Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them? - Page 7
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Horse Breeds, Breeding, and Genetics > Horse Breeds > Draft Horses

Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them?

This is a discussion on Sugarbush Draft? Anyone heard of them? within the Draft Horses forums, part of the Horse Breeds category

    Like Tree62Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        01-24-2013, 02:39 PM
      #61
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NdAppy    
    Appaloosas don't claim to have a type, they are for all intents and purposes a color breed. So yes there are dissimilar types within the "breed."

    Actually, no, they are a bloodline breed. Color is a preference for an Appaloosa, not a requirement.


    >Looked at your FB page. All I see is a bunch of horses that have nothing more in common than color in some of them...
    Well then you are not looking at morphology. The bone structure and underlying frame is VERY similar. If you're not seeing it then it's because you are distracted by color, age differences and weight factors.

    There are dissimilar types within ALL breeds, even ones as standardized as TWHs and American Saddle Breds. Hell I've got full sibling groups that look NOTHING alike, stretching from 16 hand dressage types to 14.3, looks like a foundation Qh, and they are from App to App breeding. I also judge shows and even within mini horses there is a range of body types. So don't get hung up on the fact that all the horses don't "look" alike. Instead look at the underlying morphology and bone structure and throw away color, weight, age and sex.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        01-24-2013, 02:40 PM
      #62
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    You do not consider those who have paid registration fees, and who hold papers, as members!? Hence, the dictatorship comment.
    No, no more so than I consider people who pay registration fees for ApHC but are not members to be members. We don't HAVE a membership. We have a registry, but we don't have memberships at this point -- it's something we're working towards.

    I hold papers on two mares for Oldenburg registration, yet I am not a member of an Oldenburg registry. It doesn't negate the fact that I paid for them to be inspected, nor does it negate the fact that they're registered and recorded.

    We WILL have memberships available, but at this time we do not.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:42 PM
      #63
    Yearling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trinityapp    
    I'm fairly insulted that about your claiming the breed is going downhill. My daughter of Julgy's Shanning Gambler is also a Sugarbush and she's probably one of the most striking draft horses you'll ever see. She's exactly the type of mare that helped start this breed and now she's helping save it.
    Are there pictures of this mare posted on this thread? Can you point her out?
    prettydecoy likes this.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:43 PM
      #64
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trinityapp    
    Okay, well if you're well versed in Appaloosa history then you should know there are and never have been purebred Appaloosa.

    As for App lines not passing on draft phenotype; WHO are you trying to kid? I can pick the Old Fred descendants out of a line-up. Where do you think the WAP horses got that incredible bone? Where do you think the Bright Eyes Brother horses got the sabino and incredible amounts of hair?
    And even looking at your horse Maverick's lines I can tell you that he's a product of the Wiescamp/Peavy breeding program so he got draft traits not only from his mother, but his Appaloosa father.
    I find it amusing how you twist words so you can claim "mis-information."

    And that last part, I have no idea what you're talking about. No horse by that name here.
    themacpack likes this.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:48 PM
      #65
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    I find it amusing how you twist words so you can claim "mis-information."



    I didn't twist a thing. You stated that "purebred" Appaloosas were being allowed in, but a "purebred" Appaloosa has NEVER existed.


    >And that last part, I have no idea what you're talking about. No horse by that name here.
    I do apologize. Someone was discussing a gelding named Maverick that had draft breeding.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:52 PM
      #66
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MsBHavin    
    Are there pictures of this mare posted on this thread? Can you point her out?
    No she wasn't posted. You can see her here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

    She's a registered Percheron from imported stock and is due to foal next year for a Sugarbush foal
    Elizabeth Bowers likes this.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:57 PM
      #67
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by prettydecoy    
    You do not consider those who have paid registration fees, and who hold papers, as members!? Hence, the dictatorship comment.

    I had to come back to this, because I'm honestly confused. One would think we'd be a relatively wealthy registry with all these people in the mix, but I don't know where they are.

    As of today's date, we have 46 registered horses, some owned by the same people. Of those horses, fewer than 15 were registered prior to 2008 (old stock) while the balance are Foundation horses that were considered, approved and registered within the past year. Some horses are approved, but haven't yet been registered (foundation stock).

    I still don't know how this makes us a dictatorship. Denying a horse acceptance because it didn't meet standard? Not having a membership available? Please clarify this for me because I am honestly mystified.
         
        01-24-2013, 02:59 PM
      #68
    Yearling
    Ah, I was hoping for a full body shot
    prettydecoy likes this.
         
        01-24-2013, 03:04 PM
      #69
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkhart77    
    I had to come back to this, because I'm honestly confused. One would think we'd be a relatively wealthy registry with all these people in the mix, but I don't know where they are.

    As of today's date, we have 46 registered horses, some owned by the same people. Of those horses, fewer than 15 were registered prior to 2008 (old stock) while the balance are Foundation horses that were considered, approved and registered within the past year. Some horses are approved, but haven't yet been registered (foundation stock).

    I still don't know how this makes us a dictatorship. Please clarify this for me because I am honestly mystified.
    Who is claiming lots of people are involved? Again, assumptions and twisting. You have 46 registered horses. Regardless of who is owned by who, you do have a membership because people paid to register their horse. You yourself say that they have no say because you do not consider them members. Seems like a dictatorship to me, or a registry started by a couple people who now have the power to make all decisions regarding the future of this breed. This is not AQHA, APHA, ApHA, etc. This is SDHR. Regardless, I have said my piece and back out of this conversation now. Good day and best of luck in your endeavors.
         
        01-24-2013, 03:05 PM
      #70
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MsBHavin    
    Because there doesn't appear to be a breed standard. You've chosen multiple horses that look NOTHING alike and are rebuilding using them. Where is the standards that you are using? If I hadn't have seen this thread and I saw all those horses posted, I never would have thought there was a certain 'breed' attached to them. Never.
    The interesting thing about this comment, is that the horses shown in those pictures are not only from the same breed, but the vast majority of them are from the same family (and the old lines that we are trying to correct with the influence of the modern lines).

    The majority of the horses being shown were not chosen. They were born into the breed, most before our current staff became involved with the breed. Granted, they are shown in some pretty horrible pictures! Most of us know about how photos can distort the horse, and how easy it is to get a casual shot of a horse leaning toward the owner/handler. With that said, many of the comments on leg structure are valid. We are bringing in new blood to try and improve that.



    The Foundation horses are judged based upon their joint angles, and ratios of body parts to their own body. As an example, the ideal shoulder slope should be a 45 degree line from the point of shoulder to the withers. The shoulder angle from the scapula to the humerus should be 90 degrees or larger. Some horses approved have a 47 degree shoulder with a 79 degree angle between scapula and humerous, while others have a 51 degree shoulder with a 92 degree angle. Very few draft horses have a true 45 degree shoulder slope, sadly, which is why the horses must be within 70% of the ideal.

    Another example is length of back. The ideal is between 33 and 35% of the horse's body length. So what do you do if you have a horse with a 45/90 shoulder and a 42% back? Well, you average out the flaws via a scoring system. The horses are scored on a scale of 1 to 10 for each point. Points are based on the deviation from the ideal formula. Each degree off from the ideal removes a point, but points can be gained back for specific conformational improvements, such as the open shoulder angle mentioned above). To receive a passing score in one area, a horse can have a 48 degree shoulder, or a 36% back, but not both. (I am overly simplifying the conformational analysis process to prevent from writing too much of a book).

    Fatal flaws are cause for denial, but we see few of those in the horses applying. Each owner received a score sheet with their horse's analysis that very clearly breaks down the horse's flaws. These scores are the owner's to share or not, as they are pretty harsh. We mention how to improve on those areas, and offer free advice for analyzing breeding pairs. We don't just turn them loose and say "ok, go make more!". In fact, I have spent hours explaining genetics (including genetic diseases, and DNA testing for them) conformation (including how conformation effects soundness and movement) and such to the horse owners. I will not (legally can not) tell them how to breed or care for their hoses, but we offer every tool possible for these horse owners to help the breed improve not stagnate.

    The misunderstanding here though:
    Seems to be that the horses shown (horribly) in this thread are the horses we have been searching for. Instead, there are only 2 Foundation horses shown, horse number 2 and horse number 3. Horse number 3 barely passed the Foundation requirements. Her long neck made up for her sloped shoulder, and her straight legs made up for her long back (again, I'm overly simplifying the analysis process). Since horse number 3 had to be approved to be registered, she has fewer flaws than some of the horses born into the breed, and when bred back to the old lines, her conformation improved the set of the legs under the horse, increased the length of neck, but the sire shortened the back, and lowered the angle of the shoulder.

    Here is the resulting foal.


    This filly is the goal. A cross between the old lines, and the new, with the conformational flaws (mostly) removed. That filly is registered as a G4, which means she is not yet the ideal, and only carries 87% draft ancestry. She is shown at 5 months of age.
    Elizabeth Bowers likes this.
         

    Quick Reply
    Please help keep the Horse Forum enjoyable by reporting rude posts.
    Message:
    Options

    Register Now

    In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

    Already have a Horse Forum account?
    Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

    New to the Horse Forum?
    Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

    User Name:
    Password
    Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
    Password:
    Confirm Password:
    Email Address
    Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
    Email Address:

    Log-in

    Human Verification

    In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


    Old Thread Warning
    This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Sugarbush Draft Horses Smokum Draft Horses 40 04-26-2013 12:49 AM
    Any Spotted Draft or Pinto Draft Owners? Let's see em! randomrider92 Draft Horses 28 04-16-2012 06:06 PM
    contest for all draft and draft cross owners!!!!! english_rider144 Draft Horses 1 02-03-2009 06:07 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0