Vet comment on weight...

Nudibranch

Nudibranch

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 April 2007
Messages
7,149
Location
Shropshire
Visit site
I know this is an age old topic but I just need to reassure myself that my figures are right here...
Vet was out to do a first stage lameness workup on the TB. Didnt see him ridden. However at one point he commented, "he's not a big horse for you, is he?"

Now this wasn't in context of speculating on the cause of the lameness or anything, but it got me thinking so I did my calculations. I am fairly tall and should lose about 5kg but me plus tack is 16% of horse's bodyweight. He is 16.3 with 9.5 inches of bone. Pretty sure that doesn't make me a pony squasher, does it?
 
God no! Fair numbers, I'd say. Awful how these things can niggle at you, but I don't see a problem there at all unless there is a structural issue or injury which means that he should carry less. The vet should be clear on this?
 
http://iceryder.net/weight.html

http://mhwf.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5659338

There's a lot of discussion about horses and weights around at the moment - a lot of people follow the 20% rule, in that your horse should not be carrying more that 20% of his healthy bodyweight, though there are also discussions re how as horses get bigger this method becomes less reliable. Short strong loins is also a consideration as opposed to long thin tubular trunks. This topic is a bit of a minefield. The above links might help. :)
 
I thought 20% was absolute maximum and no more than 15% of healthy weight is what we all should be aiming for if we expect the horse to work hard on a regular basis. If the horses legs and feet are anything other than very straight lower than 15% is better for long term soundness.
 
I would imagine the comment may well have been about your height ? I am 5'9'' about 10.5 stone - one of mine is 17.2 and I feel just right on him - my other is 16.2 and I feel huge on him!

Editing to say that I dont in anyway think logically that 5'9' is too big for a 16.2
 
Faracat said:
What, regardless of whether the TB in question is a little 15hh wisp of a thing or a stonking great 16.3hh NH type?
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

I've got a 16.3 tb, big strong horse who gets mistaken for a warmblood or tbx all the time and he's not even got as much bone as nudibranch's boy. He sounds like a pretty substantial horse and an good example of why you can't just think tb.
 
Of course conformation is important but then one would expect the vet to refer to this not his overall size. We could also bring in age, level of fitness, old issues and ability of the rider, all the things that are a factor.

Incidentally my sharer who was male, over 6 foot and long legged did look a bit gangly on my Tb, who did have a strong back and plenty of muscle but didn't take up a long leg. Carried him easily with no back issues.
 
criso said:
We could also bring in age, level of fitness, old issues and ability of the rider, all the things that are a factor.
Click to expand...

That's a personal opinion.

I don't think it matters how good the rider is. 13 stone is 13 stone, no matter how you dress it.

I also don't think age is a huge factor once the horse has matured completely. It's not going to make a different really if the horse is 10 or 15.

This has been done ten times over on HHO and I don't think anyone's going to agree! It's a touchy topic for some.
 
Goldenstar said:
Many TB's have weak backs and that seriously reduces a horses weight carrying ability .
Click to expand...

our tb is 16:2, is of Native/Northern Dancer lines so not a skinny weedy tb but has a good bit of bulk about him when muscled up, and has a fiffy back, needs every five/six month saddle and back massage and to be kept as warm as possible. Am looking at the Back on Track back warmer thingy. Max he can take is about 11/12 stone if a slimmer rider with balance.
 
There is a vet in our area who, on being the vet in attendance at a large sponsored/fun ride, actually stopped riders taking part for being too heavy for their horses.
 
SpringArising said:
That's a personal opinion.

I don't think it matters how good the rider is. 13 stone is 13 stone, no matter how you dress it.

I also don't think age is a huge factor once the horse has matured completely. It's not going to make a different really if the horse is 10 or 15.

This has been done ten times over on HHO and I don't think anyone's going to agree! It's a touchy topic for some.
Click to expand...


Yes I suppose it is my opinion that complete beginner out of balance will cause more problems than a balanced one and a 3 year old will not be same as a 10 year old who will not be the same as a 25 year old.

If your opinion is that these are not relevant then you that's yours.

My point was there are many factors that have to be taken into account, I just mentioned a few, but given that the vet did not raise them but talked about just the size of the horse suggests they were not a factor.

If you were trying to tell someone they were too big, then a weak back or other conformation or health issue would be a much more tactful way to approach the subject. The vet may not even have meant weight, if like my sharer the op is tall.
 
Nudibranch said:
I know this is an age old topic but I just need to reassure myself that my figures are right here...
Vet was out to do a first stage lameness workup on the TB. Didnt see him ridden. However at one point he commented, "he's not a big horse for you, is he?"

Now this wasn't in context of speculating on the cause of the lameness or anything, but it got me thinking so I did my calculations. I am fairly tall and should lose about 5kg but me plus tack is 16% of horse's bodyweight. He is 16.3 with 9.5 inches of bone. Pretty sure that doesn't make me a pony squasher, does it?
Click to expand...

Are you sure he meant weight wise?

I've been told I look big on horses more than once, not because I'm heavy, but because I'm leggy. On my friends 16.1hh TB I feel too tall, but on a 15.2hh Heinz 57 chunkier type I feel just fine. I'm 5'10 and weigh at my absolute heaviest, in all my riding gear, 10st.
 
SpringArising said:
It's nothing to do with height.

A 14 hand Cob with a good amount of bone is much better equipped to carry than a gangly 18 hand TB.
Click to expand...

True which is why I quoted faracat who compared a 15 h lw with a larger nh type. In the same way as a 13 h cob would not carry the same as a 15.2 of the same build.

Where I'm coming from is I have a Tb of the same height with 9 inches of bone who is a strong substantial type that fools even professionals who think all tbs are very lightweight. So a horse with more bone as in this case could be up to more weight tgan 12 stone.

However I would actually question 12 stone on a fifteen hand light weight who was poorly put together.

And I am slightly touchy about the fact that people don't always believe he is a Tb.
 
I'd say 12 stone max for a tb of 16.3 (that was the tb the op was asking about, not a weedy smaller one and that is my opinion). I'd say less for a 15hh.
If that's rubbish so be it, as I said at the beginning its my opinion not based on scientific fact.
Tb's are not bred to be weight carriers. Personally I hate to see them overloaded (not saying you are op), plenty of other weight carrying breeds if people are larger.
 
Honestly, in response to the original post, I suspect it was just a throw away remark with no great thought nor meaning intended.

I once said 'gosh, he's a big boy, isn't he?' about someone's (17hh) horse. They didn't speak to me for ages after that and I later found out they'd read into it an implication that the horse was too big/much for them. I meant no such thing and was merely making conversation.
 
12st 5lbs is the max weight for a point-to-pointer nowadays I believe and they can carry that over 3 miles plus, over fences and at speed. Yes, they are probably just a tad fitter than most of our horses, but some food for thought.....
 
gunnergundog said:
12st 5lbs is the max weight for a point-to-pointer nowadays I believe and they can carry that over 3 miles plus, over fences and at speed. Yes, they are probably just a tad fitter than most of our horses, but some food for thought.....
Click to expand...

Wants also food for thought is that many will be completely trashed by the time they are eight.
 
cobgoblin said:
There is a vet in our area who, on being the vet in attendance at a large sponsored/fun ride, actually stopped riders taking part for being too heavy for their horses.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I bet they were popular! Hopefully they didn't have to stop too many people.
 
Meems said:
Gosh, I bet they were popular! Hopefully they didn't have to stop too many people.
Click to expand...

I think it was two or three. I was told about it by my farrier, he felt the vet was absolutely right so I guess it wasn't a question of just a few pounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top