stallions with fertility/libido issues...

[Intrinsic Worth]

Unless the farm could actually prove that the information directly caused people not to breed to their stallions, the case would not go far.

[LB]

Here's where that site's info is coming from--apparently it's supplied by disgruntled and/or suspicious users of the site. This is an email I just received from American Thoroughbred Review:

Having problems getting your mare in foal and suspect there may be fertility issues with the stallion? Help other mare owners avoid the same pitfall by reporting your suspicions. Current list of stallions with known fertility issues available at ThoroughbredReview.com

No wonder much of what's there is incorrect. I guess anyone with an ax to grind can feel free to contribute.

Nor do I appreciate getting SPAM because I have an account here.

[griff]

seems like a review of mares covered vs live foals would be good measure

griff

[madelyn]

griff, that is not always an accurate reflection, since the live foals from mares statistic depends as much on the management of the mare as it does on the fertility of the stallion.

[ct2346]

griff, that is not always an accurate reflection, since the live foals from mares statistic depends as much on the management of the mare as it does on the fertility of the stallion.

However, since the mangement of the "mare" (mare is actually the mare population bred to this particular stallion) is usually spread out among many handlers/managers I would consider it to be a non-factor statistically in commercial cases. In backyard cases, or in cases where one stallion's book is high skewed toward one mare manager you may have a point. Otherwise, its the "as much" that I'd disgree with.

[KBEquine]

I would like to know further how they investigated..I was surprised to see my boy Jade Hunter on there. It wasnt a call to the standing farm thats for sure.

isn't jade hunter the one tht has the "ultimate" fertility issue?

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/breedi ... iends.aspx

Pensioned to old friends . . .

[Toccet02]

OK I'll bite--what;'s the "ultimate" fertility issue?

[Crystal]

yes, my old man left last night, and we got a call he arrived safely this morning. It was not a fertility issue, it was a lack of interest issue. The bills never got smaller, just his book did. I got some nice photos of him before he left.

The "ultimate" fertility issue BDW is referring to in his own uneducated way was referring to one of our other boys who was out of comission due to a ruptured blood vessel in his penis. He has recovered and serviced his mare as normal after a few weeks off.

When you have a breeding farm, the amazing things that can go wrong/right everyday can really baffel people.

[Toccet02]

Yeowch. Sounds painful. OK; that explains it.

[Toral]

Claiborne is already jumping over that website! Per the article:

** ATR received a phone call from Claiborne Farm representative Bernie Sams demanding we remove War Front from this list. ATR reminded Mr. Sams of previous email correspondence between himself and ATR where he disclosed that mares booked to War Front needed to be covered as close to ovulation as possible. ATR offered to amend the War Front listing with a full medical explanation from Claiborne, but Mr. Sams declined. Should Mr. Sams change his mind, we will gladly print his explanation of his previous email comments along with any updates on War Front's condition.

It seems they've amended their article and have added a paragraph to explain their reasoning.

[Toccet02]

They are walking a fine line. Good info, IF true, but farms may be unjustly penalized in bookings . . . but that would be hard to prove. farms don't like to admit problems . . . very interesting.

[LB]

They are walking a fine line. Good info, IF true, but farms may be unjustly penalized in bookings . . . but that would be hard to prove. farms don't like to admit problems . . . very interesting.

I don't agree with that at all. I think most farms are perfectly happy to admit problems to serious breeders who are looking to use their stallions. At least we've never had a problem finding out what we wanted to know and we've bred at most of the major Kentucky farms.

Toccet, why do you feel that way? Have you ever dealt with a farm that you later found out had lied to you? If so, I'd like to know which one.

What the farms do have a problem with--as would I in their shoes--is someone trying to make a name for himself by putting inaccurate and inflammatory info out on the internet. I'm not surprised Claiborne objected. There's a big difference between saying that a stallion has fertility problems and saying that he should be bred as close to ovulation as possible.

For what it's worth, that's not the only inaccuracy I saw on the list.

As I mentioned above, as per the email I received from that website, apparently their "special info" comes from any dubious source that cares to respond to a mass mailing.

Yeah, that's credible.

[Rahy85]

LB... Why would a stallion with no known fertility issues and solid reproductive health have to cover his mares as close to ovulation as possible? It seems odd for Claiborne to argue that WF has no difficulties, yet he needs to cover his mares within a smaller window of time relative to the overall stallion population. If you accept that Mr. Sams did in fact disclose (via email) the need for time-specific covers, I can hardly understand how Claiborne can argue that WF doesn't have shortcomings in the breeding shed that investors (mare owners) need to be aware of.

You keep alluding to inaccuracies on the ATR list, but seem reluctant to be specific. I can understand if you didn't want to point out a problem stallion... but if you see a stallion on the list that warrants removal, what would deter you from speaking up?

And finally... you're incredibly naive if you believe that stallion farms don't attempt to minimize (or outright conceal) fertility/libido issues. Just ask non-syndicate members who sent their mares to In Excess this year. In April, Vessels notified all syndicate members that In Excess was experiencing a significant drop in fertility. All other mare owners were left in the dark until mid June when it was practically too late to make other arrangements. As a result, investors will now have to carry their mares another year (at a cost of anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000)without a foal as a direct result of Vessel's 'selective' communication.

[Toccet02]

They are walking a fine line. Good info, IF true, but farms may be unjustly penalized in bookings . . . but that would be hard to prove. farms don't like to admit problems . . . very interesting.

I don't agree with that at all. I think most farms are perfectly happy to admit problems to serious breeders . . .

Let me clarify . . . I meant literally that they are not HAPPY to.Of course they aren't. Doesn't mean they wouldn't, although I'm sure many cover up. No, I have never had this experience.
I simply was expressing interest in developments...I can see both sides here... People have Consumer Reports and Better Business Bureau for home products...what do mare owners have? But the "disgruntled" indeed are probably not the best source.

[LB]

Rahy85, I know from your previous posts that you're a huge supporter of the Thoroughbred Review website. If you have a close connection there, please feel free to remove me from your mailing list.

LB... Why would a stallion with no known fertility issues and solid reproductive health have to cover his mares as close to ovulation as possible? It seems odd for Claiborne to argue that WF has no difficulties, yet he needs to cover his mares within a smaller window of time relative to the overall stallion population. If you accept that Mr. Sams did in fact disclose (via email) the need for time-specific covers, I can hardly understand how Claiborne can argue that WF doesn't have shortcomings in the breeding shed that investors (mare owners) need to be aware of.

Every TB stallion in KY covers his mares as close to ovulation as possible. It's a system that maximizes the chances of conception. You may see it as a "shortcoming in the breeding shed", I see it as business as usual. Kudos to the staff at Claiborne for handling their stallion with care. Clearly the info about War Front isn't a big secret if Mr. Sams disclosed it in an email--that being the case why would you think that mare owners (investors) are unaware of it?

You keep alluding to inaccuracies on the ATR list, but seem reluctant to be specific. I can understand if you didn't want to point out a problem stallion... but if you see a stallion on the list that warrants removal, what would deter you from speaking up?

I don't believe in posting information about horses I don't own on the internet. It's not my place to do so. I have no intention of getting into a specific pissing match with Thoroughbred Review. They know how much guesswork went into compiling that list, so I'm sure they also know where they've stretched or invented the truth. And yet the list remains unchanged--I can't see how my input would make any difference.

And finally... you're incredibly naive if you believe that stallion farms don't attempt to minimize (or outright conceal) fertility/libido issues. Just ask non-syndicate members who sent their mares to In Excess this year. In April, Vessels notified all syndicate members that In Excess was experiencing a significant drop in fertility. All other mare owners were left in the dark until mid June when it was practically too late to make other arrangements. As a result, investors will now have to carry their mares another year (at a cost of anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000)without a foal as a direct result of Vessel's 'selective' communication.

As I've mentioned numerous times, my experience is with the Kentucky farms. I've never bred mares in CA so I can't speak to how things are done there. I don't know anyone who would call me naive, but if you think I am...great! I would love to be that innocent again--rather than the cynical curmudgeon I usually feel like.