Just a what if...

[ohmt]

I'm not so sure about this whole idea....YES it does have perks and it has its downfalls as well. To me I think the downfalls outrank the ups in this case. I have a stallion that if I were to describe to people I would say....AVERAGE. His head is slightly too large, his eyes are so huge he looks like an alien

and I cannot pinpoint this but his muzzle is just too weird for words! His neck isn't too bad but I like them a little longer and thinner and I like the throatlatch a little more defined. The rest of him is fine. He's straight and well defined. Not stocky but not what I'd call refined. Just AVERAGE (I know that is a debateable word...just the word that I believe fits him). I took him a couple years ago just for the summer on a trade to get a new bloodline and color (he is buckskin). He's the youngest BREEDING son of Iowas Little Kernel. I did not see him beforehand which when I first saw him I thought was a mistake! I bred one mare to him. An oversized mare that was an okay producer..nothing special. Her colt the next year led me to another summer trade. He was TINY (now a mature 30" out of a 35.5" mare) and buckskin and in my eyes our best foal of the year! He had a short head with a dishy profile and HUGE eyes (appealing....not odd like daddy's!) and a tiny tiny little muzzle. Very small and slender ears-very tippy-and ultra refined! He was a small 18" at birth with 7.5" cannons! I've never had an 18" foal with such long legs. The next year I had 3 more foals...a chestnut filly that had the most beautiful head I'd ever seen and a buckskin filly that I had multiple offers on by numerous people. Also a colt that measured 22" at 3.5 months that was perfect! Let's just say I bought that stallion and I breed him to some of my best mares! I had an outside mare come here and the resulting silver buckskin filly has offers on her coming every day...she went to a show and a breeder at a very very well known farm wanted to buy her. This lady is now a die hard Rocket fan!

If you saw this stallion I'm sure you'd tell me "He's NOT stallion material". Maybe a good gelding. He consistently outproduces himself in every way possible. If I brought him in to be inspected I'm sure he wouldn't pass and that would break my heart as I wouldn't trade him for any other stallion on the planet. I'd rather have an average stallion that produces champions CONSISTENTLY then a champion stallion that produces average. That's how I think of it.

NO I don't breed for pets. We breed for SHOW QUALITY miniature horses but you can never judge a breeding horse JUST by looks unless it has HUGE faults like dwarfism and etc. You say you want to better the breed. Fine....then do it. Go to shows and figure out what a good horse is and what a good horse isn't and then better the breed by experimenting. That's what it takes. Lots a lots of failed attempts...but the tries that come up successful are gonna help you define the miniature horse and that's how you do it. I don't get why everybody makes such a big deal out of these people that breed their minis for PETS only or the people that don't know quality if it was beside a rat's behind. Nobody's forcing you to look at these horses...nobody's forcing you to BUY these horses. Nobody's forcing you to BREED these horses. Find people that breed what you like and stick to them. Most people want only quality minis and thats where you wanna be if you wanna better the breed. Make a name for yourself. If you're saying that these pet horses are going to bring down the market value...well....if you have horses better then theirs then wouldn't YOUR horse be worth more? YES!

Sorry for the novel.

ANYWAY...haha I like to get a little off track I guess....

 

[runamuk]

to do it right testing would also include the offspring and the horses would be mature not wispy pretty yearlings.

The difference between this type of testing and halter is about 2 lightyears........halter is one persons opinion on one day in one moment of time......the true testing like used in warmbloods actually takes years....

so say in the case of your ordinary stallion......he may get a tenative license to breed a certain number of mares who by the way also have been through a testing procedure.......then his offspring are presented for evaluation...to recieve permanent licensing....

 

[Gameela]

Ok, so, it's not ALL based on conformation. But, there are several excellent producing horses that they themselves look horrible, for whatever reason. Serious conformation faults would very obviously not be able to breed, but, who decides what lesser faults are acceptable? What if the horse was injured, and couldn't perform at any level other than breeding, they likely wouldn't pass an inspection.

Mainly, I want to know WHO decides who will be judging all of it, and what exactly qualifies them to tell me or anyone else what i can and cannot breed to or from. My ideal could be very different from somebody elses.

If this were to have started in the beginning when miniature horses (or any other breed) were just starting to come around, then it would obviously work a little better because there would only be one standard that EVERYONE would have to abide by, but it's not, and people have bred and continue to breed THEIR ideal horse, not somebody elses ideal horse. I know a good horse when I see one, plain and simple.

Tapestry Minis: You are right on in your observation. I haven't been to any miniature horse shows, but with Arabians, IMO, show winnings are great, but they tell me little about the horse because so many of them are horses that shouldn't have placed/won the class. I surely wouldn't trust a judges opinion to tell me what the standard was, atleast not in the Arabian horse industry. There aren't a whole lot of judges I would trust, which is why I asked above, who would pick the judges, how would they be qualified, etc.

 

[Minimor]

Testing/licensing works well for the warmbloods, partly, I think, because they have very specific requirements--the stallions get sent on the 100 day tests and are evaluated for their disposition, trainability, jumping and work on the flat. Now, Miniatures can be evaluated on the disposition, trainability, conformation...then where do you go with the testing. Must they all jump, drive and do obstacle? Must they be put in one division out of those 3? What if the horse jumps like a deer, but overall is a terrible mover or poorly conformed. Or maybe the horse is a halter horse beyond compare and the owner wants to raise halter horses, doesn't care about movement. Sure, it's obvious to many that the licensed breeding animal should be a good all around animal, but there would be an awful lot of screaming and protesting by owners if this was implemented now! While I don't think testing/licensing would be a bad thing, I just don't see it ever happening.

And when it comes to a very precise standard. I believe that no matter how precise, it's never going to be cut & dried. I'll use the Morgan breed as an example. I see the Morgan Standard of Perfection as being very precise--about as precise as you can make it without going into specifics such as "croup must measure between xx inches and yy inches when measured from hip bone to dock of tail"! I'd have to dig out a copy of the Standard to quote the exact wording, but when I read it, I picture a certain conformation, say Horse A. Then when I look over at Horse B, I see him as totally off type--croup isn't just flat, it is too flat, and so short that it actually angles upward from the hip bones to the top of the dock. That is NOT what the standard describes. However, a person who breeds horses that are built like Horse B will argue up and down that his animals exactly match the breed standard. He can't see any problem there at all.

 

[runamuk]

Mainly, I want to know WHO decides who will be judging all of it, and what exactly qualifies them to tell me or anyone else what i can and cannot breed to or from. My ideal could be very different from somebody elses.

And this very AMERICAN way of thinking is one of the reasons licensing of breeding animals cannot be enacted in the US.......not saying it is wrong/right/or indifferent........

For that matter if you don't agree with a registries take on something you can always go form your own.....so there are no set Standards in truth in any breed.

to this there MUST be ONE STANDARD.......written well enough that there isn't alot of room for personal interpretation........

 

[Meg]

New Zealand has a "stallion certificate of soundness" which must be done by a vet. Foals by that stallion can not be registered unless he has one. I honestly believe its a good starting point, but needs to be expanded upon to include things like leg faults etc. Heres a list of things that the vet must check... a stallion must pass ALL these to be issued the certificate

-Congenital Cataracts

-Overshot jaw

-Parrot mouth

-Dwarfism

-Malformation of the genitals

-Chriptorchid/Monorchid

-Locked stifle

-Nasal disease

-Stringhalt

-"Other determinable genetic faults"

 

[Buckskin gal]

I so agree that there are stallions that have won but I would not want to use in a breeding program. In miniatures it is just too debatable which is right for what a person wants. A type would first have to be set in order for a commottee to even know what is correct for breeding and this isn't going to happen because there is everything from the Shetland look to the Araian look to the Morgan look etc. that comes into the ring. We have "miniature" horses and so they will not all look like and it should stay that way. What we do have to be concerned about is conformation and soundness and from there choose the type we want in our pastures. Mary

I haven't read through this thread yet, and while I am ALL for breeding the BEST that one is able to.........
There are some Kick A** looking stallions that can't produce crap, plain and simple.  And the ones you want for a great program are the ones that the "proof is in the pudding", which is their foals and their foals' foals that OUTPRODUCE themself.

Just cause a horse is nice looking and a show winner doesn't mean it can produce more. 

Although I think the idea is neat - I think it would be hard to impliment.

454724[/snapback]

​