Breedism and Warmbloods

[Manni01]

I think one reason for all this confusion is that everybody wants to breed whatever they think. In Europe we do not have these problems… If I breed a warmblood, its usually registered in the same registry as the mother. If I choose to use an approved TB stallion, thats fine and does not change the status of the foal as a warmblood. If I want to use a TB mare its basically the same. I get her approved and than the foal is branded with the registry I go with.

Nobody would think about registering Draft crosses with the warmblood registries… If some body wants to breed crosses like this, then its fine but his problem. Its not a breed.

And by the way the German Riding pony is a beautiful example how to create a very nice breed in a very short time… Nobody would think that the breed as it exists today is so young, whereas the Labradoodle is an example how to create a no breed… Its not a breed and its nothing because I am pretty sure that everybody still sells the F1 Generation… Nobody has continued to develope a new breed. So that is a different situation.

And I am sure if somebody wants to create a Draft cross breed it would be possible if people get a concept and stick to it… But as long as they only breed F1 crosses its the same as with the Labradoodle.

And I don’t say I don’t like Draft crosses or have doubts about their abliities, I just think it is something different than a breed…

[Bombproof]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8202036]
I’m not even opposed to the point you’re trying to make, but seriously? The sources you link are hardly SCIENTISTS coming to a consensus. They aren’t even reputable horse sites (WiseGeek? Really?).

The only link that could possibly be argued as such is the OK State site, and they are talking about Quarter Horses, not warmbloods.

You might as well have linked a Wikipedia article.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you have a point. I was just trying to provide some starting information. I didn’t really have the time to seek scientific works, but I should have done better. Nevertheless, my point stands.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Bombproof;8202052]
Okay, you have a point. I was just trying to provide some starting information. I didn’t really have the time to seek scientific works, but I should have done better. Nevertheless, my point stands.[/QUOTE]

Yabbut, I don’t think biologists or even population geneticists would have an easier time. This question of defining a breed (when a studbook is semi-open) is much like the problem of circumscribing a species. That is a long-standing, known problem in evolutionary biology.

[vandenbrink]

[QUOTE=zipperfoot;8201491]
So if you have a foal by a warmblood stallion approved by multiple registries out of a TB mare approved by one of those registries, is the foal a warmblood or a warmblood/TB cross? What if the mare is NOT approved?[/QUOTE]

I purposely left TB out of my example of “non warmblood” breeds since they are commonly used as improvement or refinement blood in all registries. This makes labelling the TB crosses a bit tricky. It’s not as clear as with the other breeds. To me it’s still a TB cross…approved or not… since it’s an F1 cross and often they are different in type but many would still call them by their registry name.

[skykingismybaby1]

By my count there are 84,621 angels on the head of a pin.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=skykingismybaby1;8202085]
By my count there are 84,621 angels on the head of a pin.[/QUOTE]

Touché.

[SmartAlex]

OK, here is my best attempt for this evening:

The Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture 1878
Page 21: “Strictly speaking, the term thoroughbred horse has heretofore been held to apply only to the English race-horse, and when in England a man speaks of a thoroughbred, he necessarily means that it does not apply to any other class or species of animals, but the horse, and to no breed of horses but the race-horses. All other breeds of horses are called cold-blooded. The race-horse is called warm-blooded. The race-horse is assumed to be descended from the Eastern blood-the Barb (Godolphin 1724-1753), the Arab (Darley 1700-1722?), and the Turk (Byerley 1684-1706).”

The English thoroughbred being “warm-bloods” descend from the “hot” (sensitive) Eastern blood which included the Arabians, Barbs and Turks crossed with the “cold” (cool tempered) harness or draft type previously found in England.

[SportArab]

[QUOTE=ladyj79;8201288]
Or the dressage ring.

Also don’t tell trakhener people they arent a breed. And in reality I’m hard pressed to think of a breed that doesn’t have any outside blood, even arabians, but I’d say they are probably the closest??[/QUOTE]

Arabians do not allow outside blood into the mix.

[SillyHorse]

[QUOTE=SmartAlex;8202110]
OK, here is my best attempt for this evening:

The Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture 1878
Page 21: “Strictly speaking, the term thoroughbred horse has heretofore been held to apply only to the English race-horse, and when in England a man speaks of a thoroughbred, he necessarily means that it does not apply to any other class or species of animals, but the horse, and to no breed of horses but the race-horses. All other breeds of horses are called cold-blooded. The race-horse is called warm-blooded. The race-horse is assumed to be descended from the Eastern blood-the Barb (Godolphin 1724-1753), the Arab (Darley 1700-1722?), and the Turk (Byerley 1684-1706).”

The English thoroughbred being “warm-bloods” descend from the “hot” (sensitive) Eastern blood which included the Arabians, Barbs and Turks crossed with the “cold” (cool tempered) harness or draft type previously found in England.[/QUOTE]
1878 Ohio. It’s doubtful that whoever wrote that report was even aware of selective breeding occurring in Europe at the time. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8202291]
1878 Ohio. It’s doubtful that whoever wrote that report was even aware of selective breeding occurring in Europe at the time. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better.[/QUOTE]

Why? Because you don’t like it? It shows the use of warmblood to mean a cross between hot and cold existed and was in use long before warmblood as a reference to specific European-centric registries made it over to America.

Then the European warmblood came to America, and the people supporting that registry didn’t like that there were two meanings, and they have been trying to co-opt the word ever since.

The word means two things. Many words do. Even in the horse world.

Pinto is both a breed and a color. While the Paint Horse Association, like the European registry fans, would like to completely claim ownership of the world, there are many people out there who use “paint” as a synonym for “pinto” and not as a reference to the breed. Chestnut is both a color and a part of the horse’s anatomy.

Warmblood is a generic term for a type of horse produced by European registries AND it has been in use for a long time to mean a cross between hot and cold blooded breeds. That doesn’t make the two types of warmbloods equivalent.

But the popularity of European warmbloods also doesn’t get to magically invalidate 125+ years of an alternative word usage just because people are having marketing problems.

[Pennywell_Bay]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8202324]

The word means two things. Many words do. Even in the horse world.

Pinto is both a breed and a color. While the Paint Horse Association, like the European registry fans, would like to completely claim ownership of the world, there are many people out there who use “paint” as a synonym for “pinto” and not as a reference to the breed. Chestnut is both a color and a part of the horse’s anatomy.

Warmblood is a generic term for a type of horse produced by European registries AND it has been in use for a long time to mean a cross between hot and cold blooded breeds. That doesn’t make the two types of warmbloods equivalent.

But the popularity of European warmbloods also doesn’t get to magically invalidate 125+ years of an alternative word usage just because people are having marketing problems.[/QUOTE]

OMG this x 1000. I am not a warmblood or Warmblood aficionado. I use it in more “layman” terms (moreso talking to nonhorse people who ask, like my SO). If I was a breeder, or I am speaking to those “in the business” I dial it up and speak using the registry name etc.

Why argue about this? The devil is in the details, this is true. The point of the article (originally the topic of this thread) is so lost. My opinion, worth what you paid for it, if you want to compete seriously - whether WP, AA hunters, Arabian sport - but what is suitable and the standard. If you have a nonstandard- compete as you see fit but don’t bitch and expect the standard of judging to change to accommodate your “type”.

[ladyj79]

So, everything is a “draft cross,” and a “draft cross=warmblood”, except for Arabians, which were formed ex nihilo? Or would we say they’re like Erechtheus, and sprung fully formed from the sands of Arabia? And let’s not forget the native ponies.

I think that there are lots of different types of swallows, I think someone did a study on them once…so I think probably lots of different types of horses developed in different areas before people ever got involved. But I do enjoy greatly the image of wild pre-historic clydesdales roaming the earth humping all the native ponies to create quarter horses and orlov trotters and, later, Hidalgo. But not arabs, never the arabs.

ETA, I’m not wholy ignorant, we all know arabs are the wind incarnate

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8202324]
Why? Because you don’t like it? It shows the use of warmblood to mean a cross between hot and cold existed and was in use long before warmblood as a reference to specific European-centric registries made it over to America.

<snip>

But the popularity of European warmbloods also doesn’t get to magically invalidate 125+ years of an alternative word usage just because people are having marketing problems.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and we’re speaking English and whether we like it or not, American originated as a very English based culture, especially in the East and especially in the horse breeding world. Now, any one may argue that western America and the stock breeds have heavy Spanish influence, but the English disciplines are based on the English terminology and principles.

Google 19th century horse books for “hot blood cold blood” and read to your hearts content and never find a hard and fast definition. However, you will soon understand that any refined, hot tempered, high stepping horse was considered to have “hot blood” and the heavier boned, even tempered, hairier, low going horses were assumed or considered to have “cold blood”.

[ladyj79]

Actually, the “stock breeds” aka qhs were descendants primarily of English thoroughbreds, imported by colonists since the 17th century, and then a smattering of “spanish” blood. Look at a qh from the early 19th century (yes, they called them that then, even before AQHA). They look like thoroughbreds. Selective breeding of the thoroughbred type desired by…lots of people, with a touch of spanish blood, produced the modern qh…but not halter horses haha that’s a whole 'nother round of “selective” breeding.

[red_mares]

[QUOTE=SportArab;8202115]
Arabians do not allow outside blood into the mix.[/QUOTE]

And yet they somehow got 16h+ had Arabs that look and move like saddlebreds. :lol:

And reining horses that look like QHs.

Okie-dokie.

I’ve heard the same thing from Morgan people. One day it was “if the horse has Morgan papers, it’s all Morgan. Period” The same person, when looking at a 17h registered Morgan (from a farm that also bred saddlebreds). “That’s not all Morgan!” That was long before Bruce Ekstrom.

[Nootka]

This topic really should be moved to the Sport Horse Breeding forum.

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=ladyj79;8202360]
Actually, the “stock breeds” aka qhs were descendants primarily of English thoroughbreds, imported by colonists since the 17th century, and then a smattering of “spanish” blood. Look at a qh from the early 19th century (yes, they called them that then, even before AQHA). They look like thoroughbreds. Selective breeding of the thoroughbred type desired by…lots of people, with a touch of spanish blood, produced the modern qh…but not halter horses haha that’s a whole 'nother round of “selective” breeding.[/QUOTE]

I know where the Quarter Horses came from. There used to be a whole race of horses called “Steel Dusts” who descended from Sir Archy (TB) and Whip (TB). And there were the Copper Bottoms (Copper Bottom was sired by Sir Archy himself) The Steel Dusts and the Copper Bottoms are a mainstay in Quarter Horse history.

But we’re arguing over semantics here, so I figured someone would say I was discounting the influence of the Spaniards on the American horse culture (since they brought the first ones) and start throwing words at me like Latigo, Remuda and Cayuse (which would be Native American) or arguing over the correct pronunciation of Chaps.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8202291]
1878 Ohio. It’s doubtful that whoever wrote that report was even aware of selective breeding occurring in Europe at the time. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better.[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, American breeders were quite aware of selective breeding going on in Europe by 1878. The work done by English breeders, especially of Shorthorn cattle, was famous in the States.

And also, draft horses-- the Sanders family were big into Percherons, IIRC-- were quite popular in the upper midwest. “Livestock journalists” like Alvin Saunders who published The Breeders Gazette for years also wrote histories of heavy breed draft horses which traced their ancestry back to England, France and elsewhere so that American breeders could know their horses’ lines and better from worse.

In my reading around in that time/place of history, I don’t recall whether or not the terms “hot blood” and “cold blood” were used to refer to purebred lighter riding/racing breeds and draft breeds. But you’d be hard-pressed to find someone creating or promoting their mixture-- the proverbial warmblood-- as a wonderful, useful type of horse. Rather, most breeders of any purpose-bred horse in this period (I’d say 1830s to 1930s?) were much more concerned with these issues:

1. Getting people to breed pedigreed animals rather than grade POSs at all.

2. Getting farmers to appreciate the added value of a pure-bred and purpose-bred horse.

3. Getting people to understand the basics of selective breeding (for all livestock) and to value the purity of blood rather than just the apparent type of an animal as an indicated of what his offspring might look like or do.

So, no, I don’t think the 19th-century Americans using those terms were thinking about combining pure breeds to create a heavy riding horse like a WB. And I will add that very few Americans were aware of the way European (and Scandinavian) states had their hand in selective breeding via co-ops. That government oversight of animal breeding is something considered near the turn or the 20th century, but it never got as strong in the US as it had in, say, Denmark 100 years earlier.

In any case, the interest in perfecting and marketing pure breeds of horse had to do with the fact that breeding systems and specialized breeds (especially of cattle) were becoming well-known and American agriculture was really growing/getting a whole lot richer and more technical in the Reconstruction Era. There are some rather famous episodes (in Shorthorn cattle history) of auctions for absurdly in-bred animals who came to nothing. I think a couple of those were in the late 1870s.

There’s a ton of primary- and secondary literature out there that will confirm this.

[showmanship]

[QUOTE=Equibrit;8198969]
I would love to see a labradoodle retrieving out in the field/woods/water !

All dogs are trainable. All you have to do is train them for a task that suits their talents.[/QUOTE]

Well, it wasn’t a Labradoodle, but on Duck Dynasty, Si had a Standard Poodle retrieving for him!

ETA - It’s obvious I only read the first page (or 2?) before posting… Now that I’ve continued, am I the only one who is getting a Harry Potter vibe from this thread? Mudblood, pure-blood, muggles…

Ahem, carry on.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8202291]
1878 Ohio. It’s doubtful that whoever wrote that report was even aware of selective breeding occurring in Europe at the time. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think that this was the case? There was a great deal of information shared between the US and Europe in the late 1800’s.

Why do you not believe two definitions of the word warmblood exist?