Taking Stock: Courting Rituals of Breeders and Stud Farms

In about three weeks, another breeding season will begin, but that's the easy part for stud farms.

Getting those mares was the hard part, and that process played out over the last four or five months, an annual courting ritual of farms and breeders. It includes behind-the-scenes hustling, heavy-duty advertising campaigns, and some occasional arm twisting or deal making, because except for a handful of elite or popular sires that breeders are banging doors down to get into, most stallions need mares, usually as many as possible to fill books that can sometimes number more than 200.

The Jockey Club will take an active role in changing that somewhat, beginning with stallions born in 2020 and later. The organization issued a ruling that will limit books to 140 mares a year when those colts go to stud in a few years. Well, that's if TJC ends up prevailing, because there are some lawsuits, brought by a few farms that would like to keep things as they are now, floating around to challenge that rule. Some of these farms are big-time players and they're not going to go away quietly, but that's a story for another day.

In the meantime, stud farms need as many mares as they can get to stallions, as I said. It's either to recoup their initial investments in these stallions or, if they're lucky, to make money. The most commercial stallion prospects–the champions and “horses of a lifetime”–cost an arm and a leg to procure off the track, and lesser recruits are always in danger of not getting enough mares to cover costs. That's why you see so many ads for them in that important first year they enter stud. These days, you see even more of this on social media, where everyone seems to be attending one stallion show or another and then posting amateur photos that in many cases will make farms cringe, but, hey, that's the price of publicity, and most folks on Twitter or Facebook see everything as either “sexy,” “handsome,” or a “hunk,” so it's not all bad.

Stud farms need to front load new horses, meaning they will try to breed as many mares as they can, not only for the income it generates but also to guarantee that they have as many first-crop runners as possible to have a chance at success.

Everyone, of course, wants to find the next Gun Runner (Candy Ride {Arg}), who had a phenomenal run in 2021 with his first 2-year-olds, but most horses are destined for failure, at least in the commercial sense–which is how the breeding industry operates. You've probably noticed that even some leading freshman sires have been sold abroad after they couldn't sustain the pace constructed for them with boatloads of mares, numbers which most are unlikely to see again, in their first books. And once the numbers and quality drop off, so too does sire performance, for the most part.

If a farm has an elite stallion or a particularly attractive first-crop horse, a stallion director sometimes might let you in to him if you'll send a mare or two to a lesser stallion in his third or fourth year on its roster, a classic case of scratching your back if you'll scratch his, except in this case you might get a couple of foals you don't really want just to get the one you do.

Or maybe a stallion director will give you a good deal on a stud fee if you send multiple mares to a stallion, which is usually more common with horses after their first year, when demand and stud fees drop off. There are plenty of deals like that to be found because these types of horses aren't popular with commercial breeders, and it's a simple enough concept to understand.

I once explained this to a guy at TJC. Look, I said, imagine you're a commercial breeder for a moment. Would you want to breed to a horse in his third year at stud, when you know that you're going to sell a yearling by him when his oldest foals are three? What if that stallion has bombed with his 3-year-olds and 2-year-olds by the time you're sending your yearling into the ring? You'll likely get hammered in sales ring, right? Can you see why breeders, I said, prefer to patronize first-year horses who don't have black marks against them when their first yearlings sell? He slowly and deliberately nodded in agreement, but his expression–a light bulb going on–had already beaten the nod to the punch.

What was left unsaid in that conversation was that that paradigm isn't going to change just because you limit a stallion to 140 mares.

What it will do, however, is give more stallions a shot at stud, because more farms will have more first-year horses to sate commercial demand, and by the numbers alone, that will reduce books for each horse at each price point as more stallions enter the market. The net effect will mean more diversity and more cheaper horses at stud, too, which isn't a bad thing at all, right?

Of course, there will be more churn and burn, too, with stallions getting even shorter leashes on which to operate, but there's a Darwinian element to this that's fair enough: Either make it with your first 2-year-olds or get sent to Korea or Turkey or Louisiana, because we don't have time to see how the 3-year-olds will do, as commercial breeders aren't interested in breeding to a horse in his fifth season at stud unless he's a star.

That's what happened to Daredevil (More Than Ready). Sold to the Turks before his 3-year-olds raced, he was brought back to Kentucky after the success of Swiss Skydiver and Shedaresthedevil, but with a twist. He's owned by the Jockey Club of Turkey, and that entity is standing him at Lane's End. So, we might be seeing a new trend with hastily exported horses, if they succeed after they've been sold and are then brought back by their foreign ownership entities to capitalize on commercial demand in North America.

In fact, Horse of the Year Knicks Go (Paynter) is owned and raced by Koreans in North America and was initially destined for stud duty in Korea, but after his success last year, his owners decided to stand him here, at Taylor Made. If he doesn't make it here, he can always be sent home, but if he's a success, the foreigners will reap the financial rewards.

Paradigms, therefore, are also shifting within the overall commercial scheme we're operating under, which is yet another change to a series of changes that began when tightly held syndicates that limited horses to 40 mares gave way to increasingly bigger books that were fashioned to make money, necessitated by bidding wars for the most desirable stud prospects.

Change is necessary for growth, and one change that'd be refreshing to see is a move away from the commercialism that's dominating the breeding industry. How? Well, how about more people racing the horses they breed?

Homebreeders once made this a sustainable business– in fact, they also made it more sporting and more humane, because there's a tendency to give a horse more time if you've foaled and raised him–and though we're far removed from that model these days, a wider array of cheaper stallions might spur some growth in that area and make it viable again to breed to race, particularly as purses have risen to levels never seen before.     And at the top end, those multi-member partnerships speculating on yearling colts as potential stallion prospects may in the future form multi-ownership groups to race some of the foals of their most successful prospects.

If some of that were to happen, it would strengthen the underpinnings of a business that's way too top heavy on selling alone.

Wishful thinking? It's a thought, anyway.

Sid Fernando is president and CEO of Werk Thoroughbred Consultants, Inc., originator of the Werk Nick Rating and eNicks.

The post Taking Stock: Courting Rituals of Breeders and Stud Farms appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Op/Ed: The Need For Data

Recent developments in the U.S. on the 140-mare cap introduced by The Jockey Club on stallion coverings, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by Ashford Stud, Spendthrift Farm and Three Chimneys Farm, should be a wake-up call for owners and breeders in Europe. The justifications from both sides of the debate raise some interesting questions that must be addressed for the future of the industry.

The Jockey Club's rationale for implementing the cap is that it is “formulating a rule that will promote diversity of the Thoroughbred gene pool and protect the long-term health of the breed.” Taken at face value this seems a reasonable and noble move to protect the future of the Thoroughbred horse and the racing industry. The response from the three studs taking legal action is that the cap “serves no legitimate purpose and has no scientific basis,” while also alleging that the nine stewards of The Jockey Club who voted to adopt the rule change did so based more on a desire to satisfy their own “conflicting economic interests” rather than the organisation's stated purpose of “facilitating the soundness of the Thoroughbred breed.” Again, a reasonable counter-argument. So how will this be resolved?

Let us be clear, the 'industry' as a whole needs the likes of Ashford Stud et al to continue to be economically viable to drive the industry forward, as their success is a reflection of the horses that they race or purchase and develop as stallions. Their success feeds down to all levels of the racing and breeding industry, and we should be mindful of not disrupting that success. However, the raison d'etre of racing and breeding is to improve the Thoroughbred breed and to promote high-ability athletes while maintaining a viable and robust horse population. The topic of inbreeding is often discussed and explored by breeders the world over, with many successful examples of it having a positive effect on some high-profile individuals, namely Danehill, or more recently Zoustar (Aus), amongst others. But ultimately breeders, studs and The Jockey Club have no real data on how any consequences of inbreeding manifest in the horse population. There is very little research into the impact of inbreeding, or line breeding, and thus a poor understanding of the impact on the breed caused by stallions covering large books of mares. There is just the general assumption that continued inbreeding or limiting the gene pool is detrimental to the Thoroughbred and its soundness. But is that true? Where are the data and the studies? Where are the facts?

There is only one answer to these questions. To finally understand the impact of the likes of Northern Dancer and whether his ubiquity has positively or negatively impacted the breed, to know for sure if the continued increasing book sizes of the elite proven stallions is detrimental to the racehorse: that  answer is genomics. Population-scale genomics of the Thoroughbred. And it needs to start now.

Genomics and DNA sequencing are powerful tools widely used to understand the influence of genetic variation on gene expression, as well as helping to understand the genetics behind medical conditions. There are good reasons this should be supported by all sides of the industry and will ultimately benefit the industry as a whole, including studs and breeders at every level.

Practically speaking, the study needs to begin with each new generation of foals, this being the easiest point to capture and gather data. A small blood sample would be taken and sent for DNA sequencing. This only needs to be captured once for each individual horse and the cost for the British foal crop, working on an individual sample cost of £600-£800, would be roughly in the region of £3 million per year.

In the interests of preserving the longevity of the sport, and circumventing the suggestion of a similar situation in Europe to what we are seeing in the U.S.,  funding for the study should come from all corners of the industry and be weighted towards the areas of the industry that profit the most from the sport of racing. Namely, bookmakers, the BHA, The Jockey Club, stud farms, auction houses, vet practices…and the list goes on.

So why would this benefit the industry?

If a study indicates that the large books of successful stallions, and the subsequent increase of inbreeding and lack of genetic variation causes a negative impact on a horse's welfare, either manifested as reduction in soundness or by increased medical conditions, then without any action from studs and breeders the long-term business of racing will be at risk. Taking no action would result in a weaker horse in generations to come, and pressure from the public, and especially animal welfare organisations, would be at an all-time high. By following the data and using such a study to support corrective actions and future decision-making the industry could head off any potential problems before they hit.

Alternatively, if a study indicates the opposite, that large stallion books do not lead to limited genetic variation manifesting as reduced soundness or medical conditions, then again we will have the data and factual evidence to support the strategy of continuing with the status quo.

Either result is of importance and benefit to studs, breeders and racing in general; so much so, that without such a genomics study being initiated, we are likely to see the studs' business model being at risk with or without an enforced mare cap–either by genetic problems affecting future generations, or by a strict limiting of their stallions' book sizes.

Clearly the key to the success of a genetic study of the Thoroughbred is gathering as much data as possible, and this isn't going to provide quick answers. It's a long-term project, and likely as long as 10 to 20 years would be necessary to gather enough data to truly understand the impact of large book sizes. To compliment the genetic data, there would be a need for a method to capture the health and ability of each individual horse throughout its life. We already have handicapper ratings to guide us on ability levels of each horse that races, but more importantly there needs to be a way to capture indications of medical unsoundness or health conditions, especially for horses that do not make it to a racecourse. Ideally, the responsible party for recording these health data points should be the veterinarians who are the subject matter experts on these issues, as they already have the training and ability to categorise any abnormalities or medical conditions. The creation of a database cataloguing these details would make it easy for vets to update the information any time a horse's condition changes.

A large-scale Thoroughbred genomics study of this nature would revolutionise the conversation on breeding and settle any arguments on the risks of inbreeding and stallion book sizes. It would be a proactive, data-driven approach to tackling the topic, and prevent any decisions being made based on uninformed opinion or bias. Such a study would help guide ruling bodies such as the BHA and The Jockey Club, give data and resources to the studs and breeders, and ensure the welfare and success of the Thoroughbred racehorse for generations to come.

Greg Saveall-Green is a Thoroughbred breeder and works in the field of genomics.

The post Op/Ed: The Need For Data appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights