BEF Futurity

Our vet practice had a evening covering issues relating to breeding. OCD was mentioned & what came about was it is a combination, breeding, feeding & production. It is more common in other parts of Europe because they are forcing their horses in preparation for selling (like the racing industry).

It may well be easy to just blame breeding but if a stallion is popular then he will have more offspring going through the same process. I suppose we will only know if youngsters are kept more naturally & given more time to mature before being asked to work in readiness for the sales. If they are developing OCD as yearlings, feeding can not be ruled out as one of the causes.
 
magic104 said:
Our vet practice had a evening covering issues relating to breeding. OCD was mentioned & what came about was it is a combination, breeding, feeding & production. It is more common in other parts of Europe because they are forcing their horses in preparation for selling (like the racing industry).

It may well be easy to just blame breeding but if a stallion is popular then he will have more offspring going through the same process. I suppose we will only know if youngsters are kept more naturally & given more time to mature before being asked to work in readiness for the sales. If they are developing OCD as yearlings, feeding can not be ruled out as one of the causes.
Click to expand...

I agree and I am not ruling out the management issues regarding OCD, it is the genetical predisposition that needs stamping out. If OCD was just down to the over feeding of youngsters, then why do we not see crippled youngsters in the many many showing classes in the UK! If it is down to feeding alone we would have no sound show horses in this country!!! It is not a chicken and egg situation, it does start off with genetics, then management accelerates it.

I can only speak about the SF findings and their figures submitted were based on a percentage of youngsters presented against those affected. It was very apparent which stallions were producing a higher percentage of stock with OCD, where other stallions showed not one youngster with lesions!
 
Surely it is very easy for a stallion owner to have his horse x-rayed and any chips removed before the horse is sent for grading?!! So x-rays cannot be completely conclusive!!!

I have heard of several stallions that have had chips removed as a 'precautcionary' measure as the horse was totally sound before surgery....hmmmm!!
 
So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place.
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding.
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together.
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry.
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.
 
I have never nor will i ever go to a futurity, but i feel they shouldnt close it off to graded stock only, thats what studbooks do, it was set up to evaluate british breeding stock and now it is turning into a closed book like Trakehner etc?!!
I have 3 out of 7 foals this year 2 stallions ungraded the other 4 are, now i dont look at my foals with rose tinted glasses but they are pretty ***** hot in my opinion. They will also have the same paper work as if the stallion had been graded. He is bening presented this year but it wouldnt stop me using him or any nice tb stallion who hasnt got a high enough time form rating?
cruz.jpg

DSCN1951.jpg

DSCN1813.jpg
 
HorseyLad said:
Surely it is very easy for a stallion owner to have his horse x-rayed and any chips removed before the horse is sent for grading?!! So x-rays cannot be completely conclusive!!!

I have heard of several stallions that have had chips removed as a 'precautcionary' measure as the horse was totally sound before surgery....hmmmm!!
Click to expand...
We would not in the BHHS accept this stallion
 
ribbons said:
So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place.
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding.
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together.
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry.
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.
Click to expand...
The good Futurity marks do assist in the sale of a foal and this is quite clear from people who produce 8 or 10 foals a year. To gain respect in the international market where the real money is you need foals from a well respected studbook that have high standards for grading of stallions and mares,people who buy at the major auctions would never buy stock from unlicensed stallions even thought a number who fail licensing as 3 year olds later do well in competition and are subsequently licensed.
 
ribbons said:
So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place.
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding.
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together.
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry.
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.
Click to expand...

I am pleased to hear that you have a satisfied clients for your young stock but we are dealing with a wide variety of individuals who need to see standards set for stallions and mares and as the standard of judging in the Futurity improves we will see the results from the Futurity showing up in the successful horses if you do not show in the Futurity you will not have the opportunity to show me where I am going wrong.
 
sywell said:
I am pleased to hear that you have a satisfied clients for your young stock but we are dealing with a wide variety of individuals who need to see standards set for stallions and mares and as the standard of judging in the Futurity improves we will see the results from the Futurity showing up in the successful horses if you do not show in the Futurity you will not have the opportunity to show me where I am going wrong.
Click to expand...

But surely you aren't saying that only horses who are successful in the future are those who have been presented to the futurity? Youngstock who are not presented will also go on to be successful if produced well (and bred well of course). I know a lot of studs who foal more than 8 or 10 year who do not take their youngsters to the futurity, Brendon Stud, Quainton Stud, not sure I have seen Billy Stud there either? They do however have successful youngsters. I don't think anyone is saying don't use graded stallions or graded mares etc - what people are saying is that by excluding all ungraded stallions you are actually removing from the futurity stallions who are already producing youngsters for competition - Narramore Stud's stallion has many youngsters out competing who are doing well. Groomsbridge also have stallions who are producing the goods. Why can't people present whichever foal they have bred, with no breeding known to the evaluators, so that the foal through 3 year old can be seen on their own merits (I hear breeding will be unknown this year, which is a good thing). After all, by knowing the bloodlines, you are only saying what potential a youngster has based on its parentage, rather than looking at the foal in front of you, and that can be done on a piece of paper.
 
Last edited:
Actually I suspect futurity results are, or have been, more important to buyers of dressage horses. As is the importance of graded sires. So this might help the sales of this type of young
horse.
As I breed for the eventing Market, who are more interested in the animal in front of them and less so in who it's parents are I doubt it will bother my customers. In fact I can't actualy remember a grading or futurity result affecting a sale one way or the other.
So maybe it will only be the dressage section that will see any change in breeding practice. Be that change fir the better or not, only time will tell.
 
sywell said:
OCD has many interrelated causes from over feeding to lack of exercise and with the progress that is being made with DNA we will be able to do more to eliminate this problem. Johann Knapp has done a lot of work on this subject and heritable factors are only one of the factors. As we do not have a standard practice of xraying horses in the UK we have no idea how prevalent this problem is. More breeders should pay more attention to feed and usable copper in feed. If you know what the vet requirements of stallions are then you know what has not been found so there is no need to say what is not found. The studbooks are keen to make progress and the horses the BHHS are producing like Farouche and Deveraux III show that we can produce the young stock.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this sounds to me like someone in denial; "It isn't really due to breeding but we'll sort it out when we know more about DNA."

Eh?

It doesn't reassure me to be then told, basically, that I have no need to know the vet's findings and that the stud books are keen to improve....

Moreover I think we can safely say that until recently we did not need x-rays to be able to say that OCD was an uncommon problem in British stock because we saw very few animals lame from this particular cause, here in a country where veterinary intervention as a matter of course, is not yet - thank goodness - accepted as normal.

I also suspect Horsey Lad is correct; could Sywell tell us how he/she would know that early intervention had not hidden this problem? I understand there is minimal scarring.

Myself, I think that what breeders need above all is INFORMATION; not judgements made on their behalf without explanation or accessibility by people who in some cases may have different criteria or even vested interests.

As to the Futurity, I think its interest and strength was in the breadth of types and breeds - and non-breeds, come to that - which it drew together under a common roof and viewed relatively impartially. I think it got people talking and thinking about breeding, comparing stallions and considering alternatives, right across the board.Anything that hinders this lessens its usefulness and importance.

Sadly, I don't think that it can now be viewed as having the importance it originally had. In Scotland I feel it is now largely irrelevant anyway, due to what I can only describe as administrative incompetence (the choice of date last year was dire) and reluctance to be pro-active in growing its popularity.

If it were to carry the authority and importance that has been suggested I can't help feeling that it would need to watch its back. I suspect a refusal to consider stock by any given stallion without very good reason (and "We think horses should be graded" is not sufficient reason when it is clear that ungraded horses are doing an equivalent job and previously scooped a lot of the honours) could be seen as a restriction of trade if it affects the breeder's or owner's finances adversely. I doubt this will become an issue as I don't think the Futurity has that much clout.

For what its worth I do think that grading, in the sense of assessing, registering, recording, monitoring results is a positive thing and should be encouraged. But grading as in "This is good, that is bad, you are only a mare owner and don't need to know why" really doesn't rock my boat. Stolensilver is right; transparency and the public accessibility of information is overwhelmingly important.
 
Oh the huge amounts of common sense and worries about the usefulness of this ruling being voiced here by breeders is surely of some importance to BEF. They surely are aware of the majority opinion by now. Will it make a jot of difference to them? Not on your life.
There is none so blind as those who don't want to see.
 
sywell said:
The approval of other studbooks is not Hanovers problem.
Click to expand...

One other thing: probably glaringly obvious to dressage peeps, but I had to go and look it up; when a stallion registered with another studbook is known to have /pass on OCD as highlighted by Stolensilver with regard to Donnerhall and Rubinstein, by admitting that stallion's offspring to your own studbook, surely it BECOMES your problem? Both these stallions are approved by Hanover though registered Oldenburg and Westphalian respectively.

I can see why a studbook might feel that it needs to avail itself of their positive qualities, but to ignore the negative ones on the grounds that the horse was originally registered with another society so they are "not Hanover's problem" is box-ticking at its worst.

It also occurs to me that these horses were approved presumably in spite of their negative qualities and for their positive ones. So in this case a value judgement was made which balanced a fault unacceptable to many against qualities desired by many. Now, how often does this happen? The supposition that a horse which grades will, of necessity, be free of faults so we don't need to know what the vet said as there was nothing to say, looks very unwise in a studbook where this sort of compromise is known to have occurred.

Although some of this is historical and it could be argued that the studbook is trying to repair the damage, this sort of unexplained compromise is IMO endemic - even unavoidable - in gradings; what do they say? "He who seeks the perfect horse had best walk." The only way out is the transparency which Stolensilver advocates.
 
jamesmead said:
One other thing: probably glaringly obvious to dressage peeps, but I had to go and look it up; when a stallion registered with another studbook is known to have /pass on OCD as highlighted by Stolensilver with regard to Donnerhall and Rubinstein, by admitting that stallion's offspring to your own studbook, surely it BECOMES your problem? Both these stallions are approved by Hanover though registered Oldenburg and Westphalian respectively.

I can see why a studbook might feel that it needs to avail itself of their positive qualities, but to ignore the negative ones on the grounds that the horse was originally registered with another society so they are "not Hanover's problem" is box-ticking at its worst.

It also occurs to me that these horses were approved presumably in spite of their negative qualities and for their positive ones. So in this case a value judgement was made which balanced a fault unacceptable to many against qualities desired by many. Now, how often does this happen? The supposition that a horse which grades will, of necessity, be free of faults so we don't need to know what the vet said as there was nothing to say, looks very unwise in a studbook where this sort of compromise is known to have occurred.

Although some of this is historical and it could be argued that the studbook is trying to repair the damage, this sort of unexplained compromise is IMO endemic - even unavoidable - in gradings; what do they say? "He who seeks the perfect horse had best walk." The only way out is the transparency which Stolensilver advocates.
Click to expand...
To clarify my point. The breeding rules and standards are those of that breeding association and Hanover is confident we have some of the best evaluations. When the late Donnerhall was licensed there were different standards and he was licensed to those standards. As yet we do not have vet proof which of the factors which cause OCD come from a stallion , a mare and what combination of mare and stallion. It was not a problem in British Breeding because no one looked for it and things change look at "navicular syndrome" and how opinions on this are changing due to modern diagnostics.. When we see more top horses from unapproved stallions your point may be taken.
 
jamesmead said:
Sorry, but this sounds to me like someone in denial; "It isn't really due to breeding but we'll sort it out when we know more about DNA."

Eh?

It doesn't reassure me to be then told, basically, that I have no need to know the vet's findings and that the stud books are keen to improve....

Moreover I think we can safely say that until recently we did not need x-rays to be able to say that OCD was an uncommon problem in British stock because we saw very few animals lame from this particular cause, here in a country where veterinary intervention as a matter of course, is not yet - thank goodness - accepted as normal.

I also suspect Horsey Lad is correct; could Sywell tell us how he/she would know that early intervention had not hidden this problem? I understand there is minimal scarring.

Myself, I think that what breeders need above all is INFORMATION; not judgements made on their behalf without explanation or accessibility by people who in some cases may have different criteria or even vested interests.

As to the Futurity, I think its interest and strength was in the breadth of types and breeds - and non-breeds, come to that - which it drew together under a common roof and viewed relatively impartially. I think it got people talking and thinking about breeding, comparing stallions and considering alternatives, right across the board.Anything that hinders this lessens its usefulness and importance.

Sadly, I don't think that it can now be viewed as having the importance it originally had. In Scotland I feel it is now largely irrelevant anyway, due to what I can only describe as administrative incompetence (the choice of date last year was dire) and reluctance to be pro-active in growing its popularity.

If it were to carry the authority and importance that has been suggested I can't help feeling that it would need to watch its back. I suspect a refusal to consider stock by any given stallion without very good reason (and "We think horses should be graded" is not sufficient reason when it is clear that ungraded horses are doing an equivalent job and previously scooped a lot of the honours) could be seen as a restriction of trade if it affects the breeder's or owner's finances adversely. I doubt this will become an issue as I don't think the Futurity has that much clout.

For what its worth I do think that grading, in the sense of assessing, registering, recording, monitoring results is a positive thing and should be encouraged. But grading as in "This is good, that is bad, you are only a mare owner and don't need to know why" really doesn't rock my boat. Stolensilver is right; transparency and the public accessibility of information is overwhelmingly important.
Click to expand...
I think it would be useful to look at the Mexico Olympic horses and where they came from and look at todays Olympic horses and where they come from and I think from that exercise you will see they are horses from established studbooks with proactive breeding programs. The scar from the operation can be seen and it should be entered in the passport by the vet. There is great concern that if a horse has section ix signed off there is no record of drugs administered and a horse without this section signed could have a list of drugs administered for minor problems and a buyer might be put off and many dealers sign off section ix as a matter of course. I think many of the comments come from people with strong opinions who have not seen at first hand how the best European studbooks operate and the prices paid at auction by people of great knowledge and experience who know what they are talking about and the idea that grading is not the way forward might be shon up by how horses cope with Greenwich and how they were bred.
 
ribbons said:
Oh the huge amounts of common sense and worries about the usefulness of this ruling being voiced here by breeders is surely of some importance to BEF. They surely are aware of the majority opinion by now. Will it make a jot of difference to them? Not on your life.
There is none so blind as those who don't want to see.
Click to expand...
How do you know it is a majority opinion.
 
sywell said:
When we see more top horses from unapproved stallions your point may be taken.
Click to expand...

But the Futurity is surely not only set up to find the top 1% who reach the ultimate in competition level? If we all bred to that level there would be a huge shortfall in horses of all levels to help up and coming riders get to the top as there are not many youngster or teens who could sit a ready made Hickstead or Shutterfly. I think this just verifies the concerns many breeders have that the Futurity is becoming purely elitest for the top flight only. Was that really its initial intentions when set up?
 
It is the majority opinion here. Sorry I thought I'd said that. It is also the majority opinion if everyone I have discussed with. I realise the two areas are only a section of breeders, but the ratio of for/ against is overwhelming.
I am convinced if BEF had asked for opinion nation wide the percentages would be the same.
However no one at BEF seems to set any importance on the opinions of the people who breed the very animals that they claim to be qualified to evaluate, but only if someone else has scored it's sire previously.
 
All I have to say on the matter is its a very expensive Rosette going to the BEF if it does not help a foal or youngster sell what is the point, has anyone ever been advised which stallion would suit their mare? by any one when being evaluated.
 
With reference to the comment regarding futurity evaluations helping towards the sale of a youngster, I would have to disagree. A client had her very smart colt foal evaluated last year. He quite rightly received an Elite in the dressage section, as he really does move to die for. She advertised him (at a very reasonable price) just before he was weaned and did not get one phone call enquiring about him! She had now decided to run him on and produce him herself, so not a disaster. I have presented youngsters for evaluation with the BEF Futurity for the past 4 years gaining several Elites and Higher 1st Premiums (all out of graded sires) and I can honestly say that my youngsters evaluations have not assisted with their sale.
 
My colt gained Elite for Jumping, with comments that they could see him international dressage. The only person interested in him wouldnt come and see him unless I agreed to let her have him for £2500 So please tell me where that grading assisted his sale
 
elijahasgal said:
My colt gained Elite for Jumping, with comments that they could see him international dressage. The only person interested in him wouldnt come and see him unless I agreed to let her have him for £2500 So please tell me where that grading assisted his sale
Click to expand...
In the current selling climate many people do not get replies to their adverts but it is important to support the Futurity because the data it produces will give guidance to the best sires who we must remember only contribute 40% of the foal. I personally like to see jumping blood in a dressage horse but it is believed that showjumpers only buy on results not pedigree so will end up paying a lot more eventually. One showjumper only looks at competing 7 yr olds at they do noy have rime to produce horses. These threads must not lose sight of the fact who ever is right in this discussion will be shown when we have all British Bred horses in our teams by quality and I am convinced that the route of studbook horses with graded sire and dams is the right way to go and in most of these studbooks the members decide the policy that the Breeding directors follow and for Hanoverians the international Hanoverian societies have their elected member on the main board and the individual societies have a vote at the AGM .
 
There Lies the nub of the argument. If we need the data on what is producing what, excluding sires for whatever reason, we cannot collect all the information.
As said, I know two stallions in very different circumstances, who would have fallen through the data net for several years. One is still classified as failed, although he will soon be accepted on performance. One is fantastic bloodlines, but had carbon fiber implants after an accident as a yearling, but has still gone onto jump grade a and since gain acceptance. The second we have essentially lost 9 years stud with, and and on the new rules, that would have been 9 years of data from.
It will be missing the fact that some owners of young stallions choose to see what he is producing before going for grading, and may then decide that he is not mature enough, or or or..... to be graded in the required time. That is all data that we will be missing.
And compared to the price that we pay for a breed specific day, £25 for the KWPN, or £75 for hanoverian which includes the DNA and branding, and have more respect worldwide for the results.
I just cannot see the point of excluding horses, use the results to proove what you are saying. Use the results to find stallions that are slipping through the net, to take a closer look at them.
 
sywell said:
In the current selling climate many people do not get replies to their adverts but it is important to support the Futurity because the data it produces will give guidance to the best sires who we must remember only contribute 40% of the foal. I personally like to see jumping blood in a dressage horse but it is believed that showjumpers only buy on results not pedigree so will end up paying a lot more eventually. One showjumper only looks at competing 7 yr olds at they do noy have rime to produce horses. These threads must not lose sight of the fact who ever is right in this discussion will be shown when we have all British Bred horses in our teams by quality and I am convinced that the route of studbook horses with graded sire and dams is the right way to go and in most of these studbooks the members decide the policy that the Breeding directors follow and for Hanoverians the international Hanoverian societies have their elected member on the main board and the individual societies have a vote at the AGM .
Click to expand...

Slightly contradictory .
Your telling us to support the futurity because it will tell us the best sires to use.
But it only gives us a choice of stallions that someone else has told us are good enough through the various grading system.
And then you say they only input 40% anyway so does it actually matter then what you use.
Surely in that case it would be better to look at the mare population.
On the subject of grading there are plenty of stallions out there that grade at an early age and then get regraded with other societies at a later stage when at a certain level competing without even being reinspected.
Thats a big leap of faith in my book to grade something further down the line without seeing it.
It could have changed out of all recognition since it was 3.
And an odd competition result at medium for a dressage horse isnt that difficult to attain with a pro rider on board to get automatic grading from another society.
 
elijahasgal said:
There Lies the nub of the argument. If we need the data on what is producing what, excluding sires for whatever reason, we cannot collect all the information.
As said, I know two stallions in very different circumstances, who would have fallen through the data net for several years. One is still classified as failed, although he will soon be accepted on performance. One is fantastic bloodlines, but had carbon fiber implants after an accident as a yearling, but has still gone onto jump grade a and since gain acceptance. The second we have essentially lost 9 years stud with, and and on the new rules, that would have been 9 years of data from.
It will be missing the fact that some owners of young stallions choose to see what he is producing before going for grading, and may then decide that he is not mature enough, or or or..... to be graded in the required time. That is all data that we will be missing.
And compared to the price that we pay for a breed specific day, £25 for the KWPN, or £75 for hanoverian which includes the DNA and branding, and have more respect worldwide for the results.
I just cannot see the point of excluding horses, use the results to proove what you are saying. Use the results to find stallions that are slipping through the net, to take a closer look at them.
Click to expand...
Foal registration is £75 for branding and passport,£30 for foal DNA
 
Really interesting discussion going on here. It does seem to come round to the nub of the problem being the confidence in the grading systems, there needs to be more cohesion and clarity. Still for me this needs to be sorted, for all Stallions to be comfortable accountable be it approved, licensed or graded. So perhaps should start another thread on how produce this system and see if the powers that be can try and implement it.
As the futurity I thought it was started to try and talent spot top youngstock, but then that is no good if then there is no plan to get assistance to get them produced properly to go on.
 
sallyf said:
Slightly contradictory .
Your telling us to support the futurity because it will tell us the best sires to use.
But it only gives us a choice of stallions that someone else has told us are good enough through the various grading system.
And then you say they only input 40% anyway so does it actually matter then what you use.
Surely in that case it would be better to look at the mare population.
On the subject of grading there are plenty of stallions out there that grade at an early age and then get regraded with other societies at a later stage when at a certain level competing without even being reinspected.
Thats a big leap of faith in my book to grade something further down the line without seeing it.
It could have changed out of all recognition since it was 3.
And an odd competition result at medium for a dressage horse isnt that difficult to attain with a pro rider on board to get automatic grading from another society.
Click to expand...
Older stallions have to have 5 placings at Prix St George or above. The stallion would then be eligible to go through the same process as the younger stallions xrays ect.We now have on the German website mare family data and some of these families go back a long time. For mares to receive the higher qualification they have to do the ridden mare performance test,have vet certificate to say they are not a roarer and have been shown in a mare class and received a IA before the age of 5. I think you may see why I am in favour of this method which has produced good riding horses and because of the large number of foals each year exceptional competition horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top