Kinda Scared

[w c]

Two choices. Ride 'em young, or still be riding them when they're older.

If you ride them at 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2, you will usually be riding them until they are seven or eight. If you wait and ride them when they are 3 1/2, you will be riding them when they are 16, 18, 20.

Just to be purely materialistic, you save a lot of money by waiting a little while.

 

[patandchickens]

There is reasonably good observational and veterinary-medical evidence that intelligently done work when young is *good* for the horse in a number of ways.

However the (huge) problem is that hardly anyone does it intelligently. In real life. Including nearly all of the people who SWEAR they will be careful and conservative and not exceed their plans, or they're "just going to sit on her a bit for now, no actual work".

Adding 5 minutes a week gets you up to a full hour per day in only three months, which IMHO is way too much work for a 2 yr old, especially since realistically virtually nobody sticks with their plans to "just walk, nothing faster".

Big horses mature slower and later... it is the SMALLER, more compact ones who you can more-safely start early.

Reining horses do not need to retire due to soundness issues at 5 or 10 years old, as is common. The ones that are started more conservatively and later, as is thankfully more common nowadays, last longer. IMHO any practice that customarily results in many/most horses being retired due to leg problems before they are at least 15 or so, is a BAD practice.

Just sayin',

Pat

 

[BDial]

I am gonna have to differ on Patandchickens about the "the small and compact horses". I have one and I just really started her training last month. She is 4 1/2 and at times still isn't mentally ready. I sent her away to a trainer last year because I was having some issues with her but even he said I needed to wait another year to put weight on her back.

You can start training by doing all the ground work and in the mean time (you and your dad) get used to working with her on the ground. Then when she is 3-4 start working on saddle breaking her and by then she will have everything you have already taught her under her belt. There is a ton of training that goes on befor you EVER put a saddle on and get on a horses back.

(I am NOT a trainer. I rely very very very much on my trainer.)

 

[marlymcdonald]

I have known many horsemen to start horses at two and three. It just depends on the horse. Ground work is huge. And, creating a bond with the horse is essential. If the horse does not trust you, and you do not trust the horse, chances are it will be a rough ride.
Not a trainer, not an expert, but I can tell you I have had a horse that made me afraid, and he knew it. I had such a hard time enjoying my ride for fear of what my crazy horse might do next. He was my husbands horse, and they were fine together, but I inherited him when my husband started buddy saddling our daughter and there was NO WAY she was buddying on that gelding, so they took my trustworthy mare and I got him.
Long story short, the horse is now in the care of a young man who loves him. My daughter rides her 4yoa mare who was only a baby at the time we were in our predicament (yes, she is a 4 yoa broke and trained horse) or she rides my old trustworthy mare. My husband has the "show" horse - a 16 1/2 hand golden Palomino, who was also a baby at the time we were in our predicament. I have a big solid sorrel now, as well as my mare. He has increased my riding confidence in leaps and bounds. He is dependable, easy-going, and just perfect. My husband will take him out on a solo ride b/c he says that horse just does not mind anything and he is perfect for a relaxing ride. My daughter recently rode him and loved him, too. Now we have choices, but they are all good and SAFE choices.
BTW I picked out the Palomino, but he is not so trustworthy, and my husband still likes a little spirit in a horse, so he is the only one who rides him. Again, trust and bond. If it is not there, then find it or let the horse go.

 

[patandchickens]

I am gonna have to differ on Patandchickens about the "the small and compact horses". I have one and I just really started her training last month. She is 4 1/2 and at times still isn't mentally ready. I sent her away to a trainer last year because I was having some issues with her but even he said I needed to wait another year to put weight on her back.

I am talking about general patterns. Obviously there are exceptions... especially mental ones. Er, you know what I mean. Although there are a few late-PHYSICALLY-maturing small horses too.

It really is true though that the great majority of taller/larger horses mature PHYSICALLY slower than the great majority of smaller ones.

Pat

 

[w c]

I know this goes against what everyone usually says, but I don't think a 'small compact' horse is that good at carrying weight beyond a certain point.

The cavalry said that 20% of a horse's weight was the rider weight limit, but they didn't care if they had to replace the horse, only if it finished that march. The 'Remount' industry was very alive and well all during the history of the cavalry. I think 15% of the horse's weight is a more practical limit for long distance, speed and jumping, and then going down to 10% or less for racing.

For many hundreds of years the main criteria for rider's weight has been that it should be some percentage of the weight of the horse. That isn't specific to whether it is a taller or shorter animal.

By the 20% rule, a 150 lb rider would go with a thousand pound horse, such as a Quarter Horse, a 300 lb rider with a two thousand pound horse - maybe a sturdy draft horse.

I also don't think big horses are necessarily more unsound more often or less able to pack weight. Poorly conformed big horses are a problem, sure. And when people breed ONLY for height and aren't selective about what they geld, height is a problem in a breed.

Longer levers are more efficient at carrying weights in motion and producing energy(force), and taller, longer legs are not a bad thing. The thing is that if a person is starting back riding and wants a quiet horse, there are many compact, shorter American breeds that are meant for that sort of use. But a taller animal wouldn't necessarily be bad.

I think a lot of it depends not on height or general build, but on balance, conformation, fitness, and amount of bone and foot and back. I think a poorly conformed short compact animal, with a weak loin and poorly build hind quarter is bad at carrying weight. I think a short weakly built animal is bad at carrying weight, but a tall one is too.

But I also think it really, REALLY depends on the riding. RIding occasionally at a walk, the rider's weight is not as much a factor. But riding more often, longer distances, at greater speeds, while jumping or doing demanding figures and manouvers, I think then the choice of horse becomes more important.
--------------------------------------------------------
I know it goes against popular wisdom and I'll probably get clobbered for saying it, but I feel all horses mature at the same rate - that is - SLOWLY. LOL. I don't go with the usual wisdom that Quarter Horses, Morgans and Arabs mature sooner - or that any other breed matures slower or faster.

I think people want to go with that, because it is just tradition to start them early, show them early, etc, and I think the reason for it is that is that is how the horse industry has developed. And I think the reason for THAT is that people want to sell horses younger and get some money out of them younger. Horses are broke at 1 1/2, raced or competed at 2 in very tough events. I think that is just how things are.

Hundreds of years ago, in some places, racing didn't begin til the horse was 4. Those horses, overall, ran for a lot longer than horses do now, started a lot younger. Yes, some will last, but the overall numbers aren't in favor of starting horses young, if you want to keep them going.

Starting horses young is expensive. You have to support more broke down horses, you have more sour horses, you have more horses you have to sell or support, and buying replacement horses is expensive. Retraining a horse after you got one working like how you want, takes a long time.

I don't think horses mature at different rates. I think they all mature slow. I think small horses look more 'done' and look more 'finished' just because they are smaller. Most horses are still gaining height at 5, 6, 7.

For a long time, it was believed xrays of the knees would show when the horse could be worked safely, or raced or what have you. After a few years, I saw that debunked in a veterinary journal. The study that showed that, the way it was designed, it was pretty undeniable.

Studies have shown that some very limited kinds of exercise and activity are better for young horses than standing in a dry lot not moving and doing nothing. I don't think that breaking them at 1 1/2, riding and competing at 2, racing them at 2, is really a part of that 'beneficial program'.

 

[patandchickens]

I also don't think big horses are necessarily more unsound more often

Statistically they are. Also shorter-lived, in significant part for soundness reasons. I am not sure it has ever been studied in a way that enables one to conclusively separate out effects of different "working lives", but while allowing that there is the possibility of some confounding factor there, it is still numerically true that on average taller horses don't last as well or as long.

Longer levers are more efficient at carrying weights in motion and producing energy(force), and taller, longer legs are not a bad thing.

The difficulty with big horses is largely that the size/strength/bearing-area of joints and tendons increases as the SQUARE of the horse's height, whereas the weight and forces that are being applied to those joints and tendons increases as the CUBE of the horse's height. (As a close approximation). Thus the force per square inch (which is a major factor in determining whether damage gets done) is greater on the larger horse's joints and tendons. Having nothing to do with conformation, jsut overall size.

It is a simple mathematical fact, confirmed by what measurements can(have) been made, that if you take identically-built horses of (say) 15 and 17 hands -- as if you used the "enlarge" setting on your horse cloning machine <g> -- the taller one, despite identical build and conformation, is significantly closer to the failure limits of the important joint and connective tissues.

If you want a "gut check" confirmation of this, consider how long heavy field hunters (like the real old-style basically-draft ones) typically stay working-sound, compared to normal field hunters (light draft crosses, or sturdily built TB types). There is just no comparison. And it is not like people haven't been breeding heavy hunters for good (useful) conformation for hundreds of years.

But I also think it really, REALLY depends on the riding. RIding occasionally at a walk, the rider's weight is not as much a factor. But riding more often, longer distances, at greater speeds, while jumping or doing demanding figures and manouvers, I think then the choice of horse becomes more important.

This is certainly true but to your list of things where choice of horse becomes more important (to soundness) I would add "carrying a novice rider".

(Well, really the issue is "carrying a rider with not such a great seat and is more apt to slosh around up there or lean inappropriately on various bits of the horse and have him using his body incorrectly", but while some experienced riders are still like that, nearly ALL novices are )

I know it goes against popular wisdom and I'll probably get clobbered for saying it, but I feel all horses mature at the same rate - that is - SLOWLY. LOL. I don't go with the usual wisdom that Quarter Horses, Morgans and Arabs mature sooner - or that any other breed matures slower or faster.

Several studies in vet journals have documented that "the" (or at least many) growth plates on the bones close later in larger horses. (At least for the ones generally xrayed as being most-relevant to riding -- the knees and spine for instance -- I do not know about others). While closure of epiphyses is certainly not the be-all and end-all, it is hard for me to see any argument that it is not a *contributor* (no study has been done that would settle the subject in a comprehensive way, AFAIK, as it would require xraying *many* joints and then a long-term followup, which will probably never happen, certainly never outside racing and I'm not sure how relevant racing studies are to general riding horse purposes)

There are of course other aspects of "maturity" relevant to starting a young horse, such as mental readiness and coordination, but some of them go along with the same trend and I cannot think of any breed offhand where those trends typically *buck* the trend in epiphyseal closure. (IME mental readiness and coordination are very much individual-specific traits, without too many really consistent overall differences between breeds)

Longer levers are more efficient at carrying weights in motion and producing energy(force), and taller, longer legs are not a bad thing

Actually the greater force produced by longer legs can be a *problem*. (Ditto the greater force produced by a heavier horse -- again, remember that the impact force during a gait increases as the CUBE of the horse's size, essentially, while the amount of tissue available to recieve it increases as essentially the SQUARE only.) The "moving parts" are not necessarily prepared to withstand those greater forces.

I don't think that breaking them at 1 1/2, riding and competing at 2, racing them at 2, is really a part of that 'beneficial program'.

110% agree!!!

And although that is not the only possible way to start a horse young, it is by FAR the most common and pretty clearly destructive of the horse's later potential and soundness.

Pat

 

[w c]

Re beginner rider being harder on a horse. Sure. But they also might not ride as often or as hard, or demand the horse work as hard, like the friend who longed her horse for 45 minutes at a lazy lope, and was appalled when a trainer had it blowing and veined up after 10 minutes of walk and trot on a longe line.

They might work at slower paces, such as walk and slow trot vs more trot and canter. On the other hand I've seen inexperienced riders actually cause a horse to fall and get injured, and if the lesser shifts of weight and loss of balance cause wear and tear on the horse, rider experience would be important.

But I can't accept the often made comment that 'a 300 lb rider can sit light as a feather'. I think that rider weight does affect a horse. The eventing jumping study confirms that, but so do basic physical rules.

I have read a lot of studies on structure and all are very interesting. I like reading clinical findings, but think that often, practical issues overlay the clinicial findings. For example, a work on a hard surface every 10 days might increase bone density, but there might be a practical downside to that, such as increased bone density might change the force pattern in the leg and lead to more ligament injuries or tendon avulsions.

I don't regard growth plate closure as being a useful indication of when animals are ready to break or work, so I don't mind if some close sooner or later. I don't think it is a useful indication of maturity.

My point with heavy hunters wasn't that they are significantly sounder than other animals, but that it has been a long tradition to put heavier riders on heavier horses. A great many old timers seem to believe that horse weight and rider weight should have some relation to each other.

And I think it's very hard to have a very tall, heavy, sound hunter. Show hunter or field hunter, unless it stays with slow work. According to an acquaintance who did a study on bone density in horses, draft breeds have different bone density areas in key bones. According to others the conformation is meant for slow work. So that could mean heavy saddle horses have built in issues.

I don't think it's as big a problem to breed tall, light animals as long as they have nice big joints and feet. I think there the advantages of the longer lever and the joint surface area are at their best, when coupled with a lighter more balanced body.

I think in breeds where it is 'size at all costs', conformation and balance is ignored and that leads to a lot of unsound individuals. In breeds that have always been relatively tall, there has been more rigorous selection, and a horse doesn't breed a zillian mares JUST because he's tall. I think that works out better, as well as licensing, inspect and publishing a very stringent conformation evaluation of stallions for all potential customers to read.

 

[FlipFlopFarmer]

I am typing this with all the best intentions..... If you are afraid of your broke mare and a little bucking on the line, please, get rid of the young colt and get yourself an older sweet, mount that will be forgiving and teach you while building your confidence. There will be many many many challenges with the youngster, and young colts usually wind up spoiled and unruly when left raised/trained buy people who are afraid, and inexperienced. I would personally much rather see a person with a complimentary mount who enjoys riding and seeks out new adventures with them as a great companion, as opposed to someone biting off more than they can chew and possibly being injured or worse.

If you are dead set on keeping the filly, get yourself some dvd's on training, and breaking, even if you send the filly off to be broke, i personally reccomend clinton anderson.

good luck.