The OP did mention that economics and financial reason aside…
I think the point was whether it was causing harm or being unfair to the mare.
Kerole. I am sorry…I missed that! hard to put those ? aside…
But as a MD…I can’t comment if “not” breeding is unfair…because extrapolating to humans, we have decided to choose
The mare will tell you if she isn’t up to it, by not catching or resorbing or aborting. One of the theories that I follow is that (if cost is no consequence) don’t give the mare a year because she will eventually take one.
[QUOTE=Kerole;6282869]
The OP did mention that economics and financial reason aside…
I think the point was whether it was causing harm or being unfair to the mare.[/QUOTE]
Yes the question was asked more from the mare’s health POV. I just saw someone bashing someone who was going through a rough time and they had mentioned how breeding the mare every year or even every other year was unethical and was hurting the mare. Thank you to everyone who took time to weigh in 
See, I find this very interesting. I am not taking a position one way or the other, but …
we think it’s awful if someone breeds a dog on every heat cycle (twice a year) and consider that we are being cruel to the dog - in fact most breed clubs put rules against this and anyone who breeds like this is considered a cruel puppy mill…
and we think it’s terrible if some man breeds his wife every year, producing a child every 10-11 months and we condemn him for subjegating his wife and risking her life and health…
but here we are saying a mare “needs” to be kept pregnant every year or she will lose her fertility.
Um, if there have been no studies, why would we believe this? Why is it any less awful for a mare to have foal after foal after foal every year than for a woman or a dog to do so?
Really? I’m curious as to the logic (or lack of logic) in this.
Sonesta - You are right of course. I have always believed that an older mare is better kept pregnant every year for fear of her ‘hanging up her uterus’ (so to speak!). But this is based on anecdotal evidence and experience. As someone who prefers science and hard data anyday, why have been happy to assume that this is correct?
I am not a dog breeder so forgive me if I sound dim. Is it actually cruel to breed a dog twice a year? I mean does it affect her negatively health wise? Isn’t the restrictions and ‘puppy mill’ problem to do with not wishing to flood the market with pups, rather than the health of the bitch?
Again anyone with some data concerning breeding the older mare every year?
[QUOTE=Kerole;6282661]
I have always believed that an older uterus is easier to get in foal if they don’t have much time off. But you’re right, I have not seen the data to back this up…
Anyone know of any research on this?[/QUOTE]
I do not have any research right in front of me but I do believe it exists. I went to a repro seminar last year and they gave a statistic along the lines of, “older mares (over 16??) are xx% less likely to ever conceive again if they have been given more than one season off.”
I have always believed that an older uterus is easier to get in foal if they don’t have much time off. But you’re right, I have not seen the data to back this up…
Anyone know of any research on this?
I asked a friend of mine who is a top repro vet this very question because I have always HEARD this is the case, but no one could explain “why”. He did … … and then it made perfect sense …
With the older girls, many have clearance issues or less than ideal uterine tone. If you leave them open for a year to “give them a year off”, trying to be nice to them, their cervix opens every cycle and then closes up again. If contaminants get in there, and/or they have fluid retention issues, they have a harder time flushing everything out each cycle, so its conceivable that an infection will set in by the time you go to breed them next year. Making them difficult or impossible to get in foal
If they are bred each and every year, that cervical opening opens and closes only a couple of times before they are back in foal once again, thus not allowing any contaminants to enter, or only a minimal amount
Made complete sense to me …
So was this whole thread about “older” broodmares? Sorry if I missed that!
Not necessarily ‘older’ mares, but it is one of the reasons people breed their mares every year - for fear that they will be more difficult to get in foal at a later date, especially if they’re older.
Edited to combine two different posts:
I must object to this statement. Many women who are breastfeeding their babies will not become pregnant for at least 6 months after giving birth since a woman’s body does not make the hormone necessary for ovulation. Now of course, this is not the case for women who formula feed or supplement with formula, but the discussion at hand is about what mares (or in this case, female women :lol: ) do naturally. Breastfeeding is used worldwide as a natural form of birth control. 
As always, there are exceptions to the rule, but mothers who exclusively breastfeed have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming pregnant the first 6 months postpartum. I’m not current on the stats past this time frame, but it remains effective at some level.
True Colours - most responsible breeders do a culture on mares - regardless of age - before breeding. I’ve seen no data on your observation that there are more infections in mares of the same age who are not bred compared to those that are bred.
Also just settling an older mare is often not the biggest challenge - it’s maintaining the pregnancy that is.
A mares conformation degrades over time, and the possibility of infections or fluid retention is a possibility. However, I have a broodmare to make WB foals. Her only purpose is to get pregnant and have foals. If I feel a mare needs a break, I might give her a year off, but that is it. There are only so many foals a mare can have, and I intend to get most of them. It is a business. If you want to compare to nature, they would be bred every year in nature also. Granted I might have a better conseption rate then nature would allow on its own, but that is not the issue. It is silly to ask if it makes sense to keep a broodmare pregnant. What else would you do with her?
Furthermore, there is no point in comparing to Humans, because they are not Humans, or our wifes, or our daughters. As far as I can tell, women are not kept as brood stock in this country. It would be like asking the dairy world to not keep cows lactating for a year. Give the cows a year off, you say? Then breed her again. Most dairy cows lactate till they are 7 or 8, and then are slaughtered. Again not good for business.
Tim
[QUOTE=TrueColours;6283058]
I asked a friend of mine who is a top repro vet this very question because I have always HEARD this is the case, but no one could explain “why”. He did … … and then it made perfect sense …
With the older girls, many have clearance issues or less than ideal uterine tone. If you leave them open for a year to “give them a year off”, trying to be nice to them, their cervix opens every cycle and then closes up again. If contaminants get in there, and/or they have fluid retention issues, they have a harder time flushing everything out each cycle, so its conceivable that an infection will set in by the time you go to breed them next year. Making them difficult or impossible to get in foal
If they are bred each and every year, that cervical opening opens and closes only a couple of times before they are back in foal once again, thus not allowing any contaminants to enter, or only a minimal amount
Made complete sense to me … :)[/QUOTE]
I have been told the same.
I also feel not considering economics in this discussion is ridiculous. No one is breeding in that vacuum. Costs are continuing to rise in every aspect of our business and sales seem to be increasing only in the category of horses working undersaddle with show experience.
I’m also turned off by breeders inferring they MUST get every single foal they can out of a mare…that’s their job. Too dispassionate for me.
[QUOTE=Kerole;6283015]
Sonesta - You are right of course. I have always believed that an older mare is better kept pregnant every year for fear of her ‘hanging up her uterus’ (so to speak!). But this is based on anecdotal evidence and experience. As someone who prefers science and hard data anyday, why have been happy to assume that this is correct?
I am not a dog breeder so forgive me if I sound dim. Is it actually cruel to breed a dog twice a year? I mean does it affect her negatively health wise? Isn’t the restrictions and ‘puppy mill’ problem to do with not wishing to flood the market with pups, rather than the health of the bitch?
Again anyone with some data concerning breeding the older mare every year?[/QUOTE]
Dogs in the wild only come into heat once a year. So that might in part be the reason that having back to back litters in a dog can be so hard on them. Puppies “cook” for such a short time it can take a LOT out of a bitch. And then you can have many of the little suckers (hahah literally) draining her. Wild dogs don’t tend to have the same number of puppies either.
Dogs seem much further removed from their wild counterparts (though I got blasted on in my thesis for coming down in my intro saying that dogs and wolves were different species… by many specie models they are not. Though I say behaviourally there is enough of a difference and other issues like this to say they are…)
So as a dog breeder I say yes litters more than once a year are cruel to dogs. That and its harder to find 10 good homes who want to buy your puppies than one for a foal (IME)
[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6283474]
A mares conformation degrades over time, and the possibility of infections or fluid retention is a possibility. However, I have a broodmare to make WB foals. Her only purpose is to get pregnant and have foals. If I feel a mare needs a break, I might give her a year off, but that is it. There are only so many foals a mare can have, and I intend to get most of them. It is a business. If you want to compare to nature, they would be bred every year in nature also. Granted I might have a better conseption rate then nature would allow on its own, but that is not the issue. It is silly to ask if it makes sense to keep a broodmare pregnant. What else would you do with her?
Furthermore, there is no point in comparing to Humans, because they are not Humans, or our wifes, or our daughters. As far as I can tell, women are not kept as brood stock in this country. It would be like asking the dairy world to not keep cows lactating for a year. Give the cows a year off, you say? Then breed her again. Most dairy cows lactate till they are 7 or 8, and then are slaughtered. Again not good for business.
Tim[/QUOTE]
I’m with Tim. My mares have a job. If one of them is unwell - she might get a year off, but otherwise I do my best to get them pregnant every year (sadly, with some every-other-year is what nature dictates). My 10 year old will be having her 7th foal this June. Last year it took several tries to get her pregnant. This year I will try no more than twice. If that fails, she gets a year off.
My 22 year old - in great shape, is being retired after her birthing in early May, and will go into retirement in top form, still with good legs and a super topline. A broodmare can be kept well and kept in foal.
I have to say that some of the womens point of view here about it being cruel to breed a mare every year is unfounded. How would they know ? They themselves aren’t pregnant every year.
I can tell you what is cruel…seeing your breeding mare longing for a foal when she doesn’t have one and her other friends are. Mine love having babies because they know it’s their sole job. When they don’t have a foal…they are clearly unhappy. This is why mares try and steal foals sometimes.
I want to point out again that I was NOT taking a position that breeding a mare every years is cruel. I was merely pointing out the conflict in logic whereby people think it is cruel to keep a dog or a woman pregnant all their lives, but we don’t think anything wrong with keeping a mare pregnant all her life.
I was taking a “devil’s advocate” position for discussion purposes only.
I agree. Also, every vet I have ever worked with recommended that older mares be kept in foal, if one wanted to continue breeding them. They all believed that a year off could make it more difficult for them to conceive.
This year I am retiring three mares. The oldest is twenty, the youngest 14. They have had from 8 to nine foals apiece. They are all retiring in great condition. They had years off, but they were largely dictated by the mare. Their retirement was my personal decision, just as were their breedings. I find second guessing other breeders’ decisions a bit presumptuous.
The person who was bashing a person for breeding yearly or every other year and claiming that the practice is detrimental to a mare’s health is obviously someone who needs a life. :winkgrin:
