I assure you they were lying. There is no way anyone would risk not being able to register their foal when the mare and stallion were literally in the same room
7 Likes
If nothing else, there are a LOT of people on hand during breeding season. Too many for anyone with a microgram of sense to be confident that no one will blab. All it takes is one employee who feels slighted.
6 Likes
This absolutely did not happen in the stock horse industry. The regional stallions disappeared.
not sure why this replied to Laurie B. anyway I agree with her and was responding to snaffle
6 Likes
That small gene pool stuff with AI you are spewing has been debunked time and again.
As a breeder who has done it both ways, AI is tremendously easier and SAFER for all involved. AI is also more effective at getting a mare to settle.
Kentucky Live Cover is nothing but a group of selfish old guys trying to prop up breeding farms. It’s as behind the times as brick and mortar buildings vs on-line purchasing.
Requiring Live Cover when AI is SAFER for the mare, the stallion, the employees and certainly the foal is just immoral and stupid.
4 Likes
It has not been debunked with thoroughbreds.
Even race-bred Standardbreds, QHs, and Arabs are very different markets.
And we’ll just have to agree to disagree about AI being more effective to get mares to settle. Safer, sure…
5 Likes
In Thoroughbreds, the value of a horse (in performance and for breeding) is tested by it’s racing career over two, three or more years in training. Then the animal either retires to the breeding paddocks to produce more TBs for racing or (predominantly as geldings) go on to a second career in sport and leisure riding. A great racehorse is worth $$$$$$$ and a poor one $$$ or less: the speed of the financial depreciation is enough to cause windburn! The residual value of a TB is in breeding, the verifiable blood lines, the careful, “thorough”, breeding and only the owners of a top stallion can make steady money, enough to support the cost of the breeding infrastructure. Hardly surprisingly, the value of TB stallions is rigorously protected. This a very focused way to sustain a particular breed and it has worked over multiple centuries and all around the globe. It is ruthless selection that has produced such a unique breed, one that has the ability to improve the performance of other breeds. A TB from Chile can still trace its family tree back to some particular fields in Yorkshire, England, in the 18th century. TB racing is a hugely expensive dream for some, a way of life for many and it is a multi billion global industry supporting an entire economic ecosystem.
Rarity has a value. Anyone around the world can own a post card or a mug or a tee shirt with an image of da Vinci’s Mona Lisa on it but there is only one original painting and each year millions of tourists flock to see it in The Louvre. Is the painting worth spending a fortune to go to see? No, probably not because the crowds are so thick it is really difficult to see a very small picture hanging on a gallery wall. However, the rest of the museum is filled with multiple wonders and delights and a visit to Paris is always immense fun.
As I’ve said before somewhere up thread, if someone wants TB blood but doesn’t want live cover, look for a TB stallion being used for breeding sport horses. Frozen or chilled is available. You can even create a clone. The only thing is you can’t register the resulting foal as a Thoroughbred.
Is there anything in the rule book to stop someone running a non-TB in an American or Canadian race? In France there is the “Autre Que Pure-Sang” (AQPS) which translates as “Other than Thoroughbred” and covers Arabs, Angloarabs and Selle Francis that are used in racing. The UK sources a lot of jump racers in France.
3 Likes
As a breeder who also does it both ways, I almost always prefer live cover. In fact, I’ve had several WB mares turned to my TB stallion BECAUSE he is offered live cover; after multiple tries AI (fresh and frozen) they were not pregnant, but they caught with my stallion LC.
In all the mares he’s bred, only one (that happened to be mine, and not a maiden) caused a dangerous situation and kicked him. I take responsibility for it, as my usual help was not available and I had to use a less-experienced person to hold the mare. In all other situations, LC has been safe and relatively easy. I will use sedation if needed.
After delayed AI shipments, both sending and receiving, I like the security of live cover. I’d rather haul my mare 700 miles overnight from FL to KY to get bred, than rely on UPS/FedEx to deliver my semen on time. Out of dozens of matings, I’ve yet to miss a cycle when I ship the mare (& foal).
10 Likes
The ONLY argument I could get behind regarding AI for TBs would be biosecurity.
Isn’t that why the Standardbreds embraced it? I believe they had an outbreak of something infectious.
Shipping foals? After seeing it be such a non-issue, it doesn’t bother me.
Safety for humans and horses? AI gets a slight nod, but accidents can still happen with AI and live cover is not inherently unsafe in any way, especially not how it’s done at professional stud farms.
Effectiveness? Live cover hands down in the majority of instances.
And then there’s that unintended benefit of preserving some genetic diversity in the US thanks to cost and distance that would be a shame to lose.
7 Likes
I’m going to flip the script. What do people think of embryo transfer? A mare having several foals in a year, as is done in many other breeds?
I have no problem with it personally. But if the JC isn’t allowing AI there is zero chance in hell of them allowing ET. Even AQHA started at one foal a year, but there was a mistake made one year where two foals were registered in the same year out of the same mare, so AQHA lost a lawsuit on that one due to a precedent set over what was a mistake.
1 Like
I’m surprised by such an emotional reaction to the discussion of live cover. It’s none of my business, but it makes me wonder if you’ve had a horse that had a bad experience in the breeding shed. If that is the case, I’m truly sorry.
It’s vital to have a stallion handler and other employees who are very skilled for live cover to be safe and successful, and it’s been done quite well, all over the world, for a long time.
As for this?
The live cover rule for Thoroughbreds didn’t originate in Kentucky.
Every Jockey Club in every country follows the same rule to have a foal entered into their studbooks. Here are the members of the IFHA: https://www.ifhaonline.org/default.asp?section=About%20IFHA&area=5
5 Likes
This isn’t an “agree to disagree” point. Statistically, pregnancy rates are about 10% higher for AI compared to live cover (per Jos Motterhead/Kathy St. Martin). Live cover is cheaper/simpler, but not more effective.
3 Likes
This is a pretty disagreed on point in even published veterinary journals. This is older but summarizes the challenges:
https://www.selectbreeders.com/articles/a-review-of-reports-for-reproductive-efficiency
My takeaway has always been AI has a great conception rate when everything goes perfectly. Problem is, everything rarely goes perfectly. Your mare doesn’t ovulate as expected. The stallion you choose doesn’t ship well. FedEx screws you over. Etc. etc.
I have nothing against AI. I don’t think the whole world should go back to LC. My argument always has been that the archaic LC only rule has been an unintended blessing for the TB breed and that moving away from it would not benefit thoroughbreds.
8 Likes
So much depends on the mare, her mind, her health, her preparation to ensure the time of her reproductive cycle, the skill of the vets, the reliability of the postal or courier service, the skills of the technical support at the stallion station, the quality of the seman, it’s age, it’s preservatives and extenders and even when it was collected. An AI stallion standing at the end of a long list of variables versus a live cover mare standing in front of a stallion. Horses for courses perhaps.
It is great for breeders that there is now so much technology behind the art of breeding. Is it great for the horses? Someone up thread asked about embryo transfer and the welfare of the mare.
1 Like
I think that LC and AI both fit where they fit and none is perfect.
Both have good and better points when compared.
The question is of breeder’s choice.
Should be up to breeders and each one should choose one or both as fits best for them and their goals.
We can’t say if banning AI did help or not TBs as a breed, there has not been AI impact to compare LC with.
Having options is generally better, has been working fine for other breeds where both are used.
1 Like
But in breeds that have embraced AI, there is no choice. Finding a quality sport horse stallion that offers LC is essentially impossible these days. So as a mare owner, you are once again pigeon holed into your options.
5 Likes
The data presented in the studies summarized here do not support the claim that per cycle pregnancy rates are higher with live cover than artificial insemination with cooled semen.
Yes, a lot more things can go wrong logistically with shipped semen. But that is a separate issue from fertility/conception rates. (Taking off my pedantic scientist hat now…)
2 Likes
Nor does it say that pregnancy rates are 10% higher with AI as you claimed.
It says these things are hard to ascertain because of the complex variables. And that both LC and AI have been shown to have conception rates as high as 80+% in the right circumstances.
2 Likes
I know nothing about breeding, but in a recent thread on coth it was said that embryo transfer is hard on the mare. True??
Are you sure they weren’t talking about ICSI?
Embryo transfer isn’t really a big deal–the mare is bred, and then the uterus is flushed so the embryo can be retrieved & moved elsewhere.
ICSI is a whole nother beast, where they go scrape eggs off the ovaries.
Perhaps pertinent to this thread–anyone remember the embryo transfer test case in Thoroughbreds in Australia…jeez, 20 years ago? More? A breeder live covered, then flushed & implanted in another mare. The live cover requirement was met. The Aus JC declined to register, but it was very much a test to see how they’d approach the question.
5 Likes
