Thistle,
I agree.
I don’t think it is “wrong” not to compete an animal but if you are trying to produce a better sport horse, how do you know if you are on the right track if you don’t put the animal to the test.
Mares are a bit different because they cannot breed and compete easily, plus they do not have as much influence on a population, therefore pedigree can warrant breeding. But a stallion has a wider influence and pedigree alone should not cut it. If pedigree were enough, you would always see several siblings stallions with equal success.
If people want to breed for color, cool! They can breed for any characteristic they want to (think halter classes) but this is a sport horse forum and the goal is performance. So while color is a valid trait choice for some people, unless it is blended with a goal of performance, it is not that relevant to this forum. Hence the OP.
I don’t think that anyone who chooses to keep a stallion without a huge marketing budget and perfect riders are necessarily in the wrong, but I do think that there are a lot more stallions that could have better more productive lives as geldings than breeding 2 or 3 mares a year and not really improving anything in the process. The goals of a breeding operation are up to the individual and some people simply don’t want the hassle of booking and handling a stallion’s breeding career. I just wonder what makes them keep a stallion in the first place if this is the case.
Well I’ll try to answer this one but in the end it comes down to , ‘because I can’ which I’m sure will just thrill everyone 
I have a stallion. He is now 7. I have two long yearlings by him and both mares are due this spring (repeat breedings). I have not bred any outside mares at all. I have had quite a few requests to breed to him from both those with the same breed and those who just want to breed their mare (other breed) to my guy because of this, that or another reason. Mostly people approach me with interest to breed to my stallion because of his behavior/disposition. I did compete him and plan to do it again; but, have taken a hiatus from showing. He’s working second/third level and has shown through second.
I have multiple reasons for not standing him to the public but the greatest reason is I have a full-time job/career which prevents me from catering to mare owners in the way I feel is appropriate. For that reason I simply don’t try. When I have explained this to those who inquire they always want to tell me that they’re different, they’re a good mare owner, easy to work with, etc. I don’t doubt that they are but I simply cannot drop everything and whisk him off to the stallion station (would take me 3 hours) to get him collected when a mare owner beckons. In order to breed my mares, I actually synchronize them and have been very lucky to have only had to breed each of them one time each year that they were bred.
I have my bronze and silver medals. I am not made of cash. I will show my stallion at recognized shows again when he’s ready for FEI. It makes no sense for me to do otherwise. I have a gelding that I can get my showing fix on; but, to be honest I’m kind of liking saving the dough.
So why do I have a stallion? I’ve had horses all my life. I’m a vet and for the first part of my career my focus was theriogenology (reproduction). I back/train my own and sought out to find a breed that suited all of my interests. I found it and after having great difficulty in breeding my mares to the one stallion (imported) that I felt really had merit (this was before the availability of frozen) I decided I would simply have to reproduce my own. The offspring are intended for me and my family. Both of my kids ride (now 20 and 17). I also do intend to sell one or two but only after we’ve started them and have put some show miles on them. We intend to keep a few over the years as replacement mounts for ourselves.
I selected this path because I know the bloodlines, have had several of the breed prior to delving into having my own stallion, and know what I want, not only to ride but to train. By sticking with the bloodlines and the individuals I have, there really have been few surprises. Being the only test dummy who also has a ‘real’ career which supports my habit (addiction) it is extremely important that I have what I can ride. My stallion is the grandson of a mare I owned, backed/trained and showed. I’ve done the same with he and a few of his siblings. He is a known entity to me. It’s too soon to tell if what he produces is going to be as easy but so far I can tell you that they truly are exactly what I was hoping for and look forward to starting them. He improved on both mares which already had proven their value to me as kids mounts and/or show stock which includes winning in breed classes.
I love backing/starting and training. I have no desire to do it professionally. As stated multiple times I already have a career I love. I don’t want to give that up; but, I also feel just as committed to riding and training. Until the infirmities of old age prevent me from doing so, I see no happiness for me in stopping riding. Could I continue to ride if I geld my stallion? Sure; but, I don’t want to geld my stallion. He is a perfect gentleman. My daughter rides him without issue. The whole family has no trouble handling him. He travels well in mixed company. He performs in more than one discipline. I obviously feel he is a very good example of his breed (no make than an excellent example of his breed), true to the standard and is competitive for an amateur who competes locally/regionally.
Is owning a stallion all about my ego trip? Probably it is; but, I feel I’ve given other reasons of merit for me to do so. I have a high stress job. I make my money and choose to spend it the way I want. I view my hobby in the same light. Am I flooding the world with unwanted horses? I don’t think so. Would my stallion be better off a gelding? Well by what measuring stick? He is not on solitary confinement. He does spend his time out in turnout 24/7. He gets daily interaction and is ridden at least 4-5 days a week as my schedule allows. I have the education and professional experience handling stallions, doing the breeding, assisting in the foaling and have backed/trained my own horses, showing them to PSG (so far). I want to go further and I want to do it on MY breed. I feel this stallion is my best chance to do so. I also feel that if for any reason I am unsuccessful I have produced youngstock which at least based on conformation and gaits provide me with just as much prospects for success in my riding as does he. I see no reason to buy a horse when what I want is in my own backyard and the future shows much promise with what I’m producing in it as well.
Could my stallion do better if campaigned by a pro and marketed? I’m absolutely sure he could but again this is my hobby. I am pursuing my dream. I work damn hard to pay for it and so far in this country it is perfectly legal for me to do so (my version of following the American Dream). Best of all, like the example given in the post to which I’m responding, I don’t care what other people think. As long as I can afford to do it, I will.
I have committed to breeding one outside mare next spring. It is a very special circumstance. Unless my professional pursuits change or my daughter decides she wants to get more serious with the horse business, I doubt I will ever stand my stallion to the public. Now to take this back to the OP’s question, my stallion is not ‘of color’ though he is sabino. One of my mares is a dilute. She produced a bay last time but part of the fun of breeding is considering the possibilities of what she might produce in the future. If I get ‘color’ it will be icing on the cake; but, more importantly the cake is already breeding damn fine on its own merit without the need for icing Again I feel there is merit to this stallion; there is merit to breed this stallion; there is merit to me owning this stallion even if the only judging panel lives in my house :yes:
I think we see fewer ‘unusual’ colored horses for a few reasons.
The simplest reason is that just like professional human sports, only a small portion of the horses that are set out to ‘make it’ will make the upper levels, let alone succeed. As the larger percentage of horses are chestnut, bay or grey, they’re just more likely to make it.
Numbers aren’t all of the reason at all, and we all know it. The other big divide is breeding (obviously, thats why were talking about it here). Its both the goals behind ‘color’ breeding programs and the outcomes of those goals; both good and bad.
There ARE good sport horse breeding programs out there that also produce color, but there are sadly more that can barely be called a program (sad ‘insert color here’ yearlings on craigslist anyone?)
I think that the visibility of less than stellar colored horses leads to riders/trainers/judges being gun-shy about those colors. Some disciplines are traditional enough that a colored horse may not pin. Is that changing? Some, sure. As there are more quality color horses competed successfully at the upper levels, you’ll see more chances given to those horses.
Both my current mount and my up and coming youngster are ‘color’ horses. To be honest, they happened to me (hubs owned my mare when we met, youngster was chosen for his mind and breed not color). Even as a low level rider I hedged briefly about buying a 2 year old pinto – he’ll stick out just like my mare did. That can be a pain, but he’s worth it.
I also have been burned by the not so perfect end of color breeding. My now late gelding was put down due to chronic arthritis at 18 due to his conformation. Sure, he was a stock horse, but some ugly conformation is showing up in other types when color becomes the goal. Any ONE goal, especially short term (halter, racing) can produce individuals that are not built to last.
Thats a little person in the sport horse world’s perspective on color in the ring 
[QUOTE=NoDQhere;7294944]
The reality in the US is that very few stallions offspring ever get the opportunity to be ridden to the upper levels. The US just doesn’t have the numbers of upper level riders. It is the mid-level riders that keep most of us in business. And to be fair, many of those mid-level riders could ride at the upper levels IF they had deeper pockets AND fewer “other” commitments.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this statement. Certainly there are many more horses and riders competing at the mid levels than the ULs.
But it doesn’t change the validity of the initial question either.
Perhaps it would help if there was more clarity about how ‘Upper Level’ and also "Mid -Level’ are defined and understood.
Upper Level I would think would be Intermediate and Advanced in Eventing, and the comparable levels in other disciplines.
‘Mid level’ IMO would be Preliminary in Eventing, and its equivalent in the other disciplines.
Then, if the stallion owner claiming his or her horse produces “solid mid-level performers” were able to provide actual names, results and divisions, I think that would go a long way to reducing misinformation and misunderstanding.
It is one thing to claim a ‘zone champion’ but without saying what division, what level, etc, it is not really helpful. Claims need to be backed up with facts.
Apropos of the subject, one of my homebreds, a pinto - by A Fine Romance qualified for the Royal Winter Fair this year in the Adult Amateurs 18-35.
Last year, in his first year of showing, he qualified for the Royal Winter Fair in the Children’s Hunter Division.
By A Fine Romance, out of a pinto mare by Hallmark, he is a chestnut pinto, named Rodeo Drive.
He competed very well, winning the Stake class, 3rd in another OF, and finishing up Reserve Champion of the division.
I would think that winning in the AA division would be considered ‘Mid-Level’
Here is his winning round:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151653060817554&set=vb.575272553&type=2&theater
I didn’t do a scientific study, but of the approx 15-20 horses in the division, all of which had to qualify to be there, I noticed two pintos, 2 greys, and the rest were bays, browns, chestnuts and no dilutes.
Given the number in the entire population I would say the pintos were statistically well represented in terms of percentage and results.
The judge, IIRC was Danny Robertshaw.
Fred, dropping in on this thread once in a while because I show a couple of hunter-bred Apps. I love that trip in the video just above. Such an even pace, so relaxed and low, just the right pace for the lines. Moves great, jumps great. Seems to like his job. Just my type! Congratulations to all his people!
Don’t know how you define success, but Utah fits my definition. And closer to reality for folks on this forum, in the recent online auction (where Danielle sold Idonis -see other thread), two of the highest prices were from Pintos.
Without question there are more solid colored horses in the UL, but there are also more solid colored horses period. And, talent alone is not determinative of performance success. Nor does performance success equal breeding success. It is a bit more complicated.
A few weeks ago we had "the opportunity " to send a horse to Wellington with two really extraordinary riders. They tried the horse, liked him and were willing to take him in their string. We think the world of these two riders, and have no doubts they would have been successful with our guy. It was very tempting, but when we looked at all the costs we had to let the opportunity go. It’s just too much money. We don’t have a trust fund to draw from. When we send a horse or a dog it means extra shifts and compromises to pay for it all. Over the years we sometimes say, “we’d rather work a little less, and stay home to enjoy life on the farm.” That has nothing to do with the potential of the horse. We have animals that we’ve never competed, who are absolutely exceptional.
I get the underlying premise, that percentage wise there are fewer colored horses in UL competition than solid colored horse, and I agree that quality is an issue, but there are other issues as well.
And, talent alone is not determinative of performance success. Nor does performance success equal breeding success. It is a bit more complicated.
Man oh man - is your post “dead on” IMO …
So many animals, whatever colour, breed, discipline, etc they might be, look like superstars on paper and are utter and total duds in the performance and/or breeding arenas and conversely, the ones that are iffy / so-so on paper, can very well excel and perform BETTER than their bloodlines look in both the performance and/or breeding areas.
I know in relation to TB’s - something like 2% of all TB’s born ever win a race and its under 5% - something like 3 or 4%, win back in purse money, the sale amount they went through the ring for.
These werent the studies I was looking for, but here are a couple:
Regardless of the system a prospective buyer uses to select the best horse at a yearling sale—tallest, best pedigree, longest tail–there is no guarantee the youngster will ever find the winner’s circle at the racetrack, let alone make the new owner rich. However, a study conducted at the University of Melbourne offers some guidelines that might help yearling buyers at least break even more often.
The researchers looked at the purchase prices and early racing careers of more than 2,700 Thoroughbreds sold as yearlings in Australia in 2003. The horses were split into five groups according to purchase price. The categories were under $10,000; up to $20,000; up to $50,000; up to $100,000; and over $100,000.
Some horses in each category did win enough prize money in their first two years of racing to pay back their original purchase prices as well as training fees which were estimated as $40,000 for the two-year period. However, the percentage of break-even horses in any group was not large. Horses in the two most expensive groups were the most likely to repay an owner’s full investment (5.7% of horses over $100,000; 7% of horses with purchase prices between $50,000 and $100,000).
Looking at horses in each group that earned back their purchase price but not the owner’s full investment including training fees, 24.1% of the least expensive horses (purchased for less than $10,000) accomplished this goal, while 6.3% of the most expensive horses had this type of return. Of the entire group of all horses in the study, only 14.5% won back their purchase price and 5.1% paid back the owner’s full investment within the first two years of racing. Earnings after the horse’s second year at the track were not considered in this study.
and this wasnt the one I was looking for either, but a VERY interesting read as well:
http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.com.au/yearling-price-vs-performance-gai_topic43924.html#fast
It would be very interesting to see if any studies were done on large, high end purchases for the dressage, jumper, hunter, eventing, etc disciplines - prize money won, future sale price, future breeding revenues, etc to see if at the end of the day, a profit was realized and if so - for how much? Or if buyers / competitors / players / breeders / etc in the aforementioned disciplines dont take this into account in their breeding / buying / showing / selling / etc decisions??? And IF they dont - how do they stay in business???
I will add this to the discussion - my stallion does very well in the breeding shed. He has a steady clientelle that is loyal to him, that breed to him more than once, he gets referral business all the time, clients buy addiitonal mares to breed to him specifically to market and sell that foal, and the value of his offspring remains high. I very much weighed the pros and cons of showing him from the time I bought him in 2009 to today and from a pure financial perspective, it made “0” sense for me to spend any money getting him back into the show ring. It wasnt going to add much (IMO) to his demand or popularity and I didnt “need” the exposure to get business to him. He was doing well enough on his own every single year based on his current offsprings results and got more bookings each year. I have made the decision right now to get him back going under saddle and showing in the dressage ring because I now have access to a wonderful FEI level trainer and rider, it will be fun to see him back in the ring again, it will “re-invent” him in another discipline that he hasnt been seen in before but probably the most important factor for me was his overall health. He is 15 this year, hadnt really been ridden at all in 11 years, was getting podgy, and I want him around and healthy for a few more years yet, and getting his fitness level back and maintained was important to me. It will be interesting to see if he gets any more bookings by my doing so or stays constant, but that wasnt my reasoning for doing so. But not everyone with a stallion and an older, out of shape one at that, is in the position to do so, so I consider myself very fortunate that I am able to do so
But in my case- a limited show career with him (a dozen or maybe a few more shows as a 4 year old with his previous owner) was enough to get him approved and then he has ridden on those credentials only and on his offspring. He didnt NEED to stay in the show ring to continue to attract mares every year.
So why keep throwing money into the show ring coffers to “keep them out there” if it doesnt = additional breeding revenues at the end of the day???
Somewhat OT, but also relevant, I think…
I think MORE people should breed for the middle-of-the-road horse :eek:.
How many horse owners want to have a horse that is relatively sane, sound, and enjoyable in the barn that they can have fun on and go to shows a few times a year. 90%? Do we need 90% of our breeding to be focused on horses with GP dressage or jumping talent? I don’t think so.
I love seeing people with stallions that are well put together, sound, good movers, with super, uncomplicated temperaments being bred. They may be 7 movers, or only handy up to 3’, but they are easy to ride and not high maintenance in body or mind. We need more of those horses! As long as the horse’s parentage is known and they are a decent representative of their lineage so you know the genetics you are breeding, I don’t care one whit about whether that horse has ever won one single ribbon in anything. Not only are there a lot (the vast, vast majority) of horses that won’t see upper level competition because their owner isn’t capable, most of us don’t care to try.
There are enough people out there breeding specific breeds for specific performance ideals, and that is great too. I just think there is need for solid citizen middle-of-the-road horses for John and Jane Weekendrider. If it is more fun for them to have a horse that is a fun colour, more power to them. As long as the horses being bred do not have faults that are being overlooked because of their colour, more power to 'em! I’d much rather have that than stallions with lameness or temperament issues that are overlooked for phenomenal movement or amazing jumping ability.
Sorry, but the reality that, " I can’t afford to do this" does not age. If you chose to ignore how much money you have, there are really nice folks who will come and take your home, vehicles and bank accounts, and then it won’t matter how much talent you think a horse has.
Well no one has every taken anything I own and I have always managed to live with in my means, but thanks for the advice. But I really don’t think your point is valid why a stallion cannot compete to some respectable level. If your an individual who really has no extra money (that is fine as times and life is tough) then standing a stallion or even owning one is already a choice that endangers your ability to be financially responsible. And if it is a quality animal, you probably should not have paid for it to start with. This is in the same financially responsible thinking as your original statement.
However, if you can afford a stallion that is worth discussion on a sport horse forum, then you probably can also find your horse an ambition young rider that will be more than happy to take the horse up the levels for a reasonable amount (compared to the rest of the cost of ownership). I don’t think you need to go to GP but you can tell a lot about the potential from the lower levels. You don’t even need a ton of shows, just enough to prove the horse has the temperament and ability to get there. And for a talented horse that deserves to breed, this should be easy for them.
Why is this a topic?
Because if we have all these stallions (colored or not) with marketing guru’s behind them and not a lot of talent then NA will continue to have buyers/riders with skepticism about the overall level of talent we produce.
There should be some physical proof that the stallion has the goods. School at home and go to 3 shows a year. Or offspring that show talent and are able to prove the sire. Horses at 4 or 5 usually show their ability, maybe you can’t tell if they will be in a big rind but you can tell if they are going to be a horse that is competitive in their discipline.
CrowneDragon - there is a local breeder (an import himself) who firmly believes that you don’t need a Porsche when you are learning how to drive and he breeds that way. His lines are amazing older Hanoverian and his horses have really good temperaments with ability to make the job easier for their rider. If you just want a pasture horse then there are thousands of horses out their already to do that job, you really shouldn’t breed for them in good conscious.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7297301]
CrowneDragon - there is a local breeder (an import himself) who firmly believe that you don’t need a Porsche when you are learning how to drive and he breeds that way. His lines are amazing older Hanoverian and his horses have really good temperaments with ability to make the job easier for their rider. If you just want a pasture horse then there are a thousands of horses out their already to do that job, you really shouldn’t breed for them in good conscious.[/QUOTE]
What is a “pasture horse”?
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7297301]
I really don’t think your point is valid why a stallion cannot compete to some respectable level. If your an individual who really has no extra money (that is fine as times and life is tough) then standing a stallion or even owning one is already a choice that endangers your ability to be financially responsible. And if it is a quality animal, you probably should not have paid for it to start with. This is in the same financially responsible thinking as your original statement.
However, if you can afford a stallion that is worth discussion on a sport horse forum, then you probably can also find your horse an ambition young rider that will be more than happy to take the horse up the levels for a reasonable amount (compared to the rest of the cost of ownership). I don’t think you need to go to GP but you can tell a lot about the potential from the lower levels. You don’t even need a ton of shows, just enough to prove the horse has the temperament and ability to get there. And for a talented horse that deserves to breed, this should be easy for them.
.[/QUOTE]
Boy, you have a lot of assumptions that have morphed into “truths.” My first thought is, “Do it, and report back in 10 years.” :yes: :lol: Now, since I don’t know you, maybe you have done it, in which case, we’d love details. I will concede that you post based on your experiences, and I do the same, and we are coming at this from different points of view.
I don’t know where you are finding all these talented young riders who will work for free, who you’d actually want to let sit on your horse. In our experience, we’ve found that it takes years of experience to have the experience necessary to be successful. (and how’s that for the most uses of “experience” in a single sentence :lol: ) A novice, on a stallion, making novice mistakes, will leave an inedible negative impression on the minds of the public (which is not forgiving). Our experience is that talented riders with the experience to compete successfully on a stallion (especially in the USA) are well aware of their value, and charge accordingly. And I do not agree that “lower level” wins impress anyone. Quite the opposite, they open the door for all sorts of criticism.
We use (or are about to use) stallions that have some record of accomplishment, even if only breeding success (i.e., Sandro Hit, Lord Sinclair, Johnson (KWPN), Eldorado Van De Zeshoek, Diarado and Chacco Blue). So as a practical matter, we agree with basing breeding decisions on some sort of performance success, but that said, there are those in the market with different goals, and I don’t think that throwing rocks at them because they are breeding for a different market is good for any of us.
But some people like throwing rocks.
[QUOTE=Cartier;7297338]
Boy, you have a lot of assumptions that have morphed into “truths.” My first thought is, “Do it, and report back in 10 years.” :yes: :lol: But I will concede that you post based on your experiences, and I do the same, and we are coming at this from different points of view.
I don’t know where you are finding all these talented young riders who will work for free, who you’d actually want to let sit on your horse. In our experience, we’ve found that it takes years of experience to have the experience necessary to be successful. (and how’s that for the most uses of “experience” in a single sentence :lol: ) A novice, on a stallion, making a novice mistakes, will leave an inedible negative impression on the minds of the public (which is not forgiving). Our experience is that talented riders with the experience to compete successfully on a stallion (especially in the USA) are well aware of their value, and charge accordingly. And I do not agree that “lower level” wins impress anyone. Quite the opposite, they open the door for all sorts of criticism.[/QUOTE]
I can go to a local show and see 4th level and 1.30 riders. Most of them are looking for a horse or a next horse. If you cannot find any of these people, who is the market for the stallion to start with?
If your stallion is so unsuitable for a rider of this quality then he either should have outrageous talent for the big ring or he shouldn’t be breeding horses for the average person.
Explain to me how a stallion that looks brilliant at 4th level is a bigger marketing issue than a dressage stallion that never even did 1st level?
And explain what value a breeder is suppose to find in a stallion that has never competed and his potential is unknown? (unless he has the offspring that are competing).
Do you use stallions that never did anything? Or buy youngsters from these stallions?
Maybe I am spoiled but my local horse community are full of good ole Alberta farm people that are stallion owners that show their horses. Not all are UL but you can go and see them compete or in clinics and get a feel for their limitations or if they are being limited by their owners constraints. These people got up this am and fed their horses in -30C and are probably wearing some type of plaid to boot. Most are very average in their financial resources but they represent their stallion. I don’t need to stand a stallion to know it can be done, I have a ton of peers that are doing it very well.
I think MORE people should breed for the middle-of-the-road horse .
How many horse owners want to have a horse that is relatively sane, sound, and enjoyable in the barn that they can have fun on and go to shows a few times a year. 90%? Do we need 90% of our breeding to be focused on horses with GP dressage or jumping talent? I don’t think so.
Agree 100%. That makes up 99% or more of my market - both breeding and selling in utero’s and youngsters. Maybe Im short sighted or something but if that remaining 1% happens to find their way to my stallion and decides to breed to him or buy an offspring by him - I am thrilled - but thats not what pays my bills at the end of each day …
There ARE other breeders out there with terrific well bred mares being bred to stellar UL stallions, with enviable facilities and unlimited advertising budgets. They are more than welcome to have ALL of the buyers looking to produce and buy UL prospects. I am NOT their competition and never will be …
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7297373]
I can go to a local show and see 4th level and 1.30 riders. Most of them are looking for a horse or a next horse. If you cannot find any of these people, who is the market for the stallion to start with?
If your stallion is so unsuitable for a rider of this quality then he either should have outrageous talent for the big ring or he shouldn’t be breeding horses for the average person.
Explain to me how a stallion that looks brilliant at 4th level is a bigger marketing issue than a dressage stallion that never even did 1st level?
And explain what value a breeder is suppose to find in a stallion that has never competed and his potential is unknown? (unless he has the offspring that are competing).
Do you use stallions that never did anything? Or buy youngsters from these stallions?
[QUOTE]
You have lots of assumptions, judgments and declarations of alleged fact, that seem to fall well short of merit. Then you ask questions that are so convoluted on their face, they can not be answered, in part because one cannot stop laughing long enough to answer the question, and in part because the premise of the questions is false, or the question is so convoluted, it’s like, “When did you stop beating your wife?”"
If I were a breeder trying to sell a product, I would have no interest in attracting a group of riders who have no money. By your description, this group do not have the funds to purchase my product. If I were a stallion owner selling semen, the market for my stallion’s semen would be breeders. And, I would guess that breeders chose stallions who’s foals sell fast, for roughly double the cost of production. That means the foal has some eye appeal, a bit of a show record and/or inspection accolade. I think many buyers do not understand pedigrees. They want the pretty foal. If you look at the Breeders Guides of the major Warmblood registries, going back over the past decade, overwhelmingly, the semen of the colored stallions out sells the solid colored stallions several times over. Given that we both agree that most colored stallions have no performance career to speak of, it seems fair to conclude that the majority of American breeders don’t care a whole lot about performance careers, or the buying public doesn’t care, and the market wants a pretty, unusual colored foal, because those foals sell.
Have you actually looked at the stallions marketed in the USA over the past decade or so, almost none of them came anywhere close to having “outrageous talent.” ISF Judgment would be one of the few exceptions, and, talented as he is, I doubt he gets anywhere near as many mares as some pinto stallion.
I think breeders find stallions by searching the internet for websites that appeal to them.
You have lots of assumptions, judgments and declarations of alleged fact, that seem to fall well short of merit. Then you ask questions that are so convoluted on their face, they can not be answered, in part because one cannot stop laughing long enough to answer the question, and in part because the premise of the questions is false, or the question is so convoluted, it’s like, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
If I were a stallion owner trying to sell semen, I would have no interest in attracting a group of marginally talented riders who have no money. By your description, this group do not have the funds to purchase my product. Most of the costs of showing are fixed costs. I would want the very best rider riding my stallion, because a great rider will get the best from the horse.
If I were a stallion owner selling semen, the market for my stallion’s semen would be breeders. And, I would guess that breeders chose stallions who’s foals sell fast, for roughly double the cost of production. That means the foal has some eye appeal, a bit of a show record and/or inspection accolade. I think many buyers do not understand pedigrees. They want the pretty foal.
If you look at the Breeders Guides of the major Warmblood registries, going back over the past decade, overwhelmingly, the semen of the colored stallions out sells the solid colored stallions several times over. Given that we both agree that most colored stallions have no performance career to speak of, it seems fair to conclude that the majority of American breeders don’t care a whole lot about performance careers, or the buying public doesn’t care, and the market wants a pretty, unusual colored foal, because those foals sell.
Have you actually looked at the stallions marketed in the USA over the past decade or so? Almost none of them came anywhere close to having “outrageous talent.” ISF Judgment would be one of the few exceptions, and, talented as he is, I doubt he gets anywhere near as many mares as some pinto stallion.
I think breeders find stallions by searching the internet for websites that appeal to them. In our experience over the years, many breeders don’t understand registries, don’t understand performance careers, and don’t look for much past a pretty photo and a fancy farm.
That said, there are a handful of breeders who are producing outstanding quality, based upon a breeding model that has been proven over decades and generations, based upon mares, who do not compete, but go straight to breeding. But these folks have a ready market for their proven product, and they are almost never posting on some internet forum.
[QUOTE=TrueColours;7297243]
Man oh man - is your post “dead on” IMO …
So many animals, whatever colour, breed, discipline, etc they might be, look like superstars on paper and are utter and total duds in the performance and/or breeding arenas and conversely, the ones that are iffy / so-so on paper, can very well excel and perform BETTER than their bloodlines look in both the performance and/or breeding areas.
I know in relation to TB’s - something like 2% of all TB’s born ever win a race and its under 5% - something like 3 or 4%, win back in purse money, the sale amount they went through the ring for.
These werent the studies I was looking for, but here are a couple:
and this wasnt the one I was looking for either, but a VERY interesting read as well:
http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.com.au/yearling-price-vs-performance-gai_topic43924.html#fast
It would be very interesting to see if any studies were done on large, high end purchases for the dressage, jumper, hunter, eventing, etc disciplines - prize money won, future sale price, future breeding revenues, etc to see if at the end of the day, a profit was realized and if so - for how much? Or if buyers / competitors / players / breeders / etc in the aforementioned disciplines dont take this into account in their breeding / buying / showing / selling / etc decisions??? And IF they dont - how do they stay in business???
I will add this to the discussion - my stallion does very well in the breeding shed. He has a steady clientelle that is loyal to him, that breed to him more than once, he gets referral business all the time, clients buy addiitonal mares to breed to him specifically to market and sell that foal, and the value of his offspring remains high. I very much weighed the pros and cons of showing him from the time I bought him in 2009 to today and from a pure financial perspective, it made “0” sense for me to spend any money getting him back into the show ring. It wasnt going to add much (IMO) to his demand or popularity and I didnt “need” the exposure to get business to him. He was doing well enough on his own every single year based on his current offsprings results and got more bookings each year. I have made the decision right now to get him back going under saddle and showing in the dressage ring because I now have access to a wonderful FEI level trainer and rider, it will be fun to see him back in the ring again, it will “re-invent” him in another discipline that he hasnt been seen in before but probably the most important factor for me was his overall health. He is 15 this year, hadnt really been ridden at all in 11 years, was getting podgy, and I want him around and healthy for a few more years yet, and getting his fitness level back and maintained was important to me. It will be interesting to see if he gets any more bookings by my doing so or stays constant, but that wasnt my reasoning for doing so. But not everyone with a stallion and an older, out of shape one at that, is in the position to do so, so I consider myself very fortunate that I am able to do so
But in my case- a limited show career with him (a dozen or maybe a few more shows as a 4 year old with his previous owner) was enough to get him approved and then he has ridden on those credentials only and on his offspring. He didnt NEED to stay in the show ring to continue to attract mares every year.
So why keep throwing money into the show ring coffers to “keep them out there” if it doesnt = additional breeding revenues at the end of the day???[/QUOTE]
Arthur was just reading this. Just to put this in perspective, we can name dozens of stallions up and down the East Coast who’s owners are doing exactly the same thing. Pick a popular stallion, and Google his performance career. It is an eye opener. Overwhelmingly the exceptions are few and far between. Maryanna Hayman’s Don Principe is a stallion that competes, and Judgment competed, and so did Contango… but they are the exceptions to the norm. There aren’t many stallions that do much beyond their stallion test and then a show or two.
[QUOTE=Cartier;7297471]
You have lots of assumptions, judgments and declarations of alleged fact, that seem to fall well short of merit. Then you ask questions that are so convoluted on their face, they can not be answered, in part because one cannot stop laughing long enough to answer the question, and in part because the premise of the questions is false, or the question is so convoluted, it’s like, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
If I were a stallion owner trying to sell semen, I would have no interest in attracting a group of marginally talented riders who have no money. By your description, this group do not have the funds to purchase my product. Most of the costs of showing are fixed costs. I would want the very best rider riding my stallion, because a great rider will get the best from the horse.
If I were a stallion owner selling semen, the market for my stallion’s semen would be breeders. And, I would guess that breeders chose stallions who’s foals sell fast, for roughly double the cost of production. That means the foal has some eye appeal, a bit of a show record and/or inspection accolade. I think many buyers do not understand pedigrees. They want the pretty foal.
If you look at the Breeders Guides of the major Warmblood registries, going back over the past decade, overwhelmingly, the semen of the colored stallions out sells the solid colored stallions several times over. Given that we both agree that most colored stallions have no performance career to speak of, it seems fair to conclude that the majority of American breeders don’t care a whole lot about performance careers, or the buying public doesn’t care, and the market wants a pretty, unusual colored foal, because those foals sell.
Have you actually looked at the stallions marketed in the USA over the past decade or so? Almost none of them came anywhere close to having “outrageous talent.” ISF Judgment would be one of the few exceptions, and, talented as he is, I doubt he gets anywhere near as many mares as some pinto stallion.
I think breeders find stallions by searching the internet for websites that appeal to them. In our experience over the years, many breeders don’t understand registries, don’t understand performance careers, and don’t look for much past a pretty photo and a fancy farm.
That said, there are a handful of breeders who are producing outstanding quality, based upon a breeding model that has been proven over decades and generations, based upon mares, who do not compete, but go straight to breeding. But these folks have a ready market for their proven product, and they are almost never posting on some internet forum.[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
They were simple questions. And there are no assumptions, there is the reality of many stallion owners that actually compete their stallions. The proof is out there everywhere. If you don’t think there are stallions around that have proven themselves, you really didn’t look that hard. I never said they all have to be outrageously talented but I did say they should be capable of at least 4th level or 1.3m, didn’t I.
You made a ton of really odd statements. Of course the people that are riding at 4th level want a horse that can do forth level or above. And why would you not want to attract that type of rider? Because they want a horse that can actually do forth level or above?
As I said before, I am surrounded by people that stand stallions that have competition records or they compete them. Make what ever excuses you want but these people are not super rich or uncommon. And they get people to ride their horses because it is their business.
We will agree to disagree. I won’t buy or use a stallion (or offspring) that hasn’t proven himself to some degree. But if you are happy to do otherwise, carry on.
I am surrounded by amateur friendly horses, even with color. They go to the slaughter plant everyday. And we do not need to breed more or talk about them on a Sport horse forum. This is a Sport horse forum, not a billboard to sell someone’s marketing strategy of pretty horses.
[QUOTE=Cartier;7297499]
Arthur was just reading this. Just to put this in perspective, we can name dozens of stallions up and down the East Coast who’s owners are doing exactly the same thing. Pick a popular stallion, and Google his performance career. It is an eye opener. Overwhelmingly the exceptions are few and far between. Maryanna Hayman’s Don Principe is a stallion that competes, and Judgment competed, and so did Contango… but they are the exceptions to the norm. There aren’t many stallions that do much beyond their stallion test and then a show or two.[/QUOTE]
This is so not true. I have at least 20 stallions that are local to me that have jumped 1.3 to GP. That is within 2hrs of me. Citing people that are choosing stallions that didn’t do anything is not a argument for choosing sport horse stallions that don’t do anything.
Portland
Bosh Blue
Gervantus II
Wolkentanz II
Viva Voltaire
Tacorde
Cree
Case
Tempranillo
KUMANO
Le Primeur
Ironman
Bratt Z
Cabardino…
This list really goes on and on. I can think of a ton of stallions in the US that have a record. You have thrown a lot of insults my way about being clueless but this statement proves you have very little knowledge of the stallions that are available in NA.
http://kwpn-na.org/stallions/
http://hanoverian.org/jbp-approved-stallions/
http://www.holsteiner.com/#!stallions
Boy, we really are not coming from the same place. We are miles apart on even the most basic terms. For example, our definition of a “popular stallion” is vastly different than yours. We took our definition from the registry Breeders Guides we have going back over the past decade, based on (reported) numbers of breedings a stallion gets . So you and I are talking apples and roller skates here.
But since you want to go in this direction, just wondering, in your mind, if an intact male horse jumps 1.30m does that make it worthy of breeding? Or is it 1.40m? Or 1.50m? What exactly is your criteria for a breeding stallion? How do you go about making breeding decisions?
