b4breeding

I’ve never been keen on embryo transfers except when the mare is unable (for whatever reason) to carry naturally.  I worried about us getting into a ‘factory farming’ situation where the complex mix of nature (genes) and nuture (early upbringing) was lost in the hurry to make money above all.

I’ve changed my mind. Not my principles, just my mind.

I believe the ability to breed two foals per season from one individual mare creates opportunities for the breeder and the industry overall which just cannot be discounted. And I believe two foals should be the limit.

Of course, the idea will be discounted. I am sure there is a piece of obscure government legislation, some racing industry committee or board, or just a clause in HRNZ rules that requires everyone to unanimously agree on changing from the status quo…well, I’m not interested at this stage about why we CAN’T do this. I am only interested in discussing whether it will help our breeding and overall harness racing industry, given the decreasing number of foals and breeders we have.

It’s not exactly going to open the floodgates – but it may help the flow.

So let’s tick off what the benefits could be:

For breeders

1. It allows a potentially greater and more frequent return on investment (the broodmare) over her limited productive years. Therefore it makes a good broodmare a sounder financial investment (even allowing for the cost of embryonic transfer and an additional carrier mare), and gives the breeder more opportunity in a shorter period of time to discover the ability of the mare as a producer.
2. It gives breeders the chance to spread their risk among a wider range of sires. For example, a breeder may go to a “tried and true” top commercial sire with one foal and a risky but exciting new sire with the other. Or perhaps a compatible but less commercial sire, and keep the foal to race. So newer or well priced sires may benefit from this proposal, and get access to better quality mares.
3. It allows breeders more chance to get one healthy foal, and perhaps a foal of the sex they prefer. The high risk nature of breeding means that any significant conformation problem or injury, or even getting a filly rather than a colt, can prove a real disappointment to the breeder and impact hugely on the likely sales result or racing outcome. Double the chance does not double the risk – it may not half it, but it can reduce it significantly.
4. More breeders using embryo transfer will bring down the costs of the process, and therefore cost will be less of a barrier.
5. It creates a new ‘career option’ for mares who are not commercially bred but have the qualities to make really good carriers and ‘surrogate mums’ to their foals. Some mares may have a top record and carry great genes but are not the best at delivering and raising foals. And some mares may not have top (or desired) breeding, but have the good nature, physique and quality colostrum to add value to a foal. Rather than creating the ‘factory farming’ scenario I was worried about, embryo transfer can create a market (lease or sale) for mares who may otherwise be lost to us – and they could still be available to breed in their own right if required. Some breeders will already have mares more suitable to be surrogate mums than to continue as commercial broodmares.
6. The limit of two foals per mare per season (and from different sires) means that the market will not be inundated with “doubles”. This is not a cloning exercise. It is likely that numbers will be a very small proportion of total foals initially. So breeders will not be ‘competing against themselves’ and the overall genetic pool will not be unduly affected. Much less affected, indeed, than it is by the tsunami of sperm coming from highly popular sires!

It is easy enough to note ET at registration of foals – an administrative hassle no doubt, but what isn’t. And in any subsequent notation a simple (E) after the name could provide the flag required for those who want to know and for the record the surrogate mare’s name should be recorded.

Who would take up an option like this? Not heaps of breeders, initially. But more as the merits sink in. Probably it would appeal to the biggest breeders, and also the smallest. The latter being people like me, who have a really good mare but rely on her results for any re-investment in breeding, which makes expanding a slow and fragile venture.

Of course some breeders may want to breed a mare twice every second year.  The mare is not exhausted from breeding and there are many who believe resting a mare can produce a quality foal.

So for the industry:

1. It creates a way of increasing foal numbers without necessarily increasing the number of mares bred – it helps stop the downward spiral of breeding numbers.
2. It creates opportunities for less proven “higher risk” sires to get progeny on the ground, and perhaps from a better class of mares. It may well be a requirement to breed a mare to two DIFFERENT sires in any one season, if embryo transfer is being used, to encourage this to happen.
3. It creates more services/service fees for the studs and sire owners, both of whom are important for our industry’s success.
4. It has the potential to raise the quality and (ironically) the diversity of our breed.
5. It does not impact negatively on the product (race horses) as perceived by the investing punter.

What do you think?

And before you say: “it’ll never fly” just remember that pigs don’t, but bumble bees do!