BREEDS ON TRIAL (copyright Krisztina Guerra-Kovacs)

Robust elegance, rich chestnut furred muscular legs and docile intelligence characterize the pride of East Anglia, the Suffolk Punch horse. Equestrian author Marguerite Henry lovingly compared it to “a tongue of fire against black field furrows”.

Once a popular workhorse, Britain’s irreplaceable farming ‘machine’ is now rarer than the Giant Panda with only a few enthusiasts keeping the breed from extinction. Among these, the biggest farms are the Suffolk Punch Trust with 20 horses, which was set up in 2002 as an educational charity to save the rare horse type; and Horkesley Park with 23 horses, still working the land with the horses using traditional methods.

The Suffolk Punch is the oldest heavy horse type in great Britain, first bred in the 16th century for the purpose of carrying out difficult land work such as ploughing and logging. What modern day machinery is for us now in modern times, the Suffolk horse was for East Anglia for centuries. Before the Second World War there were over 300,000 Suffolk Punches but within just 20 years their numbers decreased to an alarming few hundreds, and now with so few remaining, the breed has been added to the critically endangered category in the Rare Breed Survival Trust’s Watch list.

The decline of the horse breed was partly due to the vast numbers that were taken away as a warhorse in the First World War to transport troops and supplies, with most of them never returning. However, the main cause of decline was the mechanization of land work after which the breed didn’t stand a chance to recover from its losses.

Susan Pratt, forewoman at Horkesley Farm, explained that although Horkesley is a working farm, they greet the occasional visitor who has some special connection to these horses. She recalls the visit of an 80-year-old man who had previously worked with the Suffolk Punch. “One day on arriving at work he saw a new shiny tractor at the entrance. As he went to clock in, his boss approached him and ordered that he take the horses to the end of the field. That meant the slaughterhouse… Fighting back tears he was powerless against the decision and some 40 horses were killed on that single day.” Such decisions were common and purely economical as farmers began to find no use for the animal.

While they are not particularly comfortable for riding given their wide back, they can be used today for pulling carriages at weddings and funerals, logging in areas where it is difficult to get to by vehicle, and a few ecofriendly farms use the horses still for ploughing – their original purpose.

It takes a very long time to secure a breed from extinction once their numbers reach the endangered category. Thanks to the work of various charities and organizations urging public involvement, the Suffolk horse population has enjoyed a slow growth in recent years. However, it remains questionable whether the breed will ever become popular enough to free itself from extinction.

Now, popularity seems to be the key to survival. Most domestic animal breeds result from human intervention as their existence depends on our demand for usefulness and fashion. They are the creation of men, a product of crossbreeding and genetic modification: a sturdy horse for land work, a tiny docile pony as a toy for children, a dog breed for otter hunting, another dog type small enough to carry around in our purse. Looking through the never ending list of ‘man-made’ creatures we may feel transported to a giant animal supermarket with an abundance of variety to fulfil every need. Marketing campaigns from the supporters of the rare breeds are then similar to promotional material in a store adding to the confusion and shedding guilt on those indifferent to the cause.

Then here are my questions: Are our beloved pets just another object in our consumer society? How unethical is to ‘discard’ a man-made species once we cannot find any use for the breed? Do certain animals need to have a purpose to have the right to exist? While I am not able and do not intend to answer these questions for the reader, I offer some thoughts for further probing.

The Rare Breed Survival Trust counts 126 endangered farm animal species on its list only in great Britain. These consist of once useful types of pig, sheep, poultry, and cattle among others. Another association, the Kennel Club, lists 23 British dog breeds as vulnerable. The decline in popularity of these species translates into a decline in numbers. Popularity is either rooted in fashion as with the case of the ‘designer dog’ or in economic grounds as with the case of the new breeds of pig, sheep and cattle better adapted to current needs.

For example, in recent years, farmers around the world abandoned their traditional animals in favour of more productive live stock imported from Europe and the USA. According to the CGIA, “Uganda’s indigenous Ankole cattle – famous for their graceful and gigantic horns – could face extinction within 20 years because they are being rapidly supplanted by Holstein-Friesians, which produce much more milk.” While the Ankole cattle are a natural species, man-bred types face similar issues. In the last century, 26 British breeds became extinct because of the rise of ‘better’ breeds. Marcus Bates, the chief executive of the British Pig association explains that “the challenge is to find a role for rare breeds that doesn’t rely on charity or sentiment”.

Looking at the above examples, is there a need to make a distinction between indigenous and man-made breeds when it comes to extinction and rescue efforts? Are endemic species more valuable than man-made breeds or are they all the same?

Through evolution, new species arise and thrive in the right natural environments. species become extinct when the environment changes or when better adapted competitors appear. It is estimated that today we only see 0.01% of all species that have ever existed in the Earth’s 4.54 billion years history. The rest became extinct naturally through time. While the natural extinction of a breed generally happens over a period of 10 million years, extinctions can also be abrupt. According to scientists there have been five mass extinctions in history that eliminated 40% to 95% of all species at once due to catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions or meteorite collisions. According to the Endangered Species International Organization “the sixth mass extinction is happening right now, with animals going extinct 100 to 1,000 times faster than at the normal background extinction rate, which is about 10 to 25 species per year.”

And this time the blame is on humans. The main causes are population growth leading to over-harvesting, pollution, destruction of habitats, over-hunting, and introduction of new predators and food competitors, just to name a few. Several organizations have raised awareness on the dangers of such behavior and constantly incite us to correct it. Saving declining wildlife supports the survival of other species – the extinction of one member of the food chain gives rise to an ecological chain reaction. Saving the environment is also working towards our own survival as we are dependent on fresh air, fresh water and food that are all relying on the existence of healthy natural habitats.

The evolution of man-made species however is the result of human experimentation with biology. During this process many animals between the first cross-breed until the final end-product have become extinct. These animals could have been classified as a new breed and could have been added to the list of ‘genetic diversity’ that most charities and rare breed lovers campaign for. If we should feel guilty for allowing a rare breed to disappear, maybe we should also feel guilty for allowing all those intermediate breeds to become extinct. Where do we draw the line?

Campaigners commonly attempt to play on the emotional field by recalling the cultural value of certain animals. Some of these rare-breeds are considered to be part of a national heritage or folklore. As such, they may have the same right to be preserved as a historical monument. However, not all traditions are preserved. Our culture and identity is constantly changing and we are selective about what we keep as a custom and what we guard in museums with nostalgia. For a living breed to become recognized as part of a national heritage is to find a function and an excuse to avoid disappearance.

Preserving a living breed seems to ultimately depend on a group of people that may find an interest in it or condemn it to extinction with a collective indifference. Our society seems to prefer defining what is useful and what is not. But what does it make of us to rank other living beings according to their usefulness? Do we have a moral obligation to preserve the breeds that we create once their ‘usefulness’ has come to an end?

(Text and photos are copyright of Krisztina Guerra-Kovacs)