Opinion — Sara M. Kirkwood · Clearly labeled. This is not a scientific claim.
In the business world, “proprietary” is a fancy way of protecting intellectual property. It’s the gate that keeps others from duplicating your secret sauce. But in the largely unregulated world of horse supplements, that gate often creates a wall between the brand and the consumer. It leaves us wondering: Is what I think is in there actually in there? And more importantly, is it enough to actually work?
Anyone can slap a proprietary label on a bag and avoid being held accountable for the specifics. Technically, I could tell you a product contains isoquercetin to help with a horse’s histamine response. But if I’m only “fairy dusting” a tiny amount into the mix — an amount that won’t actually move the biological needle — I’m still technically telling the truth.
Functionally, though? It’s a failure. It won’t do the job you’re buying it for.
That’s why I’m not doing proprietary anything. I’ve had other business owners and peers tell me I’m crazy or ask if I’m sure I want to take this leap. For me, it’s not even a question. I don’t come from a place of scarcity. Scarcity says if you get a piece of the pie, there’s less for me. I don’t live that way. I believe there is enough room for everyone to succeed, and the way I want to live my life is by helping everyone else rise — my peers, my customers, and especially the horses.
As a manufacturer, the decisions I make at the mixing table have a direct effect on an animal’s quality of life. If I bring a product to market that isn’t as good as I could possibly make it, or if I’m not forthright about what’s inside, the real “effect” is a horse that isn’t getting the support it needs. It’s an owner who spent hard-earned money and is now frustrated because they still can’t help their horse.
I can’t sleep at night if that’s my business model.
Maybe it goes back to my military background, but I have a phrase on a loop in my head: The standard is the standard. In the military, there’s a right way to do things. That’s the standard. If you aren’t hitting it, it’s substandard. It’s “unsat.” It’s not okay. You do it again, and you do it right.
To me, the standard for equine care is total transparency. If I’m not meeting that, I’m not meeting the standard. You can see exactly what’s in Benchmark and Benchmark MAX — every ingredient, every dosage, every study linked. The Library exists specifically so you can read the same primary research I read and verify the reasoning yourself. No gatekeeping. No mystery. Just the math.
My co-founder Sara Martínez Herrera wrote about the specific ingredient obsession behind this — choosing isoquercetin over standard quercetin because bioavailability actually matters — in The “Secret Sauce” is Actually Just Science. Same philosophy, different angle. Worth reading alongside this one.
I’ll always be a horse person first and a business person second, because my alignment with my own morals and ethics is worth more than a “secret” formula. I’m just going to keep doing it the right way… because the standard is the standard.
This is an opinion piece. It reflects the perspective of Sara M. Kirkwood, founder of Improve Equine, and is clearly labeled as such. See the Science section of The Library for the peer-reviewed research behind every ingredient decision.
Referenced in this piece:
Isoquercetin Bioavailability Research ·
Benchmark & Benchmark MAX ·
Quercetin & Mast Cell Research ·
The Library ·
The “Secret Sauce” is Actually Just Science ·
About the Founder