Artificial insemination: How prevalent is it?

[CS]

I generally don’t pipe-in on these topics, but this one has me needing to get on a soapbox. I hear so many breeders complaining about the number of mares Ashford, Hill n’ Dale, etc breed to their stallions. These are the same people, however, who jump on the Lion Heart bandwagon because of the potential to make money.

One way or the other people. Don’t complain about book sizes then turn around and breed at these same “greedy” (theoretical breeder’s complaint – not mine) farms year after year. I see no need for the Jockey Club, or any other organization, to impose more restrictions. I believe in self-restraint. If breeders say “no more” to 150+ books, then the farms will not have them – it is really that simple. Before you sign your contract ask how many mares the stallion is limited to. There are plenty of farms out there that do not participate in the mega-books. Off the top of my head I can name 3 – Claiborne, Brookdale, and Darby Dan. I’m sure there are plenty more where a big book is an exception rather than a rule.

Breeders need to realize that they are really the ones with all the power – they set stud fees, # mares/book, etc. It is strictly a supply and demand situation. If the breeder wants more A.P. Indy sons – poof – next year there will be 5 retired to stud. If the breeder deems a stallion overpriced – poof – next year there will be a “correction” in his stud fee. And, if breeders take a stand on the number of mares in the book – that too will be addressed.

As far as AI is concerned – I’ve never seen it done. It certainly won’t help a sub-fertile stallion. If their swimmers are poor, then sticking them in a jar in a refrigerator for later use is the LAST thing that will help. I think that if it is happening though, the environment is changing enough that someone will speak out – sooner rather than later.
Or – have breeders do the responsible thing and not agree to be one of 150 mares and AI wouldn’t even be considered.

*Steps off soapbox and zips up flamesuit*

[Sam]

Only if reasonable limits on the number of mares bred (as Sam suggests) would A.I. be acceptable to me.

Actually, I didn't suggest it. I said I consider putting a limit on the number of mares bred, AI and ET a restriction of free trade. What I did suggest was that the Jockey Club, as a private enterprise, lay down a rule stating only [x number] of horses would be registered each year. If someone wants to breed 300 mares to a stallion each year, fine... but the Jockey Club doesn't HAVE to register all 300. Just like if AI were allowed, a stallion owner wouldn't HAVE to use it. That's, essentially, what they are doing now anyway. You can breed a TB off AI... they just won't register it.

As for my position that AI would affect land value in KY... my mistake. When I tend to consider AI, shipping semen is a given. I don't see the point in allowing the practice if it's not going to be beneficial to the small/mid-level breeder. The only way to do that is to allow a mare in CA to receive shipped semen from a stallion in KY or wherever.

[hpkingjr]

I see nothing wrong with semen extenders, post breeding antibiotics and flushes, regumate, ultrasound or any medication, supplement or technique that helps the conception rate.

AI would IMO radically change the state bred programs and pretty much do away with regional sires. Why would anyone breed to any stallion in for example (and this is just for the sake of the discussion) Colorado, TN., Alabama. Georgia, Michigan, or Minnesota when you could get a straw of semen from one of the better stallions in KY, FL or Cal? In five years there wouldn't be any regional sires. Let the market handle the value of Lion Heart foals. I truly believe AI would squeeze out many regional stallions.

[Sam]

Why would anyone breed to any stallion in for example (and this is just for the sake of the discussion) Colorado, TN., Alabama. Georgia, Michigan, or Minnesota when you could get a straw of semen from one of the better stallions in KY, FL or Cal?

Land value.

How many farms are we hearing about in CA where the land is more valuable to developers than it is to the farm that's on it? It makes more sense to have the farm in states like Montana or Colorado where the land is cheap, comparatively speaking (provided you don't mind snow up to your ass 8 months out of the year ). Even the land the tracks are on is worth a fortune to developers... look at Bay Meadows.

If it were a choice between cheap land and AI in Colorado or no AI and paying an exorbitant amount in KY or CA... I think I'd rather be in Colorado.

well..... maybe not Colorado for me personally. I have issues with Denver.

And yes, it likely would drive out a lot of regional stallions... I don't see this as a big deal since there are a lot of regional stallions who shouldn't BE stallions in the first place. There's a hell of a lot of mediocre stallions who would make great geldings flooding the breeding ranks.

[halo]

It really wouldnt hurt regional stallions, if they are involved in a state bred program. A lot of programs now require state bred registration depending upon breeding to an in-state stallion, if you've bred out the previous year. Plus there are many stallions stakes for offspring of stallions standing in a particular state, or state bred breeder awards that are higher for foals by in state stallions. Theres many ways to market regional stallions, and I think they'd do just fine. Might just take some innovative marketing. Would probably weed out the bottom feeders, but then is that so bad?

[Sam]

Would probably weed out the bottom feeders, but then is that so bad?

Exactly. We could only hope it would slow, if not stop, so many horses going to stud simply because they are sired by a particular stallion. For every Danzig, there's a half dozen or more Tiger Ridge. At least Danzig showed talent.

[CA Michael]

CS, in a perfect market economy, breeders would pull all the strings, as you suggest. However, I think it's unrealistic to assume that Ashford (Coolmore) would pay anything more than courteous attention to a breeder's demand that they halve the numbers of mares bred to their horses. Their corporate pyramid relies on the sustainability of gigantic mare books.

Sam, you don't think it's a big deal that regional stallions (i.e. breeders) would disappear if A.I. was legalized? That's the mindset of Darley, Coolmore, and the other megasized Kentucky farms who haven't the slightest interest in the industry outside their wrought iron gates.

[CS]

Michael - I think you are missing my point. Of course if breeders ask the farms to halve the books it won't happen. I'm saying that breeders should themselves take responsibility and choose not to be one of 200. Ask how many mares are being bred to a stallion if it "unlimited" pick a different stallion. If breeders only choose to present 125 mares to a given stallion, AI becomes a moot point.

[Sam]

Sam, you don't think it's a big deal that regional stallions (i.e. breeders) would disappear if A.I. was legalized?

No because I did not say regional stallions would disappear nor do I believe all of them would. Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted.

What would hopefully disappear are the cheap, bullshit "I don't know what to do with him so I'll breed him to anything for $500" stallions who shouldn't be at stud anyway. The argument against AI is that it would narrow the gene pool ... as if it isn't narrow already. That same argument ignores the fact that many of the stallions out there probably shouldn't BE stallions in the first place. There are enough well bred horses filling the claiming races as it is, why persist in breeding more crap?

Do you honestly believe stallions like Al's Wizard and Snow Blink are worth keeping in the breeding ranks, because those are the kind of stallions AI would drive out. I don't have a problem with that.

AI isn't going to greatly affect stallions like Summer, if that's what you're worried about. It will affect stallions like Tiger Ridge who should've been gelded in the first place.

Again, if the QUALITY is there, people will breed to the stallion, regardless of where it stands.

[Sam]

2007 Leading Sires of California

There's 348 horses on that list. Ignoring the dead/pensioned/20yo stallions who are sinking to the bottom through attrition, how many of those horses are really worth fighting for? How many of them do you honestly think should be at stud and are worth breeding to? How many of them would YOU personally like to own and would breed your own mares to?

Kris Kross (Kris S.) has no business being at stud. YEA! Fun Devil (Devil His Due) is 1 for 1 with his starters and has made a whopping $6,210 as a sire. You really want to breed to that?

People come on here all the time and ask about a mare's suitability for breeding... none of us have a problem saying when they think the mare is garbage and should be someone's pet, but you're going to fight to keep horses like Paster's Caper and King Excess in the stallion ranks? Do you see how illogical that is?

[KAL]

I've had thoughts on both sides of this matter...

Now keep in mind that I do have a slight axe to grind with the control, self-interest, and total disregard for fair play or ethics which define the upper levels of this industry. So, I often don't think to deep because I honestly don't think an change will ever be allowed.

Anyway, I actually think there is a far greater chance that regional stallions might improve in two ways. Sam points to land values... which is true... but would not this make it more attractive for someone to set-up shop in... Kansas, (or Louisiana, or Texas, or...). Now, I don't have a problem with some of the bottom feeders... but I do have a problem with some of the "commercialized" bottom feeders. Those are the ones who I think will go away.

At one point, I had drunk the KY coolade and spouted off the reasons for not allowing AI. Now, I think it may be a positive, as long as it is allowed as part of a long-term industry plan... which is impartial and utilizes common sense... which, in this industry, ain't gonna happen.

Heck, this industry pretty much deserves anything negative it sees. I am still baffled at how there is not a central office (commissioner office if you will) for racing. Of course, a first step would be to agree on allowable medications and guidelines... how this has avoided getting done is proof that the various self-interest groups have no interest in fair play, or the good of the industry, nor do they trust each other.

[Sam]

Sam points to land values... which is true... but would not this make it more attractive for someone to set-up shop in... Kansas, (or Louisiana, or Texas, or...).

Exactly. Why should I spend $7m in California for what I can get in Utah for $3m ?

[Rokeby Forever]

State bred progams?

[Sam]

State bred progams?

State eligibility rules are not written in stone. They can be changed to reflect living in the modern age. Who's to say AI wouldn't improve a statebred programme? Right now, there's little incentive to stand stallions in some states. With AI, there's an incentive to 'set up shop' in a cheaper state like Ohio or Utah because you aren't locked into one single state. I could stand my stallion in Utah or Nevada and with a rule rewrite, you could still have a CA-Bred foal to take advantage of the CA state-bred programmes.

[halo]

Actually, Sam, Im thinking the opposite should happen, to preserve regional stallions. Say if you want a Cal bred, and all the benefits that go with it, you could breed AI to a KY stallion and foal in CA, but in order to have that foal eligible for Cal-bred registration, you would have to breed your mare the following year to a stallion standing in California. That would protect the stallion owners in each state. Might even give incentive to bring in better stallions.