But that’s my point. Plenty of breeders do their own basic breeding work, so they WILL be the appropriate party to provide proof. What’s preventing those people from falsifying? You seem irked that I’m asking, but I’m just curious how it’ll work, and how they’re planning on preventing fraud 
No? Reinspecting the mare etc can be a pretty big workout?
Honor system with some sort of major penalty for violation for anyone involved in dishonesty (including the vet, repro clinic, semen broker etc.) hoping that everyone will put in their contract that the resulting foal will not be registered Swedish and that the collective pain of the punishment will be enough to encourage people to hold each other to the standard and dime each other out if they don’t?
Detailed certification when applying for registration and some get spot checked with some sort of major penalty for falsehood?
Requirement that a vet certify the process of producing the foal even if the mare owner physically did the work, but a vet nonetheless must be kept apprised of the efforts and certify under oath to the process?
I don’t think there’s any legal avenue for a registry to levy any sort of penalty against a vet or repro clinic. The vet or repro clinic has nothing to do with the registry.
The vet or repro clinic works for the owner of the horse. They may not even know what registry the mare is associated with, or where the foal will be registered. They’ve entered no agreement with the registry itself.
Yes, absolutely, the owner who falsifies could be kicked out of the registry, and registration withdrawn from the horses. But still…how would the registry KNOW. How does that information get verified? Do they even know now, if a foal is produced via ICSI, other than the mare owner self reporting?
Yes, I understand that honest people will be honest. Not everyone is honest. I’m just curious how they’ll deal with that.
You can require people submit a certification and impose a penalty if they lie. If the foal owner wants the registration, the foal owner has to procure all the necessary certifications. Including the vet, semen broker, etc. Put the onus to get this paperwork on the person who is trying to register the foal. Make them pay a fine significant enough to be scary.
Basically you make it more of a pain in the ass and riskier in terms of burning bridges than comply than to lie. So people will either stop using the technique for Swedish foals or go find another registry.
Breeders generally do not do their own ICSI work as the OVU procedure requires the skills and expertise of an experienced reproductive veterinarian. The quote that was mentioned in the article about the Swedish registry was taken from an April 2023 Eurodressage article (April 2023), where that same vet (Dr. Erin Newkirk) provided more details about the difficulty and cost of ICSI - and success rate.
While most breeders think of ICSI as the method to use when a stallion has low-fertility, they seem to ignore that also the mare comes in play and has to undergo a very unpleasant procedure known as OPU (Ovum Pick-Up) or TVA (Transvaginal Aspiration). “You harvest the unfertilised egg. Lots of drugs go into your horse, sedation, NSAIDs, an epidural. It’s a big procedure and very invasive as the ovary is manually retracted. Mares get uncomfortable,” Erin said matter-of-factly. “ICSI is a very specialised technique which is often done for stallions who are dead or have poor sperm quality. It’s micro-manipulation of the oocytes with the microscope.”
The ICSI procedure costs around $8,000 - 12,000 USD in the U.S.A., not counting the stud fee, but the success rate is small. Out of 14 follicles there will be 7 oocytes of which around 5 will mature and can be injected. It often leads to only 1 embryo and sometimes takes between 1 to 3 tries before you have a foal. “There is also more chance for infection in your mare, but the mare’s ovary heals well,” Erin added.
So when the success rate using a highly skilled veterinarian is already so low, why would anyone in their right mind be willing to reduce those odds even further by having someone less trained, less skilled, etc., do the procedure? Sure you might save some money by not having to pay a veterinarian but you may also do irreparable harm to your mare that ends her breeding career or even puts her life in danger.
And again - why would someone subject a mare they love to that kind of invasive procedure, when there are so many other stallions out there? There is also a school of thought that using semen from deceased stallions or much older stallions (say in their 20’s) is moving breeding backwards instead of forwards - and breeding should be about looking to the future. But that maybe is a whole 'nuther discussion…
How does JC police people being honest about live cover and where the foal is born for state incentives? It’s also, at least partially, the honor system and yes some people lie and even get away with it but generally most people comply because the consequences are significant enough that complying is easier.
I am not sure I am understanding the scope of your question, but most WB registries require parentage verification via DNA comparisons. The requirement applies to issuing of foal registration papers, as well as enrolling mares and stallions in the breeding books (approving them for breeding).
And neither DNA analysis nor blood-typing will reveal if a foal has been produced via ICSI.
I am not suggesting that anyone other than a specialist would be doing ICSI. If a breeder who does their own basic repro work sends one mare off for ICSI, and then represents that mare as one that they themselves inseminated, along with their other mares that they themselves inseminated, who’s to know? Even if a vet has to sign off on it, it would not be difficult or even terribly unusual to have a generalist, local vet that would be a different person from the ICSI vet.
Ah, gotcha. And yes, unscrupulous people are going to try to find ways around the rules. But if a generalist local vet signs off on a breeding certificate for a procedure that s/he did not perform, then that vet is also being dishonest (along with the mare owner who requested the procedure). And risks losing his/her veterinary license if found out. I would think for most vets, the consequences far outweigh the benefits of being dishonest.
Certainly, good point. But given that a fair number of breeders do their own basic repro work, how else would a registry obtain any sort of veterinary sign off?
Unless along with this is the requirement that all breeding be performed by a licensed veterinarian, which would be a HUGE shift, at least in the US. But would certainly make lying about how the foal was produced a lot harder (unless the vet is also dishonest.)
While I have ethical concerns about the (very few, thankfully) breeders who do repeated ICSI aspirations on a single mare, I am a bit troubled by a registry deciding to disallow the procedure over welfare considerations. Especially when the rationale - at least as stated in the article shared above - indicates the need for sedation and NSAIDs as evidence of a welfare risk. If that is the standard, then the same thing could be said about any breeding method. Live cover is not exactly risk-free or “flowers and chocolate” for all involved. What about non-repro related procedures like castration? It’s a very odd line for a registry to decide to draw, in my opinion.
It would never, ever fly here in the U.S. Look what happened when the AQHA tried to disallow ET. I’m not even entirely sure how the Jockey Club gets away with their live cover requirement in our litigious, “free market” (sort of) soceity, other than the sheer amount of financial resources invested in maintaining the status quo by that industry and in certain state governments/economies (i.e. Kentucky).
It isn’t inherent risk that is the issue. It’s the fact that ISCI/OPU/TVA are known to be painful procedures which is evident by its requirement for epidurals, heavy sedation and NSAIDS. An epidural is never required for live cover for good reason. Even humans can generally agree that IVF is quite painful and unpleasant to experience.
On another note, there are always going to be ways to cheat the system. However, the registry is going to inquire how the foal is conceived such as via their insemination forms. Registries are quite aware of which stallions are producing in what ways and eye brows will be raised with particular stallions who are known to be deceased or of very poor semen quality which would require ICSI. WB registries are more aware of the approved stallions that are producing versus a registry such as AQHA where licensing isn’t required, etc.
Did I disagree that ICSI is a painful procedure? No, I did not. Please read what I actually wrote, not what you’d like to argue with.
My POINT was, if pain/discomfort is going to be the reason that a registry disallows a MEDICAL procedure, then pretty much ALL medical procedures could be argued against if someone decided to do so. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of (a) discomfort/pain level and (b) degree of necessity involved when discussing these types of procedures. But, in a time when social license to operate is a real concern for all equine organizations and industries, we (general) need to have clearly defined policies that can be consistently applied, defended using scientific evidence, and easily explained to both industry participants and the general public.
I’m not arguing for or against the decision, just the way it is being explained and justified in the article we were provided.
We are talking about breeding. Not all medical procedures. There is a significant difference in pain level when comparing live cover, ICSI and artificial insemination.
Once again, you are completely ignoring my point. I LITERALLY said there are differences in pain levels and necessity across all medical procedures. My point was regarding the precedent being set and the bigger picture. If you’d rather argue against a position I haven’t taken, knock yourself out.
You answered my question completely. I was wondering about the part of this conversation that talked about a straw being split and used in several mares. I didn’t understand how they all could be registered but I get it now. Thank you!
Honestly, I truly do not care which way you lean when it comes to ICSI. I did not realize you would interpret a comment I made for the sake of discussion as trying to get into a pissing match with you.
Gotta love it when people fabricate an argument to get all up in arms against, then try to claim the high road when they get called out for it. With that, I will allow this poster to have the last word they so desperately need and get back to work.
LOL, @Montanas_Girl, whatever you say. Have a nice day.
Anyways, I’ve been wondering what pictures KS is claiming copyright issues with that encouraged the PM to skydy? Surely she isn’t talking about the picture of the starved weanling shared by the new owner? It seems like an attempt to remove these pics from the internet and cover tracks.
She is talking about the photos taken by a photographer at the one inspection she did with all the skinny bony, but braided, babies.
Screen shots of proofs were posted here.
It was OK with KS to tell us to go look at them, but not OK for us to show the photos where her babies look under fed.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
