Rising 3 year ridden at BEF show.

Cortez said:
There is a big physical difference between being, say, 2 years and 1 month (as in just 2), and being 2 years and 10 months, (i.e. rising 3). The calendar date is arbitrary; the physicality of the horse is what is to be evaluated. I have, once, broken a 2-off year old for a client, and would not do it again as the horse was much too babyish IMO. The local western trainers, as well as any TB trainers, would laugh as they routinely start horses before their 2nd birthdays.
Click to expand...

That's why I wondered if we should stick to months for ageing because yes there is a bit difference in a 24 month and 30 month animal that is not currently reflected in the way we talk about ages
 
hollyandivy123 said:
Sorry for using slang, i meant most people think that most horses are fully developed at 4yr ish.

This article states that horses are not mature until about 6yrs old give or take a bit. it was quite interesting to see there were sequential changes of over the leg and skeleton at which the growth plates convert to bone which takes from 9 months to 3.5 years depending how far up the leg you are. didn't realise this.

there is an interesting article about feeding foals and OCD, where they found correlation with increased lesions when concentrates are fed,

Impact of feeding and housing on the development of osteochondrosis in foals—A longitudinal study, the lead author is Luis Mendoza. to summaries

• This study focused on the evolution of OC related to the environment during the period from 6 months (after weaning) till 18 months.
• Horses not presenting OCD during the first months of life and fed with concentrates had a trend to develop osteochondrosis lesions.
• Horses positive to OCD at the first examination (6 months) and fed without concentrates (paddock, or just hay or roughage) had higher probabilities of recovering than those fed with concentrates.
• Environment conditions may define the evolution of osteochondrosis.


maybe we need to reevaluate early feeding of young stock? but i think this disease is very complicated and not just due to one trigger, possible a genetic element as well.
Click to expand...

Its not a new thing ! pro breeders have been practicing it for years im afraid most overfed foals you will see are in amateur breeders hands.Some of us know the signs but others think we are horse abusers and only in it for the huge profits we make.
 
I have no issue with the age of backing - we prefer to sit on the bigger horses early (usually at 3 though) and then usually turn them away. BUT....
given that we're advised to not use sitting trot on young horses due to them not being ready for it strength wise I was surprised to see the rider sat, and also the size of the rider. The 2yo TBs aren't usually sat on by anyone over 9.5stone... I'd say this jockey was rather larger than that.
 
Lanky Loll said:
I have no issue with the age of backing - we prefer to sit on the bigger horses early (usually at 3 though) and then usually turn them away. BUT....
given that we're advised to not use sitting trot on young horses due to them not being ready for it strength wise I was surprised to see the rider sat, and also the size of the rider. The 2yo TBs aren't usually sat on by anyone over 9.5stone... I'd say this jockey was rather larger than that.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the really big ones are the horses we usually leave a bit longer....not sure we are looking at the same horse as the lad on the chestnut Woodlander was rising throughout.

Popsdosh: "others think we are horse abusers and only in it for the huge profits we make"

Ha! Ha! good joke....
 
Cortez said:
Funnily enough the really big ones are the horses we usually leave a bit longer....not sure we are looking at the same horse as the lad on the chestnut Woodlander was rising throughout.

Popsdosh: "others think we are horse abusers and only in it for the huge profits we make"

Ha! Ha! good joke....
Click to expand...

I think this thread refers to a v. dark bay/black colt rather than a chestnut?
 
Cortez said:
Funnily enough the really big ones are the horses we usually leave a bit longer....
Click to expand...
They usually get longer to get going but are at least saddle/bridle/sat on at three - then chucked out til 4 and produced slowly - wouldn't be bringing them in quickly, current big yob didn't see a ring until he was 5 but was backed at 3.
 
The horse/video that the video discussion on the hh page was about is double bubble, chestnut, sitting trot throughout
https://www.facebook.com/horseandhounddressage/videos/1812485879007504/
 
ester said:
I only used 3 as the point to work the discussion about age around because that seems to be the trigger point that people aren't comfortable with along with those insisting that technically the horse is 3, when technically by any measure he is not yet.

Thanks crabby mare and others re the licensing specifics it seems a shame that in her list lynne didn't include and this horse was backed 4 weeks ago and has done 20mins every other day since. Because even in previous discussions it is clear that many think these horses have been under saddle for months when that doesn't seem to be the case
Click to expand...

They havent and thats where problems start because the crazy gang dont understand how it can be done ! plus to be frank will never believe it anyhow as they are so sure they are right! At least we give the horse the benefit of listening to what they are telling us if its not ready its not and nothing will change that. A lot of the work will be done in lines before anybody ever gets on their backs. You know the boring stuff a lot of lesser mortals are inclined to not bother with because they wouldnt know where to start. You have all the basics in there before you even put any weight on the horses back.
 
ester said:
The horse/video that the video discussion on the hh page was about is double bubble, chestnut, sitting trot throughout
https://www.facebook.com/horseandhounddressage/videos/1812485879007504/
Click to expand...

Nope, rider alternates between rising and sitting as and when the horse needs it. I have no problem with starting to sit when the horse offers his back, as this one is doing for most of the time (when he stiffens, the rider goes rising - have another look). As in the dressage ring, this is for perhaps 2 minutes, with a very good back-moving young horse with plenty of strength in the loin for a little sitting trot!

Both the Woodlander chestnut stallions are very well ridden by pro riders.
 
popsdosh said:
They havent and thats where problems start because the crazy gang dont understand how it can be done ! plus to be frank will never believe it anyhow as they are so sure they are right! At least we give the horse the benefit of listening to what they are telling us if its not ready its not and nothing will change that. A lot of the work will be done in lines before anybody ever gets on their backs. You know the boring stuff a lot of lesser mortals are inclined to not bother with because they wouldnt know where to start. You have all the basics in there before you even put any weight on the horses back.
Click to expand...
I know they haven't and do believe it which is why I said it was a shame that it wasn't highlighted to those who don't know. but I still don't agree with it being done. So does that make me crazy gang or not or do you have to fulfill both parts.
 
At work so can't watch again just trying to be helpful with the vid. I can't see why any sitting trot would be helpful at this stage back offered or not. Why not just so back offered and rising?
 
I saw alternating rising and sitting. .. to me it appeared that the rider sat when the horse was freshest and then went rising when it was reliably travelling around the arena. Therefore I guessed he might be sitting for security and to keep the horse between hand & leg ( relatively! It's extremely green ;) )

I thought he had a good seat and would not be detrimental to the horse

He also took very wide turns and made it as easy as possible for the horse. Very sensitive approach.
 
ester said:
At work so can't watch again just trying to be helpful with the vid. I can't see why any sitting trot would be helpful at this stage back offered or not. Why not just so back offered and rising?
Click to expand...

You'll have to ask the rider; presumably he felt that the horse was secure enough to sit to when he did so, and needed some help when he started rising, which he did, both inside and outside the ring. There is nothing in the videos of either of these two lovely young stallions that would give me cause for concern, I'm amused at the general tutting going on :-)
 
I've read most of the replies but may have missed someone already mentioning this... These horses would have been bred for this sort of thing in mind... Ie a lot of their birthdays will fall within the first few months of the year. So yes, they're very nearly three. I backed my homebred last autumn, he would have been 'technically' around 3 years 3 months. Producers don't want that. They want a horse born right at the beginning of the year. I do showjumping mainly and I know that for the age classes for example, they want a horse born in Jan/Feb so that by the time their 4th year comes round, they've already had 10 months (ish) under saddle, compared to something like mine only having 6 months experience.
And having backed my lad last autumn I know that actually when you sit on something that is quite naturally talented, it doesn't take a lot to get them to go like this. After a couple of weeks I was playing around with mine, finding his buttons. Just because a horse goes like this at the age of 3 does not mean that it has been hammered.
 
I'd agree he made it easy for the horse turns wise etc I just don't agree that the horse should be there like that? It seems to be is they can grade ridden at 3 because they can then do simpler movements than if grading at say 5. But it is hard not to wonder whether the keenness to grade at 3 is because you can charge more for the services of a graded stallion...
 
ester said:
I'd agree he made it easy for the horse turns wise etc I just don't agree that the horse should be there like that? It seems to be is they can grade ridden at 3 because they can then do simpler movements than if grading at say 5. But it is hard not to wonder whether the keenness to grade at 3 is because you can charge more for the services of a graded stallion...
Click to expand...

No, the reason they grade at three, and ride at three, is so they know as early as possible whether the horse is suitable temprement-wise/training-wise to produce ridden horses. The grading process starts at two and continues until the horse has, I think it is two foal crops on the ground. Stallions also have to undergo a ridden assesment (used to be a 100-day test, but I think that has changed now?). At least that was the way it was when I bred Trakhener horses several years ago.
 
Last edited:
Yup ok but if it is in order to know whether it is worth using the horse as a covering stallion as quickly as possible is that not money orientated so you can then get covering quicker? And not spend money keeping the horse entire for longer than necessary if it isn't suitable? I think it is 14 day not 100 now?!
Or is there something about a horse at 3 that you can't see at 4?
 
The sooner you find out if the horse isnt going to pass (and there is a rideability part to the grading) , or be good for competing, the less time and money is wasted. Common sense!
 
Having lived abroad in two different countries I have certainly experienced that what we do in the UK is not necessarily the same as what is done in different countries - and I'm not even talking about horses. Does it make the UK wrong and the other country right? Does it make the other country wrong and the UK right?

To answer those people who seem to think that it is 'just' a money making exercise by the stud there is precious little - if any - profit to be made from breeding. Those that do have foals to sell often bemoan that people don't want to pay reasonable money for them. I have bred a number of warmblood foals from graded stallions at both continental based and UK based studs purely for myself with no intention to sell and reckon it has cost at least £2,500 to get a foal on the floor.

Rightly or wrongly studs run as a business and their 'assets' do need to show some return so keeping a colt/stallion for an extra year does incur additional cost.

I personally am a little uneasy at backing them as a rising three year old but don't necessarily subscribe to the view that it is entirely wrong. I actually have a bigger issue with the fillies being put in foal at 2.
 
ester said:
I'd agree he made it easy for the horse turns wise etc I just don't agree that the horse should be there like that? It seems to be is they can grade ridden at 3 because they can then do simpler movements than if grading at say 5. But it is hard not to wonder whether the keenness to grade at 3 is because you can charge more for the services of a graded stallion...
Click to expand...
In german registries the stallion cannot have offspring registered in the "full" studbook before it has its performance test which means any offspring from insemination before it has passed will not be eligible for grading etc. its not possible to have them retrospectively entered so if they are to be used they do need to be performance tested. its not a case of being able to charge more its the registration that needs to be taken into consideration as well even though the offspring will be dna tested and have full breeding known.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdancing said:
I agree with the person who said we'd be jumping all over an amateur who posted on here that they were prepping their 2 yr old horse for a basic show under saddle, but seem to just accept a professional doing the same? Doesn't seem right?.
Click to expand...

It's a fair point, but I do think there is a difference. The horse in the OP's video had, if I have got it right, been under saddle for 5 weeks before that show. It will probably have been ridden 3 or 4 times a week for 20 minutes each during that time. My riding certainly isn't good enough to get a horse from never sat on to being ready for a major show atmosphere in 5 or 6 hours' total saddle time, and I suspect I am probably not that unusual in that regard among my fellow amateurs. I would have to spend much much longer on the animal's back to get to that place. So the two situations aren't really the same.
 
amandaco2 said:
The difficulty I have with this, is no one can tell how mature a horse is inside by looking at it. they can look a mature shape in term of muscle, but vital growth plates aren't fused and you cannot tell this simply by looking at a horse.
There are 3yr old who look more mature and ready Tha 7 yr olds but inside the 3yo is still only at a 3yo stage of development
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I know far more dog or on/off lame horses used for leisure rather than those produced and ridden by professionals.

I think luck has a lot to do with it in all honesty. But they are prepared to an immaculate standard.

Is it what I would do with mine? No. But I have no desire to breed and no desire to sell. If we want horses to buy, they have to be bred in the first place. And the rideability is tested in the terms dictated.

For the record, Fig was raced on hard ground 2yo-8yo and never had a day lame (castrated as a 7yo when they realised he was pants). It was just as likely to go the other way.
 
definitely luck or lack of is a major player....we just hope we have some good luck!
agree they are immaculately ridden for the most part....I suppose one would be less likely to see lame professional ridden horses because you would think the professional would be more aware/ more stringent vetting at events? if the horse was lame, it wouldn't be out being ridden. whereas the leisure horse would be perhaps overlooked for lameness issues by less experienced owners?
just interested in the way a horse develops inside can have little bearing on what its appearance is.
perhaps young horses classes and grading has a lot to answer for?

nikkimariet said:
Interestingly, I know far more dog or on/off lame horses used for leisure rather than those produced and ridden by professionals.

I think luck has a lot to do with it in all honesty. But they are prepared to an immaculate standard.

Is it what I would do with mine? No. But I have no desire to breed and no desire to sell. If we want horses to buy, they have to be bred in the first place. And the rideability is tested in the terms dictated.

For the record, Fig was raced on hard ground 2yo-8yo and never had a day lame (castrated as a 7yo when they realised he was pants). It was just as likely to go the other way.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top