Bloodstock News 2010

Gareth Flynn said:
What was the usual number 40 years ago when stallions were normally syndicated?
Click to expand...

It was 40, Gareth, with sometimes up to an extra five mares for the stallion owner or owners. I used to do the nomination contracts for HIGH LINE and, after his amazing day at York, we were flooded with applications (at £12,000 !!!) for the following year and mares were selected pretty carefully for him - it wasn't just any old mare with an owner who could afford the (then) quite substantial nom fee.
 
TIME has moved on" was the response by European stallion masters yesterday to Arthur B. Hancock's assertion that "over-breeding a stallion compromises the quality of the offspring."
Hancock recently placed an advert stating that, according to his father, the legendary Bull Hancock of Claiborne Farm in Kentucky, a stallion should make 100covers a year. Hancock senior believed that anything above that level would lead to "diminished semen vitality."
However, that has yet to be scientifically proven, according to John O'Connor, a vet and managing director of Ballylinch Stud in Ireland.
"I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to support that over-breeding reduces the quality of stock although maybe now someone will think of doing a study on it," he said. "You have to respectthe view of horsemen of the calibre of the Hancocks but time does move on and veterinary practices change and advance.
"We also mustn't forget that some of the busiest stallions of recent times have also been the most successful."
Although the size of stallion books have almost doubled in some cases during the past 15 years, many studs nowadays place a cap on the number of mares a stallion covers to avoid his progeny flooding the market.
Whitsbury Manor Stud's Compton Place, Avonbridge, Refuse To Bend and Sakhee's Secret are all limited to 100 mares.
"A first season sire needs 125 foals on the ground to make him competitive," said Charlie Oakshott, stud manager of Whitsbury Manor Stud, "but each of our stallions will cover around 100, which allows us to set a strict value on the nomination.
"The problem with larger books is that there are only so many top-class mares. If a stallion covers a large book, the other mares going to him will be of a lesser grade and therefore the overall crop are going to be of a lesser quality. I don't like big books and in an ideal world, I would like to see restrictions of about 100-120."
Ballylinch Stud also sets a limit on their stallions' books, although O'Connor recognises that the balance between flooding the market and making the stallion competitive is extremely hard to get right.
"Our mostpopular horses would cover a limited book although I doubt those restrictions would fit in with Hancock's theory," he said. "It makes good commercial sense to restrict them and I'm sure it increases the longevity of the stallion. Over the years, we have been involved with two stallions who have covered well into their twenties; Soviet Star is still covering at 26 and Bob Back is now 29.
"It's a difficult one to get right as you have to give the horse enough foals to be competitive."
Hancock has called for an industry debate on the matter but both O'Connor and Oakshott are in agreement that the current relevance of one would be limited.
"We need accurate factual data before the industry can debate the merit of large books," said O'Connor. "We need studies and information that we can rely on before we can discuss it effectively."
Click to expand...

Only 100-120 mares, how disciplined is that :confused:
Also, Mr O'Connor a Vet Managing director of Ballylinch needs a report to have an opinion on this ! He could have just said no comment and hung up.
 
But the difference between NH stallions, like the pensioner BOB BACK (still getting some top types, too) and the Flat is surely there's less call on NH sires than Flat ones? I can't see 100 NH mares visiting Bob - or any other dedicated NH sire, for that matter - on an annual basis. But we certainly know that at least that many went to SADLER'S WELLS until he was 26, with numbers allegedly (I say this, because it always causes contention) up to 180+ in his most potent years. No wonder it's hard to be free of NORTHERN DANCER.
 
Rather than worry about Sadler's Wells, I'd be more worried about all those stallions who are/were seeing similar sized books at a tenth of the price, the corresponding quality of the mares being sent to them, and the explosion in low-grade racing created to accommodate them (and perpetuate the cycle).
 
It's an interesting idea of Hancock's, there's no known scientific basis for it though.

I'm trying to think of some evolutionary edge that it might provide to sire smaller crops.

Perhaps a way of limiting the amount of closely-related animals in an area by producing poorer individuals that might not be "selected" for breeding in the wild state? By "encouraging" stallions with smaller harems to produce more vigorous offspring, it aids the genetic diversity, and therefore the long-term survival prospects, of the breed?

Certainly, Archive covered only a handful of mares in 1956 when Arkle was conceived (of course one horse doesn't prove anything).

Domino, probably the greatest premature loss of any stallion in history, was essentially used as a private stallion in his 2 years at stud, and his total of only 20 foals provided 7 Black Type winners, a handy to-foals percentage of 35.

So maybe there's something in it.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't exactly rise above the level of anecdotal evidence, does it?

"If you overcover them, after two or three more crops their foals just fall away , they become weedy. A number of very knowledgeable horsemen have told they they have experienced this also. They stop producing what I would all the heavy hitters."

No mention of the difference in quality of mare being sent to them year on year? Given that the stallion is only half the picture, you would start from the assumption that he remains constant, and look to the variable factor: the mares. Only when you're satisfied that you have taken any difference in the average quality of the mares being sent into account, and you still see a significant deterioration in the progeny, would you focus on the stallion. Right?
 
Would this not give more "beef" to the AI argument?

For example, if it was proven at some point that an aged stallion or one that is used heavily has a decline in quality of its sperm/offspring then offering AI treatment from sperm collected when the stallion was in his prime would be seen to improve the future of its offspring?

I hope that makes sense!
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Rather than worry about Sadler's Wells, I'd be more worried about all those stallions who are/were seeing similar sized books at a tenth of the price, the corresponding quality of the mares being sent to them, and the explosion in low-grade racing created to accommodate them (and perpetuate the cycle).
Click to expand...

The amount of low level racing is a result of sheer no.s born. As the overwhelming no. of foals born will be average or worse it stands to reason that there was more average or worse racing during the boom.
Danehill had 17% Euro stakes winners to runners. One Cool Cat who would be considered a failure had 11%. Both had big books of mares. For Danehills 17% , 83% of them where not stakes horses and most of them would have been average or crap like any other stallion that's just the way of it. So his influence on the breed would have been worse than OCC's as he stood for longer. I've strayed off topic I know, thinking while typing :)

I wouldn't dis anecdotal evidence by the way, generations of breeding has led to those anecdotes. It's good to get opinions from the likes of Song, Ven etc on these things. There are plenty of things we know without being able to prove them
 
In a nutshell , failed stallions produce few good racehorses, successful stallions produce a little more good runners than the bad ones, not a huge difference.

As regards sperm ( there's one I bever thought I'd say) I noticed when looking at Fath progeny records a few years ago that in his first crop he produced a lot more Colts than in his second, tired man sperm perhaps ?
 
But how long does it take for a stallion to fail? 4, 5 years? Danehill bred for what, 15? So just 3 or 4 failures will breed the same amount of horses, at a lower quality. And the ratio of failures to successes is a hell of a lot bigger than 4:1.

Have you got the numbers for Fath? Would be interested to see if it was just down to chance, or if there was something more to it.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
But how long does it take for a stallion to fail? 4, 5 years? Danehill bred for what, 15? So just 3 or 4 failures will breed the same amount of horses, at a lower quality. And the ratio of failures to successes is a hell of a lot bigger than 4:1.

Have you got the numbers for Fath? Would be interested to see if it was just down to chance, or if there was something more to it.
Click to expand...

2 crops of runner on the flat if you don't get a few stales horses your History, you'll get a job in India or elsewhere or worse still you get a job as a NH stallion. Obviously depends on where the horse is standing. Some studs work at it more. I'm not saying some stallions aren't better than others. Some stallions will never get a stakes winner no matter what kind of mares they get. Just saying good stallions produce as much crap or more (due to longevity in the shed) as bad ones. A lot of grey areas. It's not as simple as rounding up the bad mares and stallions and retiring them. Can't find that feckin report, I remember it well though and it was about 3:1 colts to fillies.
 
Aldaniti said:
Would this not give more "beef" to the AI argument?

For example, if it was proven at some point that an aged stallion or one that is used heavily has a decline in quality of its sperm/offspring then offering AI treatment from sperm collected when the stallion was in his prime would be seen to improve the future of its offspring?

I hope that makes sense!
Click to expand...

Which would nicely explode the already massive problem of overproduction as well.
 
Gareth, we don't need to worry about SADLER'S WELLS because he's dead, but I was using him as an example of overcovering for year on year. You can't tell me that the thousands of covers he performed were all on top-class mares. There is always going to be a cachet about certain sires, and people often with more money than sense will send their mares to them. The stallion owners, as far as I know, don't ask you to fill out a detailed questionnaire about your mare before deigning to allow their boy to bonk her. You're never asked how many Listed races she's won, not told they don't like her weak hocks and roach back, not asked if she has any psychological problems or even the reason why she might never have run. You pay your money, their boy climbs aboard... kerchinngg! I thank you.

One might think that stallion owners would adopt some sort of rigour or sense of responsibility towards what comes in to visit their sires, but I think one would be quite wrong to do so. It's all down to mare owners, and I think we can guess that not all of them are gifted with ethics or brains.
 
Give me some examples of which studs ask what questions, Dylan. And how many mares they turn away, on what grounds. I'm fascinated.

True, SW isn't actually dead - he's dead to stud duties, though, having been 'retired due to declining fertility' in May 2008.
 
Last edited:
Well Coolmore always ask about the mare what she has bred and what her last foal and what she is in foal to it is the same with Ballylinch,Tally-Ho,Darley,Derrrinstown,Rathbarry,Coolagown,Knockhouse.I never said they turn the mare away i said they ask about the mare.I know people who have had mares turned away it may not be frequent but it happens
 
So, they never turn the mare away. That's what I'm getting at (I didn't mean asking polite questions and perhaps adding the info to a database!) - nobody throws up their hands and goes, "Jayz! You're not bringing that ratbag in to my feller! Take it away!" :nono:

So, as long as you've got the fee money, you can haul in any old sorry-ass mare to anyone - good, bad, indifferent, half-crippled, unsound, gone in the wind, not produced a winner out of her last six - and does any stallion master say, "That would not reflect well on our boy. Kindly put her back in the box and take her home." Doesn't look like it, does it? :confused:
 
Many studs have deliberately restricted books on particular stallions kri and will only allow (or at least have a firm pecking order of) certain mares (i.e. of certain bloodlines) to be matched up.

As you say those with a requirement to take on as much volume as they can will accept all-comers, but this is far from always the case.
 
Last edited:
I know there are restricted numbers with some stallions, Steve - even the Stallions Book tells us that much - but I've not heard of restricted bloodlines before. Can you give any examples? I is all for learnin', I is.
 
Juddmonte done it with Cacique that was also due to him not being the most fertile.There are others cant really think of them now though
 
Perhaps the most obvious recent example is Sea The Stars. The Stallion is likely to be oversubscribed, but they will also be keeping an eye on the quality of the mares proposed and rejecting those that don't reach the watermark.

It depend what approach they want to take with a particular stallion at a particular stage of his career. Coolmore took a pretty much scatter gun approach with Woodman let's say for most of his career, while not just any old mare would be accepted for the likes of Sadler's Wells and Storm Cat.

Many of Sheikh Ms stallions are very restricted as to what mares are allowed access (on a basis of pedigree) - where being commercial is not the primary motivation, but rather enhancing the status of the stallion in question.
 
Darley are pretty selective with their top stallions i.e. if you send a nomination request to them of a bog-standard mare, you will only be offered one of their bottom roster stallions.
 
Back
Top