Their horses are incredibly high quality and successful around the world from tiny breeding numbers. They are the complete opposite of most of the rest of the world.
https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/country-where-stallions-who-have-ever-had-lasix-are-disqualified-breeding/
very interesting; much like the warmblood approvals. This is the good that can come from an industry that actually has a governing body; Thoroughbreds in America do not. I agree; the thoroughbreds in America have become soft, for the most part. Due to so many factors, not just Lasix or breeding to stallions with known defects and issues but breeding for the boutique sales (glitz, glamour, and high stakes) but also those backyard TB breeders near and around many of the countryâs lower level tracks who are breeding junk to junk essentially. Anyone ever pay attention to the Louisiana kill pen posts and how many TB babies and broodmares run through there from those breeding operations in the area?
When you breed on sound, hardy, healthy horses, the probability of ending up with offspring to carry on these traits is quite great. When you start with good animals; you end up with a good, sound, healthy product.
Unfortunately I donât think things will ever reach that point here in the USA.
The selection process would have eliminated A.P. Indy, correct?
1 Like
The results speak for themselves. Letâs all name, without looking anything up online, three German bred horses who have won G1s outside Germany. Iâll go first.
2 Likes
Hummmm, donât tell that to Stonestreet Stables, breeder of Lady Aurelia, winner in both the US and UK including prestigious races such as the Kingâs Stand Stakes (G1) twice and the Breedersâ Cut Turf Sprint (G1) at Del Mar.
Or Arrogate, bred by Juddmonte Farms, also a winner on two continents; including such wins as the Pegasus World Cup (G1), Breedersâ Cup Classic (G1), the Dubai World Cup (G1) at Meydan and TVG Pacific Classic (G1).
Off the top of my headâŠ
Out of curiosity, how many QHs have you seen go through the LA kill pens?
1 Like
Arrogate didnât start running until his 4 year old year because he was too soft early on. Heâs too big for his own good. He only made 11 starts in his career and raced for just about 1 year
Lady Aurelia made 10 starts.
Both had impressive careers; I am not disputing their wins or Americans ability to breed successful horses. We can. But in America we measure success on immediate earnings and wins. We donât look at the big picture which they are bringing about in Germany: Soundness, conformational faults, health problems, medications, etc.
Justify had soundness concerns when purchased at the sales. He had soundness concerns in his 2 yr old years, and he couldnât hold up to racing as a 3 yr old. Yes he is a tremendous horse with only 6 starts but 6 wins as well. but could his career have been more electrifying and satisfying if he could have stayed sound?
1 Like
Pastorious
Shirocco
Manduro
Donât get how âbigâ equates to âsoftâ. Why is the expectation that all TBs race at 2? And yet at the same time, howling that 2YOs break down more frequently (which statistically pretty much shows isnât true).
What is wrong with doing the right thing for the horse and if they arenât ready to run at 2 for whatever reason, donât; rather than label them as âsoftâ (whatever that actually means).
Did those German bred TB names roll off your lips or did you look them up?
2 Likes
No, actually one of them is a breeders cup winner. Americans just donât pay close enough attention to where these horses are from. Especially the out of country horses. Pastorious was a well known horse in his racing years.
I am not saying every horse must race at 2. I am a supporter of doing right by the animal. But Justify and Arrogate both had soundness concerns from the get-go. Bob did his magic and âvoila!â we have some crazy good horses to ship off to the breeding shed in 6-10 starts.
The breeding/selection process in WBs has generated thousands upon thousands of horses that are not sound past their approvals⊠Testings, licensing, and approvals are no guarantee of that horseâs soundness down the road and no guarantee of their longevity⊠Donât have the wool pulled over your eyes about WBs and their soundness: they have the same wastage rate as nearly every other breed. Iâd argue it might be larger, because so many mares are relegated to breeding when they canât be ridden â but those mares are usually âlower qualityâ mares and dead-ends in the genepool and donât pass on their unsoundness by virtue of their offspring never producing themselves.
The approval/selection process is not fool-proof, is no guarantee for the registryâs future soundness, and is based on a subjective ideal based on that registryâs particular vision. If the registry was stringent beyond measure, we would not have WBs long as a bus, straight as a plumb-line behind, upright as a saddle horse⊠but then we wouldnât have horses like Valegro, either. WB breeders are very lucky, I think, that there is some flexibility to their standards because they very nearly missed out on some of the best stallions of this era simply by them not passing their inspections⊠To me, thatâs an oversight as there are certainly stallions that might fail their inspections and go onto be extremely competitive and/or also extremely sound â which in general, one must be at the top levels of the sport to be competitive in the first placeâŠ
It is not fair to compare WBâs wastage to a TBs wastage unless they are doing the same job. Certainly if WBs were started as long yearlings and raced they would see catastrophic breakdowns often as well. It is not that TBs as a whole are soft; itâs that is what is asked of them is excessively taxing and exceeds the morphological capabilities of most horsesâ bodies. This is not me bashing racing â the racing flunkies are my bread and butter⊠but itâs a cold reality that itâs hard on their bodies, impacts their future soundness, and is not an easy job for a horse. Certainly not as âeasyâ as being ridden 30 days and then turned out until youâre 4-5 for a dressage career (which is also hard, but later on)âŠ
Despite sharing the same breed name âThoroughbredâ, I think they are two distinctly different branches because one is bred only with dirt success in mind and the other is bred for turf/grass. Some share similar breeding but the distances and the racing surface and the age started are entirely different which has produced entirely different animals. Itâd be like comparing showjumpers to hunters. Sure, theyâre both bepopulate with WBs, but they are not the same, do not perform the same jobs, and do not have the same conformation related to success within that job.
German TBs are not competitive here same as US TBs are (for the most part) not competitive in Germany. That is because the two are bred for different purposes. Dirt vs grass/turf track produces a very different type of horse.
I donât think any one TB is fundamentally or inherently more sound - US or German. There are lines I would avoid in both. I do think some German lines would be very valuable for US breeders, certainly â but that doesnât mean that the cross would be successful for racing. Spinning off of that, there are many stallions and race horses in EU that I see people comment lamenting âwe donât have that quality in the USâ â but when you look at their pedigree they are sneakily and incredibly AmericanâŠ
I do think that Germany has the right idea about stiffer regulations at the tracks - but the US cannot duplicate that - it is fantastically far, far bigger than Germany and IMHO it would be very difficult to regulate such an expansive and multi-faceted industry. Germany has the advantage of being much smaller and therefore, much easier to regulate. I would not mind the idea of a merit system in place that accepts stallions based on their performance longevity â but again, that is not the model in the US, and will never be the model.
7 Likes
âOut of curiosity, how many QHs have you seen go through the LA kill pens?â
Hoping not to sidetrack the thread. This statistic below is easy to look up.
âTwo-thirds of horses set to slaughter are quarter horses, and many are castoffs from the rodeo or racing industriesâ
3 Likes
While Germany comes up with some very good horses. Itâs a tightly controled niche breeding âindustryâ With only 800-900 foals born each year it is hard to call it an âindustryâ. The most successful breeders by far are the Oppenheim familyâs Gestut Schlenderhan started in the late 1800s and the Jacobs family Gestut Fahrhof started in the mid 60s.
Only about 5% of horses bred each year will win a stake race world wide⊠Less then 1% will win a Grade/Group 1 race.
So while German breds can and do win at the highest level. They lag behind the above statistic. Name 4-8 German breds winning a Group/Grade 1 race in any given year.
They might have had a better chance of upping the number of Grade 1 horses if they hadnât dismissed the value of Northern Dancer blood as being âsoftâ in the 80s.
4 Likes
Another major difference between the Germans and the US is that Germans donât breed for sprinting.
Given their numbers, 1 German G1 winner is the equivalent of 27 American G1 winners.
Sorry but IMO that is a bit of a stretch.
Sprint races in Europe, the world for that matter. Make up a fraction of the races offered compared to the States. So why would they breed for that?
The 5%-1% statistic I gave is the generally accepted rule of thumb used by breeders world wide. Regardless of the distance of the stake races or Grade/Group 1 rating.
Itâs called âall things being equalâ.
Skip Anchor by Shirley Heights who won the 1985 Epsom Derby, highest rated European racehorse. Was out of the German mare Sayonara (1965) Breeders/owners like to jump on band wagons. So there was a ârunâ on German mares. Most of my business in those days was in/out of Europe. Clients wanted to jump on that wagon. German breeders hit the lottery. They jumped the prices of decent mares a couple hundred percent. I didnât get anything bought. But I followed a lot of the high priced ones that did come to England and Ireland. They didnât by and large justify their purchase prices. Most were a complete bust. That band wagon has come around again. Will be interesting to see how it works out this time.
2 Likes
gumtree, thatâs kinda where I was going. Seems like the TB industry gets thrown under the bus at every turn for âoverbreedingâ when stats show that there are other breeds that have far more of an âoverbreedingâ impact. Do I think TBs are exempt? No. But they also arenât the greatest contributor either.
the QH industry openly supports slaughter and culling for kill. But the majority of horses found in kill pens, although by looks appear to be from QH stock, are actually grades. I am not insinuating that TBâs are the only breed found at kill auctions and kill pens but the LA pens seem to have the highest amount of TBâs available. Some of the TX ones as well depending on location. Merely an observation and in no way insinuating that these pens have more TBâs than grades and, QH, and the like.
Anyways this discussion is completely off topicâŠmoving on
Any industry that âapprovesâ and rejects horses based on a human opinion will always lag behind an industry that rewards and rejects real life results.
The comments in the article about Lasix are a joke. Every horse runs on Lasix in the US because itâs a performance enhancer, not because they bleed. Lasix does nothing to compromise a horseâs soundness.
I assumed that. I quoted you so as to put my comment into context. I seem to remember reading not long ago that 150,000 QH are bred each year. Compared to 20,000± TBs.
1 Like
Did yâall read the article on the Australian study of TB inbreeding effects on performance that I posted a week or so ago? It used data provided by the Australian racing authority.
A statistical study of the pedigrees of 135,550+ Australian racing performers over a period of time was done using several different inbreeding coefficients showed some very interesting resultsâincluding one suggesting that the effects on performance of inbreeding to very old (and founder stallions) had current effects. It found that high inbreeding to Eclipse and Touchstone and Stockwell was a performance detriment, and high inbreeding to Herod was beneficial.
It really is interesting, in part because of the huge numbers of modern racing tbs that formed the data set.
One would wish that a similar study could be done in the US.
1 Like
I didnât see the study and I have to admit that my initial reaction to your description of the results causes me to reject it out of hand. Stockwell was a leading sire in the 60sâthe 1860s-- and I donât believe that anyone should be looking at stallions 150 years back to make breeding decisions. Also when you go so far back, every horse has pieces of those stallions in their makeup, multiple times. How does that help us to make a breeding selection?
IME anything can justify a poor mating using mediocre stock. I attended the last Barretts sale this week and the results were horrifying. I have no doubt that you might find the magic stallions in all of those horses that couldnât get a bid. But there was a reason that the commercial market rejected them wholesale. The young horses were generally poor specimens and the broodmares were highly unlikely to produce anything worthy of the $15 - 20k a year of bills that they would cost a purchaser.
There have always been niche breeders who try to blaze their own trails and that could work as long as they have the money to eat their own cooking so to speak. But the American commercial market produces some pretty nice animals. Thatâs why they are commercial.
1 Like
