Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

And thus, someone has spoken my thoughts which I was unable to put into words myself. Breeds ARE generalizations in and of themselves.

Bravo!

On Jan 20, 2008 8:06 PM, k s swigart < katswig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: < heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Kat, I usually appreciate your logical approach,
> and admittedly I should have been more specific.
> But actually, you took my quote entirely out of
> context, since the context was making generalizations
> about faults and poor quality.

Personally, I think it completely appropriate to also make breed
generalizations about "faults and poor quality" as well.  If the fault
that leads to the poor quality is a heritable trait (which many of them
are), then it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possiblity that
this trait runs in breeds.

An obvious example is HYPP.  A fault that doesn't exist in purebred
arabs at all, while it is rampant in quarter horses.

And to quote from the UC Davis Book of Horses, "Cervical Vertebral
Malformation:  This disorder, also called wobbles or wobbler syndrome,
is a common cause of incoordination in young horses, particularly
Thoroughbreds."  Other texts (like James Rooney's book _The Lame Horse_)
suggest that the reason for the prevalence of wobblers in Thoroughbreds
is that "the longer the neck and the heavier the head, the greater
chance there is for wobbles to develop" and in race horses, man has been
selecting for this (since horses with long necks and big heads
mechanically are able to run faster with less effort).

It seems pretty obvious to me that there are a goodly number of faults
that have a tendency to run in breeds.  It would be a mistake to think
that my two examples are the only faults that run in breeds.

Some of them, whether intentionally or inadvertently, are actually
selected for as part of the "breed standard" (as evidenced by the
examples given above).

The reason HYPP is prevalent in quarter horses is that the stallion that
is the genetic source of the condition had bulgy muscles that were
highly sought after that he also passed on to his progeny (some people
hypothesize that the HYPP condition actually contributes to this type of
"desireable" musculature, but I don't think it has ever been conclusivel
y demonstrated).  Whether HYPP causes the bulgy muscles or whether the
HYPP just comes along with the trait coincidentally because Impressive
was passed on both these traits is irrelevant.  The fact is, this type
of musculature is sought after in the breed standard such that before
the gene for HYPP was discovered, people bred to Impressive and his
progeny for his "type" and after it was discovered, they continuted to
do so...and still do; although the AQHA seems to be trying to do
something about it by denying registration to foals that have the trait
(more on that below).

> I stick by my guns--generalizing that one breed
> has more horses of poor quality than another
> breed is patently silly.

And with this I also cannot agree.  In fact, there are SOME "breeds"
that will not register horses of "poor quality" (most notably the
multitude of European Warmblood breeds).  Foals are inspected to ensure
that they are not of poor quality before being accepted as
representatives of the breed.  But the AQHA denying registration to
Impressive bred horses that test positive for HYPP would also come under
this heading.

However, even with breeds that do not have such strict quality
requirements for registration, there are some breeds of horses (varies
from person to person) for which the breed standard is the equivalent of
"poor quality."  If a breed has selection criteria for standards that I
consider to be traits to make for poor quality horses, then I can say
that this breed has more "poor quality" horses than one that has a
standard with traits that I like.

The fact is, many traits are heritable and consequently run in families.
If I consider that trait to be a fault, then I CAN "generalize" that one
family is more likely to be faulty than another where the trait does not
run.

Not everybody agrees what traits constitute faults, and some people are
willing to accept faults if they can get other traits that they like
(e.g. TB people are willing to accept the possiblity of a wobbler in
exchange for getting a horse that runs really fast).

> I've known good and bad in every breed I've
> dealt with, and I suspect you have, too.

Yes, I have known good and bad individuals in every breed I have dealt
with, but I can also point out a goodly number of traits that run in
different breeds.  I can even point out a goodly number of "faulty"
traits that run in different breeds and which breeds you are more likely
to find them in.

It is up to the individual to determine which traits s/he considers to
be faults, and which faults s/he is willing to live with in exchange for
traits s/he likes, "but I stick by my guns"-- to deny that traits
(whether you consider them faults or not) run in breeds is silly.

kat
Orange County, Calif.
:)





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

 Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-- 
Genevieve