Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
>Well, Tracy, I guess that takes care of that! :)
Gosh, thanks, didn't mean to put an end to the discussion.
>I don't necessarily agree on getting rid of every trace of sickle the first
>generation... COunt Dorsaz get would hav a hard time being around if that
I never meant that a particular flaw had to be gotten rid of in
the first generation, I don't think I said that?
What I did want to emphasize though was that known flaws should be
minimized with selection. In otherwords don't breed a horse with a problem
to a horse with the same problem, breed to a horse that doesn't have that
problem or that has the opposite problem but in a very minimal form. That
way hopefully the next generation will either eliminate the flaw or have a
much lessened version of that flaw. The emphasis should be on improvement
of succeeding generations. I do not believe in eliminating an otherwise
good horse from a breeding program if that horse has some terrific qualities
to empart but has a flaw, if that had happened we would have never had the
blood of Jadaan passed on. Jadaan had one substantial flaw, he was over at
the knees and somewhat pidgeon toed in front and he passed that quality on,
BUT due to correct selection his other qualities, which were numerous, were
able to be used and passed along while minimizing his knee problem. By the
second generation that problem was eliminated in his line. This is not to
say that the Kellogg breeding program used him indiscriminately despite his
problem, in fact they minimized their use of him because of it, but they were
still able to use him by carefully selecting away from his flaw.
>were true. I never commented on Skowronek and in fact was looking at some
>pictures of him last night and I KNOW he has a great back end. Raffles I
>will still contend is ever slightly sickle- and this will be passed on by
>breeders who don't care. I am aiming at eliminating the flaw from my mare
One cannot talk about *Raffles without at least mentioning his sire
Skowronek in part, afterall *Raffles was 75% Skowronek because he was the
product of inbreeding to a Skowronek daughter, *Rifala. When I look at a
horse for potential breeding I ALWAYS look at the sire and dam and grandsires
and granddams and so forth, if at all possible, because what you get from
that horse is more than just the horse it is also the horses behind him or
her. *Raffles did produce better than himself, in part because of selection
but also because Skowronek bred on extremely well even multiple generations
beyond himself, *Raffles and *Raseyn and other Skowronek get carried that
legacy with them.
My feeling about *Raffles is that he was high behind, this tends to
make an otherwise normal back end look like it has a problem. I've seen
numerous photos of him and I have a videotape that has film footage of him
moving. He has a very slightly overlong gaskin, that coupled with being
high behind sometimes makes him stand under, that in turn makes him have the
appearance of being slightly sickle-hocked, but in studying the images I have
of him I feel that that is all it is. What has had to be bred away from by
*Raffles breeders, and I think it has been done successfully by many, is the
overly short shoulder that makes him lower in front than behind, and the
slightly overlong gaskin. Among breeders that have taken these features into
account many horses will be free of these problems. Occassionally it will
still crop up because people have good mares that have other features they
want to pass on and in doing so sometimes you get the bad with the good.
Again selection to minimize the problems can correct them if they are not
too severe.
>cleanly. This is AFTER 8 foals. As always i try to outcross completely with
>the back legs - I too am extremely picky about hind legs and esp the croup
>and hip length.
Excellent we should all be more aware of croup and hip length as that
is an area where Arabs in general have a problem because show selection has
not been kind to that area. Hip angle is another area where we need to be
aware of what constitutes effective hip angles, if it isn't an effective hip
angle we shouldn't be selecting for it.
On the subject of outcrossing, the benefit of outcrossing is that you
have a better chance of avoiding emphasizing a bad characteristic that is
carried in a line, you do not eliminate that chance completely by outcrossing
as the line you outcross to may also carry it as a recessive unbeknownst to
you. The downside of outcrossing is that you introduce a lot of unknown
variables, you have a lower chance of accurately predicting what the end
result will be, you may also introduce other bad characteristics that you
don't know about that may be carried in the outcrossed lines. So there are
good sides and bad sides to outcrossing. Likewise there are good and bad to
linebreeding. I am concentrating on linebreeding because this is producing
what I am looking for as a breeder, this doesn't mean that I will only do
linebreeding (matter of fact there is a warmblood I want to breed one of my
mares to, talk about outcrossing!), however for me I feel that linebreeding
gives me a greater predictability on certain features that I want. By
carefully studying the bloodlines and the horses I know what features to
avoid, because they tend to crop up frequently and are hard to get rid of,
and what features to look for because I know they are there if I can find
the right horse, and again I can minimize the features I don't want by
very carefully selecting away from them. So in essence I don't recommend
that a person needs to outcross to get a good hind end, or that they need
to outcross to get any particular feature, but rather that they use good
selection criteria in the individual horses of the breeding that they are
interested in. When you outcross I recommend doing it to look FOR a
particular characteristic rather than to work against one. I feel this gives
you a better emphasis in selecting a horse for outcrossing while still
keeping in mind the characteristic that you are minimizing.
>I ought to send you guys a picture of this gal so you can see what I mean...
>It really depends on the day.
>Gwen Dluehosh
I am having trouble receiving images over the net, we're still
trying to get a set of pictures up on my home computer that were sent over
the net (incompatibility between home computer and computer where e-mail
resides and lack of file transfer capability, don't ask me I only borrow
the system), but if you would like to send a snail mail that's cool, I'll
give you my address if you want. On the other hand if you don't want to
bother I understand, I think we are dealing with a very general topic that
is still of interest to the rest of the group (a little) if we get into
specific horses, other than famous ones, we might lose people and will
certainly go off topic. Speaking of topic we can take this into endurance
by discussing those characteristics with respect to breeding if people want.
I'll start by saying that I don't really feel that the
conformational characteristics of a good saddle horse differ much versus
a good endurance horse. Some people insist that an endurance horse be built
with an exceedingly narrow front end, however I don't agree. I feel that
for any good saddle horse you want a front end that has some width to it,
I like a bit more because that sets the front legs more to the corners of
the horse and I feel they have better balance with a wider front vs. a
narrower front. But I also feel that there is a wide range of acceptible
front end widths. The important thing to me is that the horse have room
enough that it is not likely to interfere, has good side-to-side balance
and lateral agility, and has a substantial upside-down V of muscle under
the chest between the front legs. I also feel a wider front gives more heart/
lung room. Any comments?
Tracy and everybody
Tracy Scheinkman
Misty Mountain Arabian Sport Horses
Tucson, AZ
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff