Hi All
I'm having a bit of a debate "downunder" regarding the foals of mares following a fallow season.
I do remember reading an article sometime last year based on US studies and I am sure that I have read your comments here in the past.
If they are not nursing at the same time as developing a foetus, then wouldn't that take some "strain" off the mare and possibly re-divert all the "good stuff" to the new baby? That's not very technical is it?
Would it be feasible to say that there is more chance the foal would have better bone and size and perhaps be "healthier" than if the mare just kept having them year in and year out?
Assuming of course that the mare was left fallow for a reason other than being a problem breeder.
Would love your comments and any links to articles would also be appreciated.
PS Did breed stud quality beef cattle some years ago and it wasn't always the best cow that threw the biggest calves. It was usually the one that had the calf weaned early or had slipped.....
Fallow Mares
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
Fallow mares
The soil has to be rich in minerals to have healthy strong bone in foals. Poor soil poor bone development.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
Thanks Louis but I think that the farm where our broodmares are situated is pretty good! It's an ex-diary farm on black volcanic soil.
If you are interested, a photo of our first born can be viewed at http://www.glenloganstud.com.au/2004%20 ... g_Page.htm
It's the Shot Of Thunder-Halo Rose colt.
I was just wondering whether (all things being equal) there is an advantage with fallow mares.....
If you are interested, a photo of our first born can be viewed at http://www.glenloganstud.com.au/2004%20 ... g_Page.htm
It's the Shot Of Thunder-Halo Rose colt.
I was just wondering whether (all things being equal) there is an advantage with fallow mares.....
My opinion is that as long as the mare is healthy and in good condition, and well taken care of through her pregnancy, there would be no advantage to skipping a year.
The reason I think this is because during the first 7 months of gestation, pregnant mares have the same nutrient requirements as non-pregnant mares. The foal does by far the largest percentage of growing and developing during the final trimester. By that time, the previous year's foal should be weaned and all of the mare's "reserves" should be pointed at the development of the fetus.
So, as long as the mare is in a good body condition and properly dewormed and vaccinated, I see no problem with breeding every year. As an added plus, it can be easier to re-breed the mare if she has foaled that year, and more difficult to re-breed her if she had an "empty" year; so as a breeder, that's another aspect to consider as well.
The reason I think this is because during the first 7 months of gestation, pregnant mares have the same nutrient requirements as non-pregnant mares. The foal does by far the largest percentage of growing and developing during the final trimester. By that time, the previous year's foal should be weaned and all of the mare's "reserves" should be pointed at the development of the fetus.
So, as long as the mare is in a good body condition and properly dewormed and vaccinated, I see no problem with breeding every year. As an added plus, it can be easier to re-breed the mare if she has foaled that year, and more difficult to re-breed her if she had an "empty" year; so as a breeder, that's another aspect to consider as well.
Hi Flight
Assuming you give a mare the year off...I wouldn't assume she will cycle and conceive in a prompt fashion the following year...as you hope for or expect. She may do everything right...but then again she may not.
I recommend (that barring any problems) you do not give a mare the year off by (your) choice. She will most likely take one (or more) years off on her own...whether you like it or not...sometimes for no apparent reason.
Now if a mare has foaled late (for example)...or has some infection (or whatever)...or her age or general condition come into play...now that adds some new twists to the premise and raises the obvious questions...and a decision must be made at that time as to what is in everyone's best interest...particularly the mare.
But in general if they're healthy...I recommend keep on truckn'.
As far as the quality of foals born after a "fallow" year (as you call it)...versus the quality of foals born the year after their dams had foaled the previous year...I don't know of any evidence that would support the premise that the post-fallow-year-foal is better than the others...or vice versa (for that matter).
There may be opinions and theories...but I know of no substantiated evidence which might confirm such a premise.
For now it's probably safe to say that it's a matter of personal opinion and/or preference...at least until proven otherwise.
But as you know...some don't like foals out of older mares...some don't like foals by older stallions...some like the first foal out of a mare...some may like foals that were born the year following a "fallow" or "empty" year etc etc etc.
Interesting question though.
Best
Respectfully
Assuming you give a mare the year off...I wouldn't assume she will cycle and conceive in a prompt fashion the following year...as you hope for or expect. She may do everything right...but then again she may not.
I recommend (that barring any problems) you do not give a mare the year off by (your) choice. She will most likely take one (or more) years off on her own...whether you like it or not...sometimes for no apparent reason.
Now if a mare has foaled late (for example)...or has some infection (or whatever)...or her age or general condition come into play...now that adds some new twists to the premise and raises the obvious questions...and a decision must be made at that time as to what is in everyone's best interest...particularly the mare.
But in general if they're healthy...I recommend keep on truckn'.
As far as the quality of foals born after a "fallow" year (as you call it)...versus the quality of foals born the year after their dams had foaled the previous year...I don't know of any evidence that would support the premise that the post-fallow-year-foal is better than the others...or vice versa (for that matter).
There may be opinions and theories...but I know of no substantiated evidence which might confirm such a premise.
For now it's probably safe to say that it's a matter of personal opinion and/or preference...at least until proven otherwise.
But as you know...some don't like foals out of older mares...some don't like foals by older stallions...some like the first foal out of a mare...some may like foals that were born the year following a "fallow" or "empty" year etc etc etc.
Interesting question though.
Best
Respectfully
You've already had some good replies, I would like to add, though, that timing can also play into the decision.
Being once-a-year breeders, in order to time a foal for roughly the same month next year, you would need to catch the foal heat. So if you have a February foal (August downunder) terrific, but if it is a May baby (November downunder) it might be wise to wait the seven or so months to bring the mare back to an earlier cycle....plus giving her a nice time to rebuild.
Being once-a-year breeders, in order to time a foal for roughly the same month next year, you would need to catch the foal heat. So if you have a February foal (August downunder) terrific, but if it is a May baby (November downunder) it might be wise to wait the seven or so months to bring the mare back to an earlier cycle....plus giving her a nice time to rebuild.