Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
"Delurking" just as some others lately, as there are a couple of issues which
really do interest me and tickle me into questions and comments (so please
excuse the length, it's actually a response to several topics).
> Just went and looked at these photos......YUCK! If I wanted a QH, I'd
> go buy one. It's pretty sad when you can't walk into a barn and say
> with 100% certainty "That's an Arabian." A few you could still
> identify as such, but one had a head that'd be ugly on a standardbred,
> much less an Arab!
> Ah well, to each their own, but sorry, I think that somewhere there's a
> little extra something in the woodpile.......
> tracy
Firstly, what does the head of a horse have to do (apart from when it's not
biomechanically functional and sound) with riding the horse and its
performance, especially in endurance/CTR, or its breed??? That any bedouin
(still having to depend on his horse's performance) would have chosen a
fragile/beautiful headed individual over a common-headed one, when the coarse
looking individual had the better performance data is highly doubtful! When
it comes to survival you choose the Jeep in rough going, not the Jaguar
Coupe....going for beauty is a luxury and could be fatal under such
circumstances. For this I'll probably get flamed...:-)
Then - I lived for long stretches of times in France, alltogether close to 15
years and have discovered that the French endurance riders are at the same
time highly ruthless and successful. What I never came to think was that
their performance or race arabians were so very atypical. I saw on the
french endurance track crosses of just these racing lines with russian arab
racers (Persik is such a one, and yes he is very expensive and takes only a
set number of mares per year) and the horses worked like clockworks, a point
probably in favour of outcrossing or line-outcrossing. I saw countless Arabs
and TBs first on the racecourse, sprint or short-distance trained, and later
again when either in endurance/CTR or other employs, and the "quarterish"
looks were absolutely gone! Training and feeding does play a large role in
the exterior "looks", especially "muscle-looks". The french breeders of
race-arabs have indeed bred in a streamlined way for this type of event, but
out of training you only remark that the horse is tall, has good bone and a
less refined head. That there also is the possibility that way back a couple
of unknown ancestors or TBs probably can be found in their pedigrees is
nothing what is not the same case for other arabian strains (not all, I know
that, :)).
BUT - I am of one mind here with people who say that selection for the
racecourse (exclusively) and also selection for short races on top, does
some severe things to the make-up on cellular level as well as on the
conformational level, when regarded with potential for endurance (and not
*only* for races or short bursts of work) in mind. I read quite some
researches on this, but wonder whether this group has some newer resources.
What specifically interests me is what that kind of selection does on the
cellular/systematic level, that horses tend to look more like TBs is only
logical. E-mails of people who have recent data at hand (like of the last 5
years) are very welcome! Thanks ahead.
Lastly, I think that whether or not outcross-, in- and linebreeding plays a
role on performance or state of art of a breed's health may be a question of
who's there first - hen or egg?. The outcross/hybrid vigour is a proven fact,
but already with line- and inbreeding the footing isn't anymore so sure, or
is it? There are a couple of breeds with a severely restricted gene pool,
perforce having to be in- and linebred, and there it is quite remarkable that
"fragility" does not only come along with "closed" or "close" pedigrees, just
as often you find this in one group (selected also for looks or a set type of
use) severely and in another, which else is genetically on the same sort of
boat (selected only for vigour and stamina), not at all.
TBs are bred today for roughly 4-5 years (if as much) success on the
racetrack, their most important breeding/selection qualifiers come along when
they are 3 and 4 years old. At this age noone could judge whether or not the
organism is hardy, apart from the obvious breakdowns (of those which are not
hardy enough to make the racecourses at all). The horses get retired to the
breeding sheds long before any deficiency shows up and get bred to recuperate
the financial engagement. Often - quite often - an unsoundness precludes
further use on the track, but a horse *has* won the most important qualifiers
and now is in high demand!!! This is breeding for speed and speed only (as it
is the foundation of the idea behind the TB), so who could ever expect - with
such a selection - hardiness and other qualities apart from speed?! If they
happen to come along, my impression is that people had a lot of luck.
Several of the closed-studbook (thus genetically restricted) breeds who go
for a selection according to colour or certain looks, face the same problem
of low state of health, *but* there are genetically restricted groups where
the main selective criteria was indeed some sort of demanding employ or
survival of the fittest and *there* you rarely find the same sort of
fragility! Especially all the genetically very restricted "pockets" of wild
horses in Australia, Africa and Asia have proven this quite beyond any doubt,
but a few human-selected breeds did as well.
So - I wonder whether it's not what we decide to breed for, what we mourn as
a result later...? Other animal breeds can serve as teaching grounds - some
30 years ago the Danish Dogue was a tall (around 70-75 centimeteres),
athletic and very healthy dog with an average lifespan of 15+ years, a frisky
dog whom you could take along for days long rides, today it is a giant
(around 100 centimeters), unhealthy and recumbent type of animal, with an
average lifetime of 8- years (in Europe), which preferably stays put in the
front garden. The difference between then and now is the change of breeding
criteria, you couldn't nowadays get a male of 75 centimeters acknowledged as
a stud dog or win a breed show, even if you greased the judge! Now
owners/customers start to bicker, because they cannot mentally deal with the
fact, that their beloved pet dies so soon or costs so much in vet treatmeant,
but giants they wanted...
So, should it stay to be viable selective criteria/breeding method for a
closed-studbook or genetically restricted breed to be bred for much more than
conservation of breed and superior health, especially if a selection
criterium can cull out the healthy individuals? Is the idea of breeding
*only* for health and performance, regardless of looks, colours and what we
think is beautiful, for a closed gene-pool breed, so dumb? Haven't the main
and most important warrior nomad nations breeding enduring horses in the past
taught us just this?
AT
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff