Thoroughbred racing, and especially its breeding aspects, is something of a passion for me, so I'll address several of your points.

It's true that stallions can cover many more times per day then we generally let them (the average stud covers 1-2 per day). The fact is that we humans can't keep up. Yes, mares can ocassionally be injured by a particularly massive stallion, but the much more common occurrence is the stallions getting kicked or otherwise mauled by agressive and fearful females. As such, breeding is a 5+ person job. One to hold the stallion, one to hold the mare, one to hold one of the mare's front feet off the ground to prevent kicking, one to "guide" the stallion in and catch the "drip", and one to observe the whole process and ensure flagging (the waving of a stallion's tail that generally indicates ejaculation). If you're a small time single stud farm, you could probably handle more than 2 mares a day per stallion...but with multiple males, the human staff gets overtaxed. So, you're generally looking at 2 mares per day through the late January to early June breeding season...and then you have to take into account 2 mounts per mare to ensure conception and the fact that some mares will have to be sent back again anyways for failure to conceive... the point is it's not the stallion that's constraining the business. In fact, the only reason stallions have recently started upping their yearly quotas is because "shuttling" has become popular. This means a horse will stand 6 months in the north and 6 months in Australia, South Africa, or the like...thus taking advantage of both breeding seasons.

Now, with all the potential dangers and hassles, many have questioned why the thoroughbred industry is so insistent on live cover as opposed to artificial insemination. There are several reasons, none of which, I have to admit, are based upon concerns for the horse's welfare.

The first reason is the assurance of purity. All thoroughbreds around the world trace their lineage back to three 17th century arabic stallions. When you buy a racing thoroughbred you know you can trace him back in all directions to the 1600's. And so, there's a bit of snobbery involved. No matter what safeguards you try to put on AI, there will invariably be dilution of the blood.

I had an acquaintance who really wanted to breed holsteiners. She bought some expensive semen from Germany...then she couldn't find any quality holsteiner mares to breed with. Well, she really needed the money and she knew she could sell a half holsteiner of good blood for a not insignificant price, so she started donating the sperm to the mares of any of her friends willing to take it...then she sold of the half holstein half arab/standarbred/national show horse/etc. babies to holsteiner enthusiasts. This is exactly what the Jockey Club is worried about.

However, the real concern is money. Although there are a lot of thoroughbreds in the world (especially in America), those of racing quality are comparatively few when put next to, say, Arabians. The reason for this is the live covers. The fewer the horses in general that can race makes for greater prices paid for thoroughbred sires...especially the good ones. When Storm Cat's owners are getting paid half a million dollars every time he gets off they're well motivated to keep him as a treasured and rare commodity.

Finally, thoroughbred racing is the sport of kings. We have found cuneiform records of horse racing in Assyria, so it holds firm claim to being the oldest recognized sport. And because of all the history involved, it is VERY tradition oriented. As such, it breeds the mindset of "What was good enough for Eclipse and Matchem is good enough for my stallion."

Personally, I'm for keeping the live covers. Why? Because after you have one gelded ex-racer in your barn are you going to take another? The thoroughbred industry already is trying very hard to ensure that non-breeding ex-thoroughbreds find good homes. Essentially, if you don't need the males for live breeding, you don't really need the males. Hello meat factory.

Becky August 3rd, 2007 10:38:00 AM

Thanks for your insight, Becky. I had no idea I'd reach such an expert within seconds of posting this.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 3rd, 2007 10:52:00 AM

Becky wrote, "....then she sold of the half holstein half arab/standarbred/national show horse/etc. babies to holsteiner enthusiasts. This is exactly what the Jockey Club is worried about."

Huh? I'm not following. There are already plenty of TB crosses around. Some of them are called Appendix Quarter Horses. The Arabian Horse Association will register half- to a quarter-percent TB blood as Anglo-Arabian. And the warm-blood group seem fond of TB crosses or TB/draft crosses. Are you saying she sold the get as pure Holsteiner?

I do agree that there are more than enough TB's on the ground to go around and that we don't need anymore of them or their crosses. I hadn't connected the dots that all these foals are as a result of live cover. You're right, that alone is an arguement for not going the AI route. It's hard enough to find homes for all of them as it is.

Deanna August 3rd, 2007 12:04:00 PM

My sympathies are with the stallions on the health front too - as Becky says, one well-placed eye-watering kick from a scared or stroppy mare is all it takes to put a stallion out of business. Even at well run outfits the risk is far from negligible per-covering, and with determined shuttle stallions covering several hundred mares a year it's a considerable health hazard.

I don't know too much about the US Jockey Club but you may be doing them a small disservice by singling them out - as members of the IFHA and therefore signatories to the International Agreement on Breeding it's not entirely up to them.

For better or worse though, I think the opposition's days are numbered if only because the AI ban is likely to fall foul of restraint of trade laws in several countries - the rule is basically protectionist, after all. If a country like Australia overturns the ban then the TB community will face a choice: adapt to life with AI, or fragment.

Don't underestimate the politics behind the current state of affairs. Here in the UK, the Equine Fertility Unit in Newmarket - which relied on the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association for funding - is closing at the end of the year. It's a sad loss to vet medicine and the equine world in general, and it seems that their research into and practice of ET & AI may be at least part of the reason for the TBA withdrawing funding.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/article.php?ai...

Just thinking about your point on DNA testing - is it really that much of a silver bullet for this problem? It certainly introduces a whole now set of possibilities for fraud. With ET on the rise and cloning an increasingly commonplace reality, maybe studbooks shouldn't be ridiculed too much for jealously protecting their bloodlines, at least, even if they take some convincing about new techniques.

This is interesting debate on ET in Australia from a few years back:

http://www.cyberhorse.com.au/tvf/bill/1202fleming1...

(disclaimer: Jim's one of my former employers ;)

James August 3rd, 2007 02:35:00 PM

Well, technically, if you're not going to register with the thoroughbred registry, you can use AI. I've always assumed many of the crosses were started that way. I supposed that serious breeders might avoid it to keep from becoming social outcasts?

Mares cause havoc in breeding sheds because they dislike reproducing with strangers who don't follow courtship rituals. Can't blame them, really. I'd kick too.

Compcat August 3rd, 2007 03:29:00 PM

> Mares cause havoc in breeding sheds because they dislike reproducing with strangers
> who don't follow courtship rituals.

Hah, yeah. Equally, my mare's a complete tart.

The saddest thing in breeding in general is people who keep stallions without really having the facilities to contain 700kgs of testosterone. They end up living 100% indoors, go stir crazy, and because of that when they pull strongly outside or go for the nearest mare, they get labeled as psychos and let around in chiffneys.

James August 3rd, 2007 05:51:00 PM

On DNA testing: It's not hard to prove that a baby is both the father's and the mother's. It's actually less fraud-ridden than the traditional approach. After all, who got to that mare before or after that stallion did? Why is this not acceptable? I'll take my answer off the air.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 3rd, 2007 05:53:00 PM

Yeah, I wasn't arguing with the science, Patty. It is, as always, the human element I distrust.

Maybe there should be track side random DNA testing? Coupled with a suitable database, it would be next to impossible to run a ringer, for instance, and there could be other benefits to such a database for breeders.

I brought ET into it because the agreement states that to produce an eligible foal:

'A natural gestation must take place in, and delivery must be from, the body of the same Mare in which the Foal was conceived. Any Foal resulting from or produced by the processes of Artificial Insemination, Embryo Transfer or Transplant, Cloning or any other form of genetic manipulation not herein specified, shall not be eligible for recording in a Thoroughbred Stud Book approved by the International Stud Book Committee.'

How would you handle clones?

James August 3rd, 2007 08:43:00 PM

All t-breds are tattoed, these are checked along with identifying markings prior to each race. DNA is reqiured to register with The Jockey Club. Breedings are registered prior to foaling, then with a live foal the registration can proceed....photographs, DNA etc.

Jan August 3rd, 2007 08:57:00 PM

You know, it always amazes me when medical professionals, especially those involved in academia, draw conclusions that natural processes are somehow wrong. I used to breed Quarter Horses on a very small scale, back before AI was the norm. Sure, a mare can kick the patootie out of a randy, overzealous stallion, but really... if he is allowed to socialize with mares throughout his lifetime, any stallion who values his own life and limb learns when it's safe to approach a mare and when it isn't. The flip side of that coin is that mares are rarely socialized with stallions, and thus do not know what to expect from them.

I did a lot of hand breeding all by myself and I didn't need any helpers (although I kept a phone handy in case I got hurt and was still conscious). I never hobbled a mare. I never guided the stallion or caught drips or used twitches or leaned on his butt for better penetration. Yes, I had to make sure the mares were in full standing heat, and I had to trust my stallion to know the difference between one that would accept him and one that would rather break his back legs. I palpated mares but sure didn't have an ultrasound. And I never had a mare that didn't take, except for one that had a genetic condition that was unknown at that time and can now be tested for.

Obviously, I'm not commenting on the wisdom or lack thereof regarding the live cover policy of the Jockey club. What I find disturbing is that a study was evidently required to prove that natural breeding might actually be a good thing, or at least a non-detrimental thing for the animals. What's next? A study on whether eating is preferable to IV feeding?

Sometimes it's too easy for us to get all full of ourselves with what we can do with technology, and before you know it, one must invest many thousands of dollars in equipment and labor just to begin to consider breeding a horse, which should be able to be accomplished by <gasp> turning them loose together and letting nature take its course.

Perhaps I sound like a Neanderthal, but I've seen mother nature do some amazing things when left to her own resources - broken bones that knit themselves, wounds that heal without anti-inflammatories, infections that clear up with good cleaning and salve instead of antibiotics, and animals that manage to procreate without human or technological intervention. Intervention has its place, but it takes some knowledge and a bit of faith to know when not to intervene.

That said, because of the economic realities of horse breeding, I have no particular objection to AI, especially now that we can DNA test for parentage. But that business about needing a study to show that live cover might actually be beneficial to the animal... wow. It boggles the mind. Blows it, actually.

Tracy D August 5th, 2007 03:44:00 PM

Actually, I think the study was done just to prove that the conventional wisdom of limiting a stallion's libido to a mere forty mares was an a**-backwards way of thinking. Sometimes academia is there to provide a reasonable perspective on issues the industry takes for granted. Agreed, it's weird, to say the least, that you'd need a study to prove it. But because humans are so...well...human, we sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 6th, 2007 08:56:00 AM

Top racehorse stallions cover more than 100 mares a year. They are "shuttle stallions" standing in both hemispheres. Danehill was a prototype, but there are lots of them now.

Interesting post, as always, Dr. K!

Gina August 7th, 2007 07:05:00 PM

1 major reasons not to go to TB AI?

Quarter Horses. HYPP.

And don't kid yourself that it couldn't happen in TBs. Anytime a top winning sire can get big time stud fees, and anytime a seller thinks they can get big bucks for Top Winning's foals, there is potential for abuse.

As an oldster, I'm afraid I'm with Tracy D. I actually rode my stallions, and the more they were ridden and the more turnout they had, the better they were to handle. I hand bred them, just myself and one assistant, and I had expectations of their gentlemanly behavior at all times. I was always more leery of the mares then my 'boys', but if she wasn't ready and willing, we never pushed the issue. I had excellent conception rates and all live foals. Everyone knows the TB industry has the poorest conception rates of any animal husbandry industry due to the stresses put on the horses.

Thumbs down to AI, and I wish every breed organization would go back to natural cover.

Call me a Luddite.

Andrea August 9th, 2007 01:04:00 AM

A man I once worked for told me that someone proved to the jockey club "on paper" AI would breed out nervous energy. Has anyone heard anything about this?

Brad Lockard October 25th, 2007 09:00:00 AM

The real question is: who should profit the most and retain their livelihoods from thoroughbred breeding/racing? The people who are so passionate about the sport they dedicate their lives to it and the horses, or people in corporate boardrooms who own and sell the patented equipment, and others in the bii-tech industry?

Enthusiasts must be made to understand that's what the fight is really about.

Mary May 3rd, 2009 09:10:09 PM