For and against artificial reproduction in the TB industry...

[AndyPandy]

At the moment, any TB foal produced by artificial methods cannot race/be registered. I thought I would start a thread about this: When will the TB industry move into the 21st century and allow artificial breeding methods to be used? I have not yet heard a decent reason why they continue with this ban on artificial breeding methods.

Jamie

 

[ihatework]

What is their current justification for this and what are the counter arguements?

 

[AndyPandy]

The reasons that have been presented to me are:

1) Tradition
2) Reducing the size of the gene pool (overuse of some stallions).

I'm not sure that "tradition" is a useful argument in this situation. The second point is interesting, but invalid, as far as I am concerned. With stud fees going into 6 figures plus for some of the best stallions, I cannot believe that a mare owner would decide not to use a stallion just because of travel and costs of keep. Even a flight overseas would be a minor expense in comparison to that of the stud fee itself. Also, there is a simple answer to prevent overuse of a stallion: limit the number of mares that particular stallions can cover. As far as I can see, allowing AI in TB's would allow use of stallions from all over the world, with ease (including those with lower stud fees) probably increasing the diversity of genes of TBs.

 

[JustKickOn]

I'm against it.


If it is meant to be let nature take its course, forcing somethings thats not meant to be done is, IMHO, just wrong.

When i was looking in the stallion catalouge 2007 from DBS so many TB stallions has Norther Dancer and Nikinsky in, as do many of the mares which does make it quite hard to breed, but I am throughly against artificial breeding.

 

[AndyPandy]

This seems to me, like the "traditionalist" argument appearing.

Let me give you an example. A TB colt is bred via natural covering. The stallion gets older, and is unfortunately kicked in the field - the resulting injury means he is unable to cover naturally. The stallion is an excellent potential gene pool, but cannot be used due to the fact that any offspring produced by him would not be registered TBs.

This kind of injury, and infertility are not the only reasons for allowing articial methods, but I think they are a useful starting point.

I also believe that technologies such as embryo transfer could potentially reduce the number of unwanted/"useless" TBs appearing at auctions, and being sent for meat money, by allowing producers to breed more intensively using their best mares, rather than taking more chances with the less good ones.

I'm also not sure of the "let nature take its course" argument - these animals have been artificially bred (via diverting evolution to make our own "ideal" animals) for thousands of years... AI/ET are simply an extension of these artifical methods.

 

[magic104]

For me AI was the best method as the stallion was untried & was not suitable for a maiden mare. The centre that carried out the collection, breeds race horses and found it frustrating that they could not use this method which is much safer for their stallions when using a dummy. I do believe that it is about time they joined the 21st century especially as horses are dna tested, so there is little chance of a horse being registered to parents that are not correct.

 

[Maesfen]

There are fors and againsts for both types I think (personally speaking that is!)

The people likely to use the very expensive stallions are the type that can afford to move their mares from one country to another with the relevant upkeep so for these, traditional covering at a stud is not a problem.
For the people that use say TB sport stallions which are in the lower end of the price bracket, say under £1000 stud fee, then I see no reason why these can't use AI if they want, but I do agree that those should not be allowed to race other than in point to points, which after all, is meant to be an amatuer sport anyway - not that you'd believe that now, the money horses are fetching to go into it! The cheaper studs could offer the option of AI or natural and registration/bloodtyping/DNA could be graded accordingly; that way, the mare owners are happy they get the paperwork they want, the stud still get the stud fees and Weatherbys still get registration fees. So, it would be up to the owner; if they want it to have the chance to race - and many aren't bothered either way, they should use natural covering; if they're not bothered then they could use AI.
I know bloodtyping and DNA are crucial to the argument and don't see how Weatherbys can really justify not accepting foals by AI in this day and age - but it is run by old fogeys who like lots of returns!!

 

[AndyPandy]

I think it is important to consider whether it really just comes down to the "traditional oldies" who are scared of change... I hope that it is not the case, but the lack of useful arguments for maintaining the ban on artificially bred TB's makes me worry that this is the case. It would not surprise me if we saw the level of resistance drop as the oldies at Weatherbys are replaced by younger, less recalcitrant people.

 

[Maesfen]

We are also getting better and better with the mechanics of using AI; vets are more experienced and so on; it is not a new fangled method nowadays, so yes, I think as the oldies retire, we will see changes to the stud books. But I'm not taking bets when that will be!!

 

[AndyPandy]

Excerpt from 2001 meeting of the Jockey Club of South Africa:

Mr Hamish Anderson, a Director of Weatherbys and responsible for the General Stud Book, reported on the reasons why AI had been prohibited by the ISBC and by the provisions of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' International Agreement on Breeding and Racing. They were:

- to ensure the integrity of stud books in regard to the verification of the parentage of a horse;

- to ensure that the thoroughbred breed was not jeopardized by a reduction in the gene pool;

- to protect the commercial interests of the breeding industry.

Mr Anderson reported that, with the advent of DNA testing, the introduction of AI would not compromise the integrity of Stud Books as regards parentage verification. Further, that research conducted for Weatherbys by respected researchers at the University of London and the University of Dublin indicated that it was extremely unlikely that there would be any reduction in the gene pool if AI was introduced. Indeed, the London University research indicated that the number of stallions could be reduced to 100 with no discernable effect.

And yet, in an article in the Telegraph less than a month later:

Hamish Anderson, a director of Weatherbys, said that the restrictions were unlikely to be ended. "Some fear lifting the ban would lead to inbreeding," he said. Changing the rules could force some breeders out of business because stud fees could drop and owners might decide to use only semen from the top stallions, he added.

I find this worrying and confusing. Surely if someone representing Weatherbys says these things it shows the changeable and uncertain nature of Weatherbys own reasons for maintaining the ban?

 

[Maesfen]

So, in other words, it comes down to money and we all know money talks!

Just looking at their registration charges is enough to put some people off!

I can't see the reasoning that stud fees will drop, why should they?; the stud might lose out on some keep fees but they would still charge transporting costs for semen and many times, the mare would need a repeat dose so extra money in their pocket from that. Plus, by using AI, many people might use a stallion they wouldn't have normally considered because of the distance factor.
One way this could all be sorted out would be for Weatherbys to put a limit on how many covering certificates each stallion is allowed each year and stick to it. Didn't someone say Mill Law had 180 mares to him last year? Now that I find very greedy, almost worrying; I hope there was a screening or performance related criteria being used and he wasn't just put to any old mare cos his youngsters are making a bit..

 

[AndyPandy]

Absolutely re: Mill Law's 180 mares. If that isn't a gene-pool-reducing-tactic, I don't know what is! Limiting the number of covering certificates is an idea solution, and should be in practise anyway to prevent things like this!

 

[vicijp]

I dont think the main studs would be for AI at all.
A big bonus of sending your mare away to a stud with a good reputation, is that (generally) you are guaranteed a heartbeat within a month.
They know their job, and if they dont get the results they dont get the mares.
If AI was allowed, a lot more mare owners would have problems, and the damage to the studs/stallion reputation would be irreperable(sp).
Personally think AI, embryo tansfer and suchlike is the scourge of the earth.

 

[vicijp]

I dont think the main studs would be for AI at all.
A big bonus of sending your mare away to a stud with a good reputation, is that (generally) you are guaranteed a heartbeat within a month.
They know their job, and if they dont get the results they dont get the mares.
If AI was allowed, a lot more mare owners would have problems, and the damage to the studs/stallion reputation would be irreperable(sp).
Personally think AI, embryo transfer and suchlike is the scourge of the earth.

 

[AndyPandy]

Are you saying that natrual covering is 100% safe and consistently acheives good conception rates? I'm afraid this is simply not the case.

Mares can be injured terribly by stallions, and vice versa during natural covering. A torn uterus/vaginal vault (possibly leading to infertility and maybe death), and terrible testicular injuries can occur, respectively.

AI also allows you to spot potentially infertile stallions when their semen is assessed pre-insemination. And also allows greater assessment of when the mare is actually read - particularly ready for those mares who are "silent" cyclers.

I also think you'll find that there are many breeders who use natural covering... and just stick mare and stallion in a field together and see what happens. If you leave a mare with a stallion for 3 months, as long as they are both fertile, you'll probably get a pregnancy. So yep, you'll get a heartbeat... plus a bill for the keep of the mare.

There are plenty of AI centres that are fantasstic places, where the people who run it are adequately trained and experienced. And they would be able to give you exactly the same service a you have mentioned, for a lower costs, within a shorter time period, and without the possible travel problems and related costs.

There is a separate problem here, and that is the quality of training that AI technicians receive (and this is something that
DEFRA desperately needs to address - I may start a thread).
However, I don't think a lack of conception would have any bearing whatsoever on the stallion or the studs reputation - surely just on the vet and/or AI technician who inseminated the mare.

Artificial reproductive technologies are an extremely useful tool, and we need to make sure that standards are kept high.

 

[vicijp]

I am not sayig it is 100% safe and consistently achieves great conception rates. I am saying that the majority of breeders send mares to stud witha good reputation for both.
At a good stud injuries are uncommon, the only one we have ever had was a broken leg - which was from a kick off another amre in the field.
Mares are scanned for natural cover too, it is very rare the stallion is put on more than once.
Yes I do fiond some use natural covering, our own stallion ran with a herd of mares for 3 years - one of which hadnt been in foal for 4 years (had 2 succesfully).
Yes there are many good AI people/centres. However the standing stud cant guarantee this, and they would be stupid to put their reputation in the hands of many of the crap vets about.
Travelling and faffing about doing conception does the mare no good at all. My next door neighbour has now took his mare to Newmarket 4 times at a £10k walk in fee. Result= no foal. Do you really think that if he had left it there for 2 months he would still be in the same boat? They know theirjob,I dont see why paying them to ensure your mare has no problems is a hassle.
People that breed racehorses are, in the majority, thick. It only takes one story of a mare not in foal for someone to take note.

 

[Maesfen]

[ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of AI centres that are fantasstic places, where the people who run it are adequately trained and experienced. And they would be able to give you exactly the same service a you have mentioned, for a lower costs, within a shorter time period, and without the possible travel problems and related costs.

Artificial reproductive technologies are an extremely useful tool, and we need to make sure that standards are kept high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I have to take issue with you here.

In my own personal experience, it has cost me a lot more to use AI than ever sending the mare to stud to be covered naturally even allowing for the cost of keep.
AI brings its' own expenses on top of paying the stud fee while with natural covering, those costs do not appear except in the shape of check ups, swabs, scans etc by the vet which are normal anyway. Yes, you have the cost of keep for the mare but many times that is not half of what AI-ing costs - or was I just unlucky? I agree, I might be bias as the only times I have used AI, both times (different mares, stallions and studs!) I ended up with big bills and unable to get mare in foal; once, she went straight from there to another stud, was covered naturally, took first time and I had a wonderful filly, so naturally feel a bit put out about it!
There is one AI centre that not only costs a lot of money per cycle so if your mare misses you have to pay the same again, they actually charge you a 'getting your mare in foal' fee as well; talk about fleecing you!
AI does have its' part to play, many mares would be the poorer without it, but it is not my favourite method by any stretch of the imagination and I for one cannot say it is cheaper either.

 

[Maesfen]

[ QUOTE ]

Travelling and faffing about doing conception does the mare no good at all. My next door neighbour has now took his mare to Newmarket 4 times at a £10k walk in fee. Result= no foal. Do you really think that if he had left it there for 2 months he would still be in the same boat? They know their job,I dont see why paying them to ensure your mare has no problems is a hassle.
People that breed racehorses are, in the majority, thick. It only takes one story of a mare not in foal for someone to take note.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a sensible bloke - he wasn't!? Penny pinchers like that deserve all they get I reckon, sorry if others don't agree.
Four return trips alone would put him in the £800 cost bracket. If he had allowed mare to stay settled at the stud until her 28 day scan at least, there was a good chance she would have held and it wouldn't have cost as much in keep as all that travelling!
People moving their mares around like this at that time are probably to blame for poor conception rates as much as either the stallion, stud or mare put together! Plus it will be the stud that gets the bad reputation, very unfair IMO!

 

[Faithkat]

I must admit I find it strange in this day and age that the TB industry does still require natural covering. I'm a bit horrified at the thought of flying mares and very young foals around the world in order to be covered this way. Indeed, I had a long conversation one time with a stud groom at one of the big Newmarket studs who regaled me with a horror (to me, anyway) story of Bosra Sham being flown over to Coolmore to be covered by Sadlers Wells together with her 3 week old foal who then became very ill. Foal did survive OK but personally I wouldn't want an extremely valuable mare and foal being transported around at such a time, I'd be terrified of injuries.

 

[vicijp]

Youll be even more shocked when I tell you he did 3 trips there last year - reabsorbed by Oct 1st.

We have the same vet (big stud man, AI and natural - very good) and even he says the blokes a nutcase!

 

[Maesfen]

[ QUOTE ]
Youll be even more shocked when I tell you he did 3 trips there last year - reabsorbed by Oct 1st.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's what you might call a quick learner then!

 

[sallyf]

This isnt quite true as there is a slight loophole that means TB mares can be AI'd .
The rules stipulate if you read your Weatherbys covering cert.
The covering was a natural service (which is the physical mounting of a mare by a stallion with intromission of the penis and ejaculation of semen into the reproductive tract.)
As an aid to the mating a portion of the ejaculate produced by the stallion during such mating may immediately have been placed in the reproductive tract of the mare being bred.
Which has turned out to be in some controversial cases the semen drawn out centrifuged mixed with extender and then put back in by deep uterine insemination.
There has been a lot of controversy over this but it has been used with subfertile stallions and in the press quite a bit recently.
It is still legal here although it is an illegal practice in Australia.

 

[AndyPandy]

That loophole is very interesting. I had no idea, but it makes sense. I wonder if they will ban that here, or whether that will be used as an excuse to say "well, people are doing it anyway, let's lift the ban"... like with the introduction of allowing lay people to train as AI techs?