AI allegation in Australia

[halo]

Danzig produced a lot of those crooked legs; didnt seem to hurt him. Thats what defines a smart breeder, to take a brilliant horse with issues, breed to sound correct mares, and produce champions and breed shapers. Europe has a way more serious issue with bottlenecking genetics, with Northern Dancer 3, 4, and 5 times in pedigrees. We have no issue with genetic divesity. Uncle Mo, Tapit, Into Mischief are all different breeding wise. The JC isnt telling the truth. They arent concerned with genetic diversity, they are concerned with the stud fee income all going to 3 or 4 farms. They think setting limits will force people to breed to these other horses. It aint happening. Its hard enough making money when you are breeding to horses of your choice. Do you really think people will spend money on breeding to horses they know arent the right horse, they know arent commercial, they know dont produce runners, and they know they will lose money?

I'm not saying detrimental characteristics being passed down has happened. I'm saying what would happen if there was a very commercial stallion(or four) that have detrimental breed characteristics? Given the breeding volume of large stud farms, this could affect a large portion of the breed much faster than in other breeds. More importantly, you are clearly a conscientious breeder. But not all breeders are-I'm sure you've seen breeders whose intent is to breed as commercial a horse as possible-large, pretty, mature looking horses irrespective of ability and health.

You're right by the way-we have many sons of Into Mischief, Tapit, Scat Daddy and AP Indy in the market. This is the trend, and it's not getting better. What happens if it gets worse? Another consideration: expensive stallion valuations are initially largely based on how many mares/stud fees they can get. What do you think of stud book limits lowering valuations of stallions and then by extension lowering the stud fees?

That being said, I've never gotten the impression the JC cares about "equality". But if this is indeed why the JC is intent on limiting stud books, the next question is why stud fees have concentrated at these farms? Into Mischief, Uncle Mo, and Tapit all stand at different farms and each only represent about ~250 mares a year. What about the other ~18-20k foals born every year?

Economics dont work that way. Stud book limits will lower valuations of stallions, but with the farm's bottom line being drastically cut, stud fees have to go up to make up for what has been lost by limiting mares. Not to mention the fact that demand for those top 30 or so horses will go up. Instead of those top 30 horses breeding 5400 mares, they will be breeding 4200 mares, and there will be 1200 mares with very unhappy owners. Its cause and effect. The only question I have is what will now be the limit for the top fees? What will the market bear? I think it will be high.

[Diver52]

I personally suspect that the horse has left the stable (so to speak) and that the "limits" won't do much for genetic diversity. 140 foals is still FOUR TIMES what Secretariat commonly produced. And I wonder how much the market will bear increasing stud fees even more to make up for the "losses" caused by limiting books. Finally--how many mares go to the "top three/four/five" because they are really the best match physically and by pedigree? How many are bred just in the hopes that the foal will be "commercial?" It seems at least possible that if those 60 mare owners who are not able to get to (fill in the blank) have to be a little bit creative, they might actually wind up with a better foal. But the problem is that so few breed to race, and MDO, Tapit etc. are the safe bets commercially.

[CorridorZ75]

It could put small breeders out of the business, if supply and demand raises stud fees, if they don't have the connections to secure a spot in a stallion's limited book, if they don't have the means to buy into a syndicate when a stallion first goes to stud, the trickle down of mares to other stallions will push their mares further down the line, making the resulting foals less commercial.

The thing is, commercial breeders focus on two types of sires: first year stallions, or commercial stallions. If your stallion isn't in one of these categories, their numbers skydive.

While I do agree that ultimately will lose more stallions overseas, at the same time this would force some mare owners to seek other, less commercial stallions which may keep them here longer. We are already at the point where stallions are now being sold overseas before their offspring really have the opportunity to hit the track. (Daredevil, Take Charge Indy).

Then, as others have pointed out, there's the issue of genetic diversity. It's almost impossible to find a horse that has no more than one line to Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector or AP Indy now. This is not breed-ending yet, but imagine if Into Mischief's forelegs bred true to every foal he produced. The thoroughbred would soon be defined by those crooked legs.

Danzig produced a lot of those crooked legs; didnt seem to hurt him. Thats what defines a smart breeder, to take a brilliant horse with issues, breed to sound correct mares, and produce champions and breed shapers. Europe has a way more serious issue with bottlenecking genetics, with Northern Dancer 3, 4, and 5 times in pedigrees. We have no issue with genetic divesity. Uncle Mo, Tapit, Into Mischief are all different breeding wise. The JC isnt telling the truth. They arent concerned with genetic diversity, they are concerned with the stud fee income all going to 3 or 4 farms. They think setting limits will force people to breed to these other horses. It aint happening. Its hard enough making money when you are breeding to horses of your choice. Do you really think people will spend money on breeding to horses they know arent the right horse, they know arent commercial, they know dont produce runners, and they know they will lose money?

Uncle Mo and Tapit both Nasrullah line stallions. Into MIschief goes back to Northern Dancer via Storm Bird so all three are Nearco - line stallions, so not that much diversity to star with. And all three have more than one line back to ND. Also, everything you had stated about the economics for small breeders is already happening and it will just get worse regardless of whether this goes through or not.

[sweettalk]

While genetic diversity may not come into play with all the Tapit and Into Mischief sons at stud, I feel like it has to be a lot healthier for a stallion to breed 140 mares compared to 200+. Why do stallions need to breed 200+ mares in the NH and then shuffle to the SH to do it all over again? That sounds completely unhealthy for them. I don't recall stallions 15 years ago breeding this many mares but maybe I just didn't pay attention.

it's probably unhealthy for them (back legs and spine seem to be the most affected of course, but i do wonder what effect it has on their hearts, especially as thy get older), and - controversial opinion maybe - i personally don't think we need as many foals born a year as we have. i remember a poster we had here briefly bought a tbred mare with a pedigree full of "who?"s and a race record to match that she was insistent on breeding because "she's healthy and i can".

now i'm wondering if this might happen:
S tier stallion is full, mares migrate to A tier
A tier stallion is now full, mares migrate to B tier stallion
B tier is full, C tier comes into play... etc
as opposed to the mare owner just not breeding for the year, they go to a stallion who probably shouldn't even be stallioning.

but it also gives under rated stallions who are actually pretty good but under the radar a chance to shine.

a lot of stuff to weigh. i'm tentatively ok with the cap, the breed was fine before farms went from race horse breeding farms to chicken factories (especially coolmore).

[RugbyGirl]

I'm so confused about what all this has to do with AI in Australia but the stallion cap thread is empty?

[Katewerk]

Then, as others have pointed out, there's the issue of genetic diversity. It's almost impossible to find a horse that has no more than one line to Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector or AP Indy now. This is not breed-ending yet, but imagine if Into Mischief's forelegs bred true to every foal he produced. The thoroughbred would soon be defined by those crooked legs.

Give it time.

[CoronadosQuest]

I'm so confused about what all this has to do with AI in Australia but the stallion cap thread is empty?

I believe its because somebody said the discussion was already happening in this thread, in that thread, as a way to say 'we don't need this in two places'.

[Flanders]

Uncle Mo and Tapit both Nasrullah line stallions. Into MIschief goes back to Northern Dancer via Storm Bird so all three are Nearco - line stallions, so not that much diversity to star with. And all three have more than one line back to ND. Also, everything you had stated about the economics for small breeders is already happening and it will just get worse regardless of whether this goes through or not.

Almost every stallion is this. There isn't genetic diversity to be had on the stallion side. Its Nasrullah, Nearco or Native Dancer, and its all Phalaris.

The only exceptions in the US aren't doing great.
Tiznow is retired and while he had some sons that were better than others, he had none do good enough to stay in Kentucky
Mucho Macho Man and his sons is the last chance for his line in the US, Mucho Gusto was retired and apparently they couldn't find him a stud deal cause the breeding season already started and nothing yet(edit to add, Mucho Gusto was exported)
Include is the end of the line for the Broad Brush sire line, he has no heir

So many lines were lost since the 80s/90s, if this rule had been put into place when large books first started happening then maybe it could have actually saved some genetics, breeders wouldn't have gotten comfortable breeding their stallions to everything with a vagina, and they wouldn't be a in a court battle now.

[CorridorZ75]

Well, Bal a Bali has a chance to extend the Godolphin line. Dunadin died early so that was pretty much the last gasp of the Byerley, although Turkey might have some Dr. Devious sons. Meanwhile in Europe, every Monsun son goes to National Hunt, but that gives a second option from Pharos from the Darley.

[Gemini]

So many lines were lost since the 80s/90s, if this rule had been put into place when large books first started happening then maybe it could have actually saved some genetics, breeders wouldn't have gotten comfortable breeding their stallions to everything with a vagina, and they wouldn't be a in a court battle now.

This is so true. The commercialization of the TB is what put the U.S. market into a conundrum now. I'm not a breeder, and anyone who is a breeder is free to criticize me for saying this, but screeching that "we won't be able to make money if genetic diversity is forced on us" doesn't make me feel bad for most people. Why isn't it the goal to produce a good healthy racehorse instead of a flashy sales yearling?

Back to the topic of embryo transfer: most of the remaining genetic diversity is within the mares. Allowing one mare to produce multiple foals a year would only constrict the gene pool further.