# BEF Futurity



## elijahasgal (9 June 2012)

Is it just me, or do you think that the futurity is deviating from its initial goals?

Initially I thought that it was to assess british breeding, the unusual crosses, and see what they were bringing through. Each step forward in breeding better performance horses has come from inovation, trial and error.  German sport ponies were in large part our welsh ponies crossed to warmblood stallions. That cross would be acceptable to the futurity.....but not a warmblood mare to a welsh stallion. 
Or where do the good old TBs that were the root to most eventers come in?
Where do the clevland Bays that are known to produce good Jumpers, Irish sports horses (Crusing, Grey Macha, King of Diamonds) all fit into this new way? 
It seems to be almost Warmbloods are us, but doesnt each breed run its own assessments and shows? 
Dont get me wrong, I love my warmbloods,( and my Irish, and my TB's )  But when it starts becoming an elitist show, where amature breeders (like myself) with one or two mares, cannot any longer go along and take cracking foals and learn in regards to my own horses where I need to improve or am doing well (I have done well in the past) it starts becoming all about a big few names, and squeezing smaller stallion owners and studs out the equation. You then get smaller people maybe going to nice stallions that are not producing the goods, but you cannot compare them on the rankings as they are no longer there.....results cannot be seen and compared, taking away some more information from the public. And maybe just maybe, it will be that a stallion not in their approved list will be producing cracking youngstock, that will not be recognised for 6-8 years, when they are out competing, because of these new rules. (and yes, I believe that we have a few such stallions in this country, as we are fantastic horse people, with guts, and innovation, and an eye, the only reason we fell behind the continent is that they did massive state farms, but you look at a lot of the horses that they sourced at the beginning, there were a lot of british bred and breeds)
So now according to the futurity, our own breeding, if not on their "approved list" can only in future be put forward as a leisure horse. I actually find that insulting, Innovative breeding can only be a fun, not a serious horse?!
What do you think? Should the futurity be a "do it our way club" or "Lets see what our british breeders are producing and doing what they have always done well"


----------



## Umbrella (10 June 2012)

Well, I have a yearling that I was going to enter and is now not eligible. She is by a Stallion that was previously graded with the AES (so therefore would have been eligible) but as he's old, doesn't do many coverings, and doesn't go out he is no longer registered with them. Therefore my filly is not eligible. To me this seems silly because she still has the same breeding, it's just that Dad is no longer registered so therefore she is not eligible.

I think it is cutting out the small breeders and will become much more narrow in it's view as only offspring from 'currently registered and graded' Stallions can enter. Surely this means they will only have a limited amount of youngsters eligible rather than the wide range they used to have.


----------



## madmare22 (10 June 2012)

That doesn't sound right umbrella, who is the stallion ?


----------



## Umbrella (10 June 2012)

Hi, I emailed them directly and that's what they told me. I couldn't enter. Stallion is registered with Wetherbys NTR now(as it's cheaper apparently) so that's where covering certificate came from. My filly has an AES passport and is registered in the auxilliary stud book as I don't have Mum's pedigree.

There is a long list of eligibility criteria on their website.

I am not a breeder, this is the first foal I've bred and she is for me to keep so I don't really understand all the intracacies of it all but that's what they told me.


----------



## Angela_Wise (10 June 2012)

Elijahasgal - I responded to the other thread on this subject and I do agree with your thread on how the new regulations are going to push out the small breeder.  On the new rules which are to "enhance british breeding" it seems that the BEF feel that using a graded stallion on any type of mare will produce the type of progeny they wish to have forward for assessment.  If a breeder chooses to use a stallion which doesnt fulfil the BEF new rules say on a proven performance mare, then the resulting progeny is not eligible as the BEF have deemed in their wisdom that this progeny will not be able to compete at top level and only be a leisure horse!  Something has gone terribly wrong in this thought process. Britain has in the past and will continue to produce top event horses its a shame the BEF have decided that they dont wish to support the many individual british breeders.  This segregation is why we have fallen behind other countries in our breeding programs as it would help everyone if there was one body to help promote our breeding.


----------



## Partoow (11 June 2012)

I'm sorry but having just re read the criteria, as I was unsure why a few of you thought that the criteria would discriminate so greatly I cannot see why you feel that this us a negative step.
Tb's on the general register are accepted, those on the nrt are accepted if they have a performance record or their progeny have secured good premiums. Registered natives, so all you welsh fans can rest easy, are accepted. So the TB x Welsh that is such a super eventing cross is acceptable.
If you are breeding with stallion s outside this  which is really quite far reaching and inclusive then I'm Adair it dies not help develope the understanding of the gene pool based here in the uk  and / or the raising of standards.
As for falling behind other countries? Breeding on the continnt has come about through the use of graded stallions from recognised stud books and has never negated the use of hobby breeders in their programmer , quite the opposite . The KwPN recognise the importance of such breeders, they too have a general ( basis) section of their stud book which recognises the allrounder.
The use of graded / registered/ performance tested sites can only improve the information for mare owners and is a good thing it does not exclude anyone and developes a cohesive inclusive structure to breeding.


----------



## Partoow (11 June 2012)

Ps sorry for typo's


----------



## Ciss (11 June 2012)

Totally agree with everything Partoow says (even allowing for the typos <rofl >. If you read through the rules very carefully you will find that unless you really want to use a TB stallion that was too slow, unsound or temperamentally unmanagable to be able to score on the racecourse or compete successfully under saddle in sports competiton if that was his planned career


----------



## Ciss (11 June 2012)

(sorry about  unplanned break!) or you fancy an M & M or native / riding pony or PBA cross that either lacked the breeding or veterinary soundness to be approved as a breeding stallion by its mother or any other related studbook then you have nothing to worry about .
 Bearing in mind how sports horse breeding has developed world Wide over the past 50


----------



## Ciss (11 June 2012)

(Another unplanned break due to crazy new phone) years I am at a loss to see how using such untested stallions (if you are a mare owner) or standing One at stud (if you are a stallion owner) can seriously be said to damage the on-going improvement in British sports horse breeding. Perhaps I am missing something but I doubt it.


----------



## elijahasgal (11 June 2012)

TBs do not get graded, and for them we are mainly on about eventers. We are fantastic at breeding eventers, with a bit of "common" blood to help find its fith leg! 
How about the welsh horses, who can move, jump and have been crossed back to warmbloods to produce the warmblood ponies? Who is there to grade them? Or something with say clevland bay, excellent jumpers, but what society will grade them into their studbooks?
I am not against grading, I think it is useful, but I know too many graded horses that I wont touch, some very well known ones with soundness issues, passing on joint problems, the wonkiest legs, etc etc, as I like to go and look at what I am using and like it in all ways, and not just go with the trends (stupid I would probably make some money if I did).  Some that dont grade compete to the highest levels, and one society that I know of will accept them, (If I understand their rules right) on the grounds that if they are up there, and sound, they must have something to add. 
I would rather use an ungraded stallion, that is passing on all the right things, and is sound through the grades, than a graded one because it is the latest trend, that I believe may have soundness issues. 
Exclusivness in the futurity excludes the possability that something good may be being missed, something may be passing on the goods that "shouldnt" some "strange" shire, tb, welsh clevland x cannot be good enough and should automatically be gelded.


----------



## Ciss (11 June 2012)

elijahasgale please read through the rules themselves before assuming what they say. If you do you will discover that it is fully accepted that some of the best producing TBs have not been graded but have usually raced and acheived a GAG rating of at least 65 and are accepted on that basis. Aldo ALL native and native X stallions (including Welsh and WPBR) are OK as well and these and other ponies graded with the Sports Pony Studbook Society (which has been doping this for the type of ponies you mention so is hardly new)


----------



## Ciss (11 June 2012)

Continued (!) are ALL also eligible as sires. 

Sadly I think the rather alarmist and ill researched ítem in last weeks HH did much to cause unnecessary alarm because it was so vague about the many exemptions / extensions to the Basic 'graded' criteria which are specifically designed to be as inclusive as possible while still encouraging people to be as selective as they can possibly be about their choice of sire for the long term benefit of British breeding.


----------



## EstherYoung (12 June 2012)

I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of the proposed changes but just a couple of points:

TBs aren't the only horses that race. A lot of 'performance arabs' have achieved their performance on the track and the current futurity rules don't recognise that.

Native crosses are generally native on the dam side, as it's rare that someone will use a welsh D stallion on a blood mare for example, so these rules will knock out a lot of native crosses, particularly as the cross is often with an arab (see above comment about a major area of arab performance not being recognised) or a TB.

Part bred native stallions don't seem to be covered at all.


----------



## Smee (12 June 2012)

Just a thought here: Would it not be possible to analyse past results & retrospectively apply the new criteria? Hopefully this could give an indication of how many (including their results) would now be excluded as a result of the new criteria.


----------



## Cherrygarden (12 June 2012)

Dangerous idea Smee, love to see it happen but I think it is unlikely to be officially done.
I will go and read again Ciss as I had understood that WPBR stallions would not be eligible to send stock forward although can't remember from which draft that was of the rules. It is also all very to well include studbooks that members of the BHS breeds wotsit(will look up again in a minute for clarification) but getting the complete works of that list off them is a bloody nightmare. They tell me they don't keep a complete list to share but one can ask individually about stud books and breed societies and they can answer on that basis. Freedom of information made extremely painful as with everything in this country. To be honest I think the original rule should have been kept but perhaps discounts offered to those using Graded Stallions and mares. Much more encouraging and inclusive after all you don't get to educate people if you shut them out, they just feel more righteous and carry on elsewhere.


----------



## Ciss (12 June 2012)

Cherrygarden said:



			Dangerous idea Smee, love to see it happen but I think it is unlikely to be officially done.
I will go and read again Ciss as I had understood that WPBR stallions would not be eligible to send stock forward although can't remember from which draft that was of the rules. It is also all very to well include studbooks that members of the BHS breeds wotsit(will look up again in a minute for clarification) but getting the complete works of that list off them is a bloody nightmare. They tell me they don't keep a complete list to share but one can ask individually about stud books and breed societies and they can answer on that basis. Freedom of information made extremely painful as with everything in this country. To be honest I think the original rule should have been kept but perhaps discounts offered to those using Graded Stallions and mares. Much more encouraging and inclusive after all you don't get to educate people if you shut them out, they just feel more righteous and carry on elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

For a full list of BHS Horse and Pony Breeds Committee members (which includes ALL native, M&M, rare breeds, NPS/BRP studbooks, plus CHAPS, BSPA, AHS (inc AA and PBA), SHBGB, BHHS, TBF, WBSUK, Cleveland, SPSS, Caspians, Haflingers, Morgan Horses, Quarter Horses and many others, contact Wendy Minor at the BHS and she will let you know. Most of the member societies (apart from Exmoors and I think Shetlands) have studbook / stallion approval systems for their part-bred stock too -- and the Welsh Part-breds feature very strongly in this group so were never excluded provided they were licenced by the WPCS -- so I am not sure where that misconception came from.

As far as the person who posted about racing Arabs is concerned, most of these stallions usually feature in the Endurance section and again -- if you read the rules carefully and don't automatically assume the worst without checking -- you will see that the classiifcation for the sires in this discipline is still very much under discussion so the qualifcation rules for the other sections will not apply until 2014 at the earliest. Also any Arab, AA or PBA stallion that has an AHS Premium or has successfully completed a NaSTA performance test (which is quite a number) are automatically eligible anyway so again Arab racing from has been considered and included in the most effective way for those planning to use such stallions for sport horse or pony breeding. 

In all this, we do have to remember that the Futuirty is designed to concentrate above all on animals bred for Dressage, Showjumping, Eventing and Endurance and there are certain qualities that successful performers in these fields do have and which not all sires -- and certainly not stallions of doubtful origin, soundness, poor temperament, conformation or athelticism -- are likely to have or be able to pass on to their progeny, so even allowing for the wide variety of breeds and bloodlines unique to this country and on which much of our successful breeding has been based in the past, the line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is most likely to benefit the national sports horse and pony herd and its wide variety of breeders, trainers and riders consistently in the long run.


----------



## Cherrygarden (12 June 2012)

Okay I have re read the notes on eligibility including the new yellow bits and while British, Natives, indigenous and or rare breeds are included it does not actually mention partbreds so having read through the rest of the criteria one might sort of suspect that they wouldn't be even if licensed under partbred schemes. Glad that is not so however : ).
Sadly the rules have shot themselves in the foot somewhat if they want Welsh and partbreds forward by including this starry note at the bottom *Graded/approved/licensed means having been assessed for conformation, type, movement and correctness by a panel of professional judges appointed by the studbook concerned and accepted as a breeding stallion by that studbook. Any such process must also have included a five stage vetting with particular investigation of heritable or genetic conditions.
Whilst we don't like to mention this and there are instances where it suits some breeders, the Welsh Pony and Cob Society Stallion License doesn't fulfil the above criteria. The vetting seems to be as much or as little as any given vet decides to do, the nice lady on the end of the phone said I definitely shouldn't use my breeding specialist vet but a local less specialised one would be fine and there was not much too it. A.N other Welsh breeder has said that it was basically checking the trot was straight, if he could canter and be caught after they'd listen to his heart, check he could breathe and see and look in his mouth but lots of colts are not that handled so not to worry if mine was one of them as he'd most likely go through! For that reason my colt has not been put forward for WPBR license as cheap as it is it is very nearly worthless. Some of the licenses are much better vetted in fairness but many stallions eligible for Welsh Partbred are also eligible Weatherbys' VII which has a better vetting but cannot send stock through the Futurity. However under the above bit of writing the Suffolk Punch Stallions can especially as their license does include a pair of judges coming out to look at the colts but as they said themselves if the colt had already passed the vet the was little point them coming as they couldn't refuse the license now. I look forward to seeing Suffolk crosses in the eventing section.
It also seems a little daft that some societies will go on to Grade Stallions from native books that have been licensed with above nil genuine soundness standards but not ask for a new vetting, then that stallion can breed lots of potentially unsound foals and all can jolly along to Futurity.
Actually maybe I will license with WPCS and then when my boy is 6 and can go SPSS I can use that vetting and save a whole load of money if he passes.
I am well aware I am nit picking and all things look great on paper but no bugger is actually checking that was it is supposed to happen does and that makes an unfair ass of the entire system.
For my money I am not breeding this year and maybe not ever as the idiots that buy and own horses frighten me, but isn't it a bit silly that my yearling full sister to a First premium pony last year, who is now (subject to soft Welsh Pony license) potentially eligible to send stock forwards in his own right, cannot herself go forward to the Futurity.
And yes the stallion I own and use ticks all your negative boxes which is clearly why I use him.
There are some idiot breeders in this country but most of us are not them.


----------



## Cherrygarden (12 June 2012)

Thanks for the heads up about Wendy Minor, I am fairly sure that having read the website it was her I waited a year to speak to before with aforementioned result but perhaps I will try again to get hold of that list so I can compare the various license and grading procedures for stallions.


----------



## cruiseline (12 June 2012)

Smee said:



			Just a thought here: Would it not be possible to analyse past results & retrospectively apply the new criteria? Hopefully this could give an indication of how many (including their results) would now be excluded as a result of the new criteria.
		
Click to expand...

I have all the results on a database, give me a bit of time and I will try to get the stats for you all


----------



## EstherYoung (12 June 2012)

Ciss, it was me that said about the arab racing. I know full well that endurance doesn't come under the sire rules yet, but arabs/anglos do sire non-endurance performance animals too y'know.... 

On the plus side maybe it will send more stallion owners towards the AHS PPS which has only got to be good for the breed and the PPS. And of course the PPS does count racing results.

If it is true that part bred native stallions are also exempt then that is also re-assuring, but I must admit it doesn't read like that, as a part bred native is not a 'native breed', it is a part bred native.


----------



## elijahasgal (13 June 2012)

My thoughts on the futurity are this :
Hold more days, lesser rates, every horse welcome. The days used to teach people what they are looking for in detail, with the mares confirmation and suitability publically discussed.
This should lead to stallions having in their adverts what the average score of their progney is (how many entered) This should be pushed to the degree that we start to ask why progney are not entered, why the info is not in the ads.
The down side of this from them, is that if the stallion is consistently producing horses lower that first premium, graded or not, the pressure should then be on to be  removed from the breeding pool.
This would then put the Onus on the stallion owners to assess the mare that is being put to their stallion, and advise (and refuse) accordingly. Overall this would increase the general knowledge of strengths and weaknesses, and confirmation. Because it will be in the owners best interest for the good and decent mares only that will compliment their boy to be used.
The best should then go forward to a final, which is where they can showcase the best of british.  Everyone happy 

I have looked at several graded stallions to use on my one or two girls. Some I look at and wonder how the hell they have passed. Wonky legs, sweet horses that look like little ponies, with no movement and foot problems. World breeding champion with metabolic illness. Inheratable joint problems, lamenesses. Some of the best and popular names.  If we go on it is graded and lisenced alone, we fall into the danger ground of it is graded it must be ok, without looking at combination of mare to stallion. And without improvement in that knowledge generally, how are we going to improve?

I ask the advice on my mares of the stallion owners, and usually follow it. If I phone up a big name, and get, essentially, just follow the trend, use this horse, I tend not to listen, as they have not assessed my mare when looking, on either bloodlines or for strnegths and weaknesses. 

When we start looking and learning we will as a nation start to improve


----------



## magic104 (14 June 2012)

Surprised the forum police have not picked up on the fact it is conformation not confirmation.  As I have said in earlier posts re these changes I also agree that all stock should be permitted so breeders can get the education on what to be looking for.  Also why should a bogof or accident be excluded.


----------



## millitiger (14 June 2012)

I presume that the BEF has data from the previous years of Futurity to back up the opinion that ungraded stallions are producing horses not worth evaluating?


----------



## sywell (14 June 2012)

I have read the comments with interest and I think that there are a number of issues not raised that I have been pushing for, one is a list of the grading rules of the societies so that breeders can see the standards that a stallion has been graded by. Some studbooks only have in hand grading and some have leg xrays,vetting and ridden performance test for the 3 year old stallions and this is related to the results from the mare performance test (under saddle) so this helps to balance out the results from different stallion testing stations. One studbook looked at 10 progeny of seven year old stallions to see how the original evaluation has gone. The loss of Legacy data with the new NED as it will not be a requirement of the new provider to keep this will be a bad blow for breeders as it will be impossible to progress a breeding program to compete with our European competitors. I understand that the new marking rules for the Futurity will be the judges individual scores being averaged out and not a score agreed by the judges when the horse is in the arena. This could lead to lower scores overall as when judges discuss their evaluation and one judge has a score well out of line with the other judges it gives them a chance to review their opinion. Some studbooks have clear rules for older stallions who are graded on competition results and breeders can pay a small fee for stallions who do not pay the annual registration fee. Possibly the BEF Director of breeding might comment.


----------



## Partoow (14 June 2012)

So where does and how does responsible breeding come in? Is it not irresponsible to have untested /graded / incomplete stallions about having a quick pop and let's see what it produces? 
It comes back to the fact that a good sports horse is not necessarily a good  progenator .
Having clear bloodlines and origins may not be perfect, nothing with horses ever is, but it does provide structure and thought and therefore encouragement of responsible breeding. Something the Futurity must be seen to endorse.
There is a lit of data collected during the coarse of the futurity I'm sure Jan would be happy to tell / show you anything that she seed as relevant.


----------



## Partoow (14 June 2012)

Sywell I agree that it should be clearer to understand what grading/ approval / life status etc all mean with respect to stallions. I think it would endorse the process more and make it clearer as to the value or not of such examinations.
Also agree with data collection. As it is this that had made stud books like the KWPN so comprehensive and accountable.
Even to the fact that some stallions have had their license removed.
I also believe that a stallin should be graded along set criteria agreed by all stud books and if it fails a grading with a book it should not then see if it can find a book willing to take it.
This may be hard to implement but it was a consideration I had when grading my own stallion.
Had he not passed I would have gelded him regardless of his sport ability.


----------



## elijahasgal (14 June 2012)

The stallion that I have used failed his grading, First time because he was immature, second with assessors contradicting one another. He has one thing I dislike about him, so I waited, ensured that he was not passing it on. He wasnt, but instead was stamping his stock with everything I liked about him. He has had two presented, one gained higher first. Owner now taking him down the performance route, and I have no doubt that he will be graded in a year or two.
One of the big stallion names in this country, I enquired about which he would suggest I put to my mare, without assessing my mare, strengths and weaknesses. Now my girl is GREAT, already produced an elite foal, but who is the more irresponsible? The mare owner who seeks advice, and maybe should be told that that horse wont suit that stallion, or maybe shouldnt be bred from, or the stallion owner/agent, who is it it for money, and ships semen to any tom dick or harry?
I have patrolled stallions, I like to see them, like them before I use them. I have seen graded stallions with the strangest confirmation, but move great. I have seen stallions that are like ponies, sweet kind, nothing to write home about with foot problems. I have seen stallions that are competing lame (and disguised by the short outline they are worked in)  I have seen stallion with metabolic disorders.  
Some stallions with these problems are really well though of, but what are they passing on?
I think with the pure emphasis on grading, without an increase in knowledge, a large percentage of Joe Public will go, graded, must be ok, without looking into it any more deeply. Will that help the situation? 
 And at the moment of finantial difficulty, if you breed to sell on, ultimatly people are going to go to the biggest names as most saleable. So we need the futurity more than ever to be highlighting for us the smaller names to keep maximum diversity, not make it all a show of half a dozen stallions, the few "trendy" lines, and let the surprising in.
Yes grading is very helpful, No it isnt everything. The horse that would have made the Olympics, and passed the right stuff on could have a field accident that makes it unsuitable for grading, OR performance, should it automatically be gelded? How can the stock then be prooved? 
Again, if the stock of a stallion are consistently below a certain criteria, maybe first grade, then it should be either gelded OR if it is passing on a fantastic easy temprement, and fantastic confirmation and soundness, marketed as I lower level stallion for more novice riders, maximum.  
How about the small breeder without enough confidence or huge finances to spare to put their young stallion through the grading process?  This should be a showcase for them to learn if their boy is passing on the right traits that would make the investment for them worth taking. 
Graded stallions are not everything, but they are a posotive, make the days educational for everyone, the mare owners in relation to their mare, how they can improve, what stallions maybe they could consider using, what and why, what areas of the mare need improving, etc, is that not the way forward?


----------



## sywell (14 June 2012)

How do you get independent advice of which stallion to use for your mare certainly it is unlikely to be the stallion owner. I am often asked can this foal be registered with xyz studbook as the stallion owner told me it would be . Well the stallion has never been approved by xyz  studbook for breeding/yes it is an xyz studbook stallion but is approved by the 3 legged donkey society. When I look at a stallion book, it says a certain stallion has an estimated breeding value for the neck of 129 and for jumping technique and has 76 for jumping technique it has 761  progeny competing at Prix St George and the accuracy of its original breeding index is 98% I can then look at the stallion in the flesh. I normally ring up for chilled semen at 9 am from Germany and it arrives next morning at 7.30 am and costs 600 Euros exc p & P.  My best mare competed at BD Nationals at Advanced and my best eventing horse had 56 points in its first season inc. 3 at CCI*. I only breed one or two horses a year and so a small breeder by using licensed stallions and graded mares can have a good success rate. Do not forget Totilas did not get licensed at his first attempt. Breeders must not forget that Eventing tracks have changed and our competitors immediately saw this change as their chance of success and the BMX track at the Olympics will show that quite clearly.


----------



## Ciss (14 June 2012)

Just as a matter of interest I had a check through all the stallion rankings on the BEF site and guess what I found? Based on the many allowances for the very wide range of studbooks (including native and rare breeds and their crosses, sires of progeny already successful in the Futurity, successful racehorse stallions, successful ungraded sports horse stallions etc etc), NO dressage stallions whose progeny have entered in the Futurity so far are now excluded and the same goes for showjumping sires, endurance sires and sports ponies. There are, however, a maximum of 4 lowly ranked Eventing stalllions who might have problems but as one of these is a long dead TB and the top average score for even the highest of this group  is 8.10 from a total of 4 progeny, that is hardly an earth shattering indication of a potential world class sire. So what is the problem? It seems to me that only those who never entered (and never intend to, including the usual 'the Futurity has shot itself in the foot with this' brigade <sigh)  and / or those who do not have enough faith in the merit of their stallion to invest financially in his future by preparing / having him prepared and presenting / having him presented for grading -- or indeed licencing by any of the many UK or EU DEFRA approved studbooks --  are the small strident core of people making such a fuss about thse 'new' rules, the introduction of which has been loudly heralded on web sites, in rules and fact sheets etc for the past 4 years to my knowledge. Their motives for doing this, especially when they imply -- contrary to about 50 years mainland European experience of the proven positive effect grading and performance testing of stallions across all typoes of studbook (not just those of warmbloods and certainly including all nativeand sports  pony breeds) -- that  the new rules are detrimental to the improvemnt of British Breeding defeat me. OTOH, in the whole time I was breeding from mares  or standing stallions  (from 1977 to January this year when Rin died) I have never used an ungraded stallion, or for that matter owned an ungraded mare. OTOH perhaps I and the many others whose breeding criteria have been the same are completely wrong in our approach (which is the one that produced Farouche for instance) and to ensure success we should use the likes of these three or four stallions I have identified in order to really move British breeding on to unforseen new heights. I don't think so <sigh|>.


----------



## ruby1 (14 June 2012)

I have a pony yearling i was looking to take . Her sire is part-bred Arab,the covering certificate came from the Arab Horse Society ( PBAR ) and she is not eligable to enter, I have asked.
But there are other ways I can have her evaluated/graded in the future though obviously no through the futurity.


----------



## GinnieRedwings (14 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			My thoughts on the futurity are this :
Hold more days, lesser rates, every horse welcome. The days used to teach people what they are looking for in detail, with the mares confirmation and suitability publically discussed.
This should lead to stallions having in their adverts what the average score of their progney is (how many entered) This should be pushed to the degree that we start to ask why progney are not entered, why the info is not in the ads.
The down side of this from them, is that if the stallion is consistently producing horses lower that first premium, graded or not, the pressure should then be on to be  removed from the breeding pool.
This would then put the Onus on the stallion owners to assess the mare that is being put to their stallion, and advise (and refuse) accordingly. Overall this would increase the general knowledge of strengths and weaknesses, and confirmation. Because it will be in the owners best interest for the good and decent mares only that will compliment their boy to be used.
The best should then go forward to a final, which is where they can showcase the best of british.  Everyone happy 

I have looked at several graded stallions to use on my one or two girls. Some I look at and wonder how the hell they have passed. Wonky legs, sweet horses that look like little ponies, with no movement and foot problems. World breeding champion with metabolic illness. Inheratable joint problems, lamenesses. Some of the best and popular names.  If we go on it is graded and lisenced alone, we fall into the danger ground of it is graded it must be ok, without looking at combination of mare to stallion. And without improvement in that knowledge generally, how are we going to improve?

I ask the advice on my mares of the stallion owners, and usually follow it. If I phone up a big name, and get, essentially, just follow the trend, use this horse, I tend not to listen, as they have not assessed my mare when looking, on either bloodlines or for strnegths and weaknesses. 

When we start looking and learning we will as a nation start to improve
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! ^^^^




Ciss said:



			Their motives for doing this, especially when they imply -- contrary to about 50 years mainland European experience of the proven positive effect grading and performance testing of stallions across all typoes of studbook (not just those of warmbloods and certainly including all nativeand sports  pony breeds) -- that  the new rules are detrimental to the improvemnt of British Breeding defeat me.
		
Click to expand...

Taking the European experience as an example to emulate is a huge mistake in my opinion - actually, it should be learned from so that we don't make the same mistakes.

As with the racing breeding, the idea to breed from the best to produce the best sounds good in theory. In practice, it reduces the genepool massively (have a look at any dressage-bred "best of European bloodlines" horse for sale on the various websites, you will find the same 3 stallions in their 5 generation perdigree), and it allows issues like OCD (to name the current boogyman, it was navicular disease in SF in the 80s!) to become endemic in breeding stock, to the point when big European breeders tend to scan all their stock at 2, de-chip, then sell cheaply to the UK!!!! (that's why you can buy 4 year olds under saddle and jumping 1.40 loose, imported from Holland for less than I am willing to let my 2 year old go - and that's with import costs AND the dealer's cut!!!). That also says something about the worth of even the alledgedly very "stringent" European grading processes  

If we had been so restrictive in the past, Clover Hill and many others would have been gelded and we would have missed out on their amazing genetic input.

In my view, showing has deviated so much from its original brief of identifying useful animals worth breeding from, and become much more of a who's who beauty pageant (much like the dog show world, form over function), that the Futurity has to take up that responsibility. 

And that means looking at EVERY animal presented, on its own merit, regardless of breeding. Because, at the end of the day, a good horse is a good horse is a good horse, and I hope the evaluators would be able to see that.

We might then just allow ourselves access to genepools from sources we hadn't thought of and that would make British breeding richer and more successful, produce more high performance horses, so that all top British riders represent the country with British bred horses, which is what we all want, isn't it? 




Ciss said:



			I don't think so <sigh|>.
		
Click to expand...

And it would be so nice to be able to express an opinion which you disagree with without being patronised...  <sigh>


----------



## Cherrygarden (14 June 2012)

Everything Ginnie said! I was sent abroad to learn from the European system and what I learned was that any mare will grade if she is produced right and not ridden so lets have no more lectures about not breeding from mares that become unsound through injury because in two years I saw no horses that remained sound consistently and many that had tendon injuries before their fifth birthday and then after rest competing and helping boost their sires rankings in amongst time off for being lame. Very few mares are tested on anything other than what they produce so no beggar can say they would stay sound as with issues like OCD they probably didn't stay sound.
Also the European model works primarily because they produce so much they can afford to chuck the rubbish away. At one point it was estimated that 80% of Germany's sports horses were in the abattoir by the age of ten. Oh yes that is the model I want to follow, quick let me churn out as many beautiful, big eyed baby horses as possible so that we can wreck their minds, bodies and shoot them young.
My stallion has so far sent one 3 year old through Ciss, last year, he achieved a good first premium after a nightmare 4 hour journey in a hired box that wasn't what we ordered, came straight out, bruised and covered in crap, no time to eat or drink or see where he was, through the vet and in as last pony. We didn't jump due to journey so he went in as a dressage pony, now to be fair he could be either but he can really jump so there is the chance he would have scored more all things considered. As far as we were concerned he hardly moved he was so shattered and bashed but got very good marks and comments for his paces and activity so again on a good day fair to say he had a chance to be scored higher. However as it stood he did well. His full sister is not eligible this year so you might have to check your data on the other stallions too as in the case of Sports Ponies it is not quite correct. Also older stallions may now be eligible but several were helped to Grade by the results of the progeny they put through the Futurity were they not? Under todays rules they would not be sending forward.


----------



## eventrider23 (14 June 2012)

I have stayed out of this till now as have been preoccupied with a poorly foal and so on however, having had a posting by a specific stallion owner/agent forwarded to me this afternoon which is discussing the new Futurity rulings posted in the magazine and online I would just like to state that whatever assumptions are currently being spouted on there about myself are beyond incorrect, however as my name is constantly being used I would just like to state that any opinions I have expressed about futurity eligibility are purely my own...and actually have no impact whatsoever on my own breeding stock as all bar one of my youngsters are eligible for it!   

The 'fact' stated that says: '"eventrider23" is against the rule, is purely because she is now in cahoots with someone who owns an ungraded stallion, and has used (because it was free) that stallion on her mare. Thus she is now throwing her toys out of her pram and ranting all over the internet about the rule change...............I wonder why? ' is again wrong and it would be good if this man got his facts right as to the best of my knowledge I have NO mares in foal at the moment...and no intention of putting any in foal this year. What stallion I use next year is as it should be...my choice...and the fact of futurity eligibility does not come into it whatsoever but instead the fact of whether the stallion is what I want to use....and so if I choose a graded or ungraded stallion then surely that is again my choice. 

My opinions on the futurity which I posted previously on here in a different thread would not be different regardless of the stallion I use or have used as honestly am not fussed about presenting and am quite happy with my youngsters out being youngsters....so whilst clearly he sees me as having a personal agenda for my feelings on the futurity it would be nice if someday he would realise that not everyone has to have a personal agenda to have a strong opinion on something....sometimes and in general MOST times people actually have their own feelings on things without bowing to others first.

The fact that this person is ranting on his FB using my name constantly in reference to opinions on the futurity is laughable as it makes out that I am the only person to have any opinion against or about the rules which is completely laughable.  I know of many people to have opinion from all fronts on the rulings so why the heck the man should see me as the only one against it is just preposterous and some of his perpetual statements are not only incorrect but verging on slanderous.


----------



## elijahasgal (14 June 2012)

Usually someone who has something to hide, that is known will go on the attack to discredit the person who knows what they wish to remain hidden, in an attempt to cow kick them into silence. Them that shout loudest often have the most they want to hide.  Me I dont give a damn, I am no name, nobody of importance in the general scheme of things, nor do I plan to be 

In reference to what I am saying re stallion owners assessing mares, If the rankings gain importance, and youngstock assessment included in adverts, then the onus is on the stallion owner to assess the mares, to RAISE the level of the stallions youngstock ranking. This would then discourage the use of mares that are unsuitable, as it would have a direct impact on their buisness.

I also want to know what they deem to be a leisure horse. Would like to know if something enters the leisure horse section that is clearly of (in current standings) first, higher first or elite status how this will be marked.  Indeed is not gaining a second premium already the equivalant of their current leisure horse?  That being the change, why change what is already in place?

As for me, I am learning all the time. I would rather choose a stallion with respectable confirmation, that has acheived higher level competition soundly,and graded on that,  than one that is world breeding champion that has metabolic problems and is chronically lame.  I would rather choose a stallion that has not been graded due to a field accident but with fantastic confirmation and bloodlines, and temprement, than one that is graded with joint problems, or inheritable unsoundness. 

And yes I have a brilliant mare, that I have plenty of stallion owners hoping that I would use......but I will use the people that have the right stallion, not the right "name"  I will use the people that look after me, and are willing to show me stuff that I am missing, and am willing to accept their guidance that one stallion is more suitable than another,  NOT just the ones who want to take my money, with no knowledgable discussion on confirmation points that their boy is passing on, weaknesses that may not compliment, suitablity.  In this way, coupled with my own instinct, I have bred (in 10 foals) an elite, a higher first, another brought as a stallion prospect, one (out of an unpapered rescue mare) that has been told that should be able to go grand prix dressage, two crackers that lamed themselves irrapairably in field accidents, one that has been told he should be showing county level, one that has just started eventing, and a very talented but total nutcase (I refused to breed from that mare again) And I have still got 2 or the mares that I bred! I have done ok, and have learnt a Lot, but need to learn more, which as a private breeder on a shoestring budget, according to a lot of people I shouldnt do it, I cant afford to. thanks guys x


----------



## Angela_Wise (14 June 2012)

CISS my ungraded chap is 12th overall on the stallion list with 4 progeny assessed - you must have overlooked him when scanning the results to back up your opinion, and thats 4 individual offspring, not the same one being seen 4 years.  The mares are also all different and all ungraded - 1 is a grade A, the 2nd is a mare as yet without a competition record, the 3rd is a mare which was injured early in its ridden career and the 4th a failed event mare, although full sister to an international event horse.

Because of the new rule changes, from this year, his progeny are not allowed to come forward.

On the yard this year, I have another young ISH colt who has covered a couple of performance mares.  Next year his first foals will not be allowed as things stand.  I however feel it is important to assess early on if a colt can produce note worthy progeny as if not, they can be gelded whilst still young.

Ironically my graded stallion who has always been used a lot for "the leisure breeder" on family mares, can have all his progeny come forward, where as the young colt cannot have his progeny come forward out of graded and top performance mares!

When in ireland last year at the 10 international sale, our event riders and showing producers were there buying 3yo's many of which were the topped price lots.  Some had excellent breeding on paper others had no breeding.  Each animal was assessed as an individual by the buyers, as to its suitability for the required job!  Our top riders have yet to look to the futurities as a market place - I think we have to ask the question "why".  One thing I am sure of is the need for a wide gene pool and clarity within grading societies.


----------



## ribbons (15 June 2012)

What sensible words from elija, ginnie, cherry and Angela.
The futurity was a wonderful way to confirm your breeding decisions were on track. The show ring was no longer a reliable indication of anything and the early assessing of future 
performance horses was very useful. Now sadly it will become useless. If it is not about evaluating the animal in front of you regardless of it's parentage what is the point. I can put a graded stallion to a graded mare and still get a healthy but useless performance foal. Nothing in breeding is guaranteed. I am a cynical old bat on occasion but I suspect this ruling is for reasons other than improving British breeding. Sadly we now seem to have lost an impartial platform to evaluate our breeding decisions. They are however our decisions, and I for one will not base those decisions on whether or not I can present my youngstock at BEF. 
Unfortunately many will, a sad day for British breeding.


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

Angela_Wise said:



			CISS my ungraded chap is 12th overall on the stallion list with 4 progeny assessed - you must have overlooked him when scanning the results to back up your opinion, and thats 4 individual offspring, not the same one being seen 4 years.  The mares are also all different and all ungraded - 1 is a grade A, the 2nd is a mare as yet without a competition record, the 3rd is a mare which was injured early in its ridden career and the 4th a failed event mare, although full sister to an international event horse..Because of the new rule changes, from this year, his progeny are not allowed to come forward.
		
Click to expand...

Does not the following extension apply to him? I must admit I thought it did whch is why I did not include him as a 'now excluded' stallion:

	Weatherbys General Stud Book thoroughbreds which have a Futurity progeny record of at least 1** progeny which has attained a Futurity premium of higher first or above and 2** further progeny which have attained a Futurity first premium or above.

The following extension also allows for proven Eventing sires with no racing record, which many people seem to have overlooked.

	Weatherbys General Studbook thoroughbreds who may not have raced or competed themselves but who have a British Eventing progeny performance record of at least two horses competing successfully (i.e. gaining BE points at) at Advanced level.

As I have said many times, look at the rules very carefully and do not asume the worst. And even if the worst does apply now, progeny of currently ungraded / ineligible stallions are allowed to enter in 2012, provided that those stallions achieve successful approval by 31 May 2013. For those with what they consider 'late maturing' stallions who wish to prove their talents as a sire (either in the Futuirty or in ridden competition) before having them assessed / licenced by a studbook) then surely this is an incentive to work towards this in a more planned way.




			One thing I am sure of is the need for a wide gene pool and clarity within grading societies.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn;t agree with you more there Angela. I did try to show some light on this in a generic way with a table I developed for The British Breeder a coupleof issues back showing the 10 levels of breeding approval currently in place in the UK but even that was a pretty major task <sigh>


----------



## Maesfen (15 June 2012)

I couldn't agree more with Ribbons.

On a slightly more personal note, I'm sorry to say that I agree, every time I see Ciss with her <sigh> I want to ring her neck as it seems so very pompous and condescending and totally unnecessary.


----------



## GinnieRedwings (15 June 2012)

Maesfen said:



			On a slightly more personal note, I'm sorry to say that I agree, every time I see Ciss with her <sigh> I want to ring her neck as it seems so very pompous and condescending and totally unnecessary.
		
Click to expand...

Haha! Glad it's not just me!!!


----------



## Partoow (15 June 2012)

oh come on guys lets not do the personal thing! This has been a really interesting thread and valid from whichever  stand point you have.
Its always difficult to get things across in the typed word as opposed to the spoken and although you may not like or agree with whats said or how it delivered there is no question that Ciss has a huge knowledge , probably forgotten more that most of us will ever know especially when it comes to the ins and out s of stud books and breeding.
I for one think the Futurity is an interesting tool, comments are taken into account and there is nothing else like it on the continent.


----------



## Maesfen (15 June 2012)

Nobody disputes Ciss's knowledge at all.

I agree, this has been an interesting thread.

When the Futurity was first announced and started I was actually quite excited about it, seeing it as a way forward, but the more it's gone on the more disillusioned I've become and the new rules do nothing to stop that.  It should be open to all, it's been such an encouragement to many as it's been, why spoil a good thing.


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

Partoow said:



			oh come on guys lets not do the personal thing! This has been a really interesting thread and valid from whichever  stand point you have.
Its always difficult to get things across in the typed word as opposed to the spoken and although you may not like or agree with whats said or how it delivered there is no question that Ciss has a huge knowledge , probably forgotten more that most of us will ever know especially when it comes to the ins and out s of stud books and breeding.
I for one think the Futurity is an interesting tool, comments are taken into account and there is nothing else like it on the continent.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Partoow, as you know from personal experience both as an evaluator and as someone with years of experience in preparing young stallions and riding horses for the European gradings and classes my sighs are actually just an expression of sheer frustration at the inability of a small (but very voluble) group of breeders in this country to realise that the amount of time they spend thinking of reasons why they should not grasp the nettle of progress could actually be spent far more productively in helping move the whole of British breeding move on. In the wider picture it is also the reason why other countries, in which breeders have a far more realistic (less me-centred and excuse ridden)attitude to national and studbook breeding policies continue to move on far more quickly in comparison.

Sadly an almost empty can with only a few pebbles in it makes more noise than a full one and this certainly what statistics show as far as the what I call the 'the Futurity has shot itself in the foot with this one' groups views are concerned.No, the Futurity certainly has not shot itself in the foot with this one, and the entries this year are as high (probably actually faster) than in previous years despite (though perhaps some might say becuase of) the new stallion rules.

In fact the policy change has been well adertised for the past four years in the Fact sheets and as everyone entering the Futurity is legally required to sign a form saying that they have read and understood these Facts sheets as part of the entering process, those posting who feign ignorance of the changes have either (if they have entered in the past few years) signed a legal document without reading it or are criticising a series that they have never entered or never intend to enter. 

Neither of these would be a recommendation of good judgement to me -- and certainly not the real way forward for British breeding -- but perhaps others have different criteria.


----------



## GinnieRedwings (15 June 2012)

Ciss said:



			an expression of sheer frustration at the inability of a small (but very voluble) group of breeders in this country to realise that the amount of time they spend thinking of reasons why they should not grasp the nettle of progress could actually be spent far more productively in helping move the whole of British breeding move on.
		
Click to expand...




Ciss said:



			Sadly an almost empty can with only a few pebbles in it makes more noise than a full one and this certainly what statistics show as far as the what I call the 'the Futurity has shot itself in the foot with this one' groups views are concerned.
		
Click to expand...

It is exactly this sort of condescending comment that gets people's back up.

I happen to have a different opinion, which just as your opinion, is a valid and informed one - though I will accept a less experienced one. EVERYONE is entitled to have an opinion about how the future of British breeding is best served, but some have more power to influence the decisions made than other.

Implying that people who have a different opinion are nothing more than idiots with no brains, who are frankly no more than a mild irritation to the quasi-monarchy of the handful of power-wielding people around the BEF, is not only incredibly patronising and offensive, it's actually plain wrong.

Your opinion is only one of many, after all.




Ciss said:



			In the wider picture it is also the reason why other countries, in which breeders have a far more realistic (less me-centred and excuse ridden)attitude to national and studbook breeding policies continue to move on far more quickly in comparison.
		
Click to expand...

If you care to read my previous post and a couple of others' adding quite rightly to the point I made about the issues surounding the Continental breeding programmes (particularly the Dutch and German ones), about genepool depletion and endemic inheritable traits, as well as the number's game played by the big players, you will see what specific problems some of us have with following the same route - the numbers' game would be even worse in this country where there is no horse meat industry to act as an outlet and people are reluctant to pts when something isn't good enough.   

I note that you have not in fact responded to those concerns, preferring instead to just tar everyone with the same brush and post in a schoolmamish sort of way - "I know better, don't worry your pretty little heads with details and don't listen to those who do, they are idiotic troublemakers".

I would very much like to hear your view on the specific points I and others have made about the Continental system... Now, that would be constructive.

Please note I have no personal agenda. I don't own a stallion and have no intention to. I don't even have a broodmare at the moment. I have a youngster by a graded stallion, who will be going to the Futurity this year and next if I still own him, as I think the Futurity is a great scheme... shame it will now not be open to ALL British potential future stars, regardless of where their talent has come from!


----------



## Cherrygarden (15 June 2012)

Why is it that none of us seem able to hear each other? No one has said they are against grading as a useful tool, I have issues about how we can all pretend not to see how often licenses and gradings miss certain extremely important things and how this gets swept under the carpet and how the bloody hell these things get past the paid official in the first place <sigh and stamp and rattle my tin of stones>( incidentally if you really want to make a noise then a metal dog bowl against the wall of the house is much more effective and only takes one person to do that ; )) and how that makes a mockery of the whole theory that they are being used to improve breeding. The whole tangle of loose ends that gets brought along with the mish mash effect is something that would be better kept away from for the futurity. And I have known that the rules were going to change and in fact didn't enter in 2010 (not a clue how I'd have managed but would have got there hook or crook) because I thought they already had and had remembered the year wrong from previous reading. My fail clearly of course but to say we hadn't read the rules and judging because of this is wrong. Some of us loose pebbles have been writing letters and expressing opinions for some time and are shouting now because of the total lack of response we got. I do think that there must limiting on the amount of rubbish a stallion can send through if an owner is clearly not making any effort to improve stock but cannot see why the Futurity cannot include a Stallion approval system of its own, I'd be more than happy to pay a fee direct to British Breeding or into the Futurity pot to let my stock in and have their results recorded for the purpose of gaining this approval and would also happily submit my vetting reports direct to prove I am not breeding heritable defects (unless you count a universal loathing of Intelligent Horsemanship as a defect) or other terrible things.
I am slightly against the new ruling that allows certain stallions in if they have a certain amount of higher first or elite results and then first premiums thereafter, why do they have to do better than Graded or licensed Stallions? Some of the top scoring stallions also presented 2nd premium stock for sure, I haven't really looked through the results or the numbers on that one though.
I think we all understand that lines must be drawn somewhere but surely if we were trying to improve breeding standards we should be looking still at education and inclusion not shutting out the.. oh round, spherical male appendages to this we could speak our version of sense til the cows come home and have opinions that could at least be aknowledged but while we are considered a tin of pebbles who's main points are not actually being heard we might just as well accept that we have a tory government that would like to keep all the commoners in compounds and we have a Futurity set to do the same.
I am tired I have a head ache, in essence I support the Futurity and understand how hard you work for breeders and breeding Ciss so am not deliberately being personal but how the powers that be are hearing that only breeders who wish to drag breeding backwards and refuse to change are against this rule change is beyond me. That sounds like selective listening to me as I have heard several owners of popular graded stallions also state this is a retrograde step and with people who do not seem to hear what is being said on grading and evaluation panels is it any wonder that people become afraid to take horses for grading especially after expressing opinions that are not liked on this or any other related subject.


----------



## Cherrygarden (15 June 2012)

As usual Ginnie said it better so if there are answers can I have hers too please?
: )


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

Ginny Redwings wrote:

.........................................................................................

If you care to read my previous post and a couple of others' adding quite rightly to the point I made about the issues surounding the Continental breeding programmes (particularly the Dutch and German ones), about genepool depletion and endemic inheritable traits, as well as the number's game played by the big players, you will see what specific problems some of us have with following the same route - the numbers' game would be even worse in this country where there is no horse meat industry to act as an outlet and people are reluctant to pts when something isn't good enough. 

I note that you have not in fact responded to those concerns [personal abuse deleted], 
I would very much like to hear your view on the specific points I and others have made about the Continental system... Now, that would be constructive.
 ............................................................................................

I have never said that those issues do not exist -- with a considerably larger breeding population (especially in the sports horse / pony field) than we have they are bound to occur -- and in larger numbers too of course.  What I would say is that the very reason you know about them is becuase of the transparent and exhaustive monitoring of stallions and their progeny that goes on in studbooks abroad, the results of which are freely available to breeders, vendors and purchases in publicly accessible databases.  This data is constantly used by the studbooks and breeders to address the issues that arise by either removing stallions from the approved breeding lists, recommending or disencouraging certain matings or close breedings, and by advancing certain bloodlines and removing others.

Unfortunately, except in those cases where mother studbooks abroad insist on transparency of the results of certain verterinary inspections (eg X-ray results of mares, not just stallions, in BHHS and KWPN in the UK inspections) nothing like that exists in the UK and the only thing breeders have to go on is the results of the inspections and licences of the studbooks, however incomplete or variable they may seem to be. There is NO requirement for any owner of any stallion that is NOT approved by a studbook to be in any way forthcoming on the stallions faults (if any) and in the case of such stallions there is no independent stalllion inspection authority / recording organisation to which a mare owner can refer for verifiable data on the stallion concerned. As many of the ungraded stallions at stud in this country are almost certainly not presented at any form of inspection (even the most basic one for freedom from hereditary disease) becuase their owners know they will fail for whatever reason, it defeats me as to why any system designed to postively reinforce and improve the quality of British-bred sports horses and ponies should promote them.

Sadly the many attacks on NED which has led to its demise (and a replacement that will almost certainly be one dediated only to recording identity and UELNS and without any facility for recording any breeding or related data) removed any possibility of any sort of UK database that could co-ordinate such information, which would again have been a positive help for British breeding. It wouldlalso hopefully have highlighted that many UK stallions and their progeny have just the same issues and would have helped the studbooks address them, but that was not to be -- and even if it had happened, the ungraded stallions would still have been free to spread their unexamined, unmonitored genes free of any control or verifications. Not a good scenario I think most of us would agree, but at least now mare owners wishing to breed progeny that they want to enter for the Futurity will not have to risk that.


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

Cherrygarden said:



_ cannot see why the Futurity cannot include a Stallion approval system of its own, I'd be more than happy to pay a fee direct to British Breeding or into the Futurity pot to let my stock in and have their results recorded for the purpose of gaining this approval and would also happily submit my vetting reports direct to prove I am not breeding heritable defects (unless you count a universal loathing of Intelligent Horsemanship as a defect) or other terrible things.
_

Click to expand...

_

Just to clarify, the Futurity cannot do this as it is not a stud book or breed society, cannot be under current EU Zootechnics regulations and was set up specifically to work with the studbooks / breed societies /inspecting organisations rather than against them, which is what setting up a Futurity grading for otherwise ineligible stallions would do, especially bearing in mind that quite a number of them will already have failed approval with their relevant birth or WBFSH member studbooks._


----------



## Cherrygarden (15 June 2012)

Just to clarify, the Futurity cannot do this as it is not a stud book or breed society, cannot be under current EU Zootechnics regulations and was set up specifically to work with the studbooks / breed societies /inspecting organisations rather than against them, which is what setting up a Futurity grading for otherwise ineligible stallions would do, especially bearing in mind that quite a number of them will already have failed approval with their relevant birth or WBFSH member studbooks. 
Does not need to be a breed society as far as I can work out from reading through DEFRA's treacle trap legislations. As long as there is no wish to issue paperwork or passports I can't see the problems with a star system especially if you can give stars to Graded stallions too to make it fair.
Some stallions have not already failed approvals and gradings from their own studbooks though and some have gone to the expense of getting vetted for licenses but because they are VII instead of nutty Welsh show monsters they can't now use those. I haven't gone to the expense of buying a license for either of mine even though that might be the easy route, I still hold that Grading is best and if there is a way and I think I am mentally up to being a breeder then I will still be working towards that but even were I to go the license route I'd have one on a partbred license eligible to send stock forward and then his dad very likely on a VII license due to un verified parentage(could change if they turn up alive and to be his parents but unlikely) who is not eligible to send stock forwards but with a very similar license it just happens in my opinion to have a stronger vetting applied. Surely it would be better for BEF to state the conditions under which stallions could send stock forward at least in terms of the vetting to give some clear guidelines on soundness to people choosing stallions if nothing else.


----------



## sywell (15 June 2012)

I think it should be made clear that major studbooks like Hanover are continually upgrading their evaluation of stallions. The current rules require leg xrays inc the stifle up to grade 2 and specify that testicles shall be of an equal and generous size(scanned). New stallion performance  requirements take into account the estimated breeding value of the mare performance test and the examination of mares for the select auctions. Studbooks are concerned to use the new dna research on the transmitted heritable susceptibility to disease which has identified 142 complaints from sweetich to sarcoids. Things move on in a competitive market.


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

Exactly so, things move on VERY fast and people do need to take this on board. Most EU countries adopted publicly accessible results for all aspects of legally compulsory stallion grading for ALL breeds (not just sports horses and ponies) at least 40 years ago, so given how fast they have moved on


----------



## Ciss (15 June 2012)

we could well be more like 60 years behind (Farouche, basically  a product of the German system of course excepted). When I listen to the level of debate and expertise in the WBFSH General Assemblies and watch the superb démonstrations by its member studbooks I am always amazed, and not a little humbled by just how far we have to go to catch up, which again is why I feel so frustrated at times by the little progress wé have made in even getting the basic building block of stallion grading universally accepted as the power for good it is seen to be by our neigbours and competitors.


----------



## koeffee (15 June 2012)

It is a shame that it is becoming so elite and closed off just like studbooks?I think it wont make much difference as people will still use what they want? I have never taken anything to the bef nor will i ever, i have not sold a single foal that anyone was interested in the bef  results, i do however have two mares who recieved a diploma mare award for there first premium stock, one by a graded stallion and one not graded. Even the Kwpn register foals with b passports from ungraded stallions so it still goes on abroad using ingraded stock.


----------



## magic104 (15 June 2012)

These debates never really go anywhere but over the same old arguments.  And the insults against others for not sharing the same views, same old, same old.  Like being stuck on a merry-go-round.


----------



## koeffee (15 June 2012)

magic104 said:



			These debates never really go anywhere but over the same old arguments.  And the insults against others for not sharing the same views, same old, same old.  Like being stuck on a merry-go-round.
		
Click to expand...

Need a like button ^^^^^^^^


----------



## Sportznight (15 June 2012)

magic104 said:



			These debates never really go anywhere but over the same old arguments.  And the insults against others for not sharing the same views, same old, same old.  Like being stuck on a merry-go-round.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed <sigh>


----------



## Partoow (16 June 2012)

Well for me it's not the same old argument. I can sort of see why some of you think that this will exclude some of your young stock but also think it's a pretty wide remit and if you're breeding outside that then I sort of wonder what were the reasons?
It would be nice to believe that poor results would mean a stallion would not remain so but I feel that that does not happen.
I don't think that all mares need to be graded but with my own stallion I was pretty selective and have only used performance tested mares.
I do think many stallions , especially on the continent are the product of really good marketing campaigns and a few are there on an 'emperors new clothes badis'.
Some stud books become obsessed with certain bloodlines only to move on to the next great thing but they also di look at themselves as the KWPN is doing with respect to genetic diseases and the potential to pass these on.
I believe the Futurity is inclusive progressive and educating and if those of you with your obviously active and informed ideas would come along and join in it could be even better! Another perspective is always useful.


----------



## stolensilver (16 June 2012)

I absolutely agree with Partoow's comments about some European stallions being famous and heavily used solely because they are extensively and cleverly marketed. If that same stallion was at a different stud no one would look twice at them.

My pet peeve is that many of the European studbooks are placing modern type and massive movement ahead of soundness and trainability in their dressage youngsters. It is well known that huge walks don't collect. That enormous trots with lax hind fetlocks break down easily. That long legs aren't as strong as shorter ones. That the modern warmblood frame is often weak through the loin and therefore cannot collect enough for GP work, no matter how hard they try. That difficult temperaments are unsuitable for most riders, including the professionals. 

So why do so many British breeders use foreign stallions that they've never seen and don't really know what they are like? 

My other, related frustration is why do the SHBGB reject so many good stallions? Mister Maccondy springs straight to mind. And One More Tiger, the only stallion son of Java Tiger. He should have been approved on that alone. And Chilli Morning, the 4**** eventing stallion who was initially rejected. The SHBGB have lost credibility and the UK has lost access to some outstanding stallions that should have been approved. 

This is my main worry about the changes to the Futurity rules. I don't trust the UK stallion inspectors to make the right choices on which stallions to approve and which to reject. The AES seem to be getting it right more often and have approved several stallions that were turned down by SHBGB. But what about the rare bloodlines? The outstanding performers whose owners have lost faith in the system? The stallions who should have been approved but weren't? 

IMHO it's only correct to exclude non-graded stallions from the Futurity when we have a stallion grading system that we can rely on. And at the moment I do not think that is the case.


----------



## magic104 (16 June 2012)

Well for me it's not the same old argument. I can sort of see why some of you think that this will exclude some of your young stock but also think it's a pretty wide remit and if you're breeding outside that then I sort of wonder what were the reasons? - Well previous excuses have been varied but seems that there are one or two who just want to churn out cheap foals.  I can understand the likes of Brendon stud who will test out a 2yo & if it does not come upto scratch will have it cut.  They have years of experience of producing horses at the top end.  Not so sure the lower end of the market, but then they are always spouting off about temperment.  A 2yo on the ground can be different to when it is a 4yo under saddle, maybe not so compliant!  Again though this debate has been done to death.



It would be nice to believe that poor results would mean a stallion would not remain so but I feel that that does not happen. - Not all the time, but that is to be expected.


I don't think that all mares need to be graded but with my own stallion I was pretty selective and have only used performance tested mares. - A stud owner was quoted in Horse Deals as saying if we dont cover her another stallion owner will.  We cant afford to turn mares away.


I do think many stallions , especially on the continent are the product of really good marketing campaigns and a few are there on an 'emperors new clothes badis'. - No different to here really!


Some stud books become obsessed with certain bloodlines only to move on to the next great thing but they also di look at themselves as the KWPN is doing with respect to genetic diseases and the potential to pass these on.
I believe the Futurity is inclusive progressive and educating and if those of you with your obviously active and informed ideas would come along and join in it could be even better! Another perspective is always useful. - Agree 100%


----------



## elijahasgal (16 June 2012)

Partoow said:



			I believe the Futurity is inclusive progressive and educating and if those of you with your obviously active and informed ideas would come along and join in it could be even better! Another perspective is always useful.
		
Click to expand...


Partoow, that is the point, some of us WANT to join in

Some of us want to take our youngsters, get that honest feedback, but now cannot
Some of us want to quiz the experts as to what the best stallions for our mare are, what confirmation points they believe we need to work on improving are. 
Some of us think that by excluding those lower down the chain, you exclude those who who want to learn, who want to improve on what we have. That is why I say include assessments of the mares, publically. Good and not so good points. 
Reach the grass roots. 
You say that in a couple of years a leisure horse class is going to be introduced. That should be second premium or lower. What happens if a horse comes through that should be first or elite. How will that then be graded? I mean it cant possibly be good enough from a not good enough stallion......
Personally I think that there should be incentives to show young horses at the futurity, not just a few, but nearly all the youngsters, at least once.
I believe that the stallion owners should assess the mares applying for covering to their stallion for suitability.
THEN the results will start to show through the futurity. The studs that offer the best advice and service, not just those that promote themselves the loudest. 
Graded or ungraded, let the youngsters come in without even saying what type they are for. Let the Judges decide and mark on suitability, without knowing any breeding and bloodlines. The marks can be added to a database, where excellence of service will show, excellence of the horses progney.
If grading is totally getting it right, then those results will show. It will be proof for those that disagree. It can be used as a tool for the studs to promote their stallion to a degree that if it isnt in there, people ask questions.
Maybe what I am suggesting is not Anti the futurity as you see it, but making it a bigger picture, as a way of capturing the stallions that have the right stuff early, that if ungraded for WHATEVER reason can then be assessed, and maybe a catagory for their aproval on results.
Use it, on results, as a way of pressure for stallions that are not passing the right stuff on to be gelded or not used. 
You have to use it as a tool to get everyone on side, change the way that people think, use the proof, and change peoples perspectives by full open unedited listings, (that personally I think should include a breakdown of good and bad the stallion is passing on, ie temprement, confirmation plusses and faults etc) You have your proof against substandard stallion, and proof for the owners of ungraded stallions (for whatever reason) or what is being produced.
Maybe my dreams for the futurity are bigger than yours, maybe mine would include it being heavily subsidised for a few years to get this into place and a higher percentage of youngstock graded, and a bigger pool of information.


----------



## ribbons (16 June 2012)

Oh elijahasgal, if only. 
To me, the opinions and suggestions you have voiced are so blindingly obvious as the best way forward that I am not sure if there is any point arguing any more. The BEF will do what they choose anyway, for whatever reasons they try to convince us of.
I have to agree with stolensilver about the quality of stallion 
grading anyway. Let's get that 100% right before pushing the 
results onto breeders.
Surely if the young horse being evaluated is only any good if it's sire is graded then the others will fall by the wayside anyway, remaining low scored. Or is that to obvious. Do the evaluators not trust themselves enough to pick out the top quality youngstock, without the help of it's sire being already judged as such by someone else. Is there a worry of awarding an elite to a horse from an unknown stallion and putting down one from a super well known prestigious sire. It makes no sense to me. If the evaluation system at the BEF works well it will sort out the wheat from the chaff, without the risk of a perfect grain of wheat never being seen because it's sire, for whatever reason had not been approved by a different set of opinions.


----------



## Maesfen (16 June 2012)

Ciss said:



			Sadly the many attacks on NED which has led to its demise
		
Click to expand...

A slight exaggeration Ciss as it was on the cards that the contract had to be renewed at this time, nothing sinister about that at all and 'the attacks' as you call them were simply people airing their frustration that the complete set up was wrong in the basic information REQUIRED from PIOs from the very start.  A few people querying that was not going to be the cause of NED failing that is for sure.

Another very sensible post from Ribbons too, shame that the powers that be can't see that too but it's like hitting your head against a brick wall; it's their way or no way.


----------



## stolensilver (16 June 2012)

My major complaint about NED was how incredibly expensive it was! It would cost me £10 to look at the progeny records of a handful of stallions. I can't afford that. Added to it that much of the information is inaccurate and you get a situation where even people who are interested in using NED will not do so because it is priced out of their reach. 

Ciss if you have any influence on whoever is going to take it over, can you suggest that they allow people to buy blocks of time for access to NED like allbreedpedigree do? If a subscription for 6 months cost £50 I'd do it. But I will not pay £1 per horse record accessed. Its way too much money!

 My humble opinion is that NED priced itself out of the market and so got almost no users. If they'd been less greedy it would have become an essential research tool for many UK breeders, inaccuracies and all. What a shame to have squandered such a potentially valuable resource.


----------



## ribbons (16 June 2012)

My problem with NED was it's inaccuracy. I have two mares listed as each having one foal each. Both have had several but not bred by me, because I hadn't paid to view these offspring I can't say how they were listed or if indeed they were at all. 
However, a third mare I own was also listed as having one foal, she has had 4, all bred by me. I was able to find all 4 offspring on NED all listing the mare as their dam. 
How does that work in any useful way. They record a mare as having one foal, but also record 4 foals as having her as their dam. Absolute rubbish system. About as much use as passports.


----------



## ribbons (16 June 2012)

Most of these daft systems are introduced by people so arrogant as to think they, and only they know best, and then can't actually operate the system in any way that has any benefit. Just cash generating nonsense. But in the main, harmless apart from stripping owners of even more money. The new BEF system has however far more long reaching effects. I just hope that by the time it's realised, in several years, that it hasn't caused to much damage to British breeding. That some breeders have stuck to their guns and not chased the latest graded stallion just to be eligable to enter, otherwise we will have lost some very valuable breeding.


----------



## Ciss (16 June 2012)

Maesfen said:



			A slight exaggeration Ciss as it was on the cards that the contract had to be renewed at this time, nothing sinister about that at all and 'the attacks' as you call them were simply people airing their frustration that the complete set up was wrong in the basic information REQUIRED from PIOs from the very start.  A few people querying that was not going to be the cause of NED failing that is for sure.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps a little bit of an over simplification of the way things played out but not much. I agree the contract was due to be renewed anyway but what wasn't a foregone conclusion was what the requirements in the retender would be. If there had been more obvious support within the industry for a central data system that worked in such a way that breeding, competition results (and even grading results ) and full progeny linkages were key factors in the record keeping system, then these could have been built in to the tender as compulsory requirements by DEFRA in such a way that they were commercially attractive to tenderers. Sadly, given the very vocal lack of support for NED (for whatever reason) in certain areas within the industry (not just the breeding section but the disciplines too for example) and a general cost-cutting atmosphere in government then this was a non-starter for the retender document :-(. Of course there is always a possibility that the new holder of the contract (which might even be NED if they have applied again and then won it) might try to launch a service addressing the very real needs breeders, owners, breed societies, disciplines etc have regarding access to non-complusory (voluntary) data, but if they do it will be on a strictly commercial basis and have nothing to do with the main contract. Unfortunately although both I and Sywell are on the DEFRA Equine Experts panel we have no formal input on this (even though our views on it are well known), or on the choice of who wins the contract nor on anything related to the implementation of the contract ,so we will all just have to wait and see.




			Another very sensible post from Ribbons too, shame that the powers that be can't see that too but it's like hitting your head against a brick wall; it's their way or no way.
		
Click to expand...

But if some of the posts in this thread are taken to their logical conclusion we seem to be working towards a situation where we should not use stallions graded abroad becuase they are professionally marketed and that might mean that some of them have faults and still get mares (surely this also happens with some UK stallions too?) and we should not use stallions that are graded with UK studbooks as the standards to which they grade are inconsistent and these studbooks have either graded stallions that people think should not have graded or failed stallions that people have either used / or wished to use (so the studbooks concerned are damned if they do  and damned if they don't). Thus the only stallions that people should use are failed or ungraded ones and that therefore these are also the only ones that should have progeny eligible for the Futurity becuase of the lack of integrity in the grading processes here and abroad. While that would be very nice for the owners of these ungraded or failed stallions (who have already had several years to enter them and get good exemption-allowing scores anyway but who have signally failed to feature in any major way in the stallion rankings even so) it would decimate the Dressage and Showjumping entries (see my earlier post) and only leave a few sires with relatively low scoring entries in the Eventing section. I fail to see how this would be a good move for British breeding but then as I am also a grading judge (not with SHBGB or AES though) I suppose those who wish to see ill in my every thought would say I was just defending my own self-interests rather than trying, as usual, to set things in wider context.

As this thread has now become a rather arid repition of views (not same old/ same old just not progressing) I for one am signing off it, but as the rules will not change, except probably to get even tighter over time (as they actually warn in the Fact sheet) I would recommend that people spend the time they would have used in complaining about why they are not compliant and why the rules should therefore be changed back to suit them in the much more  personally and financially rewarding task of working towards becoming compliant and show how much faith you have in your stallions qualities that way. I am sure that your mare owners and the purchasers of your stock would also be equally happy to support you and share in the resultant rewards


----------



## ribbons (16 June 2012)

I am a mare owner.

I do not own a stallion.

I am not suggesting people should not use graded stallions, wherever they were graded.

I am not suggesting only progeny from failed or ungraded stallions be eligible for entry in futurity.

What ridiculous comments.

I am suggesting that all youngstock are eligible and that they are evaluated on their own merit by people who are confident, experienced, and 
willing enough to do so. Not to have a whole group of horses excluded from being seen because some people feel they know better than all breeders which stallions should be used.

But we will all have to bow to that superior knowledge, or not present our youngstock for what was a very useful evaluation.


----------



## elijahasgal (16 June 2012)

I notice Ciss that you made no comments on what I suggested as a way forward. To make it more inclusive, more educational, Discussions with the owners of mares as to their strong and weak points, what they need to consider, and suggestions of stallions to use. The fact that if the information is there and widely and freely available, that the people that see things from an alternative perspective to yourself could be prooven by the results wrong or right. People in this country will respond better to that than "we know best"

As a very small breeder, I want to learn. This is my chance to show what I have to a knowledgable board, (And I have done so with success) and learn more about what I should be considering going forwards.  I chose a stallion, and this years foal is a super in my eyes, but yes, I would like confirmation that what I am seeing is right. But as the stallion is going on the long route, grading on performance, which will take another year or two, how can I get that specialist panel of feedback?
I plan to use another stallion, fantastic bloodlines(By an olympic stallion), but on standard grading wouldnt grade, because he had to have carbon fiber implants in his back legs after an accident as a yearling. He has reached grade A, and yes because of that has his grading, but he only has a handful of foals on the ground.

As said many times I am not ANTI grading, just that it misses horses in certain criteria. And some that I have seen passed I REALLY dont know how.

And if someone on lower end income breeds something amazing (Possibly gains elite by Futurity) and wants to ensure that it is passing on all the right things before putting it forwards for grading, before making a huge investment to them? 

The BEF mouth on another H&H forum stating clearly 
"If you can;t afford to grade a stallion, don't own a stallion, if grading is going to put you in "severe financial straits", perhaps one shouldn't even own a horse, let alone a stallion. If you don't grade your stallion, you don't have enough faith in him, if you don't why the hell should anyone else? "

"The main difference between us and the continent is that we are a nation of animal LOVERS.".................you've just crossed the line into the world of bullshit. I've seen far greater cruelty and suffering on/of horses in the UK than I have in ten years of living in Europe.

""The thought of the animals just being a money making machine sickens the majority of us."..................you don't speak for everybody, just yourself"  


"If someone breeds a cracking colt,"..................according to who? The owner? Pah!

" covers a few mares to ensure that he is passing on the right stuff,".....................again, according to who? Who says he's passing on the "right stuff"? the stallion owner? Pah!

" how and where can they go to get the youngstock reliably assessed now?"...............nowhere, because they're not approved, and if they're not approved, for the hundred reasons given already, they don't deserve it.


If this Ciss is the attitude of the BEF in increasingly difficult finantial times, the attitude towards grass roots breeders who have spent a long time learning what they have, heaven help the lot of us


----------



## sallyf (16 June 2012)

I have a stallion that is now ineligable for the BEF and quite frankly is really doesnt worry me and i doubt it will make any differance to whether my stallion gets mares or not.
He has only ever had one offspring evaluated and that got a higher first premium at 4 weeks old and the owners were told if he had been older he would have gone elite.
Most of my mare owners arnt worried becuase they breed for a longer term not for a piece of paper.
Of the ones that would go out as foals they are more likely to go in showing classes and as he has produced a national show winner every year for the last four years in foal,youngstock and ridden classes that is enough for most people.
His ridden stock are now coming out with success so really people can see what they want to see from that.
We dont have the time to do the evaluations with our own stock anyway but i still managed to sell 6 out of 7 of my foals last year with the minimum of fuss and advertising so i guess my question is why would i bother it isnt really going to add anything to my foals/youngsters value or saleability.
The stallion has already done all that hard work for me.


----------



## Maesfen (16 June 2012)

Do you ever get that feeling of knocking but there's nobody home..............................



















that cares a fig what anyone else thinks?


----------



## elijahasgal (16 June 2012)

Is there anybody in there?!!

The point is both sides have valid points, one thinks that they know all the answers, the other that they are not quite being heard

Better than liscenced stallions, with people crossing mares to him because, without looking at their strengths and weaknesses, is learning to cross the mare to a stallion that compliments.....not just the name. 

There is a big hole there.

There is a hole where a stallion may be injured so ungradable, but does it stop him passing on the goods?

There is a hole where an owner may cross their lad to a few mares and want to see the results and get honest feedback before deciding if he is worth grading or not.

The Must be graded see that as an attack on them and their rules, when they are not, they are appeals for the gaps to be filled.

I can see their point, but being this country think that they are missing certain aspects of our countrys mindset. We dont change because we are told we must, but because it is prooved to us.


----------



## Truly (17 June 2012)

Maybe it should be changed to Warmblood Futurities ? and just for Show Jumpers and Dressage  youngsters.
And another Futurity set up for British Breeding for any breed of stallion actually standing in the UK..Graded or not.
Then you would actually get a true picture of what we are actually breeding and how to improve for the discipline we've bred for.
If Ungraded stallions are producing rubbish, then it will be seen..if they are producing good stock, it will be seen. Likewise with Graded stallions
The panel would have to be from a wide variety of disciplines not just Dressage and Show Jumping ( showing, endurance etc.)and of equal experience and authority...otherwise opinions may be swayed if felt undermined.
That way some breeds won't have to be forced to join other studbooks that will take the credit for their stocks achievements. For instance Weatherby's or British Riding Pony Studbook not given credit because it's graded with another studbook. 

That's my suggestion...but I would not have a clue how it would be set up? anyone know?


----------



## elijahasgal (17 June 2012)

Of course there is another side, in that our horse production suits OUR market.  Why should we try and emulate a system that has a market that doesnt match our own?


----------



## sywell (17 June 2012)

The examination of stallions for grading can also be seen as a long term support for the welfare of the horse as we are aware breeding a horse that has health problems pushes them into the hands of people who cannot afford to pay vets bills and the major societies in Europe as I have said before are constantly improving their standards and I am sure many people can nit pick on those standards but tell me which organisation in the UK can meet those standards and I list below the latest Hanoverian standards. Our approved judges have to go to Germany every three years for a refresher course and go on a grading commission where they will be expected to asses hundreds of horses in the week and we are doing everything we can to improve the quality of the evaluation.
Annex to the Statute of the Hannoveraner Verband

Regulations regarding the state of health to be met by colts for being eligible for licensing


X-ray findings:
A colt is not admitted to licensing in case of big osteochondral fragments in the stifle or both the hocks as well as in the case of severe navicular findings or spavin findings of X-ray classes II  IV and bone cysts. In addition, to be admitted to the sale the colt must be free from other clear findings which may limit its capabilities as a riding horse.

Clinical findings:
A colt is not admitted to licensing
-	in case of defects as laid down in the Kaiserliche Verordnung of 1875 as well as in case of the defect weaving (exception for uveitis)
-	in case of an overbite of more that half a tooth width
-	if the testicles do not reach the following measurements (cm)
Right testicle:
Length: . (7.17)    Width: . (4.77)    Height: . (5.08)
Left testicle:
Length: . (7.81)    Width: . (4.88)    Height: .. (5.04)
-	in case of additional significant defects of the sexual organs
-	in case of neurological disorders of the locomotor system
-	in case of severe deformations of the hoof/hooves

Surgical interventions:
A colt is not admitted to licensing if it underwent surgical interventions for the purpose of physical corrections in order to remove one of the elimination criteria mentioned above.


----------



## stolensilver (17 June 2012)

Sywell I'm perplexed at the rules you have published because I know for fact that all German studbooks do not have the same standards. Take as an example Oldenburg. I was at last years licensing and I know for sure that 12 of the top 15 licensed dressage colts had OCD lesions. Since one of the top ones was 100% Dutch blood that meant that 12 of 14 of the best young colts in Oldenburg with solely German blood have OCD. 

Add to that one had a curb as big as your fist. Another had bone spavin. As a 2yo! And a third had such bad cow hocks they knocked together as the horse moved. 

I really do not think that we in the UK should be following Oldenburg and starting to license colts with so many issues. I'm still horrified by what happened there and think the Oldenburg breeders are being let down by their stallion selectors. Movement is not everything. And the way the Europeans do things is not necessarily the model we should choose for UK stallions. German buyers generally aren't bothered if a young horse has a chip in a joint (a small OCD lesion). In the UK it would kill the sale. We do have different markets and that should be taken into account by the UKs studbooks. 

The thing I would most like the UK stallion selectors to adopt from Europe is to look at the overall herd genetics and to approve stallions who carry rare bloodlines even though they might fall just below the standard in other ways. Obviously I'm not suggesting they approve a poor stallion just because of his pedigree but if a stallion with rare and proven bloodlines is good but not quite in the top group IMO he should get a limited license to be allowed to cover 20 mares a year and then reassessed in 4 years time based on his progeny. 

As I said before at the moment I don't trust the selection process of the SHBGB. It seems to be run and dominated by showing people who have little to no idea about sports horses. I have no interest in a show horse and the days when a show horse went on to be a top class evener or show jumper have long gone. There never were very many of them. I have no issue with potential show horse sires being graded. I have great issue with potential top sports horse stallions being failed. I don't own a stallion BTW, this is simply my opinion having followed the SHBGB gradings over several years. I also have deep misgivings about the secrecy surrounding the whole grading process. It has to be transparent. The scores and the reasons for the scores have to be made public. And the results need to be published promptly ie within a week of the grading happening. Right now it is pretty much a shambles and the secrecy allows rumours and doubt to creep in as to why some stallions were chosen and others were not. Stallion gradings are a way to publicise a studbook. We should be doing international press releases about which new stallions have been approved. Instead we get whispers and rumours where no one is even sure who passed and who didn't because the studbook has not announced the results to anyone other than the owners. Madness!

So, to get back to the Futurity, until the UK studbooks get their act straightened up I don't think the Futurity should close their doors to unlicensed stallions. The Futurity could show up a very smart stallion who is unlicensed (like Goshka Ringo) and if the stallion selectors have made a mistake by failing a good stallion maybe the Futurity could help him to gain his license in the future?


----------



## HBM1 (17 June 2012)

Sywell you are also making a huge assumption that ALL stallion owners who do not grade their boys initially do not have x-rays or health checks carried out.  I have no intention of using my boy this year, I consider him too young still and I want to see him as a four year old and under saddle before I make a final decision.  However, if I was to use him prior to grading I would still have x-rays and other health checks undertaken because I would not wish to pass on any issues to the foals, who are hugely important.

I agree with Stolensilver too, far too many graded stallions do have health issues, but because they are graded "that's ok then?" - do any of the studbooks keep records of which stallions with OCD or other health issues which are known at the time of grading are passing on these same issues to their youngstock?


----------



## stolensilver (17 June 2012)

As far as I know the only studbook to publish x ray and other veterinary issues discovered at grading are the KWPN. Oldenburg definitely do not but the x rays are available for viewing during the licensing so if you are there you can find out the information. After the licensing it all disappears in a puff of smoke (and mirrors!) 

Again this is only my opinion but I think the German bloodlines are riddled with OCD because at least two of their major stallions suffered from it: Donnerhall and Rubinstein. It is hard to find a German stallion that does not have Donnerhall in their pedigree somewhere these days and some are inbred to him 4x in 4 generations. I'm not in any way saying that Donnerhall is a name to avoid. He was one of the greats and passed on great trainability and athleticism. But I am saying that my personal opinion is to be wary of using a German stallion if I don't know what was found on his X-rays. 

This all goes along with transparency. Breeders need to have all the facts in order to make decisions on which stallion to choose. Bretton Woods has OCD. It's general knowledge because he's a KWPN stallion. It hasn't dented his popularity. On the other hand Don Primero was well known for having OCD and for passing it on so his popularity decreased somewhat over time as it was found in his offspring. Yet Don Primero is very closely related to Don Schufro, same sire, dams are full sisters. And I have no idea of the OCD status of DS. I would dearly love to know! 

So if UK studbooks are going to change anything in response to the opinions of their members (highly unlikely but I can hope) is can they make the whole process of stallion grading and also mare grading transparent. Publish the veterinary and x ray findings. Publish their opinions on conformation, paces and jump. 

If UK studbooks do this they will be offering breeders something they can't get from any other studbook apart from the KWPN. That is full disclosure of the OCD status and vet check of their stallions. And with the UK market being very wary of veterinary issues if UK studbooks were to  make this change is likely they would attract more breeders to UK stallions rather than the opposite. All things being equal I'd pick an OCD-free stallion every time. One stallion being less proven but having no veterinary issues I'd pick him over a stallion with curbs and so on. 

Altering the veterinary criteria for licensing does work. Several years ago the KWPN cracked down on navicular changes in their stallions and withdrew the licenses of stallions who had it. Within 10 years the KWPN went from having a high incidence of navicular to having almost no horses with it. The UK could be like that. We've just got to want to do it.


----------



## elijahasgal (17 June 2012)

I personally know of one hanoverian stallion that I used, that when the youngster developed bad growth bumps, (I had already reused him) and I said something to the owner, she told me, thats unusual, Its usually his yearlings and 2yos that show that problem.

Dimaggio is chronically Laminitic
Bretton Woods OCD (I am told)
Totilas failed his grading first time

I go to meet the stallions I want to use, I have to like them. I have to think that they will suit my mare, and improve her the way that I want. I may look at stallions of a certain line, because it carries a salable element, but in this country I was looking for a Sandro Hit stallion. I saw 5 I think, used one, produced a cracking foal.  but of the others one was nothing more than a really pretty show horse, no movement, nothing special, and with foot problems to boot. Another, who is making his name, his front legs were a disaster....straight but not, I cant explain, apart from I had the impression that he had been over trimmed and overcorrected to straighten him as a foal. His hind end didnt look like it belonged to the same horse, and so narrow. A third was ok, but nothing special, and the fourth had nothing. The one I used I liked, and she suited my girl, and produced an amazing foal.

But seeing these graded stallions, and finding out things that you find out, makes you wonder, and then finding out the waste figures, the amount that are lame, where this nice ungraded stallion might be throwing out stock that is solid and sound, and produces great crosses, that suit OUR market for horse lovers, riding club, and on, not the continental market.


----------



## sywell (17 June 2012)

The approval of other studbooks is not Hanovers problem. I would be interested to learn what stallions that have not been approved by a recognised studbook would have owners who make available xrays to prospective clients. As someone said the xrays are available for anyone to see at the licensing. I still would like to know which UK studbooks have anything like our initial Vet requirement for stallions. The WBFSH was looking into through I think Upsala University the length of time a stallion stays in active competition overall but it was very difficult to get a big enough sample to make accurate predictions due to the movement of stallions and the lack of accurate data from some member studbooks. The likely loss of legacy data through the new contract for the DEFRA database is certainly not going to help British Breeders support their case for British Breeding


----------



## sywell (17 June 2012)

Stolen silver says Publish the veterinary and x ray findings. Publish their opinions on conformation, paces and jump.

If UK studbooks do this they will be offering breeders something they can't get from any other studbook apart from the KWPN. I suggest they look at the published data on the estimated breeding values for conformation and paces in the Hanoverian Year Book or the Hanoverian website and the proved accuracy of the data when there a hundreds of progeny competing.


----------



## Truly (17 June 2012)

You can find the breeding and data on any breed of horse/pony that has competed with an affiliated society eg. BE, BD, BS , SHB GB, and the Showing societies (Breeds and Types) and the FEI etc etc etc. ......World sire rankings, National Sire rankings for each discipline.....so confused to why people think the Warmblood studbooks are the only ones you can get information from ?
I'm still bewildered by the way everyone is referring to Warmblood breeding...British Breeding is meant to include all the breeds we have and use for all disciplines.


----------



## HBM1 (17 June 2012)

sywell said:



			The approval of other studbooks is not Hanovers problem. I would be interested to learn what stallions that have not been approved by a recognised studbook would have owners who make available xrays to prospective clients.
		
Click to expand...


I am not saying there are any, I don't have a clue what any other stallion owner does.  All I am saying is you were assuming no one did.  If I ever used my boy prior to grading I would want xrays done to know my own foals were going to be ok.  Surely it is the foal after all who is the most important aspect of this?  I would also happily show his xrays to anyone who was interested in using him (if I decided to progress him at stud).  For the life of me, I cannot think of a reason not to, if I think enough of him to use, and he must have good xrays for this to be the case - alongside everything else about him - then why would I not wish to show them, surely they form part of a sales package?  Why would any stallion owner not wish to?  Are there any who would not?


----------



## HBM1 (17 June 2012)

Truly said:



			I'm still bewildered by the way everyone is referring to Warmblood breeding...British Breeding is meant to include all the breeds we have and use for all disciplines.
		
Click to expand...

sorry, I can only speak for myself but I haven't bred anything other than a Warmblood.  Maybe some of the breeders of other types need to speak up also?


----------



## elijahasgal (17 June 2012)

The first foal I had was an accident. She was out of a mare that I rescued. She was still really weak, when an 18month colt got in with her, injured her back, and made her unridable. The resultant foal was fantastic. The movement on her unbelivable. From her, I got interested in breeding.

I knew the sires lines, but because of his age, I could not get my girl papered (That rule has since changed, for the better in my opinion) So I went to the colts sire twice.

One is now competing dressage, just qualified from the regionals again, and has been told that she could go the whole way. the second with his new owners managed to pierce a joint, and while he came sound, it has triggered joint changes. 

So loving what I was doing I brought a second mare, a tb out of a stud, graded her in with the hanoverian society, and had two foals by hanoverian stallions.  
The first was by an old hanoverian, had the easiest most loving nature, stayed entire until he was 4, because he was no trouble to have around
The second was by a younger hanoverian, and I loved him so much I crossed him to my other mare. and found another young hanoverian for my old rescue mare. I looked and traveled to so many graded stallions, and it opened my eyes to what crap is graded. The one by the reused younger stallion developed growth bumps badly, when I said something to the stud, oh yes, but its not usually till they are yearlings/2yo that they get a hint of OCD. WHAT?!! I thought that the grading was supposed to weed things like that out, and 6 years later he is still at stud. I also brough a third mare, Sent her to a local competition yard, where they had a selection of stallions, and they advised me which one to use. 

So these two foals came along. Then first (new young stallion, my rescue mare) was amazing, paces, temprement, you name it. The second was brilliant in all ways EXCEPT he temprement, nuttiest thing going.  I refused to breed again from that mare, and gave her away. 
Third foal arrived, late foal, and wow what a stunner. 

So, I sent my third mare back to the same stallion, gave my rescue a year out. The resultant foal was even better. So I did the same line again.
Of those three foals, one gained an elite, one a higher first, and the third was sold back to the stud as a stallion prospect.

Early last year I realised that the back injury in my rescue was going downhill fast. So the covering that I had paid for for her, I used on my third mare. This years foal arrived, and is another WOW. Difference, I cannot take it to the futurity, as its sire has not yet got his grading as he is going down competition route.

Now yes, I want to have back up that my small one person band is producing the goods, and I cannot do the futurity, so I will have to do the breed show that has probably got more credability and sway anyway. I as a small person need that backup. that confirmation that my stock is as good as I think that it is. That is my big beef, where do the people with horses that do not fit into one specific society now go? What about seeing if the youngstock produced is ok before grading?  What about the stallion that is out of olympic lines that cannot go from scarring from an accident. Does that mean that he is any less good (still competed to grade A and gained grading that way even with carbon fiber implants)

What about the small stud, that competes as priority, should they not have stock from their stallion before it grades, if they are experienced, they will know the quality they are sat on before anyone else.

I am only small small level. Assistance to the grass routes, and knowledge of what I am missing is the most important thing for me.


----------



## PuddingandPie (17 June 2012)

I have been to a few Futurities to observe and can only say I have been confounded by some of the awful conformation I have seen, particularly in the hindlegs, that have won first premiums.  It was almost as if they wanted to make everyone happy, so get repeat business..but how can you trust their judgement if they are not really assessing what is before them.  Nobody actually walked around each horse put forward.  Half of the entries were standing at such an angle as it to be almost impossible to see exactly how the horse was put together.

How can we move forward if the "favourite" stallions progeny seem to have the higher scorings.  If it is true that the assessors will not be privy to the breeding before they have passed judgement, then this may make the process fairer.  Showing has always been accused of face judging.  Rightly or wrongly.  Let us hope that this is not the caee with the Futurities.

I also understand that stallion owners don't like to turn away unsuitable broodmares, but then they must also accept the fact that the resulting progeny may become a bad advertisment for their stud.

On the subject of OCD, one only had to see the top priced SJ at Addington sales was sold BACK to Germany, despite showing 5 x-rays with OCD!

I have to admit that I have been shocked by the postings telling everyone about how prevalent OCD is in well know stallions.  Food for thought indeed!


----------



## stolensilver (17 June 2012)

Sywell there is nothing in the Hanoverian yearbook about OCD, spavins or other veterinary issues. Having the X-rays available to look at if you are brave enough to go through the registration process and look at them one by one is not good enough. The only studbook that releases information about OCD and puts it in the public domain is the KWPN. I'd like UK studbooks to follow KWPNs lead on this and to take on board that to buyers in the UK, OCD is a big deal and it not something we want our foals to have so it is not something we want UK stallions to have either. 

I know OCD is multifactorial but there is more and more evidence that inheritance is a major factor and it's easy to screen for it and easy to publish those results. As a breeder I want to know.


----------



## HBM1 (17 June 2012)

Many of the studs in Europe seem to breed enormous quantities of foals each year on the basis that they will end up with a few who are health issue free AND talented. It is only a percentage of these few who make it to the top.  So to have the European view, if that is what it is, of accepting OCD stallions, or any other health issue, for grading, as ok "as some foals will be ok given the amounts we breed" is definitely NOT what should be happening in the UK.  So as SS says we should be demanding full view of health reports of all stallions standing in the UK so that we can continue to breed less quantity but a higher quality foal - and Europe should be taking the lead from the UK in that, we don't always have to follow.  After all, what do people think happens to those foals who don't make the grade in Europe?


----------



## sywell (17 June 2012)

stolensilver said:



			Sywell there is nothing in the Hanoverian yearbook about OCD, spavins or other veterinary issues. Having the X-rays available to look at if you are brave enough to go through the registration process and look at them one by one is not good enough. The only studbook that releases information about OCD and puts it in the public domain is the KWPN. I'd like UK studbooks to follow KWPNs lead on this and to take on board that to buyers in the UK, OCD is a big deal and it not something we want our foals to have so it is not something we want UK stallions to have either. 

I know OCD is multifactorial but there is more and more evidence that inheritance is a major factor and it's easy to screen for it and easy to publish those results. As a breeder I want to know.
		
Click to expand...

OCD has many interrelated causes from over feeding to lack of exercise  and with the progress that is being made with DNA we will be able to do more to eliminate this problem. Johann Knapp has done a lot of work on this subject and heritable factors are only one of the factors. As we do not have a standard practice of xraying horses in the UK we have no idea how prevalent this problem is. More breeders should pay more attention to feed and usable copper in feed.  If you know what  the vet requirements of stallions are then you know what has not been found so there is no need to say what is not found. The studbooks are keen to make progress and the horses the BHHS are producing like Farouche and Deveraux III show that we can produce the young stock.


----------



## HBM1 (17 June 2012)

sywell said:



			If you know what  the vet requirements of stallions are then you know what has not been found so there is no need to say what is not found.
		
Click to expand...

I am really trying to learn more about the processes so can you explain this bit to me a little more?  Stolensilver is saying that only the KWPN say if a stallion has OCD showing on their xrays, so if other some studbooks don't, how do we as mare owners find out what showed up on the xrays if they don't have to state it?  Obviously if studbooks don't allow OCD stallions then we can guarantee a stallion who has been graded doesn't have it, but it doesn't seem that cut and dried?  I would not just want to focus on this condition though, I would want to know about any condition the stallion had.

I do appreciate that some breeders aren't worried at all about OCD and say it can be caused by overfeeding etc but I would still prefer to use one without it.


----------



## cruiseline (17 June 2012)

sywell said:



			OCD has many interrelated causes from over feeding to lack of exercise  and with the progress that is being made with DNA we will be able to do more to eliminate this problem. Johann Knapp has done a lot of work on this subject and heritable factors are only one of the factors.
		
Click to expand...

But it is still a factor and being able to make our choices regarding stallions would be easier if the studbooks released their findings. My vet was on the Selle Francais evaluating panel for young horse x-rays for 6 years, she could tell us a thing or two about some of the stallions! All findings were reported to the studbook, but the vets opinions have to be kept to themselves! However, I know which stallions I need to avoid in the future.


----------



## magic104 (17 June 2012)

Our vet practice had a evening covering issues relating to breeding.  OCD was mentioned & what came about was it is a combination, breeding, feeding & production.  It is more common in other parts of Europe because they are forcing their horses in preparation for selling (like the racing industry).  

It may well be easy to just blame breeding but if a stallion is popular then he will have more offspring going through the same process.  I suppose we will only know if youngsters are kept more naturally & given more time to mature before being asked to work in readiness for the sales.  If they are developing OCD as yearlings, feeding can not be ruled out as one of the causes.


----------



## cruiseline (17 June 2012)

magic104 said:



			Our vet practice had a evening covering issues relating to breeding.  OCD was mentioned & what came about was it is a combination, breeding, feeding & production.  It is more common in other parts of Europe because they are forcing their horses in preparation for selling (like the racing industry).  

It may well be easy to just blame breeding but if a stallion is popular then he will have more offspring going through the same process.  I suppose we will only know if youngsters are kept more naturally & given more time to mature before being asked to work in readiness for the sales.  If they are developing OCD as yearlings, feeding can not be ruled out as one of the causes.
		
Click to expand...

I agree and I am not ruling out the management issues regarding OCD, it is the genetical predisposition that needs stamping out. If OCD was just down to the over feeding of youngsters, then why do we not see crippled youngsters in the many many showing classes in the UK! If it is down to feeding alone we would have no sound show horses in this country!!! It is not a chicken and egg situation, it does start off with genetics, then management accelerates it.

I can only speak about the SF findings and their figures submitted were based on a percentage of youngsters presented against those affected. It was very apparent which stallions were producing a higher percentage of stock with OCD, where other stallions showed not one youngster with lesions!


----------



## Oscar (17 June 2012)

Surely it is very easy for a stallion owner to have his horse x-rayed and any chips removed before the horse is sent for grading?!! So x-rays cannot be completely conclusive!!!

I have heard of several stallions that have had chips removed as a 'precautcionary' measure as the horse was totally sound before surgery....hmmmm!!


----------



## ribbons (18 June 2012)

So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place. 
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding. 
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together. 
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry. 
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.


----------



## ribbons (18 June 2012)

Sorry, meant flawed not floored. On iPhone which has it's own way of doing things and I can't edit.


----------



## koeffee (18 June 2012)

I have never nor will i ever go to a futurity, but i feel they shouldnt close it off to graded stock only, thats what studbooks do, it was set up to evaluate british breeding stock and now it is turning into a closed book like Trakehner etc?!!
I have 3 out of 7 foals this year 2 stallions ungraded the other 4 are, now i dont look at my foals with rose tinted glasses but they are pretty ***** hot in my opinion. They will also have the same paper work as if the stallion had been graded. He is bening presented this year but it wouldnt stop me using him or any nice tb stallion who hasnt got a high enough time form rating?


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

HorseyLad said:



			Surely it is very easy for a stallion owner to have his horse x-rayed and any chips removed before the horse is sent for grading?!! So x-rays cannot be completely conclusive!!!

I have heard of several stallions that have had chips removed as a 'precautcionary' measure as the horse was totally sound before surgery....hmmmm!!
		
Click to expand...

We would not in the BHHS accept this stallion


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

ribbons said:



			So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place. 
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding. 
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together. 
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry. 
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.
		
Click to expand...

The good Futurity marks do assist in the sale of a foal and this is quite clear from people who produce 8 or 10 foals a year. To gain respect in the international market where the real money is you need foals from a well respected studbook that have high standards for grading of stallions and mares,people who buy at the major auctions would never buy stock from unlicensed stallions even thought a number who fail licensing as 3 year olds later do well in competition and are subsequently licensed.


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

ribbons said:



			So, the majority opinion of people who have responded to this thread, whether they own a stallion or not is that the BEF ruling to allow only progeny of graded stallions to enter will not improve the breeding of British performance horses. In fact, may even result in reducing the quality of foals bred. These opinions seem to come from intelligent, experienced well informed people. So we have to ask the question, WHY is the rule being introduced. Is it being introduced by people who have really not thought it through properly or is it possible that there is a vested interest for some to have this rule in place. 
I know several owners of graded stallions who disagree with the new ruling, even though it does not affect them.
It has been perfectly explained by several here why, it will not help British breeding. 
Those that are in favour have failed to provide solid evidence that this is in the interest of British bred performance horses. Possibly in the interest of British performance breeders, but that is a different thing all together. 
I use graded stallions and ungraded stallions, but as a matter of principal I will never again enter anything in the futurity. It is now totally floored, and I know my youngstock buyers will not be influenced by the results. They produce and ride these horses, they know what they're looking for and whilst they tell me futurity results used to be useful to them, they would no longer have any interest in the results of such a restricted entry. 
Says it all for me. They are the people I am breeding for.
		
Click to expand...

I am pleased to hear that you have a satisfied clients for your young stock but we are dealing with a wide variety of individuals who need to see standards set for stallions and mares and as the standard of judging in the Futurity improves we will see the results from the Futurity showing up in the successful horses if you do not show in the Futurity you will not have the opportunity to show me where I am going wrong.


----------



## HBM1 (18 June 2012)

sywell said:



			I am pleased to hear that you have a satisfied clients for your young stock but we are dealing with a wide variety of individuals who need to see standards set for stallions and mares and as the standard of judging in the Futurity improves we will see the results from the Futurity showing up in the successful horses *if you do not show in the Futurity you will not have the opportunity to show me where I am going wrong*.
		
Click to expand...

But surely you aren't saying that only horses who are successful in the future are those who have been presented to the futurity?  Youngstock who are not presented will also go on to be successful if produced well (and bred well of course).  I know a lot of studs who foal more than 8 or 10  year who do not take their youngsters to the futurity, Brendon Stud, Quainton Stud, not sure I have seen Billy Stud there either?  They do however have successful youngsters.    I don't think anyone is saying don't use graded stallions or graded mares etc - what people are saying is that by excluding all ungraded stallions you are actually removing from the futurity stallions who are already producing youngsters for competition - Narramore Stud's stallion has many youngsters out competing who are doing well.  Groomsbridge also have stallions who are producing the goods.  Why can't people present whichever foal they have bred, with no breeding known to the evaluators, so that the foal through 3 year old can be seen on their own merits (I hear breeding will be unknown this year, which is a good thing).  After all, by knowing the bloodlines, you are only saying what potential a youngster has based on its parentage, rather than looking at the foal in front of you, and that can be done on a piece of paper.


----------



## ribbons (18 June 2012)

Actually I suspect futurity results are, or have been, more important to buyers of dressage horses. As is the importance of graded sires.  So this might help the sales of this type of young 
horse. 
As I breed for the eventing Market, who are more interested in the animal in front of them and less so in who it's parents are I doubt it will bother my customers. In fact I can't actualy remember a grading or futurity result affecting a sale one way or the other. 
So maybe it will only be the dressage section that will see any change in breeding practice. Be that change fir the better or not, only time will tell.


----------



## Oscar (18 June 2012)

sywell said:



			We would not in the BHHS accept this stallion
		
Click to expand...

But how would you know if the information hadn't been disclosed?  Easy to dismiss any scars as field accidents or kicks etc.

I totally agree with x-raying I'm just pondering if there is a way round it - just my cynical musings!!


----------



## jamesmead (18 June 2012)

sywell said:



			OCD has many interrelated causes from over feeding to lack of exercise  and with the progress that is being made with DNA we will be able to do more to eliminate this problem. Johann Knapp has done a lot of work on this subject and heritable factors are only one of the factors. As we do not have a standard practice of xraying horses in the UK we have no idea how prevalent this problem is. More breeders should pay more attention to feed and usable copper in feed.  If you know what  the vet requirements of stallions are then you know what has not been found so there is no need to say what is not found. The studbooks are keen to make progress and the horses the BHHS are producing like Farouche and Deveraux III show that we can produce the young stock.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this sounds to me like someone in denial; "It isn't really due to breeding but we'll sort it out when we know more about DNA." 

Eh?

It doesn't reassure me to be then told, basically, that I have no need to know the vet's findings and that the stud books are keen to improve....

Moreover I think we can safely say that until recently we did not need x-rays to be able to say that OCD was an uncommon problem in British stock because we saw very few animals lame from this particular cause, here in a country where veterinary intervention as a matter of course, is not yet - thank goodness - accepted as normal.

I also suspect Horsey Lad is correct; could Sywell tell us how he/she would know that early intervention had not hidden this problem? I understand there is minimal scarring.

Myself, I think that what breeders need above all is INFORMATION; not judgements made on their behalf without explanation or accessibility by people who in some cases may have different criteria or even vested interests. 

As to the Futurity, I think its interest and strength was in the breadth of types and breeds - and non-breeds, come to that - which it drew together under a common roof and viewed relatively impartially. I think it got people talking and thinking about breeding, comparing stallions and considering alternatives, right across the board.Anything that hinders this lessens its usefulness and importance. 

Sadly, I don't think that it can now be viewed as having the importance it originally had. In Scotland I feel it is now largely irrelevant anyway, due to what I can only describe as administrative incompetence (the choice of date last year was dire) and reluctance to be pro-active in growing its popularity. 

If it were to carry the authority and importance that has been suggested I can't help feeling that it would need to watch its back. I suspect a refusal to consider stock by any given stallion without very good reason (and "We think horses should be graded" is not sufficient reason when it is clear that ungraded horses are doing an equivalent job and previously scooped a lot of the honours) could be seen as a restriction of trade if it affects the breeder's or owner's finances adversely. I doubt this will become an issue as I don't think the Futurity has that much clout.

For what its worth I do think that grading, in the sense of assessing, registering, recording, monitoring results is a positive thing and should be encouraged. But grading as in "This is good, that is bad, you are only a mare owner and don't need to know why" really doesn't rock my boat. Stolensilver is right; transparency and the public accessibility of information is overwhelmingly important.


----------



## ribbons (18 June 2012)

Oh the huge amounts of common sense and worries about the usefulness of this ruling being voiced here by breeders is surely of some importance to BEF. They surely are aware of the majority opinion by now. Will it make a jot of difference to them? Not on your life.
There is none so blind as those who don't want to see.


----------



## jamesmead (18 June 2012)

sywell said:



			The approval of other studbooks is not Hanovers problem.
		
Click to expand...

One other thing: probably glaringly obvious to dressage peeps, but I had to go and look it up; when a stallion registered with another studbook is known to have /pass on OCD as highlighted by Stolensilver with regard to Donnerhall and Rubinstein, by admitting that stallion's offspring to your own studbook, surely it BECOMES your problem? Both these stallions are approved by Hanover though registered Oldenburg and Westphalian respectively. 

I can see why a studbook might feel that it needs to avail itself of their positive qualities, but to ignore the negative ones on the grounds that the horse was originally registered with another society so they are "not Hanover's problem" is box-ticking at its worst.

It also occurs to me that these horses were approved presumably in spite of their negative qualities and for their positive ones. So in this case a value judgement was made which balanced a fault unacceptable to many against qualities desired by many. Now, how often does this happen? The supposition that a horse which grades will, of necessity, be free of faults so we don't need to know what the vet said as there was nothing to say, looks very unwise in a studbook where this sort of compromise is known to have occurred. 

Although some of this is historical and it could be argued that the studbook is trying to repair the damage, this sort of unexplained compromise is IMO endemic - even unavoidable - in gradings; what do they say? "He who seeks the perfect horse had best walk." The only way out is the transparency which Stolensilver advocates.


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

jamesmead said:



			One other thing: probably glaringly obvious to dressage peeps, but I had to go and look it up; when a stallion registered with another studbook is known to have /pass on OCD as highlighted by Stolensilver with regard to Donnerhall and Rubinstein, by admitting that stallion's offspring to your own studbook, surely it BECOMES your problem? Both these stallions are approved by Hanover though registered Oldenburg and Westphalian respectively. 

I can see why a studbook might feel that it needs to avail itself of their positive qualities, but to ignore the negative ones on the grounds that the horse was originally registered with another society so they are "not Hanover's problem" is box-ticking at its worst.

It also occurs to me that these horses were approved presumably in spite of their negative qualities and for their positive ones. So in this case a value judgement was made which balanced a fault unacceptable to many against qualities desired by many. Now, how often does this happen? The supposition that a horse which grades will, of necessity, be free of faults so we don't need to know what the vet said as there was nothing to say, looks very unwise in a studbook where this sort of compromise is known to have occurred. 

Although some of this is historical and it could be argued that the studbook is trying to repair the damage, this sort of unexplained compromise is IMO endemic - even unavoidable - in gradings; what do they say? "He who seeks the perfect horse had best walk." The only way out is the transparency which Stolensilver advocates.
		
Click to expand...

To clarify my point. The breeding rules and standards are those of that breeding association and Hanover is confident we have some of the best evaluations. When the late Donnerhall was licensed there were different standards and he was licensed to those standards. As yet we do not have vet proof which of the factors which cause OCD come from a stallion , a mare and what combination of mare and stallion. It was not a problem in British Breeding because no one looked for it and things change look at "navicular syndrome" and how opinions on this are changing due to modern diagnostics.. When we see more top horses from unapproved stallions your point may be taken.


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

jamesmead said:



			Sorry, but this sounds to me like someone in denial; "It isn't really due to breeding but we'll sort it out when we know more about DNA." 

Eh?

It doesn't reassure me to be then told, basically, that I have no need to know the vet's findings and that the stud books are keen to improve....

Moreover I think we can safely say that until recently we did not need x-rays to be able to say that OCD was an uncommon problem in British stock because we saw very few animals lame from this particular cause, here in a country where veterinary intervention as a matter of course, is not yet - thank goodness - accepted as normal.

I also suspect Horsey Lad is correct; could Sywell tell us how he/she would know that early intervention had not hidden this problem? I understand there is minimal scarring.

Myself, I think that what breeders need above all is INFORMATION; not judgements made on their behalf without explanation or accessibility by people who in some cases may have different criteria or even vested interests. 

As to the Futurity, I think its interest and strength was in the breadth of types and breeds - and non-breeds, come to that - which it drew together under a common roof and viewed relatively impartially. I think it got people talking and thinking about breeding, comparing stallions and considering alternatives, right across the board.Anything that hinders this lessens its usefulness and importance. 

Sadly, I don't think that it can now be viewed as having the importance it originally had. In Scotland I feel it is now largely irrelevant anyway, due to what I can only describe as administrative incompetence (the choice of date last year was dire) and reluctance to be pro-active in growing its popularity. 

If it were to carry the authority and importance that has been suggested I can't help feeling that it would need to watch its back. I suspect a refusal to consider stock by any given stallion without very good reason (and "We think horses should be graded" is not sufficient reason when it is clear that ungraded horses are doing an equivalent job and previously scooped a lot of the honours) could be seen as a restriction of trade if it affects the breeder's or owner's finances adversely. I doubt this will become an issue as I don't think the Futurity has that much clout.

For what its worth I do think that grading, in the sense of assessing, registering, recording, monitoring results is a positive thing and should be encouraged. But grading as in "This is good, that is bad, you are only a mare owner and don't need to know why" really doesn't rock my boat. Stolensilver is right; transparency and the public accessibility of information is overwhelmingly important.
		
Click to expand...

I think it would be useful to look at the Mexico Olympic horses and where they came from and look at todays Olympic horses and where they come from and I think from that exercise  you will see they are horses from established studbooks with proactive breeding programs. The scar from the operation can be seen and it should be entered in the passport by the vet. There is great concern that if a horse has section ix signed off there is no record of drugs administered and a horse without this section signed could have a list of drugs administered for minor problems and a buyer might be put off and many dealers sign off section ix as a matter of course. I think many of the comments come from people with strong opinions who have not seen at first hand  how the best European studbooks operate and the prices paid at auction by people of great knowledge and experience who know what they are talking about and the idea that grading is not the way forward might be shon up by how horses cope with Greenwich and how they were bred.


----------



## sywell (18 June 2012)

ribbons said:



			Oh the huge amounts of common sense and worries about the usefulness of this ruling being voiced here by breeders is surely of some importance to BEF. They surely are aware of the majority opinion by now. Will it make a jot of difference to them? Not on your life.
There is none so blind as those who don't want to see.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know it is a majority opinion.


----------



## HBM1 (18 June 2012)

sywell said:



			When we see more top horses from unapproved stallions your point may be taken.
		
Click to expand...

But the Futurity is surely not only set up to find the top 1% who reach the ultimate in competition level?  If we all bred to that level there would be a huge shortfall in horses of all levels to help up and coming riders get to the top as there are not many youngster or teens who could sit a ready made Hickstead or Shutterfly.  I think this just verifies the concerns many breeders have that the Futurity is becoming purely elitest for the top flight only.  Was that really its initial intentions when set up?


----------



## ribbons (18 June 2012)

It is the majority opinion here. Sorry I thought I'd said that. It is also the majority opinion if everyone I have discussed with. I realise the two areas are only a section of breeders, but the ratio of for/ against is overwhelming. 
I am convinced if BEF had asked for opinion nation wide the percentages would be the same.
However no one at BEF seems to set any importance on the opinions of the people who breed the very animals that they claim to be qualified to evaluate, but only if someone else has scored it's sire previously.


----------



## Maesfen (18 June 2012)

This has been a really interesting thread, I've enjoyed reading it but the thing that shouts out at me is the sheer arrogance of belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## angrovestud (18 June 2012)

All I have to say on the matter is its a very expensive Rosette going to the BEF if it does not help a foal or youngster sell what is the point, has anyone ever been advised which stallion would suit their mare? by any one when being evaluated.


----------



## cruiseline (18 June 2012)

With reference to the comment regarding futurity evaluations helping towards the sale of a youngster, I would have to disagree. A client had her very smart colt foal evaluated last year. He quite rightly received an Elite in the dressage section, as he really does move to die for. She advertised him (at a very reasonable price) just before he was weaned and did not get one phone call enquiring about him! She had now decided to run him on and produce him herself, so not a disaster. I have presented youngsters for evaluation with the BEF Futurity for the past 4 years gaining several Elites and Higher 1st Premiums (all out of graded sires) and I can honestly say that my youngsters evaluations have not assisted with their sale.


----------



## elijahasgal (18 June 2012)

My colt gained Elite for Jumping, with comments that they could see him international dressage. The only person interested in him wouldnt come and see him unless I agreed to let her have him for £2500   So please tell me where that grading assisted his sale


----------



## sywell (19 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			My colt gained Elite for Jumping, with comments that they could see him international dressage. The only person interested in him wouldnt come and see him unless I agreed to let her have him for £2500   So please tell me where that grading assisted his sale
		
Click to expand...

In the current selling climate many people do not get replies to their adverts but it is important to support the Futurity because the data it produces will give guidance to the best sires who we must remember only contribute 40% of the foal. I personally like to see jumping blood in a dressage horse but it is believed that showjumpers only buy on results not pedigree so will end up paying a lot more eventually. One showjumper only looks at competing 7 yr olds at they do noy have rime to produce horses. These threads must not lose sight of the fact who ever is right in this discussion will be shown when we have all British Bred horses in our teams by quality and I am convinced that the route of studbook horses with graded sire and dams is the right way to go and in most of these studbooks the members decide the policy that the Breeding directors follow and for Hanoverians the international Hanoverian societies have their elected member on the main board and the individual societies have a vote at the AGM .


----------



## elijahasgal (19 June 2012)

There Lies the nub of the argument.  If we need the data on what is producing what, excluding sires for whatever reason, we cannot collect all the information.
As said, I know two stallions in very different circumstances, who would have fallen through the data net for several years. One is still classified as failed, although he will soon be accepted on performance.  One is fantastic bloodlines, but had carbon fiber implants after an accident as a yearling, but has still gone onto jump grade a and since gain acceptance. The second we have essentially lost 9 years stud with, and and on the new rules, that would have been 9 years of data from.
It will be missing the fact that some owners of young stallions choose to see what he is producing before going for grading, and may then decide that he is not mature enough, or or or..... to be graded in the required time. That is all data that we will be missing.  
And compared to the price that we pay for a breed specific day, £25 for the KWPN, or £75 for hanoverian which includes the DNA and branding, and have more respect worldwide for the results.
I just cannot see the point of excluding horses, use the results to proove what you are saying. Use the results to find stallions that are slipping through the net, to take a closer look at them.


----------



## sallyf (19 June 2012)

sywell said:



			In the current selling climate many people do not get replies to their adverts but it is important to support the Futurity because the data it produces will give guidance to the best sires who we must remember only contribute 40% of the foal. I personally like to see jumping blood in a dressage horse but it is believed that showjumpers only buy on results not pedigree so will end up paying a lot more eventually. One showjumper only looks at competing 7 yr olds at they do noy have rime to produce horses. These threads must not lose sight of the fact who ever is right in this discussion will be shown when we have all British Bred horses in our teams by quality and I am convinced that the route of studbook horses with graded sire and dams is the right way to go and in most of these studbooks the members decide the policy that the Breeding directors follow and for Hanoverians the international Hanoverian societies have their elected member on the main board and the individual societies have a vote at the AGM .
		
Click to expand...

Slightly contradictory .
Your telling us to support the futurity because it will tell us the best sires to use.
But it only gives us a choice of stallions that someone else has told us are good enough through the various grading system.
And then you say they only input 40% anyway so does it actually matter then what you use.
Surely in that case it would be better to look at the mare population.
On the subject of grading there are plenty of stallions out there that grade at an early age and then get regraded with other societies at a later stage when at a certain level competing without even being reinspected.
Thats a big leap of faith in my book to grade something further down the line without seeing it.
It could have changed out of all recognition since it was 3.
And an odd competition result at medium for a dressage horse isnt that difficult to attain with a pro rider on board to get automatic grading from another society.


----------



## sywell (19 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			There Lies the nub of the argument.  If we need the data on what is producing what, excluding sires for whatever reason, we cannot collect all the information.
As said, I know two stallions in very different circumstances, who would have fallen through the data net for several years. One is still classified as failed, although he will soon be accepted on performance.  One is fantastic bloodlines, but had carbon fiber implants after an accident as a yearling, but has still gone onto jump grade a and since gain acceptance. The second we have essentially lost 9 years stud with, and and on the new rules, that would have been 9 years of data from.
It will be missing the fact that some owners of young stallions choose to see what he is producing before going for grading, and may then decide that he is not mature enough, or or or..... to be graded in the required time. That is all data that we will be missing.  
And compared to the price that we pay for a breed specific day, £25 for the KWPN, or £75 for hanoverian which includes the DNA and branding, and have more respect worldwide for the results.
I just cannot see the point of excluding horses, use the results to proove what you are saying. Use the results to find stallions that are slipping through the net, to take a closer look at them.
		
Click to expand...

Foal registration is £75 for branding and passport,£30 for foal DNA


----------



## maestro (19 June 2012)

Really interesting discussion going on here.  It does seem to come round to the nub of the problem being the confidence in the grading systems, there needs to be more cohesion and clarity. Still for me this needs to be sorted, for all Stallions to be comfortable accountable be it approved, licensed or graded. So perhaps should start another thread on how produce this system and see if the powers that be can try and implement it.
As the futurity I thought it was started to try and talent spot top youngstock, but then that is no good if then there is no plan to get assistance to get them produced properly to go on.


----------



## sywell (19 June 2012)

sallyf said:



			Slightly contradictory .
Your telling us to support the futurity because it will tell us the best sires to use.
But it only gives us a choice of stallions that someone else has told us are good enough through the various grading system.
And then you say they only input 40% anyway so does it actually matter then what you use.
Surely in that case it would be better to look at the mare population.
On the subject of grading there are plenty of stallions out there that grade at an early age and then get regraded with other societies at a later stage when at a certain level competing without even being reinspected.
Thats a big leap of faith in my book to grade something further down the line without seeing it.
It could have changed out of all recognition since it was 3.
And an odd competition result at medium for a dressage horse isnt that difficult to attain with a pro rider on board to get automatic grading from another society.
		
Click to expand...

Older stallions have to have 5 placings at Prix St George or above. The stallion would then be eligible to go through the same process as the younger stallions xrays ect.We now have on the German website mare family data and some of these families go back a long time. For mares to receive the higher qualification they have to do the ridden mare performance test,have vet certificate to say they are not a roarer and have been shown in a mare class and received a IA before the age of 5. I think you may see why I am in favour of this method which has produced good riding horses and because of the large number of foals each year exceptional competition horses.


----------



## elijahasgal (19 June 2012)

And that includes if I read their site correctly, also the price of showing the foal and having it assessed and graded?  £75 with all the extras, versus £66 for the futurity?


----------



## ribbons (19 June 2012)

This is what completely baffles me, 
If the supporters of this ruling are right, and using graded stallions will produce better quality youngstock, why then not leave it for all to enter, if their assumption is correct cream will always rise to the top and their case will be proven in BEF results. Graded sired youngstock taking top awards.
However if they are wrong the opposite will happen.
My own opinion is that if all are allowed forward the top results will be a mix of the two. 
So I still have no idea why this ruling is needed to improve the youngstock entered. The proof of the pudding as they say is in the eating.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I could no longer have confidence in the futurity results because either the evaluators do not have the confidence to judge these young horses entirely on their own merit, OR there are ulterior motives behind the rule being introduced. 
Either way leaves a useless evaluation process for me as a breeder, and for this reason, I'm 
out.


----------



## sallyf (19 June 2012)

sywell said:



			Older stallions have to have 5 placings at Prix St George or above. The stallion would then be eligible to go through the same process as the younger stallions xrays ect.We now have on the German website mare family data and some of these families go back a long time. For mares to receive the higher qualification they have to do the ridden mare performance test,have vet certificate to say they are not a roarer and have been shown in a mare class and received a IA before the age of 5. I think you may see why I am in favour of this method which has produced good riding horses and because of the large number of foals each year exceptional competition horses.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly not the case for SHBgb which who i was refering too


----------



## elijahasgal (19 June 2012)

Again, another point for ungraded stallions has been given to me.
Stallions that nearly wernt.....

Cor de la Bryère  refused his grading by the french, as not the "type" they were looking for, they were told to geld him.....accepted by Holstein and gone onto be who he is. (because his owners had faith in him)

Landadel, best son of Landgraf, refused his grading, for being "too light"
Leased to Böckmanns who bred him for 10 years, in which he was in the top 3 sires.  Unlicensed.

Libero....failed on his performance test

Grannus, scored under 87 and was 58th out of his class of 66. His owners had faith in him and he got in on performance.

Sandro Hit, scored under 100, in his 100day test, claimed now because he was not strong enough or ready to do it....

Sandro....refused approval by Holsteiner, purchased by Denmark, did a good performance test, competed well before being brought back by germany

Andiamo excluded twice, first time injured in his performance test, spent two years recovering. reentered, not selected, re-inspection committee allowed him to go on3 week performance test, and was accepted. He was then thrown out for not having a collection of foals to present to the KWPN. 10 years later accepted back into their books.

Mr Blue (Sire of world cup winners) rejected until he started winning Grand Prix

Heartbreaker, not presented until he was 8yo

Cardento, who failed, had to proove himself in competition, in sweden before holland would accept him

Voltaire, rejected by Oldenburg, brought and presented in holland, was 14th of 14, and only just made it to stallion status.

Irco Marco, one of Swedens most influential jumping stallions, was first presented for licensing in 1976, the Swedish Commission, headed by Olle Kjellander, the National Studmaster at Flyinge, said they would never license the horse  according to the commission, he wasnt even a sport horse. Represented, refused again, even though he was winning competition, and jumping 1.60, In the light of these performances, the stallion was granted a provisional cover license, which meant he could produce foals but they could not be registered!

Galoubet, rejected as a 3yo

Quidam de Revel, was accepted only after going the competative route.

Rubinstein, rejected by Westphalia, finally accepted by Oldenburg.

Welt Hit, refused, probably because of being an extreme late developer


And then to the other extreme, these names, 
Elektron, Derwisch, Erbherzog, Gluecksstern, Grossmogul, Maurice, Gluecksgriff, Buenos Aires, Fontainebleau, Golden Champ, Williams Gold, Nobleman, Go on Top and Lauda.

they are licensing winners in Hanover from 1980 to 2007, a list where 14/27 have vanished without a trace.....

Over the border in Oldenburg, if we look at their last 20 licensing winners, there are some good sires there  including Rohdiamant who is ranked 4th on the WBFSH stallion rankings  the unavoidable truth is that not one of those 20 licensing champions features in the 2009 German FNs top 1% of sires lists for either dressage or showjumping.



So based on that, can we rely on Lisencing?


----------



## ribbons (19 June 2012)

The above post says it all. 
Now, is anyone listening.


----------



## HBM1 (19 June 2012)

sywell said:



			When we see more top horses from unapproved stallions your point may be taken.
		
Click to expand...

You may want to take a look at the above post then.  Thank heavens for owners who did stick by their belief in their horses.


----------



## sywell (20 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			Again, another point for ungraded stallions has been given to me.
Stallions that nearly wernt.....

Cor de la Bryère  refused his grading by the french, as not the "type" they were looking for, they were told to geld him.....accepted by Holstein and gone onto be who he is. (because his owners had faith in him)

Landadel, best son of Landgraf, refused his grading, for being "too light"
Leased to Böckmanns who bred him for 10 years, in which he was in the top 3 sires.  Unlicensed.

Libero....failed on his performance test

Grannus, scored under 87 and was 58th out of his class of 66. His owners had faith in him and he got in on performance.

Sandro Hit, scored under 100, in his 100day test, claimed now because he was not strong enough or ready to do it....

Sandro....refused approval by Holsteiner, purchased by Denmark, did a good performance test, competed well before being brought back by germany

Andiamo excluded twice, first time injured in his performance test, spent two years recovering. reentered, not selected, re-inspection committee allowed him to go on3 week performance test, and was accepted. He was then thrown out for not having a collection of foals to present to the KWPN. 10 years later accepted back into their books.

Mr Blue (Sire of world cup winners) rejected until he started winning Grand Prix

Heartbreaker, not presented until he was 8yo

Cardento, who failed, had to proove himself in competition, in sweden before holland would accept him

Voltaire, rejected by Oldenburg, brought and presented in holland, was 14th of 14, and only just made it to stallion status.

Irco Marco, one of Swedens most influential jumping stallions, was first presented for licensing in 1976, the Swedish Commission, headed by Olle Kjellander, the National Studmaster at Flyinge, said they would never license the horse  according to the commission, he wasnt even a sport horse. Represented, refused again, even though he was winning competition, and jumping 1.60, In the light of these performances, the stallion was granted a provisional cover license, which meant he could produce foals but they could not be registered!

Galoubet, rejected as a 3yo

Quidam de Revel, was accepted only after going the competative route.

Rubinstein, rejected by Westphalia, finally accepted by Oldenburg.

Welt Hit, refused, probably because of being an extreme late developer


And then to the other extreme, these names, 
Elektron, Derwisch, Erbherzog, Gluecksstern, Grossmogul, Maurice, Gluecksgriff, Buenos Aires, Fontainebleau, Golden Champ, Williams Gold, Nobleman, Go on Top and Lauda.

they are licensing winners in Hanover from 1980 to 2007, a list where 14/27 have vanished without a trace.....

Over the border in Oldenburg, if we look at their last 20 licensing winners, there are some good sires there  including Rohdiamant who is ranked 4th on the WBFSH stallion rankings  the unavoidable truth is that not one of those 20 licensing champions features in the 2009 German FNs top 1% of sires lists for either dressage or showjumping.



So based on that, can we rely on Lisencing?
		
Click to expand...

Hanover has 120 stallions come for licensing at the final round each year and about half are licensed. You come back to what the judges saw on the day and I have no idea how many stallions in total were at the gradings where you have picked out these that failed on the day. So what percentage of the ones you quoted were they of total number of horses shown? There are always going to be ones that have an off day or are late maturing. The Hanoverian Society has around 400 stallions and the WBFSH book lists 9000


----------



## Anastasia (20 June 2012)

The BEF Futurity can only be seen as a "guide" for breeders.  It is not the definitive answer on what stallions to use, as it&#8217;s only as good as the horses being put forward.  Plus it does not cover the whole of the UK, so essentially all the stock in the North of Scotland (for example) is not even covered.

The Futurity (as any grading world wide) is only looking at a horse for a matter of minutes and can therefore only be guided on what it sees for a small snapshot of that horses life.  Hence why some of the stallions above slipped through the net via different breeding associations.  However as has been mentioned the above stallions are only around 0.2% of all the stallions that have likely gone forward in that year.  Yes there are licensing winners who disappear, but that will always happen, because people still need to assess the foals, youngsters and ridden stock.

The Futurity certainly DOES NOT help breeders sell their stock.  I have only been asked by about 3 people over the years whether I take my stock to the Futurity.  All my foals have been sold on their own merit and that of their bloodlines.

Personally I give far more credibility to breed gradings by the KWPN, Hanoverians and Oldenburgs than I would to the Futurity, mainly because of the wealth of knowledge these judges have.  Plus they are judging you on a system that is used worldwide and against the same quality of horses from abroad.  

I would also love to see the correlation of the Futurity results and those horses that have gone onto do well in competition, and whether a 2nd or 3rd Premium foal or young horse has actually gone on to do well in competition, because at the end of the day, the horse is as only as good as the rider producing it!  You can breed a long list of Elite horses, but if those horses do not realise their potential under saddle then what worth does the Futurity have?  Breeding a good horse is only one part of an equation.

I personally think the descriptions for each Premium should be changed.  For instance the KWPN give 1st Premiums over a certain score but they by no means state that this foal will go on to be the next Olympic gold medallist, and I think the Futurity needs to look at this because they cannot guarantee, especially on their limited knowledge, what horses will actually go on to do this.




elijahasgal said:



			The stallion that I have used failed his grading, First time because he was immature, second with assessors contradicting one another. He has one thing I dislike about him, so I waited, ensured that he was not passing it on. He wasnt, but instead was stamping his stock with everything I liked about him. He has had two presented, one gained higher first. Owner now taking him down the performance route, and I have no doubt that he will be graded in a year or two.
		
Click to expand...

If this is the stallion I am thinking of then the first time he failed his grading was not down to immaturity.  The judges clearly stated to the audience that they did not like his hind leg conformation, and that he would be a super competition horse but not a stallion.  They never mentioned once about him being immature or for him to be re-presented (which can be recommended if a young stallion coming forward needs more time to mature).

The stallion I am speaking about was put forward for general grading as a 2 year old and received a score of 5 out of 10 for conformation and 7 out of 10 for movement and a 3rd Premium overall.  In 2009 as a 4 year old he went forward for grading and failed due to the same points on his hind legs, and then he failed stallion grading again in 2010.  I have to say that I think this stallion is a stunning horse (although I dislike his hindleg conformation greatly) and he is doing very well in dressage and of course his stock have received good premiums and he definately stamps his stock with good looks and refinement.  However, for me, even despite this, the fact that he has been graded three times and got the same remarks (with different judges) puts me off (unlike the list of stallions above that only got missed the once).  Like I say we may be speaking about two different stallions entirely.

For me personally I only use graded stallions, that is the preference of my own and clients wishes.   I like to know that a stallion has been assessed for breeding, whether any slip through the net or not.  There are always back doors for stallions who are kept entire and who do well in sport, but at the end of the day breeders will always vote by their feet anyway.

Going back to the Futurity I have to say that I am in favour of it only being open to offspring by graded stallions, and only see this as a positive step forwards (whether that is a popular choice or not sadly).


----------



## angrovestud (20 June 2012)

he's a story of how bad grading and evaluations are the British Hanovarian society failed the three year old colt Sarahs pride, He sired one foal and was gelded and then went on to win the Cavan high jump, the royal highland became a grade A show jumper winning the hoys puissance then beating Randi, he then got sold to the the USA.
 No one can look into the future unless of course they have crystal balls.

 Due to this happening I have no faith in opinion, its resuts that count and frankly some horses have faults, like humans they excell at other things.

if grading was so good why do  racehorse not get graded? would they also have to be graded on looks and comfo and type? why dont sports horse people learn from the likes of weatherbys and let the market sort the wheat from the chaff, you pretty soon learn who not to use, bad legs bad temp, no darn good at jumping!  its run by vested intested and people who want to set themselves up as all knowing!
The graders did the one thing they should be looking for the did not spot talent! rare jumping bloodlines in the TB as well


----------



## Anastasia (20 June 2012)

angrovestud said:



			he's a story of how bad grading and evaluations are the British Hanovarian society failed the three year old colt Sarahs pride, He sired one foal and was gelded and then went on to win the Cavan high jump, the royal highland became a grade A show jumper winning the hoys puissance then beating Randi, he then got sold to the the USA.
 No one can look into the future unless of course they have crystal balls.

 Due to this happening I have no faith in opinion, its resuts that count and frankly some horses have faults, like humans they excell at other things.

if grading was so good why do  racehorse not get graded? would they also have to be graded on looks and comfo and type? why dont sports horse people learn from the likes of weatherbys and let the market sort the wheat from the chaff, you pretty soon learn who not to use, bad legs bad temp, no darn good at jumping!  its run by vested intested and people who want to set themselves up as all knowing!
The graders did the one thing they should be looking for the did not spot talent! rare jumping bloodlines in the TB as well
		
Click to expand...

Just because the horse above did well in sport does not necessitate that he would of been a good sire.   You could say the same about several geldings that have gone on to win World Cups and Olympic games.

I personally do not think you can compare the sport horse industry (what I am talking about above) with racehorses, although several thoroughbreds have been graded over the decades with good results.


----------



## angrovestud (20 June 2012)

I think that the graders missed talent! or are sports horses being graded to be pretty like  showing class he sired an advanced endurance mare his only daughter what I am trying to point out is you can not possibly in the 30 mins if your lucky, be able to say what a horse is capable of as a foal 1/2 or 3 year old on how are they able to judge talent, how is that judged? by movement as that is not talent ? unless its just dressage but the other two Olympic disciplins are talent for jumping speed and staminer how is that being judges at 2 and three in a ring! also maybe the gelding should have been stallion there might be less wastage the Tb is the foundation on which most stud book are built re packaged as warmbloods and sold back to us the famous Didi was a classic example of blood in bloodlines being anglo arab x


----------



## sywell (20 June 2012)

angrovestud said:



			he's a story of how bad grading and evaluations are the British Hanovarian society failed the three year old colt Sarahs pride, He sired one foal and was gelded and then went on to win the Cavan high jump, the royal highland became a grade A show jumper winning the hoys puissance then beating Randi, he then got sold to the the USA.
 No one can look into the future unless of course they have crystal balls.

 Due to this happening I have no faith in opinion, its resuts that count and frankly some horses have faults, like humans they excell at other things.

if grading was so good why do  racehorse not get graded? would they also have to be graded on looks and comfo and type? why dont sports horse people learn from the likes of weatherbys and let the market sort the wheat from the chaff, you pretty soon learn who not to use, bad legs bad temp, no darn good at jumping!  its run by vested intested and people who want to set themselves up as all knowing!
The graders did the one thing they should be looking for the did not spot talent! rare jumping bloodlines in the TB as well
		
Click to expand...

What year was that I cannot remember a horse called Sarahs Pride or was it called something else then. I cannot see a grading report for that horse.


----------



## ihatework (20 June 2012)

I've skim read the entire thread, am quite confused, not quite sure if I have got the gist of the argument from either side LOL!!!

I've been to a couple of the futurities, and my understanding is they are not a grading in any way shape or form. Just an opinion on the day of a group of experts on your youngster. 

From my experience the vetting opinion has been very good, but as for the rest, well I won't repeat my thoughts (but mostly around what I consider bog standard animals obtaining decent marks). I would also say there is a bit of bias in the overall results, some stallions come out high, but then usually the stud is trying to use the futurity as a marketing device.

TBH I don't know any buyers that actually hold much value in the futurity score at all.

The benefits I see to futurity are more for the slightly smaller scale breeders who want an evaluation of their stock, the vet feedback usually being the most useful IMO. To this end I don't understand the exclusion of ungraded stallions, I think the Futurity should be open to all but also MUCH more critically marked. I mean why have a 1-10 scale when the bulk fall into a 7.5-8.5 bracket?


----------



## Alec Swan (20 June 2012)

ihatework said:



			.......

TBH I don't know any buyers that actually hold much value in the futurity score at all.

.......
		
Click to expand...

I have to say that I would agree with you.  I started a thread,  a while back asking if anyone could tell me of any of the leading foals of their years,  who had gone on,  and proved the judges right.  The replies were a little disappointing,  in that apart from a bit of coughing and spluttering,  there were only a couple,  if that,  and they hadn't set the world alight.  It would be interesting,  to now conversely look at the better 6-8 year olds,  and see if they were presented,  and if they were,  what the judges thought of them. 

There is an undoubted use for the Futurities.  Just as I take my lambs to a market so that I can have them stand beside other lambs,  so I can either be proud,  or disappointed!  For breeders to have their foals rub shoulders with others,  gives them the chance,  hopefully with an un-jaundiced eye(!),  to be their own critics,  or admirers.  

I know nothing of the Futurities,  but when a foal is offered up,  presumably there's a listing of some sort,  so would the foal's breeding be listed,  and known to the judges?

Alec.


----------



## stolensilver (20 June 2012)

I own two horses who were graded Elite at the Futurity. The oldest is 6. She was the highest scoring 3yo dressage horse in the country. I bought her as a 2yo. And she is fantastic. We haven't been out competing yet but she's got her half passes, her flying changes, she's just started tempis (did her first ever set of 3 changes across the diagonal in a 20x40 school today) and she's got passage, started pirouettes and started piaffe.

And she has not been pushed. She gets ridden 3 times a week by an amateur and had 5 months off work due to sinus surgery as a 5 year old. 

She's got the makings of a future Grand Prix horse and she's an angel to ride. She finds absolutely everything easy. So watch this space. She won't be the next Uthopia but she may get to GP with a very happy amateur owner/rider.


----------



## elijahasgal (20 June 2012)

ihatework said:



			I've skim read the entire thread, am quite confused, not quite sure if I have got the gist of the argument from either side LOL!!!
		
Click to expand...


The long and the short of it as goes is this

On one side, they say that graded stallions are the only way forward if we want to produce our own top level competition horses. That that is the only way of improving our horses.

The other side says (In regards to the Futurity)  that Stock by ALL stallions should be encouraged forwards. That the results will show.  That there are certain stallions that should be graded that havent been for one reason or other....like injury or or or....  Does that stop them passing on the goods, and do the assessors ALWAYS get it right.

To me the true value of a stallion is in what it produces. The futurity doesnt accept ungraded stallions ANY MORE.  What to me that means is that they potentially are missing some fantastic stallions.

The fact that some of the greatest stallions have had trouble grading doesnt bother the "must be graded" side, and the other side will say that well its proof the system isnt perfect.


----------



## Anastasia (21 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			The fact that some of the greatest stallions have had trouble grading doesnt bother the "must be graded" side, and the other side will say that well its proof the system isnt perfect.
		
Click to expand...

For me there is a big difference to stallions not having gone forward for grading until later in life OR those that have not been accepted by one book but have by another, OR even those that have scraped through a performance test.  By your own quote above several had actually gone on to do performance tests.  However, there is a BIG difference to a horse that has essentially failed on THREE occasions in front of three different group of judges.

As a "must be graded side" that is my choice to make, I want to use mares and stallions that have been evaluated by qualified and experienced judges (where on occasion they can miss something......they are human after all).  If people use an ungraded stallion, that is also their choice, however there no point then crying when the offspring is not eligible for something, as YOU made that choice when you selected that stallion for your mare.

At the end of the day mare owners can choose whether they go with an ungraded or graded stallion, that is their freedom of choice, and then they can let the performance of the horses they breed speak for themselves in sport, as essentially that is what people are breeding for.

The fact is that they have to accept that the Futurity have rules for entry, just as you have with some shows.  If you choose to use an ungraded stallion then you have to realise that the stock are not eligible for entry to the Futurity.   This has been in the offing for years, it clearly stated in the Futurity fact sheets that this rule was going to come into place this year.

As it stands the Futurity is only looking at a very very small proportion of the whole of the UKs horse population, so its never going to give a true reading anyway.  It would have to cover a much wider area of the UK and assess a lot more horses to get a true feeling for what stallions are producing in the UK.

I have supported the Futurity for several years, then for last year and this year my stock have/wont go forward.  Will this stop them being excellent sport horses in the future, unlikely, because its all going to be down to the person producing them.  Are my buyers bothered about my foals not going forward for the Futurity.......not at all, because my foals speak for themselves.

Alec - the evaluators at the Futurity used to have a catalogue that listed the horses name, age, owner, breeder and bloodlines for each entry.


----------



## ribbons (21 June 2012)

Whilst I maintain the graded sire only rule is a bad move, I totally agree with anastasia. The rule is there, the choice is ours. 
Interestingly, I understand there are still quite a few dates and venues available this year. Places filling more slowly than previous years. I know official word is that entries are unaffected by the ruling but only time will tell. 
Sadly I think in the event of it being decided this was a mistake and ruling being reversed in future years (unlikely) the damage may already have been done. I find it so sad that one or two people with huge ego's think that they know best and everyone will accept that, and do as they're told.


----------



## Anastasia (21 June 2012)

ribbons said:



			I find it so sad that one or two people with huge ego's think that they know best and everyone will accept that, and do as they're told.
		
Click to expand...

Ribbons I dont necessarily agree with this.  I dont think that this change in the ruling is down to ego's and people trying to tell others what to do.  The BEF have a clear plan of what they want to achieve on horse performance in the UK, and to try and make improvements in the breeding of horses,  and if this is trying to "encourage" people to use graded stallions then surely this cannot be seen as a bad thing.  

They are not dictating what stallions people have to choose on their mares, what they are saying is that for them and their process of selection for the future they want to encourage people to bring forward stock by graded stallions.  You cannot shoot them down for trying to encourage people to be more responsible breeders surely?

The UK has a diverse mixed market place and about 95% of horse owners will likely never enter the futurity, so is this such a huge deal?  

On the positive fronts it gives horse owners a "tool" to see how their own breeding programmes are going.  It allows people to compare their youngstock to others of a similar age across the UK.  You get good publicity if your youngstock do well.  Its a good education for breeders and horses.

On the negative fronts - it really does not make a difference on selling, its too early to see whether it will make an impact on the future of the UK top level sport horses, its expensive (lol), it doesnt cover all areas of the UK, there has always been a bit of "cloak and dagger" about the "experience" of some of the evaluators.

So it really has to be up to each individual what direction they wish to go and take.


----------



## Cherrygarden (21 June 2012)

It is not the suggestion that horses should be graded that upsets me, if I keep breeding then I am certainly working towards having stallions graded but what keeps coming to my attention is the amount of holes in the system and the implication that this is being done to improve things when in fact the powers that be simply look the other way when issues are pointed out. Like the difference in standards that lets some through with one piece of paper and not others with actually a better standard piece of paper or no paper, the fact that since DNA we can say that horses from then forwards can be considered to have un verified even if recorded breeding due to lack of DNA when there are still older horses with breeding we accept as verified and we all know it could be anything it liked because no one would have checked or cared and then this information can be the make or break. Or that actually if you look through the lists and rules, Stallions that have failed proper performance gradings can still send stock forward if they are previously licensed part bred or racing tb/arab whatever that fit other parts of the rules. This can and will happen despite the fact that the various partbred licenses available from Native books are really only looking for stallions to produce for the show ring not sporting potential at all. Surely under these rules if a stallion has failed a sport related grading he should too be excluded regardless of his license? I am sure that will happen too in years to come but all I see is that one half of a system is moving too fast away from another and that problems will occur because of this. Until at the very least no foal can be given an ID only passport without at the very least its Dam recorded on it and until there is one, universally available license scheme available for any stallion and accepted as a minimum standard by all competions, evaluations and at some level by all studbooks then excluding people and hoping they will learn is just going to drive them further away.


----------



## Anastasia (21 June 2012)

Cherrygarden I get what you are saying, but I dont know how there can be a "one size fits all" system, especially with the amount of different breed types in the UK.

I can only speak from a sport horse perspective and although there is no perfect grading system out there, there still has to be "some system out there".    Breeders who adhere to any of the breed society systems and pay their annual fees are basically acknowledging that they accept the system they are buying in to. Again its a choice a breeder can make, or not.

I am a member of the Scottish Sportshorse, KWPN and Hanoverians I accept their rules and regulations, if I was not happy I would not be a member.  I may have mares, foals or stallions graded through them and if they do well then that is great, if not then I have to accept that as part of the system.

For me you would have to be a bit more specific on what you are saying, regarding what Studbooks you are speaking about and what breed.


----------



## angrovestud (21 June 2012)

sywell said:



			What year was that I cannot remember a horse called Sarahs Pride or was it called something else then. I cannot see a grading report for that horse.
		
Click to expand...







1995 sorry I was not around yesterday but here are the photos as a four year old colt and then later winning the cavan high jump I did ot own him by the way so I do not know why he failed


----------



## Cherrygarden (21 June 2012)

Anastasia what I feel is that there should be a minimum standard that is applied to all stallions by one central body first, if every stallion standing can achieve that and as a result as a minimum send stock forward into any competition, evaluation or Grading albeit at entry level then after that stallions and owners can go the route that best suits. Ideally a universal license that is somewhere above a basic license with a decent vetting or mandatory x rays and heritable traits examination with limits put on the amount of foals produced until they can be evaluated and all must be seen initially and for the stallion owner to give some indication of what they think they are standing their stallion to produce even if that is horse agility superstars.
If we started there and everyone was subject to that same entry level before deciding on performance tests or grading on results or being given stars for being an in hand showing progenitor then at least there would be a level playing field to start from, some security for mare owners and a system that was accountable.
I have lost interest in whether the BEF and the Futurity could work that in though so am just following my own thought train here now.


----------



## elijahasgal (21 June 2012)

I think Anastasia that you and I must be talking about different stallions, as the stallion that I used did not fail 3times.

I think that the point should be that stallions have to pass a basic health check.....before that there can be a limit of 10 foals a year produced by the owner. The Health check should screen for the things that we do not wish passed on, and should be accross the board for all societies.  Performance tests should be left to each individual society, and not play a part in the futurity.

Each society should reassess the stallions first crop of foals. then again after 5 years, and if it is consistently passing on a problem, then license removed. 

This would allow horses through that might otherwise be excluded, and allow our potential champion stallions a shop window. It would exclude the problems that we all want removed from our horses. It would also allow the owner to check out their own stallion before going through all the grading. 

What about the foals? Well Its happening anyway. It would in theory limit the amount


----------



## sywell (21 June 2012)

angrovestud said:








1995 sorry I was not around yesterday but here are the photos as a four year old colt and then later winning the cavan high jump I did ot own him by the way so I do not know why he failed
		
Click to expand...

Strange I looked in the 1995 show enteries and cannot see a record must have been a late entry.


----------



## Sportznight (21 June 2012)

WRT to OCD surgeries and the 'sites' being visible clinically to the naked eye and on x-rays taken at a later date - well that all depends on the type of OCD, the location, the skill of the surgeon and the level of after care given!!  

I know of a TB bought at the Keeneland November sales about 10 years ago for $4,000.  He was BEAUTIFULLY bred and a stunning looking foal, but he had OCD in a knee - he left the sales ground and went straight into surgery.  Ten months later he was back at Keeneland and the September Yearling Sales, in Book 1 and he made $400,000 and believe me, unless you had prior knowledge of the OCD and the surgery, you would not have had an inkling that it was there!

I also know of 1 TB stallion, standing as a Sportshorse in the UK that had DREADFUL OCD as a foal...  He failed his initial SHBGB grading, I don't know why and I see that he doesn't appear to be standing at stud any longer...


----------



## Truly (22 June 2012)

Actually I can't see the point of fully grading stallions until they are 7yo. Maybe they should just have vetting done to get a license as a 3yo and they graded at 7yo to give them time to prove themselves as a sporthorse and a sire.
There just seems so many flaws in the grading system that I don't understand why this country has to conform to European rules if we want to improve our breeding industry.
I really believe grading should be a bonus not a compulsory...the choice should be ours.


----------



## sywell (22 June 2012)

Truly said:



			Actually I can't see the point of fully grading stallions until they are 7yo. Maybe they should just have vetting done to get a license as a 3yo and they graded at 7yo to give them time to prove themselves as a sporthorse and a sire.
There just seems so many flaws in the grading system that I don't understand why this country has to conform to European rules if we want to improve our breeding industry.
I really believe grading should be a bonus not a compulsory...the choice should be ours.
		
Click to expand...

I think there are merits in the KWPN system where stallions are revisited at 7. I do not accept that overall there are many flaws in the grading system. We have failed to improve our breeding at the speed of European countries and to speed the cycle up to asses 3 year olds works and not wait until they are 7 or 10 to show their competition skills. The new Westphalian that Fox Pitt has as his team horse has a pedigree littered with top horses and a number of TBs he is by a Holstein stallion with Ladykiller XX in the pedigree and Sacromento Song XX on the dam side.


----------



## elijahasgal (22 June 2012)

The thing is in this country our values are different, and our market is different to the continent.
Huge numbers are happy to have a horse just to hack out on a few times a week, many want to take part in low key local competitions. 
plenty compete, and yes grading is essentially for horses of that level and up. 
The stallions that have missed the grading, that I typed out before, it wouldnt really bother me, except they were BRILLIANT stallions, like the best. And graders were missing them. The value of a stallion is in what it produces. 
And we produce in general what the market desires.  Lower level riders dont really want massivly high powered horses.


----------



## magic104 (22 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			Lower level riders dont really want massivly high powered horses.
		
Click to expand...

But not all that have decent pedigress & considered high powered are unsuitable for lower level riders.  Just like not all TB's are unsuitable for novices because they are all hot-heads.  Or all cobs are suitable for novices.  

These discussions have been going on for as long as I can remember & beyond.  Nothing is perfect but gradings, the BEF Futurities etc are better then nothing.


----------



## elijahasgal (23 June 2012)

magic104 said:



			But not all that have decent pedigress & considered high powered are unsuitable for lower level riders.  Just like not all TB's are unsuitable for novices because they are all hot-heads.  Or all cobs are suitable for novices.  

These discussions have been going on for as long as I can remember & beyond.  Nothing is perfect but gradings, the BEF Futurities etc are better then nothing.
		
Click to expand...




I think that you will find the MAJORITY of people who are against what is going on in the Futurity.etc, would rather a standardised system
KWPN x-rays have to be clear when the stallion grades, Hanoverians they can have OCD prevalant. 

Maybe it is time that we have our own standards. That even if these foreign horses stand in this country, they have to conform to OUR rules and our standards. Nothing is going to stop the import of semen though. And no I am not on about GRADING, I am on about the health, x-rays, DNA for anything hereditary. 

What we also need is a catagory for young horses that have injured themselves, as there are a few about, with all the qualaties that we want to be breeding from. 

But then to exclude them from the Futurity for being from as yet unlisenced stallions?  You miss a fantastic chance to assess new stallions, that may be passing on exactly the qualaties that we need, and identifying them quicker, AND helping owners improve their knowledge.

Without being funny, a huge amount of the warmblood market is bloodline to bloodline, without a clue as to what confirmation faults need improving. I would be willing to bet though that the studs that are producing the best stock have the old values, assessing confirmation, assessing weaknesses and strengths, and the ability to improve mares with the correct stallion.


----------



## magic104 (23 June 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			. 

But then to exclude them from the Futurity for being from as yet unlisenced stallions?  You miss a fantastic chance to assess new stallions, that may be passing on exactly the qualaties that we need, and identifying them quicker, AND helping owners improve their knowledge.

Without being funny, a huge amount of the warmblood market is bloodline to bloodline, without a clue as to what confirmation faults need improving. I would be willing to bet though that the studs that are producing the best stock have the old values, assessing confirmation, assessing weaknesses and strengths, and the ability to improve mares with the correct stallion.
		
Click to expand...

The argument is that if a horse has not been under saddle then you can not truely asses their temperments.  We all know that horses on the ground can be totally different when under saddle & being asked to work.  The other issue is never knowing if that same horse would have stayed sound in regular work.  This is why there is no black or white, right or wrong.  The proof is in the offspring, but a horse can have many offspring before any issues come to light.  Foals are not good enough to evaluate a mare or stallion it is their offspring under saddle that matter.


----------



## Springs (27 June 2012)

ribbons said:



			Whilst I maintain the graded sire only rule is a bad move, I totally agree with anastasia. The rule is there, the choice is ours. 
Interestingly, I understand there are still quite a few dates and venues available this year. Places filling more slowly than previous years. I know official word is that entries are unaffected by the ruling but only time will tell. 
Sadly I think in the event of it being decided this was a mistake and ruling being reversed in future years (unlikely) the damage may already have been done. I find it so sad that one or two people with huge ego's think that they know best and everyone will accept that, and do as they're told.
		
Click to expand...

Yes the choice is ours, and after supporting the futurity since the begining we have decided not to present our 4 youngsters this year! As a small breeder we found the futurity ideal, you paid £50 and had you youngster assessed by professional evaulators..... such a shame.

But looking to the future we don't realy need the futurity anymore, it would be nice to go and get some feedback etc, but now we have the contacts of a number of top riders who are chasing us for the rides on our youngsters which speaks volumes for our breeding program and the use of unlicened stallions and mares.


----------



## sporthorseP (27 June 2012)

have people found that a good futurity result makes a youngster easier to sell or adds value? 

Friend of mine is thinking of having her youngster graded next year as she plans to sell him on as a potential eventer, but just need to know a few more stats on it all really!


----------

