Horse Breeds =/= Simple

[SmartAlex]

I'm not sure what the OP's question was, I have a killer headache so my reading comprehesion isn't the best right now, BUT we have a local pony breed called a Blazer. A little bit of this & a little bit of that were thrown together to make a western pony.

Well there are regional types like that which are old and unique and fairly true to type but have never really developed into well known breeds. The Blazers, Rangers, Crackers of America. Then one gains popularity.. like the Rocky Mountain horses, and voila'.

[Ambitious Kate]

Interesting discussion. I too am of the opinion that a registry does not a breed make. It takes a long time of careful selection and genetic maintenance to make a type which breeds true to type. When you cross two horses, say a quarter horse and a cleveland bay, you might get a nice horse (might!) but the same mare and stud next time might produce a very different horse. It takes generations of breeding to get consistent results. Making a registry of Cleveland Quarters doesn't mean you have a breed.

The op needs to decide whether she is researching breeds or registries. The inconsistencies and breeding practices in many new registries would make an interesting topic but it would not be a topic about breeds. A paper about what makes a breed and the genetic traits of breeds which are passed on within the breed would be a good topic.

[Megaladon]

There are a lot of breeds I've never heard of before, like the Dole and the Siberian Tiger Horse--those were not in my horse books. Then there are breeds that are so rare, they're never even spoken about like the Nonius, Murgese, Furioso, Kabardin etc...

[Nootka]

There are a lot of breeds I've never heard of before, like the Dole and the Siberian Tiger Horse--those were not in my horse books. Then there are breeds that are so rare, they're never even spoken about like the Nonius, Murgese, Furioso, Kabardin etc...

I was looking up the Furioso/Nonius/Przedswit/Gridan when I was researching my mare's bloodlines. They are really old blood and are refered to as English Halfbloods.
I am also one that thinks a registry and breed are different

Here is a good site to look at http://stablemade.com/horsebreeds.htm#breeds

[MistyStormy]

This can be a very complicated topic, and also very interesting! There is no single correct or definitive answer as to what makes a breed.

I definitely recommend this new book to add to your research: http://amzn.com/061551149X It has a lot information on the founding of various breeds.

Chincoteagues unfortunately had outside blood mixed in intentionally so they are not the focus of preservation efforts for Colonial Spanish strains however their origins were almost certain the same as the Bankers.

The outcrossing was also likely very old considering there is plenty of historical evidence that Chincoteague residents ran their horses with whatever wild ones were on Assateague. The earliest deliberate outcrossing I've found was the introduction of tobiano via Shetlands which likely happened in the 1930s. The most common cross was Arabian which was done in the 60's, 70's, and the 90's. The 90's outcrossing I think had a positive impact on the quality of the ponies and they aren't isn't dealing with a breed wide inbreeding problem so it doesn’t bother me like it used to. I really need to finish writing the color history I started on awhile back as the outcross history is rather interesting I think.

Chincoteagues are also an example of a registry not making a breed, both Chincoteague registries are young in relation to the age of the breed and they aren't very useful either. The Virginia based one isn't even tracking pedigrees. I think of Chincoteagues as a regional breeding group type breed, feral origins and some still feral but also with generations bred out of the wild.

[erniewalker]

The op needs to decide whether she is researching breeds or registries. The inconsistencies and breeding practices in many new registries would make an interesting topic but it would not be a topic about breeds. A paper about what makes a breed and the genetic traits of breeds which are passed on within the breed would be a good topic.

I am researching both. And it's not for a paper- it's for my job.

[D_BaldStockings]

A breed used to be a genetically related group of livestock recognized for certain traits, with a documented ancestry going back 50 years or often many more and bred for certain purposes.

The original 'Thoroughbred' meant simply 'purebred' and referred to horses mostly from a certain region which were brought to Great Britain and tested by racing.

Many/most pre 1900's breeds have regional origins adapted to the local forage, climate, people's needs and preferences, etc.

In the early days of 'breed registry' creation 1750's onward, regional stock was gathered and recorded and later the stipulation of excluding those not already in registries came about.

Performance registries for horses other than racing are more recent and although they retain the regional names, have little to do with the original genetics in the region. It is not unusual to find horses with 90% or more 'improvement' ancestry (mostly TB) in the various Warmblood registries.

As Shows became prevalent in the 1850's onward, stock that 'looked good' in the ring could be as valuable as stock that performed well on the roads or cross country or as cavalry mounts. Thus horses in exhibitions have been developed with beauty as a primary selection factor, then from acceptable looking horses the performers are developed. (Picking young, undeveloped horses for training or future breeding stock.)

Designer (cross) breeds are an extension of this trend combining traits, usually in a first cross hybrid and using registries to track and promote.

Are you trying to distinguish between 'old' established breeds that have been extant for centuries that you simply were not aware of and newly developed registries or ...? There are many indigenous populations of horses that may or may not be considered breeds, as well as the recognized and popularized breeds. Then there are breeds and types that have suffered extinction and/or been engulfed into other breeds.

[erniewalker]

Are you trying to distinguish between 'old' established breeds that have been extant for centuries that you simply were not aware of and newly developed registries or ...? There are many indigenous populations of horses that may or may not be considered breeds, as well as the recognized and popularized breeds. Then there are breeds and types that have suffered extinction and/or been engulfed into other breeds.

I'm not trying to distinguish between anything. I just wanted to get a perspective on how people perceive these registeries, and what kind of preferences people have regarding breeds. I was the sort of kid that ate horse encyclopedias like a food group, then got out of horses for five measley years and the rules have changed. There are solid pintos now, and horses that used to be colour-categorised now have breed standards, and it's a bit confusing and overwhelming, when your job is to find and analyse all of the breed registeries in North America. Then we get into the semantics of the breed registery actually being foreign... argh!

So, really, what I'm trying to figure out is what is a breed these days. Is an Anglo-Arab a "breed" or a "mutt?" Is a Thoroughbred with more than an index-sized splotch of white on its body a Thoroughbred, a Pinto, or both? If that horse has a solid coloured foal, is that foal also a Pinto? All of these are things I'm having to analyse here as far as breed representatives, and it's not as easy as it used to be!

[Niennor]

Just an FYI: Mangalarga Marcahdor is actually a breed that was created by brasilians in 1812 to maintain the Lusitano build type, but to adapt it to the brasilian topography and culture, thus creating a gaited Iberian breed.

I don't know about the others, but it seems to me these new breeds were created because of a fad rather than an actual need for a different kind of horse *shrugs*

[Sandy M]

One can still breed an Arabian, a TB, or a QH with an Appaloosa and register the foal as fully Appaloosa.

Yah, but....

My big gripe with ApHC is that they have so heavily encouraged QH type, when Appies are NOT supposed to be colored QHs. They should be "middle of the road" saddle horse conformation, not ASB, but generic using horse. Sigh. Since they are a "recovered" breed that was almost destroyed in the late 1800s, Hatley and Thompson, who established the registry, recommended Arabian* as a primary cross to upgrade Appies from the draft crosses which the US Government had forced on the Nez Perce (so they'd have a plow horse and stay put on the reservations, not a war/buffalo pony). Lewis & Clark's description of the Nez Perce horses, spotted and unspotted, in the early 19th century was along the lines of "comparable to a Virginia blood horse," i.e., a TB. Though it would mean that my present horse, who is double registered ApHC and AHA, would not therefore be ApHC registerable, I think ApHC should have closed its books LONG ago. I am so sick of seeing horses that are 31/32nds QH with NO breed characteristics masquerading as "Appaloosas."

*I once had a primarily Foundation bred App that had the 14.3 Arabian Ferras in his pedigree in about the 6th or 7th generation. That App was, interestingly enough, 16.3 h.h. and weighed in around 1,450. He did have a somewhat level croup, though, and a bit of float to his trot. LOL

[Guilherme]

Just an FYI: Mangalarga Marcahdor is actually a breed that was created by brasilians in 1812 to maintain the Lusitano build type, but to adapt it to the brasilian topography and culture, thus creating a gaited Iberian breed.

I don't know about the others, but it seems to me these new breeds were created because of a fad rather than an actual need for a different kind of horse *shrugs*

Thank you. You saved me some typing.

G.

[Niennor]

Thank you. You saved me some typing.

G.

Any time

It just didn't seem right so see an old and well thought out breed (i had to google the exact date of creation) compared with all these "mutt" breeds, or registries, or whatever people want to call them.

[laskiblue]

Though it would mean that my present horse, who is double registered ApHC and AHA, would not therefore be ApHC registerable, I think ApHC should have closed its books LONG ago. I am so sick of seeing horses that are 31/32nds QH with NO breed characteristics masquerading as "Appaloosas."

I couldn't agree with you more. So many Appaloosas in magazines and advertisements do not seem like Appaloosas at all.

[Guilherme]

Any time

It just didn't seem right so see an old and well thought out breed (i had to google the exact date of creation) compared with all these "mutt" breeds, or registries, or whatever people want to call them.

A "breed" begins with a human selecting brood stock with a certain set of characteristics that the human considers desirable. Then they breed those animals, selecting from the production and get the foals that demonstrate the desired characteristics. Those foals will then be raised and bred to further "concentrate" the desired traits.

Something people don't often consider is that including one desirable trait might exclude another desirable trait. This means that they must use the dreaded "c" word ("compromise").

In this sense a "type" (capable of doing something the human wants done) will lead to a "breed." What modern folks (particularly Americans) don't understand is that this is a very lengthily process. An equine generation is between three and four years. To create a reliable type that passes on its typiness will take several generations. So creation of a new breed is process measured in many decades, not years.

In the U.S. to create a "breed registry" all you need is about $500 (to buy a set of corporate papers, some office supplies, and a web site). There is NO approval by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture of any equine breed. They may be "recognized" by USDA for one or more purposes, but USDA has no power to say "yes" or "no." This not true in many other countries, where national or regional authorities DO have the power to permit or deny creation of a "breed."

All the rage in the pet world is "designer pets" where people cross all manner of dogs and cats to get new "stuff." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In small animals creation of a true "breed" can be done in a relatively short time (at least as compared to horses, cattle, etc.).

The MM horse has been around for about 200 years; the Walkaloosa or Azteca or American Show Horse for maybe a couple of decades. When the "designer" horses have been around for 200 years we can compare apples to apples. Until then, not.

G.

[erniewalker]

Any time

It just didn't seem right so see an old and well thought out breed (i had to google the exact date of creation) compared with all these "mutt" breeds, or registries, or whatever people want to call them.

I didn't mean to offend- I wasn't actually comparing them. I was simply listing names that were new to me. Every name I've mentioned has found literature to state that they Are, Too a breed, and explain the characteristics used to formulate that breed. Apparently there were six different foundation breeds used to form the Georgian Grande. I did not know that!

So I think, really, the only thing that's doing the "not legit" walk on my nerves right now is the ambiguous cloud of "sporthorses," in which a horse is bred to be the best at its job. Noble, yes, but nobility and purpose do not a breed make!

[SmartAlex]

Well, in the last 20 years, I'm sure we have seen an definite increase in the breeds represented in America, for example the Mangalarga Marchador, simply because they have been imported in enough numbers to establish a American based registry. So, not only do you have to distinguish the designer breeds, but also the well established foreign breeds who now live here.

[erniewalker]

So, not only do you have to distinguish the designer breeds, but also the well established foreign breeds who now live here.

I think that's just how I'm going to have to approach it, so as to not offend anyone. We have the designer breeds, the established breeds, and the new-to-the-US breeds.

It's funny to think how this project would have differed 100 and 200 years ago. I almost wish I was writing a paper on this, so I could track some sort of history on this, as some suggested upthread a bit. It's really very fascinating to see when these breeds/registries were established, and the criteria used. As someone else noted, the Appy registry has changed significantly. I have a registered Appy who has every trademark of Appy-dom- blanket marking, striped hooves, visible eyewhites, black and pink skin, etc... but he definitely shows off his QH heritage. Flash back twenty years to some of the first horses I ever rode, who were Appies as well. They were tall, sleek, muscular, refined... basically, they didn't look anything like the "bulldog" Foundation QH model.

If anything, this project has taught me a lot about breed formation and history, and I'm learning a lot about trends in breeding, as well!

[SmartAlex]

It's funny to think how this project would have differed 100 and 200 years ago.

It would still have been complicated! Maybe even moreso. The American Saddlebred Horse Association is America's oldest Registry (1891). But, since Justin Morgan was foaled in 1789, and his offspring contributed to the formation of the ASB, the Morgan was a confirmed type before the ASB. Foundations of the Quarter Horse were being laid at the same time, but that breed association wasn't established until 1940... even though they often claim to be America's first native breed of horse and there were surely registered American Saddle Horses and Morgans in their bloodstock.
And prepotent stallions within those breeds had their own family lines, so an "American Saddlebred Horse", prior to the establishment of the registry, could have been called a "Denmark", or a "Chief Horse", or a "Kentucky Saddler", or a "Copperbottom" (who ended up being more prevalent in the TWH breed) or even a "Blackhawk" (who was also a grandson of Justin Morgan).

Seriously, I could make you dizzy.

[Niennor]

I didn't mean to offend- I wasn't actually comparing them. I was simply listing names that were new to me. Every name I've mentioned has found literature to state that they Are, Too a breed, and explain the characteristics used to formulate that breed. Apparently there were six different foundation breeds used to form the Georgian Grande. I did not know that!

So I think, really, the only thing that's doing the "not legit" walk on my nerves right now is the ambiguous cloud of "sporthorses," in which a horse is bred to be the best at its job. Noble, yes, but nobility and purpose do not a breed make!

Not offense taken. I just wanted to make a distinction between the more rare but actually rather old breeds and the trendy breeds that just started showing up like the Walkaloosas and the type.

[erniewalker]

Seriously, I could make you dizzy.

DON'T STOP!!!

This is exactly the sort of thing I need to know!

I've been paying attention to these sorts of details, too. Like, "X breed was formed when the rugged native hill horses were bred with the lighter sport horses to create a horse who could y and q while still having the zibba zabba and zooba characteristics. The influence of the zipzap stud in Other place can be seen in X's ability to doodleydoo."

Only less Bill Cosby, and more factual.