AI – the other side of the coin

I read with interest that former leading bookmaker and thoroughbred breeder Bruce McHugh is challenging in the courts the validity of the ban on the use of artificial insemination (AI) in Australian thoroughbred breeding – his argument is based on restraint of trade.

McHugh’s call for a change came only a few days after the death of one of the pioneers of the introduction of artificial insemination in standardbred (harness racing) in Australia, Bernie “B.J” Ahern.

Ahern, stood two of the great pacing stallions of the late 1970s and 1980s, Kentucky and Hilarious Way, at his B.J. Lodge at Goornong, near Bendigo, before becoming a leading administrator and overseeing a period of great change in Victoria. Incidentally, Ahern’s property, with its imposing mansion (purposely built by Ahern in the Kentucky style) recently was put on the market by its current owner, singer John Farnham, who used it as a base for his quarter horse breeding operation. But that’s another story.

As expected leading thoroughbred breeder John Messara, principal of Arrowfield Stud, was quick to respond to McHugh’s action, condemning the practice of AI in thoroughbreds, and outlining the ramifications to the industry if the AI was to be introduced in Australia. Thoroughbred Breeders’ Australia CEO Peter McGauran followed up with his support.

My experience of similar arguments in the courts is that McHugh has a strong case and Messara and McGauran have good reason to be concerned – the restraint of trade argument often holds up in this commercial world that we live in. The same happened in harness racing about 20 years ago when New Zealand studmasters bucked regulation and won.

If I remember, New Zealand’s harness racing studmasters, arguing restraint of trade, were successful in forcing the lifting the restrictions on 120 mares (plus returns) on standardbred stallions in New Zealand (first) and then Australia, a few years after the introduction of AI. The limits were imposed to stop the leading stallions covering massive books of mares to the perceived detriment of the breed.

After an initial flood of mares to some stallions – I remember Vance Hanover, in New Zealand, covering more than 400 mares one season – the issue eventually became a non-event. Why? Simple economics. When all those Vance Hanover foals had to compete at the yearling sales, there were so many of them that the prices were diluted. Studmasters and breeders soon realised that more is not better.

In North American in recent years, some of the leading standardbred stallions are back to covering small books of 120-150 mares to protect the value of the yearlings at sale time – this is countered by the fact that the stallions, because of the smaller numbers and greater commercial viability, can stand at a significantly higher fee.

In 2008, a study was done in the UK by pre-eminent equine fertility expert, Professor William “Twink” Allen on the differences in mare coverings between the thoroughbred industry and the standardbred industry, both in Australia and worldwide. His research shows that in the US that the mean coverings of the 10 busiest stallions in the United Stakes (AI standardbreds) has dropped from a peak of 250 in 2002 to 190 in 2008, compared to the top 10 covering stallions in the thoroughbred industry in Ireland and the UK in the same period – in 2002 the thoroughbred stallions were covering (mean figures) also of around 260, but since then has dropped very little below 250.

Profession Allen’s research found that in the same period, comparing the top 10 busiest stallions in Australia, that while there was a big gap between numbers a few years ago in the favour of the standardbred stallions, that now the gap had narrowed to both breeds covering the same numbers, around 250 mares, in the last two years.

Professor Allen’s research goes a long way to debunking the theory that AI use will result in stallions covering more mares than they would by natural means. The chart makes for interesting viewing CLICK HERE

I am not advocating for the introduction of AI in thoroughbred breeding because that’s for others to decide, but some of the arguments put forward by the anti-AI lobby require discussion in the context of what has happened in harness racing.

Let’s look at some of Messara’s arguments in his press release on November 18:

Rather than creating more competition it would concentrate stallion power in the hands of the few farms who control the proven stallions at the top of the list, Messara said.

My comment: Wait on, doesn’t that already exist in the world of thoroughbred breeding, where in the last 20 years, the leading studs with the top stallions have dominated the scene – and will continue to do so. With natural breeding, there are now fewer studs, fewer stallions and a serious polarisation at the top end.

JM: “To date, conception by natural means has placed a lid on the number of mares each stallion can serve but if that lid is lifted through AI the consequences could be dire for the industry.

“With breeders flocking to proven horses, huge numbers of mares would be inseminated by a small number of the most commercially desirable stallions and in this way there would be less competition rather than more competition amongst stallion owners.”

My comment: In the last 20 years, the mares covered by natural means by individual stallions have more than doubled, in some cases tripled to numbers well beyond 200, for example: Bel Esprit (2007, 266 mares); Fastnet Rock (2007, 257 mares; 2008, 251 mares); Encosta De Lago (2005, 245 mares; 2008, 227 mares); Redoute’s Choice (2006, 224 mares). These figures are on a par with the AI coverings of the most prolific harness racing stallions. And in some cases, thoroughbred shuttle stallions are covering between 350 and 400 mares worldwide in one year.

I would say the consequences of over-breeding stallions already is having an adverse effect on breeders at yearling sale time – try marketing a Bel Esprit yearling in 2010.

JM: “Then you have the impact on the gene pool. The few thousand mares that comprise the active band in Australia will be served by a handful of stallions; logic dictates that AI would be harmful to the diversity of the breed.”

My comment: This sounds right in theory, but not in practice. When AI was first introduced into harness breeding, there was one dominant sire line, that of Meadow Skipper, his sons and grandsons. It was prolific in both hemispheres and inbreeding to this stallion line was rife. He was the Northern Dancer of his time.

But the opposite exists today – and it has from the mid-1990s – with many more different sire lines at the top of standardbred breeding spectrum. The diversity of sire lines hasn’t been greater, and the harness breed has never been better for it.

This following link to harness.org.au will confirm this.

On the other hand with natural breeding worldwide, we have seen thoroughbred breeding dominated by only a couple of sire lines, but particularly Northern Dancer. In Australia, it is Northern Dancer’s grandson and close relation, Danehill, that dominates a very narrow gene pool. I would say that the thoroughbred gene pool in the world has not ever been narrower.

With AI comes semen transportation and with semen transportation comes diversity. Smaller breeders, who cannot afford to travel out of their own districts, can avail themselves on new and different sire lines other than those dominant on their doorstep. Tasmania is a typical example of a close gene pool that will benefit from access to the mainland stallions by semen transportation.

Breeders using AI and semen transportation would be able to select a stallion on genetic merit and not be restricted to what is available nearby because of the huge and increasing cost of sending the mare away from sometimes three or four months at a time.

On the other hand, legendary North American breeder John Gaines, of the famous Gainesway Stud in Kentucky, who has bred both standardbred and thoroughbreds, had the view that AI did make it harder for first-season and unproven young sires to compete against the established, proven stallions, but he didn’t regard it as necessarily a bad thing.

Of course, worldwide AI and semen transportation exists in the greyhound world to no detriment to the breed, and certainly there is no polarization of the gene pool

JM: “Of course, if AI were ever to be introduced into Thoroughbreds in Australia, horses produced by means of AI and their progeny would not be regarded as thoroughbreds in other parts of the world and would not be able to compete internationally and would therefore be useless for breeding purposes internationally as well.”

This is where John Messara and I are in total agreement. It must be one in, all in. Any move to AI must be done on an international basis, because if Australia goes it alone, then the Australian thoroughbred breeding industry will become an isolated island.

Messara agrees that there are benefits to AI but that the benefits don’t outweigh the disadvantages.

One of those benefits sidetracks the enormous insurance costs of travelling the best stallions, for example, Redoute’s Choice would be available to the world and our renewed interest in the stock of Montjeu (now a non-shuttler) could be satisfied.

The chief benefits are the protection of both mare and stallion; the reduction in injuries to travelling mares and foals; the saving of travel and agistment costs for broodmare owners, who are having to send mares long distances to stallions (there are additional veterinary cost to broodmare owners); and the saving of costs for stallion owners in a reduction in required land and staff.

Maybe the last word should go to legendary North American harness racing figure Stan Bergstein, a writer and administrator, who wrote in on this subject in 2002 in his column in the Daily Racing Form, in which he concludes: “The answer, it seems, is that logic does not spend much time in the breeding shed, while hidebound, stubborn tradition hangs out there round the clock.”

Read Bergsteins’ article in full. CLICK HERE.