I put this in this forum as we’re the ones with the youngsters so…
Interesting. Hoping someone familiar with the specific techniques will comment.
While I am familiar with Monty Robert’s techniques - which are round pen based but much more like John Lyons and Buck Brannaman then the PPs - I am unfamiliar with what the BHS techniques are and how they differ.
An N of 7 per group is a reasonable data pool, so the differences in performance scores are fairly solid, but I’m not sure what are they trying to say that lower heart rate indicates: Less stress, higher fitness, etc? I would also have been interested in seeing heart rates during their 20 days of training - it would be easy to monitor and graphically represent as well.
A good control for this study would have been a pool of slightly older horses (maybe 5-7 with 2 yrs under saddle) trained with each method to indicated to give a baseline heart rate and score set to compare to.
An interesting follow up would be to pull an average practitioner of MRT and an average CT trainer and do the same study with them, since having an Expert of either discipline is not representative of what most horses encounter.
Depends on what is considered “traditional” this is me rolling my eyes. My mother grew up spending her summers on The Pitch Fork Ranch, you know a REAL “cowboy” ranch. She watched men start young horses every year and then started working horse herself. There was no “yahoo” beating horses, tying them down or “breaking” via brute force like f-ing Hollywood would have people believe. Contrary to popular believe (and what ‘icons’ like Parelli, Roberts et) will tell you that “everyone” beat and tortured their horse as was “traditional” before THEY(the gurus) were “enlightened” and found a “better/gentler/natural” way. Round pens and gentle old men existed long before this guy.
I wonder what it is attributed to? Maybe all of the desensitization done? Interesting article, but it would be nice to read a more in-depth explanation of how the trainers went through their daily progression.
I love Roberts book “Bringing up Baby.” I’m reworking my way through it with my soon-to-be two year old. Gives us something practical to do when I visit her besides grooming. It was a really good book to have with my first foal.
What is the CT method that it was compared to?
Bringing Up Baby is John Lyons 
There’s not enough in the blurb to make educated comments about what supposedly happened. Some of MR’s training has not at all been nice in the past. A lot of what he does today is much more akin to what the NH guru types do. So, I sort of get where his treatment probably was.
But the British “traditional” methods means…what? People in the US can talk about “traditional” methods in the sense of letting them buck it out, snub 'em short, snap plastic bags in their face until they’re just too tired to spook anymore, etc, while others say “traditional” is a more drawn out process with ground work, lunging, desensitization, etc, so “traditional” doesn’t mean anything.
Even if the BHS “traditional” is more along the lines of the latter, what did those folks actually DO with the horses?
[QUOTE=JB;6314703]
Bringing Up Baby is John Lyons
There’s not enough in the blurb to make educated comments about what supposedly happened. Some of MR’s training has not at all been nice in the past. A lot of what he does today is much more akin to what the NH guru types do. So, I sort of get where his treatment probably was.
But the British “traditional” methods means…what? People in the US can talk about “traditional” methods in the sense of letting them buck it out, snub 'em short, snap plastic bags in their face until they’re just too tired to spook anymore, etc, while others say “traditional” is a more drawn out process with ground work, lunging, desensitization, etc, so “traditional” doesn’t mean anything.
Even if the BHS “traditional” is more along the lines of the latter, what did those folks actually DO with the horses?[/QUOTE]
AUGH! You are right! I’m embarrassed. That’s what I get for commenting after four hours of sleep last night. Well, it is still a good book.
Which one has the pressure halter/gadget–MR or JL?
It is a good book - I have it too
MR has the pressure thing ( assuming you mean the buck stopper) - hate the entire concept of it.
Yes, that gadget made me leery.
Many years ago I started learning the MR way of breaking horses. I also studied Lyons, Clinton Anderson, etc. I adjusted my program a bit from Monty, ie I removed the long lining part. I have broken many horses this way, and to date have found or seen no other better way. The very 1st day I am in the saddle with a calm, willing horse. The foundation of the program is to develope a dialog with the horse so you can introduce them to any number of things and they will know how to learn. Let them know they can get away if they want to, and only work with horses that choose to work with you. I have gotten horses after other “Natural Horseman” and found that the fundamentals of the MRT were skipped, and the horse was no better off. It might be sacked out to to everything under the sun, but the horses didn’t trust the trainers anymore then they did someone walking off the street. Although I find his system to be far superior then most, it isn’t for everyone. It absolutely REQUIRES that the trainer is capable of understanding horses behavoir and having a great control over ones body language.
I am not surprised about the results at all.
Tim
I totally agree with Tim.
Since going to my first MR clinic I have started over 40 horses incorporating his “join up” philosophy. Standardbreds really benefited from this…when I hooked them for the first time they were very willing and comfortable going “foward” ,not AWAY from fear, but foward with me. my husband and I were amazed…after the initial hooking up of the cart and getting into it (jog cart) I would ask him to let the horse go…and I would encourage him/her to go foward with the slightest of suggestions, and off they would go. I never used blinders…I wanted them to know what they were about. It really created a cooperative relationship.
It works beautifully with tbs. I have had less success with Warmbloods and I don’t know why. It may be because we raised all the tbs and stbs we did, and bought the warmbloods, except for three. the warmbloods seemed less “wild” and had less savvy about things, which is the basis for the herding and joining up. It replicates horse behavior in the wild.
Although it never occured to me to take their heart rate, I would believe that it would be lower . The understanding achieved with the horses could only de-stress all subsequent activities we shared. Loading on the van for the first time became a breeze…the dialogue seemed to be…" Okay, if you say so…here I come." It was very touching to experience their trust.
I also have worked with many children with their horses and the joining up experience really helps with trust and confidence in their contact with their horse. I was amazed with myself how it totally dispelled any fear I might have had…not to say it removed caution or respect…but my confidence that the horse understood what I was asking was unflappable and predictably successful!!
This is pretty interesting. Here’s the abstract of the paper, which was presented at the 7th International Equitation Science Conference in 2011. Abstract is on pg 52 of the Proceedings)
A comparison between the Monty Roberts technique and a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses
Fowler, V.L.1, Kennedy, M.2 and Marlin, D.3, 1Institute for Animal Health, Ash Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU24 0NF, United Kingdom, 2 Anglia Ruskin University, Department of Life Sciences, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, United Kingdom, 3Hartpury College, Hartpury House Gloucester, GL19 3BE, United Kingdom; veronica.fowler@bbsrc.ac.uk
This study describes the efficacy of the Monty Roberts horsemanship technique (MRT) in comparison to a UK conventional training technique (CT) for initial training of horses. Horses consisted of 14 untrained horses, 4 mares and 10 geldings between the ages of 3 and 5 years old. Horses were matched on temperament by assessing i) difficulty when being lead in hand, ii) behavioural reactivity to a novel object test prior to being randomly assigned to either MRT or CT. Trainers were selected in order to represent two differing styles of training horses. Monty Roberts (MRT) represented his own techniques whilst Phil Roelich, a conventional BHS registered horse trainer of 12 years, represented the conventional technique (CT). Each trainer was allowed 30 minutes per day to work with each horse for 20 days following which the horses undertook a standardised ridden obstacle and flatwork test and a ridden freestyle test. Heart rate during the daily training sessions and the final assessments was recorded using a Polar RS800CX system. Horses were scored for technical performance by a panel of judges who were blinded to the nature of the study and the trainers involved. During first saddle and rider MRT trained horse had significantly lower (P=0.0137) maximum heart rates (bpm) (First saddle: 127±37, first rider: 76±12) when compared to CT (First saddle: 176±24, first rider: 147±61). MRT trained horses had similar mean heart rates to CT trained horses (91±15 bpm, 80±7 bpm, respectively) during the ridden obstacle test but received significantly higher performance scores from the judges (171±4, 133±7, respectively; P<0.0001). MRT horses had similar mean heart rates to CT horses (81±13, 93±5 respectively) during the ridden flatwork test but were awarded significantly higher scores by the judges (149±9, 121±11, respectively; P=0.0005). Thus the efficacy of the MRT for initial training of riding horses is greater than CT as determined by significantly lower maximum heart rates during first saddle and first rider and significantly higher performance scores during standardised ridden tests following 20 days of training.
The use of Monty Roberts horsemanship methods before and during putting a saddle and a rider on a horses back for the first time, results in lower heart rates in horses when compared to using UK conventional horsemanship methods. In addition horses trained for 20 days using Monty Roberts horsemanship method perform significantly better in ridden tests than horses trained using UK conventional horsemanship methods.
Regarding the question about heart rate as a measure of stress, there’s another paper in the same Proceedings in which elevated heart rate predicts poorer performance of a previously learned task in a novel environment.
[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6315152]
It absolutely REQUIRES that the trainer is capable of understanding horses behavoir and having a great control over ones body language.
Tim[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen Monty Roberts work, but if it’s like John Lyons, this is very true. What makes his round pen techniques different from just chasing the horse until it’s tired is that he’s very precise about looking for the slightest body language that indicates an instant of focus on the trainer, and rewards that by ceasing the pressure. He shapes full focus from there in small steps as the horse offers it.
The better the timing, the faster the horse will figure it out.
It’s classic pressure/release (IE negative reinforcement)and shaping, which is exactly what “traditional” techniques are too, but I think the NH guys make it easier for the horse to figure it out AS LONG AS they are good with the timing and shaping, and that requires the ability to the see the smallest “try” and reward it with release of pressure.
Very few traditional trainers focus that small in their shaping steps, or keep their criteria to a single thing in each step. Lyons will start with the criteria of an ear flick toward the trainer, and focus on that alone, not expecting more until the horse understands just that.
This kind of precision in small shaping steps makes it simpler and more predictable for the horse, and therefore, I suspect, less stressful overall, even though they may start with what appears to be a lot of pressure. Because they are so precise with their release, the horse quickly grows confident that it understands the score.
It also opens a line of communication for the animal, because although from the trainer’s POV, it’s the animal being trained, from the horse’s POV, it has discovered what it can do to change the trainer’s behavior. “Oh, if I look toward him, I can make him lower that annoying/scary rope!”
Once the horse discovers they have some control of the situation, like any creature, they feel more calm and confident. That would be my explanation of this result.
From a scientific point of view, 14 horses is too small a sample to be statistically recognised, usually the smallest is 10 of each (ie 10 one way and 10 the other, plus there should also be 10 for the control).
[QUOTE=silvia;6315582]
From a scientific point of view, 14 horses is too small a sample to be statistically recognised, usually the smallest is 10 of each (ie 10 one way and 10 the other, plus there should also be 10 for the control).[/QUOTE]
This!
as an epidemiologist - hardly a study to draw such conclusions from - not to negate MR training - but simply not a very good study for a lot of reasons -
[QUOTE=3Dogs;6315606]
This!
as an epidemiologist - hardly a study to draw such conclusions from - not to negate MR training - but simply not a very good study for a lot of reasons -[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saying this. As an old time horse person, I find it fairly ridiculous. I will stay with my super, duper young horse trainer who starts them with an eye to where they are going. Never in a million years would I put one of mine with a Monty or Parelli or other NH person.
I also have found Monty (and of course Parelli) to be pretty silly for years (decades), as his stuff without all the equipment you can buy, and the over the top garbage that most well raised horses do not need, is just plain old common sense horsemanship.
What other reasons is it not a good study, 3dogs?
Silvia and 3dogs, are you saying the study has no value, or that the conclusions in the abstract are overdrawn?
I thought that anything less than 30 was considered a “small sample” rather than completely invalid. Performance comparison p-values are pretty low, based on blinded judging. Not sure what the control would be in this case…not a third training program, so just horses not being trained?
How would you design this study more correctly?
ETA: I’m not a supporter of Monty Roberts, in fact never seen him work, though I’m watching the vid that’s on eurodressage now, if I could ever get it to stream more than 5 secs at a time. However, I’m intensely interested in how horses learn.
In the medical field of epidemiology - need the power of at least 100 subjects - and a LOT of control of the various “confounders” before you can “statistically” call the “differences” found to have “validity”. And even 100 subjects small -unless the disease SO rare you might never HAVE that many “subjects”. I simply don’t think young horses going into training are “rare”. 
Not to say that the “study” they conducted might not have suggested “further” study - but to make such a bold statement as " better training methods"?
As in medicine, I would love to know who “financed” the study - maybe in the paper and I missed?
Agreed! Sure, there are things to take away from it, but overall we have found that horses who have been trained to move away from pressure with the natural horsemanship have a more difficult time accepting pressure (i.e. the leg and hand).
[QUOTE=Home Again Farm;6315650]
Thank you for saying this. As an old time horse person, I find it fairly ridiculous. I will stay with my super, duper young horse trainer who starts them with an eye to where they are going. Never in a million years would I put one of mine with a Monty or Parelli or other NH person.
I also have found Monty (and of course Parelli) to be pretty silly for years (decades), as his stuff without all the equipment you can buy, and the over the top garbage that most well raised horses do not need, is just plain old common sense horsemanship.[/QUOTE]
