Harlan’s Holiday comes to mind. 
This is just an important point. I, too, find it just heartbreaking when I see horses in the late teens and early 20’s dying “due to the infirmities of old age”. I feel like they just use them up. Not all, by any means, but enough to make it something we notice.
While I do think that some farms allow their stallions to be heavily oversubscribed, I’m not sure that’s the major reason that some stallions die in their teens. Though the death of a successful young stallion is always widely publicized, no one talks about the horses that are breeding on happily into their 20s.
Some of those stallions include Malibu Moon, Medaglia d’Oro, Flatter, Distorted Humor (at 27!) Lemon Drop Kid, Tiznow, Broken Vow, and Tale of the Cat (at 26). Many, if not most, of the stallions currently standing in Kentucky are well into their teens. Unfortunately for the sake of public opinion, nobody thinks that’s newsworthy.
3 Likes
I think they’ve gotten better about telling us actual causes. In the past, I feel like “infirmities of old age” was announced with the majority of stallions who passed, whether they were 18 and died of colic or pushing 30.
But regardless, it feels like thoroughbred stallions with lengthy and active careers are at a higher risk of succumbing to an early demise than horses with less demanding breeding schedules. My perception could be artificially inflated by the publicity or just wrong. But even if it is, breeding is hard work and I don’t think it’s a bad thing to put a (still very high) cap on how frequently a horse is used over the span of 5 months.
I hope you don’t think I’m trying to discount those who live lengthy lives. I mean, look at Storm Cat and AP Indy! Being a Kentucky stallion isn’t a death sentence. I know I’d trade places with a Kentucky stallion in a heartbeat. :lol:
But we do seem to lose an awful lot of them young, especially those who start off with hot careers and manage to succeed (isolated example that doesn’t prove anything: Scat Daddy). Maybe we would have lost them anyway, whether they were breeding or not. Thoroughbreds, and horses in general, certainly love to exercise their suicidal tendencies.
I know you have said in the past you have serious market concerns with a move like this. I appreciate you sharing that perspective.
Interestingly, his sire, Harlan, died at the age of 10. Harlan was lightly used at stud, producing just 98 foals.
I do have concerns, @Texarkana and they are not necessarily just related to the market. I think this decision will cause stud fees to rise, will keep all but the best connected small breeders out of popular stallions’ books, and will cause the TB foal crop to drop, probably a lot. (Maybe some consider that to be a good thing–though since 2008 the size of the U.S. foal crop has already decreased by 45%.)
As a small breeder, I bristled when a JC board member said last year, “This will promote genetic diversity because small breeders will be forced to breed to stallions nobody else wants.” No, really, we won’t. We’ll just stop breeding. And that will leave the TB breed in the hands of the megafarms/corporations. One might argue they are the ones who caused the problem in the first place.
I also don’t see how the cap does anything to promote genetic diversity. That’s the kind of sound bite that grabs people’s attention but means nothing in real life. If a breeder who can’t get to Tapit, breeds instead to one of his 19 sons standing at stud, how does that help? If the JC actually wanted to promote genetic diversity, it seems to me they’d have been better off putting a cap on the number of sons that can stand at stud while a sire is still active.
3 Likes
I completely agree with your point that it won’t force an expansion of the breeding pool or bloodlines.
The limit of “140” is a number that makes them appear like they are doing something to promote diversity, while simultaneously doing nothing.
My optimistic (and probably naive) thought is that with an actual strict cap, the market would be forced to self-correct and adjust. If the same number of buyers wanted to keep buying and racing at anything near their current levels, they’d have to consider buying more than what they are currently buying. But… with a number like 140, that’s still a huge selection of the same old same old.
Yet I suspect drastically slashing the number of mares a stallion could breed enough for the market to self-correct would likely infuriate stallion owners, and rightfully so.
Interesting concept to cap the number of sons. I don’t even know how this country could begin to go about that, but it’s interesting for sure.
On that note, my kid, Harlan, is awake and demanding attention. Three guesses how he got his name. :lol:
This would have done more than just annoy me to no end to hear that kind of ‘out of touch’ comment. What on earth could make him think that if it was stallion ‘nobody else wants’ that a small breeder would want him??
Yes, MOs with $$ and quality will pay for and get the high end stallions. Given.
Yes, MOs with less $$ and perhaps less quality (not bad quality but maybe not high end) will still want the best stallion they can afford that makes financial sense for their individual breeding program.
LaurieB, you always come to mind with a few nice mares and shopping for the right stallion that isn’t on everyone else’s radar so you get a nice stallion (still like your Astern filly, how is she doing?) and a price that fits your program. :encouragement: :applause:
1 Like
[/B]
Ive posted on several forums and groups, asking how exactly this is supposed to promote genetic diversity, from people spouting that, and I have yet to have a single person answer. I dont think they have even thought about it. And when they do, its…uhhhh…crickets. I truthfully think its way more about farm diversity. I think there are so many disguntled stallions owners and managers, thinking theres 2 or 3 farms breeding all the mares, and they want a piece of that pie too. Once again, its not about betterment of the horse, its about spreading the wealth.
" As a small breeder, I bristled when a JC board member said last year, “This will promote genetic diversity because small breeders will be forced to breed to stallions nobody else wants.” " How ignorant. And shows the mindset of the JC members. And also makes my point that its not about the horse, its about the money. Do they really think breeders are so stupid that they will breed to just any stallion, just to get their mares bred? The JC had better be careful what they wish for, because if they are wanting only the wealthy “who knows who” to be breeding to their commercial stallions, they will lose thousands and thousands of smaller breeders, who fill the majority of the races across the US. And as ironic as it seems, those breeders should be breeding to race. Because without races, there wont be much market for their high priced babies.
Fortunately for me, by the time those 2020 colts hit the breeding sheds, I wont be breeding anyway, so Ill just sit back and watch the show. That new rule probably wont even impact breeders for another 10 years, meanwhile there will still be stallions breeding upwards of 200 mares (and more). What will be interesting will be to watch in 2022 and 2023, when theirs a hot young colt that wins everything, his future stud value wont be anywhere it could be with uncapped stallion books. Now that I think of it, it might enhance this and next year’s yearlings sales for the top colts, as they will be the last with unlimited stallion value.
1 Like
(My comments are in red.)
1 Like
I just saw an interesting statistic in TDN that I hadn’t been aware of. In 2019, there were 43 stallions in the U.S. that bred more than 140 mares. In England and Ireland, there were 44 stallions that bred more than that number. The Brits who were interviewed were similarly skeptical that the cap would bring about genetic diversity.
That was my point regarding the U.S. Canada and Puerto Rico being the only ones limited. Beginning with Northern Dancer then Sadlers Wells, Galileo, and Danehill etc… their sons and daughters are ubiquitous in U.K. pedigrees and the get of those stallions are shuttled, as well as standing in the U.K. and Ireland.
I don’t see how limiting the books of U.S.based stallions only, will do anything to promote genetic diversity in the TB .
She’s doing great. Thanks for asking. My husband named her “Race”. 
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“medium”,“data-attachmentid”:10646007}[/ATTACH]
3 Likes
Laurien, I just read that Blood Horse article, and one point jumped out at me.
It said “Many also recognized the potential benefit of the cap providing more support to stallions in their second through fourth years at stud, when attracting mares can be a struggle. “Even with good horses now, you get to their second, third, and fourth years, the market dries up. This is probably going to help those later books some,” said Ben Taylor, the vice president of Taylor Made Stallions.”
I just dont see this happening. The timing is just not there, no matter how many mares they breed. By the time that 3rd and 4th year stallion has yearlings, the writing is on the wall weather they are successful or not, and no one will buy those yearlings. It will be no different then as now. Why would a mare owner risk that? There is still a huge shortage of buyers for all these yearlings. Buyers know what they want, and they do not want a yearling by a deemed failure/unpopular horse. The timing for these yearlings hasnt changed.
I totally agree. Especially since the sales market is so driven by the pinhookers who only want first year (and occasional second year) horses. If buyers aren’t interested in those offspring, why would (small) breeders want to breed to the stallions regardless of what other opportunities they might or might not be offered?
And for those breeding to race, rather than sell, why take a chance on an unproven stallion at all? There seems to be a lot of justifying coming from the powers-that-be, saying how well this will all work out. And it will probably, for those at the top of the food chain. The rest of us will be left struggling. Or out.
1 Like
I remembered Zing for the Runhappy (right?) but couldn’t remember Race’s name. She’s growing up lovely Love the expression on her face.
How is Zing doing?
1 Like
I also wonder at what point does the smaller breeder (LaurieB or halo for example) start thinking not only about the ‘inexpensive’ stallion that still has covers left but starts factoring in where that stallion stands.
For example, I look at Coolmore who stands big bucks stallions (AP, Justify for example) but they also offer stallions for much less (Cupid @ $10k, Fusaichi Pegasus @ $7.5k, Mo Town @ $10k). But Coolmore, at least in my perception doesn’t sell a questionable pedigree/price down the road, they look like they do hold on to them). Maybe Fu Peg isn’t setting the world on fire but black type winners and reasonable pedigree. So, seems to me if I was a smaller breeder with the right mare, taking a chance on one of their newer acquisitions, say Mo Town, would be worth the chance.
WinStar, as we’ve discussed, I’d really think twice about breeding to any of their newer or less expensive stallions being afraid that in a year or two, that horse would not be calling North America home.
1 Like
Its all about the timing. Cupid and Mo Town would be feasible; good pedigrees and race records. But once you get into the third and fourth crops, you have to move on to newer stallions. Its the market perception. If you have a yearling to sell by a sire who has his first or second crop on the track, if they arent blowing up statistics with winners, you wont be able to sell them. So its as much about timing as anything else. Which is why first year sires always stand at a premium, and to a much less degree, the second year. Third and fourth years, mare owners can write their own ticket. But they are an extremely shakey territory as far as selling that foal.
2 Likes
@halo, curiosity question (as yes, I get that years 3-4 are more dicey with the youngsters that a stallion might produce).
Opinion only as I do believe that a farm like Coolmore is, IMO, a slightly different business model than WinStar (and if I’m wrong, please let me know 
)
If the same stallion were purchased by both Coolmore and WinStar (not partnership, same horse, different buyers), do you feel that WinStar would be more inclined to sell earlier in that stallion’s career than Coolmore if that stallion wasn’t setting the pinhook market on fire?
If you were interested in a new stallion, would it make a difference to you if Coolmore (or similar) was standing him vs WinStar (give same stud fee)?
