view raw text
IN THE BLUE GRASS By Hugh J. McGuire LEXINGTON, Ky., May 24.— A question* of vital interest to the thoroughbred industry at large and one which is periodi-, cally cally resurrected resurrected and and cally cally resurrected resurrected and and allowed to slip back into oblivion, is again making the rounds of the breeding farms and horsemens Corner. This is the highly complex and controversial subject of the high price of stallion fees and the practices in general use in breeding contracts. More specifically cally the the question question deals deals cally the the question question deals deals with the advisability of substantially reducing stallion fees and, for compensation, dispensing with the "live foal" clause in the breeding contract. On this subject there are probably held more different opinions than on any other matter of breeding because there are so many facets and plans that it might be difficult to get the unanimity of a sizable group necessary to the operation of a new procedure. We say it would be difficult but do not believe it impossible because the present almost national live foal clause developed from conditions to some of which its opponents would revert. AAA A prominent cause of discontent with the live foal clause, which is generally understood to be determined if the foal is able to stand up and nurse in order to get payment of the stud fee, stems from the somewhat basic belief of stallion owners that when a stallion serves a mare he has fulfilled his part of the bargain and should not be held responsible for the failure of the mare, for any number of reasons, to produce a live foal. There is strong, factual argument in favor of this attitude yet right here the oppositi- begins. The question immediately arises as to whether a mare would have to be pronounced in foal or if the mere coverage of the mare would determine the fulfillment of the. contract. AAA This point, however, is not an unsur-mountable barrier and is a clause that could be resolved by a yes or no decision. One faction includes breeders who are of the belief, perhaps benevolent, that a mare owner who pays for a stallion service, is entitled to something concrete in return. There are those who hold that a stallion ■who has served a mare the maximum five times only to find her barren, has g|ven *Live Foal Clause Controversial -Breeder Cited Who Favors Abolition Has No Substitute to Offer, Though scnething of himself for which there should be compensation. AAA Between- these two viewpoints there exist many additional arguments pro and con on the subject and we fancy we detected the opinions expressed were most positively at variance between those who owned stallions and those who did not. This was not always quite true for there are stallion owners who also send their mares to put-side stallions. For this reason it may be pertinent to present one opinion from a prominent breeder who has apparently given the subject deep study. For obvious reasons we will not use his name, but his views merit consideration because he places himself in the unusual position of being solidly in favor of the abolition of the live foal clause yet would hesitate to discard it because he does not believe a substitute would be practical for reasons beyond his control. That is, no one has presented the answer to him and he admits that he does not have it himself. Our Mr. X bluntly lays the cause of the present condition to two general reasons, overproduction of poor qaulity horses — there will never be too many good ones — and mare owners with an unbelievable ignorance of the proper treatment and care of their mares. AAA • To these two fundamental causes of the existing conditions Mr. X adds his belief that with hundreds of stallions available in the lower price ranges, it would be impossible to get the necessary unanimity among their owners. Agreeing that these low priced stallions were necessary, he amazed us with some figures. He stated that if we divided 36 mares in a stallions book into two equal divisions, placing on one side the mares who came from the farms of good, reputable, professional breeders who know their business and give their mares proper care, and on the other side mares from what he termed the "marginal" breeder, the results would be astonishing. AAA He. defined marginal breeders as those with cheap mares, poor help and little know-how. He stated that up to 90 per cent of the first group of mares would get hi foal while only abouj; 40 per cent .of the ►latter group could expect pregnancy. On the face of these figures the first group is carrying the second one for the stallion fee could be substantially reduced if all mares fell into the first group. On the other hand, if the live foal clause was abandoned, owners in the second group would not patronize the stallion, but would seek what might be termed "bootleg" terms. The owner of the original stallion would lose the fees of the 40 per cent of mares in the second group who did get in foal. AAA Reminding that this situation did not hold for many of the top bracket stallions whose fee was above ,000 and whose mares were generally satisfactory, Mr. X noted that, the live foal clause has now been in wide use for some 20 years. At that time there were about 5,000 foals registered each year while now the figure seems to be leveling off at near 9,000. The year 1927 was the first in which as many as 4,000 foals were registered. With this increase in the number of foals came a corresponding expansion in the number of stallions in the lower fee bracket. Very few of these stallions had and still do not have books that are overflowing. This led to the added inducement to mare owners of the live foal clause. Mr. X is of the opinion that such a clause never would have been put into use except for these conditions. It must be remembered that Mr. X is opposed to the live foal clause but admits he has no solution that satisfies him, to the problem of abolishing it.
