Artificial Insemination

by John Tuckfield  |     January 8, 2011  

There is nothing new about the artificial insemination (A.I.) of horses. It is said that in
1322 an Arab chieftain 'stole' some semen from an adversary's stallion and impregnated his prize mare to produce a super foal. In 1776 the recognised father of A.I., Spallanzani, used stallion semen to observe the effects of cooling spermatozoa. By 1959 in China there were approximately 600,000 mares artificial inseminated. The use of A.I. has mushroomed, but the thoroughbred industry remains the single equine holdout.
All major international thoroughbred stud books refuse to admit horses conceived by
artificial insemination. The rules are not uniform and perhaps the Australian Stud Book
prohibition is wider than most, where the relevant rule states:

Horse will not be eligible for the Stud Book or Non Thoroughbred Register if it is produced:-
By any form of artificial breeding, or From a natural covering of a mare by a stallion which in that same covering season was being bred to other mares by artificial insemination (i.e. was a semen donor).
A horse may not be eligible for the Stud Book or Non Thoroughbred Register if it is
produced by a mare which was:-
The subject of any artificial breeding procedure within 385 days before the birth of such produce, or Located on premises where artificial breeding of equines was practiced during the covering season in which the foal was conceived or in the foaling season in which the foal was born, or Owned by a person, persons or organisation which practices any form of artificial breeding in equines.

However the joint proprietors of the Stud Book reserve the right to grant permission for
foals conceived or born on such properties, or owned by such people or organisations,
to be accepted into the official records.
There is much debate on the merits of this embargo, but seemingly general agreement
on a single aspect. It would be disadvantageous if Australia was to go it alone in allowing A.I. horses into its Stud Book, because such horses and their progeny would not be regarded as thoroughbreds in other countries and so could not race or be used for breeding internationally.
However, even this seemingly lone consensus may be irrelevant soon, as the legality of the embargo is being challenge in the Federal Court. Bruce McHugh has commenced an action against the AJC and VRC, proprietors of the Australian Stud Book, alleging, inter alia, that preventing the registration of A.I. bred horses is an unlawful restraint of his ability to trade as a breeder.
If the action is successful and A.I. horses are permitted to be registered, will Australia
really become an isolated island in the sea of international thoroughbred breeding ?
There appears to be sound reasons why it would not. It must be remembered that this is a Trade Practice action and all relevant jurisdictions have similar legislation in force. In each of those jurisdictions there are those who share McHugh's view and one could
expect that a decision for McHugh would be important persuasive precedent to removing similar restrictions elsewhere. More practically, Australia produces the second biggest crop of thoroughbreds foals in the world and as such is not without international influence.
Even if Australia were left to stand alone it should be remembered that only one sixth at
the most of the foal crop is exported. The other five sixths, whose careers, racing and
breeding, take place entirely within Australia and would be totally unaffected.
There was a suggestion in a TBA media release that the action will be defended and that the resultant significant legal costs be met by a compulsory levy on stallion owners and breeders. This seems absurd; many stallion owners and breeders are in favour of A.I., so why should they contribute?
Would it not look somewhat ridiculous if the Stud Book, as was suggested, tries to raise a compulsory levy for the defence of an action which alleges that it is involved in an unfair monopoly?
Whatever the outcome of this legal battle, what are the arguments for and against A.I.?
They appear to fall into three general categories; economic, horse welfare, and the overall effect on the market and breed.
The economic arguments are obvious. There are savings in travel and agistment costs
for broodmare owners, who will no longer have to send their mares and foals long
distances to stallions, and savings in costs for stallion owners in the reduction in required land and staff, not to mention the elimination of the huge cost of insurance and transportation for the shuttle stallions. In short A.I. is more economically efficient. On the downside there may be stud owners who have huge capital investments in their stud farms, which may be rendered less valuable if there was a large fall in agistment
revenue from visiting mares and foals.
Less movement would also lead to a reduction in injury to the travelling mares, foals and stallions. With less international travel there would also be a reduced risk of the
transmission of infectious diseases, improving biosecurity. It should be remembered that the recent outbreak of EI that paralysed the racing and breeding industries was
attributed to a shuttle stallion from Japan that was in quarantine at Eastern Creek. But it
is not just exotic diseases; both venereal diseases and non-venereal diseases such as strangles and equine infectious anaemia would also be significantly reduced.
Thus the main area of contention concerns the effect on the market and the breed. So
why is the anti-A.I. lobby that includes organisations such as TBA and industry stalwarts like John Messara so opposed.? As I understand it they are fundamentally concerned with three main issues.

One would have thought the first would be easily established by reference to what
occurred when A.I. was introduced by the standardbred industry, but even this is
disputed. Research conducted by Peter Jenkins of Arrowfield found that the live foal rate for Australian standardbreds decreased from 69.8% in 1994 to 61.3% in 2008. In the same period the rate for thoroughbreds increased from 63.4% to 67.0%.
These findings have been questioned on the basis that the standardbred figures include frozen semen which is known to be less effective than chilled semen, which would normally be used if A.I. in thoroughbreds was permitted. There may also be some lag in the Australian standardbred figures, which I believe are based on foal registration rather than actual births.
For the years prior to the last two reported (when many foals may not have been yet
registered) the Australian standardbred foal registration rate is fairly flat at around the
mid sixty percent mark. Furthermore the live foal outcomes for A.I. standardbreds in New Zealand for the 2007 & 2008 seasons were 71% & 70% respectively.
The argument that A.I. leads to a concentration of power goes something like this:
Natural conception provides an inherent limit to the number of mares that can be served by a particular stallion. A.I. would destroy this natural cap, so that considerably more mares could be inseminated by the most commercially desirable stallions, thereby reducing competition and investing greater power in the few major studs that stand those stallions.
Again comparison with the standardbred industry where A.I. has been allowed for many
years might be instructive. When there was first an unrestricted use of A.I. (an initial per
stallion limit was overturned by restraint of trade action), Vance Hanover covered over
400 mares. When those foals competed at the yearling sales, there was so many that
the prices were diluted.
More was not necessarily better for breeders. In North America the leading standardbred
stallions are back to covering books of 120-150 mares to protect the value of their
yearlings at sale time.
A 2008 study by A.I. advocate Professor William 'Twink' Allen compared the difference
in mare coverings between the thoroughbred and standardbred industries worldwide. It
showed the mean coverings of the ten biggest A.I. standardbred stallions in the US
dropped from 250 in 2002 to 190 in 2008 compared to the top ten thoroughbred stallions in UK and Ireland in the same period where the mean went from 260 to just below 250.
In Australia the study found that a big gap in favour of the standardbred a few years ago
had narrowed so that the top ten of both breeds are now covering about the same 250 or so mares each.
So it may be that fears of greater concentration of power might be unfounded simply
because market economic forces will dictate an effective limit to the number of progeny
from a single stallion. At present in Australia the leading studs with the top stallions
already dominate an ever more polarised top end.
In the past 20 years the mares covered by individual stallions has more than doubled
and in some cases even tripled to more than 200. These numbers are already on par
with the A.I. coverings of the most prolific harness racing stallions. In some cases
thoroughbred shuttle stallions are covering between 350 and 400 mares a year
worldwide.
This leads to the concern that A.I. will be harmful to the diversity of the breed. Over ten
years ago Jonathon Irwin wrote, "As none of the authorities are presently prepared to
initiate a limit on the number of mares covered by any one stallion, their attitude towards A.I. can hardly be guided by a desire to, in some way, protect the bred... Why should the breed be restricted to old-fashioned and expensive practices when the number of mares being covered manually is really only in line with the worst fears of the anti-A.I. lobby"
In Australia the Northern Dancer/ Danehill line already dominates and some argue that
the worldwide thoroughbred gene pool has never been narrower. When A.I. was
introduced in harness racing, Meadow Skipper's sons and grandsons were similarly
dominant. It is asserted that since A.I. many more sire lines have emerged and joined
the top of the standardbred spectrum. In short, the diversity has increased since A.I.
This view is not shared by Professor Jenkins who argues that since A.I. was introduced
in the standardbred industry in Australasia, the stallion numbers have reduced by 50%
and that the top 20 sires now cover 42% of the of the total broodmares bred, compared
with less than 16% in the pre-A.I. era. He extrapolates this to suggest that if the
Australian thoroughbred industry was overlaid with this standardbred model "we could
see the top 20 thoroughbred stallions 'covering' over 550 mares annually on average".
This of course does not allow for the commercial limiting reality of the market place
discussed above.
While TBA seems wholeheartedly in favour of A.I. being banned, not all of its members
seem to agree. Gerry Harvey at the time of the 2007 EI outbreak spoke out vehemently
in favour of A.I. saying "I've got no doubt it is only a matter of time before A.I. becomes
the preferred and only way to do it".
This may well occur as a result of the current Australian Trade Practices action. It is
unlikely to do so because of international agreement that A.I. is a more practical way to
proceed. As Stan Bergstein has observed "Logic does not spend much time in the
breeding shed, while hidebound, stubborn tradition hangs out there round the clock".
There are other more minor issues in the mix:
Would the introduction of A.I. make it harder for unproven new stallions to compete with
established proven stallions ? Legendary US breeder John Gaines of Gainesway Stud
certainly thinks so, but that this isn't necessary a bad thing.
Would A.I. mean the total cessation of shuttling? Twink Allen thinks not. "About one third
of frozen semen will freeze well, another third will freeze moderately and another third
badly - that's a genetic thing and can't be helped" he said. "So shuttling will not be
stopped."
Will A.I increase the risk of fraud and/or accidental breeding to the wrong stallion?
Possibly, because it is easier to mistake one straw for another than it is to mistake one
stallion for another. But any such occurrences will be picked up at the time of DNA
testing of the foal leaving any aggrieved party access to an appropriate legal remedy
against the supplier.
Although totally unscientific, perhaps a last word should remain with legendary Federico Tesio, the most influential breeder of all time, who wrote an essay advancing a theory that because of the need for what he described as 'nervous energy' in breeding, horses produced by A.I. would never equal those derived from the natural method. It has been suggested, however that his 'natural energy' hypothesis was nothing more than a deliberate red herring to distract competitors from the true basis of his success.
Note: Some of the Australian Stud Book Rules quoted above have now been deleted

back to News