Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

That isn’t a Popsicle – Post on A.I. « The Californian Friesian

That isn’t a Popsicle – Post on A.I. « The Californian Friesian — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:59:34 GMT

Pingback from That isn’t a Popsicle – Post on A.I. « The Californian Friesian

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

SteveO — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:30:09 GMT

They do it with people. What's the big deal?

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

Kirsteen — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:38:11 GMT

I am not sure I should have read any of this ... I think the breed itself is already so fragile that any talk of this is crazy ! I am also tired of hearing about back yard breeding and how your horses are better because he won some races . Well there are great horses every where that do just as amazing things and don't get the credit . We breed Quarters and it is all live cover but we only push out a handful of foals a year ...I guess this could be considered back yard breeding cause we are not some huge facility but I believe it keeps our bloodline strong and in demand , I also don't believe in breeding older horses regardless how many times a vet says its okay I think this also is detrementle to quality of the foal . Back to AI , I think the more it is used the more we will start seeing our beloved race horses breaking down on tracks . I do believe though the racing industry is built on the love of money verse the love of their animal though and having that said when it comes to money they will do what ever the hell they want to get it even if it means killing hundreds of horses to get there . That to me is not equine love !!!

Pink and Blue in the Thoroughbred Breeding Shed

The Five-Cross Files — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:53:44 GMT

With some matings, you hope for a colt, with others a filly. But what affects foal gender -- and can Thoroughbred breeders influence the process?

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

LCM — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:45:39 GMT

Your arguments are laughable. For one thing the JC could simply RESTRICT the number of mares bred by a particular stallion.

Second the REAL reason AI is prohibited is due to the fear that it would obliterate the boarding/breeding farms HERE IN KY. Just imagine all the breeders around the country and the world that wouldn't be FORCED to keep their mares here to be bred!!! THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY REASON IT ISN'T ALLOWED.

Scot's reply: Glad to give you something to laugh at, LCM, although that was not the intent and I hope not how everyone responded. Sadly, many people don't think through the long-term effects of any changes in policy and regulation. The "live cover" rule is enforceable only because it is not a new limitation. Any attempt by TJC to institute a rule limiting book size for a stallion would last probably about a day -- and certainly no longer than the time it would take for a dozen lawsuits to be filed. ... As for the argument that Kentucky boarding farms are collaborating for purely financial reasons, I'd ask: what do the farms in England or Ireland or New Zealand or Argentina -- where farms are much less concentrated than in Kentucky -- gain from this rule that makes it worth supporting in their respective registries?

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

tee's sizzy — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:35:13 GMT

This is only coming from a fan, not an expert who is in the horse business. If nothing else, the live cover has it's own infatuating mystique. In an age ever-advancing technology and defiance of Mother Nature, it's refreshing to see something done the way she intended (sort of!)

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

Mike S — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:49:26 GMT

I am against AI for the reasons that are stated at the top of this page (A thru D). It makes perfect sense to me that AI should not be allowed.

Instead of focusing energy on making horses even more of a "commodity" to be used up and discarded, why not put more focus on how terrible slaughter is and how horses deserve a better fate?

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

sceptre — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:51:42 GMT

Peggy:

Perhaps no one has mentioned what you call "the important thing". because rather than it being important, it is sheer nonsense, with no basis in science or mathematics. I suggest you research the subject.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

Peggy — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:02:15 GMT

I've read the comments (70-some-odd) and nowhere does anyone say what is actually the important thing about live cover over artificial insemenation. The most viable sperm breeds the mare with live cover! That's it. If sperm is diluted up to 10 times, only the best of what is in each tube will breed the mares.....NOT the best of what that stallions ejaculate produced. So is that what a mare owner wants? Just the best of the ordinary? I don't think so. AI is definitely safer for both animals and man. It also prevents disease and transfer of these from horse to horse. Cooled shipped semen is much easier on the mare and foal, rather than shipping to a strange place and being boarded at some un-Godly price. There's no question about that part of it. We bred our mares every other year so we didn't have to take a mare with a foal on a long trip, plus keeping both of them somewhere besides home. Foals need a lot of things when they are little...most of them, hands on, and no one is going to care for your foal like you are. There are good and bad to each of your arguments...but the main thing to remember is that you get the best a stallion has to offer with live cover!

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

sceptre — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:15:52 GMT

To Julie L. (and all others who share your position):

When we began this topic it had occurred that someone might offer this (your) argument. I had hoped it would be avoided. Since it hasn't, it should be addressed, but I'll attempt to do so only briefly. A complete response doesn't lend itself to this forum-

Thoroughbreds, not unlike domesticated

dogs, cats, etc. are selectively bred creatures, quite different from wild horses, wolves, lions, tigers, etc. They are less able than their forebears to fend for themselves, and, perhaps, less "robust" in many other areas...Also, wild horses are not confined to paddocks or stalls, are not removed from their herd and often transported to be bred, don't have their newborn offspring taken from them during mating, etc. etc. So, in some instances, rather than being "pampered" domesticated horses endure greater stresses than their "wild" relatives. I dare say that "safety" would be of even greater concern for wild horses should they be subjugated to the breeding practices imposed upon our thoroughbreds...Wild horse mares breed to the stallion at hand, generally thoroughbreds do not...Perhaps more importantly, we would not accept the wastage that may occur in the wild ,with wild horses, for our thoroughbreds. Our manner of selective breeding does not, for the most part, encompass survival of the fittest. In general, thoroughbreds, as do dogs, cats, etc. require much more care (pampering if you will) than their wild cousins for their proper survival and well-being. This needed to be said, not just to address Julie L's specific point, but for all those farm managers who like to employ her basic argument in rationalizing the negligent care given to their horses. As said, there is far more that can be offered on this subject. I'll close by posing this question: Where is it written that "nature's way" is the given "good"? We certainly haven't adhered to that model.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

Julie L. — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:57:28 GMT

Live cover is the only way to be breeding horses of any breed period. AI opens itself up to a whole lot of legal issues and having followed the Quarterhorse industry I have seen some problems arise with AI. As for the safety concerns, let's not forget that they are horses and have been breeding in the wild for centuries and we have pampered them far beyond what we really need to. My friend Dr. Larson a DVM pasture breeds his Thoroughbreds, he gets a far better conception rate he says. And I trust him on that count.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

edzepplin — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:09:49 GMT

If the Jockey club has it right, It would do whats best for the entire industry. Live cover is far from doing whats best for the horses safety and health and for the health and safety of the humans who participate in It. you refer to the AQHA as being a damaged because of AI. First of all the American Quarter horse as a breed has only been around since the 1930's? How much genetic diversity can you have in 80 years to begin with. That argument is not accurate at best.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

ROBERT — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:10:36 GMT

To Murray: No I don't call the police everytime. You got me there. But I DO report EVERY violator I know that breaks the rules when it comes to a business. I have lived in America a long time and I don't turn a blind eye to those who break the rules. Yes speeding kills, but lets compare apples to apples. Our society says speeding is not that serious, which is why we get tickets and not jail, unless you kill someone. Our laws say we get a ticket. The Jockey Club laws say, breed a horse using A.I. and get caught, that foal will not be registered and none of its offspring will be either. My point is this this Murray. You are a notible figure in our sport. You seem to represent most of us who are trying to make it big, or bigger in the sport. If we see one of our own not playing by the rules or at least not caring that others are doing what they should, then that person needs to find another line of work. I know underhanded things go on in the business. When you see things going on that are wrong, be a stand up guy and do something about it. Don't just walk away or turn away. Just saying I don't care and then saying out sport is dirty, means nothing. This sport we all love will not survive if the public believes, or starts to doubt our integrity or our word. I have seen enough of that to last 10 lifetimes. Best of Luck to you in the future. I hope to see you in the winners cirle again. Thanks.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

sceptre — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:02:45 GMT

All this A.I./frozen semen discussion raises some rather thought provoking, near-nth degree conjecture. Since it could permit deceased lives to continue to procreate it increases more the "conflict" between selective breeding and the "forces" of evolution.

re: Live Cover vs. Artificial Insemination in Thoroughbred Breeding -- Why The Jockey Club Has It Right

Karen in Indiana — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:24:14 GMT

Scot, that'a good point about protecting the race record. A good example of what you've said is Cetewayo. He raced until he was 8, Ribot is only 2 back in his pedigree, his record is 37-11-5-4, at least 10 of those are in graded stakes. Now I don't know if there are issues with fertility or anything, but with all the people talking about lack of durability in the breed and with his race record, why is he only standing for $2,500 & Unbridled's Song, who seems to pass on his fragility, standing for $125,000?