I’ve only seen what Sunny-Sam describes twice and that happened with Quarterhorse mares. Another woman in the barn had leased a mare to get a foal and she refused to allow the mare and her new foal to be shipped to a stallion that was about 8 hours away.
1 Like
This may be TMI, but when a stallion dismounts, he is almost always “dripping”. Sometimes a handler will lean down and grab a dismount sample. (I could swear I once saw someone use a dixie cup. 
) Depending on the farm, and the stallion, the sample may be used to check for motility, etc. or it’s inserted in the mare to reinforce the breeding.
2 Likes
I’ve always gotten a kick out of the idea of “reinforcing” the cover. You’re inseminating. People might not like that reality, bit it is what it is.
On another note, the Jockey Club has done a brilliant job of keeping the KY breeding farms (in particular) in business. Boarding mares, weanlings and yearlings is a strong source of income for them, and it makes sense to board your mares in the area that they are being bred in.
2 Likes
This also isn’t just the US Jockey Club being dumb and stubborn and antiquated (or whatever else)…the Thoroughbred registries across the world have reciprocity with each other. A US registered horse is considered a “Registered Thoroughbred” in Japan, or Australia, or Turkey. The rules that define a “Registered Thoroughbred” in all registries are the same, or at least very similar, and one of those rules is live cover.
One registry making a unilateral decision to change what they allow in their book risks other registries withdrawing reciprocity. US Thoroughbreds not being considered Registered Thoroughbreds on a worldwide stage would be a disastrous hit to the breed here.
Getting an entire world of registries to change a significant rule is, not unexpectedly, challenging.
It’s easy to look at this as a US only thing, but it’s not. It’s a lot more complicated.
10 Likes
Good point.
I think it’s silly to argue about semantics, but the process is called reinforcing because by actual definition, that’s what it is.
I doubt that anyone in the TB industry has ever given a thought to whether or not they like the word. Because, again, that would be silly.
7 Likes
Putting semen into a mare, by any other means than a stallion’s penis, is inseminating. Clearly, that word is NOT one that the TB world wants associated with their practices, but it is what it is.
Not exactly. “Inseminating” is simply introducing sperm into the reproductive system of a female (or hermaphrodite). It doesn’t indicate how it’s done. So, normal sex is insemination.
What matters then is WHO did the insemination as to whether it was natural, or artificial (by whatever means)
4 Likes
Agree to disagree
There’s a reason “artificial” is added - “artificial insemination” - because it means it’s done by means other than a penis directly depositing semen.
There’s a reason “natural” is added - “natural insemination” - because it means it’s done by the penis directly
It’s not an “agree to disagree” deal
3 Likes
It sounds as though you think you’ve discovered something sneaky and underhanded that needs to be shouted out as a “Gotcha!” moment. Except…everyone is already well aware. The reinforcement of live cover breedings is well known and commonly practiced in the TB industry, and has been for decades. As Janet pointed out above, it’s even mentioned in the JC Rulebook.
Nobody is hiding anything. No one needs to be informed, or lectured about terminology that offends you. In the real world, the TB industry isn’t at all worried about the semantics. No matter what you may think.
8 Likes
