The answer is: YES. Stallions and mares have different rules.
What I am less sure about is the WHY. Sure, when it comes to racing I know it needs tougher and exceptional fillies and mares to step up to compete in the best classes – and it can be done.
But when it comes to breeding, I believe the only reasons for separate rules for the males and the females is for the health of the horse, the impact on the overall industry, and the ability for those investing ( the breeders) to get a fair go at a return.
That’s why I read with a lot of interest the American newsletter Harness Racing Update which talked about the mixing of siring duties with a horse that continues his racing career. As the article said (and it is a good article, well written and reasoned) there are many horses in Europe who have done this for years, and in North America the penny is just starting to drop. You can have a bet each way, if the stallion is able and willing and managed correctly. I really like that idea, as it keeps great male horses racing (with an added incentive to keep proving their worth) and it allows those slightly-less famous horses with great breeding and/or performance a chance to prove their worth in the breeding barn.
So…why is there the resistance to mares doing the same? The resistance to embryo transfer has been (still is?) enormous and bureaucratic compared to the freedom stallions now have to race and breed at the same time. It is regarded as something almost scandalous to take an egg off a racing mare. If our champion mare of today Adore Me used a surrogate mare to breed a foal while she raced on, how would you feel about that?
Now compare that to how you feel about a champion stallion having a go at siring in his off season with 20 or more mares.
It’s about transferring sperm and eggs. It’s not rocket science.
The rules changed when AI was approved. And the rules need to be reviewed in the light of the current industry’s future. The focus needs to be more on industry needs and horse welfare, than the ideological resistance of some people based on – how do I say this politely? – prejudice that may be a remnant of our own human struggle with inequality among the sexes.
Another example is the ability of a sire, via artificial insemination (AI) to cover in theory many hundreds of mares across a range of countries. Whereas a mare (although accessing a number of sires potentially), must settle on one stallion – you hope – to get pregnant during one season.
Isn’t this a form of wastage, when compared to the stallion’s options?
A while back I floated the idea of a mare being able to get more than one foal per season via surrogate mares. It was greeted with a warm reception from many breeders who saw how, like stallion owners, you need to maximise you investment while you can.
But the effort to get things changed – particularly internationally – seems a long way off. I doubt if it has been more than “raised”, if that.
If that is the case, then I think breeders are being short-changed.
More than that, I think the old arguments about what is okay for the boy but wrong for the girl are lurking in a way that a future looking industry doesn’t need.
You can put good rules around anything. If you REALLY want to. It just takes effort and good will.
I’d go for just allowing a mare to breed twice in a season (hey, we know it is hard enough to get one positive strike, but it would be lovely to have two options).
And that would be enough to double the potential breeding of each mare in New Zealand, although reality is that the cost of providing for good surrogate mares has to be taken into account and only breeders with good quality mares would probably look at the option. But isn’t that the right signal?
The results for the industry would be more foals on the ground, from quality mares. And probably from more diverse sires, if the rules were set correctly.
We are so used to seeing top sires dominating the progeny in one race – Bettor’s Delight, Sundon, Mach Three, etc.
Why are we so adverse to seeing a mare’s name more than once on the ledger?
It makes you think, eh.
Anyone reading my blog will know how much I love the mares I have. This is not about “being greedy”. It is about opening our minds to think EQUALLY and FAIRLY about breeding. In the end, the choices are still (and should be) individual and personal and with some sound financial basis, and within the rules. But maybe it is time to change those rules to a more equitable situation between sires and mares.
What do you think? Responses welcome to this blog.
b4breeding 