Re: RC: RE: Re: Breeding theories

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/16/99 11:07:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
greymare@jps.net writes:

<<  I question this too, and ask the vets; why do breeders =
 claim that the first foal a mare produces is not the "best", and that it =
 is generally smaller at maturity?  Seems that even if the foal is small =
 at birth; it will "catch up" to the genetic code. >>

The old mare chromosomal problems are pretty well documented, but I've never 
seen a problem with the "first foal" bit, either, or any justification for 
it.  Unless the foal is flat-out stunted (I have an old stallion like that 
who was not only a first foal but also was the survivor of twins--he is about 
13:1, but by a stallion and out of a mare that were both in the 15 hh range, 
and by all indications his foals will be normal sized), the fact that the 
birth weight may be somewhat smaller is not usually a factor.  I see most of 
the griping about first foals coming from QH and Paint halter breeders who 
sell their babies as weanling futurity prospects, and a slightly smaller 
birthweight foal whose dam didn't nurse quite as well can be at a 
disadvantage on that rather artificial stage.  But you are right that they 
tend to catch up in time to be perfectly normal adults.

Heidi


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=