there is also a possibility of a low fertility stallion having sons with improved fertility, depending on the mare as well as other factors. and all this in the sport world does not usually have the larer price tags attached that many of the racing breedings do. so yes, a top performer with poor fertility? let's ai with that stallion!

the holsteiner issue is quite separate and perhaps for another thread, but briefly, ai has absolutely allowed global spread of genetics such that in places where they can actually figure out how to use them (like la silla or zangersheide or vdl, but not yet the usa) ai facilitates propagation of different lineages within a breed. indeed, as has been posted not long ago, the holsteiner stallion singulord joter was bred this way in south america and has been identified and used back in holstein with great success. the 'satelite station' accomplishing something which can feed back to the 'headquarters' if you like, and from there back out to the rest of the world. all made possible by ai. (actually, there was a stallion from the 'r' line approved in america this year which the verband indicated may have a similar course ahead of him as the foals get seen).

if there are good reasons to avoid ai in the tb world, these weren't them. i'm afraid your arguments were thinner than a soup made out of the shadow of a chicken that died of starvation.

LaurieB

Jan. 2, 2010, 06:30 PM

This has to happen just for the sake of these numerous foals that are being pulled away from their dam and send to thrash so their dams could be used as surrogate mare for those valuable TB foals.

This kind of uninformed hysteria mongering makes me want to grind my teeth.

How many is "numerous", bloomingtonfarm? Do you have any idea what the real numbers are? Or what actually happens to the foals whose dams are used as surrogates when TB mares die? Oh wait, they are "send to thrash". Right, that's it.

Timex

Jan. 2, 2010, 06:32 PM

Wait, the words 'logical' and 'jockey club' used in the same sentance? I'm so confused! Lol

vineyridge

Jan. 2, 2010, 09:48 PM

Vineyridge, Slew City Slew is not a regional sire. He stands at Airdrie Farm in Midway, KY and has for many years.

I know he stands in Kentucky, but from what I gather, he isn't considered an "elite" level stallion. He's a breed to race sire and most of his get end up doing regional racing. He has very little appeal in the sales ring or so it would seem from what people say about him.

Although he is very high on most "best values" lists. . .

bloomingtonfarm

Jan. 3, 2010, 12:26 AM

This kind of uninformed hysteria mongering makes me want to grind my teeth.

How many is "numerous", bloomingtonfarm? Do you have any idea what the real numbers are? Or what actually happens to the foals whose dams are used as surrogates when TB mares die? Oh wait, they are "send to thrash". Right, that's it.

Well I have no idea LaurieB how many, no idea at all. I don't know anything about TB races.

Just read about a shelter who were trying to find home to some foals, less than a month of age because their mom were used to replace TB mares so they could be shipped to the stud farm without the foals. They had 6 or 7 then but where trying to buy some more if they could find help. It had to do with the insurance cie. Anyway these shelters were buying them at the meat auction and were trying to find people willing to commit to these foals as they needed a lot of care.

So if this is very unusual well you get me relief and I am glad to know now that these were only exception, not something that we see on a regular basis. But still.

Tiki

Jan. 3, 2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurieB http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4593885#post4593885)
This kind of uninformed hysteria mongering makes me want to grind my teeth.

How many is "numerous", bloomingtonfarm? Do you have any idea what the real numbers are? Or what actually happens to the foals whose dams are used as surrogates when TB mares die? Oh wait, they are "send to thrash". Right, that's it.

Just read about a shelter who were trying to find home to some foals, less than a month of age because their mom were used to replace TB mares so they could be shipped to the stud farm without the foals. And THAT is one of the HUGE problems created by the stupid rule of NO AI with the JC. Live cover when you have to ship the mare and foal is NOT cheaper. It is also a much higher chance of disease, infection and death in the shipped mare and foal. It is a much higher chance of disease in the breeding stallion. It is a LIMITATION of genetics to what you can ship to. It can also be very, very, very dangerous for the stallion (to be kicked), the mare (to be bitten or otherwise injured) and traumatic for the foal - with all the shipping and potential exposure to disease.

I don't breed TB's for racing, but I started my program with TB mares and went way, way away from the shortsighted TB breeding world.

Plus, as has been said, horses in general, not just TB's have about a 60% conception rate.

vineyridge

Jan. 3, 2010, 10:34 AM

Take a look at this pedigree:
http://www.pedigreequery.com/aggadan

He's now standing in Louisiana. He's got a lovely sport horse pedigree. Would he be given much of a chance to propagate if there weren't a need for regional stallions?

TrueColours

Jan. 3, 2010, 11:50 AM

Would he be given much of a chance to propagate if there weren't a need for regional stallions?

Maybe? Maybe not? The market would dictate how popular he was further afield

BUt again - there are going to still be incentives in place for regional programs. NO reason at all why those couldnt survive and prosper ...

Plus, as has been said, horses in general, not just TB's have about a 60% conception rate.

And that is for Live Cover and Shipped Semen as well. I believe the frozen conception rate is lower - 30-40% rings a bell??? But its pretty well identical for fresh cooled and Live

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 12:34 PM

Obviously there are people on here that have never even been near a well run TB breeding farm during breeding season...

Nurse mares are not used so that TB mares can be shipped off to be bred. They are used in cases where they are NEEDED. Mare dies, enter nurse mare. Mare is a danger to her foals, enter the nurse mare. And yes, just like every other aspect of the horse industry, there are good people and bad. The good ones take care of the foals from the nurse mares, raise them in groups and make sure they do have good care and go on to lead productive lives (and considering that the majority of them are by very nice TB stallions, they are usually very nice athletic horses). The bad ones are like the bad ones everywhere. Don't like them? Don't use them. But do not for one minute think that the nurse mare industry will go away if AI is allowed. It won't.

FWIW, having worked on and with huge TB breeding farms, I see just how many people are involved in the industry and how many would be hurt by abolishing the LC rule. I am *NOT* for allowing AI, and I should be one of the ones most FOR it. But then, if I want to play a game, I tend to play by the rules as opposed to trying to change them to fit what will make me the most money. (guess there's a reason I'm not a BNT, BNR or BNB)

edited to remove snark.

mistyjewell

Jan. 3, 2010, 01:39 PM

While I understand the reasons/economice behind keeping the JC all LC... i don't see why they can make an auxillary book or some method of maintaining papers for AI foals that stipulates that they can't be used for racing, or putting a cap on the number of foals/stallion season to allow non-race breding of Thoroughbreds proof of parentage.

I don't see why the JC can't find a compromise that maintains the tradition and economics for racing, but acknowldges that people breed TBs for sport other then racing, and need maintianing the papers and proof of being a pure blooded foal.

TrueColours

Jan. 3, 2010, 01:48 PM

FWIW, having worked on and with huge TB breeding farms, I see just how many people are involved in the industry and how many would be hurt by abolishing the LC rule.

Lets play Devil's Advocate for a minute here Kinsella ...

Lets say there are 5000 mares a year, collectively, that travel to the State of KY to foal and/or get re-bred

Yes - there would be a definate fallout for feed companies, labour, transportation companies, vets, blacksmiths, etc IN THE STATE OF KENYUCKY ... B-U-T if those same 5000 mares stayed at home instead, there would be in increase in business for THOSE vets, blacksmiths, feed companies, courier companies, etc, etc so its not as if the revenue from those 5000 mares would be lost - its simply that it would be evenly distributed through the other States. And yes - there would be job losses in KY, but there would also be hiring in other States if those same 5000 mares stayed put instead of being shuttled

AND ... no one is saying that every single farm would have to adopt the AI rules, as I mentioned before. If Lane's End, Adena, etc all say "No Way! You want to breed to ANY of our stallions, you HAVE to send the mares to our farm" then so be it. Some will put their feet down and others will allow shipped semen. Again - the market will very much dictate what happens to individual stallions and individual farms.

Thats the beauty of having a "choice" in the matter ... ;)

While I understand the reasons/economice behind keeping the JC all LC... i don't see why they can make an auxillary book or some method of maintaining papers for AI foals that stipulates that they can't be used for racing, or putting a cap on the number of foals/stallion season to allow non-race breding of Thoroughbreds proof of parentage.

Or - as stated - they simply allow every stallion owner and every farm to make their own choice in the matter. VERY simple if they allow that to happen ... ;)

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 01:56 PM

You can race an AI foal. You just can't use it as breeding stock.

I totally understand the hard and fast LC rule. Look at AQHA - they allowed AI and it was a total downhill slide into ET and I have no doubt that clones will be next.

And the JC did try to do something for non-racing TB's. They sold the PHR because of lack of interest. Getting proof of parentage is easy. Any registry can do it, including the PHR. But for some reason that didn't work. Why would any other book the JC opened be any different? The reality is that the number of people that WANT AI is minuscule compared to the number that don't care one way or the other or even the number that DON'T want it.

arnika

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:01 PM

Kinsella, I thought you couldn't get papers on an AI foal? If so, you couldn't race it because they have to be registered to race, don't they?

TrueColours

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:09 PM

The reality is that the number of people that WANT AI is minuscule compared to the number that don't care one way or the other or even the number that DON'T want it.

Sorry again Kinsella. I'd love to see some actual hard data on this one, as in an independant poll of ALL Mare Owners - large and small - and ask them if they'd rather their mare and foal stay at home instead, and the mare gets AI'd and they dont have to pay for health papers, Coggins, shipping, board at the large Stud farms, etc, etc, etc never mind the inherent risk to the mares and/or foals in having to ship wherever they are going to

I would bet you that the numbers would approach 50-60% (if not more) that would be ecstatically FOR the implementation of AI right across the board

Of course the "old boys" and their network will violently vote against it and they will rally the troops as much as they can, but at the end of the day, if they dont make TB ownership (including breeding) affordable and user friendly for the masses, they will no longer have any AI versus no AI debate to worry about - there will no longer be ANY Mare Owners supporting their mega million dollar stud farms that they chose to build and their stallions will sit there with only their own mares to service ... ;)

So I guess if they have a smidgen of intelligence and foresight in this whole debate, they will realize that keeping the TB breeding business alive and well should take precedence over ramming the Live Cover rule down the unwilling Mare Owners throats who have no other choice at this time BUT to accept it, whether they like it or agree with it or not ...

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:18 PM

Lets say there are 5000 mares a year, collectively, that travel to the State of KY to foal and/or get re-bred

Yes - there would be a definite fallout for feed companies, labour, transportation companies, vets, blacksmiths, etc IN THE STATE OF KENYUCKY ... B-U-T if those same 5000 mares stayed at home instead, there would be in increase in business for THOSE vets, blacksmiths, feed companies, courier companies, etc, etc so its not as if the revenue from those 5000 mares would be lost - its simply that it would be evenly distributed through the other States. And yes - there would be job losses in KY, but there would also be hiring in other States if those same 5000 mares stayed put instead of being shuttled

Actually, if those 5000 mares are SHIPPING IN to foal and be re-bred, they then SHIP OUT to go back home to where they are already supporting the various and sundry industries you mention. Them going to KY for 2 months or so doesn't really hurt the status quo of their home state. Well, except for the transportation companies... The damage will be done on the smaller farms (not the ones that stand multiple stallions) that exist because of those mares coming in. And yes, they can and do survive year round on what they make during breeding season.

And despite the popular argument, it WILL impact the gene pool. Why do people ship to KY? Because that's where the best stallions are and they can afford it. The ones that can't afford it make use of the myriad of very nice, if not KY viable, regional stallions. Those stallions would no longer be in the gene pool, thereby making it smaller yet, if there is easier access to the big name KY boys. And those stallions and farms would be out of business if the LC rule is abolished. Yes AI would benefit a few small farms - most of them not breeding for racing - but it would harm many more than it would help.

You are right in that farms would not have to use AI. And I hope to God that they stick to their guns and require LC if AI is ever legalized.

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:23 PM

Kinsella, I thought you couldn't get papers on an AI foal? If so, you couldn't race it because they have to be registered to race, don't they?
You can not get REGISTRATION papers on an AI foal, but you can get a RACING 'passport" (or whatever they call it). I looked into this when I was screwed over, but decided that in my case it wasn't worth it for me considering I was dealing with a horse that, in reality, had no chance in hell of making it as a race horse. (no matter how much I wished it to be different - even had him in race training when his papers were yanked!)

Laurierace

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:28 PM

Albion

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:30 PM

The ones that can't afford it make use of the myriad of very nice, if not KY viable, regional stallions. Those stallions would no longer be in the gene pool, thereby making it smaller yet, if there is easier access to the big name KY boys.

Really? Why would allowing AI mean that high stud fees for the 'big name KY boys' would drop and make it affordable for all breeders? There are always going to be breeders who cannot afford to breed to horses over $X fee, whatever that might be - so won't there always be a market for the nice, but not "big name," expensive stallions?

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:37 PM

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 02:40 PM

Boy that is news to me. The only time I have ever heard of anything remotely like that is when the filly foaled at Philly Park years ago. They tested every colt they could think of that might have come in contact with the dam but couldn't find the sire. They gave her some sort of conditional papers that stated she could be raced but not bred.
They do not advertise it, but yes it is an option. FWIW, the colt from the mare at Philly could have actually gotten real papers if they had id'd the sire (and he was in fact a TB). But it isn't something that has much use, especially considering that the TB's in question (AI'd ones) aren't exactly race pedigrees...

LaurieB

Jan. 3, 2010, 03:46 PM

re: those mare owners that want their mares to stay at home:
the majority of the mares that live in KY would not go home if AI were allowed because they are owned by people that do not have farms and, quite frankly, don't give a crap where their horses are living so long as they pop out a baby a year and make money at the sales. That is the reality of the TB breeding world. Is it sad? Yes it is. But it's the truth.

We on this board like to think we are a majority and know what the world wants, but the fact is we are a very small slice of the horse pie. We don't make up a majority, not even close. So I will take back the statement that I made regarding what 'the majority' would want - it was my opinion from having talked to numerous racing/sales breeders in the breeding sheds and racing shedrows, and at the sales.

TC, we will have to agree to disagree because we will never see eye to eye on this one.

Kinsella, I'm with you on this one. I also think that the majority of breeders who are in the TB industry do not want AI to be allowed.

Now...the majority of internet posters, other horse owners, fans...that's a totally different group and seemingly they are for AI. :lol:

Everyone that I know who breeds TBs came into the industry with their eyes wide open. They knew what the rules were and they adapted their plans accordingly. When we first started breeding TBs, we lived in Atlanta. Despite that, our broodmares lived in KY because that's where it made sense for them to be. Most people I know--and most of the people I know breed TBs--just shrug when you mention the AI/Live Cover debate. They couldn't care less and they don't understand what all the fuss is about.

TrueColours

Jan. 3, 2010, 05:40 PM

TC, we will have to agree to disagree because we will never see eye to eye on this one.

Not a problem Kinsella. I absolutely respect your position on this as well, as you see it totally and completely from the eyes of your contacts within the TB breeding/racing world

Is your opinion influenced by the people you know / deal with in the TB world? Very possibly, but I'm sure mine is as well ... ;)

I dont see this as "Pandora's Box" being opened but rather as another option for allowing different bloodlines to come into our gene pool from farther afield, and perhaps getting some Mare Owners to breed to some TB stallions, that they would have never considered before, simply because of the geographical and logistic hurdles they would have to overcome to do so ...

ShannonD

Jan. 3, 2010, 10:01 PM

Innocent question here...

Would one of these racing passports "count" as verification of parentage, and possibly be acceptable "papers" for WB registries if presented as breeding stock? If the JC says they can't be bred, I'm sure that just means within the Thoroughbred breed...

Kinsella

Jan. 3, 2010, 10:06 PM

You know, that may be a possibility. I honestly never thought about that... And yes the JC saying they can't be bred is only referring to within the breed for registered JC foals.

Laurierace

Jan. 3, 2010, 10:48 PM

They do not advertise it, but yes it is an option. FWIW, the colt from the mare at Philly could have actually gotten real papers if they had id'd the sire (and he was in fact a TB). But it isn't something that has much use, especially considering that the TB's in question (AI'd ones) aren't exactly race pedigrees...

She was a filly that they named Amazing Philly for her birth place. She did race but not very well so I imagine breeding her for a race horse wasn't much of a concern. The rationlization for allowing her to be raced is she had to have been sired by a TB as that is all her dam had ever been stabled with. That's rock solid proof right there!

danceronice

Jan. 3, 2010, 11:50 PM

Really? Why would allowing AI mean that high stud fees for the 'big name KY boys' would drop and make it affordable for all breeders? There are always going to be breeders who cannot afford to breed to horses over $X fee, whatever that might be - so won't there always be a market for the nice, but not "big name," expensive stallions?

Well, if you can breed, say, 10 mares from one collection, rather than just the one (live cover), then eventually Econ 101 says the price goes down. Your commodity is suddenly no longer so exclusive. Cut the price , quadruple (or more) the number of customers you serve, and suddenly you can drive smaller competitors out of business a lot more easily. The market for the non-big-names will drop, unless the big names maintain extremely limited books even with AI.

And like Kinsella said, in response to the argument about shipping, how many mare owners keep the mares at home? Especially top-end owners? And really, why would you want to? They're not pets or riding horses, they're broodmares. You might as well keep them on a breeding farm, and unless you're staggeringly wealthy odds are you don't own one of those. The offspring go into training much sooner than pets or show animals, too, so it's not like you need that in the backyard, either.

Albion

Jan. 3, 2010, 11:59 PM

Well, if you can breed, say, 10 mares from one collection, rather than just the one (live cover), then eventually Econ 101 says the price goes down. Your commodity is suddenly no longer so exclusive. Cut the price , quadruple (or more) the number of customers you serve, and suddenly you can drive smaller competitors out of business a lot more easily. The market for the non-big-names will drop, unless the big names maintain extremely limited books even with AI.

Your commodity is only no longer exclusive if you make it that way. I can buy jewelry a lot of places, but Tiffany's still commands a premium. I have a hard time fathoming that stud fees would drop to the point that Joe Blow of some regional market is suddenly going to be able to afford to the big name, high dollar studs - or that farms would really want to be breeding mares of negligible value. Wouldn't that be a bad move for them, considering the value placed on TB sires' statistics re: starters, stakes winners, etc.?

What's happened to stud fees in breeds that have gone from LC-only to AI allowed? That should be easy to research.

Equilibrium

Jan. 4, 2010, 01:24 AM

Kinsella you have brought up some good points, but some of the rest of us breed TB's for racing too and think maybe a choice would be good. AI has not always been a winner for me. In fact, last year, I sent 2 of my mares to the stud farm to be covered AI. Why? Because it was cheaper. My mares were at the farm for 1 month with a 150euro all in vet package for each mare and the keep was 5euro per day per mare. Had I had my vet in multiple times here, plus all the logistics of everything, it would have cost much more. I did elect to breed one at home which went according to plan, but with all the scans and breeding my vet fee was higher.

Now the cost of leaving my TB mare at a TB stud is just ridiculous. There is no all in vet fee and a host of other stupid charges. I use to drop off my mare with her feet newly done and say " if you want my mare to see the farrier then you can pay for it. Do not worm my mare because she is on a schedule and does not need it. Also she is up to date on vaccines as per her passport and does not need another." Once we had that cleared up prices were better, but still astronomical. And quite frankly charging me 250 extra for a grooms fee - WTF! What is my 27 euros a day for? Now do you see some of the reason why stud farms might not like AI? That's a lot of money for nothing they would miss out on. But smaller "boutique" farms could find a nice little living offering services a bigger farm who plays to the masses couldn't. They could offer quality care and all in fees for vet work til mare is pregnant.

All I'm saying is a choice would be nice. Nobody would hold a gun to your head and say "you must do AI". There will still be live cover going on. BUT, the only reason I am against AI is because of ET and I don't think you can have one without the other. I do believe when you look through a catalog most people look at the dam. I only look up at the stallion after finding the mother or motherline. I don't want to look in the catalog and see 3 Serenas Song yearlings. The value is in the mare.

On the nurse mare thing. One the reasons a mare will be taken from her foal is HER danger to PEOPLE, not her foal. This becomes a serious liability for workers involved. That is why Rags to Riches had her foal taken off of her. If you have ever been involved with the purely wicked you would know it's a necessary evil unless you want a host of lawsuits.

Terri

TrueColours

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:46 AM

Your commodity is only no longer exclusive if you make it that way. I can buy jewelry a lot of places, but Tiffany's still commands a premium. I have a hard time fathoming that stud fees would drop to the point that Joe Blow of some regional market is suddenly going to be able to afford to the big name, high dollar studs - or that farms would really want to be breeding mares of negligible value. Wouldn't that be a bad move for them, considering the value placed on TB sires' statistics re: starters, stakes winners, etc.?

Albion - IMO - you probably summed it up as perfectly as this topic CAN be summed up with your comments :)

Your Tiffany's analogy was perfect IMO ...

I am also hoping that fringe, regional stallion that stands in some obscure place like LA or MO is now accessible to this TB for Sport breeder up here in Canada and when I look at his pictures, his conformation, his movement and his type and his very affordable stud fee, it makes sense to include him in my breeding program

I dont think I am the exception here either. I think a lot of Mare Owners would like to consider TB stallions for their TB mares as well, but having to ship the mare and/or the mare and her foal, precludes them from ever considering doing so

Equilibrium

Jan. 4, 2010, 12:12 PM

Your commodity is only no longer exclusive if you make it that way. I can buy jewelry a lot of places, but Tiffany's still commands a premium. I have a hard time fathoming that stud fees would drop to the point that Joe Blow of some regional market is suddenly going to be able to afford to the big name, high dollar studs - or that farms would really want to be breeding mares of negligible value. Wouldn't that be a bad move for them, considering the value placed on TB sires' statistics re: starters, stakes winners, etc.?

What's happened to stud fees in breeds that have gone from LC-only to AI allowed? That should be easy to research.

Actually, over on ThoroughbredChampions.com, this same debate is going on and a person in Standardbred breeding piped up.

She said far from narrowing the gene pool, some outcross stallions have been a surprise. And one stallion has gained notority siring very small crops but siring nothing but winners so this stallion is now busy. So it seems as though it does work for Standardbreds. And yes they aren't as global and they haven't as many to really compare, but it has done some improving.

Terri

Drvmb1ggl3

Jan. 4, 2010, 12:42 PM

Actually, over on ThoroughbredChampions.com, this same debate is going on and a person in Standardbred breeding piped up.

She said far from narrowing the gene pool, some outcross stallions have been a surprise. And one stallion has gained notority siring very small crops but siring nothing but winners so this stallion is now busy. So it seems as though it does work for Standardbreds. And yes they aren't as global and they haven't as many to really compare, but it has done some improving.

Terri

Au contraire. There has been a noted decline in genetic diversity in the Standardbred population since the intro of AI several decades ago. So much so that the USTA since last year has imposed limits on the number of mares a stallion can be bred to.

http://www.ustrotting.com/pdf/USTARuleBook.pdf

Beginning with the 2009 breeding season, the total mares bred to a stallion standing in the United States that has never bred a mare or had a list of mares bred filed previously shall not exceed the following:

Breeding Season: 2009 2010 2011 and thereafter
Trotting Stallions: 140 140 140
Pacing Stallions: 160 150 140

These limits on total mares bred may only be exceeded in the event of death of a mare which has been bred in which case a new mare may be added to the mares bred list and bred to the stallion. In any such extraordinary circumstances, a signed certificate from a licensed veterinarian (which the Registration Committee may require to be notarized) verifying the death of the mare must be submitted to the Registration Committee. The Registration Committee shall have the sole authority to determine if such extraordinary circumstances did, in fact, exist. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances approved by the Registration Committee, each mare bred in excess of the above limits shall constitute a separate violation of this section, and for each violation a fine in the amount of twice the pertinent stud fee or $25,000.00, whichever is greater, shall be applicable to the violating stallion syndicate, syndicate manager, stallion owner, or stallion manager as the Registration

Fairview Horse Center

Jan. 4, 2010, 12:47 PM

If the Standardbreds are imposing lmits, no reason the JC couldn't.

Drvmb1ggl3

Jan. 4, 2010, 12:49 PM

Here's another quote.

Ken Jackson also explained another key reason for Kentuckiana’s desire to secure Christian Cullen, “In 2004, the USTA engaged Dr. Gus Cothran of the University of Kentucky to study the dramatic loss in genetic variation in the Standardbred horse. This study led to the USTA rules changes to limit stallion books that will go into effect in the next couple of years. Dr. Cothran made it overwhelmingly clear that action must be taken to slow down the rate of loss of genetic variation. He suggested that recovery of variation that is being lost could be achieved by increased breeding of stallion lines that are not well represented in our current breeding population and by breeding to distinct lines outside of North America. We have been searching for this type of stallion for the past several years. After a tremendous amount of research, inspection of horses and conversations with leading trainers and breeders around the world, Christian Cullen became the obvious answer to our search. We are extremely excited about this unique and limited opportunity and look forward to working with breeders in North America. Based upon early expressions of interest and the limited book Cullen will serve, Kentuckiana will be taking pre-booking requests immediately.”

It's ironic that TBs, with live cover, were/are more adept at dispersing bloodlines globally, by shuttling and leasing, than STBs, who've had the benefit of shipped semen for what, 30 or 40 years?

Kinsella

Jan. 4, 2010, 01:22 PM

If the Standardbreds are imposing lmits, no reason the JC couldn't.
If they don't allow AI, it will never be an issue. One which will at some point be protested and taken to court - just ask the AQHA how that goes...

TrueColours

Jan. 4, 2010, 01:31 PM

If they don't allow AI, it will never be an issue.

Kinsella - I really believe its a foregone conclusion that AI will come into the TB breeding world. Whether it is now, or 5 or 10 years down the road, still remains to be seen, and whether Australia leads the charge and the rest are dragged kicking and screaming into the fray, also remains to be seen ...

But if they are smart and prudent and want the ability to control their destiny, they will allow it but with certain restrictions that are being discussed here now, as in how many mares can be booked to each stallion, etc.

I also believe that all of the SB and AQHA and APHA stallions owners can say "We only offer Live Cover to our stallion(s)" the same as TB SO's can, and they can impose their own restrictions on breeding. If their stallion is a puke, it will be the kiss of death for them (and probably rightfully so) and if he is popular and sought after, if Mare Owners were used to only breeding LC to him before, it wont be any stretch for them to continue that way in the future

I still dont understand what is so awful and terrible about offering Mare owner's a choice going forward??? :confused:

Kinsella

Jan. 4, 2010, 03:00 PM

TrueColours

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:21 PM

If you want to breed Jockey Club registered TB's, follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, don't play in their playground. THAT is my biggest issue.

Ah ... but that is also assuming that rules written 5-10-50 years ago should also apply today and we all know that isnt the case. As "things" evolve, so should the rules and parameters surrounding them, to keep up with the times

Hell - I am really going to go out on a limb here Kinsella ...

The "rules" stated that women were not allowed to vote way back when in North America. They also stated that women should not receive schooling in Afghanistan and they should wear Burqa's. They stated that blacks in North America should not have the right to vote and they should sit at the back of the bus. During Prohobition, you were not allowed to drink. Women werent allowed to get abortions - they needed to go in a back room somewhere and pray they made it through alive.

THESE were the rules that you lived and abided by ...

Guess what? Those rules were changed (or SHOULD be changed!) and now the Jockey Club needs to look at changing as well ...

The "playground" has changed Kinsella. The breeding scene is NOT the same today as it was 5-10-50 years ago. Heck - 50 years ago, DNA and bloodtyping didnt exist - and in the case of a stallion such as Milkie, when he came out palomino, the most scientific manner they could use back in the 1950's to determine if he was a TB or not, was to say that his sire Deer Lodge "threw a distinctive looking foot". If Milkie possessed that foot - bingo - he was considered a TB. He did and they gave him his JC papers ...

Then DNA took it a step further. Who knows what changes are coming tomorrow and 10 and 20 years down the road that we cant even fathom today

It is now time for the JC to consider the changes that will allow them to move forward instead of sitting and stagnating. They need to take several steps back and not consider whats good for the select "vocal" and influential few that run these mega million $$$ breeding farms, but what is best for their membership and for the good of their organization as a whole

No one wants to create another registry - why should they? The JC does a perfectly adequate job of record keeping so why re-invent the wheel yet again?

All people are asking is that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has the DNA to PROVE it is a duck - damn well register it as a duck, no matter how the damned duck was conceived in the first place ... ;)

belambi

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:33 PM

Excellent post..

Does that mean that pally did just get into the stud book through lack of proof of otherwise?

Kinsella

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:38 PM

Last time I checked, having registration papers on a horse wasn't a matter of repression or cruelty or slavery or life & death. The comparison is a little over-the-top.

You are right, you don't have to re-invent the wheel. Register with the PHR. They do parentage verification and issue papers. Oh, and they are cheaper than the JC and allow AI. You make money, save money, and everyone wins. What's that? The PHR isn't good enough? Why not? You aren't breeding for the race track, so why aren't they?

TrueColours

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:43 PM

Does that mean that pally did just get into the stud book through lack of proof of otherwise?

Yup. :)

Remembering that back in 1950 when Milkie was born there was neither bloodtyping nor DNA available. If you said the sire of your foal was Old Bob Bowers, so be it - thats how your foal was registered. I guess it was the old "honor" system at play ... ;)

When Milkie came out palomino, they were gobsmacked

The only method they had to determine if he was or wasnt by Deer Lodge was to ask Deer Lodge's owner who said yes - the mare Tootsie T was serviced by his stallion, but in addition, Deer Lodge always threw this "distinctively shaped foot" so the consensus was, if Milkie had this foot, he must be by Deer Lodge. It really was that simple and that cut and dried ...

Now - almost 60 years later there is no way to prove or disprove it either way, so it makes for an interesting story and thats about it ... :)

mistyjewell

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:51 PM

I think the problem with the PHR is that warmblood registries won't accept it? I'm actually not sure on that.

I know I did ask a few registries if a full blooded TB got a CP with a registry, if when an adult could be approved for breeding (obviously through the inspection process, and any other TB mare/stallion). Since the foal would be a full TB by blood, just not have JC papers due to lack of LC. But I was never able to get a straight answer. If you could, that would make things easier by leaps and bounds.

TrueColours

Jan. 4, 2010, 07:53 PM

Last time I checked, having registration papers on a horse wasn't a matter of repression or cruelty or slavery or life & death. The comparison is a little over-the-top.

Okay. Lets use a less dramatic one then ... ;)

We used to have a drivers license system in place in Canada where the day you turned 16 years of age, you could take your driving test and if you passed, you got your full license. No restrictions. No follow up.

In the legislator's wisdom, in recent years they have deemed that most 16 year olds dont possess the maturity to have a full blown license, so they have now gone to a graduated licensing system which everyone is far happier with (except for probably the 16 year olds ... ;) ) which allows them more freedom and relaxation of rules as they progress through the system and gain experience and maturity

Why did the Ministry of Transportation change something that was in effect for 30 or 50 years or longer and WORKED for that long? Simply put - because they realized it was antiquated and didnt apply any longer with the cars and roads we now have in place and decided to effect a change that was more in keeping with the present day situation we are now facing ...

EXACTLY like the Jockey Club needs to do ... ;)

What worked yesterday and today will not necessarily work tomorrow Kinsella ...

I know you have terrific and valid reasons for wanting things to remain the same Kinsella and as mentioned before - I have every bit of respect for that. But others feel just as passionately, with valid reasons as well, why they want to see change effected to this archaic rule once and for all ...

You are right, you don't have to re-invent the wheel. Register with the PHR. They do parentage verification and issue papers.

And I have "0" interest in registering anything with the PHR that legitimately should and can be registered with the JC. Something that is half TB - done deal. I will avail myself of what the PHR has to offer, but full TB? No way ... there is going to be "0" market for that offspring, so why would I???

And yes - we CAN agree to disagree ... ;)

belambi

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:11 AM

So.. Australia was actually doing the right thing by not accepting dilute TBs.. till this year when it was forced to ?

Equilibrium

Jan. 5, 2010, 01:08 AM

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 07:16 AM

So.. Australia was actually doing the right thing by not accepting dilute TBs.. till this year when it was forced to ?

belambi - the Milkie one is one that I am personally familiar with, but from my understanding, BEFORE the advent of blood typing and then DNA testing, there were/are a LOT of TB's with lineage different than that is declared on their registration papers. There were no checks and balances in place, other than someone's word so it then stands to reason that errors will have been made - either by mistake or intentionally. Take your pick ... ;)

Excellent post Terri. A lot of food for thought there ...

vineyridge

Jan. 5, 2010, 09:52 AM

So really, the problem isn't the JC and their rules. It's really, as far as this board is concerned, the WB registries' insistence on JC papers.

Now I do think the North American JC needs to make lots of changes in how it operates, from allowing horse that aren't full TBs to race (France and the UK/Ireland), maintaining a book like Weatherbys Non-TB register, requiring microchipping, and supporting the TB in Sport more than it does, but the live cover rule for TB registry is WORLDWIDE. It's not just North America, and for a change to be effective and protect the export/import business, it would have to be acceptable to the JCs worldwide. Not gonna happen any time soon.

ne1

Jan. 5, 2010, 10:00 AM

....so the proposal is a subset of sport tb's allowed to use ai (and so which will never race (or breed for racing)) and which require some other id to qualify for wb books?

wouldn't just dna tests do? i've been on a wb book bod, and i'm pretty sure this would at least be considered by some, if not most.

taken a step further, a body could be set up which gives credibility to such tb's and centralises the dna work with the wb books. ??

obviously this would have no impact on the racing world, except to require ai collection for which ever of their stallions were to be so used.

such an entity, especially developed in collaboration with the wb books, could do much towards identifying talented tb sport blood.

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 10:07 AM

from allowing horse that aren't full TBs to race (France and the UK/Ireland),

I have NEVER understood this one either and I didnt know that France was in on it as well ...

But there is a breeder in the UK that is breeding tobiano "TB's" out of/by stock that is NOT TB, and I believe the rule is once they achieve 15/16th's TB blood, they will then be considered TB and allowed to race and be bred to other full TB's and will then produce full TB offspring ...

....so the proposal is a subset of sport tb's allowed to use ai (and so which will never race (or breed for racing)) and which require some other id to qualify for wb books?

Not in my opinion it isnt, nor is that the goal of the fellow in Australia that is challenging the JC on this one

The goal is to breed a TB to a TB, live cover or AI, and produce a TB baby that is able to race, show, breed or just sit in a pasture and eat, but will be able to get full Jockey Club papers, no different than one that is bred at Lane's End or Adena or on any other TB breeding farm ...

Firebug

Jan. 5, 2010, 10:26 AM

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what is PHR?

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 10:34 AM

Performance Horse Registry, operated as an offshoot of the JC originally and I *think* it operates independantly now

It recognizes full and part TB's, so if you need Proof of Pedigree for WB approvals (and I believe they still will allow PHR papers to satisfy their requirements) you can get them

I would absolutely use them if I had a half TB offspring that I couldnt get registration for in any other venue, but if I am breeding TB to TB and that foal SHOULD get Jockey Club papers, I would not agree to getting PHR papers on it instead

It is very much regarded as the "poor cousin" in the breeding world, with the foal being not quite so good as his REAL TB brethren and wouldnt have the same value either so "0" interest in producing foals that would only get PHR papers

Kinsella

Jan. 5, 2010, 11:32 AM

If you are breeding TB to TB just like Lane's End and Adena, which is by following the rules of the JC, you will get JC papers.

The PHR is thought of as a lesser registry because people make statements like
It is very much regarded as the "poor cousin" in the breeding world, with the foal being not quite so good as his REAL TB brethren and wouldnt have the same value either so "0" interest in producing foals that would only get PHR papers.
in response to someone who has no idea what PHR is. Do you think Firebug has a good image of the PHR now? And why don't they? Because YOU said it wasn't good. If the same people that are complaining about the JC and AI would stand behind the PHR instead of bashing it, maybe it could become what it was intended to be - a registry for SPORT TB's and crossbreds that is respected and accepted.

Drvmb1ggl3

Jan. 5, 2010, 11:35 AM

Drvmb,

I was getting my info from a person who breeds standardbreds. I believe the industry was failing before AI. I thought a breeders perspective, someone who is actually in the business, was interesting.

The TB industry is in a freefall. So lets say for arguments sake they did allow AI. Statistically speaking it will look like it didn't help anything. But AI has nothing to do with 7mil euro being cut from racing purses. And AI has nothing to do with not having slots and losing a racing industry. It will have nothing to do with people not making their stud fees back. Or that for the third year in a row the mare you're breeding hasn't managed to have a foal make over 1000euros but yet you still keep breeding. All of this happens now and most of the examples are from over here. Statistically speaking things couldn't be any worse, but yet people think AI will cause more problems. I don't buy it.

Terri

Terri,
I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

The idea that AI wouldn't affect genetic variation/diversity in TBs is often trotted out, with Standardbreds used as an example. That is plain wrong. The genetic genepool of STBs has shrunk since the intro of AI, so much so that the USTA became alarmed enough to introduce book limits on studs.

The idea that AI allows easier outcrossing to stud lines in far flung parts of the globe all sounds great as a theoretical concept. The reality would actually be otherwise. This is exactly what happened in the STBs. Even with the ability to breed to stallions in NZ, Aus, France trotters, Swedish trotters, for the last 40 odd years by imported semen, they didn't do so. In fact it was the opposite direction, the foreigners are the ones who availed of the US semen and imported it wholesale. And while this made their own horses faster, it was lamented by the locals in that it has gone a long way towards obliterating their own local bloodlines.

US TB breeders wouldn't be shipping in semen from Monsun and his sons, because they have no desire to bred to those lines, because the are slow to develop and run long. The only people who think that is a great idea are idealists on BBs like this, who generally don't breed racehorses. More often than not the reason that many TB stallions stand in other parts of the world is because they weren't wanted in the US. If people didn't breed to them when they were in the US, it's unlikely people will be lining up to import their semen back in to the country.

So yes, when the JC USA and the other TB studbooks worldwide say that one the reasons that they oppose AI is because of the shrinking of the gene pool, they have a valid argument. There may be plenty of other reasons, economic or otherwise.

Firebug

Jan. 5, 2010, 11:47 AM

Thank you. I didn't know there was a registry out there for half TB's or TB's breed with AI.

Is the PHR only for half TB's and TB's bred with AI? Or is it open to other breeds? I'm just wondering if it's only for TB's why they didn't put Thoroughbred in the registration title.

Now I'm not a breeder or in the racing industry. But....

What if the JC allowed you to register your AI TB with the JC, but you wouldn't be allowed to race the horse (the horse would get a brand or a different tattoo to indicate they couldn't race), and the papers would be a different color. (Think Appendix QH's who get yellow papers instead of white)
Would you be interested in something like this?

Or do you think the JC should have two registries one for horses that were bred with live cover, and one for horses that were bred with AI.

I don't know if AI should be allowed in racing horses/the jockey club or not, but it would be nice if TB horses that were bred with AI ( most likely to be used as sport horses could be registered with a registry that isn't considered a poor cousin.

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 11:56 AM

Do you think Firebug has a good image of the PHR now? And why don't they? Because YOU said it wasn't good. If the same people that are complaining about the JC and AI would stand behind the PHR instead of bashing it, maybe it could become what it was intended to be - a registry for SPORT TB's and crossbreds that is respected and accepted.

Kinsella - we can agree to disagree on this point. I will stand by my assertion that out there in the "real" world, the PHR does not have the same credibility and the same respect that the JC does. Shoot me. It a real perception and not just one that I alone have about it ... ;)

Take 2 identical mares. One is approved Hanoverian and one is approved AWS. Which one would YOU buy if the price points were the same and the animal standing in front of you was the same? How about the correct answer is the Hanoverian approved one as THAT registry has more credibility and more respect attached to it ...

What if the JC allowed you to register your AI TB with the JC, but you wouldn't be allowed to race the horse (the horse would get a brand or a different tattoo to indicate they couldn't race), and the papers would be a different color. (Think Appendix QH's who get yellow papers instead of white)
Would you be interested in something like this?

Or do you think the JC should have two registries one for horses that were bred with live cover, and one for horses that were bred with AI.

Great idea in theory, not so great in practice ... ;)

What happens if you buy my pink papered AI produced TB baby and a few years down the road, you breed it - Live Cover - to a blue papered "real" TB. Should that resultant baby get pink papers or blue papers? Is there some point down the road where that pink papered TB CAN in fact produce a blue papered foal, or forevermore is it slated to only produce pink papered foals? :confused:

Kinsella

Jan. 5, 2010, 11:56 AM

Kinsella

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:04 PM

Kinsella - we can agree to disagree on this point. I will stand by my assertion that out there in the "real" world, the PHR does not have the same credibility and the same respect that the JC does. Shoot me. It a real perception and not just one that I alone have about it ... ;)

Take 2 identical mares. One is approved Hanoverian and one is approved AWS. Which one would YOU buy if the price points were the same and the animal standing in front of you was the same? How about the correct answer is the Hanoverian approved one as THAT registry has more credibility and more respect attached to it ...

But the perception of the PHR is BECAUSE of people that bash it. If people sang it's praises, what do you think would happen? THAT is my point re: the PHR.

Of the two identical mares, I would pick the one that best fit my personality, budget and goals. But then I base the value of a horse on the horse, not what papers it has.

We shall agree to disagree. You'll hear no more from me on this subject.

Firebug

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:12 PM

***thank you for proving my point***
You had no idea what the PHR was, you know nothing about it at all, and you now think of it as a poor cousin. :sigh:

I don't consider it a poor cousin since I haven't done any personal research. I probably shouldn't have said poor cousin. But if PHR is indeed considered a poor cousin in the breeding world then I do think it is sad that there isn't a registry for TB's out there that has the same respect that the JC does.

3Dogs

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:17 PM

I am trying to follow this discussion and just need to ask a simple couple of questions:

The JC is set up for the RACING TB industry -

TC - you do not stand a RACING TB, but one you want to promote as a sport horse TB

Why should the RACING TB industry be interested in changing rules for a SPORTHORSE TB breeder who may represent a miniscule fraction of the TB breeding industry and for a discipline they, the JC, are not interested in? Certainly you don't suppose someone would breed to your TB to get a RACING offspring?

So is all this about papers??
So why get your TB stallion approved by a registry that is dedicated to sporthorses OR use the PHR as an avenue. Or follow Kinsella's lead and set up your OWN sporthorse TB registry. Sadly, PHR never has done itself much good - no marketing, no promoting, etc but doesn't mean it couldn't be improved to be meaningful.
Why should the Elephant change (and perhaps in a direction not good for the breed) for the flea on it's back?

Firebug

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:18 PM

Great idea in theory, not so great in practice ... ;)

What happens if you buy my pink papered AI produced TB baby and a few years down the road, you breed it - Live Cover - to a blue papered "real" TB. Should that resultant baby get pink papers or blue papers? Is there some point down the road where that pink papered TB CAN in fact produce a blue papered foal, or forevermore is it slated to only produce pink papered foals?

I have no idea. It was just a thought. I'm guessing that all the offspring of the pink papered TB would always have to have pink papers.

I know in the QH world if the Appendix QH earns enough points showing they can get full QH papers, but that example doesn't help in the TB industry.

Firebug

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:24 PM

3DOGS

I always wondered why there wasn't a Thoroughbred Sport Horse registry.

You could register AI bred TB's and half TB's. The registry could become like other breed registries and have show's, year end awards, and could do a lot to promote the TB breed.

But I'm hijacking the thread so I'll let it get back on track.

Equilibrium

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:34 PM

Drvmb,

So you're saying nobody would have been interested in Sadlers Wells or Danehill and not not sons of said stallion the actual stallion. Actually Danehill would have been the better fit for American breeding what with his downhill build, back at the knee, and small feet conformation.

And while people in the US don't give a squat about longevity doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. And I'm not talking NH horses. And once more I know you know this so am unclear about why you're attacking everything I say. And funny thing is, this change of more stamina based horses over here has happened recently. The stallions that were standing when I first came to the ones standing now are in fact a little different. When I first came Yeats would have been to the NH ranks at the start. Now he's been given a chance to succeed on the flat.

Just because U.S. breeders don't want stamina doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Sorry when you're on an island off an island off the mainland you might see AI differently.

Nick,
When I inquired with the KWPN after registering my TB mare I asked them about the Weatherby's non-TB register. To them it was not a TB and therefore any babies would have been in Reg. B not Reg A. Now I don't know who I talked to and maybe the language didn't get computed as well, but that is the difference with the Non-TB register and regular TB reg. Heck Goresbridge held some showing classes around the country for TB mares and foals a few years back with good prize money. Where I lived at the time the woman had an amazing mare by Strong Gale that she wanted to take to these classes. She wasn't allowed as she just wasn't a TB. All the passports clearly state Non TB and also in any sales catalog it's clearly stated. They can run but they still get treated as second class.

Terri

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 12:43 PM

Why should the RACING TB industry be interested in changing rules for a SPORTHORSE TB breeder who may represent a miniscule fraction of the TB breeding industry and for a discipline they, the JC, are not interested in? Certainly you don't suppose someone would breed to your TB to get a RACING offspring?

Nope. Not in a million years ... even though some clients have actually done just that and I wish them all the best in their endeavours ...

BUT ... Its not ME that is challenging this rule. I am simply in agreement with his viewpoint and very much hope he is successful as it will then open up a world of opportunity for me and other TB SPORT HORSE breeders that wish to avail themselves of TB semen from another country. It is a TB RACE breeder and RACE owner in Australia that very much breeds 100% for the race track that is leading the charge, and he very much has a lot at stake. Hence his decision to take on the Jockey Club and see if he can get a new set of rules in place, in Australia to start, hopefully the Far East next, then Europe and finally North America ...

This was a very interesting post over on Pedigree Query that bears repeating over here as well:

All countries, including the USA, that use the British justice system accept foreign court decisions as precedent. There is a heirarchy to precedents and ignoring that heirarchy would by what Justice Kennedy was criticized for. The general rule for accepting a foreign court decision as guidance is that there are no domestic precedents that are even remotely similar. In the AI situation the US courts have dealt extensively with restraint of trade cases under US law as well as specifically restraint of trade with respect to livestock. Given that any US judge hearing a case would be unfamiliar with the nuances of Australian law and they have many US precedents under law that is familiar to them, they would not put much weight if any on the Australian decision.

That being said, given the size of the Australian Jockey Club, and its' significance to the global industry it is likely that the Asian countries would follow the Australian lead in accepting AI. As more and more countries accept Australian AI bred horses, the US Jockey Club would come under increasing pressure to do so even without a US court case. JMO

At a certain point in time, if Australia does allow AI within the TB breeding industry and then - as mentioned - the Far East follows, Pandora's Box will have been opened and there will no longer be a choice and it doesnt matter how much the US Jockey Club kicks and screams. They will have to accept it and put provisions in place for managing it - they will no longer be able to outright ban it

Drvmb1ggl3

Jan. 5, 2010, 01:27 PM

vineyridge

Jan. 5, 2010, 03:29 PM

Just to clarify--the Brits, Irish, French, and, I believe, the Australians allow horses to race that are not pure TB. It's much more common in chasing than in flat racing, but it happens. In France, the non-TBs are called Autre Pur Sang, and a couple have won the biggest French chase in the past ten years.

I've recently read an Australian article about a line of horses that have been entered in the Aussie Stud Book, thanks to their racing performance.

From what I recall, these countries allow horses who are pure TB for eight generations to be registered as TB if they meet certain racing results standards.

FWIW.

TrueColours

Jan. 5, 2010, 07:47 PM

From a purely economic perspective, the major studs in KY want AI to be accepted in the rest of the world but not in the US. This is the profit maximizing solution for KY farms. All the top US mares still have to travel to KY for natural cover and the best mares everywhere else can be covered by the top KY stallions by AI. The idiot in Australia who started this case never thought about that. If AI is permitted in AUS the top US and Euro stallions can cover all the AUS mares without having the expense of shipping them half way around the world.

This is a very interesting comment posted over on Pedigree Query ... :)

Wouldnt THIS be interesting if all countries other than the US did adopt AI breeding, and the KY based stallions could have their cake and eat it too?! :lol:

Very interesting twist ... ;)

Portia

Jan. 5, 2010, 08:08 PM

From a legal perspective only, this is a very interesting case to watch. I think most lawyers who have looked at breeding issues would tell you it was coming, just a question of when and where.

I know nothing about Australia's competition law, but if it is close to the U.S. antitrust or EU competition law, the JC is going to have a fairly difficult time in defending the live cover rule.

Under US antitrust law -- and EU law is even more restrictive -- if a practice is considered anticompetitive, it is not enough that there is a legitimate economic reason for the practice. There has to be a legitimate non-economic reason justifying the practice which outweighs its anticompetitive effects, and even for that reason, it has to be accomplished through the least restrictive means possible (that is, in the way that has the least anticompetitive effect).

The economic effect of the live cover rule for existing breeders and others in the TB industry is clear - it keeps stud fees high, limits the pool of foals and therefore keeps sale prices up, keeps broodmare lay up farms and transporters in business, etc. That's not enough to support keeping the rule under the antitrust laws however.

The central stated reason for the live cover rule was to ensure that the foal was actually the product of the named stallion. For most of the history of the JC, the only way to (hopefully) ensure that was through watching the mating occur in person. Obviously technology, most notably cheap and reliable DNA testing, has made the central argument in favor of the live cover rule obsolete.

The current primary argument on which the JC relies is the one mentioned here, that the live cover rule limits breeding to a particular stallion or line and thereby maintains genetic diversity in the breed. The legal response to that, however, is that there are less restrictive means to achieve that goal than requiring that all breeding be by live cover. That is, rather than requiring that all TBs be bred by live cover, which has an anticompetitive impact on every TB breeder, they could limit the breeding books of the most popular stallions and achieve the same goal with far less anticompetitive effect.

I'm not saying either side is good or bad, right or wrong. Getting rid of the live cover rule might be disasterous for Central Kentucky and other areas or it might be great for the industry in the long run. Just looking at it from the lawyer view as an interesting legal question (which is one reason people hate lawyers.) ;)

Christa P

Jan. 7, 2010, 04:03 PM

I haven't noticed this mentioned in this thread, but it cae up when the case was discussed on the racing forum.

This part of the Australian rules I think was a big part of the problem:

From the first post in the racing forum thread:

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232247&highlight=Australian+TB+AI

Under the rules of racing, a horse cannot run in a race or official trial unless it is registered; to be registered, it has to be accepted in the Australian Stud Book. But the stud book refuses to accept any horse which has been produced ''by any form of artificial breeding or from a natural covering of a mare by a stallion which in that same covering season was being bred to other mares by artificial insemination (i.e. was a semen donor).''

So if a person has a TB stallion that is used to breed even 1 mare with AI, then NONE of that stallions foals that year are allowed to be registered with the Australian Jockey Club even if the dams are TBs bred live cover.

A pretty big restaint of trade (the basis of the lawsuit) that I think is very unreasonable. If a stallion owner wants to breed both JC TBs and crossbreds (maybe standing to QH mares for appendix QHs) it shouldn't matter to the JC as long as the TBs are bred live cover according to the rules.

Christa

summerhorse

Jan. 7, 2010, 04:38 PM

There is nothing wrong with giving people choices. You have a choice. If you want to breed Jockey Club registered TB's, follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, don't play in their playground. THAT is my biggest issue. If you want a registry for sport TB's, create one. That's what the founders of the JC did when they wanted a registry for their RACING stock. (And I'd be willing to bet the JC would give access to some of their information to a viable alternative registry for those AI horses.)

The JC would give them the same access that you or I have right now.

The problem with this is that although you MIGHT get a racing license for a non JC reg. foal (might) if that foal turns out to be a champion you cannot breed that horse and make money because the foals cannot be registered in the JC. Which is restraint of trade. As long as the JC maintains a monopoly over the thoroughbred industry then they are restraining people from making either a full living or any living at all. If you don't have those JC papers you can't breed to race, you can't breed for stock horses, you can't breed to most WB registries. Which is a pretty heavy hand over a lot of people's economic lives. It would be different if the papers were not NEEDED to participate but even with DNA proof of parentage a horse is severely limited as to where/when it can compete or breed without that piece of paper.

And someone wouldn't want one of three Serena's Songs in the same year but a couple hundred of (fill in name of Darley or Ashford stallion!) a year in BOTH hemispheres is hunky dory? Huh?

Equilibrium

Jan. 8, 2010, 01:09 AM

The JC would give them the same access that you or I have right now.

The problem with this is that although you MIGHT get a racing license for a non JC reg. foal (might) if that foal turns out to be a champion you cannot breed that horse and make money because the foals cannot be registered in the JC. Which is restraint of trade. As long as the JC maintains a monopoly over the thoroughbred industry then they are restraining people from making either a full living or any living at all. If you don't have those JC papers you can't breed to race, you can't breed for stock horses, you can't breed to most WB registries. Which is a pretty heavy hand over a lot of people's economic lives. It would be different if the papers were not NEEDED to participate but even with DNA proof of parentage a horse is severely limited as to where/when it can compete or breed without that piece of paper.

And someone wouldn't want one of three Serena's Songs in the same year but a couple hundred of (fill in name of Darley or Ashford stallion!) a year in BOTH hemispheres is hunky dory? Huh?

Summer Horse that was me. Didn't say the stallion thing was honky dory did I? But as it stands now a mare can have one foal per year. No I don't like 200 mares per stallion being covered per year in each hemisphere. What you think more mares are going to suddenly appear once we have AI so each stallion can cover 1000 mares? More fool those mare owners I say.

It's all fine and well to blame the Stallion Owners, but as mare owners, we have a duty to make the right choice as well. And no point in saying we have to use those stallions for any chance of success at the sales. More than 1/2, probably 3/4, of those resulting 200 foals never make their stud fee back.

All these issues within the TB industry are already here, over-production, mare owners with delusions of grandeur, trickery at the "sales", ect. AI will not make things worse. The mare, taking into account the foal is well conformed, makes the pedigree, not the stallion. Mare owners can pretend that over-priced stallion will make for gold at the sales, but those days are well and truly over so time to jump on the clue bus.

Terri

Portia

Jan. 8, 2010, 05:15 PM

This part of the Australian rules I think was a big part of the problem:

From the first post in the racing forum thread:

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232247&highlight=Australian+TB+AI

Under the rules of racing, a horse cannot run in a race or official trial unless it is registered; to be registered, it has to be accepted in the Australian Stud Book. But the stud book refuses to accept any horse which has been produced ''by any form of artificial breeding or from a natural covering of a mare by a stallion which in that same covering season was being bred to other mares by artificial insemination (i.e. was a semen donor).''

So if a person has a TB stallion that is used to breed even 1 mare with AI, then NONE of that stallions foals that year are allowed to be registered with the Australian Jockey Club even if the dams are TBs bred live cover.

Oooh, that is a rather nasty and blatant restraint of trade. Wonder what reason they've claimed for the non-economic need for that one?

TrueColours

Jan. 8, 2010, 05:52 PM

Oooh, that is a rather nasty and blatant restraint of trade. Wonder what reason they've claimed for the non-economic need for that one?

Portia - from a strictly interesting legal perspective then, one would assume this is going to easily be found in favor of the Australian plaintiff because it is so blatant.

Assuming that happens, and the Far East Jockey Clubs go along with it as well, because it makes economic sense for them to do so, and perhaps the European ones as well, is there a certain point in time that the North American Jockey Club would have to follow suit and capitulate (even though they dont have the same restraining clause in their rules regarding:

''by any form of artificial breeding or from a natural covering of a mare by a stallion which in that same covering season was being bred to other mares by artificial insemination (i.e. was a semen donor).''

or - can they hold out and go it on their own, and not allow any NA based stallions to breed via AI ???

I just can imagine the kerfuffle it would potentially cause, with the Australians getting their backs up and potentially the FE and European members as well, if NA is the lone hold out if this all comes to pass

It will be interesting for sure to follow the progress of this one ... :)

halo

Jan. 9, 2010, 08:16 PM

Cross posting from another forum, from someone who is a USTA member and breeder of standardbreds:

"ps with AI, trying to enforce state bred rules for stallions would invite more restraint of trade lawsuits since you can ship semen anywhere. And you suggest that KY stallions would be marketed out of state, so why do I need the lesser stallion down the road, again?
This is actually happening with Standardbreds and Sire Stakes programs."

(response to above quoted post)

As a member of the USTA I am not seeing this at all. Where are you getting your information (it may very well be different than mine)? The problems I have seen has nothing to do with AI or the programs themselves but everything to do with poor economic times and poor promotion of the sport.

I can see how AI could be an economic disaster to Kentucky in terms of shipping and boarding. But it is safer for the horses and people. There ARE ways to "protect" the industry: require the mare to be on site pops into my head.

I'm not understanding the whole "restriction of fair trade" bit either- recently the USTA instituted rules that restrict the books of ALL stallions. Beginning THIS year (2009), any stallion just beginning his breeding career is limited to the number of mares he can breed (140 for trotters and 160 for pacers). By 2011, ALL incoming stallions are restricted to 140. The thing is, most farms have *already* began restricting books BECAUSE of economics. If you are putting a new rule in the books, it shouldn't be difficult to put some restrictions in place. It *certainly* has to be easier than going BACK and doing it (and the USTA has shown it can be done).

Anyway, just my 2c from somebody involved in a racing industry that does use AI (and ET too- limit one foal per mare and usually used for mares who A) can not carry a foal for a non-hereditary reason [think Toussaud] or B) so the mare can continue to race).

Two articles from the "other side" (and sorry if they were posted already):

http://thebreed.thethoroughbred.com.au/archives/326

http://www.thethoroughbred.com.au/uploads/downloads/20091208_111225_stan_bergstein_article.pdf

"Take a look at how the Standardbred gene pool has DRAMATICALLY shrunk since the advent of AI. Many breeders are starting to worry now that there are literally no outcrosses, as the French and Scandinavian trotting bloodlines have either died out or been assimilated into the American bloodlines. And if you think that big breeders will self-regulate, think again-Western Hanover, one of the major sires of the 80s and 90s, had more than twice as many offspring as Seattle Slew in a stud career of similar length.
Take a look at the online Standardbred stallion register. http://stars.ustrotting.com/pgSearch.cfm Notice anything interesting about the pedigrees?"

(the following is in answer to the above quote)

It's an interesting situation. Have the lines shrunk? Yes. Has the breed improved? Drastically. I also find it very interesting that just when folks begin to worry about the future of the standardbred breeding up pops an outcross (in the past 20 years of trotters there was Balanced Image, Nearly Perfect, SJ's Photo and Garland Lobell) that mixes things up and continues to move the breed forward. If anything, have AI has helped as we can then better spread those new lines about the country.

You state how Western Hanover had more offspring than Seattle Slew. However, they are from different time periods (Slew from the 80s-90s while Western bred from the 90s-00s). Apples to apples, in 2001 Western Hanover bred 187 mares (his 2nd highest number of mares covered). The same year Thunder Gulch covered 371, Honour and Glory covered 292, Fusaichi Pegasus covered 273, etc, etc. Granted, these numbers are from two hemispheres but which is going to have a bigger negative effect on the breed?

I feel the USTA has done a good job of learning to balance technology and tradition. When we make mistakes, we learn and adjust. As far as the quality of our breed, it has never been better. I wish we would learn some of the marketing ideas of the thoroughbreds but I have long believed that the Jockey Club could learn a lot from our willingness to change with the times, especially reproductively.