Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> I have never denied that there is a difference (even a HUGE difference)
> between the metabolic capabilities of a TB and an Arabian.  After all,
> you don't have to have even a "quality" thoroughbred to outrun an
> Arabian at the "middle distances" used in flat track racing.  And this
> isn't just because thoroughbreds are taller (even a short thoroughbred
> will be able to outrun a tall arabian), it is because metabolically they
> are different.
> What I deny is that a horse that has been bred and selected as, say,  a
> cow horse metabolically makes a better endurance prospect than one that
> has been bred and selected for ability to successfully run both
> aerobically and anaerobically at those middle distances.  I readily
> agree that such horses are more mentally suited to the sport, but am
> unwilling to concede that metabolically this is the case.
Think about it, kat.  The original "cow horses" were horses that had to
work all day, at a steady pace, and still be able to "deliver the goods"
at the end of it.

That said, no one suggested that "selection as a cow horse" was
particularly a desirable thing--I DID say that ALL saddle breeds were more
suited to endurance in earlier years when they were selected and bred as
riding animals.  What we see today is selection for artificial show
standards, or in the case of the TB, selection for racing at distances
well under 2 miles.  In earlier years, when TBs were also selected as
hunters, it was also easier to find TBs with riding traits.

To the TB's credit, at least he has been selected to do SOMETHING.  In the
case of the show Arabs, QHs, etc., they have been selected to do NOTHING,
other than to look like some artificial and exaggerated picture.

OTOH, the classical Arab WAS selected to do longer distances, hence when
one sticks to horses that are still bred to be classic Arabian riding and
using horses, one has a much higher chance of getting the metabolic
package necessary to our sport.

> The ability to mobilize energy both for aerobic and anaerobic effort
> (unlike for the QH distance) along with the incredible stresses
> associated mechanically with such high speeds is, from a physiological
> standpoint, probably the best physiological test for capability as an
> endurance horse (if you ask me).
Well, no.  The selection to do anaerobic work is a selection for
fast-twitch fibers, etc., and is contrary to the selection for endurance. 
In the studies that Dr. Grant did, all sorts of stuff emerged--the one
that comes to mind is that the TBs depleted their muscle glycogen much
more quickly, probably BECAUSE they are suited to a blend of anaerobic and
aerobic work, instead of being designed to do primarily aerobic work.

As for the mechanics--the classic TB was quite mechanically sound, but as
a breed, it is getting much harder to find mechanically suitable TBs as
well, just as it is in other breeds.  One does still see them--usually in
the real "upper crust" of the breed--but the lack of emphasis on general
riding for those who don't race has produced a whole lot of TBs not
capable of much of anything, just as the show ring has with the Arab and
the QH.

> Where the big draw back to TBs is,
> they really DON'T know how to take care of themselves (they will run
> themselves to death on adrenaline alone, and many have done so), and the
> thing that might make me leary of a race bred arabian would be its
> mentality. However, it has only been the last 20 or so years that
> arabians have been bred exclusively for this purpose, rather than
> 300-400 that thoroughbreds have.
But the racing Arabians are being selected in that general
direction--which selects AWAY from the metabolic capability necessary for
endurance.  (And it is a LOT more than not taking care of themselves!) 
One still has a better chance of finding endurance metabolism in racing
Arabs than among TBs for the very reason that they have NOT been
specialized that long (as you state), and they are not running the same
sorts of times, which also suggests that there is less anaerobic
contribution to Arab racing as well.  But if selection solely for racing
continues for many generations, we will see the same thing as we currently
see in TBs.

> Up until recently (and even now in some
> countries), the race track has been only one of the performance tests
> that they have used as selection criteria for Arabian. Up until WWII,
> the Poles were breeding Arabians mostly as cavalry mounts (and that is
> pretty much what the Bedouins bred them for for centuries) but make no
> mistake, the ability to race middle distances successfully was a major
> criteria in the selection process of those horses (even the Bedouin
> horses).
Yes--but as you say, it was not the sole criterion.  And I agree--WWII is
about the cutoff of when the European breeding programs had a
well-balanced selection system, and when they started either breeding
solely for racing or targeting the American "fad" show market.  (Which,
BTW, has now also spread to Europe.  <sigh>)

> A few hundred years from now, race bred arabians may have had their
> self-preservation bred out of them, but it hasn't been going on for long
> enough yet to turn very many of them into horses that can't take care of
> themselves, and if endurance riders divert them from the racing scene
> now, they can have access to the physiological testing without getting
> too much of the "race horse mentality."  And if, on the other hand, they
> performance test them in BOTH disciplines, they can get the best of both
> worlds.
The odds are already dropping, IMO, although your point is valid.

Additionally, too many Arab race breeders think that "tall" is the
answer--and they are getting it by breeding biomechanically poor horses,
especially with REALLLLLY long cannons.  (You WON'T find that sort of
faulty conformation on good racing TBs.)  This is another trend that
causes me to shy away from modern Arabian "race" breeding.

> I'd take a successful arabian race horse turned endurance horse any day
> over somebody's "the most recent successful competitive horse in the
> pedigree was 4 generations back" horse any day.
I don't think you understand looking at pedigrees from a program-oriented
perspective.  We are not talking about isolating a few names from a
pedigree, but rather looking at an ENTIRE pedigree of horses with the
riding traits one wants.  I'm not interested in pedigrees with just a few
known good horses that far back--but I AM interested in CONSISTENT
pedigrees where ALL of the horses were of riding type.  Big difference,
but it is not a mindset that many folks have developed.

> At the same time, I also would be uninterested in a pedigree littered
> with, close up, what is succeeding in the show ring today, because the
> selection criteria of the Arabian show ring is, pretty much, anything
> that can't be ridden :)
A big 10-4 to THAT statement!

Heidi


============================================================
When you ask a Quarter horse for something he says - Sure -  and when you
ask an Arab for something he says  - Why? - 
~  Heidi Smith

ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/

============================================================