Are we so concerned with keeping young horses "safe" that we . . .

TarrSteps

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
. . . potentially interfere with their optimum physical development and long term soundness?

I just feel like being contentious this morning.
smile.gif
(I also thought about asking this in the Breeding forum but I suspect I'd be thrown out or shot or something.
wink.gif
)

I was chatting about this yesteday and got to wondering if we are now so concerned with keeping young horses "safe" (mark free, in good to "too good" flesh, never stressed etc.) that we deny them the opportunity to develop their physical potential? I've thought that this has become more common over the past couple of decades as more people have "only foals" that live primarily in adult horse situations, rather than pretty much out 24/7 with their peers, as used to be much more the norm. Young horses play so much and so hard . . . are we denying them something when they don't get that opportunity?

Can it be made up with human intervention, at least to some extent?

Is it the same thing to wait on "working" a horse that's has lots of physical activity in its daily life as one that pretty much stands around or may not even receive all day, every day turnout? (I'm talking, for argument's sake, horses under 4.) It's well proven that there are "developmental windows" and if they're not exploited the end result will suffer. And there's more and more information suggesting that humans who don't "learn" to be fit and strong as children are at a SEVERE health disadvantage as adults.

I know this is a contentious topic but I'm genuinely interested if people invested in the end result - ridable athletes - gives this much thought . . .
 
I'm a huge believer in making horses agile.
Ours live out on rough ground in places that have streams/rocks/ overhanging branches, drops etc and even badger setts. They learn very quickly that they need to think with their feet.
As a result when they start Xc they don't struggle at all, and invariably go clear.
I've learned more about horses the last few years than in the whole of my horsey life from watching how they all intereact with each other. The heirarchy is so important, and new horses quickly learn who to avoid and who not.
I can't help feeling that these expensive objects (and let's face it, many are treated like prized objects not natural living horses) are losing the abilty to get themselves out of trouble going XC, and are losing a certain hardiness by always living in plush surroundings.
Ours live a happy life, Sooty was here this weekend and laughed her head off at the sight of all the herd going from one high point on the farm down to the opposite valley. All of them babies/oldies alike streamed down the hillside, bucking and leaping before joining the remainder of their herd. To get there they had to negotiate a rock strewn hillside, then a steep bank, then a narrow slippery track and jump a stream before charging up another hill. Nothing faltered in speed except for a few bucks, now that has to be better for them than flat un-obstacled grazing!
So I agree with you, but then again, some of the horses bred are costing so much money to breed, no wonder people are too scared to ever risk them...
wink.gif
 
hmm, i agree about the interaction, i have my baby ones out with older ones (unshod only) and the big guys teach the kids more manners in 2 seconds with a Look than i can in 2 hours on the ground!
unfortunately i have perfectly flat un-obstacled grazing (it's just a feature of the Fens, unfortunately), i'd much rather have interesting, challenging fields for them to learn balance and cleverness in, though. i was told years ago that the reason Irish horses are so good xc is that from birth onwards they have to negotiate all sorts of natural obstacles in their fields, and they soon learn to cope.
 
Agree- when we bought a 3 year old last year, we had him vetted and the vet asked what we wanted to do with him. We said hunting- he told us to take him out that season- quiet days and no more than 2 hours as he was well developed enough to cope. The vets opinion was that too many people wrap their horses in cotton wool and they never learn to take life as it comes. The vet used to ride to hounds when he was younger and reckoned it was one of the best ways to educate a horse. 3yr old loved his hunting and has proved to be very steady in a group, happy popping logs etc yet some people were horrified that we would do that with a baby. Out hacking he is so steady, nothing fazes him, even if we have to go "off piste" due to fallen trees and i am sure that is thanks to us just getting on with it.
 
If you remember Priceless, he was hunting on Exmoor as a 4 year old. No jumping as such, but lots of water, ditches and rough terrain.

He was sound and agile and lived until he was nearly 30.
 
Yay, support.
smile.gif


I really think it's a problem, especially for developing top competition horses. How are they supposed to build that agility and stamina if they don't do it when they're young?

I found it really interesting watching free jumping over the years. When the competitions first started it was mostly breeders and the horses tended to be well presented but on the "light" side and had obviously been living out, with nicks and bangs. But they looked like athletes.

As the competitions became more popular more performance professionals became involved and more very "produced" horses showed up - slick, fat, and looking like a million bucks but not tough.

My observation was that the first few jumps, both groups made out pretty much the same - they jumped on their genetics and innate natural ability. But as they repeated and the jumps went up there started to be a divide . . . the "tough" youngsters seemed to have more stamina, coped better when things didn't go perfectly, and seemed more able to think on their feet.

Stands to reason, I guess. I just wonder with so much emphasis on breeding for performance these days, do people give much thought to how to best develop that potential from the outset or is it seen to be all about genetics and what happens after the horse is 5. That seems to leave out some very important formative stages!

Funny that you mention Priceless - he seemed to be a horse that maybe was not always the most talented but did the very best with what he had, physically and mentally. And I remember reading Caroline Bradley's book about the regular free work, including jumping, they did with their babies - hardly a minority view in the old days. (Or on the Continent.)

I'm actually not in favour of doing a ton of ridden work with young horses. Horses are not, strictly speaking, designed to be ridden, and their backs need to be treated like gold. Nor do I think doing the same things over and over is the answer - repetitive stress injuries here we come. But I find it interesting that so many people who really don't think a horse should do ANYTHING physically stressful until it's 4 seem to feel that somehow such a horse will then be automatically prepared to take up a career just because it's older.

Hmm, I think I'm developing an obsession . . .
 
I agree with you, I feel really sorry for young horses that are too "wrapped up." I mean, I can understand why the owners may feel so much is at risk, but surely the horse's well being should be first priority. I know of a horse owner that keeps their 2 year old stabled all day long!

Even for dressage horses, it is widely acknowledged that it does them good to work on uneven ground out hacking etc and not just on perfect level surfaces every day. Yet how many serious competition horses get the chance to do this on a regular basis?
 
I agree with you too, although I will never have a 'top' competition horse so to speak (although he is 'top' enough for me!). I don't see why every horse can't be hacked out - many competition horses are never hacked out - and get used to a bit of rough and tumble.

My horse seems to be always covered in minor bites and nicks (shouldn't try eating brambles now should he!) and their most favourite place to go in the field is on a very thin strip of ground (no more than a couple of feet wide) along the top of a stone wall. The only way off this is for them to back themselves up to the 'entrance' to this section or make a jump for it. They also love b*ggering around in the very hilly field, which is rubbish for schooling on, but great for letting them keep themselves fit
smile.gif
 
I totally agree with you.

I am also inclined to believe that the more a horse is protected and wrapped up in cotton wool, the more likely it is to "break" in some way or another, because they're so cosseted, they don't learn to cope when things don't go perfectly.
 
I hate it when people buy a youngster as they can't afford to buy an older horse of the same breeding, but then treat it like an older horse. Fully stabled, de-sentising it to everything imaginable, leading it up and down the road every night - just because they really want the interaction that owning an older horse gives you. I feel like telling them turn the poor thing out in a field and let it be a horse. If they want to play ponies with something they should have bought a horse that could be ridden.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I hate it when people buy a youngster as they can't afford to buy an older horse of the same breeding, but then treat it like an older horse. Fully stabled, de-sentising it to everything imaginable, leading it up and down the road every night - just because they really want the interaction that owning an older horse gives you. I feel like telling them turn the poor thing out in a field and let it be a horse. If they want to play ponies with something they should have bought a horse that could be ridden.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you DD but sometimes it's not always as straight forward as that. I bought my yearling for the reason you stated- I will never be able to afford something as good as him at an older age... I also fully intended to turn him out 24/7 in a herd of 24 horses on the side of a hill and 'leave' him for 2 years. Unfortunaltely he took great dislike to the horrendous weather (it was like winter up there) and had to come in and dry off and be rugged. This was never the part of the plan. Nor was him getting lame from an abscess and needing treated for it, poultice changed every 12 hours, farrier visits and multiple vet visits including xrays!
shocked.gif
Poor bugger was meant to go out and play, be a baby and enjoy himself with the herd- didn't exactly go to plan.
crazy.gif
He will winter out though with the others that stay out (God willing!)
I definitely agree with HH that the terrain they are on and being in a big herd makes them more bold - I can see that already
smile.gif
 
Totally agree with this post.

I got my 3 year old (then 2 year old) in April and she has lived out, 24/7 since then (other than box rest for an injury). It was obvious that she hadn't been used to it but she adores it now and I cannot think of anything nicer than a baby being out in the fresh air rather than cooped up in a stable.

I worked for a VERY well known dressage rider who, at the time had 1 stallion, and 2 geldings in work. I was there for a year and a half and NOT ONCE were they hacked out or EVEN turned out.
mad.gif


I was, occasionally allowed to take them out, in hand to eat some grass.
frown.gif
AT the time, the youngest gelding was only 4.
frown.gif
 
Law - but you tried to do it that way and it didn't work out. It is the people who have bought a youngster and start putting tack on it every night when it is 2 or loose school it constantly. They then start posting that the horse is badly behaved - it might be but only because it can't cope with everything they are asking of it - it's a baby.

It is probably very idealistic of me to think that all youngsters should be out.
 
It does also beg the question when they are "worked" (or more correctly "worked with") what sort of work should be done? Should it be all about being "nice and safe" or should the horse's ultimate physical development need to be kept in mind? And are young horses best served by doing "grown-up" work or are there other factors to keep in mind? Is it possible to "squash" a horses natural ability by never asking anything of it until it's too late and/or teaching it that what people mostly want is "quiet" (which is NOT, repeat NOT, the same as "calm" on the training scale) not "athletic" (which is "forward" and "straight" on the scale)? After all, when they grow up we effectively want them to leap in the air on cue . . .

(I worked for one breeder whose horses were "out out", as in basically unhandled, on 200 acres of very rough land until they were three. They were physically strong but often pretty hairy at first - I'm not sure that wasn't going too far the other way!)
 
Very controversial TarrSteps! I think the value of some young horses definitely makes them more likely to be mollycoddled, but it makes me laugh when people pay a small fortune for (for example) Irish horses, that you know damn well will have been kept as roughly and naturally as you could ever imagine, but as soon as they cross the water they become cossetted to the nth degree!

I buy mine at 3 and they have been living in small groups in Yorkshire, not handled over-much, may have been brought in to be shown 2 or 3 times a year. My latest one has been out at ours with a broodmare, yearling and 4yo, and they've been a very happy gang. Once he's fully backed and ridden away he'll be turned back out for winter. Our land is a bit flat and unchallenging but he is hacking out, crossing ditches, tripping up a lot and seeing many different things. He'll do young event horse classes next year and maybe go autumn hunting, then be turned away for winter again, but it'll all be quite low key and certainly not too intense.

I love my horses to have a personality and not be squashed into being robotic, over-produced, over-pampered little divas; that way I can work with their personality to get the best out of them, and perhaps manage to make an eventer of something that other people would have dismissed because it didn't fit the mould at the age of 3.
 
I have been reading a lot lately about the training of young horses (mainly for dressage) and it is interesting to read how such masters like Seunig go into such depth about the benefits (and correct techniques even) of hacking in countryside, hill work, jumping natural obstacles etc, and how this relates to work in the school both as a youngster and much later on in training, with particular reference to the hindquarters.

I currently train my 5 year old with a very classical orientated trainer (she has competed to GP). She believes that for the dressage horse shouldn't specialise until it is 7, i.e for the first two years it is about consolidating the all important basics, and letting the horse be a horse, i.e by hacking, introducing jumping etc. This is in contrast to many professional's having 6 or 7 year olds that are being trained in piaffe and passage. I know this as during some of this year's 6 year old young horse classes some horses came passage-ing into the arena in an attempt to impress the judge.

Some one I know has a horse previously trained to GP at the age of 9 who completely shut down one day and now it just seems to hate schooling so much he has become more of a happy hacker, which is a shame for such a talented young horse who should only just be approaching its peak.

But then I do think there is a big difference to a rider who simply wants to compete to a professional who is aiming for the very top where time is money.
 
I don't think it's an "either or" situation, though. A horse can work in the school and and do all its "cross training" effectively, all the while working CORRECTLY - it's not just what's done, it's how it's done that's important. Having a horse hack in a stiff outline, say, or on a completely surrendered rein all the time isn't necessarily beneficial. It's all balanced with "if a little is good, more is not necessarily better".

A fellow I know who specialises in stallions for inspections etc. has the same views about having horses forward and out and doing all sorts of different work to make them well rounded and he does okay, so I don't think the "best" people are as narrow minded as people think. Just the opposite, I've found. I suspect it's the 2nd tier that thinks if they grind on a horse for the short term it will pay off and it probably does enough times to keep people hoping. Doing one thing over and over is a whole lot simpler than taking each horse as an individual and assessing it fresh every day.
wink.gif


On the timing of teaching various skills though, I think that is a much more complicated topic. In a Balkenhol "young horse" clinic I went to he says they encourage the horses to do whatever upper level movements they do naturally in a "baby" way, as soon as they offer. So if a horse gets a bit wound on a hack and starts to piaffe, or offers a change with a weight shift, they don't punish it, they apply the aids and just chill out about it. That way the horse learns naturally, doesn't get stressed about the movement, and, perhaps most importantly, doesn't get punished for something it's all of a sudden supposed to want to do later on. I've heard similar words from people like Gal and Kyrklund so I suspect it's quite a common attitude. That's kind of the point . . . it's not the doing of things, its the how, when and why . . . much harder to codify.
 
I agree with you completely about the correctly bit. There is no point taking "time off" to play with poles and jumps unless the horse is still working correctly through its back and stretching down. There is no point going for a hack to unwind unless the horse is marching purposely forwards. Everything that is done should be reinforcement on the basics. But what I don't think is good for a young horse is day in day out training in an enclosed school, I think variety aids with overall development.

I definitely don't think a horse should be punished for offering something, for instance a flying change when asking for counter canter. What I mean is pushing the young horse to get to the "trick" stage before it is mentally and physically ready, so that when it performs the movements they are technically incorrect and do not look fluid to watch. Even though they work at an advanced level they would not necessarily get a 70% for a novice test, if you know what I mean!

I am not trying to pigeon hole the top riders. There is an Olympic dressage rider at my yard and at least 3 other GP riders and it is a joy to watch them train various horses. They all have different approaches and structures to their training.

Interesting topic. thanks for posting
smile.gif
There has been much debate about young horse classes on the BD forum too.
 
Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, more elaborating. I suspect we have very similar views.
smile.gif


Interestingly, at the Balkenhol clinic I mentioned it was the first year of the 4 Year-Old tests and they asked him to evaluate one for educational purposes. He sat through the whole thing impassively and then at the end, when asked what he thought, pronounced them an "abomination". Cue massive group intake of breath and some nervous giggling. There was another GP rider (past World Champion) doing the clinic with him and she looked like she wanted the ground to swallow her up.
smile.gif
But he said what he thought and I thought it was great - he had good reasons for his opinions and I would think the man knows a thing or two about it by now. The other trainer was a bit more circumspect and less completely against the idea but it was interesting to see two people who had ridden at the highest levels give their opinions.

I also had a scary conversation with someone who does YH jumpers about the "point" of those classes . . . didn't leave me with the warm fuzzies. But then again, I don't think it's wrong to try to develop young horses slowly, systematically and properly, utilising their developmental windows . . . I guess in the end it's so individual it's really hard to just say "this way is the right way". That said, every proven system utilises FULL development of the horse, not just the ability to do one thing well for a short time, and long term soundness over short term flash.
 
Abomination! Lol! Wow, it must have been a great experience to have been there, lucky you.

Yes, slow and steady it should be. I think all horse riders (and not just pros, dressage addicts and the like!) should learn the theories behind the training of horses. Even the "average" horse when trained correctly to the best of its ability can produce amazing results and overcome natural "flaws". I spent far too many years riding aimlessly and for fun (or what I thought), not realising how a bit of correct training and knowledge can work wonders! There are too many quick fixes around, gadgets galore and blaming of willing horses.

I like what you said, "long term soundness over short term flash." So true.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Even for dressage horses, it is widely acknowledged that it does them good to work on uneven ground out hacking etc and not just on perfect level surfaces every day. Yet how many serious competition horses get the chance to do this on a regular basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post a link to somewhere it states that?
Also are you referring to young horses or older horses too?
Tanka
grin.gif
 
Sorry, it was mainly in books I have. A quick skim revealed:

Waldemar Seunig "Horsemanship"
pages 224 to 232

Holzel, Holzel and Plewa "Dressage Tips and Training Solutions"
p14-15

It was mainly in the sections related to training of the young horse. But thanks for asking, that has made me want to find some more evidence myself
smile.gif
 
Out hacking. They don't mean schooling on unlevel ground.

"Cross country rides and the shifts of the horse's centre of gravity that it must effect itself in covering rough terrain promote the flexibility of the hindquarters and the activitiy of the back." (Seunig p225)

They are not implying fast work, merely walking up and down hills etc. As you rightly say, if done incorrectly could damage the horse, but Seunig provides pages and pages of info on the correct position for every type of terrain and how the horse should be ridden, and apparantly it helps with balance and developing the hindleg.
 
I think you would find a lot of support on the breeding forum re getting youngsters turned out and letting them live a natural life.

Anyone who has every bought a horse from the continent and had to 'rehabilitate' it will tell you how rewarding (though often difficult) it is. When my last horse came to me he was agrophobic as he had probably only ever been in an indoor school (outdoor at a push occassionally) and in his stable. He had never walked down a hill so was scared to do so. He had no idea how to interact with other horses. 6 months on he was being turned out in company (from bottom of pecking order to top in a month once he worked out what to do), hacking out and enjoying hs life. He even ended up walking up and down hills and through puddles. An eventer he would never have made and it was a big effort to teach those very basic skills he should have been learning in the field as a youngster.

It defies belief that people still treat horses like this, particularly in the UK where there is still some decent hacking avaliable. I phoned about a horse for sale today and when I asked if it hacked out she almost had a hissy fit and went on about how valuable horses shouldn't be turned out or hacked. WTF? It wasn't even expensive (not that it matters - every horse has a right to be a horse no matter how much it costs) - so I suspect its probably a nutter that can't hack or be turned out. Its 11 so it would be very hard to introduce those things after so many years deprivation. I just don't understand why people are so obsessed with keeping them in - it certainly doesn't keep them sound of free from accidents. If anything IMHO they are more accident prone and likely to go lame if molley coddled.
 
It wasn't just the idea of turning them out - I'm all in favour, of course, - but the idea of developing them athletically whilst they're young, not just having them stand around/do very little until they're mature in an effort to keep them "safe". Let's face it, standing around in a flat field with quiet companions is much better for a horse than standing in a box, to be sure, but it's not necessarily doing much for the horse athletically. Obviously being out on rough ground with a bunch of buddies is ideal but alas it's not everyone's reality. If it's not is that "okay" or does it carry its own risks and requirements?

The second article I listed above talks a bit about developmental windows for horses (not theoretical - proven definitively for all mammals) and I just wonder how many people producing young horses take this into account not only in where and how the horses live, but also what human intervention takes place.

Horses on the Continent generally do not get a lot of turnout (not just by choice in many cases - land is at a premium), it's true, but many producers/young horse trainers believe this should be made up for in other ways with hand walking, using a walker, hacking, work under saddle etc. Many also recommend a lot more strengthening and developmental work on the ground - longeing, free jumping - before riding than is commonly done here or in North America.

I'm not saying one approach is better than the other, I'm just wondering how many people give much thought to the development of their young horses, not just keeping them sound and in one piece. (I know it's a balance but that's my point - is going too far one way or the other detrimental?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top