Re: RC: taller horses

[Bette Lamore <woa@stormnet.com>]

Hi guys
Who wants to flame? I agree! We breed for athletic ability, too. We
happen to get taller horses a good percentage of the time and beauty as
BONUSES! I'm glad you laid to rest the misinformation that all
desert-bred were tiny. I knew we had to get those big genes from
somewhere. Thanks for the info.
Bette
Bette Lamore
Whispering Oaks Arabians, Home of TLA Halynov
http://www.stormnet.com/~woa
I've learned that life is like a roll of toilet paper, the closer it
gets to the end, the faster it goes. Smell the roses!

Todd & Toni Jones wrote:
> 
> Bette wrote,
> "...Since the larger Arabs are a
> relatively
> newer phenomenon, there are, of
> course, less of them to choose from.
> By
> larger Arabs I am referring to those
> 15.2 and above..."
> 
> I'm not so sure they are a "newer
> phenomenon" although it's true they
> aren't the norm. When the Hungarians
> went looking for pure desert blood
> (starting in 1789) to produce the
> breed that became the Shagya, they
> traditionally came home from these
> excursions with 16 hand (and some
> larger, some smaller) Arabians. They
> primarily did their searching in
> what at that time was known as Syria
> (not up on my geography, am not sure
> if present day Syria corresponds
> with that day Syria). The Shagya
> stud books, which are still in
> existence and available for all to
> see in Babolna, date back to 1789
> (the only older studbook in
> existence is the English TB) and
> very careful measurements were taken
> of each and every horse that passed
> criteria for breeding whether pba
> arab or the resulting Shagyas used
> for further development of the
> breed. Other records were kept track
> of also as to whether the horse had
> a dependable temperament, not
> spooky, easy keeper, endurance,
> jumping, etc. Anyway, heighth was
> only ONE consideration (correctness
> was more important than heighth) and
> they certainly seemed to "come home"
> with a number of desert bred
> arabians that were in the 16 hand
> department.
> 
> As a side note, the Hungarians never
> tried to breed a larger horse than
> 16 hands "on purpose". The desired
> size was 15 to 16, of course for
> going into battle, carrying a
> soldier and all his gear. It is said
> that they "knew" that attempting to
> breed a horse (on purpose) larger
> than 16hh was to ask for leg
> problems. It is said that the taller
> heavily influenced arab horses' legs
> had a tendancy to "break down" with
> the rigors of going to battle. Face
> it, not even endurance is comparable
> to "going to war" on a horse for
> months on end. Necessity is the
> mother of invention and so armed
> with what they knew about horses and
> war conditions the Hungarians kept
> all the important things in mind, ie
> legs, conformation, correctness,
> good proportions, good movement,
> good feet. And when a larger than 16
> hand horse happened, that was fine
> if all else was in place, but they
> didn't breed for size on purpose as
> the only criteria. Their very lives
> depended on the horse under them and
> they bred accordingly. The average
> size was, of course, around 15.2,
> with substantial bone and full
> bodied.
> 
> So what I'm saying is that there is
> nothing wrong with size as long as
> the other things are all in place.
> Like Heidi says, breed for the
> "right stuff" and when size happens,
> oh joy! The genetic books I have
> looked at (for horses AND other
> livestock) continuously warn of the
> dangers of breeding for ONLY one
> trait. Examples include bird dogs
> where that "brilliant nose" is
> borderline on hysteria, the Paints
> with too much white can produce the
> lethal whites, pigs that are bred
> for faster growing are neurotic and
> have a higher death rate than
> traditional "old" breeds, hereford
> cows (and similar breeds) are more
> neurotic with excessive white on
> their face than cows with little
> white on their faces. Horses also
> entered into this discussion in the
> book with excessive white (NOT GREY)
> being more nervous. Also bone in
> horses was discussed, the finer the
> bone the more "reactive" or
> "nervous" the animal usually was,
> the more bone, the calmer the animal
> tended to be.
> 
> A formula for the centimeters to
> hands thing and vice versa...
> 
> Say 16 hands = 64 inches.
> 64 inches x 2.54 cm - 162.56 cm
> 
> I think this is the right formula,
> although you need to reverse it.
> It's been awhile since I used it. To
> read the Shagya studbooks from
> Europe I have to translate to see
> just what the actual size is since
> they only use centimeters. :) If
> this is wrong, please correct me,
> someone.
> 
> OK, flame away.
> 
> Toni and Shagya O'Biwon
> Central Oregon
> 
> We can't "performance test" the way
> they did back in the 1800's. They
> had problems with this. Their
> general feeling was that the Arab
> was never meant to be that big,
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

--