# What Makes it Worth Breeding?



## FoxRidgeRanch

This is interesting to me and I'm sure others. A friend and I were having this discussion the other day of in our own opinions what makes a horse worth breeding. We have different opinions of course and that what makes our equestrian world to varied but what do you think makes a horse worth breeding?

For me its when it has proven itself to be versatile in training and performance, I don't care to breed a horse if it isn't a working horse I like to see for myself that it rides, drives or serves some higher purpose then just procreating. I honestly lose alot of interest in a stud or mare if every picture had is of it just haltered, eating, or even if its saddled and groomed all pretty but the saddle in EMPTY. I love bloodlines but only if that horse can demonstrate that they have accomplished said disciplines that they are bred for or any other working discipline.

A sound mind and body, I know quite a few people that if its rideable they would breed it. It doesn't matter that it was horrible to train or that if is generally a nasty horse but it does something. A lady I bought a dog from, the day I picked him up she has arabians, one mare had a knee slightly larger then a grapefruit. When i asked what happened, they don't know they just bought her for a broodmare... SCARY. 

Your own ability. THIS is more heavy then the others in my opinion. If you plan on breeding you better know how to train completely from top to bottom the ground manners to at least a well rounded trail horse. If you can't then you should probably stick to just riding the horse you have or buying an already broke one.

So what do you guys consider worthy?


----------



## smrobs

Bloodlines, temperament, train-ability, superb conformation, and they must not only be trained in their chosen discipline, but _successful _at it.


----------



## dbarabians

I believe a stallion or mare is a good candidate for breeding if they have correct conformation, sound minds, athletic ability, good bloodlines, easy keepers, with good legs and hard feet. 
There are many successful broodmares and stallions that have never been ridden due to injury. If any fault is due to injury I will consider a horses breeding potential.
A show record does not impress me and will be the last thing I consider when choosing breeding stock. Western pleasure , english pleasure and halter points might even deter me from considering the animal for breeding. 

I would rather breed a horse that could finish the Tevis or any endurance orace than one that could win in the showring. Shalom


----------



## greentree

A sixth sense. I know it sounds kooky as all get out, but my best horses have come from stallions with NO performance record, injured as yearlings or whatever.... they just had IT for my mares. 

Then twice I bought mares to go with stallions. One of those colts left my place in June, green broke, and was Top Ten at Canadian Nationals in October. Another mare had me three fillies, one of which has had me four fillies....all four fillies were by a stallion that I met ONCE, and knew I HAD to do that cross. I called it my "mad science experiment", because several people thought I was crazy. There is that possibility, lol!!

Nancy


----------



## dbarabians

Greentree I understand completely. I knew Star was the stallion for my program and I was not in the market for another stallion. He has never entered an arena. After seeing what he produced from different types of mares he convinced me to add him to my program. Shalom


----------



## BlueSpark

> Bloodlines, temperament, train-ability, superb conformation, and they must not only be trained in their chosen discipline, but _successful _at it.


 Ideally I agree with the above, but their are exceptions. I have known three absolutely superb stallions that suffered injuries, two part way into their careers and one as a yearling. Each of them had that 'something' that I just felt paired well. Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to breed to the first two, but the third one is the sire of the anglo arab foal I'm eagerly awaiting. This stallion raced against some famous horses, on famous tracks, but an injury cut his career short. If he was sound now, He would excel in many disciplines, and we would have been able to see his true potential, but as it is he has the breeding, temperament, confo and trainability I want.

I guess for me I want to ride the best horse I can afford, and I want to breed a better horse than I own. You hear "I'll keep it forever and trail ride it" from a lot of back yard breeders, but The truth is that it costs as much to keep a poorly conformed, nasty tempered pasture puff as it does to keep a well built, talented, athletic horse, and one has far more marketability than the other, in the event of having to sell it. 

If its not going to contribute positively to its breed, and produce a foal in the top 50% quality wise, it should not be bred.

Not everyone has to produce the next world champion, because the biggest market for horses is well built, good minded, sound, well bred, functional recreation horses. Just like a well made, durable, functional car keeps its value and will always have a buyer, the corresponding type of horse will too.


----------



## Zexious

I think there was another thread on this subject fairly recently. 

For me, I want a superb example of the breed. I want conformation and a sound mind. I /do/ want a horse to be proven in the show ring, because that (in my humble opinion) means that they are good for more than just hanging out in the lesson ring.


----------



## dbarabians

I dont ride mine in any arena . I would be bored if I rode in an arena. Nor do I train my horses. I have no time or patience for training.
Most horses will never see the inside of a show ring. Most owners have no interest in showing.
I dont breed show horses. I breed good versatile horses that can compete or just be used for pleasure. Shalom


----------



## Incitatus32

This might sound crazy but some horses with bloodlines scare the bejeezus out of me. I'm a lot more wary when buying a horse that has papers than I am of a grade horse. 

I consider conformation, temperament, ability and personality to be the main factors in breeding. I personally could care less how a horse has done in a show ring but put a lot of emphasis on how they are in everyday riding, how good they are at their job, and what they throw. (For example if the stud's a lesson horse he better be the best darn lesson horse in the area for me to breed too! Same for a trail horse.) 

My mare was bred to a grade stallion who plowed fields and had kids ride him all day, never stepped foot inside a show ring. Her colt was fabulous in every aspect and smart to boot!


----------



## Aesthetic

I look for temperament, conformation, I like thick horses so I like to cross a thick mare with a thick stallion. I like barrel horses so my conformation isn't just 'ideal' overall, it's ideal for the sport. 

I do like the horses to excel in something that can benefit my foals athleticism. Cutting, roping, barrel racing and so on. Cow bred horses are my absolute favorite. 

I've seen some ridiculous line breeding out there. A friend of mine bought a prospect filly that is line bred out her bum. Excessive amounts of doc and basically breeding siblings or offspring. 

Back on subject, these things are a must. Temperament, conformation, personality, successful, and I think a versatile stallion is amazing. 

The rest depends on what the rider is wanting to breed the foal to do.


----------



## Foxhunter

For me the first thought is what am I breeding for?
Secondly conformation, temperament, athletic ability in no particular order.

As for stallions, I have used both proven and unproven horses. I look for conformation primarily and, the opposite faults to any the mare might have.

Mostly I have been involved in breeding for jump racehorses so breed true to TBs but, when one older mare had never bred a winner I sent her to a Clevland Bay, what quality horses she bred from the cross. They made great Fox Hunters and show jumpers all fetching more money at three and four year old than any of her TB foals did. 

I also used a non registered TB on several different types of mares, I just liked the horse, he was correct and good temperament. (This was not for racing) didn't matter if this horse covered a pony mare or a bigger horse, I never saw him throw a bad foal.


----------



## Zexious

dbarabians--The arena comment was an expression. But, by that same token, not all of us are blessed with the abilities to ride outside of an arena. Unless it's around a dirt property that our horses is boarded on 

To each their own. I /do/ enjoy competing (and so do many people that I know), and so it's important to me. This is why there are different horses, different markets, and different price points.


----------



## Brighteyes

Proven is good. Ideally, a mare (I speak from the point of view of a mare owner) would need to be successful and _exceptional _in whatever area she specialized in. I'm all for breeding exceptional eventers, hunters, reiners... But I'm also for breeding successful "kid horses" and trail horses. If a horse is good at what they do, and their type of "work" is in demand... That's the first step.

The horse needs to be sound and comformationally correct. These two are often relate. Pretty is a good bonus. Because, let's be very honest -- pretty sells better than plain, and you want sellable horses.

Bloodlines are actually the most important factor to me. Say I have a mare who has never been ridden, but her bloodlines are very strong. Horses of similar breeding are very talented and are producing talented foals. I'd breed her based on my educated guess that she _could _be amazing if she were trained. After all, genetically, a horse is the same the day they're born till the day they die. Training a mare won't improve the quality of her foals.

Temperament is a big deal. Temperament in horses can be strongly genetic. To be marketable, a foals needs to be trainable. A sane, settled mare is more likely to produce a sane, settled foal.

Lastly, the horse has to be free of genetic diseases. No HYPP, MH, or other dominate disorders. I'm still up in the air over recessive disorders/breeding careers to non-careers, and "manageable" dominate disorders like PSSM. But as a rule of thumb... Let's just not.


----------



## Britt

Bloodlines don't matter to me, nor does a show career. As a trail-rider, I look for horses who have proven themselves to be sound of mind and body on the trail. Good or average trail conformation (clean legs, a nice back, decent width to their barrel, etc...) and good hooves. 

Mindset is the most important to me, as a trail-rider.


----------



## dbarabians

Zexious said:


> dbarabians--The arena comment was an expression. But, by that same token, not all of us are blessed with the abilities to ride outside of an arena. Unless it's around a dirt property that our horses is boarded on
> 
> To each their own. I /do/ enjoy competing (and so do many people that I know), and so it's important to me. This is why there are different horses, different markets, and different price points.


Zexious my comment was not meant to be argumentive but to make a point that not every one wants a show horse.
If I wanted to show my horses I would want a show record when picking a stallion or a mare . I also know people that have only ridden in arenas. The horses I breed would not be of interest to them. My horses tend to be a little hot with plenty of endurance. Shalom


----------



## kiltsrhott

The number one most important quality a breeding-worthy animal must have is health and soundness. Animals that are prone to injury or illness are likely to produce offspring who are also prone to injury or illness. No matter what the future use of the foal will be, health and soundness are important.

The second most important factor is personality and trainability. If either parent is aggressive, unwilling, has vices or is otherwise difficult to work with, they are likely to produce offspring with similar personality traits and it will be tougher to bring the foal along in the chosen discipline and tougher to resell the foal if you would have to resell should the foal inherits these traits. This does not mean every horse worthy of breeding needs to be docile enough for a small child to handle. This just means the horse's personality needs to be appropriate for their offspring's intended use, whether that be hot and forward or calm and laid back. Though, IMO, no horse worth breeding should be outright mean, moody or dangerously unpredictable.

The third most important factor for breeding would be performance ability. By performance ability I don't mean, the horse needs to be the best of the best, jump the highest, barrel race the fastest, WP jog the slowest etc. I mean the performance ability of the parents needs to match the intended level/use of the foal. As someone said before, not everyone is looking to breed a world champion show horse. If I ever bred a horse of mine, I would be aiming to produce a horse suitable for an amateur adult English rider, a horse that is at least competent at the lower levels of whatever discipline(s) I choose. Personality would be more important to me, as I would need a horse that is safe and enjoyable to learn and compete on at lower levels for an amateur, and I understand that a horse with the ability to make it to the top might be too much horse for me as a rider and would not appeal to the masses if I were to resell. I would prefer a to breed a horse that is a jack of all trades and can do a little of everything, as opposed to a horse that excels in one discipline only. I would choose parents proven over fences up to 4', decent scores in dressage up to 3rd level or so, or successful prelim level eventers not grand prix competitors, because I don't need any foal of mine to compete grand prix. However, if you are expecting a foal make it to the upper levels of a certain discipline, you need to breed accordingly. And I agree with dbarabians. If the foal is not to be ridden in an arena, the parents do not need to have a show record, but they should be proven capable in their own manner of use.

Conformation is also important, but unless you are breeding for halter and breed standard, it is only important relative to soundness and performance. You do not want to breed horses that have conformational faults that might affect their performance ability, or soundness, but some traits that might be considered "faults" to one person, might be beneficial to another, or may just not matter at all depending on the offspring's intended use. I would have no issue breeding a horse with a roman nose, because this doesn't matter to me, but a breeder of halter-type Arabians may have a different opinion. I would be more likely to breed my slightly pigeon-toed appaloosa gelding (if he were a stallion) than I would my grandfather's text book, well-conformed, OTTB mare for HUS simply because the gelding, despite his faults, has the ideal movement for that discipline, while the OTTB has shorter, choppier strides. Different breeds and different disciplines have different conformational requirements and this is okay.


----------



## wakiya

Bloodlines are only as important as setting breed type for me.
TYPE is very important. Conformation, Temperament, Soundness, and Athletic Ability. Each horse evaluated individually.


----------



## its lbs not miles

FoxRidgeRanch said:


> This is interesting to me and I'm sure others. A friend and I were having this discussion the other day of in our own opinions what makes a horse worth breeding. We have different opinions of course and that what makes our equestrian world to varied but what do you think makes a horse worth breeding?
> 
> For me its when it has proven itself to be versatile in training and performance, I don't care to breed a horse if it isn't a working horse I like to see for myself that it rides, drives or serves some higher purpose then just procreating. I honestly lose alot of interest in a stud or mare if every picture had is of it just haltered, eating, or even if its saddled and groomed all pretty but the saddle in EMPTY. I love bloodlines but only if that horse can demonstrate that they have accomplished said disciplines that they are bred for or any other working discipline.
> 
> A sound mind and body, I know quite a few people that if its rideable they would breed it. It doesn't matter that it was horrible to train or that if is generally a nasty horse but it does something. A lady I bought a dog from, the day I picked him up she has arabians, one mare had a knee slightly larger then a grapefruit. When i asked what happened, they don't know they just bought her for a broodmare... SCARY.
> 
> Your own ability. THIS is more heavy then the others in my opinion. If you plan on breeding you better know how to train completely from top to bottom the ground manners to at least a well rounded trail horse. If you can't then you should probably stick to just riding the horse you have or buying an already broke one.
> 
> So what do you guys consider worthy?


There can be as many reason to breed as any group of people can dream up. That's one reason why there are so many back yard breeders.

The only thing that makes an animal "worth breeding" is to maintain/develop a desired trait(s) (which is how most breeds came into existence) or in the rare case when it's an attempt at saving a breed that is about to vanish, but some feel is worth saving. If there is not something "special" about the animal (beyond it being someone's favorite horse) then there's nothing that makes it worth breeding.
Of course if you really wanted to get picky it can be argued (quite successfully) that breeding for certain traits has lead to the diminishment of many breeds used in the show and racing industries, resulting in animals that have the fancy looks, movements and/or speed that win, but at the expense of the original overall robustness and durability of the breed (the problem with focusing only on what the competition needs are and not the "whole" horse). But then it can also be argued (successfully) that there isn't as much need for the sturdy, robust and durable animals that were an original trademark for most breeds (it used to be a primary trait that was important to maintain) since the show and flat racing industry (where most of the money is) doesn't need them and the vast majority of riders don't need them for their occasional weekend rides.


----------



## GotaDunQH

What's breeding worthy mean to me? Two exceptional individuals (stud and mare) with great minds, bloodlines geared to my discipline, correct conformation for that discipline, both individuals that are proven in the show pen, and have characteristics that deserve to be perpetuated in their offspring. I show AQHA so ALL of the above is important to me. 

IMHO, the mare is MORE important in the equation than the stud. My biggest pet peeve, is someone with a mare not worthy of reproducing, but want to do so because they..."want to something to remember their mare by'. Irks the bejesus out of me.


----------



## frizzy

For me breeding worthy Is conformation, sound mind, versatile healthy. 

To me if you breed for these things then essentially the resulting foal should excel in your own chosen disciplines, I don't care much about what there sires and dams have accomplished/winnings etc as long as they are producing quality offspring.

My Anglo Arab is by a unknown thoroughbred mare and an relatively unknown sire BUT he has really good conformation, versatile, easy keeper, healthy, sound off mind. He's done really well in endurance (although I can't take credit for that the last owners did that) he is now a casual trail riding horse and we help people I know with farm work


----------



## Mulefeather

Honestly I think in the grand scheme of things, a great temperament and sound conformation would be my two biggest "must-haves" in a pairing. A kind, well-mannered mare who likes people is also going to have a big influence on her foal during his first six months of life as the foal sees her interact with humans. 

A great temperament and strong work ethic will help a horse in his future even if he's not 100% gorgeous in every way. Good, strong conformation will ensure he holds up to years and years of use, and that he's less likely to sustain an injury that will limit his soundness or ability to be used. Unfortunately soundness issues are a death sentence for so many animals out there. 

Moreover, does this future horse have a PURPOSE, and a plan to get him there after he's born? We need all sorts of animals for all sorts of disciplines and jobs, from barrel racing and dressage all the way down to children's ponies and your grandpa's gentle, smooth-gaited trail horse that doesn't hurt his back. Purpose-breeding for a job is how all of our modern breeds and types came about in the first place.


----------



## Zexious

This has been a pretty neat thread. 

I think the bottom line is that you select the two best specimens you can afford, given what you're going for--be it a trail horse, a horse to eventually add to a lesson program, a Grand Prix jumper, or anything in between. 

It's such a gamble as to what you'll end up with... I guess this is why I'm not in the business of breeding, and never will be. I like to hedge my bets with something that's already on the ground xD


----------



## Arab Mama

dbarabians said:


> I believe a stallion or mare is a good candidate for breeding if they have correct conformation, sound minds, athletic ability, good bloodlines, easy keepers, with good legs and hard feet.
> There are many successful broodmares and stallions that have never been ridden due to injury. If any fault is due to injury I will consider a horses breeding potential.


How can you seriously judge a horse's athletic ability if it can't be ridden or at least pull a cart ? Being worked in a round pen or running around in a field doesn't win you the Tevis cup. Heck, it doesnt even tell you you have a good, sound trail horse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Arab Mama

Brighteyes said:


> Proven is good. Ideally, a mare (I speak from the point of view of a mare owner) would need to be successful and _exceptional _in whatever area she specialized in. I'm all for breeding exceptional eventers, hunters, reiners... But I'm also for breeding successful "kid horses" and trail horses. If a horse is good at what they do, and their type of "work" is in demand... That's the first step.
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodlines are actually the most important factor to me. Say I have a mare who has never been ridden, but her bloodlines are very strong. Horses of similar breeding are very talented and are producing talented foals. I'd breed her based on my educated guess that she _could _be amazing if she were trained. After all, genetically, a horse is the same the day they're born till the day they die. Training a mare won't improve the quality of her foals.
> .


Genetics is a crap shoot. There is no way you can determine how those genes are going to come together. If looking at the success of similarly bred horses were all it took, there'd be a lot more champions out there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

the only way to prove a stallion or a broodmare is to breed it. Once a stallion or mare enter the breeding shed no show record or earinings matter. 
The colt they produce does however.
If the conformation and temperament are good then most likely they will pass this on to the foal.
The only people that I ever hear demanding a stallion or mare be trained under saddle first are small breeders or those that have and never will breed.
Breeders understand not every horse worthy of breeding makes it to the show pen or under saddle.
My friend Dreamcatcher Arabians has gifted me two very nice well bred mares. Neither is trained under saddle. One is a successful broodmare that is not sound for riding. Only a novice would demand that she have time under saddle to be worthy of breeding. She is well bred has a great conformation , is easy to handle , and has produced very nice trainable foals.
She will be bred this next heat and I excited about this foal already.
For the record, I have owned horses of h for almost 5 decades and have encountered only a few that were not mentally stable enough to train. I and my family have owned hundreds of horses.
Everyones breeding program is different. 
Most of my mares have never seen the inside of either a roundpen in years or even set a hoof in an arena. Shalom


----------



## Druydess

dbarabians said:


> the only way to prove a stallion or a broodmare is to breed it. Once a stallion or mare enter the breeding shed no show record or earinings matter.
> The colt they produce does however.
> If the conformation and temperament are good then most likely they will pass this on to the foal.
> The only people that I ever hear demanding a stallion or mare be trained under saddle first are small breeders or those that have and never will breed.
> Breeders understand not every horse worthy of breeding makes it to the show pen or under saddle.
> My friend Dreamcatcher Arabians has gifted me two very nice well bred mares. Neither is trained under saddle. One is a successful broodmare that is not sound for riding. Only a novice would demand that she have time under saddle to be worthy of breeding. She is well bred has a great conformation , is easy to handle , and has produced very nice trainable foals.
> She will be bred this next heat and I excited about this foal already.
> For the record, I have owned horses of h for almost 5 decades and have encountered only a few that were not mentally stable enough to train. I and my family have owned hundreds of horses.
> Everyones breeding program is different.
> Most of my mares have never seen the inside of either a roundpen in years or even set a hoof in an arena. Shalom


You certainly hit the nail on the head. If people choose to wait for a showing career, good on them, but it's not what will inevitable prove ability to produce. The majority of those insisting on show records have never bred or never done so successfully. (Notice I said "majority" which does not mean everyone) They are akin to those people who never had children telling others how to raise them. The top breeders in the industry, of whom I actually know quite a few, rarely show their horses, and the ones that do, do so after seeing what they produce. The mares are rarely shown at all. A proven broodmare is much more valuable producing than wasting years of potential foals due to of showing. Anyone who doubts this, look at the bigger, successful breeders yourself. Look at how many are actually shown. The results of those crosses have absolutely NO problem competing and winning at their chosen discipline, so that kinda belies the theory that the parents HAVE to have done something for the progeny to be successful. Unless conformation is a disaster, horses have been "working" for centuries without being in a ring to prove they can.

What a stallion or mare produces is best judged by their progeny. I've seen stallions and mares go through years of showing only to find they produce crap no one wants. 

For example, Dream is booked to a gorgeous mare based on his two fillies' quality. This is from a breeder of 40+ years who breeds to stallions such as Trussardi and DaVinci. It is telling that she chose Dream over the "big boys" as she evidently prefers what Dream has produced.
Proof's in the pudding , as they say. :wink:


----------



## dbarabians

Arab Mama said:


> Genetics is a crap shoot. There is no way you can determine how those genes are going to come together. If looking at the success of similarly bred horses were all it took, there'd be a lot more champions out there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is why it is important study bloodlines and conformation. Experienced breeders know that if the phenotype is present then the mare and stallion have the genotype to pass it on.
Seeing what a mare or stallion produces also reduces the risk we take when breeding.
Linebreeding and inbreeding also help reduce the risk of getting a foal that does not meet your expectations. Shalom


----------



## its lbs not miles

Arab Mama said:


> How can you seriously judge a horse's athletic ability if it can't be ridden or at least pull a cart ? Being worked in a round pen or running around in a field doesn't win you the Tevis cup. Heck, it doesnt even tell you you have a good, sound trail horse.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Quite easily. How can you seriously think that a horses athletic ability can only be measure by riding or harnessing it :lol: (for centuries experienced horse buyers have just been fooling everyone....really have no idea if the unproven horses that are bought can do the job? :lol
A horse can demonstrate wonderful athletic abilities without ever having been worked with.
And we'll pick something a bit more out of the norm, but more obvious, instead of judging a young filly or colt. 
e.g. a 4 year old mare, never ridden, never saddled, never put over a jump (never even seen another horse jump anything), is clearing the 44" dividing fences whenever she wants to get into an adjacent pasture (even in cases when she has free access through an open gate a couple feet away). It's annoying. It's something that needs to be stopped. It's also a sign of good athletic ability if you're looking for a horse with the ability and desire to jump.

No it might never compete in the Tevis Cup (many horses that could don't and some horses the do, probably shouldn't), but it could become a good Cross Country competitor or a good horse for Fox hunting. The athletic ability is there. Just needs the training.


----------



## its lbs not miles

Arab Mama said:


> Genetics is a crap shoot. There is no way you can determine how those genes are going to come together. If looking at the success of similarly bred horses were all it took, there'd be a lot more champions out there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course genetics is a crap shoot. Like any gamble you play the odds and look to give yourself the best odds possible.

You look at what you want and pick the best stock available that has what you hope to get. It's never a promise that you'll get what you wanted, but you have a better chance than if you pick stock that doesn't have what you want. There wouldn't be any domestic animals in existence if the outcome had to be certain. There certainly would not be different breeds of animals (they all came about from breeding to retain or develop certain characteristics). Nothing in genetics is certain (well, except perhaps that if you breed felines you'll get a feline :lol. All you can do is increase the odds.


----------



## Zexious

dbarabiands and druydess are right about one thing: I've certainly never bred a horse. xD I don't have the facilities for it to be anything but a money pit. Training is also not my cup of tea. I've trained a few horses, but it's not something I want to spend my time doing.

So I guess you're both right--You have some insight that I will never have.

That said, if I ever were going to breed, it would simply be my choice to select two horses that are proven in the show ring. It would suggest to me that the baby would have a higher chance of having favorable conformation for my selected discipline, a mental aptitude, and the athletic ability. If I wanted a GP jumper I would select a retired GP sire and dam, unless the owner of said sire or dam had a different suggestion. 

But, again, everyone is out for something different when they purchase a horse. And that's fine. xD


----------



## dbarabians

Zexious said:


> dbarabiands and druydess are right about one thing: I've certainly never bred a horse. xD I don't have the facilities for it to be anything but a money pit. Training is also not my cup of tea. I've trained a few horses, but it's not something I want to spend my time doing.
> 
> So I guess you're both right--You have some insight that I will never have.
> 
> That said, if I ever were going to breed, it would simply be my choice to select two horses that are proven in the show ring. It would suggest to me that the baby would have a higher chance of having favorable conformation for my selected discipline, a mental aptitude, and the athletic ability. If I wanted a GP jumper I would select a retired GP sire and dam, unless the owner of said sire or dam had a different suggestion.
> 
> But, again, everyone is out for something different when they purchase a horse. And that's fine. xD


Zexious if you want a show horse then it makes sense to look for a mare and a stallion that have proven themselves in the arena. If only to market the foal. There is nothing wrong with that train of thought. 
However a GP prospect should have the same conformation as one that is a seasoned competitor. 
Selecting a stallion and mare with the conformation to produce that prospect is the important part. 
Stallion or broodmare are only successful in the breeding shed if they can produce a good foal. Many a world champion has proven to be a failure as a sire or dam. Shalom


----------



## Druydess

Zexious said:


> dbarabiands and druydess are right about one thing: I've certainly never bred a horse. xD I don't have the facilities for it to be anything but a money pit. Training is also not my cup of tea. I've trained a few horses, but it's not something I want to spend my time doing.
> 
> So I guess you're both right--You have some insight that I will never have.
> 
> That said, if I ever were going to breed, it would simply be my choice to select two horses that are proven in the show ring. It would suggest to me that the baby would have a higher chance of having favorable conformation for my selected discipline, a mental aptitude, and the athletic ability. If I wanted a GP jumper I would select a retired GP sire and dam, unless the owner of said sire or dam had a different suggestion.
> 
> But, again, everyone is out for something different when they purchase a horse. And that's fine. xD


You have some very good, educated points. Showing can indeed give one a clear idea of conformation, but so can assessing a horse critically. My point was that too many people arbitrarily decide a horse can do nothing without a show record, as if they have no ability unless a ribbon is available for viewing, as if that legitimizes a horse's inherent athleticism and talent. I have horses that go down the trail, barrel race, and are very athletic with great endurance, but they don't have ribbons for it to "prove" they can. We don't do 100 mile Tevis races to prove them valuable, solid horses, nor should we have to.
I think the prudent thing to do is to assess a horse's natural ability and choose a discipline suited to him or her. Some of those choices don't involve a show ring.
Your approach is a very good one. You have an open mind to different possibilities and weigh each in an educated way. That's a credit to you.


----------



## GreySorrel

I personally feel that if your a serious breeder you can show your horses can do it all. A show ring is first, you can do so many classes now a days, if I were to go back on the market for a horse, that is the first thing I would look at, as after all, how can someone who has never been in a ring or have show experience say they have "all around horses" when they can't prove it? 

I want a horse that is registered and the owner active in that breed registry. I want to look and see what the sire and dam can do, what the get of sire looks like, can do, has done, and the ancestry behind both. I want to be able to go back and see who did what. Example, if I am looking for an endurance horse, I want to see that the blood lines are for that particular discipline, as any breeder can "claim" something, doesn't make it so, as I so often find ones who brag and can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk and when questioned, scream the loudest foul. I also want to be able to see that the breeder is working with a trainer, one that is up and up, no abuse, no heavy hands, but one that knows what they are doing, and has a good reputation, to ensure that horse is the best of the best and worked to it's full potential.

If your going to breed, breed to improve the breed itself. Choose carefully. Look at the sire and dam objectively and take the rose colored glasses off. If the mare has faults, look for a stallion that will enhance and compliment her, look at his strong points, look at his weak points, look at the nicks. Don't breed solely because you think you have a pretty pony, that is no reason to breed...do it with a goal in mind.


----------



## dbarabians

Greysorrel I like your post .
However no mare or stallion when bred is able to "improve the breed" . There are stallions and mares that influence their breed and found lines that will last for decades. 
Bask was one of the most influential stallions of any breed of any time . He did not "improve" the arabian breed. He did dramatically impact it and his sons and daughters contributed to the future of the breed. He founded a dynasty.
A mating of any stallion or mare should meet the breed standard or the conformation needed for the discipline one is breeding for. Shalom


----------



## Druydess

dbarabians said:


> This is why it is important study bloodlines and conformation. Experienced breeders know that if the phenotype is present then the mare and stallion have the genotype to pass it on.
> Seeing what a mare or stallion produces also reduces the risk we take when breeding.
> Linebreeding and inbreeding also help reduce the risk of getting a foal that does not meet your expectations. Shalom


This is the crux of it.. For instance, Solei is nothing like her parents. I was concerned she would inherit their genotype- in which case I wouldn't have thought her worthy of breeding, but I'm glad I took the risk with her. Her phenotype far exceeds theirs, and she is a rarity to her immediate parentage. Her genotype has bred true to another aspect of her genetic code as is seen in Fae. Same with Dream-- studied his lines before I bought him... saw the undeniable consistency through the years.. and it was kind of a no-brainer to be confident in his ability to produce.
I have done an immense amount of research just on lines and what they produce. You can't always predict what you'll get, but you can certainly hedge your bets greatly.
I agree with linebreeding or inbreeding when done with due research and thought.


----------



## GreySorrel

dbarabians said:


> Greysorrel I like your post .
> However no mare or stallion when bred is able to "improve the breed" . There are stallions and mares that influence their breed and found lines that will last for decades.
> Bask was one of the most influential stallions of any breed of any time . He did not "improve" the arabian breed. He did dramatically impact it and his sons and daughters contributed to the future of the breed. He founded a dynasty.
> A mating of any stallion or mare should meet the breed standard or the conformation needed for the discipline one is breeding for. Shalom


Hmm dbarabians...not sure if I agree that a mare and/or stallion can not improve the breed. Great example, will give you Thoroughbreds, is the Lemon Drop Kid. Good stallion, steady, solid, and so far, his get are commanding some top money in the racing industry. 

As for Bask, love the line, wasn't he imported from Poland? My favorite son of Bask was Gdansk, who was one of the more prolific sons....Course, I also like Khemosabi too. You watch that stallion move, he was great in the ring, could do either western pleasure or in halter and won multiple National Championships. You look at the many foals sired, he has many top money earners. THOSE are stallions who I personally think improved the Arabian breed. 

I worked at an Arabian farm in Nevada when I was a teenager and fell in love. They had one beautiful grey Arabian stallion that they sold for a park horse, he died at a young age and never did find out why or how....sure loved that boy too.


----------



## Druydess

dbarabians said:


> Greysorrel I like your post .
> However no mare or stallion when bred is able to "improve the breed" . There are stallions and mares that influence their breed and found lines that will last for decades.
> Bask was one of the most influential stallions of any breed of any time . He did not "improve" the arabian breed. He did dramatically impact it and his sons and daughters contributed to the future of the breed. He founded a dynasty.
> A mating of any stallion or mare should meet the breed standard or the conformation needed for the discipline one is breeding for. Shalom


If anything-- here in the US, we are deconstructing the breed by our greed, stupidity, and fads.. Thousands of years of Bedouins breeding stringently, setting the breed standard - and WE think we can do better..LOL :wink:


----------



## dbarabians

Greysorrel I see your point but with 500,000 + registered arabians world wide I dont see how one horse can improve the breed. A breed that has basically remained unchanged for thousands of years.
I do not consider the trends that we see in the show ring improvements. Khemosabi and Bask like other stallions of their day were proven in numerous disciplines as well as halter. they were indeed great sires and horses. I am not negating their influence. In fact my breeding program is centered on Bask bred horses.
Lemon Drop Kid , Storm Cat, Allydar, and Bold Ruler founded lines of horses that produced great performers and breeding stock. They did contribute to the sport of racing. They have and will influence the breed for generations to come. Shalom


----------



## GreySorrel

dbarabians said:


> Greysorrel I see your point but with 500,000 + registered arabians world wide I dont see how one horse can improve the breed. A breed that has basically remained unchanged for thousands of years.
> I do not consider the trends that we see in the show ring improvements. Khemosabi and Bask like other stallions of their day were proven in numerous disciplines as well as halter. they were indeed great sires and horses. I am not negating their influence. In fact my breeding program is centered on Bask bred horses.
> Lemon Drop Kid , Storm Cat, Allydar, and Bold Ruler founded lines of horses that produced great performers and breeding stock. They did contribute to the sport of racing. They have and will influence the breed for generations to come. Shalom


Yes indeed...thank you dbarabians for the great discussion, nice to talk horse with someone who seems to care and actually knows what they are talking about...your a breath of fresh air!


----------



## wakiya

I might be an oddball on this one, but I don't like when you breed for a specific discipline at the cost of type. You might get a great endurance horse, but if it looks like a completely different breed what is the point? I've seen this in my own breed. It's in the same vein of breeding for fads. I want a solid, typey, all around performer. Who's great at their job and LOOKS like their breed from a distance. If you breed out type for performance you've bred out the breed.


----------



## GreySorrel

Unfortunately Wakiya, many breeds are being changed, lack of bone, lack of substance, they are going where the money is and what sells, with no real forethought to the animal itself. I am sure that many of us could describe what once was, give examples, then show where that breed has gone now....same with pretty much any animal..horses, dogs, chickens, you name it...we human's can't leave well enough alone or want to change it to be more aesthetically pleasing or go with a fad....


----------



## Arab Mama

I guess I'm a little different. I want my horses to be able to do something other than stand around looking pretty. Even if that something is just taking me down the trail. To each their own.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Golden Horse

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding, either to be argumentative, or through our different definitions of 'proven in the ring'

If I was breeding for a reining horse, I would want to look at parents who have been successful in the reining ring, that is easy, but there are other kinds of proven, and of course this is just my personal opinion..

A horse_ can_ be proven in competition, Ace here is a winner herself and many of her babies have gone on to have success. Emmy though, well she has had some success, but not enough to call her proven, but I know she has good bloodlines, IF and IF I ever decide to breed her, well the studs that I have considered so far.

Pure arab sire, well proven in the ring, competes in both English and western, great mind and body, really nice horse.

Paint sire, love the look and build of this one, and he has a nice mind, but he is only halter broke, and he only has two foal crops on the ground, he is too much of a gamble, how do I know that the nice mind would hold up under the pressure of training.

Nice solid, plain bay ranch stallion, never been anywhere near a ring but to me proven by miles on the range working cattle and doing his job.

So being proven can be in the ring, at work, endurance, carriage driving, any darn thing apart from standing around looking pretty, or being chased around a pen for a bunch of very artistic movement shots, which I LOVE looking at, but annoy the heck out of me when used for sales or to advertise a stud.

I can't help but feel that the "retired due to accident, so unproven" is a touch overused, there seem to be a lot of unlucky horses out there, and if being accident prone is a trait, do I want to breed that line (partly tongue in cheek, some serious thought in that one)

As to developing the breed, it is one of the saddest thing sabout the human race, we have totally ruined so many really really nice breeds but selecting to focus on one particular thing, so now we have Haflingers that look like Arabs, Arabs who look like cartoon horses, dogs who can't give birth without help, and have trouble breathing, the list goes on.....

I have no idea if one of the extreme sea horse type Arabs could do a 100 mile ride carrying a big adult, I have my doubts, and that is why I would like animals to be able to prove themselves in some kind of activity, now I'm thinking halter horses, I best quit now........


----------



## wakiya

It's not about looking pretty it's about having breed type. I don't want my horses looking like arabians, thoroughbred, morgans or quarter horses I want them to look like what they are: an old spanish breed. 

What they also are: sound, versatile, athletic, capable of excelling in endurance, dressage, reining, working cow, eventing, driving, show jumping, and anything you can train them for. I don't however, want to sacrifice breed traits like the old spanish hip type in pursuit of one specific discipline. The breed is meant to look a certain way for a reason.

I want a horse that can go all day barefoot on just pasture and is fresh to do it again come morning. I also want spanish horses that look spanish.


----------



## Arab Mama

Wakiya - I couldn't agree more. One current trend in Arabians is breeding them taller. They are supposed to be small horses with great ability. I also dislike the typey horses with that deformed looking dish. I shouldn't leave out the Quarter Horses that look like the Michelin man.

Good post Golden Horse. 

I would like to know from you breeders out there, what criteria makes a bloodline desirable for breeding?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Remali

I like to see a horse that is athletic and can perform, but also has a good disposition, and conformation of course. Conformation-wise I like to see good bone and substance. I've been into Arabians for a long time (since the late 1960's), it's tragic what is happening to the breed. I see it in other breeds too, especially Quarter Horses. I think one of the worst things out there are the "halter horses"... so many leg faults, skinny necks, small feet, wiener-dog bodies. Sadly many of the horses never go on to do a thing under saddle, and most are never even trained much under saddle, although they would never hold up with the bad legs and feet they have.


----------



## Arab Mama

I'm talking about the bloodline, not the individual horse. What do you look for in the bloodline?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Druydess

Remali said:


> I like to see a horse that is athletic and can perform, but also has a good disposition, and conformation of course. Conformation-wise I like to see good bone and substance. I've been into Arabians for a long time (since the late 1960's), it's tragic what is happening to the breed. I see it in other breeds too, especially Quarter Horses. I think one of the worst things out there are the "halter horses"... so many leg faults, skinny necks, small feet, wiener-dog bodies. Sadly many of the horses never go on to do a thing under saddle, and most are never even trained much under saddle, although they would never hold up with the bad legs and feet they have.


I agree with the halter horse assessment. That's gone in a very extreme direction and many of those horses are not successful in any other discipline. 
Good bone and substance is a priority to me, which is why I chose Dream as my herd-sire. He is more of a European type Arabian - which the halter ring would never "accept.". Psynny is also in the running due to his substance. 
My goal is a balance of type and substance. Unfortunately, in the US market, one is often sacrificed for the other.


----------



## Druydess

Arab Mama said:


> I guess I'm a little different. I want my horses to be able to do something other than stand around looking pretty. Even if that something is just taking me down the trail. To each their own.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with that, however- the fact that many of us have successful trail horses, or work cattle, do barrels, or even lesson horses are completely discounted because it doesn't happen in a ring. All the work they do and all the hours they put in means nothing to ribbon snobs.
The average person buying a horse isn't putting them in a ring. They will be using them for non-ribbon activities. 

So when I get the snide "Well, what do they DO?" 
I tell them they do trail, cutting, barrels, and cart kids around- _*teaching*_ children, as well as Magic having Reserve Championships, Dream having Reserve and Champion, Khassie having several Championships, and yet.. apparently that isn't good enough for the ribbon set.

The ironic thing- which reinforces my prior opinion- is that none of those ribbons have gotten me breedings; the foals on the ground did. :wink:


----------



## Remali

For bloodlines... I look for a good disposition, good legs and feet, lots of substance and bone, deep heart girth. A nice "three circle" horse, a balanced horse. There are some bloodlines in the Arabian breed I wouldn't touch, due to legs and pasterns, etc.


----------



## Druydess

ETA-- Magic has Champion and Reserve Championships..


----------



## dbarabians

Arab Mama said:


> I'm talking about the bloodline, not the individual horse. What do you look for in the bloodline?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Arab mama I look for bloodlines known to pass on good bone, hard feet, versatility, endurance, and good arabian type. Lines known for good sound minds.
My breeding program is centered on Polish arabians. I am now adding Egyptian , Crabbet, and some Spainish bloodlines. Bay Abi Sheik Al Badi, and Galero. 
Golden horse I understand your frustration with the claim "retired due to injury".
The mare Dreamcatcher Arabians gifted me was injured as a young horse and is broodmare sound only. Knowing and trusting the horses owner is important. If the injury was caused by poor conformation an experienced horse owner will know by looking at the horse.
Allow me to assure everyone . My horses are not kept just to take pictures of, to look at, or for others to admire. 
I own 31 horses. Not all of my mares are trained under saddle. I have owned horses for almost 5 decades. In that time I have learned to judge a horse not only by conformation but their mental stability also.
I have only encountered a few horses that could not handle the demands of training mentally. Less than 5 if I can remember correctly. I have owned and handled hundreds of horses.
That does not include those horses that only experienced horseman could safely handle. My favorite mare Krystal Flame D I would not trust with a novice along with a couple of other mares I currently own. Shalom


----------



## BlueSpark

The stallion I liked the most was "unproven due to injury". Injured a leg as a yearling, and though pasture sound, it would not stand up to racing, so he was retired to stud. The first few places that had him didn't do much with him(that I can see). When my BO bought him, the first thing I noticed was the way he moved. Incredible mover with a ton of suspension in his trot. When he was moving, you couldn't take your eyes off him. His conformation was great, his attitude was amazing, and he was sired by a stallion that made millions on the track. None of this would have been worth anything if he couldn't stamp that on his babies. My BO kept half the babies he produced, they were so nice. The have that amazing presence, flashy way of moving, great attitudes and athletism. They are fast on the track, can jump anything, move well enough to do credibly in dressage and have the endurance to do 50 milers, plus the minds to take any where.

So I guess, "what makes it worth breeding?" lots of factors, each of which should be carefully weighed before committing to it.


----------



## GotaDunQH

^To you, he is "proven as worthy", but in my world he wouldn't be. It's too bad he was injured as a youngster as his potential wasn't even tapped into, but that is too much of a gamble for me....just because he may have an awesome trot at liberty. What WOULD have happened if he had NOT been injured and had gone through race training and so on. Would he have cut the mustard performance-wise, would he have lasted mind-wise through training? I would not call him breedworthy just based on the facts you said. Not nearly enough information, way too many unknowns and so on.

There are some really nice studs out there whose performance careers have been cut short due to injury....but just as many IF NOT MORE, who were injured before they could PROVE themselves as trainable and performable....yet they are standing at stud. I would never breed to one of those studs....ever. Because I show AQHA WP.....there HAS to be an aptitude shown for WP by both stud AND mare in ALL aspects: conformation, mindset, performance, and their get on the ground. I work hard for my money, and there is no way I'm about to play a "let's see" game with my hard earned money by breeding to an unknown. It's simply not practical and realistic, and the horse industry is ALL about realism, and not about wearing "rose colored glasses" and playing a guessing game.


----------



## GotaDunQH

Arab Mama said:


> I'm talking about the bloodline, not the individual horse. What do you look for in the bloodline?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
What do I personally look for in a bloodline? A bloodline that has thrown consistent performers, conformation and mindset geared to my discipline. As I stated before....I show AQHA, so it's awesome because certain lines are geared toward certain disciplines and the guess work has been taken out. Much better for horse and owner....a win win situation. 

These are examples:

If I want a timed event or running QH....I'd be interested in the Dash for Cash or Corona line etc.

If I wanted a cutter or reiner...I'd look at the Freckles, Hollywood Dunit, Shining Spark lines etc.

If I want a WP horse....I go to The Invester and certain Zippo Pine Bars (nothing with Zips Chocolate Chip) etc.

If I want a halter horse...it would be an N/N Impressive ot Te N Te horse etc.

If I want an HUS horse....I look for an Appendix with the Invitation, Sky B Blue Walker etc.

Get my drift?


----------



## GotaDunQH

And to add.....breed worthy comes down to..."show me what you got and what you can do"...plain and simple. If you like to gamble or play the stock market...then the "it doesn't matter that you haven't shown me what you got or what you can do"....then go for it. But you HAVE to remember, you are creating a living creature and are responsible for it. And thinking in this manner is NOT thinking about the resulting foal at all....and that's shameful.


----------



## Druydess

Along with db and Bluesparks thoughts.. potential is seen and acknowledged in a variety of areas. As a breeder-- what ranks high for me is-- prepotency. Doesn't matter one whit what record any horse has if they can't reproduce it. I chose prepotency in my breeding program.
Most important to me-- is temperament. Doesn't matter how talented it is or how pretty it is if it kills ya.
Conformation is an obvious given. Great feet is paramount. 
Other possible considerations are the bennies.. exotic, exaggerated movement, physical attributes above the norm, etc..
But-- I breed for usable horses- not for others' expectations.


----------



## BlueSpark

> the "it doesn't matter that you haven't shown me what you got or what you can do"....then go for it. But you HAVE to remember, you are creating a living creature and are responsible for it. And thinking in this manner is NOT thinking about the resulting foal at all....and that's shameful.


 What I get from this statement is that a person who breeds a mare or stallion not proven in the show ring is not thinking about the resulting foal? Correct me if I read it wrong, but that quite the judgemental statement to make. 

I bred my mare, who is sound, athletic, versatile, good minded and well put together to a stallion I liked, with a few goals in mind. I wanted to improve upon my mares conformation, have a very athletic, enduring cross with a great mind, that was very attractive, as well as marketable should I ever have to sell. So I picked a stallion that I thought would cross well. For myself, the foal needs to be very trainable and good minded, so that came first. It will be mountain ridden, as well as potentially endurance racing. If, however, I have to sell, it should easily market as an English prospect as well. It just so happens the stallion I picked is fantastically well bred.

This stallion I picked was raced young, and too hard, and they broke him. Before they did he showed great promise. He came in third running against the infamous Bernardini, so he's obviously not slow. If he was sound I would be riding him now. So is he "proven" in the sense most people would use? No. But the qualities he has are exactly what I wanted.

Following the advice of some, I should have invested years of time and large sums of money to prove my mare in the show ring, then pick a stallion proven in the show ring, to produce a horse I can go riding in the mountains on?

I would say easily 80% of people are looking for sound, pretty, uncomplicated, correct and above all sane horses for pleasure riding or some light showing for fun. Very few of that 80% wants(or has the means to) to spend $10,000+++ dollars on a prospect with thoroughly proven, award winning bloodlines. There will ALWAYS be a huge market for good recreational horses. I'm not talking back yard bred franken-horses, but the results of well thought out breeding's producing the type of horse that desirable for the majority of the horse market.

If you are showing at a higher level, and you need a horse that will stand a good chance of winning, sure your going to 'stack the odds' as much as possible in your favor when breeding, because its going to take a lot of time and effort and importantly a lot of money to compete. But for the vast majority of people, it is not necessary or desirable to go to those lengths for their pleasure mount.


----------



## dbarabians

A breeder has the same chance of getting a "winning" foal from a horse with great bloodlines and conformation yet unraced or shown as you do from a World Champion of the same bloodlines. The genotype is the same therefore the potential to produce a winner is there.
the only advantage I can see for breeding that world champion is marketing the offspring.
Refusing to see the potential an unproven stallion or mare places limitations on your breeding program that IMO are unnecessary .
Somethingroyal was not a great race horse yet she was a wonderful producer. Shalom


----------



## equinesnfelines

"If your going to breed, breed to improve the breed itself. Choose carefully. Look at the sire and dam objectively and take the rose colored glasses off. If the mare has faults, look for a stallion that will enhance and compliment her, look at his strong points, look at his weak points, look at the nicks. Don't breed solely because you think you have a pretty pony, that is no reason to breed...do it with a goal in mind."

this statement i agree with except that i also agree we are not going to improve the breed itself...influence perhaps if we produce something that makes everyone start wanting that "name" on their papers...improving the individual horse resulting from the breeding is not always a guarantee but a study on the ancestors improves the odds for me...

i believe that every planned foal should equal or be an improvement on the parents! when i had to let one go (due to time and facilities and life) i am thankful she had the bloodlines up close to interest a cutting horse trainer/breeder...just enough training and fine tuning to show what he could do with her with consistency----in other words----she was "marketable"!!! 

have a blessed day!


----------



## Remali

I don't put much (any) worth on a show win, especially in today's show world. All too often shows are political (the handlers, and not he horse, wins), and too many horses with serious leg faults are being pinned in halter classes. And the performance classes such as western pleasure and English pleasure are not much better when it comes to pinning the best horse.


----------



## Druydess

I believe every decision whether or not to show depends on the goals of the person who owns the horse. Some of my horses have show records and some don't nor will they ever- because it's just not necessary. Dream will likely go to more shows, but begrudgingly so, as the ring is truly a political event, inspired by money and "favors." I've seen horses with the crookedest **** legs pinned over a superior horse just because the owner had a "name."
However, for example, some of my horses don't need a show record. They need to produce what they're bred for.

For instance, my mare, Echo Empress, is the daughter of Echo Magnifficoo- 1992 Triple Crown Winner (Scottsdale/United States/Canadian National Champion Stallion). 

Echo Magnifficoo is renowned for being an exceptional broodmare producer. 

From the Midcrest website: 

_*Only one other farm in the history has won the Scottsdale Stallion Championship three times. No farm has had two true Triple Crown winners, but Midcrest.

While having such great horses like Echo Magnifficoo, WN Ultimate Star, Audacious PS, Echstravagent, Dream Quest, Phantom Echo, Bey Elation, Blackstone Bey, ATA Bey Starr, Rhasid Van Ryad, and others, we have continued to breed our great mares to outside stallions. 

Our sire’s blood is in some great young horses like, DA Valentino, SF Veraz, Hariry Al Shaqab, Marwan Al Magnifficoo, Audacious PS, Odessey, Aria Impesario, and many others.
*_
Midcrest Farm Arabians

You'll notice- their emphasis is on their BROODMARES. 
_*At the heart of every breeding program of merit are the mares.*_

_*In 1990 Midcrest decided to add an out cross Stallion to a great band of mares. After a long journey we found Echo Magnifficoo and history is evident.

Midcrests goal has always been to have the greatest broodmares in the world. We with other friends have maintained a group of high quality producing mares that regularly provide us with National quality offspring.
*_

I invite you to watch the video of Echo M, and listen to names of the many Champions he produced-- *through his broodmares.*

His ability of produce consistently (prepotency) is what I value. His daughters carry that on. 

Echo Empress' prior owner turned down 20K - 40K for her on several different occasions, as she didn't want her to be used up and sent to slaughter when she couldn't have any more foals. (Another happy reality for the ring-oriented people) Instead she sold her to me. One of her daughters sold to Belgium. Her latest filly embodies the type and structure of Echo M, but Dream made her more exotic with a bit more substance.

So-- why on earth, would I need to spend years and money to prove a mare that's already proven? 

I don't bloody well think so. She'll be (and is) what her sire's genetics said she'd be- an excellent producer. I don't need a ring to tell me that.


----------



## KigerQueen

A good example of a horse being good in the show pen (or track this case) is Secretariat. He was a super horse and he had 653 foals. NONE where anywheres near as good as him. There are many horses that can show but that dose not mean they pass it on. You CAN only tell by breeding. I agree that most studs should be at least marketed and shown a little once they are proven to raise the value of foals and his ow value/"fame". Mares, while its nice if they can show as well, as has been said are more valued in the breeding shed, then in the arena. A stud can breed hundreds of mares, but a mare only has so much time to have foals. 

Now for someone who wants to breed their mare (not a breeder) yes i think that mare should show or do something. They are not a big time breeder so they do not have the knowledge to see what she is likely to give them. If the mare has value as a show horse, the foal has a better chance. But big breeders don't need the show pen because they have proven hundreds of times over what their horses are like, and what they can do.


----------



## GotaDunQH

BlueSpark said:


> What I get from this statement is that a person who breeds a mare or stallion not proven in the show ring is not thinking about the resulting foal? Correct me if I read it wrong, but that quite the judgemental statement to make.


What I was referring to....is the back yard types that have a mare and think she should have babies....without putting any thought into it other than "sentimental" reasons.

You obviously, are discriminating and thoughtful (with a purpose) when it comes to breeding your mares. Sadly, far too many people aren't.


----------



## dbarabians

Kigerqueen, Secretariat was a successful sire . He is known as good sire of broodmares and sired many great race horses. Ladys Secret is one . Risen Star, Charismatic, and Storm Cat owe some of their success to Secretariat. Shalom. Shalom


----------



## wakiya

In my breed most horses have done nothing or next to nothing. The few that do get out there excel in anything they are pointed at. I'm not looking to breed a world champion, because our breed shows are tiny and spread out. I'm working with an endangered breed and I'm looking to preserve an old type of horse that has nearly been cross bred and "purpose bred" out of existence. 

I look at bloodlines that produce, typey, sane, athletic and sound horses. Sound and athletic is the easy part, finding that good old type and avoiding lines known to produce crazy horses that's the tricky part. I do plan on proving my horses in working equitation, endurance, or something different depending on what a horse shows skill for. I AM looking to improve the breed and get it known. Which means my horses HAVE to be in the public eye. While I'm getting my funds together my stallion is learning to be a mountain horse and my mare is getting back in shape to be the best breed ambassador she can be.


----------



## NdAppy

What I find ironic in this thread is the amount of touting of you don't have to have a show/using record for good breeding and the turning around and pointing out that the horses being bred have X, Y, Z champions in their bloodlines. 

It's not something you can have both ways. You either are for showing/using to prove the horse is good at what's it bred for or you don't. Pushing a horse off of it's how many times grandsire/dam's accomisments when the horse in question itself has done nothing is ridiculous.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wakiya

I don't think in every breed it's necessary to show, but I do want my horses to do more than breed. For myself, it's a matter of recognition. Barely anyone knows the breed exists let alone MY horses, so I feel it is my duty to get them out there. How else can I get my horses out there without physically getting them out there?


----------



## dbarabians

NDappy showing is simply a way to market your stallion, mare, or promote your breeding program.
Yes there are people who show their horses for the fun of it.
Breeders and professional horsemen use the venue as a way to showcase their programs. 
I have stated that once that mare or stallion are retired from the show ring the only thing that matters from then on is not what they have won, but what they produce.
My point is that I do not need a show record or winnings to know I have good horses.
My breeding program produces good versatile horses that have stamina and good conformation.
I have promoted a stallion and a couple of mares in the past by having them shown and I will show my new 2 YO stallion prospect, Cassius. Only to promote him though. If I am going to spend tens of thousands of $'s having him trained I expect some return on that money. 
After his show career which will last only 2-3 years he will compete in endurance. Shalom


----------



## NdAppy

Not just the breeds but the disciplines as well. That's why I said using as well. Sometimes showing isn't possible but I want to know that the horse can do the job it's bred for even if it's not in a show type setting.


----------



## KigerQueen

Secretariat did produce good horses but he was known for being a broodmare sire. He never created another triple crown winner or super horse. His grandchildren did better than his foals.


----------



## Speed Racer

Secretariat was an anomaly. He was the exception to the rule, and a horse like that just isn't going to sire the next Triple Crown winner. I adored him and was lucky enough to witness his wins, but I wasn't surprised when he didn't surpass himself in the breeding shed.

Breeding is a crap shoot. Genetics are funny like that, and the only thing anyone can say for certain is that a particular foal has the POTENTIAL to do well based on its bloodlines. Of course, if you're breeding for performance, the odds will be more in your favor if you can actually prove that the sire and dam have done more than just procreate.


----------



## MsBHavin

NdAppy said:


> What I find ironic in this thread is the amount of touting of you don't have to have a show/using record for good breeding and the turning around and pointing out that the horses being bred have X, Y, Z champions in their bloodlines.
> 
> It's not something you can have both ways. You either are for showing/using to prove the horse is good at what's it bred for or you don't. Pushing a horse off of it's how many times grandsire/dam's accomisments when the horse in question itself has done nothing is ridiculous.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 

This is something I agree with, and cannot wrap my brain around. You simply cannot say that show records mean nothing and then 2 posts later brag on what your horses great grandsire has done. Either show records mean something, or they don't.


----------



## Druydess

Apparently the point has yet again been missed.. Echo Magnifficoo was a producer-_* it was his ability to produce daughters who produced champions*_ that is important.. NOT his bloody show record. The show record didn't sire the foals.
Re-read the website posted.. as yet another point was ignored.. the successful breeders who DID choose to show EM- still credited their broodmares with their quality foals. They didn't show them. That's a pretty clear message. So, yes- you can have it both ways- and I'm sure they don't hold with the opinion that it's asinine. Schooling them to the contrary would be an interesting discussion.

There are hundreds of stallions with show records.. I didn't find them worthy enough to buy _their_ daughters based on ribbons. EM was one of the few who had the prepotency to be considered. 
If you want a show horse, well - then buy one, but leave the breeders to buy horses that can produce.

Producing quality foals is only accomplished one way, and it has nothing to do with showing. :wink:


----------



## reiningfan

So the reason that EM is desired is that he was a good broodmare sire? And these mares produced champions? Is that not saying that showing proved those broodmares?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Druydess

reiningfan said:


> So the reason that EM is desired is that he was a good broodmare sire? And these mares produced champions? Is that not saying that showing proved those broodmares?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


His prepotency produced daughters who produced consistently. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I suppose one must be able to separate genetics and the show ring.
His daughters were rarely shown-- so no-- showing didn't prove them.


----------



## smrobs

Each person can breed whatever they want, that's what makes the world go around.

As for me, personally, I wouldn't breed any horse that hadn't proven themselves useful as a using horse first, regardless of bloodlines. I'm not talking about "shows" either because I don't show and I don't need a show horse. If I'm looking for a ranch horse foal, I'm going to look at studs/mares that either are or have been good ranch horses...who come from lines of good ranch horses.

Maybe it's just me or maybe it's because I'm not a "breeder", but I believe that every horse that is capable of showing their talent before being bred should be given the opportunity to do so.

I'm not arguing that nobody should ever breed to a horse that hasn't been trained. Heck, my brother bred his mare to a stud that was injured as a yearling and, therefore, never broke and ended up with a stellar gelding from the pair....but _I_ wouldn't do it.


----------



## reiningfan

I didn't say the daughters were shown, I said their get were, thereby proving the mares through their get. In the show ring.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Druydess

reiningfan said:


> I didn't say the daughters were shown, I said their get were, thereby proving the mares through their get. In the show ring.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Which makes the point that all horses do not need to be shown to be proven-- in the show ring. :wink:


----------



## apachiedragon

The word "champion" implies showing. Regardless of *which* generation is being proven. You can't have a "champion" without a show record to prove it. Period. If you could, anyone could claim to have a champion and it would mean absolutely nothing.


----------



## reiningfan

Exactly. Maybe EM's daughters weren't shown, bùt he was and he would not have got the amount and quality of mares booked to him if he hadn't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Druydess

Remali said:


> I don't put much (any) worth on a show win, especially in today's show world. All too often shows are political (the handlers, and not he horse, wins), and too many horses with serious leg faults are being pinned in halter classes. And the performance classes such as western pleasure and English pleasure are not much better when it comes to pinning the best horse.


This is a key point most people do not understand. The show ring of the 80's and 90's are long gone. Today's rings are a rattrap of kissing up and greasy palms. I've seen just what you mention enough times now that as you advance, ANYone who isn't part of the clique is most likely destined to be a "class filler." I'm not saying there aren't some honest judges out there, but politics are rampant in shows.. especially Arabian shows.

I have had some insight given to me that may not be available to many people. I've met some the top trainers and some were very honest about what they do. Some are brutal. Boggs was banned for Lipo-ing a horses neck. An owner I know whose horse "won" came home with wires still in it mouth because the trainer forgot to take them out.. but the horse won-- so it's all good. 

I've had some very good advice given to me by Rick Moser.. look 'em up- International Judge, Handler, and Trainer. BTW-- he happens to also be my farrier.

So-- when I give an opinion-- it is with due thought and resource that I offer it. The best thing for the horse in today's ring is for people to take off the rose colored glasses and start looking at what's really happening.


----------



## Druydess

reiningfan said:


> Exactly. Maybe EM's daughters weren't shown, bùt he was and he would not have got the amount and quality of mares booked to him if he hadn't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is absolutely no way to qualify that. And even if there were.. the point is still being lost.. what proves a stallion is his ability to consistently produce.


----------



## Poseidon

OK, I've read this entire thread and I have a bit of confusion: if a stallion is not shown and campaigned as a stud, how does his name get out? I _highly_ doubt those multi-million dollar stallions are passed on by word of mouth. "Hey, my buddy up the road has a snazzy looking horse that still has his man parts. Want a baby horse?" What?

I have met and discussed the Arabian circuit with a local breeder for a class of mine and her stallion lives in Scottsdale (she lives in Minnesota) so he can be shown the major circuit and campaigned. Any local stallions I have seen that are mainly word of mouth advertised are beyond subpar, IMO. 

I, for one, can see both sides: a successful show record is a huge plus, especially if it can be proven that his get have gone one and done the same disciplines successfully. However, it does not have to a huge list of solid wins in a huge circuit. A local stallion I wanted for my mare did not have a huge, extended show record with hundreds of thousands in winnings, but all of his foals had very distinct features he passed on that would have fixed faults in my mare. Had I had that pairing, the foal would have most likely lived its life as a trusty trail horse, but it would have been more conformationally correct than its dam had past genetic proof rang true, which would have been the goal of the breeding.


----------



## Druydess

Poseidon said:


> OK, I've read this entire thread and I have a bit of confusion: if a stallion is not shown and campaigned as a stud, how does his name get out? I _highly_ doubt those multi-million dollar stallions are passed on by word of mouth. "Hey, my buddy up the road has a snazzy looking horse that still has his man parts. Want a baby horse?" What?
> 
> I have met and discussed the Arabian circuit with a local breeder for a class of mine and her stallion lives in Scottsdale (she lives in Minnesota) so he can be shown the major circuit and campaigned. Any local stallions I have seen that are mainly word of mouth advertised are beyond subpar, IMO.
> 
> I, for one, can see both sides: a successful show record is a huge plus, especially if it can be proven that his get have gone one and done the same disciplines successfully. However, it does not have to a huge list of solid wins in a huge circuit. A local stallion I wanted for my mare did not have a huge, extended show record with hundreds of thousands in winnings, but all of his foals had very distinct features he passed on that would have fixed faults in my mare. Had I had that pairing, the foal would have most likely lived its life as a trusty trail horse, but it would have been more conformationally correct than its dam had past genetic proof rang true, which would have been the goal of the breeding.


No-- you're not confused at all. Showing can be beneficial for marketing a stallion- no doubt. But one has to realize what is "popular" in the show ring. Some very good stallions are not pinned in favor of politics. So-- if you know that going in, then you're better prepared for the outcome. However, as good a show record as any horse may have-- it doesn't mean he or she can re-produce it. As a breeder, that is what's most important to me.

The expectation of some is that EVERY horse has to be shown (in the ring) to be worthy. And THAT is truly asinine. Not every breeder wants a halter "champion." My horses compete in different disciplines outside of a show ring. Most people aren't going to be showing a horse; they want a horse that can be used and enjoyed.


----------



## Golden Horse

The thing is if a horse is not 'judged' by others, in breed shows, in sports, on the range, whatever outside activity that gets more opinions than just yours, then you are just breeding your pretty horse.

Again I come back to Emmy, as I always do, I think she is a really nice mare, but I have severe doubts about breeding her for many reasons, this compounded now by finding that she failed to place, in a class of one, because she was such a lady dog in the ring, couldn't hold it together. She has got a win, but do I want to chance it. But it is strange, the trainer who is going to help me with her when I'm ready, knows many of her siblings, and they are all quirky, she blames the dam, as the sires are different, but Ace is the quietest, unquirky mare I know.

Again though, we all know those who tout their stallions purely on their speshul color, or just on their bloodlines, LOL, I even know of one that seems to have a stallion who is famous for being famous, because his owner promotes him so heavily. It would be nice if they would, as they keep promising, actually put him in training, and promote him on demonstrated ability, rather than just on the fact that he still has his plums!


----------



## Druydess

Shows are not the only venue by which horses are judged. My decisions are based on a variety of others' opinions - most of whom are very successful breeders, as well as those who do competitive trail, cattle work, and barrel racing.:wink: 
I also think it's quite telling that even though I've stated _repeatedly_ that Dream is in training, and so is Psynny.. it's as if that's not even happening; as if a 3 or 2 year old has an extensive saddle record.. Perhaps the expectation is that they should pop out of the womb with a pile of ribbons and a few championship statues to mollify the crowd..:rofl:

Again-- the point is - the ring is not the only place horses make their mark and earn their place.

When people stop wanting to buy my horses - I guess I'll revise my opinions.. LOL


----------



## smrobs

Quick question that I've been thinking about. 

If you buy the daughters of stallions like EM (not singling you out, Druydess, he's just be the one most talked about on here), but they are never trained/competed on/shown, then how do you know that they are worthy of breeding themselves?

I mean, I know a lot of great horses that come from great bloodlines, some of them were bred and every foal produced was a raging lunatic. I get that things like that happen sometimes because you can never be sure exactly which genes a horse is going to inherit or what their temperament will be like. That's why breeding is such a crap shoot in the first place. HOWEVER, those people were at least dealing with a known quantity because they knew what the parents were and what they could do.

I mean, if the mares are never asked to do more than stand around looking pretty or converting hay into fertilizer, then how can you be sure that they are the same or similar quality as their sire, the same quality that you want to produce in a foal. Some horses from good lines are sweet as they can be on the ground but turn into monstrous heathens under saddle. Is that the type of horse that needs to be bred? No. If a horse is never trained, then how do you know they aren't like that?

Also, where does it end, breeding unproven stock just to see if they are producers? We see variations of it all the time on every sale or stud site on the entire net.

"Come and see! We've got a grandson of Totilas or EM or High Brow Cat or Dash For Cash or <insert popular stud's name here> standing at stud. We could never be bothered to do anything with him other than watch him eat and poop but LOOK HOW PRETTY HE IS! Come breed your mare to him, only $500!"


Now, this may all be a huge misunderstanding based on our own definitions of the word "proven". When I hear "unproven breeding stock", I automatically think of horses that stand around in a pasture, they _might _be halter broke, but are very seldom broke to ride. If they are broke, then the training is sub-par at best and they may or may not have had vet/farrier care in the last 2 years. With that definition in mind, I would _never_ breed to "unproven" stock.

"Proven" to me doesn't limit a horse to a show ring. When I think of proven, I think of a horse that is trained and efficient at their given discipline. Perfect example is ranch horses. That's what I'll stick with because that's what I know. While there are becoming more chances for a ranch horse to be shown in an actual arena, just a few years ago, the only way to have a proven ranch horse was to actually _use _them on a ranch. 

If they were a good ranch horse, then people noticed and considered them worthy of breeding. If they have never seen a cow or ridden rough country or been roped off of, then they are not a ranch horse and should not be advertised as such because they are "unproven".

Even a horse that does nothing more than w/t/c down the trails but is safe enough and sane enough for children to ride is proven IMHO.


Wow, okay, that ended up being a huge rambling thing and wasn't quick at all :lol:.


----------



## Golden Horse

Might not of been quick but I agree with it all:wink:


----------



## Druydess

smrobs said:


> Quick question that I've been thinking about.
> 
> If you buy the daughters of stallions like EM (not singling you out, Druydess, he's just be the one most talked about on here), but they are never trained/competed on/shown, then how do you know that they are worthy of breeding themselves?
> 
> I mean, I know a lot of great horses that come from great bloodlines, some of them were bred and every foal produced was a raging lunatic. I get that things like that happen sometimes because you can never be sure exactly which genes a horse is going to inherit or what their temperament will be like. That's why breeding is such a crap shoot in the first place. HOWEVER, those people were at least dealing with a known quantity because they knew what the parents were and what they could do.
> 
> I mean, if the mares are never asked to do more than stand around looking pretty or converting hay into fertilizer, then how can you be sure that they are the same or similar quality as their sire, the same quality that you want to produce in a foal. Some horses from good lines are sweet as they can be on the ground but turn into monstrous heathens under saddle. Is that the type of horse that needs to be bred? No. If a horse is never trained, then how do you know they aren't like that?
> 
> Also, where does it end, breeding unproven stock just to see if they are producers? We see variations of it all the time on every sale or stud site on the entire net.
> 
> "Come and see! We've got a grandson of Totilas or EM or High Brow Cat or Dash For Cash or <insert popular stud's name here> standing at stud. We could never be bothered to do anything with him other than watch him eat and poop but LOOK HOW PRETTY HE IS! Come breed your mare to him, only $500!"
> 
> 
> Now, this may all be a huge misunderstanding based on our own definitions of the word "proven". When I hear "unproven breeding stock", I automatically think of horses that stand around in a pasture, they _might _be halter broke, but are very seldom broke to ride. If they are broke, then the training is sub-par at best and they may or may not have had vet/farrier care in the last 2 years. With that definition in mind, I would _never_ breed to "unproven" stock.
> 
> "Proven" to me doesn't limit a horse to a show ring. When I think of proven, I think of a horse that is trained and efficient at their given discipline. Perfect example is ranch horses. That's what I'll stick with because that's what I know. While there are becoming more chances for a ranch horse to be shown in an actual arena, just a few years ago, the only way to have a proven ranch horse was to actually _use _them on a ranch.
> 
> If they were a good ranch horse, then people noticed and considered them worthy of breeding. If they have never seen a cow or ridden rough country or been roped off of, then they are not a ranch horse and should not be advertised as such because they are "unproven".
> 
> Even a horse that does nothing more than w/t/c down the trails but is safe enough and sane enough for children to ride is proven IMHO.
> 
> 
> Wow, okay, that ended up being a huge rambling thing and wasn't quick at all :lol:.


Great questions smrobs.

The first question is quite easy.. The odds answer that one. EM daughters consistently, and unequivocally, produced. Time proved that out. As odds go-- these are probably the best you can get. Seeing the same pattern again and again is pretty convincing. That's why I give a lot of credence to bloodlines and researching them. It's basic math really.

As far as disposition.. that's what I breed for, so those with nasty attitudes aren't even on my farm.
Again-- just because every horse I own isn't in a ring, doesn't mean they're not performing. 7 of my mares are under saddle and have been for years. Dream is beginning saddle training, others are too young. None have behavioral issues or bad attitudes. But then again-- I chose them based on parentage and behavioral history. Some-- such as Solei exceeded her sire's nasty attitude and was bred based on her own merits. Her filly is even more tractable, but her Sire is extremely calm and laid back-- again.. good research and choices to produce what's desired.

Everything's a crap shoot. You can never be 100% about anything, but you can stack the odds.

So- I agree with much of what you have said. I have proven, working horses- and some take care of children (much more valuable to me than a ribbon). But most are not in a ring. If that's not good enough for some people-- so be it. I don't breed to impress others. I breed for my own enjoyment, If others are also made happy by it - all the better. But to each his own.


----------



## dbarabians

Midnight Star has never set foot in an arena. He sires some very nice foal from different types of mares. Every foal of his I saw convinced me he would cross well with my mares. That is why he is worthy enough to be in my breeding program. The fact that he is easy to handle, a joy to ride, and has enough endurance to be ridden up to 15 miles in a day and not be tired only convinced me.

Rushin Sam is a proven winner on the race track. He won his first race by 13 lengths. He is a son of Samtyr the leading sire of arabian racehorses. He is not however a proven sire. He will stand to a few mares this year and next. If I am not satisfied with what he throws he will be a failure and most likely put down since he is sound for light riding only and 20 years old.

Cassius will be 2 June 1st. He is in training for sporthorse in hand. He is easy to handle and very athletic. Conformationally the best of the three stallions I own. He is very well bred. At almost 2 he is already 15.2 HH and growing. He has already covered one mare and will cover another this season. He will be shown only enough to promote him. 2-3 years. I might even have him inspected as a warmblood sire. His foals will be shown only to market them and to encourage mare owners to consider Cassius as a sire. I dont care how well he is bred or how many wins in the showring he garners. If he cannot sire the the foals I expect him to he will be a failure.
Those are my reasons the stallions I own are worthy of breeding and the demands I place on them to stay in my program. Shalom


----------



## Druydess

dbarabians said:


> Midnight Star has never set foot in an arena. He sires some very nice foal from different types of mares. Every foal of his I saw convinced me he would cross well with my mares. That is why he is worthy enough to be in my breeding program. The fact that he is easy to handle, a joy to ride, and has enough endurance to be ridden up to 15 miles in a day and not be tired only convinced me.
> 
> Rushin Sam is a proven winner on the race track. He won his first race by 13 lengths. He is a son of Samtyr the leading sire of arabian racehorses. He is not however a proven sire. He will stand to a few mares this year and next. If I am not satisfied with what he throws he will be a failure and most likely put down since he is sound for light riding only and 20 years old.
> 
> Cassius will be 2 June 1st. He is in training for sporthorse in hand. He is easy to handle and very athletic. Conformationally the best of the three stallions I own. He is very well bred. At almost 2 he is already 15.2 HH and growing. He has already covered one mare and will cover another this season. He will be shown only enough to promote him. 2-3 years. I might even have him inspected as a warmblood sire. His foals will be shown only to market them and to encourage mare owners to consider Cassius as a sire. I dont care how well he is bred or how many wins in the showring he garners. If he cannot sire the the foals I expect him to he will be a failure.
> Those are my reasons the stallions I own are worthy of breeding and the demands I place on them to stay in my program. Shalom


I'm interested in your Cassius if I remember his bloodlines correctly. When you get a chance, please send me his Reg name. I'd ask you for a pic, but I think I'd have to come to TX and take one myself.. :wink::rofl:


----------



## dbarabians

Druydess thanks for your interest. Cassius will not stand to the public for a couple of years. By then we will talk and I will have visited you to see that stallion of yours and you can visit me. 
He is heavily linebred to Ansata Ibn Halima.
His dam is a pure Egyptian mare that is a true 16 hands tall. His sire is 15.3 with one line of Crabbet breeding the rest Egyptian. 
His attitude , height, and conformation along with his pedigree are what convinced me to purchase him as a stallion prospect.
Cassius and my other stallions will never be promoted on this forum.
I derive too much pleasure from interacting with my HF friends and learn too much from this forum to use it for business purposes.

I dont want to use this forum simply to promote my stallions. I will PM you the information.
What makes a horse worth breeding? If either the stallion or mare satisfy the requirements of the breeding program they are part of that is all that is required.
If you want to breed show horses , then do so.
If you want to breed affordable versatile athletic horses , as I do, then do so.
If you want to breed horses that are photogenic , then do so.
If you want to breed race horses then do so.
As long as there is a market or the owners have the financial means to support their program , the only people that should be concerned with what you produce is a buyer and the owner.


----------



## dbarabians

I like to end my post with the hebrew blessing of PEACE. I neglected to type the word Shalom on my last post. Shalom is meant for all people of goodwill. I only refuse to end my post with Shalom when the person I am replying to does not deserve the blessing.
We all have different reasons for choosing the stallions or mares we use in our breeding programs.
All those reasons are valid if they are well thought out and have reasonable expectations. Shalom Donald


----------



## Golden Horse

Db, please don't take this as an attack, to me it is a debate, and I'm asking questions to further the debate.

Star, if he is a using horse, if he can ride 15 miles or more, then that is a kind of proving, he is a using horse, again for me not all proving is done in the arena.

Cassius, now here is the interesting one, and one that makes me wonder. As a bigger person I love the idea of the bigger Arab, but the other side says that they are supposed to be smaller and compact. If we keep selecting for height then we are moving away from the ideal, and that isn't always good. If we keep the Arab as a compact horse then those who want the Arab qualities with height can outcross to get them.

"If you want to breed horses that are photogenic do so"

This one I have an issue with, JUST photogenic is not a reason to breed, beauty does not prohibit a horse from being a performance horse, well it shouldn't, but sadly look at the Halter Horse, bred entirely for looks with no thought to a horses soundness, ability to be used, so what happens to older halter horses? 

I for one AM vain, if it is vanity, give me a choice and I will choose a pretty horse over a plain one, given they have equal usability!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Golden Horse most of my horses are 14.2 -15 hh. 
I also think an arabian should not be very tall and most that I have seen around 16 hands trade height for type.
Cassius's dam is a very typey mare. She could do very well in main ring halter.
However the current market for show horses and especially arabian sport horses demands a taller horse.
If I am to spend tens of thousands of dollars training and showing Cassius he needs to pay his way. If his height helps promote him then IMO that is a plus.
I will see how this experiment of mine pans out.

If any owner has the financial means and/or the market for a horse that is merely photogenic then who are we to question their motives. For the record IMO halter horses today are bred to be Photogenic. Halter is after all a beauty contest. I would never breed a horse just for beauty.
I also like a pretty horse one of the reasons I have arabians. That mare of yours that I would steal if we were closer would fit nicely into my program. Be glad you live in Canada or you would have to double lock your gates. 

Ask me any questions you want. You and I have had nice intelligent conversations before and a couple of lively debates. I enjoy your post. Shalom


----------



## Golden Horse

dbarabians said:


> If any owner has the financial means and/or the market for a horse that is merely photogenic then who are we to question their motives. For the record IMO halter horses today are bred to be Photogenic. Halter is after all a beauty contest. I would never breed a horse just for beauty.


But again, halter is a beauty contest, but as we all know beauty and youth sadly go together, so if an animal is produced and marketed solely on it's beauty, what happens to it when it is not pretty enough to tip toe through a halter class, or stand in a wide eyed baby oiled stance looking like a sea horse? I understand that you would not do such a thing, but once humans start selecting for beauty only, or one beautiful trait, that is when we ruin breeds by losing their usability. 

Motives while personal, it is sad when it becomes selfish, and we condemn an animal to a short life, or an uncomfortable life just so they can enhance our life by looking pretty. 

This is why I like to see breeding animals proving that they can do something:wink:



dbarabians said:


> I also like a pretty horse one of the reasons I have arabians. That mare of yours that I would steal if we were closer would fit nicely into my program. Be glad you live in Canada or you would have to double lock your gates.


Did you see that I also picked up a very pretty sister of Emmy? Send your trailer and cash, you may buy her


----------



## BlueSpark

> Now, this may all be a huge misunderstanding based on our own definitions of the word "proven". When I hear "unproven breeding stock", I automatically think of horses that stand around in a pasture, they _might _be halter broke, but are very seldom broke to ride. If they are broke, then the training is sub-par at best and they may or may not have had vet/farrier care in the last 2 years. With that definition in mind, I would _never_ breed to "unproven" stock.


 agreed. Often this is what the term means, and I would never breed to that either. There is a 'ranch' around here that stands something like 5 studs. They are all aqha or apha, and have absolutely nothing to show for themselves except pretty color. conformation is average at best, no proven ancestors for several generations, no proven foals on the ground, and most are not trained in any way. The only thing any of these studs has proved is that they can sire a mediocre foal. They are truly 'unproven', in every way that counts.



> "Proven" to me doesn't limit a horse to a show ring. When I think of proven, I think of a horse that is trained and efficient at their given discipline. Perfect example is ranch horses. That's what I'll stick with because that's what I know. While there are becoming more chances for a ranch horse to be shown in an actual arena, just a few years ago, the only way to have a proven ranch horse was to actually _use _them on a ranch.


 I agree with this also. The show ring doesn't matter to me personally. I want a horse with a good head on its shoulders, sound, sane, athletic, with scads of endurance, that can cover rough country and be very versatile. To me, my arab that I bred is 'proven', in the way that is most important to me, usability.

the stallion I bred to has proven, through consistent behavior through various circumstances, to have a fantastic temperament.

he has bloodlines that are thoroughly proven, and the start of his career showed him to have the same talent, though unfortunately cut short.

and his first two foals are lovely, correct, and sweet tempered

so is he "unproven" on the track? Realistically, yes, he did not get to fulfill his full potential, but his other qualities still qualify him to be worthy of reproducing

there are many ways a horse can prove themselves, the show ring is only one.


----------



## Foxhunter

When I am breeding a horse to sell, I want something that is going to be versatile, conformationally correct and good temperament. I am not necessarily going to breed pure. 

One mare I had who was out of a Shire by a TB came to me because she was injured and would never be sound. I put her back to a big boned TB and got two exceedingly good quality heavyweight hunters. Her third foal was a filly. Equally as nice, as a youngster I showed her in hand and she was always placed at major shows. I turned down a lot of money for her. I backed her and rode her lightly as a long three year old, she saw hounds four or five times. I then bred her back to an unregistered TB, no papers for him and his breeding had been lost. I didn't care, I liked the horse and had seen several of his foals and liked them all. She threw a colt, I didn't do much with him as he was big, gangly, ugly, ungainly and as a foal had a very twisted hock which, at that time there was little could be done for it.
I turned him out on steep hills with some other colts and they grew with cattle. As late three year old he was still gangly but I put him under saddle. By this time it was obvious he was going to be a heavyweight hunter. His hock was perfectly straight and if he ever matured I felt he was something special. 
I sold him for showing. The people who bought him had all their animals with professional showmen. It took four years but he won the championship hunter at Horse of the Year Show. 

So, breeding to lines is not necessarily always the best.


----------



## dbarabians

Goldenhorse, I did not know about your newest addition to your herd. If she is as nice as the other mare I will be tempted. 

I see your point about breeding a "pretty" horse that is just that pretty and of use to no one. I agree with you. There ist a market for pretty, and people pay good prices for what is popular in Main ring halter.
I have been told that Star should not be bred because he is under 15 hands. 
I have been told that Sam does not have the conformation for the showring. 
Cassius and my other stallions have straight profiles with only slight dishes. If anyone refuses to breed to my stallions or buy their offspring for any of these reasons, I would not want to do business with them anyway.
My stallions will not fit into everyones breeding program. Heck they might o nly be suitable for mine. Thats OK with me. Shalom Donald


----------



## Remali

Druydess said:


> This is a key point most people do not understand. The show ring of the 80's and 90's are long gone. Today's rings are a rattrap of a$$ kissing and greasy palms. I've seen just what you mention enough times now that as you advance, ANYone who isn't part of the clique is most likely destined to be a "class filler." I'm not saying there aren't some honest judges out there, but politics are rampant in shows.. especially Arabian shows.
> 
> I have had some insight given to me that may not be available to many people. I've met some the top trainers and some were very honest about what they do. Some are brutal. Boggs was banned for Lipo-ing a horses neck. An owner I know whose horse "won" came home with wires still in it mouth because the trainer forgot to take them out.. but the horse won-- so it's all good.
> 
> I've had some very good advice given to me by Rick Moser.. look 'em up- International Judge, Handler, and Trainer. BTW-- he happens to also be my farrier.
> 
> So-- when I give an opinion-- it is with due thought and resource that I offer it. The best thing for the horse in today's ring is for people to take off the rose colored glasses and start looking at what's really happening.


Good post! I started going to the Arabian shows (spectator only) back in the very early 1970's, since I am in the Midwest I remember the Boggs brothers very well, they pretty much started the trend of bringing in the halter horses wild-eyed and rearing and running full-out like crazy (something I am not a fan of), I also remember when DB was banned from showing for a time due to surgically-altered horses. I hate what is seen in the Arabian show ring today, well, most of it anyway. 

I remember Rick Moser, very cool he is your farrier! I miss the days when our champion halter horses were also National winners in performance too (Such as Raffon and *Aramus, I saw *Aramus back in the day, they just don't make 'em like that any more). At least right now the Al-Marah Arabians, and a few others as well, are out there doing very well in performance and still maintain that classic look I love. Years ago, say back in the 1970's, I was more impressed with a show win, today not so much (although I do like the Arabian Sport Horse Show and have been impressed with many of them). I was looking at the winners of the Las Vegas show (online), and a couple of the stallion halter winners were incredibly bad (one had cannon bones almost longer than his forearms). The last horse I saw that made an impression on me was *Muscat. 

But, it has been years now since I have been to a show... I wish more of the big American breeders would breed for good legs and substance, and I am still blown away by what the judges place for winners in many cases.


----------



## squirrelfood

dbarabians said:


> Greysorrel I see your point but with 500,000 + registered arabians world wide I dont see how one horse can improve the breed. A breed that has basically remained unchanged for thousands of years.
> I do not consider the trends that we see in the show ring improvements. Khemosabi and Bask like other stallions of their day were proven in numerous disciplines as well as halter. they were indeed great sires and horses. I am not negating their influence. In fact my breeding program is centered on Bask bred horses.
> Lemon Drop Kid , Storm Cat, Allydar, and Bold Ruler founded lines of horses that produced great performers and breeding stock. They did contribute to the sport of racing. They have and will influence the breed for generations to come. Shalom



And mine is pretty heavy on Khemosabe and Gamaar. Makes for a pretty and pretty athletic bunch, without going to extremes in type.


----------



## smrobs

That's a great point, Denny, about breeding only for looks.

I admittedly know almost nothing about Arabs. I've had experience riding one that I started as a 3 year old for a customer. He was very intelligent, stood just under 15 hands, and that boy could cover country :shock:. He was bred and raised by some good friends of mine. They used to show the Arabian circuit in costume classes when I was a kid but they are more into the CTRs and endurance racing now. My friend's stud is, IMHO, a stellar example of a good horse, regardless of breed, but I don't know if he would qualify as "typey".

I have no idea what his breeding is but I do know he stands just over 16 hands and in his 20+ years under saddle, she's won countless races and CTRs on him, along with the costume classes.


----------



## Golden Horse

smrobs said:


> That's a great point, Denny, about breeding only for looks.


 
LOL, I love a good looking horse, but beauty should be a bonus, gift wrapping sound mind and body, not make up plastered over a hash of weaknesses:wink:

But you see I am a maverick to many because I still believe that breeding with the aim of a usable horse should be prime in decision making. I care less about bloodlines, or pure breds than some, but at the same time don't approve of real mutts. There are many fine breeders both here and in the UK, who take the best that they see and combine them to make good sports horses, jumpers, hunters, eventers, and the like, I am actually more in favor of a carefully thought out cross breed, than a fashionable pedigree choice.


----------



## wakiya

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I personally think a well conformed horse is always beautiful. Though I prefer a round, old spanish type horse, I can still appreciate a good individual from another breed.


----------



## Druydess

Remali said:


> Good post! I started going to the Arabian shows (spectator only) back in the very early 1970's, since I am in the Midwest I remember the Boggs brothers very well, they pretty much started the trend of bringing in the halter horses wild-eyed and rearing and running full-out like crazy (something I am not a fan of), I also remember when DB was banned from showing for a time due to surgically-altered horses. I hate what is seen in the Arabian show ring today, well, most of it anyway.
> 
> I remember Rick Moser, very cool he is your farrier! I miss the days when our champion halter horses were also National winners in performance too (Such as Raffon and *Aramus, I saw *Aramus back in the day, they just don't make 'em like that any more). At least right now the Al-Marah Arabians, and a few others as well, are out there doing very well in performance and still maintain that classic look I love. Years ago, say back in the 1970's, I was more impressed with a show win, today not so much (although I do like the Arabian Sport Horse Show and have been impressed with many of them). I was looking at the winners of the Las Vegas show (online), and a couple of the stallion halter winners were incredibly bad (one had cannon bones almost longer than his forearms). The last horse I saw that made an impression on me was *Muscat.
> 
> But, it has been years now since I have been to a show... I wish more of the big American breeders would breed for good legs and substance, and I am still blown away by what the judges place for winners in many cases.


I agree. Today's wins and those of years ago are not the same. Good legs and substance have gone by the wayside, but not with me. I specifically chose a stallion of bone and substance. 

The Boggs have changed the halter horse, and not in a good way IMO. The crap done to those horses is unacceptable. What is desired today has changed drastically and most people just don't get that.

Rick is one of the few handlers that I admire. He is no nonsense, but knows his stuff and is honest about what you ask him.Glad you got to know him. He does great work. Can't get much better than a man of his caliber working under your horses!


----------

