Here in America, my fear is that a big part of the breeding community seems to take the “breed the best, ride the rest” as an excuse not to show fillies. People often rely to much on the results in mare inspections and in hand foal conformation shows. It is very important to have great conformation, disposition and rideability. But to me it is a minimum. Not enough emphasis is put on the athleticism. mare lines and stallion careers are built on in hand, hunter prospect 2yo results. We should bring back athletsism to the forefront. Otherwise, we will end up like the paints and the quarter horses, with work lines, show lines and useless halter lines. Pretty horses, with puppy tame personalities, nice heads, deer eyes, daisycutting trot and no power nore sport habilities.
[QUOTE=SueL;7516889]
Oh sorry, mitochondrial DNA. Not enough coffee. Here’s an abstract discussing it: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/14/83 ET is certainly a viable option if you want to use a quality mare in sport but some breeders have reservations about it. Their programs, their decisions.
There will always be the hidden gem. And of course one cannot discount getting the right trainer together with the right horse. Flxible and Hickstead lucked out in that department IMO.
Hey, if you have a super young mare and you want to prove her in sport that’s great! But there are logical reasons breeders like Showjumper66 and Bayhawk follow a different method. It’s working for them. Breeding is an art and science - there can and should be room for diversity in approaches.[/QUOTE]
There’s no way I’m wading back into the original argument here, as I’m never going to see eye-to-eye with some of the other breeders here, at least on this particular topic. However, as a technical note, that article has nothing to do with embryo transfer, and embryo transfer has nothing to do with mitochondrial DNA. Embryo transfer is taking an intact pregnancy, and trasnfering it to another mare’s uterus. You could argue the effects of the recips uterus on the pregnancy, or her behavior after birth and its effect on the foal, but the genetic material is intact from the donor. Now, if you want to talk about cloning, then there is an argument to be made that the mitochondrial DNA becomes an issue.
[QUOTE=Cumano;7517158]
They used to say “Breed the best, ride the rest” about stallions as well. Until Donnerhall, Galoubet and a bunch of stallions from that generation, people thaught that a stallion could not breed and show at the same time. Things have change since and now a stallion pretty much has to show performance in the show ring to be considered as a stallion.
Breed the best is still as true as it was. And at a time, It was true that most of the best would not make it into the show ring. But I don’t believe that they are mutualy exclusive. I am not the most familliar with Holsteiner breeding but they tend to be maybe a bit more conservative than other studbooks, and it served them well. But things are changing now for the mares. Take for example Belgium , as I am more familliar with the breeding in this region, the breeders realized that by keeping all their mares, they were sitting on major money. They also realized that, in theory, if your breeding choices are well done, each generation should be better then the previous one. What they do, more and more, with ET, is to breed 2 or 3 foals of their very best mares at 2, 3, 4 and 5 YO through embryo transfer. When the mare turns 5, they usualy have its successors, and the mare is in her best years for the market. They put her into sport at 5 and 6, and get the big money.
Just to name a few, we can think of the whole “Querly chin de muze” line (Querly, Derly, Werly, Narcotique, Walnut, and many other), Valentina Van’t Heike, TaBelle Van’t sombeke, the Roosakers, the Van’t Spieveld, and others. In all those lines you will find successions of 1m60 with 1m60 daughters, grand daughters and great-grand-daughters.
Looking at the success of belgian breeding, I think people will come to expect that from the damlines and the market will evoluate in that direction.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saying exactly the same I do! I do hope you are a breeder otherwise your opinion is worthless in this topic. I mentioned the Qerly Chin line too! But you can check the motherline from Berlin too, or the direct line from Think Twice II by Corrado I! Breeders bred their mares right away because they had clients for the foals, not because they did not want to have them in sport. Now it is more difficult to get the foals sold and they put the mares first in sport to see what they can. Before somebody says I saying wrong things; I heared this tonight from the breeder from the mother of Casall!
[QUOTE=Bachus;7517523]
Thank you for saying exactly the same I do! I do hope you are a breeder otherwise your opinion is worthless in this topic. I mentioned the Qerly Chin line too! But you can check the motherline from Berlin too, or the direct line from Think Twice II by Corrado I! Breeders bred their mares right away because they had clients for the foals, not because they did not want to have them in sport. Now it is more difficult to get the foals sold and they put the mares first in sport to see what they can. Before somebody says I saying wrong things; I heared this tonight from the breeder from the mother of Casall![/QUOTE]
No one said your “opinion is worthless” if you’re not a breeder Adrianna. It’s just that you don’t have any experience to back up that opinion about breeding when you haven’t done it yourself. That’s all I’m saying.
I think the things you have to say are interesting for the breeders here when you are “reporting” what you have heard. But to say that “Casall throws small” is just wrong. There are too many medium and large Casall’s that prove you wrong.
Mares don’t need to compete to be able to judge character, rideability, athleticism, potential talent, etc. We can see what we have in the jump chute and in about 90 days of training. It is very easy to see which ones have upper level potential. The only thing that you can’t see is the heart portion which is seen once you challenge and push the horse outside its comfort level. We are at no risk of breeding “lead and feed” horses by not competing our mares. We are not breeding for any of the traits that you have listed, “Pretty horses, with puppy tame personalities, nice heads, deer eyes, daisycutting trot and no power nore sport habilities” other than pretty. 
I want attractive, modern, blooded horses with great balance. She should be moderately framed and boned, have ground covering gaits, an active hind leg with push and drive, and a canter that carries. The back should be elastic and supple. Foundation needs to be correct. Lead changes should be clean and come naturally. I love to see a “quick” leg and a horse that is naturally catty. I prefer a bit more fire in the hole without being hot or spooky. The jump should be scopey. I want to see a jump that is quick off the ground and quick back on the ground. The legs should be quick and tight (sometimes a horse may appear to dangle because it is so quick in closing and opening his legs and this will tighten up as the jumps get bigger). The back and neck should be round and the pelvis should open. I want to see a brave, bold, careful jumper who learns from her mistakes. I should see natural adjustability in-between jumps. 4’6" should be easy for a talented young horse in the jump chute. Under saddle, the horse should learn quickly and be light and responsive to the aids. The horse should have a desire to work and should not be lazy or resistant or stubborn. If you have all of these pieces in your mare, she doesn’t need to compete to prove herself.
[QUOTE=Cumano;7517185]
Here in America, my fear is that a big part of the breeding community seems to take the “breed the best, ride the rest” as an excuse not to show fillies. People often rely to much on the results in mare inspections and in hand foal conformation shows. It is very important to have great conformation, disposition and rideability. But to me it is a minimum. Not enough emphasis is put on the athleticism. mare lines and stallion careers are built on in hand, hunter prospect 2yo results. We should bring back athletsism to the forefront. Otherwise, we will end up like the paints and the quarter horses, with work lines, show lines and useless halter lines. Pretty horses, with puppy tame personalities, nice heads, deer eyes, daisycutting trot and no power nore sport habilities.[/QUOTE]
The best breeders know how to “build” a sporthorse or a breeding horse. The term is handed out with genuine respect…he / she really knows how to build a horse. Ponder on that for a while…
[QUOTE=showjumpers66;7518305]
Mares don’t need to compete to be able to judge character, rideability, athleticism, potential talent, etc. We can see what we have in the jump chute and in about 90 days of training. It is very easy to see which ones have upper level potential. The only thing that you can’t see is the heart portion which is seen once you challenge and push the horse outside its comfort level. [/QUOTE]
I could not disagree more with the top part…a reply would take me all day…I do not have that luxury
2 things for you guys to ponder on:
1- Dictionary definition of potential: possible, as opposed to actual.
2- Heart in horses is what makes the difference between winning a class or not.
Which is it that matters? Potential or heart?
Both do…heart on top…always.
[QUOTE=Bayhawk;7518588]
The best breeders know how to “build” a sporthorse or a breeding horse. The term is handed out with genuine respect…he / she really knows how to build a horse. Ponder on that for a while…[/QUOTE]
No one said otherwise. Showing future broodmares is just another tool that can be used, and is being used, even by the best breeders. The good breeder can detect, to some extend, what an unshowned filly should be able to do and produce. The same breeder, by showing same filly, now knows what it is able to do. And results of the “shown lines” I mentioned above, productionwise, in my own opinion speak by themselves.
Breeding is a game of numbers. The best breeders do not produce only good horses. The game is to produce more of the best horses, and improve the quality of the average horse we produce. I agree a good breeder knows how to build a sport horse, but can further limit the uncertainty by selecting a good potential broodmare with results over a good potential broodmares without.
Times are changing and not everybody has to change their way of doing things. But I think that the number of horses carying names as “de Muze”, “de la Pomme”, “Hero”, “La Silla”, “Van’t Spieveld” etc… in international rings shows that adding results to your selection criteria is another way to improve your breeding.
We have to say potential because we do not know what tomorrow will bring. Many of the best horses will never get the opportunity to perform to their full potential due to a lack of funds, rider talent, training, management, and pure luck. Many of the horses at the top are not there because they are the best, but rather because the stars all aligned for them.
We do breed for heart as we know which bloodlines carry it, but it is something you will not know about the horse until later in their training. Time is so limited with a mare and her production, that you are wasting her best years waiting for this information.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. I have several friends that believe strongly in breeding only proven sport horses. I respect their decision to do so. I can tell you, though, that I am seeing far more consistency in the production of superior quality in the programs that follow “Breed the best. Ride the rest.” versus a proven sport horse based program.
[QUOTE=Quixotic;7520424]
I could not disagree more with the top part…a reply would take me all day…I do not have that luxury
2 things for you guys to ponder on:
1- Dictionary definition of potential: possible, as opposed to actual.
2- Heart in horses is what makes the difference between winning a class or not.
Which is it that matters? Potential or heart?
Both do…heart on top…always.[/QUOTE]
Sad but true. Not to say that some race breeders don’t care. They are out there. But I have met plenty that its all about race results. Period. That was confirmed this past week when I was looking at tb stallions at one of the bigger PA race operations standing about 14 stallions. They’ve seen me twice now trying to pick a date for my girl. The stallion manager said come as often as you like… I like showing them and few mare owners come to see them… It’s all done on paper.
My mare selection was done a little differently. When my mares were younger all their foals were for sale. My 4 old foundation mares: each of them had a filly for their last foal. I kept their last fillies to replace them. One matured to what I comsidered not breeding quality so she too was sold as a riding horse.and so now there are 3…
Why would a breeder from Belgium do embryo transfer and send the mares into sport (and geldings and stallions)? Because all these sporthorses are not good enough to be bred? He had 4 horses at the Olympics from London…
You breed for the best. If you have a filly and you want to keep her and don’t want to put her in sport, fine. If you have a filly and you must sell her because you have no room to keep her will that make her quality less good then the filly that can stay? Or if you have a filly and somebody keeps asking for that filly to sell makes her that not good enough?
Breeders are becoming more and more focused on sport, the prediction is that in the future there will be no more free jumping at stallion approvals.
Check the damline from Zirocco Blue; http://www.horsetelex.nl//horses/pedigree/170812
Maybe it works different in the USA, but in Europe sport is requested in the damline more and more and the less sport there is the harder it get’s to sell your horses.
[QUOTE=Cumano;7520745]
No one said otherwise. Showing future broodmares is just another tool that can be used, and is being used, even by the best breeders. The good breeder can detect, to some extend, what an unshowned filly should be able to do and produce. The same breeder, by showing same filly, now knows what it is able to do. And results of the “shown lines” I mentioned above, productionwise, in my own opinion speak by themselves.
Breeding is a game of numbers. The best breeders do not produce only good horses. The game is to produce more of the best horses, and improve the quality of the average horse we produce. I agree a good breeder knows how to build a sport horse, but can further limit the uncertainty by selecting a good potential broodmare with results over a good potential broodmares without.
Times are changing and not everybody has to change their way of doing things. But I think that the number of horses carying names as “de Muze”, “de la Pomme”, “Hero”, “La Silla”, “Van’t Spieveld” etc… in international rings shows that adding results to your selection criteria is another way to improve your breeding.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
