[QUOTE=stoicfish;8392000]
Your English is excellent. Reading your posts I would never guess it isn’t your first language.
I have a different opinion on what you described above.
There is no “inherent traits”, there is inherited traits. Big difference.
People often speak of animals reverting back to a pre-existing form but the actual genetic mechanism is a recessive trait or a co-dominate trait that can hid from the phenotype. But for a population to always have those hidden traits, as a group, they have to be homologous (or nearly) for those hidden traits.
How can people say that Wb have those traits and that they are in fact hidden when we have only recently started to choose for them?
It is a wives tale that they will “revert back”.
You can have horses being produced now that end up being heavier then the parents and look more like the grandparents but that is not reverting, it is simply the grandparents genetics are coming though. The difference?
If you keep selecting for fine Wb’s, then you will in several generations, have fine Wb’s. If you do not introduce any out side horses to the group, then you will have a fairly uniform group. That is how evolution happens. You can create a whole species from former species by selection, you don’t need to “add” another group or species for the change to occur. This is obvious as all the breeds came from the same goofy looking, small wild horses and there was only selective breeding to create a draft or a mini.
So the point is that if people keep selecting modern looking Wb’s, they will after a certain number of generations be a breed of “modern” looking animals. No need for a Tb to refine, (although I think they bring other qualities that are more desirable and possible not selected for as much in Wb breeding).
There is not such thing as a Tb “trait” or a Wb “trait”, there are only traits. And those traits become common in a population when selected for.
Btw, but I really think some of those old fashioned, heavy looking horses have some outstanding abilities. One mare that comes to mind, is a way above average jumper and even more talented dressage horse. She looks like a tank and has shorter legs. I would rather breed her to a “finer” stallion that also had both those traits of at least her level or above then a Tb just to get a more modern horse. Because the kicker is that both stallions will bring those modern traits (not convince we are always moving in the right direction with that anyway), to the offspring and that a 2nd generation may or may not express those traits of that bigger mare. In 5-10 generations of selection, you will probably select out the heaver traits.
Proof? look at some super modern stallions and many do not have any Tb up close. In fact looking at their pedigree, they could be very course if people had selected different types for breeding in the last 35 years.[/QUOTE]
I do concur with most of your statements …
You can change the appearance of a breed by selection. In WB the stallions are selected (somewhat … because there a exceptions), but the mares are not selected because all mares of the stud-book have the right to reproduce.
Furthermore, the appearance is one selction point, the sport another one and the character / temperament is a third one, the health is a forth and the fifth is the recuperation capacity.
And, breeding being a personal matter, there might be others.
Everyone put his own personal convictions in the breeding.
But the standards are set by the SB and the judges examine by those standards.
I raised Holsteiner until 1998, than a gap of 10 years and I started raising or better said, registering in the French SF stud-book.
And with the distance, the perception change : I kno(e)w intimately the short comings of the French horses and nowadays I am very vary of the breeding politics of the Holsteiner breeders.
Still I frequently assist at HOl auctions, registering of mares, presentation of foals, licensings, etc But also I regulary visit breeders in their barns … and the difference is astounding.
Licensing and elite mare expositions are the tiny top of an iceberg which is massive beneath … and not in the meaning the tiny top represents the entire breed.
Often I see mares, 3Y old, big massive with short legs, 170cm and more weighing 600 and more … at 3 !
Even in foals sometimes … often, if you have the eye to look for it, you can guess the mass.
So I can only applaude the decision of the HV because the board has a more complete overview over the breed than either of us. So what is the problem when they decide to license TB stallions, all TB stallion already licensed in another SB. They have to create the futur and with breeders with real bloodhorses (which are rare and in between) - btw for me a bloodhorse is F1 or F2, sometimes, rarely F3 after using a TB or an AA, and they have to have the modell of a blood horse, too - they are opening or maintaining an open door. They do not risk anything because the risk, commercial risk, is with the breeder, and the risk of the breed is very little because there are not that much breeders who would / will use a TB (or even an AA).
But the modell is only one point.
Yes, I concur that most often the F1 generation is not as good as the F0 one. But breeding is always a process of thinking in generations. Otherwise one is not a breeder, but a proliferator - sorry for those ! Fortunately, there are exception.
Health is another factor where TB influence is generally beneficial (like I said above), also for the recuperation capacity.
The most important point for me is - and I’m flabbergasted by some of writings here - TB is needed for speed, for elasticity, for intelligence, for reactivity, for intuition.
Those qualities are much much more difficult to fix even with strong selection. But a strong selection doesn’t exist … never existed in our SB …
