stallions with fertility/libido issues...
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
That Thoroughbred Review website has to be run by morons. For them to put a stallions name on there because someone didnt get their mare in foal seems slanderous, or libelous (I never know which one it is). And the irony of it is hilarious. I have SEVERAL times bred to a stallion who management was also very careful to breed as close to ovulation as possible. And every single time, the mare got in foal on the first cover. In fact the horse had very high fertility numbers, so much so that simply by looking at the statistics, you'd never guess he had to be managed carefully.
Fireslam... You're credibility went straight into the toilet when you claimed that you've bred mares 'SEVERAL' times to stallions requiring special management and they got in foal on the first cover time every time. Either you're an idiot that underestimates the experience/knowledge of many of the contributors on this site, or you're the luckiest mare owner ever. Even if you define 'SEVERAL' as little as 10-15 times... you're claim is outlandish.
Rahy, are you the Thoroughbred Review guy? You sure seem to be taking it personally if you are not.
For the record, I've never bred to In Excess but I know people who have and have had no problems with him or Vessels. There is one prominent California sire who has well known problems in that area and is not on that list that I thought everyone knew but I'm with LB--it's not my job to gossip online based on hearsay and a small sampling.
I bred to a stallion with "issues" a few years back. The farm was upfront about it and even offered to trade out the season to another stallion. Believe me this stuff gets around without a website and I also have problems with the axgrinding that could happen by an anonymous contributor.
Unfortunately these aren't machines and infertility is just part of breeding.
For the record, I've never bred to In Excess but I know people who have and have had no problems with him or Vessels. There is one prominent California sire who has well known problems in that area and is not on that list that I thought everyone knew but I'm with LB--it's not my job to gossip online based on hearsay and a small sampling.
I bred to a stallion with "issues" a few years back. The farm was upfront about it and even offered to trade out the season to another stallion. Believe me this stuff gets around without a website and I also have problems with the axgrinding that could happen by an anonymous contributor.
Unfortunately these aren't machines and infertility is just part of breeding.
LB... Duh! Of course the goal is to cover mares as close to ovulation. Thank you Captain Obvious! However, when Claiborne was approached with a client that specifically requested a fertile, trouble-free stallion for her mare... and Claiborne couldn't give such an endorsement to War Front, it was a clear indicator that WF was sub-par relative to most stallions. This isn't rocket science... I can repeat it to you slower if you'd like.
Predictably, you played the geography card in regards to In Excess... as if stallion managers in the same industry are inherently more ethical as a function of geography. Are you really going to stick with that argument?? If it can happen in a state with a fraction of the mare population of KY, it can certainly happen in KY as well.
And equally predictable... when I called you out with your vague, cowardly, and unsubstantiated assertions that certain sires didn't belong on the list, you came up with some pansy ass excuse of "It's not my place". There can be no harm/foul in praising or defending a farm's stallion... the real truth here is that you can't name a SINGLE sire on the list that doesn't belong.
Predictably, you played the geography card in regards to In Excess... as if stallion managers in the same industry are inherently more ethical as a function of geography. Are you really going to stick with that argument?? If it can happen in a state with a fraction of the mare population of KY, it can certainly happen in KY as well.
And equally predictable... when I called you out with your vague, cowardly, and unsubstantiated assertions that certain sires didn't belong on the list, you came up with some pansy ass excuse of "It's not my place". There can be no harm/foul in praising or defending a farm's stallion... the real truth here is that you can't name a SINGLE sire on the list that doesn't belong.
Last edited by Rahy85 on Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rahy85 wrote:Sysonby... the In Excess issue is not debateable.
You do know that there are a bunch of lawyers that post here right. Saying something like that is like waving a red cape in front of a bull
I don't know what happened--that's your version. It may be true but credibility is always an issue with anonymous webposts and sites. I think that was the point that was being made by LB and others.
Rahy85 wrote:LB... Duh! Of course the goal is to cover mares as close to ovulation. Thank you Captain Obvious! However, when Claiborne was approached with a client that specifically requested a fertile, trouble-free stallion for her mare... and Claiborne couldn't give such an endorsement to War Front, it was a clear indicator that WF was sub-par relative to most stallions. This isn't rocket science... I can repeat it to you slower if you'd like.
Duh right back at you. If you agree that "the goal is to cover mares as close to ovulation" as possible, then what's your problem with Clairborne doing so with War Front? No matter whether you say it fast or slow, your argument still doesn't make sense.
Predictably, you played the geography card in regards to In Excess... as if stallion managers in the same industry are inherently more ethical as a function of geography. Are you really going to stick with that argument?? If it can happen in a state with a fraction of the mare population of KY, it can certainly happen in KY as well.
Predictably? I talked about KY because that's where my experience is--some people like to talk about what they actually know, rather than simply guessing and then insisting they're right.
And equally predictable... when I called you out with your vague, cowardly, and unsubstantiated assertions that certain sires didn't belong on the list, you came up with some pansy ass excuse of "It's not my place". There can be no harm/foul in praising or defending a farm's stallion... the real truth here is that you can't name a SINGLE sire on the list that doesn't belong.
Your idea of cowardly is my idea of ethical. But then I actually work in this industry. I suspect you just stand on the sidelines and throw stones. The beauty of the internet is that anyone can start up a website and write whatever they want on it. But just because something is read by lots of people doesn't make it true.
You clearly don't understand basic reproductive physiology... Some stallions produce sperm that remains viable for days inside a mare. But with some stallions, their sperm is viable for just a few hours, if at all. I would hope that all boarding farms and repro vets aim for a cover as close to ovulation as possible, but the need to pinpoint ovulation goes up exponentially with certain stallions and mare owners are entitled to have this information before signing a contract. Still with me?
You only need 'experience' with human beings in general to know that unethical business practices seldom adhere to geographical boundaries. Still want to argue that the In Excess scenario doesn't occur in KY each and every breeding season?
Yeah... you 'work' in our industry. According to your website, you were only involved in $500,000 worth of transactions (equating to a whopping salary of $25,000) as recent as 2003. I sold ONE horse for nearly that amount in 2008 (a 450k Gulch filly at Barretts March). Careful what stones you throw before you double check what you've previously disclosed on your website.
One thing you're definitely right about... the website is 'read by lots of people'. And finally... I invite you one more time to name just ONE stallion on the website that doesn't belong. There can be no downside on your end to defend a stallion, other than your inability to do so, thereby rendering your credibility worthless.
You only need 'experience' with human beings in general to know that unethical business practices seldom adhere to geographical boundaries. Still want to argue that the In Excess scenario doesn't occur in KY each and every breeding season?
Yeah... you 'work' in our industry. According to your website, you were only involved in $500,000 worth of transactions (equating to a whopping salary of $25,000) as recent as 2003. I sold ONE horse for nearly that amount in 2008 (a 450k Gulch filly at Barretts March). Careful what stones you throw before you double check what you've previously disclosed on your website.
One thing you're definitely right about... the website is 'read by lots of people'. And finally... I invite you one more time to name just ONE stallion on the website that doesn't belong. There can be no downside on your end to defend a stallion, other than your inability to do so, thereby rendering your credibility worthless.
-
RandomThoughts
- 2yo Maiden
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:01 pm
- Location: Mid-Atlantic
ATR Stallion Fertility Article-Cherokee Run
However anecdotal and unscientific, let me state that I have a mare in foal from one cover to Cherokee Run.
The talented ones will give you an early hint.
Why would my claim be outlandish? Its all about management. Some stallions are viable for 72 hours, some are viable for 12. If management realizes this, they can have just as good of fertility rates with the 12 as the 72.
And yes, I bred 4 mares to a stallion that had to be bred to mares close to ovulation; 2 of them we bred at 10 PM to insure that. And I have 4 foals to show for it. Nothing about being lucky, its about dealing with people who know their business and know their stallions.
And yes, I bred 4 mares to a stallion that had to be bred to mares close to ovulation; 2 of them we bred at 10 PM to insure that. And I have 4 foals to show for it. Nothing about being lucky, its about dealing with people who know their business and know their stallions.
Rahy85 wrote:Yeah... you 'work' in our industry. According to your website, you were only involved in $500,000 worth of transactions (equating to a whopping salary of $25,000) as recent as 2003. I sold ONE horse for nearly that amount in 2008 (a 450k Gulch filly at Barretts March). Careful what stones you throw before you double check what you've previously disclosed on your website.
Once again your information is worthless and wrong.
No wonder your stallion list is incorrect if this is an example of your investigative skills. I don't have a website relating to what I do in the industry--and I never have. I don't know who you looked up but it wasn't me.
But wow, you sold ONE horse in 2008. I guess that does make you an expert.