someone explain to me what's going on with this horse

[kellyb]

HYPP is associated with bigger muscling.

Only because Impressive (the QH) was a halter sire...he was a beefy guy. He is the one who passed along HYPP.

[Anselcat]

Only because Impressive (the QH) was a halter sire...he was a beefy guy. He is the one who passed along HYPP.

Respectfully disagree that he was beefy only because he was a halter sire -- I think he also had a genetic predisposition toward 'unnaturally' big muscles that could be passed to his offspring, and which was associated in some way with HYPP.

Would love to hear from anyone with better understanding of the muscle/disease association ...


(and for the record, I am a fan of Foundation Quarter horses and ranch horses, i am not slamming the stock horse build).

[JoZ]

I know what HYPP is. I was responding to Cinder88's claim that the disease CAUSES heavy muscling, and thereby she was implying that halter breeders WANT HYPP in their herds to increase muscle mass. That's how I took it anyway. And if that was incorrect, then she needs to clarify.

From what I've heard, she is correct. The nerve misfiring that causes the twitching "exercises" the surrounding muscle and makes it larger/bulkier. The reason HYPP is lethal is that the heart is a muscle...

[bugsynskeeter]

Umm...How could you forget:

Smart Chic Olena
Smart Little Lena
Dual Pep
Reminic
Greys Starlight

and as far as HYPP...HYPP doesn't cause double muscling...double muscling is a genetic mutation that causes HYPP...
The double muscling is caused by an enzyme that does not restrict muscle development. This enzyme mutation can occur in either the homozygous or heterozygous forms (that's why horses can be HYPP HH or NH). NH horses will not exhibit a total double muscling, but they will exhibit more muscling then a NN horse.

at least, that's what I've always learned...

[bugsynskeeter]

I honestly don't have any research dealing with horses...only double muscled cattle. If you want those, I can PM you links...

[philosoraptor]

I don't want this to sound as rude as it does, but what is the point of these horses? Do they ever actually do anything or is their sole purpose in life to stand?

Probably just exist to earn ribbons so the offspring can be sold for big bucks... to other people who want to breed and do the same thing. Some people have horses not to ride but to earn money & prestige.

I know most of you here aren't into heavy drafts, but this reminds me of the things seen in the heavy draft ring. Not only are they bred for ribbons, not functionality, they're cared for and shod in such a way they're not useful for anything other than the show ring. They're shod with special shoes (eg. american Scotch Bottoms) that cause the foot to spread to dinnerplate size. The result is a horse who can't be turned out because he may lose the oversized shoe or damage the hoof. Their only work is "show conditioning" which is just exercise for the purpose of building muscle (not doing any real work). Big and beefcake are the in-thing with certain breeds.

[VivaBaby]

No you aren't the only old timer that remembers that when most Qhs didn't top 15 hands and 15.2 was considered "huge"..and most were bulldoggy and very athletic with big ole heads - lol..

I own one of those!! I'm fond of saying she's quite a broad broad. Ha! 15.1 hands, gi-normous head and gi-normous butt. 98.sumthin% foundation-bred. She's got legs and feet built for work. She's almost 20 now and doesn't show a sign of arthiritis or any another problems. She's just a good, old fashioned workin horse. A stark contrast to the horse I owned before I bought her.

The first horse I ever owned was adopted from a rescue. I was much less educated then. He taught me some harsh lessons. But, honestly, I wouldn't change a thing. Despite his issues I have many wonderful memories and learned a lot of positives too. He was a 16 hand, Impressive bred beastie with tiny, tiny feet. He was beyond beautiful as long as you didn't look at his legs or feet. His personality captured everyones' affection within moments. I had to put him down before he was 7. Navicular cysts that "blew out". There was almost nothing left of the nav. bones and severe arthritis had taken over every joint in his back half. He lived in constant pain.

I too am eager for the day when horses that have no useful life beyond standing in a show ring are no longer the fashion.

[twhrider13]

First of all, let me start with this little disclaimer. I do not own or have any interest in QHs at all. If I had could only show WP or QH halter, I would probably shoot myself. (Heck, if I could only show TWH halter, I would probably shoot myself. I just don't like halter classes.) I live in a part of the world where the QH is king. I have been laughed at, ridiculed, and called crazy for having "them racking horses." (I only have one horse that's registered Racking, btw. That's just the general redneck term for all gaited horses.) I saw an ad in the newspaper for a trail ride several weeks ago. Apparently, due to all the complaints, the ride had been split: one trail ride for "racking horses" and one for "everyone else." Yes, I'm serious.

Anyway, even though most people in my area are ignorant cowboy-wannabes, I still don't begrudge them their preferences. I have met just as many nice QH people as obnoxious ones. I don't understand QH breeding and showing; therefore, I'm not going to march up to these people and tell them everything they're doing wrong. I can sympathize with them about (dare I say it?) breed prejudice because I've had it pointed in my direction any number of times. If they're taking good care of their horses, what's it to me?

I understand that most people on this board are most familiar with sporthorses. I, personally, wouldn't know a sporthorse if it fell out of the sky and landed on my doorsteps. I understand that a lot of people here have limited exposure to Western-type disciplines (and gaited disciplines as well). What I don't understand is why every time something unfamiliar comes up, it's labelled unnatural, ridiculous, or abusive. Many here are very, very quick to cry foul at something they don't understand. (Look up the never-ending Big Lick thread if you don't believe me.) It's so much easier, I suppose, to throw rocks rather than trying to educate oneself.

*Zips up flame suit*

[bugsynskeeter]

First of all, let me start with this little disclaimer. I do not own or have any interest in QHs at all. If I had could only show WP or QH halter, I would probably shoot myself. (Heck, if I could only show TWH halter, I would probably shoot myself. I just don't like halter classes.) I live in a part of the world where the QH is king. I have been laughed at, ridiculed, and called crazy for having "them racking horses." (I only have one horse that's registered Racking, btw. That's just the general redneck term for all gaited horses.) I saw an ad in the newspaper for a trail ride several weeks ago. Apparently, due to all the complaints, the ride had been split: one trail ride for "racking horses" and one for "everyone else." Yes, I'm serious.

Anyway, even though most people in my area are ignorant cowboy-wannabes, I still don't begrudge them their preferences. I have met just as many nice QH people as obnoxious ones. I don't understand QH breeding and showing; therefore, I'm not going to march up to these people and tell them everything they're doing wrong. I can sympathize with them about (dare I say it?) breed prejudice because I've had it pointed in my direction any number of times. If they're taking good care of their horses, what's it to me?

I understand that most people on this board are most familiar with sporthorses. I, personally, wouldn't know a sporthorse if it fell out of the sky and landed on my doorsteps. I understand that a lot of people here have limited exposure to Western-type disciplines (and gaited disciplines as well). What I don't understand is why every time something unfamiliar comes up, it's labelled unnatural, ridiculous, or abusive. Many here are very, very quick to cry foul at something they don't understand. (Look up the never-ending Big Lick thread if you don't believe me.) It's so much easier, I suppose, to throw rocks rather than trying to educate oneself.

*Zips up flame suit*

AMEN! If you don't like it...look away...

what part of AL are you from? Because the part of AL I'm from is HUGE walking horse area...

[twhrider13]

AMEN! If you don't like it...look away...

what part of AL are you from? Because the part of AL I'm from is HUGE walking horse area...

Bless your heart...I knew I couldn't be the only one who felt that way.

North and South AL are both full of Walking Horses. For some reason, the backwater part of East-Central AL that I'm from (Alexander City area for those who've heard of it ) is wrapped up with QH people. There are WH people, but you have to know where to look.

Sorry about the minor hijack.

[Ember]

Quote

"I think of it as sort of like raising veal, or foie gras. To avoid a severe flaming possibility, I'll say no more."

This is exactly what I thought, then I got a little naseous.

[twhrider13]

We have this too where I live on certain rides, and there is actually a really good reason for it. Gaited horses typically move very fast. They can gait twice as fast as a non-gaited horse can trot. And on some trail rides, there is a no canter/gallop rule, so that means you let your horse gait, or you trot. And the gaited horses end up flying around bends in the trail and running right up on the butts of horses doing a moderately slow jog trot. And that causes a problem. The gaited horses are technically going as fast as a horse would be if it were cantering. So they divide gaited from non-gaited so the pace is more uniform and therefore, safer. It has nothing to do with discriminating or being ignorant, or anything else a person might think it means.

The way that you explain it makes sense. I can understand why someone would want to do it for safety purposes, but I don't understand why a person riding a gaited horse couldn't slow it down some. I know all my horses have a pretty good variation between "really slow, but still in a gait flat walk" and "hauling ass running walk," LOL. Oh, well, if that's how people want to do it, it's fine with me.

I know the people who are involved with this trail ride(s), though, and I know how screwy they are. I don't trail ride with large groups of people, so it doesn't matter to me. Almost all the "trail riders" around here are incredibly obnoxious, anyway, whether gaited or non-gaited. I'm betting so-and-so with gaited horses made so-and-so with QHs mad, and now we have two trail rides with ten people apiece so the two "so-and-sos" don't get drunk and fight it out on the yearly ride! (Please note, I don't think all trail riders are like this--just many of the ones I know personally!)

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thread. I apologize yet again.

[Dazednconfused]

Why do people show halter? Or have horses that aren't ridden?

Because, like any horse 'sport' people find it fun. I show halter (not QHs, though, Arabians) and I am having way more fun showing in that than I ever did under saddle. It's exciting for me. Why? I don't really know. I just know that I'm having more fun doing this than I was showing in performance (and I showed everything - country, english, hunter, western, sidesaddle). There's more than one way to have fun with your horses after all. In my experience the horses in my breed are, in fact, broken to ride if nothing else (any horse competing at nationals in open halter has to earn a performance point to qualify). Besides that, the arabian world still has, I think, the highest number of crossover horses (I'm talking about horses who have been top ten or better in halter and then have gone on to at least Class A level or better wins in performance) of most any breed out there (I can think of about 40 horses off the top of my head who have been able to do both in just recent years, like the last 10 or 15). Horses with 'halter breeding' are frequently still chosen by performance breeders and trainers.

I firmly believe that all horses should be rideable, at least, but I have no problem with those who prefer halter, either (as I am one )

Also, I don't think most arabian halter horses are 14 hands tall. The trend right now is more like 15.1+. There is one stallion who shows at the regional and national level extensively and he is about 13.3/14hh. A really gorgeous little horse but he is definitely marked down in my opinion for being that small...arabian people really do prefer much taller horses these days, Two Simple, in my experience.

Also, comparing the american halter horse to the warmblood world is difficult to do. Warmbloods are bred at state studs and have, obviously, always been bred for sport. Breeding was (is) controlled by the government. In the U.S., we have always been able to breed what and how we want - this is the american way (even if it is pretty flawed in a lot of ways). Anyone who has the money and a mare with a uterus can breed, and train that baby to do whatever they want (obviously within reason). There is no government agency here telling breeders what they can and cannot breed. I understood your point, Bravaddict, that breeders as a whole should care a lot more about the health and soundness of their breeding animals (which I happen to agree with), but you just can't compare the two entirely different outlooks on breeding, in my opinion.

[ddashaq]

[quote=Two Simple;2054982]Muscle is only "burned" after all fat stores in the body have been exhausted. That is called emaciation and it happens to starving horses. Turning a horse out for exercise would not "burn muscle." Instead it would burn fat and create more muscle. Most AQHA barns I've been in, have strict working schedules for their horses, and many of them have sand rings that are deeper than sporthorse people are used to seeing.

If a horse was fed grain 24/7, he would founder and/or colic and likely die. I have never heard of this extreme you speak of. In fact, halter horses "are" fed grain, supplements, and high quality hay in moderation, just like any other horse.

Do you honestly think if you threw grain at a TB 24/7, they would bulk up the size of an AQHA halter horse? Of course not. So why do you think 100 pounds of grain is going to put the muscle mass on a QH? IT WONT. Genetics will. If the genetics aren't there, neither will be the muscles. Muscle building supplements can be fed, the horses can be worked in deep sand, etc. and these things will help develop what genetics already put there. But this is why halter horses are derived from other halter horses. They don't take 2 huntseat champions, breed them together, and then feed the baby 100 pounds of grain a day to turn it into a halter champion. The genetics are different.

Right, there is no need to explain to me why I should not feed this way. The filly that was on "full" feed did indeed colic and the BM was just amazed as their family had been feeding this way for years without problems. (Supposedly.) Also, I do not need to have it explained to me how fat and muscle are burned, I was simply responding to a topic with what I had personally seen. I did not ask any questions, please do not presume to lecture me on genetics, feeding, etc. (If I read the tone of your response wrong, I apologize for being snarky.)

[Auventera Two]

ddashaq - I too apologize for lecturing. I didn't mean to! I read your post incorrectly, and honestly thought that you thought giving a horse grain 24/7 was good. I'm sorry for that.

twhrider - you're very right that you would think the gaited people could just slow their horses down a little. But maybe they expressed that they really like to go fast?? I don't know but you do make a really good point.

[sidepasser]

I don't think its accurate to say "the breed has changed from...." because that's just not true. Certain lines of the breed have been developed for hunters or dressage, but certainly not all. There are plenty of great working cow horse stallions out there!

Ones that immediately come to mind:

The whole Hollywood Dun It line
Shining Spark
Dash For Cash - racing lines
Lenas Gray
The whole Peppy line
The Tivio line
Poco Bueno lines

And so on.......

Yes, it's accurate to say that more english lines have been developed. But that's one sect of the breed as a whole and not the whole breed.

Within the QH breed, you could have everything from Indian Artifacts, Hunter champion extrordinairre http://www.whatiwork4.com/index.asp who looks more like a TB/warmblood cross,

to

Kid Trick http://www.lonemacfarm.com/dbs/stall...rick&who=studs Halter horse champion and ROM winner.

While there are some lines that are still western bred (cutting, etc.) at the beginning during the foundation of the breed, there were no specific english lines bred. So there was a shift in the breed as a whole towards the diversity of the breed by creating lines for english use. That is what has changed alot in the QH as a breed. It would be like taking the TB and saying, mmm, we want them shorter, stockier, and only able to run a certain distance but do it fast..

That is in reverse of what has taken place within the ORIGINAL breed of QH...people wanted leaner, taller, etc. So more and more original lines were bred out or diluted by use of TBs within the breed. Hence the group that got together to create the NFQHA to preserve those lines and reinforce them so they would not be lost.

I am not saying that it isn't a good thing to have the wide diversity of the QH in looks, build, and ability, I am just saying that in general, the Qh of today is not what it started out as years back. Some think that is a good thing and some don't. I don't breed anymore so don't have a dog in that fight, I just miss the old style QH - one doesn't see them much anymore unless you are looking at the foundation bred ones.

Old style meaning prior to the 60's.

[BoysNightOut]

Questions

A sincere question, as I don't really know much about a) halter horses and b) Quarter Horses.

I was always under the impression that a halter horse was to be judged on how well his conformation is suited for work. Such as being judged on how well he is bred for under saddle work. Is his conformation good enough that he can have a saddle thrown on him and do some riding without collapsing from the tiny feet I've seen in halter horses....etc. Do you know what I mean?

I took an equine judging class in college and remember getting some famous painting of a chestnut QH and was told this was the ideal conformation of a horse....it had all the correct angles, and such. This horse certainly wasn't beefed up like many QH halter horses today. And that this proper conformation was what judges kept in mind while judging a halter class.

So....1) is this true? Is this what is supposed to be the point of halter classes? How well the horse's conformation is suited for work? And 2) If so, why the change? Granted, not all halter horses are insanely beefed up, but many I have seen make me cringe, like the horse in the OP. Tiny feet, beefy muscles, it's just nothing like the ideal conformation that horse's are supposed to have for work.

So yeah, please don't flame me, I really don't bother with the QH world, but I am truly curious as to why these horses are bred like this and what halter classes are vs. what they're supposed to be judging.

Thanks!

[Murphy's Mom]

Speaking as an old-timer, am I the only one who remembers the day when ALL Quarter Horses had this same general body type? Give or take some weird conformational hiccups in this individual, this WAS the breed standard for foundation QH. So in all honesty I can't quite see what the fuss is all about... Am I missing something?

I have a 29 y.o. foundation bred QH mare (Poco Bueno/Poco Pine) and she looks NOTHING like the horse the OP posted. She went quite nicely in eventing and even place first in the conformation clinic that Practical Horseman used to have.

[alabama]

Some of the halter horses are HUGE...hubby calls them Ahh-nold Horses.
Check out this dude:
http://www.thehalterhorse.com/stalli...ey/patch06.jpg

Yep, he's an Ahh-nold horse and guess what? He's very ride-able, too. He's huge but he's very good minded and quite a gentleman. No, he's not ever going to be a dressage horse or a hunter horse, but he's a good man. I know this horse personally. His get are ride-able as well. I have a coming four year old of his in my pasture and I've been having the best time with her - trail riding her - since spring. I "broke" her myself. That in itself speaks for him passing on his good mind. I'm NOT a horse trainer. Just about all his babies have his good mind. My sister is part owner of Patch so I've known many of them since birth. BTW, he's HYPP N/N.

My 16 (almost 17 - yikes) year old gelding is also halter bred. He seems to cart my ass around just fine and has for the last 11 years. I've team penned on him and roped (badly - my fault, not his) off him. MANY halter horses are unuseable but many do make good riding horses, too. If you don't like them, I guess the best thing to do is not breed to them. But don't say they all stand around un-useable. (This last is not pointed at you MB, just a general comment.)

[Dazednconfused]

A sincere question, as I don't really know much about a) halter horses and b) Quarter Horses.

I was always under the impression that a halter horse was to be judged on how well his conformation is suited for work. Such as being judged on how well he is bred for under saddle work. Is his conformation good enough that he can have a saddle thrown on him and do some riding without collapsing from the tiny feet I've seen in halter horses....etc. Do you know what I mean?

I took an equine judging class in college and remember getting some famous painting of a chestnut QH and was told this was the ideal conformation of a horse....it had all the correct angles, and such. This horse certainly wasn't beefed up like many QH halter horses today. And that this proper conformation was what judges kept in mind while judging a halter class.

So....1) is this true? Is this what is supposed to be the point of halter classes? How well the horse's conformation is suited for work? And 2) If so, why the change? Granted, not all halter horses are insanely beefed up, but many I have seen make me cringe, like the horse in the OP. Tiny feet, beefy muscles, it's just nothing like the ideal conformation that horse's are supposed to have for work.

So yeah, please don't flame me, I really don't bother with the QH world, but I am truly curious as to why these horses are bred like this and what halter classes are vs. what they're supposed to be judging.

Thanks!

I'm not familiar with the quarter horse rules specifically, but I will answer with what I know about my own breed in halter.

I was always under the impression that a halter horse was to be judged on how well his conformation is suited for work. Such as being judged on how well he is bred for under saddle work. - no - they are judged on conformation, breed type, movement, femininity/masculinity etc (not in that order). They do not look at whether the horse has ability for undersaddle work (although conformation and movement certainly has an impact on that - but in the rulebook for Arabians, there is nothing about "Suitability as a riding horse" or similar for breeding classes).

why the change? Granted, not all halter horses are insanely beefed up, but many I have seen make me cringe, like the horse in the OP. Tiny feet, beefy muscles, it's just nothing like the ideal conformation that horse's are supposed to have for work. - Because this is what is popular. Halter, to me, becomes the culmination of extremes. A little is good, so a lot must be better (this is the mindset, not that I actually believe this to be true). So the horses started out being muscular and 'beefy' - and those horses were placed higher - so the owners began to breed horses that were more beefy, so the offspring were too. And then you throw a disorder like HYPP into the equation which builds even more muscle - then those horses won, which made it more desireable to have an Impressive-bred horse (or, to be more exact, one that is N/H or H/H).