Safe rider weight for a 3 year old?

S

Stormynight

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2014
Messages
180
Location
West Mids
Visit site
Looking for a discussion - we all know the 20% rule for a mature horse, but what would you say is a safe for a 3 year old?

E.g. 14.1 cob who weight tapes at 370kg... for very light work, how heavy is too heavy?

Thanks all!
 
Personally - for a 3 year old, no weight. I don't sit on mine till they're 4 as they are not skeletally mature enough at 3 to withstand it. They get worked on long reins, being led out, getting used to tack etc to prepare them for backing at 4, both mentally and physically but they don't get sat on till 4
 
He’s not horrendously immature, but you're right, he does have a lot of filling out to do. I’ve always waited until 4 to back, but the boy in question was recently started in Ireland and I’m debating a small amount of very(!) light work before turning him away until next year.
 
From Dr Deb Bennett, on the maturity and closing of various growth plates:-

"Short pastern – top and bottom between birth and 6 months.
Long pastern – top and bottom between 6 months and one year.
Cannon bone – top and bottom between 8 months and 1.5 years
Small bones of the knee – top and bottom of each, between 1.5 and 2.5 years
Bottom of radius-ulna – between 2 and 2.5 years
Weight-bearing portion of glenoid notch at top of radius – between 2.5 and 3 years
Humerus – top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years
Scapula – glenoid or bottom (weight-bearing) portion – between 3.5 and 4 years
Hindlimb – lower portions same as forelimb
Hock – this joint is “late” for as low down as it is; growth plates on the tibial and fibular
tarsals don’t fuse until the animal is four (so the hocks are a known “weak point” –
even the 18th-century literature warns against driving young horses in plow or other
deep or sticky footing, or jumping them up into a heavy load, for danger of spraining
their hocks).
Tibia – top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years
Femur – bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years; neck, between 2.5 and 3 years; major and 3rd
trochanters, between 2.5 and 3 years Pelvis – growth plates on the points of hip, peak of
croup (tubera sacrale), and points of buttock (tuber ischii), between 3 and 4 years.
And what do you think is last? The vertebral column, of course. A normal horse has 32
vertebrae between the back of the skull and the root of the dock, and there are several
growth plates on each one, the most important of which is the one capping the centrum.
These do not fuse until the horse is at least 5 ½ years old (and this figure applies to a
small-sized, scrubby, range-raised mare. The taller your horse and the longer its neck,
the later the last fusions will occur. And for a male – is this a surprise? – you add six
months. So, for example, a 17-hand Thoroughbred or Saddlebred or Warmblood gelding
may not be fully mature until his 8th year – something that owners of such individuals
have often told me that they “suspected”)."

If you have a horse you want to remain sound and active for many years to come it's worth bearing in mind. It applies regardless of breed so those who are supposed to mature early might be deceptive.
 
Leo Walker said:
Isnt there evidence that the right sort of work at a young age actually improves bone strength and density as well?
Click to expand...

Yes there is. The right sort of work is what any sensible trainer will do with a young horse: not too much, not too often and not too hard.
 
If it helps... most people I know back around 3.5years. Gentle hacking a few times a week until they are 4 and then still mostly hacking with the odd bit of dressage/jumps until they are five. Lightweight riders only.
 
We never back a horse until it is 4.5 or 5, plenty of other thinks you can do with a young horse.
If it is rushed, you pay for it later
I would give the riding a miss for quite a while, and do something different.
 
I wouldn't ride, but get some long reins and get out walking with him. Great exercise for you both and when you come to riding you will have a bombproof youngster
 
I wouldn’t back a horse until they are 4 at least. Before that I do all the ground work and confidence building. I wouldn’t lunge but I would walk out in hand and long line. What’s the rush unless your producing for money.
 
I've backed every horse I've ever bred, bought or had in for breaking at 3 years old (that's well in excess of 200 at this stage), except for a few very tall, gangly lads who we left until they were 4. I have never had one go wrong that we've kept for ourselves, nor heard of anything out of the ordinary down the line other than accidents and the normal self-harming that horses are fond of. I have not of course kept track of very single horse that's been through our establishment, but I am not aware of a trail of broken down horses leading back to our door. There are no hard and fast rules, but leaving everything later and later in order for some magical "maturity" to do the training for you will not lead to anything other than woefully under-prepared "green" 5-6-7-8 year olds. If the trainer knows what they are doing and has experience and judgement I see no reason to do things any differently than the normal.
 
It depends on the rider as well as the horse. If I was upwards of 14 stone, then no, I wouldn't be backing anything at three. But a rider that is light and balanced, I'd have no problem with.
 
Cortez said:
I've backed every horse I've ever bred, bought or had in for breaking at 3 years old (that's well in excess of 200 at this stage), except for a few very tall, gangly lads who we left until they were 4. I have never had one go wrong that we've kept for ourselves, nor heard of anything out of the ordinary down the line other than accidents and the normal self-harming that horses are fond of. I have not of course kept track of very single horse that's been through our establishment, but I am not aware of a trail of broken down horses leading back to our door. There are no hard and fast rules, but leaving everything later and later in order for some magical "maturity" to do the training for you will not lead to anything other than woefully under-prepared "green" 5-6-7-8 year olds. If the trainer knows what they are doing and has experience and judgement I see no reason to do things any differently than the normal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this. I don't see any evidence anywhere that backing at three is harmful. It's normal all over the world.

Just because a horse is not fully grown doesn't mean that it can't carry a skilled rider at the lower end of its weight carrying capability.

Of course, I would agree, I'm currently riding a three year old, and he won't be turned away 'to grow up' this winter either. He'll grow up whether he's turned away or not.

In answer to the original question, about 12% of the horses weight, certainly no more than 15% and then only with a really well balanced rider.
 
Last edited:
In agreement with the above replies - I have five horses at the moment. Four of them were backed at 3, one is still an unbacked youngster. Of those who were backed at 3, by their late teens they have picked up some issues - but none of those are related to being backed at three. Laminitis, canker, arthritis around the fetlock/hoof joints, that kind of thing. Nothing back related or otherwise related to the bones that close late. One of them had extensive lameness checks a couple of years ago, and they struggled to find anything wrong with her - it was a couple of bones in the foot in the end! My unbacked one - I will back him, as I'm in the 'lightweight' category. My husband (who he's for) will not sit on him until he's a lot older, as he is heavier and less well balanced. Common sense really!

I don't tell my children they can't play sports or carry things around/help on the yard with buckets etc, for fear of damage to their growth plates. And theirs don't close until a lot later than the horse's will!
 
Sukistokes2 said:
I wouldn’t back a horse until they are 4 at least. Before that I do all the ground work and confidence building. I wouldn’t lunge but I would walk out in hand and long line. What’s the rush unless your producing for money.
Click to expand...


I don't see the rush either. If it is your own horse you have the time to take things slowly. Only reason I can see to ride a 3yo is to "conquer" it before it becomes a stronger 4 yo and you get scared of it.
My 3yo will be longreined around the roads and common for the winter, he will be lunged, (not in circles but allowed to run around on a long line) on the common over rocks and gulleys so he can learn without me on his back.

It might be normal throughout the world but then so is shoeing and some of us see the damage that "normal" there can do.

It is not waiting for some magical maturity. The horse is still being trained he is just learning different things. For example how to deal with traffic, how to go through cattle and ponies, cross rivers, how to go in front, how to wait for another horse to canter off and leave him behind. All useful things to learn.
 
I'm not in a rush, I just like riding, don't like ground work, and don't believe the best physical or mental start is leaving a three year old stood in a field.

When I see the evidence that it's harmful, I'll stop, if age hasn't stopped me first :)
 
For me, it depends not only on the weight of the rider but their competence. I haven’t a problem with a three year old getting used to a sympathetic rider on its back & doing basic work.
 
Daughter of the Moor said:
Being pushed beyond their ability to understand what is being asked of them. It happened to one I bred and he never recovered.
Click to expand...

I certainly can agree with you there. I bought a 3 yo. I had his half brother, I knew the family and I knew the breed well. The horse I bought had been totally and utterly damaged by his owner deciding now he was 3 and he must be broken. He simply couldn't cope. He totally freaked out. He had been saddled and I guess someone had tried to get on. By that stage he was terrified of them. It took me several years working with him but he never became safely rideable. Due to someone trying to break him at 3 he was totally wasted as a riding horse. He would never have been the easiest horse to ride but he would certainly have been a brilliant riding horse.
One look at the pedigree plus looking at the actual horse and his temperament should have told any idiot that horse was simply not capable of being broken at 3, he needed at least another year to mentally mature.

Surely people realise that horses mature mentally at different rates and for some 3 is still very young.
 
I've changed my mind about this over the years-I used to be against but for horses that are mature enough in body and mind then I think more should be going out hacking. I am not for horses being drilled on surfaces at such a young age unless the rider is particularly good but that precludes most of us.

For ponies though, I really think they are better left for another year or so but should go out and about in their second/third year for a look at the world. The natives do take longer to mature and are different mentally, seen quite a few of the moor/fell bred breeds overboiled at being ridden at 3yo.
 
ycbm said:
I'm not in a rush, I just like riding, don't like ground work, and don't believe the best physical or mental start is leaving a three year old stood in a field.

When I see the evidence that it's harmful, I'll stop, if age hasn't stopped me first :)
Click to expand...

I just like riding as well, not that keen on ground work and I certainly wouldn't leave a 3 yo standing in a field with no training. As for evidence I suspect there is the same lack of evidence as there is that a life of barefoot may well be better for a horse. To me it is simply common sense to give a youngster as long as possible to grow. My first concern is the horse not my liking for riding. I stand on the mounting block next to him and it is so tempting. I know I could get on in a headcollar and ride up the road straightaway, he has done so much work, but I restrain myself. I remember a talk my chiropractor gave many years ago as he was explaining to someone why it was better to leave their youngster for another year. It all made more sense than rushing.

as a matter of interest how many of the youngsters you have broken at 3 have you still been riding at say 25? are they still going well at that age?
 
I think the problem may be that perhaps the wrong people are trying to train young horses, not that the wrong horses are being trained young. Any one with enough tact and experience will know when a horse is struggling, in fact they should know before they even start. I used to break full time for a living and it's a matter of how much each individual horse is ready to do. I've never worked a 3 year old more than 3 days a week, and never for more than 30 minutes a session, and never had one not able to cope.

In answer to Paddy - I've had several home bred 20 year olds still going strong, and my horses were competition dressage trained, quite a few to FEI level.
 
Last edited:
paddy555 said:
I certainly can agree with you there. I bought a 3 yo. I had his half brother, I knew the family and I knew the breed well. The horse I bought had been totally and utterly damaged by his owner deciding now he was 3 and he must be broken. He simply couldn't cope. He totally freaked out. He had been saddled and I guess someone had tried to get on. By that stage he was terrified of them. It took me several years working with him but he never became safely rideable. Due to someone trying to break him at 3 he was totally wasted as a riding horse. He would never have been the easiest horse to ride but he would certainly have been a brilliant riding horse.
One look at the pedigree plus looking at the actual horse and his temperament should have told any idiot that horse was simply not capable of being broken at 3, he needed at least another year to mentally mature.

Surely people realise that horses mature mentally at different rates and for some 3 is still very young.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really have any evidence that this was due to him being three, though, do you? I had two full brothers, they are chalk and cheese, nothing to do with how they had been managed, which was identical.
 
I've known a handful of horses who were overcooked by being over ridden when young, but really very few, and in all of those cases I would say that they never really had the temperament to be doing the job they were intended for without very slow training anyway.

But I have known a lot backed young who didn't have the mental resilience at 3 to be corrected (however sympathetically) without a small amount of dramatics, which then frightens their rider and a downward spiral begins. And/or their rider-owners didn't know them well enough through other types of interaction first to be able to have positive 'discussions' intuitively once on board.

That can happen at any backing age of course, but it is less likely if the owner has spent time doing other types of training first.

On the physical side though, my very good physio is convinced that getting of a three year old once a week for 10-15 mins walking is beneficial.
 
paddy555 said:
as a matter of interest how many of the youngsters you have broken at 3 have you still been riding at say 25? are they still going well at that age?
Click to expand...

I haven't kept in touch with them so I don't know. One I had whose hocks went at nine was broken at four. An ex racer who raced at two, broken at eighteen months, was still in work at nineteen. A friend's mare broken at three was working at twenty six and she has another now still working at twenty four. Her Connemara, broken at five, has already had high ringbone and is periodically unsound behind with muscle atrophy. Another friend's twelve year old, broken at four, has hock issues. Her six year old, broken at four and turned away, rebroken very slowly at five, was put down at six with stifle issues.

But samples of small numbers aren't relevant anyway. To settle this argument we need research, which doesn't exist. Until it does, would it be possible to stop telling people who back three year olds that they are wrong?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top