cheers for sheik hamdan

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by _ed_

Yeah I agree.

85 is a good number, I worry about the numbers some stallions are covering. I think I heard a couple of days ago that some shuttle stallions are covering somewhere around 200 a year.

it's especially amazing when you consider that two HUGE influences on the breed only covered 30-40 mares per year, bold ruler and danzig. the latter is the top stakes winning producer in north america, and he never had HALF what these guys have to cover now. and of course bold ruler was the top sire in america for years.

giants causeway is the tops this year regarding live foals reported--168--in north america alone. that's insanity!!
lion heart led the way last year, 178. so, just think how many mares those stallions had to cover to produce that number. mares who didn't take the first time, foal loss, etc...

[sumitas]

You have to really wonder whether this excessive breeding by these stallions is not some kind of abuse. I agree with Sheikh Hamdan that this type of extreme breeding is bad for the health of the stallion. Then shuttling them all over the world. This is just not right and I agree with the Sheikh.

As we know, people were exploited in the western world until laws were passed to severely mitigate that exploitation. Now the commercial breeders, the barons of this industry in this time, are exploiting the stallions. It seems that only a federal law limiting the number of total matings by a stallion standing in the US to 100 may very well be required. Capitalism is a great thing but carried to extremes has and does result in abuses.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by sumitas

You have to really wonder whether this excessive breeding by these stallions is not some kind of abuse. I agree with Sheikh Hamdan that this type of extreme breeding is bad for the health of the stallion. Then shuttling them all over the world. This is just not right and I agree with the Sheikh.

well, like he said, you'd possibly have a horse covering up to four times a day with a book of 120--so just how many times did giants causeway have to do the same to get the # of foals he got from last springs matings? and people sometimes say these horses deserve to retire to a life of leisure!! that's not what i'd call it!

well, what do you know....giants causeway covered 192 mares last spring. afleet alex-169. he couldn't handle the wear and tear of racing, but he could jump mares four times daily. wonderful. fupeg-131--and then got to shuttle and do it all again in the fall.

complete info here:
http://www.thejockeyclub.com/informa...eportyear=2006

[Danzig]

i'm going thru the alphabet, so far the high # is el corredor with 195.

surpassed by roman ruler, 197.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm going thru the alphabet, so far the high # is el corredor with 195.

surpassed by roman ruler, 197.

Hmm.. What do those 2 stallions have in common?

(AND FOR EXTRA CREDIT: How many cover did Vindication have last year...?)

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Hmm.. What do those 2 stallions have in common?

(AND FOR EXTRA CREDIT: How many cover did Vindication have last year...?)

They are half brothers (RR and Corredor)

Vindication covered 9 billion mares, actually 136

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Scav

They are half brothers (RR and Corredor)

Vindication covered 9 billion mares, actually 136

True.. but the key to the question was, 'Where do ALL OF THEM stand?'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

There can never enough federal government intervention, can there?

i don't think that's the answer. i wonder if anyone keeps track of which horses breed the most, and live the shortest life....is it just coincidence that maria's mon covered the huge amount of mares he did, and died at only 14?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

You'd have to go a long way to link the numbers of mares he covered to his death.

why? if it's thought very tough on a horse, overworked, overstressed, ill health would seemingly follow, right? it may not be the case with maria's mon, but i'm curious if any correlation exists between larger books and longevity-or lack thereof.