Appaloosa Bloodlines
TrinityApp
-- Recently thumbing through some old App Journals showed how much things
have changed and how much some things stay the same. What amazed me was how
the coloration has done a big turn around in the last 5 or so years and now
the shows no longer look like poor boy QH shows.
BUT I wonder how much damage the breed did to itself following the fads and
fashions. During the mid eighties there was a big exodus of top breeding
mares and stallions to Europe and the southern hemisphere. What bloodlines
are popular in those areas? And how do they differ from what's currently
favored in the US?
I know one of the last DKG sales before PeeWee Griffith got his ranch back
was loaded with foreign buyers and they walked out of there with some of the
best broodmares in the country, our loss was their gain.
Roman Straw Man even ended up down in Brazil and I'd have thought he was
here to stay as famous as he was.
The colts I've exported have all been old bloodline horses and have heavier
bone and more substance than most of the WP horses seen in the ring.
What's the scoop with the non US appaloosas?
Tracy Meisenbach
http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
Horse Diary latest entry 10-3-99
OSGSL
Arizona Vixen
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>
>
> -- Recently thumbing through some old App Journals showed how much things
> have changed and how much some things stay the same. What amazed me was how
> the coloration has done a big turn around in the last 5 or so years and now
> the shows no longer look like poor boy QH shows.
Not sure how old you are, Tracey -- since I read somewhere that
you lived in
AZ once upon a time, we may have shown against each other. Did you by
any
chance know my trainer, Kay Braswell?
Anyway, when I got my first Appy (a POA) in 1968, they were all
kind of
ugly and bulldoggy-looking. I remember spending lots of time thinning
out his
mane and pulling his tail; my neighbors owned Chief Joe Reed and
convinced
me that TRUE Appies had stringy tails and sparse manes. And, if I
remember
right, ugly heads.
I remember very few CPO's; no one wanted one. We wanted Appies
that
were recognizable as such at 50 feet.
> BUT I wonder how much damage the breed did to itself following the fads and
> fashions.
Some were good -- allowing the influx of TB, Arab amd QH blood so
that our
Appies got nice heads, plush manes, and beautiful tails. My personal
hero was
the groundbreaking Primce Plaudit; am I showing my age? My mare is a
near-
leopard granddaughter of his that does everything you ask her to, and
does it well.
And has a nice head, long tail, and...sparse mane. (And everything but
a brain,
unfortunately.)
During the mid eighties there was a big exodus of top breeding
> mares and stallions to Europe and the southern hemisphere. What bloodlines
> are popular in those areas? And how do they differ from what's currently
> favored in the US?
Not sure there. I've not kept up with that, other than to note
that color is
becoming more popular than ever overseas. Real color, like your horses
and
ONE of my horses has...not this solid crap. (OOPS! Did I say that?)
I got
annoyed watching ApHC races in OK where the entrants were
indistinguishable,
by and large, from the AQHA races.
> I know one of the last DKG sales before PeeWee Griffith got his ranch back
> was loaded with foreign buyers and they walked out of there with some of the
> best broodmares in the country, our loss was their gain.
> Roman Straw Man even ended up down in Brazil and I'd have thought he was
> here to stay as famous as he was.
Oh my god! I had no idea he was there.
> The colts I've exported have all been old bloodline horses and have
heavier
> bone and more substance than most of the WP horses seen in the ring.
>
> What's the scoop with the non US appaloosas?
And how do you think that ApHC's approval of shipped semen has
changed
things? We both recall when live cover was required; guess blood
testing has
made that requirement a thing of the past.
Vicki
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
mar...@my-deja.com
in Australia - things like history, requirements for registration,
current uses of the breed. At one time Appys in Australia could be any
breed provided they had the right Appaloosa colouring, or at least the
mottled eye skin, genitalia etc. In other words they were a colour
registry rather than a breed as such. Can anyone help me or point me in
the right direction?
Mary
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cowboy
>
>>My personal hero was the groundbreaking Primce Plaudit;
am I showing my age? My mare is a> near- leopard granddaughter of his
that does everything you ask her to, and does it well.
One of my favorites as well.I currently stand a plaudit bred stud
also high up the list are absarokee sunset, and the ever so adorable
colida
trinity wrote
>> What bloodlines are popular in those areas? And how do they differ from what's currently
> > favored in the US?
av wrote:
> Not sure there. I've not kept up with that, other than to note that color is
> becoming more popular than ever overseas.
Unfortunately the majority of people getting into appys now are
supplying the english riders who tend to want basically a t/b with
colour, while helping the breed get better known and out in the public
arena they are getting further away from the original type of horse ..
While i prefer the older more typy horses i do have both and will
continue to do so for purely economic reasons
>>.not this solid crap. (OOPS! Did I say that?)
YES!!! and so do i here in new zealand we can not show at halter or
Permanently register solid colour
they can however be shown in a working class
> I got annoyed watching ApHC races in OK where the entrants were indistinguishable,
> by and large, from the AQHA races.
Likewise we get the video's of the halter classes and some of the
working classes from the appy world's and are horrified to see these
solid coloured horses not only shown but winning
trinity wrote:
> And how do you think that ApHC's approval of shipped semen has
> changed things? We both recall when live cover was required; guess blood
> testing has made that requirement a thing of the past.
Hey it works for me at shipping costs of at least US$10,000 to get a
horse to NZ from Chicago plus quarantine
just keep that semen coming <G>
cowboy
mar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm looking for some brief overview type information on Appaloosas
> in Australia
-Australian Appaloosa Association
Secretary
P.O. Box W212
West Tamworth, N.S.W. 2340, Australia
Tel.: Int'l + 61 267 657 969
FAX: Int'l + 61 267 657 515
Hope this helps
Arizona Vixen
> Arizona Vixen wrote:
> >
> >>My personal hero was the groundbreaking Primce Plaudit;
> am I showing my age? My mare is a> near- leopard granddaughter of his
> that does everything you ask her to, and does it well.
>
> One of my favorites as well.I currently stand a plaudit bred stud
> also high up the list are absarokee sunset, and the ever so adorable
> colida
>
remembered him, much less kept up the bloodline! I think he was a
decade or so ahead of his time, in terms of his Quarter Horse
conformation with lots of spots and dots.
K. Smith
<snip before and after>
> Anyway, when I got my first Appy (a POA) in 1968, they were all
> kind of
> ugly and bulldoggy-looking. I remember spending lots of time thinning
> out his
> mane and pulling his tail; my neighbors owned Chief Joe Reed and
> convinced
> me that TRUE Appies had stringy tails and sparse manes. And, if I
> remember
> right, ugly heads.
Not necessarily true. My first appy mare (granddaughter of ApHC Navajo
Britches and AQHA Sassy Bay) had the "foundation" fringe of a mane and
itty-bitty tail, but a nice head. My second appy (the geratric battleaxe of
a mare to whom I frequently refer) has almost no mane whatsoever, a
windshield wiper for a tail, and a lovely head.
--K. Smith (who rather likes those "low maintenance" manes and tails)
robf...@my-deja.com
"Arizona Vixen" <vic...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 01:01:40 GMT "TrinityApp"
> <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > -- Recently thumbing through some old App Journals showed how much
things
> > have changed and how much some things stay the same. What amazed me
was how
> > the coloration has done a big turn around in the last 5 or so years
and now
> > the shows no longer look like poor boy QH shows.
>
> kind of
> ugly and bulldoggy-looking. I remember spending lots of time thinning
> out his
> mane and pulling his tail; my neighbors owned Chief Joe Reed and
> convinced
> me that TRUE Appies had stringy tails and sparse manes. And, if I
> remember
> right, ugly heads.
My mare Tack's Showgirl was a beautifully marked bay blanket, scanty
tail, thin mane, and a...well, not really ugly, but pretty damn plain
head. Nothing as pretty or refined as my QH mare's or even my elderly
TWH gelding! This was in 1973 or 74. I remember the party line of
rattails, thin manes, ugly heads.
>
> I remember very few CPO's; no one wanted one. We wanted Appies
> that
> were recognizable as such at 50 feet.
Yup. Pink papers, and breeding requirements for permanent registration.
If it's solid colored, it must be a Quarter Horse. It was hard to
unload a pink papered horse.
>
> > BUT I wonder how much damage the breed did to itself following the
fads and
> > fashions.
>
> Some were good -- allowing the influx of TB, Arab amd QH blood so
> that our
> Appies got nice heads, plush manes, and beautiful tails. My personal
> hero was
> the groundbreaking Primce Plaudit; am I showing my age?
YAY PRINCE PLAUDIT!! Remember the full color painting on the back page
of every issue of the Appaloosa News? I had that tacked up on my
bedroom wall instead of rock stars.
>
> Not sure there. I've not kept up with that, other than to note
> that color is
> becoming more popular than ever overseas. Real color, like your
horses
> and
> ONE of my horses has...not this solid crap. (OOPS! Did I say that?)
>
This is something that is *really* bothering me! I see so many App
stallions standing that have NO color, NO characteristics that *I* can
see, but these are the champions with the ridiculous stud fees! I know
a breeder with 2 stallions--one is 75% AQHA blood (sire is 1/2 and dam
is AQHA), palomino, CPO, has a CN number, and doesn't seem to be
throwing color unless he's bred to loud mares. The other is by AND out
of registered Appys, with QH waaaaaaay on back there. He throws color
almost every time. Guess which stallion is campaigned, and has the
exorbitant stud fee, while the other, better (IMHO) stallion stays at
home and is for sale? (Note to Tracy: contact me if you need a nice
Foundation bred stallion. I know where one is!)
I just don't understand why these solid horses are the fashion now--
seems to me if you want an App, you want one that will knock your eyes
out in the dark with their color. If you want a solid, why are you
buying a color-bred horse? Heavens, those nasty SPOTS could crop up if
you aren't careful!!
>
> And how do you think that ApHC's approval of shipped semen has
> changed
> things? We both recall when live cover was required; guess blood
> testing has
> made that requirement a thing of the past.
>
I'm personally extremely thankful shipped semen is available now!
Except for this one stallion, there is literally *nothing* around me
that I would breed my Heiress mare to--everything is mostly quarter
horse and solid colored. Even with her color, she's already 1/4 quarter
horse herself--I want to dilute it as much as I can in her foals. I've
gotten her approved for CRHA registry, and I'm working on FAHR registry-
-to support those, I've chosen to be extremely picky about the
bloodlines of the stallions I breed her to. I've found a few-spot that
might work, but I have to check his pedigree. Most of the horses I
would select, though, are across the Mississippi from me, and I will
have to rely on shipped semen.
Some folks might think being picky about bloodlines in what has
essentially become a color registry is silly; I think it's the ONLY way
to keep the Appaloosa from dying out as a unique "type" of horse. ApHC
seems to register anything that applies, just about, based on some of
the registered "Appaloosas" I've seen. I want my Apps to be
recognizable as Apps, and carry the bloodlines of recognizable Apps.
It's a shame, tho, that Foundation App breeders are having to re-invent
the wheel, when attention to bloodlines and strict adherence to color
requirements could have stopped this whole solid-App phenomenon from
getting so entrenched....
--
Lorri
Scratchbottom Shires and Spots
http://www.geocities.com/scratchbottom
TrinityApp
> Not sure how old you are, Tracey -- since I read somewhere that
> you lived in AZ once upon a time, we may have shown against each other.
Did you by
> any chance know my trainer, Kay Braswell?
Don't know Kay but I harassed Tony Kautzmen endlessly! I lived way south
near the border at Sierra Vista. App shows were few and far between, I think
there were two a year so the open circuit was my best friend.
. I remember spending lots of time thinning
> out his mane and pulling his tail; my neighbors owned Chief Joe Reed and
> convinced me that TRUE Appies had stringy tails and sparse manes.
--
I remember those well. My polebender Cochise had a mane like a draft horse
and a thin tail so he spent his whole life roached. When we finally got into
polo I never had to tie up his tail!
> I remember very few CPO's; no one wanted one. We wanted Appies
> that
> were recognizable as such at 50 feet.
Me too. Although its funny because awhile back you could spot those old
Wisecamp and Roberds horses and they'd have the mottled skin and sclera but
be registered as QH's. We knew though!
> Some were good -- allowing the influx of TB, Arab amd QH blood so
> that our Appies got nice heads, plush manes, and beautiful tails
Some helped and some hindered. I think the apps got too caught up in the QH
train and did a lot of damage. For awhile they lost their identity.
.> My personal hero was the groundbreaking Primce Plaudit; am I showing my
age?
Nope. I myself love the old lives. The Wapiti/Joker B grand daughter I just
bought is a peach and looks like one of the old typey ones. Her colt this
year was the spitting image of Wapiti. Theres strong blood back there and I
think the color genes were more dominant.
> Not sure there. I've not kept up with that, other than to note
> that color is becoming more popular than ever overseas
When we sent Harpsichord over, bay/blanket, we got flooded with phone calls
from people who wanted one like him, but we just didn't have anymore to
sell. I've had several calls a month since Twister was born from people
wanting him, nice grullas with blankets being relatively few and far
between.
> > Roman Straw Man even ended up down in Brazil and I'd have thought he was
> > here to stay as famous as he was.
>
> Oh my god! I had no idea he was there
Was being the key word since he's deceased. There was a big blow up over
that whole deal, even back to Joe Edge and Russell Wood that PeeWee had
bought the horse from.
Hhahahaha Inside joke. Tommy Manion, cutting trainer used to live on
PeeWee's place in the trainer's house. Tommy is about 5'6" in boots. Well
when the ranch sold Tommy moved out and the people who bought that section
moved in. Well they raise fighting chickens, the big bantams and had 100'f
of them. So the joke was one little cocky fucker moved out and 600 moved in.
Tommy was none too please.
> And how do you think that ApHC's approval of shipped semen has
> changed things? We both recall when live cover was required; guess blood
> testing has made that requirement a thing of the past.
>
I'm for it as long as they penalize the stallion owners if they try to screw
over the mare owners. I also think breeding certificates should be
mandatoraly signed and handed over when the mare leaves the property after
being bred.
Tracy Meisenbach
http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
Horse Diary latest entry 10-7-99
OSGSL
TrinityApp
-- > One of my favorites as well.I currently stand a plaudit bred stud
> also high up the list are absarokee sunset, and the ever so adorable
> Colida
>
Colida was pretty cute! I also like Joker B and Wapiti.
> While i prefer the older more typy horses i do have both and will
> continue to do so for purely economic reasons
>
Yeah the pocket book does make you have to bow to fashion a bit. I like the
TB looking apps, but the new mare is bulldoggy so who knows where I'll end
up. :)
> Likewise we get the video's of the halter classes and some of the
> working classes from the appy world's and are horrified to see these
> solid coloured horses not only shown but winning
The Germans that I took to the World show absolutely freaked out at the
halter and WP classes. The most color was in the games and working cow horse
classes.
> Hey it works for me at shipping costs of at least US$10,000 to get a
> horse to NZ from Chicago plus quarantine
> just keep that semen coming <
RFLMAO! I should nail you on that but I won't! As soon as Twister can learn
to put it in the cup I'll send you some.
Charles A Hall
<>
> Yup. Pink papers, and breeding requirements for permanent registration.
> If it's solid colored, it must be a Quarter Horse. It was hard to
> unload a pink papered horse.
>
;-)
Actually, my first was one of those pink papered horses. I was really
surprised when she developed spots in the winter! Black on liver chestnut.
I do have a question, though, what type of blanketing would you call an
appie that looks like he sat down on a boston creme pie with whipped cream
topping?
Diane
>
robf...@my-deja.com
"TrinityApp" <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
> As soon as Twister can learn
> to put it in the cup I'll send you some.
>
Put me down for some of that! And not what you scrape off the haybales,
thank you!
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>Vicki wrote:
>> I remember very few CPO's; no one wanted one. We wanted Appies
>> that
>> were recognizable as such at 50 feet.
>
>Me too.
CPO didn't come into effect until 1983, and then it took off like a rocket.
>> Some were good -- allowing the influx of TB, Arab amd QH blood so
>> that our Appies got nice heads, plush manes, and beautiful tails
>
>Some helped and some hindered. I think the apps got too caught up in the QH
>train and did a lot of damage. For awhile they lost their identity.
Appaloosas were always since the inception of the ApHC considered to be a
light stock horse, just like QHs. The Appaloosas of long ago (Nez Perce
fame) are genetically lost. They were basically small mountain type
horses. When ranchers took some of them after the Indian Wars, they were
bred to draft horses for work on the plains. Later, with the start of the
ApHC, several breeds were approved including Saddlebreds & Morgans as well
as Thoroughbreds & Arabians and even Trakehners (11/72 BOD minutes) in
order to refine the horse.
>Theres strong blood back there and I
>think the color genes were more dominant.
The Lp gene was no more dominant back then, than the Lp gene is today.
down the spotted trails. . . in the great nation of Tejas
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>In article <uqdL3.5832$%62.9...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "Arizona Vixen" <vic...@usa.net> wrote:
>> I remember very few CPO's; no one wanted one. We wanted Appies
>> that
>> were recognizable as such at 50 feet.
>
>Yup. Pink papers, and breeding requirements for permanent registration.
>If it's solid colored, it must be a Quarter Horse. It was hard to
>unload a pink papered horse.
The color of papers came into being January 1, 1961. Pink papers (breeding
stock) were issued for any horse not displaying an easily recognizable
coat pattern from 100 feet which varied from 25 feet to 100 yards
depending on the board at the time and whom one talked with on the
definition of "easily recognizable". So, many BS horses did have coat
patterns, mottled skin and sclera and/or stripped hooves. Tentative were
for those horses who displayed a recognizable coat pattern but had to
prove they were capable of producint coat patterned offspring. The blue
papers were for Foundation stock only. Eventually the tentative registry
became the regular registry.
>Some folks might think being picky about bloodlines in what has
>essentially become a color registry is silly;
Although some Appaloosa registries are based on color, the ApHC is not a
color registry, but does promote color.
>I think it's the ONLY way
>to keep the Appaloosa from dying out as a unique "type" of horse.
Type is genetic conformation, not color. Appaloosas are basically light
stock horse type; however, there are those who enjoy english styles who
are breeding for a differenty genetic type.
>It's a shame, tho, that Foundation App breeders are having to re-invent
>the wheel, when attention to bloodlines and strict adherence to color
>requirements could have stopped this whole solid-App phenomenon from
>getting so entrenched....
Actually, if you understand the history, the ApHC was at one time a color
registry. This all changed when the members voted in the late 1970s to
remove the coat pattern requirement from the registry. Members were tired
of losing monies on horses who had the Appaloosa bloodlines, but lacked
the coat patterns.
Jane H. Kilberg
Hall" <FINALJ...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>I do have a question, though, what type of blanketing would you call an
>appie that looks like he sat down on a boston creme pie with whipped cream
>topping?
Snowcap (no spots) if it is a pretty nice blanket definition; lacey
blanket if it has that type look and the whip cream didn't define the
blanket very well.
Charles A Hall
>
> Snowcap (no spots) if it is a pretty nice blanket definition; lacey
> blanket if it has that type look and the whip cream didn't define the
> blanket very well.
>
Well, it wasn't up in what I would call the normal hip blanket area. It was
on either side of her tail, and looked like the horse sat on whipped cream;
heavier in some spots, lighter in others, with the base colour coming
through in different intensities. If I get a chance, I'll try to take a pix
for ya'll to see.
Diane
Jane H. Kilberg
Hall" <FINALJ...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Sounds like either lacey blanket or frost.
down the spotted trails. . . in the great nation of Tejas
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
Charles A. Hall
and had to slam on the breaks to take a better look. Not being into Appies,
I'm really not familiar with the patterns, but that was just too funny.
It's about the only blanketing on the horse (there looks like there might be
some right where the cantle would sit), and I wasn't sure at first if the
horse had gotten into something!!
Diane
Jane H. Kilberg <jkil...@mcia.com> wrote in message
news:jkilberg-081...@ts2p7.mcia.com...
TrinityApp
--
> Put me down for some of that! And not what you scrape off the haybales,
> thank you!
Oh you about gave me a hemorrhage on that one!
Tracy Meisenbach, still laughing!
TrinityApp
-- > CPO didn't come into effect until 1983, and then it took off like a
rocket
In some areas yes and in some no. The clubs in AZ freaked and the prejudice
against solids lasted until after I left in 86.
The Appaloosas of long ago (Nez Perce
> fame) are genetically lost. They were basically small mountain type
> horses.
That doesn't jibe with the Lewis and Clark description of horses, tall and
lofty as English Coursers. (pg 77 Lewis journal entry Feb 1806)Also the
pictures in the Appaloosa book put out by the ApHC show a photo circa 1895
with a heavy boned taller horse (pg 76) Several of the early foundation apps
were tall elegant horses, and this in the 40's before an effort at setting
type had been made.
> The Lp gene was no more dominant back then, than the Lp gene is today.
Interpret my statement to mean the gene pool had not been widened so that
outcrossing had diluted the color gene pool. I was in no way referring to
the actual color power of the lp gene but the solidity of the colored gene
pool.
Tracy Meisenbach
Emily Conger
>Glad to hear that...I was beginning to think that no one even
>remembered him, much less kept up the bloodline! I think he was a
>decade or so ahead of his time, in terms of his Quarter Horse
>conformation with lots of spots and dots.
I've been under the impression that this is a fairly popular bloodline-- I know
several people that either own horses with PP in their pedigrees or are
continuing to breed them. My own stallion is a grandson of PP on both sides of
his pedigree and I know I have developed a pretty strong preference for his
'type'. So far I don't think I've seen one from his lines that I didn't like.
*G*
Emily
Robinson
>
> In article <HMnL3.1209$QI5....@monger.newsread.com>, "TrinityApp"
> <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
> (snipped parts)
>
>
>
> >think the color genes were more dominant.
>
>
I think Tracy was saying that more individuals in the breed actually
*carried* the Lp gene in days gone by. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I
have a real problem with horses that have NO white sclera, NO striped
hooves, NO mottled skin, and NO coat pattern being registered as
Appaloosas on the basis of a "certified pedigree option". Then these
non-characteristic QH crossbreds are campaigned heavily and stood to
many mares, passing on their non-App genes, while genuine Apps of fine
old bloodlines are left to languish on remote farms, being used as
teaser stallions.
To me all the CPO proves is that both parents are heterozygous for Lp,
and this particular horse didn't get it from *either* parent. And
therefore (again, to me) doesn't carry the genetic information to be
called an Appaloosa, and so shouldn't be registered as one.
Which I guess is why the FAHR got started. And why the CRHA has
endured...
Lorri
Hyperventilatingbottom Shires and Spots
Arizona Vixen
for the "Impressive" bloodlines. Most ads around here are for Appy
stallions either descended from Impressive or another popular QH.
Vicki
Arizona Vixen
> When we sent Harpsichord over, bay/blanket, we got flooded with phone calls
> from people who wanted one like him, but we just didn't have anymore to
> sell. I've had several calls a month since Twister was born from people
> wanting him, nice grullas with blankets being relatively few and far
> between.
>
I would probably be willing to commit murder for a beautiful
grulla -- not one with yellow highlights. And a blanketed one?
grulla is my absolute favorite horse color, and in my 45 years
I bet I've seen fewer than a dozen good ones. It's even rare in
the Norwegian Fjords, and ALL of them are dun.
Arizona Vixen
>
> YAY PRINCE PLAUDIT!! Remember the full color painting on the back page
> of every issue of the Appaloosa News? I had that tacked up on my
> bedroom wall instead of rock stars.
> >
>
Oh gawd, we must be TWINS separated at birth! I bred my
mare (albeit unsuccessfully) a few years ago to an own son
of Prince Plaudit, named Primarily Prince. Primarily Prince
has SEVEN ROM's. I know competition is more now than it
was 15 years ago, but SEVEN!!!
Arizona Vixen
>
> YAY PRINCE PLAUDIT!! Remember the full color painting on the back page
> of every issue of the Appaloosa News? I had that tacked up on my
> bedroom wall instead of rock stars.
> >
>
cowboy
Robinson wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I have a real problem with horses that have NO white sclera, NO striped
> hooves, NO mottled skin, and NO coat pattern being registered as
> Appaloosas on the basis of a "certified pedigree option". Then these
> non-characteristic QH crossbreds are campaigned heavily and stood to
> many mares, passing on their non-App genes, while genuine Apps of fine
> old bloodlines are left to languish on remote farms, being used as
> teaser stallions.
>
> To me all the CPO proves is that both parents are heterozygous for Lp,
> and this particular horse didn't get it from *either* parent. And
> therefore (again, to me) doesn't carry the genetic information to be
> called an Appaloosa, and so shouldn't be registered as one.
>
> Well in that case your not a lone dinosaur, to me an appaloosa should have all the traits
Its one of the main reasons i have my Plaudit stud, hes a few spot
throwing around 98% colour
the colts are almost without exception coloured at birth, the odd filly
is born with the striped hooves etc but colour up at about 12 months
We are only allowed to bred to appy/tb/arab or QH and cant have any grey
or non appy roan or piebald markings in the first 2 generations,
If im useing a non appy mare i look for a chestnut with white points or
a black with stockings and blaze
TrinityApp
-- > I would probably be willing to commit murder for a beautiful
> grulla -- not one with yellow highlights
Both Twister and his mother are the dark grulla with the black points and
purple sheen.
. And a blanketed one?
> grulla is my absolute favorite horse color, and in my 45 years
> I bet I've seen fewer than a dozen good ones
You ought to see his full brother the deep gold buckskin with a blanket.
I love the grullas, duns and buckskins too. Heck I like just about any
color. The one color combo I saw that I've never seen before of since was a
black mare, and I mean BLACK and she had copper penny sized spots all over
her. She was a Black Shado bred horse and very striking.
Jane H. Kilberg
<rob...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>"Jane H. Kilberg" wrote:
>>
>> In article <HMnL3.1209$QI5....@monger.newsread.com>, "TrinityApp"
>> <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>> (snipped parts)
>> >Theres strong blood back there and I
>> >think the color genes were more dominant.
>> The Lp gene was no more dominant back then, than the Lp gene is today.
>I think Tracy was saying that more individuals in the breed actually
>*carried* the Lp gene in days gone by.
Your statement doesn't make sense unless you are saying there were more
Appaloosas years ago than there are now. Figures don't make that true.
>To me all the CPO proves is that both parents are heterozygous for Lp,
>and this particular horse didn't get it from *either* parent.
And it's possible this is what TrinityApp and you really mean, not that
there were more horses years ago with the Lp allele.
You would be more in line if you stated there were in all probability more
homozygous Appaloosas years ago than there are today. However, no one
really knows statistically if that statement would be true or not.
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>>Its one of the main reasons i have my Plaudit stud, hes a few spot
>throwing around 98% colour
If he throws 98% colour, then he is a heterozygous with colour meaning
characteristics present. Characteristics are coat pattern, mottle skin,
sclera, stripped hooves. So with 98% of the time passing on the Lp gene,
2% of the time, he does not.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>Jane wrote:
>
>-- > CPO didn't come into effect until 1983, and then it took off like a
>rocket
>
>In some areas yes and in some no. The clubs in AZ freaked and the prejudice
>against solids lasted until after I left in 86.
I look at the national figures, not particular geographic areas.
>The Appaloosas of long ago (Nez Perce
>> fame) are genetically lost. They were basically small mountain type
>> horses.
>
>That doesn't jibe with the Lewis and Clark description of horses, tall and
>lofty as English Coursers. (pg 77 Lewis journal entry Feb 1806)Also the
>pictures in the Appaloosa book put out by the ApHC show a photo circa 1895
>with a heavy boned taller horse (pg 76) Several of the early foundation apps
>were tall elegant horses, and this in the 40's before an effort at setting
>type had been made.
My info comes from historic Nez Perce data.
>> The Lp gene was no more dominant back then, than the Lp gene is today.
>Interpret my statement to mean the gene pool had not been widened so that
>outcrossing had diluted the color gene pool.
The Lp gene is not diluted. It is either there or not there.
Did you know there were more crossings to non-Appaloosas prior to 1978
than there were after?
Hint: it isn't the crossing to non-Appaloosas; it's the type of Appaloosa
used in non-Appaloosa matings.
Arizona Vixen
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>
> Both Twister and his mother are the dark grulla with the black points and
> purple sheen.
This is the one with the hay bale fixation? Any chance of passing
on that color to a foal out of a near leopard bay mare?
> .. And a blanketed one?
> > grulla is my absolute favorite horse color, and in my 45 years
> > I bet I've seen fewer than a dozen good ones
>
> You ought to see his full brother the deep gold buckskin with a blanket.
He's not grulla -- buckskins are very common here, even deep
gold blanketed ones...
> I love the grullas, duns and buckskins too. Heck I like just about any
> color.
I'm not one to judge a horse by color, but a REAL grulla takes my
breath away. I once read that it only occurs in one of 10,000
horses.
The one color combo I saw that I've never seen before of since was a
> black mare, and I mean BLACK and she had copper penny sized spots all over
> her. She was a Black Shado bred horse and very striking.
>
You might be able to give me a clue as to putting a name to
a color characteristic my Plaudit mare has. She's bay with spots
ALL OVER, but the white on her sides also comes down in almost
stripes -- looking all the world like her RIBS are SHOWING. I've
had her since she was five, and her photo on the back of her
registration papers show the same thing. Even when she's one
hundred or more pounds overweight, from a distance she looks
like her ribs are showing!
I've seen a few photos with this; is ther a name for it? ( And can
we discuss maybe a breeding to Twister?)
Jane H. Kilberg
"Arizona Vixen" <vic...@usa.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 16:46:13 GMT "TrinityApp"
><trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>>
>> Both Twister and his mother are the dark grulla with the black points and
>> purple sheen.
>
> This is the one with the hay bale fixation? Any chance of passing
>on that color to a foal out of a near leopard bay mare?
With a bay X grullo you are more likely to get a dun or bay although it is
possible to get a grullo or chestnut or even a black.
> I'm not one to judge a horse by color, but a REAL grulla takes my
>breath away. I once read that it only occurs in one of 10,000
>horses.
Put a black with a grullo and you'll likely get a grullo or mate two
grullos together or a grullo with a smoke. The one is 10,000 is simply
another folk tale.
> You might be able to give me a clue as to putting a name to
>a color characteristic my Plaudit mare has. She's bay with spots
>ALL OVER, but the white on her sides also comes down in almost
>stripes -- looking all the world like her RIBS are SHOWING.
She would be a varnish bay roan leopard.
Jane H. Kilberg
<sra...@ellijay.com.> wrote:
>What you mention about the heavy boned taller horse sounds very true. I took
>care of a (now) 31 yr old Appy stallion. He has bones like a warmblood and
>would wear at least a size 2 shoe. He is 16 hands, long head, small
ears, heavy
>blanket that starts from the withers and is a very sensible horse. Very sparse
>mane, but a more normal tail. His dam was a foundation mare, not descended
>from, but actually carried the "F" prefix to her registration number. I think,
>but am not sure, that her name was Lady Kansas, by Kelly's Wardrum.
More than likely, ancestry includes remount Thoroughbreds. I'm taking a
guess since the name Lady Kansas might signal the horse's lineage was from
the plains where TBs were extensively used with Appaloosas during the 30's
into the 40s. This is probably where your horse got its height.
Lady Kansas ApHC #F-4664 was sired by Sir Kansas F-2182 X Apache Do
#F-2302; foaled in April 1961 and owned by Ira Hanna of TX.
Sir Kansas was sired by Rocking Chair Spot #325 and out of Blossom A #
1777 foaled in 1958 bred by Alger of KS.
Apache Do was by Apache #730 who is half thoroughbred and out of Can Do
#1999 bred by Alan Newby of ID.
Apache was sired by Better Still (TB) and out of Queen, a stock mare in
1942; bred by Orvil Sears out of Idaho.
Can Do was sired by Flag #1882 (Utah # 1131 x Jazz) and out of Utana #1958
(Lew Ferguson then of Montana)
Utana was by Utah #1131 and out of a mare sired by a remount TB.
Blossom A was also bred by Alger. Sire was Ink Spots 712 and dam was
Silver Queen A 1698
Silver Queen A (Ronnie Direct X Gypsy Queen) was bred by Fred Queen of
Colby Kansas. Queen used remount TBs in his stock.
Ink Spots 712 is Brandsma's Ink Spots by Alhambra 284 x Lulu Bulle who
both came from the reservation lines in Montana.
Rocking Chair Spot (Spot 133 x Chocolate) bred by Deahl out of Colorado.
Colorado was noted for use of remounts and had a remount station. Spot was
by Antelope #132 and out of Stockings foaled 1940. Antelope (Smoky x
Fourth of July) was foaled in 1936.
Arizona Vixen
wrote:
> With a bay X grullo you are more likely to get a dun or bay although it is
> possible to get a grullo or chestnut or even a black.
Tha6t pops MY bubble!
>
> > You might be able to give me a clue as to putting a name to
> >a color characteristic my Plaudit mare has. She's bay with spots
> >ALL OVER, but the white on her sides also comes down in almost
> >stripes -- looking all the world like her RIBS are SHOWING.
>
> She would be a varnish bay roan leopard.
>
But that doesn't describe the weird striping...she looks like a
starving horse from a distance -- everyone remarks on it, like,
"Why don't you ever feed that horse?" It's just the markings,
though -- she's really quite fat. I've seen other Appies with it;
I just thought there'd be a name for it. Thanks.
Jane H. Kilberg
"Arizona Vixen" <vic...@usa.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 16:26:03 -0500 jkil...@mcia.com (Jane H. Kilberg)
>wrote:
>
>> With a bay X grullo you are more likely to get a dun or bay although it is
>> possible to get a grullo or chestnut or even a black.
>
> Tha6t pops MY bubble!
>
>>
>> > You might be able to give me a clue as to putting a name to
>> >a color characteristic my Plaudit mare has. She's bay with spots
>> >ALL OVER, but the white on her sides also comes down in almost
>> >stripes -- looking all the world like her RIBS are SHOWING.
>>
>> She would be a varnish bay roan leopard.
>>
>
> But that doesn't describe the weird striping...she looks like a
>starving horse from a distance -- everyone remarks on it, like,
>"Why don't you ever feed that horse?" It's just the markings,
>though -- she's really quite fat. I've seen other Appies with it;
>I just thought there'd be a name for it. Thanks.
VARNISH MARKS........ she is a varnish bay roan leopard.
Robinson
>
> Jane wrote:
>
> > Hint: it isn't the crossing to non-Appaloosas; it's the type of Appaloosa
> > used in non-Appaloosa matings.
>
> however create one less shot at getting a spotted horse. You can only go so
> far before the color genes are simply over shadowed by non color genes. This
> is really easy to observe in dog breeding where you can get quicker
> characteristic development.
>
I was just thinking of that today in relation to the palomino CN
"Appaloosa" I've talked about before. Let's look at the potential Lp
gene dosage on this horse:
Let's call him "Ol Yeller". Yeller is out of an AQHA mare, and by an App
stallion, who we will call Ahoz. Ahoz is by an AQHA stallion, and out of
an App mare, call her Ahod. Ahod is by an AQHA stallion, and out of an
App mare.
Ok. Ahod (granddam) is 1/2 QH. She obviously carries the Lp gene, since
her son Ahoz is colored. She contributed 1/4 QH to Ahoz, who is by an
AQHA stud, and therefore 1/2 QH to begin with. So Ahoz is 3/4 QH, but
the carrier of one Lp gene--no way he can be a homozygote with dad being
a QH. He doesn't carry the Cr gene, since he is a chestnut.
Ahoz, 3/4 QH and heterozygous for Lp, is bred to an AQHA mare, producing
Yeller. Yeller gets 3/8 QH from Ahoz, and 1/2 QH from his dam, who
carries the Cr gene, but masked--she's black. He apparently misses out
on the Lp gene, since he never produces color on his own, only when bred
to colored mares. But he DOES get a Cr gene! Whoop de doo.
So we have a 7/8 QH horse with no Lp gene, registered with the ApHC as a
non-characteristic, certified pedigree Appaloosa.
I don't know--that's just not right. It seems to me that a horse that
obviously does NOT carry the Lp gene shouldn't be registered with an
organization that promotes individuals that carry and express the Lp
gene. I don't have a problem with non-colored horses that have mottled
skin, striped hooves, or white sclera. They're minimally expressing
their Lp genes. But NO characteristics at all? That's just not right.
And I also have a *real* problem with folks advertising "near 100% color
producer" on such stallions when all the foals by this horse on the farm
are solid...unless they have colored mamas....
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>Jane wrote:
>
>-- > My info comes from historic Nez Perce data.
>
>Specifically what?
Horace Axtell, Nez Perce historian........ most of the horses were small
mountain type.
>The horses Lewis and Clark saw and described were clearly
>appaloosas
That was what was interpreted from the piebald - "Some of those horses
were pided with large spots of white irregularly scattered and intermixed
with the black, brown, bey or some other dark color; but much the larger
portion are of a uniform color with stars, snips, and white feet, or in
this rispect [sic] marked much like our best blooded horses in Virginia,
which they resemble as well in fleetness and bottom as in form and color."
Meriwether Lewis, Saturday, February 15, 1806.
One could say they were appaloosas or paints or pintos or combinations
considering the language of the time and historical migration of the horse
to the Columbia Basin. The ones described as one color were described as
like the blooded horses of VA (TBs). Most all entries in the diaries were
in great detail of the dress, housing and other matters of the Nez Perce.
Very little was paid attention to the horse. In fact, the Nez Perce gave
horses to the L&C party to eat because they were starving. They also
showed L&C how to geld a horse, using one of the expedition horses.
>and were bred in the 1800's.
Nez Perce first got horses in early 1700s, perhaps around 1710 or so. Most
of their original stock came from the Spanish stock of the New Mexico
colonies. Nez Perce stories tell of the first horses they had in trade
from the Shoshonis. One of the purchased horses was a preggie mare who was
white. She gave birth to a white colt and became the beginnings of the Nez
Perce herd according to the tale. I was told that the stallion was a few
spotted Appaloosa, however, there is no proof the Nez Perce specifically
bred for Appaloosas.
Photos & drawings of the horses in the mid to latter 1880s indicate the
horses ranged from about 14-15 hands. The Thoroughbreds used by the Army &
Howard were hard pressed to keep up with the Nez Perce's horses who were
stouter, had larger feet and great endurance in covering those mountain
ranges. Their horses were sought after by the mountain men of the
1820s-1840s and the fur trading companies because they were more hardy and
of good bone and substance. They were certainly not any Nearco.
Interesting, eh? The Appaloosa herd of the Nez Perce consisted of probably
less than 20% of their total herd.
>> The Lp gene is not diluted. It is either there or not there.
>
>The gene pool can be diluted.
If you are talking about numbers, there are more Appaloosas today than in
the 1950s.
>By breeding so the lp gene is not passed on
>then the gene pool is rendered less likely to produce color.
Then why are there more Appaloosas with the Lp gene today, than in the
1950s and 60s?
>> Did you know there were more crossings to non-Appaloosas prior to 1978
>> than there were after?
>
>That is open to speculation considering that a great many of the QH lines
>were in fact possessed of appaloosa blood.
A great many? How many? And please give references. Thanks.
>> Hint: it isn't the crossing to non-Appaloosas; it's the type of Appaloosa
>> used in non-Appaloosa matings.
>
>No one has disputed that, so why bring it up?
Because your thinking is in error. One cannot dilute the Lp gene. It's
either there or not there.
>The non appaloosa crossing do
>however create one less shot at getting a spotted horse.
Not true 100% of the time. If you are a serious breeder, you would know
this. One can most certainly get 100% Appaloosa offspring with the right
Appaloosa parent.
>You can only go so
>far before the color genes are simply over shadowed by non color genes.
Over shadowed? The Lp gene is dominant. The only gene that is dominant for
expression over the Lp gene is the grey gene, however the horse still has
Lp as a genotype.
Jane H. Kilberg
<rob...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
> Let's look at the potential Lp
>gene dosage on this horse:
>
>Let's call him "Ol Yeller". Yeller is out of an AQHA mare, and by an App
>stallion, who we will call Ahoz.
>Ahoz, 3/4 QH and heterozygous for Lp, is bred to an AQHA mare, producing
>Yeller.
>He apparently misses out
>on the Lp gene, since he never produces color on his own, only when bred
>to colored mares.
>So we have a 7/8 QH horse with no Lp gene, registered with the ApHC as a
>non-characteristic, certified pedigree Appaloosa.
And on the other side of the coin, one can have 7/8 QH blood with the Lp gene.
>I don't know--that's just not right. It seems to me that a horse that
>obviously does NOT carry the Lp gene shouldn't be registered with an
>organization that promotes individuals that carry and express the Lp
>gene.
I agree. Basically the ApHC calls these horses Appaloosas solely because
one parent is registered, even if the horse didn't inherit the Lp gene.
IOW, it's fence sitting. The ApHC will call a horse an Appaloosa by
pedigree or by characteristics. It's a numbers game.
However, the new CPO rule will help in decreasing this somewhat, but not
100% because two heterozygous loud colored Appaloosas can produce an
offspring that doesn't inherit the Lp gene.
>And I also have a *real* problem with folks advertising "near 100% color
>producer" on such stallions when all the foals by this horse on the farm
>are solid...unless they have colored mamas....
Stallion would be heterozygous. Chances of inheritance of the Lp gene and
modifiers increase with the Appaloosa dams' contributions.
TrinityApp
-- > My info comes from historic Nez Perce data.
Specifically what? The horses Lewis and Clark saw and described were clearly
appaloosas and were bred in the 1800's. Unless the Nez Perce did a radical
departure in the next century from what they had bred up until Lewis and
Clark saw them then why would the type change so drastically? Photos of the
Nez Perce, taken circa 1868 and after show TB type horses, lean and lanky.
> The Lp gene is not diluted. It is either there or not there.
The gene pool can be diluted. By breeding so the lp gene is not passed on
then the gene pool is rendered less likely to produce color. No one was
specially discussing the individual genes so much as the gene pool.
> Did you know there were more crossings to non-Appaloosas prior to 1978
> than there were after?
That is open to speculation considering that a great many of the QH lines
were in fact possessed of appaloosa blood.
> Hint: it isn't the crossing to non-Appaloosas; it's the type of Appaloosa
> used in non-Appaloosa matings.
No one has disputed that, so why bring it up? The non appaloosa crossing do
however create one less shot at getting a spotted horse. You can only go so
far before the color genes are simply over shadowed by non color genes. This
is really easy to observe in dog breeding where you can get quicker
characteristic development.
TrinityApp
-- > That was what was interpreted from the piebald - "Some of those horses
> were pided with large spots of white irregularly scattered and intermixed
> with the black, brown, bey or ........
> One could say they were appaloosas or paints or pintos or combinations
> considering the language of the time and historical migration of the horse
> to the Columbia Basin. The ones described as one color were described as
> like the blooded horses of VA (TBs).
While the speculation as to color could admit to any of several combinations
the size and shape of the horses would not change. Since by the 1800's it is
unlikely that any TB blood had been introduced in large enough amounts to
effect the gene pool. Most of the stock would have been directly descended
from Spanish stock.
Most all entries in the diaries were
> in great detail of the dress, housing and other matters of the Nez Perce.
> Very little was paid attention to the horse.
Depends on which book you read. The descriptions sent back, housed in the
Thomas Jefferson Library describe things in minute detail including the
horses. Even early photography shows horses that were larger and lankier
than a small mountain horse, and clearly appaloosas.
. One of the purchased horses was a preggie mare who was
> white. She gave birth to a white colt and became the beginnings of the Nez
> Perce herd according to the tale.
How odd, I read that it was a roan mare who gave birth to a blanketed colt,
the sire a stallion from the south who was kept by a garrison.
I was told that the stallion was a few
> spotted Appaloosa, however, there is no proof the Nez Perce specifically
> bred for Appaloosas.
I doubt they specifically bred for anything but speed or hardiness and the
spots were considered a bonus. But they did practice selective breeding for
these traits and if it cropped up most often in the spotted horses then all
the better.
> Photos & drawings of the horses in the mid to latter 1880s indicate the
> horses ranged from about 14-15 hands
That's a big horse for the times. Considering that most original QH's were
14- 14.2 a 15 hand horse would be what a 17 hand horse is today, a big one.
Coupled with the fact they were poorly vetted and nourished its
understandable that they didn't reach their full potential.
Their horses were sought after by the mountain men of the
> 1820s-1840s and the fur trading companies because they were more hardy and
> of good bone and substance. They were certainly not any Nearco.
Spurious statement Jane. Nearco wouldn't have been Nearco if he had survived
on sparse feed most of his life and no vet care.
> If you are talking about numbers, there are more Appaloosas today than in
> the 1950s.
No kidding. I thought I already said that. However once the CPO program hit
the outcrossing reached epic proportions, even to the point of 1/16
appaloosas being bred, usually in the racing crowd.
> A great many? How many? And please give references. Thanks.
Read the Wisecamp, Peavey and Roberds books. Most of their herds, which were
registered as QH had a large percentage of App mares and stallions. This
explains horses like Wapiti and Joker B coming from solid registered
parents. Exact numbers would be impossible to come up with do to the fact so
many out crops were hidden or un registered. The AQHA is known for turning
the blind eye in cases of early breeding, this is why the rules prohibit
horses of draft or pony blood, but allowed Joe Hancock, whose mother was
half percheron, in the registry. ApHC has this same rule but Joe Hancock
bred horses are in it too.
> Not true 100% of the time. If you are a serious breeder, you would know
> this. One can most certainly get 100% Appaloosa offspring with the right
> Appaloosa parent.
Jane, don't take petty shots. A 100% color producer may not be the best
horse for the job. Color is nice but does not guarantee conformation or
usability. Getting all three is what takes work. So far Twister has 2 foals,
both nicely built and both smart. They have characteristics and are shedding
out and showing frost. So technically he's 100% color producer, but it would
be stupid as hell to advertise him as such, especially since both mare are
100% color producers.
> Over shadowed? The Lp gene is dominant. The only gene that is dominant for
> expression over the Lp gene is the grey gene, however the horse still has
> Lp as a genotype.
If the LP gene is completely dominant it would show up every single time. It
does not, even in leopard to leopard breedings which are supposed to produce
color without fail.
Now since this thread started about what bloodlines are popular in Europe
perhaps you have something to add on that note since that's what I'm trying
to find out.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>Jane wrote:
>
>-- > That was what was interpreted from the piebald - "Some of those horses
>> were pided with large spots of white irregularly scattered and intermixed
>> with the black, brown, bey or ........
>
>> One could say they were appaloosas or paints or pintos or combinations
>> considering the language of the time and historical migration of the horse
>> to the Columbia Basin. The ones described as one color were described as
>> like the blooded horses of VA (TBs).
>
>Since by the 1800's it is
>unlikely that any TB blood had been introduced in large enough amounts to
>effect the gene pool. Most of the stock would have been directly descended
>from Spanish stock.
How, 'bout that. And Spanish stock weren't all 16+ hands.
>Even early photography shows horses that were larger and lankier
>than a small mountain horse, and clearly appaloosas.
Photography came later in the 1800s.
>.> One of the purchased horses was a preggie mare who was
>> white. She gave birth to a white colt and became the beginnings of the Nez
>> Perce herd according to the tale.
>
>How odd, I read that it was a roan mare who gave birth to a blanketed colt,
>the sire a stallion from the south who was kept by a garrison.
Yup, the ancestoral stories do change once one reads outside of the tribes.
>> Photos & drawings of the horses in the mid to latter 1880s indicate the
>> horses ranged from about 14-15 hands
>
>That's a big horse for the times.
Considering many of them were bred to drafts and TBs and other horses
after the war, it isn't surprising; but they still weren't the 16 handers
you alluded to in your prior post.
>> If you are talking about numbers, there are more Appaloosas today than in
>> the 1950s.
>
>No kidding. I thought I already said that.
Sorry, you didn't at all. You said, the colour is diluted today, then
changed it to mean the gene pool. Here are some of your postings to
refresh your memory:
"Theres strong blood back there and I think the color genes were more
dominant." and "Interpret my statement to mean the gene pool had not been
widened so that outcrossing had diluted the color gene pool."
Both statements imply the Lp gene is diluted with non-Appaloosa crossings.
This is not genetically possible. The Lp gene is either inherited or not.
The color genes were no more dominant yesterday than today. The Lp gene is
a dominant gene and is always expressed if inherited except it is not
dominant to the grey gene, however, it still is a genotype and hence can
still pass on the Lp gene.
>However once the CPO program hit
>the outcrossing reached epic proportions, even to the point of 1/16
>appaloosas being bred, usually in the racing crowd.
>
>> A great many? How many? And please give references. Thanks.
>
>Read the Wisecamp, Peavey and Roberds books. Most of their herds, which were
>registered as QH had a large percentage of App mares and stallions.
And you know this because......? Hint, these three breeding programs were
only 3 of many, many more. Wisecamp culled horses who produced Appaloosas.
Marshall Peavy was a AQHA man and only had the Blue Mare (a roan
Appaloosa) and didn't register any of the Appaloosa offspring. Roberds,
Casement and Peavy were neighbors and shared horses. The Casements got rid
of their Appaloosa offspring, but Evelyn Simoten, a daughter-in-law of
Peavys also produced Appaloosas. Cecil Dobbin purchased some and
registered them. The non-Appaloosa offspring were registered AQHA horses.
>>>The non appaloosa crossing do
>>>however create one less shot at getting a spotted horse.
>> Not true 100% of the time. If you are a serious breeder, you would know
>> this. One can most certainly get 100% Appaloosa offspring with the right
>> Appaloosa parent.
>
>Jane, don't take petty shots.
It's the truth whether you choose to accept it or not.
>A 100% color producer may not be the best
>horse for the job.
We are discussing your statements regarding dilution of the Lp gene and
that "color genes were more dominant (back then)."
>> Over shadowed? The Lp gene is dominant. The only gene that is dominant for
>> expression over the Lp gene is the grey gene, however the horse still has
>> Lp as a genotype.
>
>If the LP gene is completely dominant it would show up every single time.
Dang Tracy - I thought you understood at least the basics of genetics!
Sorry, my mistake.
TrinityApp
-- > How, 'bout that. And Spanish stock weren't all 16+ hands.
Neither are all Spanish stock short and stocky. Where you got the 16 hands
I'll never know. I said tall and lanky and never specified a height.
> >Even early photography shows horses that were larger and lankier
> >than a small mountain horse, and clearly appaloosas.
>
> Photography came later in the 1800s.
Whenever photography came about (1839 was the year Daguerre patented his
method, Talbot patented light sensitive paper the same year) , and it was
widely used during the Civil War which pegs it at 1861 to 65, the Indians
and their horses portrayed do not always show short fat stocky horses.
Sometimes they are on tall lean horses and sometimes these tall lean horses
have spots.
> Yup, the ancestral stories do change once one reads outside of the tribes.
Ancestral history can change within the tribe too. A study of the history of
the Five Civilized tribes I made for an essay proved that.
> Considering many of them were bred to drafts and TBs and other horses
> after the war, it isn't surprising; but they still weren't the 16 handers
> you alluded to in your prior post.
I repeat. I never said 16 hands, I said tall and lanky.
> Sorry, you didn't at all. You said, the colour is diluted today, then
> changed it to mean the gene pool.
You are the only one who didn't get the interpretation to mean gene pool.
Lorri and Vicki picked up on it correctly.
> "Theres strong blood back there and I think the color genes were more
> dominant." and "Interpret my statement to mean the gene pool had not been
> widened so that outcrossing had diluted the color gene pool."
> Both statements imply the Lp gene is diluted with non-Appaloosa crossings
Only to you. To anyone else it means that by extensive outcrossing the color
gene pool has been reduced.
> Marshall Peavy was a AQHA man and only had the Blue Mare (a roan
> Appaloosa) and didn't register any of the Appaloosa offspring.
Really, so the horses Peavy's Leo and Peavy's Bimbo weren't from their
bloodlines? How odd.
Cecil Dobbin purchased some and
> registered them. The non-Appaloosa offspring were registered AQHA horses.
>
Non appaloosa? You must mean non appaloosa marked. Because by definition
with the AQHA any horse that has Appaloosa blood is an appaloosa not a QH.
Now to put a bigger picture on it look at foal figures. Impressive in 20
years had 60,000 descendants registered with AQHA. Had Impressive had one
drop of app blood he would have 60,000 app descendants because no matter how
long you incross you can't become a purebred. The Arab registry can get this
down to 1 part per 1000 and still it's not a pure Arab. Any Appaloosa mares
registered as QH and producing get which reproduced have added Appaloosa
blood to the QH registry, whether they color or not. The early breeders did
register roan and grey gene apps and they also registered their get and this
get produced more and so on and barring the occasional outcrop that colored
they were considered QH, but they carry the app blood whether the AQHA
admits it or not.
> >> Not true 100% of the time. If you are a serious breeder, you would know
> >> this. One can most certainly get 100% Appaloosa offspring with the
right
> >> Appaloosa parent.
> >
> >Jane, don't take petty shots.
>
> It's the truth whether you choose to accept it or not
The truth is that to breed for only 100% color shows what a stupid breeder
one would be. Conformation, usability, soundness are all the first issues of
breeding and then color. Some of the 100% color sires I've seen have been
total piece of shit horses with no redeeming value at all. A serious
breeder weighs all the necessary components of a horses and decides what he
can live with or without and the first thing to go is usually the color. So
I'm a serious breeder of working performance horses who will hopefully have
color.
> Dang Tracy - I thought you understood at least the basics of genetics!
> Sorry, my mistake.
>
Jane, don't try to start a personal nit-pick, if you want to start a snipe
war simply say so. Color genetics has never been a major study of mine, I'm
too busy breeding for conformation and performance. Through my own efforts
I've produced two loudly colored stallions, one of which is a 100% color
producer. What have you done? Currently I have no solids that I bred in my
herd, so I guess by trial I can do what others had to study for. All I
studied was pedigrees and the horse's color ancestors. I simply don't care
what color the horses are as long as they are healthy and conformationally
correct. There are enough idiots, in dogs and horses, who breed solely for a
given color, and those are the ones who ruin a breed. Which are you?
Schmdthaus
<<Ancestral history can change within the tribe too. A study of the history of
the Five Civilized tribes I made for an essay proved that.>>
If you have the time, Tracy, could you summarize your findings? This subject
fascinates me, not only because of my interest in Appaloosas.
Thanks!
Laurie
TrinityApp
-- > If you have the time, Tracy, could you summarize your findings? This
subject
> fascinates me, not only because of my interest in Appaloosas.
>
Sure, however I warn you the five civilized tribes are in central Ok and had
nothing to do with appaloosa breeding. I'll dig up the summary and send it
to you email.
Arizona Vixen
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
> Laurie wrote:
>
> -- > If you have the time, Tracy, could you summarize your findings? This
> subject
> > fascinates me, not only because of my interest in Appaloosas.
> >
>
> Sure, however I warn you the five civilized tribes are in central Ok and had
> nothing to do with appaloosa breeding. I'll dig up the summary and send it
> to you email.
>
>
And, for this ignorant Zonie, could you briefly explain why they
are called
the Five Civilized Tribes? Even friends from OK can't explain it to
me, they
just repeat the phrase, glassy-eyed. Thanx.
TrinityApp
> And, for this ignorant Zonie, could you briefly explain why they
> are called
> the Five Civilized Tribes?
The Five Civilized Tribes is the name used since the mid1800's for the
Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Chickasaw settled in the Oklahoma
Territory under the Removal Act of 1830. All the tribes were living on
communally held land, but each tribe had a written constitution, a
tripartite government, and a public school system, with english and Indian
teachers. A later federal policy of detribalization resulted in the loss of
their governmental functions, except advisory, and the division of tribal
land into individual holdings, tribal rolls were incorporated and future
tribal members must descend from someone on the rolls.
Another tribe of note is the Osage which, during the oil boom, went through
a period of outside influence with white men marrying Osage women to allow
them access to tribal lands and monies. Several instances of death and
remarriage resulted in white men having control of several tribal
headrights, by being guardian for their mixed children. These headrights are
what decides the net worth of the individual, at one time, before the middle
east oil boom, the Osage were the wealthiest people per capita in the world
due to the oil lands the tribe controlled. A Federal investigation soon
broke up the ring of speculators that had brought about the deaths of
several Osage women and their families.
OBhorsey. They did have horses and some of the early bush racing in OK was
done with Indian jockeys and the horses were Indian bred horses.
Charles A. Hall
had mentioned earlier in the week. Egg on my face, it turns out it's a
Paint. Sorry to have made you work so hard to come up with the pattern for
me, Jane. I guess, it's just all this appie talk got to my imagination.
(danged all those years sticking with solid coloured hunter/jumpers)
Diane
Arizona Vixen
Thank you -- I'm gonna forward a copy of this to a friend
from Oklahoma who uses the phrase, but had no idea why
they were called that! She'll be interested in the part about
the brush track racing as her family's been racing there for
three or four generations -- brush tracks and Blue Ribbon Downs.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>Jane wrote:
>
>-- > How, 'bout that. And Spanish stock weren't all 16+ hands.
>
>Neither are all Spanish stock short and stocky. Where you got the 16 hands
>I'll never know. I said tall and lanky and never specified a height.
General thinking is that tall means well over 15 hands. Perhaps you
consider 14-15 hands as being tall, however, most people consider it
average.
>> Yup, the ancestral stories do change once one reads outside of the tribes.
>
>Ancestral history can change within the tribe too. A study of the history of
>the Five Civilized tribes I made for an essay proved that.
Depends on the tribe & culture. I wouldn't compare OK tribes with tribes
of the Columbian basin & pacific northwest.
>>You said, the colour is diluted today, then
>> changed it to mean the gene pool.
TrinityApp posted:
>> "Theres strong blood back there and I think the color genes were more
>> dominant." and "Interpret my statement to mean the gene pool had not been
>> widened so that outcrossing had diluted the color gene pool."
>> Both statements imply the Lp gene is diluted with non-Appaloosa crossings.
>
>Only to you. To anyone else it means that by extensive outcrossing the color
>gene pool has been reduced.
And you know this because......?
>> Marshall Peavy was a AQHA man and only had the Blue Mare (a roan
>> Appaloosa) and didn't register any of the Appaloosa offspring.
>Really, so the horses Peavy's Leo and Peavy's Bimbo weren't from their
>bloodlines? How odd.
All the Peavy, Robards & Wiescamp Appaloosas came from one horse. Is this
your "many" QHs are Appaloosas proof?
>>Cecil Dobbin purchased some and
>> registered them. The non-Appaloosa offspring were registered AQHA horses.
>Non appaloosa? You must mean non appaloosa marked.
Bingo!
>Because by definition
>with the AQHA any horse that has Appaloosa blood is an appaloosa not a QH.
The ApHC & AQHA weren't even in existence, so how can you define those
pre-registry horses with definitions used after the late 1930s.
>> >> Not true 100% of the time. If you are a serious breeder, you would know
>> >> this. One can most certainly get 100% Appaloosa offspring with the
>right
>> >> Appaloosa parent.
>> >
>> >Jane, don't take petty shots.
>>
>> It's the truth whether you choose to accept it or not
>The truth is that to breed for only 100% color shows what a stupid breeder
>one would be.
I'm not discussing a breeder's responsibility. I'm discussing your
statement that the Lp gene pool is diluted.
>Conformation, usability, soundness are all the first issues of
>breeding and then color.
We aren't discussing conformation, nor usability, nor soundness. We are
discussing your statement that the Lp gene pool is diluted and that "color
genes were more dominate" in earlier years of the Appaloosa history and
the ApHC than they are today.
>> Dang Tracy - I thought you understood at least the basics of genetics!
>> Sorry, my mistake.
>Color genetics has never been a major study of mine, I'm
>too busy breeding for conformation and performance.
This I presume is your major desires for your breeding program given your
statements.
TrinityApp
-- > General thinking is that tall means well over 15 hands. Perhaps you
> consider 14-15 hands as being tall, however, most people consider it
> average.
>
Ahhh your conjecture didn't jibe with my statement. I said tall and lanky.
For the 1800's a 15 hand horse would have been considered tall, especially
in consideration to the average height of a male human as being around 5'8".
> Depends on the tribe & culture. I wouldn't compare OK tribes with tribes
> of the Columbian basin & pacific northwest.
However it does apply to the Indians of the Arizona/New Mexico territories
as well as others. Tribal records often were oral since few tribes,
Cherokees being one, had written language. Translation from Indian dialects
to English could be problematical. A study I did in high school on the
Apaches of the San Carlos Indian Reservation clearly noted discrepancies
between records and oral tales.
> >Only to you. To anyone else it means that by extensive outcrossing the
color
> >gene pool has been reduced.
>
> And you know this because......?
>
Simply because two other members here caught it right the first time. A
little knowledge can be a dangerous thing Jane. Don't over interpret.
> All the Peavy, Robards & Wiescamp Appaloosas came from one horse. Is this
> your "many" QHs are Appaloosas proof?
One horse? AHHAHAHHAAHA That was one prolific horse.
Here describes the Roberd's horse called The Arab:
In his article on Coke Roberds which appeared in the March 1968 issue of
Appaloosa News, author Gene Carr provides an excellent overview of the
development of the Appaloosa portion of the Roberds line of horses.
He writes, "The Brazos River in Texas was the scene of the birth of one of
America's foremost horse breeders -- Coke Roberds. Before Coke became of
school age, his father, C.O. Roberds, moved to Trinidad, Colorado, where
young Coke attended elementary and high school. After graduating from an
eastern college, Coke tried a brief stint in the county clerk's office. It
was not long before Coke was looking for a ranch job. He found a position
with the Holland and Easley Ranch north of the XIT outfit in west Texas.
"It was here that Coke Roberds ventured into horse breeding. Coke had
acquired a mare of running blood which he decided to breed to a stallion
known as "the Circus Horse," which belonged to a circus that wintered in
Trinidad. The result of this mating was the Appaloosa stallion which he
called Arab. Coke used Arab for roping, and hitched to his buggy, Arab's
Appaloosa coloring gave Coke the fanciest rig for miles around.
This would be horse 1, is he the one you're talking about?
Here describes the The Blue Mare, a known App producer: Horse 2 belonging
to the Peavey's and unrelated to the Roberd's horse Arab
One of the daughters of Primero to survive the trip to Hayden was a roan
Appaloosa mare. When mated to Bob H, the great son of Old Fred, this pair
produced another roan Appaloosa mare known as "The Blue Mare." It is she who
is responsible for Wapiti's classic Appaloosa color and for every ounce of
color in such famous relatives of his as Norell's Little Red, Peavy Bimbo,
Peavy's Uncle Sam, Ding Bob II, Quadroon (the stallion), Peavy's Cajun Queen
and a host of other great horses.
And here is yet another App belonging to the Peavys
Bred to Ding Bob P-269, Peavy's famous home-bred sire, Flossie produced
several outstanding daughters including the Appaloosa mare Speck, who was
registered with the AQHA and assigned the number P-221.
Speck was bred to the remount Thoroughbred, Song Hit, in 1942 and the
following year presented the Peavys with the outstanding Appaloosa mare,
Quadroon, also registered as a Quarter Horse. (Joe's note: AQHA records,
Wapiti's pedigree from Mr. Jim Wild and pedigrees I have checked show the
spelling as Cuadroon for the 1943 brown mare with AQHA registration number
8588.)
Now since the Peavy's were actively promoting Flossie and Quadroon its easy
to see they weren't culling apps. Also those mares were not daughters of The
Arab who was Coke Roberd's app stallion.
There are three right there, that the Roberds and Peavys bred and promoted
as apps. Another note is that Quadroon was registered as a QH but was
clearly an appaloosa.
Notes Courtesy of Jim Wild, owner of Wapiti.
> >Non appaloosa? You must mean non appaloosa marked.
>
> Bingo!
But non appaloosa marked does not mean the horse is not an appaloosa. So I
say again solid appaloosas have been registered as QH's as evidenced by the
statement above.
> The ApHC & AQHA weren't even in existence, so how can you define those
> pre-registry horses with definitions used after the late 1930s.
>
Now you're going off track again. First the thread was about European App
bloodlines, then you turned it into an argument about genes and now your
saying modern definitions don't count. Certainly they do. The foundation of
the breed registries are based on non papered horses. And by current
descriptives these non papered horses are described in numerous publications
about the beginnings of the breeds. Legends as well as the Appaloosa book
use the same terms in describing the founding horses.
> >Conformation, usability, soundness are all the first issues of
> >breeding and then color.
>
> We aren't discussing conformation, nor usability, nor soundness. We are
> discussing your statement that the Lp gene pool is diluted and that "color
> genes were more dominate" in earlier years of the Appaloosa history and
> the ApHC than they are today.
No, the rest of the thread was discussing European appaloosa bloodlines, you
misinterpreted a statement and turned it into a clearly irrelevant post to
showcase your color gene theories. The color gene pool was more dominant
back then. Spin it how you want, that's what I meant.
> I'm not discussing a breeder's responsibility. I'm discussing your
> statement that the Lp gene pool is diluted.
>
Then you missed the boat. The irresponsibility of breeders is what diluted
the color gene pool in the first place.
>
> This I presume is your major desires for your breeding program given your
> statements.
I lucked out and got all three. Just like Cecil Dobbins, Bill Cass and Jim
Wild did. Because by breeding a well conformed colored horse you're that
much ahead of the game. And the aforementioned SERIOUS breeders started out
with little genetic knowledge and created horses the like of which is not
found in the ring today. Stallions who haltered and rode and produced as
good or better than themselves haven't been around since Colida Will won at
the world while competing in everything from halter to barrel racing and
hunt seat.
So I ask again, what has your knowledge done for you and the breed?
Tracy Meisenbach
http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
Horse Diary latest entry 10-7-99
OSGSL
.
K. Smith
on this very subject. I noted, in particular, two things:
1. A study showed that color is transferred more frequently through the
distaff side than through the male lines. This means, the foal of a solid
stallion-colored mare cross is more likely to be colored than a foal of a
colored stallion-solid mare cross.
2. If genetics make an Appaloosa, then genetics make a Quarter Horse, too.
And, yes, you are indeed correct that many (if not the vast majority) of
Appaloosas are genetically at least 1/2 Quarter Horse and many are as much
as 7/8 or 15/16--and they *still* get registered as Appaloosas. This would
bear out the derogative term of Appaloosas being no more than "Quarter
Horses with spots"--if they have spots, that is.
--K. Smith (who will only breed App to App so as not to dilute the gene pool
any more)
Robinson <rob...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:37FFF46B...@bellsouth.net...
> TrinityApp wrote:
> >
> > Jane wrote:
> >
> > > Hint: it isn't the crossing to non-Appaloosas; it's the type of
Appaloosa
> > > used in non-Appaloosa matings.
> >
> > No one has disputed that, so why bring it up? The non appaloosa crossing
do
> > however create one less shot at getting a spotted horse. You can only go
so
> > far before the color genes are simply over shadowed by non color genes.
This
> > is really easy to observe in dog breeding where you can get quicker
> > characteristic development.
> >
>
> I was just thinking of that today in relation to the palomino CN
> "Appaloosa" I've talked about before. Let's look at the potential Lp
> gene dosage on this horse:
>
> Let's call him "Ol Yeller". Yeller is out of an AQHA mare, and by an App
> stallion, who we will call Ahoz. Ahoz is by an AQHA stallion, and out of
> an App mare, call her Ahod. Ahod is by an AQHA stallion, and out of an
> App mare.
>
> Ok. Ahod (granddam) is 1/2 QH. She obviously carries the Lp gene, since
> her son Ahoz is colored. She contributed 1/4 QH to Ahoz, who is by an
> AQHA stud, and therefore 1/2 QH to begin with. So Ahoz is 3/4 QH, but
> the carrier of one Lp gene--no way he can be a homozygote with dad being
> a QH. He doesn't carry the Cr gene, since he is a chestnut.
>
> Ahoz, 3/4 QH and heterozygous for Lp, is bred to an AQHA mare, producing
> Yeller. Yeller gets 3/8 QH from Ahoz, and 1/2 QH from his dam, who
> carries the Cr gene, but masked--she's black. He apparently misses out
> on the Lp gene, since he never produces color on his own, only when bred
> to colored mares. But he DOES get a Cr gene! Whoop de doo.
>
> So we have a 7/8 QH horse with no Lp gene, registered with the ApHC as a
> non-characteristic, certified pedigree Appaloosa.
>
> I don't know--that's just not right. It seems to me that a horse that
> obviously does NOT carry the Lp gene shouldn't be registered with an
> organization that promotes individuals that carry and express the Lp
> gene. I don't have a problem with non-colored horses that have mottled
> skin, striped hooves, or white sclera. They're minimally expressing
> their Lp genes. But NO characteristics at all? That's just not right.
>
> And I also have a *real* problem with folks advertising "near 100% color
> producer" on such stallions when all the foals by this horse on the farm
> are solid...unless they have colored mamas....
>
K. Smith
<snip>
> I doubt they specifically bred for anything but speed or hardiness and the
> spots were considered a bonus. But they did practice selective breeding
for
> these traits and if it cropped up most often in the spotted horses then
all
> the better.
Color may have been more than just a bonus. Apparently, the random
coloration of Appaloosas (and Paints, too) does a great job of visually
breaking up a horse's form on the landscape, thus being a sort of natural
camouflage and a tactical advantage to a war party. Think of the "dazzle"
camouflage of the warships during WWI.
--K. Smith
Deborah Stevenson
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, K. Smith wrote:
> There was a 3-part article in the _Appaloosa Journal_ two or three years ago
> on this very subject. I noted, in particular, two things:
>
> 1. A study showed that color is transferred more frequently through the
> distaff side than through the male lines. This means, the foal of a solid
> stallion-colored mare cross is more likely to be colored than a foal of a
> colored stallion-solid mare cross.
Can you be more specific about this? I can't tell if you're using
"colored" to mean "obviously displays the App patterning" or "carries the
Lp gene." Obviously for the latter they'd have to be examining the
following generation as well, but it would certainly be worth doing.
I'm just trying to figure out if they're theorizing that extent of
expression is linked to the source of the gene or if acquisition of the
gene itself is differently likely for different parents.
Deborah Stevenson (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Still a little speckled in Champaign, IL, USA
TrinityApp
Could you do a color prediction for me?
--
Please? I'll name the baby after you!
TrinityApp
--
> Color may have been more than just a bonus. Apparently, the random
> coloration of Appaloosas (and Paints, too) does a great job of visually
> breaking up a horse's form on the landscape, thus being a sort of natural
> camouflage and a tactical advantage to a war party.
This was apparently the case in the north western states. However in the
south western states, white or mostly white horses were shunned. The Mestizo
regarded them as bad luck and the Apaches needed hardly tough as nails
horses. A white horse would sunburn quite badly in the desert with the sun
coming down from above and reflected back up from below. It always cracks me
up to see Geronimo portrayed riding some white faced paint, because you know
that horse would have had a rough time of it in the desert
Jane H. Kilberg
Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
See my other post regarding Robert Lapp's study, but basically he wasn't
theorizing anything about the Lp gene, nor the modifiers. In Lapp's study
he used "colored" in two senses. First to mean coat pattern; second to
mean any characteristic. Which one he meant depended on what he was
studying and how he extrapolated the information to what he wanted to show
in his observations.
Jane H. Kilberg
<smi...@dma.org> wrote:
>There was a 3-part article in the _Appaloosa Journal_ two or three years ago
>on this very subject.
Study was done by ApHC director, Robert Lapp and an article appeared in
the June 1996 issue that summarized most of his 2+ year study.
>I noted, in particular, two things:
>
>1. A study showed that color is transferred more frequently through the
>distaff side than through the male lines. This means, the foal of a solid
>stallion-colored mare cross is more likely to be colored than a foal of a
>colored stallion-solid mare cross.
There were a number of errors in the study, but this was the first time
anyone attempted such an indepth statistical study of the CPO issue and
the directions the directors were considering.
One of the more obvious errors was that Lapp didn't define "color." For
the purposes of his study, he included any characteristic which meant a
horse with an obvious coat pattern, mottled skin, sclera, stripped hooves
(maximum expressed) was counted as the same as a horse with mottled skin &
sclera only (minimum expressed). Then in some of his conclusions he dealt
with coat patterns, in others, it concerned any characteristic, so it's a
bit off in some respects for good statistical work.
As to what the stats showed, in the board reports, he gave many examples
of Appaloosa stallions mating QH mares who produced 60% or better
characteristic horses and also gave examples of Appaloosa stallions
producing less than 40% characteristic foals when mated to QH mares (see
page 168 table in July 1996 AJ).
I also have a problem with the stats in that there is no differentiation
between QH mares and nc Appaloosa (by pedigree) mares. It would have been
interesting to see that table broken down in further detail. I spoke with
Lapp about it, but there were only so many programs he could design to
extrapolate what he wanted.
In a July, 1997 Board report Lapp wrote: "An Appaloosa to Appaloosa cross
has produced more non-characteristic than colored foals, that specific
Quarter Horse stallions produce comparatively more color and fewer n/cs.
Similarly, some Quarter Horse mares produce more color than some Appaloosa
mares, and bloodlines, both Quarter and Appaloosa, do seem relevant.
Overall, however, taken as a group, cross-breeding to Quarter Horse
stallions and mares produces less color, more non-characteristic foals
than do pattern to pattern Appaloosa breedings."
>2. If genetics make an Appaloosa, then genetics make a Quarter Horse, too.
>And, yes, you are indeed correct that many (if not the vast majority) of
>Appaloosas are genetically at least 1/2 Quarter Horse and many are as much
>as 7/8 or 15/16--and they *still* get registered as Appaloosas. This would
>bear out the derogative term of Appaloosas being no more than "Quarter
>Horses with spots"--if they have spots, that is.
Breeding Appaloosas or any patterned horse is a two-fold process of equal
importance. With Appaloosas this means quality (conformation, disposition,
athleticism, etc), and characteristics. Both go hand in hand and one
should not be priority over the other.
With Appaloosas, like Quarters, they developed primarily as a stock horse
type, hence genetically, the two would be similar. The type definition
came after a membership survey done in 1949 and published in 1950.
QHs were used extensively because Appaloosas just weren't competitive
enough in those days. Quality was lacking. It had greatly improved with
the infusion of QH lines.
The ApHC's early day records (prior to 1983) are lacking in terms of
statistical accuracy. The rules basically stated coat patterns visably
seen were regular or permanently registered. There was also permanent by
production. So what happened to all the n/c offspring? Many were never
registered and sold at auctions, sales or given away. Some were registered
as breeding stock. However, this breeding stock wasn't solely n/c horses.
Breeding stock consisted of horses who were minimally marked (mottle skin
plus one other characteristic, but no coat pattern). Some breeding stock
horses had minimum coat patterns that weren't recognizable from 100 feet
or even 50 feet away.
In another board report in 1997, Lapp wrote: "You can find horses with
lots of color who have fewer "Appaloosa" parents than does a horse with no
color, no characteristics, even though breeding two patterned horses
clearly increases the chances for a colored foal." He gave several
examples of well-known stallions that were 7/8ths QH mated with both
Appaloosa mares and QH mares with 60% or better being QH mares. Production
studies showed these stallions producing 70% or better "color" with QH
mares; that is a regularly registered offspring, but no information came
forth as to minimally marked vs maximumly marked.
So, the question was, why are less characteristic horses being produced today?
Anyone studying the stud books can readily see that crossing with QHs was
basically the norm prior to 1983. In fact, there are less crossings to QHs
today, then pre-CPO (1983). Yet, pre-CPO, color production was much
higher, in so much as one can determine with the records.
What is different today, than was pre-CPO. Remember, the membership voted
in 1978 in Billings, MT to delete the requirement of coat patterns for
regular register. This opened the door to accept minimally marked
Appaloosas to the regular register, but still didn't solve the debate of
the "throw-aways" which were nc offspring. This gave rise to the nc
registry and the CPO program passed by the board in 1982. In the first 5
months of 1983, 240 horses received CPO status and the numbers of nc
horses being registered increased dramatically to where they represented
30-40% of the total registrations.
In years of studying breeding programs of pre-CPO age, one can readily
see, that although there were more QH matings, one also can readily see
the results of the QH matings were generally breed back to characteristic
Appaloosas with coat patterns or to at least BS Appaloosa by pedigree.
Today, this is not done because CPO took the risk out of breeding to QHs
as well as TBs and Arabians. So, you see generation after generation mated
to QHs with little to no breed-backs to Appaloosa lines.
The other factor besides pedigree is the Lp gene and the modifiers that
produce various coat patterns. For an Appaloosa to have the phenotype
desired, the Lp gene must be inherited. Minimumally displayed it shows as
mottled skin plus one other characteristic, but not necessarily a coat
pattern. The Lp gene is dominant.
Coat patterns and even the individual spots are a separate issue and deal
in all probability as modifiers to the Lp gene. Lots of unknowns in this
area and hopefully genetic research will pinpoint their actions not only
on the Lp gene, but also with each other. This might help as to why a
horse doesn't have a coat pattern, and is minimumally marked, yet produced
coat patterned horses or perhaps doesn't. This would get into the
genotype. These modifiers are in all probability recessive because one can
produce varying coat patterns that are not the phenotype in the parent.
The other question is why some horses have spots, and others don't. Is
this a separate gene or a modifier to the Lp allele? Do the spots only
become phenotype under certain genetic conditions? Do they inhibit the
passing along of the Lp allele? No one really knows.
But one can take an educational guess that perhaps they do. It is
well-known statistically the best producers of characteristics are
few-spots, no-spots, snowcaps and perhaps true varnish roans. Most folks
call them homozygous meaning there are two Lp genes available to be passed
along instead of one (heterozygous).
The average breeding program today is done with poor breeding decisions.
Lapp pointed out 5 main reasons in his July 1997 board report. They are:
1. Color prejudice: believe coat patterns hurt in the arena, prefer solid
colored horses, consider color breeding a crap-shoot, consider
characteristic production secondary to conformation & quality (IOW, color
is only a bonus, not an important part of the Appaloosa).
2. Poor breeding decisions: little to no study of pedigrees and coat
pattern variations as the pre-CPO breeders did. Today, few breeders don't
do their homework or even understand what needs to be studied. They just
don't know how to produce characteristics and leave it totally to chance
rather than increasing the percentage of characteristic production.
3. Genetic prepotency: In the report Lapp noted: "Thirteen Appaloosa
stallions listed on the 1995/96 lists of Leading Sires of Halter and
Performance Horses have far worse color production from regularly
registered Appaloosa mares than what has resulted from 12 well-known
Quarter Horse stallions bred to regular Appaloosa mares." What one can
infer from this genetically is that more heterozygous breeding horses are
being used than in the past and that perhaps genetically there are certain
inhibiting factors that come from QHs, TBs & Arabians allowed in
cross-breeding practices generation after generation. These "lost" factors
are re-gained in the progeny if the horse is bred back to certain type
Appaloosas. Lapp discussed genetic color potency as being diluted, and
defined it as color quality & frequency, but did not define "quality". He
also added "lost" which is the genetic definition; that is, the Lp gene
simply wasn't passed on to the offspring even from highly patterned
horses. IMO, this is because of increased heterozygous factor, hence
higher production of nc horses with generation after generation of
cross-breeding. Once it is lost, it is gone forever.
4. Economic demands & priorities: Lapp stated: "While many horses from
years ago would undoubtedly be competitive with the best of today, the
numbers have changed. Breed-wide, the stallion/mare batteries of recent
years have probably produced quality horses in numbers unparalleled in
Appaloosa history." With the risk of production gone (CPO), so, too, were
the breeding decisions & studies concerning characteristics as part of the
equation. The economics of breeding and provability is a heady issue. One
one hand, one needs production of at least 15-20 offspring, show/track
records of the horse and progeny, and deal with operation costs. On the
other hand, color may be talked about, but priorities are placed on
performance.
Breeding Appaloosas is a high risk venture that requires juggling of both
quality and characteristics on an equal basis and a firm knowledge of
pedigree & color production.
TrinityApp
--
> Breeding Appaloosas or any patterned horse is a two-fold process of equal
> importance. With Appaloosas this means quality (conformation, disposition,
> athleticism, etc), and characteristics. Both go hand in hand and one
> should not be priority over the other.
>
Would this be serious breeders who wanted good horses? Or serious breeders
who were concerned only with 100% color?
> QHs were used extensively because Appaloosas just weren't competitive
> enough in those days. Quality was lacking. It had greatly improved with
> the infusion of QH lines.
That is the proverbial double edged sword since many, and yes herd records
back me up, early QH's had Appaloosa blood.
> So, the question was, why are less characteristic horses being produced
today?
My reply to this was the dilution of the gene pool.
Your reply is:
. IMO, this is because of increased heterozygous factor, hence
> higher production of nc horses with generation after generation of
> cross-breeding. Once it is lost, it is gone forever.
>
Which pretty much means dilution of the gene pool. So why did you belabor
the argument?
> Today, this is not done because CPO took the risk out of breeding to QHs
> as well as TBs and Arabians
Arabians have always been used. With the exception of a brief period of
political insanity in the ApHC, Arabs have been favored by many Appaloosa
breeders and can be found in the bloodlines of several of the foundation
Appaloosas.
. For an Appaloosa to have the phenotype
> desired, the Lp gene must be inherited
Well that explains Joker B and Wapiti from registered QH parents. Does that
then make their siblings appaloosas without markings? And since these
siblings without markings were registered with the AQHA does that mean they
were non colored apps with QH papers? And were the "outcrops" that were
produced by these siblings registered with the ApHC as apps? The answer to
all of the above is yes.
> The other question is why some horses have spots, and others don't. Is
> this a separate gene or a modifier to the Lp allele? Do the spots only
> become phenotype under certain genetic conditions? Do they inhibit the
> passing along of the Lp allele? No one really knows.
Then how do you guarantee 100% appaloosa color as you previously stated? If
it is that uncertain it is not 100%. The few leopard stallions I've seen
boast 100% color have thrown garbage foals, one also threw several little
overos, which were farmed out quickly and not mentioned. He had 100% color
alright, just not 100% appaloosa color.
true varnish roans. Most folks
> call them homozygous meaning there are two Lp genes available to be passed
> along instead of one (heterozygous).
Hmm Cost was a true varnish roan, yet had one spotted parent and one QH
parent so it would be fair to say he only inherited one LP gene. He also had
lightening marks in his varnish.
> Breeding Appaloosas is a high risk venture that requires juggling of both
> quality and characteristics on an equal basis and a firm knowledge of
> pedigree & color production.
BUT that doesn't always involve the nitty gritty of genetic color patterns.
Since Sponenberg says that any pattern of appaloosa can produce any other
pattern then sticking within the lines of colored horses, proven performance
records and basic conformational soundness are the start of a good breeding
program, the rest is gravy.
Pedigree has always been the foundation of my breeding program, then each
individual horse is evaluated on whether to breed or cull. Since I lucked
out in having Cost from Bill's program and have benefited from his knowledge
as a breeder I had a good course set for me. And all without knowing an
allele from an alley. Too much over emphasis on one aspect can ruin a good
thing. I prefer to look at the horse and his ancestors and not play God with
the nitpicking.
Charles A Hall
TrinityApp >
Jane wrote:> > Today, this is not done because CPO took the risk out of
breeding to QHs
> > as well as TBs and Arabians
>
> Arabians have always been used. With the exception of a brief period of
> political insanity in the ApHC, Arabs have been favored by many Appaloosa
> breeders and can be found in the bloodlines of several of the foundation
> Appaloosas.
>
Okay, I may be cross-threading here, but I have a question, and this is
based solely on my experience with NON American-bred Arabians. I realize
that a lot of breeds allow up to a certain percentage of Arab bloodlines for
cross-outs. But on another thread there was discussion on pinto coloured
arabians being registered as full-blooded. I only skimmed that so no-one
start in with I'm misinterpreting. But I am hearing that the appy genes are
dominant in colouring the horse. And my problem is this, if that is true,
then why didn't I ***ever***, in five years in the Middle East, find a
pinto/paint/appy-coloured Arabian?
Diane.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>Jane wrote:
>> All the Peavy, Robards & Wiescamp Appaloosas came from one horse. Is this
>> your "many" QHs are Appaloosas proof?
>
>One horse? AHHAHAHHAAHA That was one prolific horse.
>
>Here describes the Roberd's horse called The Arab:
>This would be horse 1, is he the one you're talking about?
Bingo.....
>Here describes the The Blue Mare, a known App producer: Horse 2 belonging
>to the Peavey's and unrelated to the Roberd's horse Arab
Both of the ones you mentioned are most definately related to the Roberd's Arab!
>One of the daughters of Primero to survive the trip to Hayden was a roan
>Appaloosa mare. When mated to Bob H, the great son of Old Fred, this pair
>produced another roan Appaloosa mare known as "The Blue Mare."
The Old Blue Mare was bred by Marshall Peavy. She was out of one of Coke
Roberds mares, a roan Appaloosa who was the product of an A-rab daughter
mated to Primaro.
So, yes, Old Blue Mare is related to A-rab. The roan mare (Primaro x
daughter of A-rab) survived the train wreck in 1908. Roberds sold the roan
mare (dam of Blue) to Jack Kitchens who in turn sold the mare to Peavy.
Peavy mated the roan mare to Bob H and "Blue" foaled in 1918. The Blue
Mare was a classic varnish Appaloosa roan like her dam who was out of a
daughter of Arab.
Papoose was the result of inbreeding The Old Blue Mare (grand daughter of
Roberd's Arab) with her sire, Bob H.
>And here is yet another App belonging to the Peavys
>Bred to Ding Bob P-269, Peavy's famous home-bred sire, Flossie
Still related to A-rab through The Old Blue Mare who was Flossie's dam!
Flossie's sire was the Quarter Horse, Shiek, AQHA P-11, a Peter McCue son
also from Roberds herd was a grullo foaled in 1918. Shiek's dam was Pet, a
daughter of Old Fred. Pet was out of Primera sired by Primero.
>produced
>several outstanding daughters including the Appaloosa mare Speck, who was
>registered with the AQHA and assigned the number P-221.
Speck, still related to Arab was like Norell's Little Red. Little Red's
dam, Little Buck came from The Blue Mare's Flossie - so both were related
to Roberd's Arab. This also produced the Wapiti who was double bred
Flossie who was a daughter of the Old Blue Mare who was out of an Arab
daughter.
So, all the horses you mentioned were from The Arab, also known as
Barnum's Flash. The Arab aka Barnum's Flash was sired by a circus
Appaloosa stallion wintering at Trinidad. Arab's dam was one of Coke
Roberds Thoroughbred mares.
Descendants of The Arab through The Old Blue Mare include CHIPETA, Carey's
Little Chief, Gold Rush S, Peavy's Fireball, Peavy's Bimbo, Genivieve
Peavy, Carey's Tommy, and many more whose only Appaloosa bloodline traces
to Coke Roberds' Arab.
And the third breeder you mentioned, Wiescamp - well, his Appaloosa lines
(Peavy Bimbo & Laramie Lassie) came from The Blue Mare, too, who was a
grand daughter of Coke Roberds' Arab.
So yes, they are all related to The Arab.
>> >Non appaloosa? You must mean non appaloosa marked.
>>
>> Bingo!
>But non appaloosa marked does not mean the horse is not an appaloosa.
Please note the words "non appaloosa marked." By pedigree the horse could
or could not have Appaloosa lines.
>> The ApHC & AQHA weren't even in existence, so how can you define those
>> pre-registry horses with definitions used after the late 1930s.
>Now you're going off track again.
You are the one who said: "Theres strong blood back there and I think the
color genes were more dominant."
This is a typical argument that doesn't hold water. See my post regarding
the Lapp study. However, he did write to the board: "Appaloosa genetic
prepotency for color has never been proven . . . " Then he went on about
the Lp "staying power" type thinking which doesn't hold water. If the gene
isn't passed on, it is lost. If it is passed on, it continues in one form
or another.
Jane H. Kilberg
<FINALJ...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>TrinityApp >
>
>Jane wrote:> > Today, this is not done because CPO took the risk out of
>breeding to QHs
>> > as well as TBs and Arabians
>>
>> Arabians have always been used. With the exception of a brief period of
>> political insanity in the ApHC, Arabs have been favored by many Appaloosa
>> breeders and can be found in the bloodlines of several of the foundation
>> Appaloosas.
I don't know about "many Appaloosa breeders" using Arabs in breeding
program. According to ApHC statistics, 30 Arab stallions were used in 1998
about of 4,170 total stallions. That's less than .01%. In 1998, according
to ApHC statistics, 149 AHRA mares were bred out of 15,105 total mares.
That's less than .01%. Not a very significant number considering your
claim as being "favored by many Appaloosa breeders."
>Okay, I may be cross-threading here, but I have a question, and this is
>based solely on my experience with NON American-bred Arabians. I realize
>that a lot of breeds allow up to a certain percentage of Arab bloodlines for
>cross-outs. But on another thread there was discussion on pinto coloured
>arabians being registered as full-blooded. I only skimmed that so no-one
>start in with I'm misinterpreting. But I am hearing that the appy genes are
>dominant in colouring the horse. And my problem is this, if that is true,
>then why didn't I ***ever***, in five years in the Middle East, find a
>pinto/paint/appy-coloured Arabian?
Because Appaloosas weren't used in the breeding programs you saw in the
Middle East. However, Appaloosas were used at the Royal Stables at Amman,
Jordan by the late King Jussein. He purchased several Appaloosas from
Lorne & Vera Knisley in 1972.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>Jane wrote:
>> Breeding Appaloosas or any patterned horse is a two-fold process of equal
>> importance. With Appaloosas this means quality (conformation, disposition,
>> athleticism, etc), and characteristics. Both go hand in hand and one
>> should not be priority over the other.
>Would this be serious breeders who wanted good horses? Or serious breeders
>who were concerned only with 100% color?
Neither - serious breeders who want good colorful (characteristic) Apppaloosas.
>> QHs were used extensively because Appaloosas just weren't competitive
>> enough in those days. Quality was lacking. It had greatly improved with
>> the infusion of QH lines.
>
>That is the proverbial double edged sword since many, and yes herd records
>back me up, early QH's had Appaloosa blood.
And your point? There were a few doubled registered horses. In my
investigations, so far it's amounted to about a dozen or so, mostly from
the Arab & The Blue Mare. These were varnish Appaloosa roans. At the time
of origination of the ApHC & AQHA roans were considered roans, not
specific as to the Appaloosa varnish roan. However, that was quickly
remedied by the AQHA fairly early on.
As to Appaloosa blood (and I presume you mean by pedigree), don't forget,
prior to the formation of the AQHA & ApHA, they were good stock horses
which was more important than whether a horse was a Quarter Horse or an
Appaloosa. Besides, most folks never heard of the Appaloosa, even after
the registry formed. So by your statement, yes, they were all light stock
horses. A few early Quarters had Appaloosa pedigrees and many Appaloosa
had Quarter pedigrees.
>> So, the question was, why are less characteristic horses being produced
>today?
>
>My reply to this was the dilution of the gene pool.
>
>Your reply is:
>
>. IMO, this is because of increased heterozygous factor, hence
>> higher production of nc horses with generation after generation of
>> cross-breeding. Once it is lost, it is gone forever.
>Which pretty much means dilution of the gene pool. So why did you belabor
>the argument?
Because dilution means to weaken the strength of something. And that is
not the case. The Lp gene is either passed on or not. The Lp gene can be
lost (not passed on), but it can't be weakened in its strength or ability
to express itself. The gene isn't a dilute.
>> Today, this is not done because CPO took the risk out of breeding to QHs
>> as well as TBs and Arabians
>
>Arabians have always been used. With the exception of a brief period of
>political insanity in the ApHC, Arabs have been favored by many Appaloosa
>breeders and can be found in the bloodlines of several of the foundation
>Appaloosas.
I don't know about "many Appaloosa breeders" using Arabs in breeding
program. According to ApHC statistics, 30 Arab stallions were used in 1998
about of 4,170 total stallions. That's less than .01%. In 1998, according
to ApHC statistics, 149 AHRA mares were bred out of 15,105 total mares.
That's less than .01%. Not a very significant number considering your
claim as being "favored by many Appaloosa breeders."
When the ApHC began, founder Claude Thompson favored Arabs to be used in
Appaloosa breeding programs because of the courseness of the years of
breeding Appaloosas to drafts. As the result, many people began using
Arabs. In the first five stud books, 116 horses registered were half Arab
or JC (83 Arabs, 33 JC). However, the numbers of half-Arabs decreased in
favor of JC & AQHA horses.
>. For an Appaloosa to have the phenotype
>> desired, the Lp gene must be inherited
>
>Well that explains Joker B and Wapiti from registered QH parents.
Obviously. Pedigrees of both horses indicate mostly QH bloodlines. Wapiti
is a double breed Flossie (The Blue Mare, grand daughter of Coke Roberds'
Arab). Joker B.'s Appaloosa line is through his dam, Blue Vitriol out of
Leopard who traces back to the "roan mare" bred to Primero. The roan mare
was from the Arab.
>Does that
>then make their siblings appaloosas without markings?
The AQHA didn't knowingly register any horse that was deemed an Appaloosa.
>And since these
>siblings without markings were registered with the AQHA does that mean they
>were non colored apps with QH papers?
You are talking illogic logic here. Horses were horses. The AQHA defined
what they determined to be registerable and what was not and called them
Quarter Horses. Same with the ApHC in defining the Appaloosa. At the time,
these few horses were registered with the AQHA, it was not known that the
varnish roan was an Appaloosa coat pattern. The AQHA at that time
considered it to be acceptable. This quickly changed. Note, that Blue
Vitroil, the dam of Joker B. wasn't a registered Quarter Horse.
Note, that Flossie, Pet, The Blue Mare, and Papoose were not registered as
AQHA horses. When their sons & daughters were registered, they did not
exhibit Appaloosa characteristics. When they later developed them, it
became a great learning experience for both the ApHC & AQHA. By the mid to
late 50s, the lines were identified along with the varnish Appaloosa
roans.
>And were the "outcrops" that were
>produced by these siblings registered with the ApHC as apps?
There is no such thing as an "outcrop" with the Lp gene since the gene is
dominant. It is not recessive nor can it skip a generation.
>> The other question is why some horses have spots, and others don't. Is
>> this a separate gene or a modifier to the Lp allele? Do the spots only
>> become phenotype under certain genetic conditions? Do they inhibit the
>> passing along of the Lp allele? No one really knows.
>
>Then how do you guarantee 100% appaloosa color as you previously stated?
Homozygosity
>If
>it is that uncertain it is not 100%.
Heterozygosity
>The few leopard stallions I've seen
>boast 100% color have thrown garbage foals, one also threw several little
>overos, which were farmed out quickly and not mentioned. He had 100% color
>alright, just not 100% appaloosa color.
They were heterozygous.
>true varnish roans. Most folks
>> call them homozygous meaning there are two Lp genes available to be passed
>> along instead of one (heterozygous).
>
>Hmm Cost was a true varnish roan, yet had one spotted parent and one QH
>parent so it would be fair to say he only inherited one LP gene. He also had
>lightening marks in his varnish.
He would be a heterozygous roan, not a homozygous roan. No one yet knows
if a true varnish roan can be homozygous, but some stats indicate this may
be possible.
>> Breeding Appaloosas is a high risk venture that requires juggling of both
>> quality and characteristics on an equal basis and a firm knowledge of
>> pedigree & color production.
>
>BUT that doesn't always involve the nitty gritty of genetic color patterns.
>Since Sponenberg says that any pattern of appaloosa can produce any other
>pattern
This is theoretical and even Sponenberg will tell you that. Until genetic
testing can identify local of the Lp gene, and then the modifiers, one can
only give educated guesses. And he'll tell you that without inheritance of
the Lp gene, that horse can never produce any pattern. The other theory is
that each pattern is a separate gene, but I haven't seen any evidence that
this is possible. Sponenberg also believes that the spotting may be a
separate allele from the Lp allele or at best a separate modifier.
>then sticking within the lines of colored horses, proven performance
>records and basic conformational soundness are the start of a good breeding
>program, the rest is gravy.
This is exactly what Lapp wrote about - Color prejudice: believe coat
patterns hurt in the arena, prefer solid colored horses, consider color
breeding a crap-shoot, consider characteristic production secondary to
conformation & quality (IOW, color is only a bonus, not a viable part of
the Appaloosa).
>Too much over emphasis on one aspect can ruin a good
>thing.
Yes, there is too much emphasis on conformation over characteristics as
well as characteristics over conformation. This is why I stated what I did
which is:
>> Breeding Appaloosas or any patterned horse is a two-fold process of equal
>> importance. With Appaloosas this means quality (conformation, disposition,
>> athleticism, etc), and characteristics. Both go hand in hand and one
>> should not be priority over the other.
down the spotted trails. . . in the great nation of Tejas
TrinityApp
-- . But I am hearing that the appy genes are
> dominant in colouring the horse. And my problem is this, if that is true,
> then why didn't I ***ever***, in five years in the Middle East, find a
> pinto/paint/appy-coloured Arabian?
I have no idea. Horses with Appaloosa coloring are found on tapestries and
pottery from the middle east and far east. Horses with spots were used at
the Spanish Riding school and were the mounts of the aristocracy from
Holland to France. However I imagine the spotted horses of the desert
regions were culled simply because it was no feasible to have a horse who
sunburns easily.
The beginning Appaloosa breeders, Claude Thompson and numerous others, used
Arab blood to give refinement to the Apps as they struggled to bring the
breed back. Personal preference I wish they would have continued this slant.
The modern TB allowed outcrossing to Arabs until 1943, Mesoud had numerous
registered offspring, and wonder of wonders traces down to several known QH
and App lines which are know for their pretty heads and refined type.
TrinityApp
-- > Both of the ones you mentioned are most definitely related to the
Roberd's Arab!
Please elucidate.
Arab was used by Coke Roberds after his foaling which is prior to 1898.
However The Blue Mare was a daughter of Primero, who didn't enter the
picture until 1906.
"One of the daughters of Primero to survive the trip to Hayden was a roan
Appaloosa mare. When mated to Bob H, the great son of Old Fred, this pair
produced another roan Appaloosa mare known as "The Blue Mare."
The daughter of Primero, the roan appaloosa was out of a Steel Dust mare and
was totally unrelated to the Arab.
"Around 1898 Coke acquired nine Steel Dust mares which he mated to Arab
until about 1906 when he bought his second stallion, a Thoroughbred called
Primero
At that point he crossed Primaro with the Steel Dust daughters
This mating is what produced the Blue Mare's mother.
> The Old Blue Mare was bred by Marshall Peavy. She was out of one of Coke
> Roberds mares, a roan Appaloosa who was the product of an A-rab daughter
> mated to Primaro.
>
No, it was a Steel Dust daughter not an Arab daughter.
Arab's dam was one of Coke
> Roberds Thoroughbred mares.
So in that case, all the appaloosas would trace back to Arab's sire as being
the main app as opposed to him, but they don't.
Old Fred was completely unrelated to the Arab, and was described as a yellow
horse with lots of white. It is speculated he had appaloosa genes too. This
would bear out the fact that his sons and grandsons were known app producers
and this on QH mares. Also he had several get on the ground before Coke
Roberds acquired him, in fact one Coke describes as seeing before he
purchased the horse was a dun with white speckles. How do you connect Old
Fred and the Arab?
"Foaled in Missouri in 1893 or '94, Old Fred was a son of Black Ball, from
the Printer family crossed on Cold Deck blood, and was out of a mare by John
Crowder, he by Old Billy. A dappled yellow with lots of white, Fred was a
big horse, weighing about 1,440 pounds and standing nearly 16 hands.
Heavily-muscled and well-proportioned, Old Fred passed his traits in
abundance, not the least of which was what Roberds called "the most
wonderful disposition in the world."
This also produced the Wapiti who was double bred
> Flossie who was a daughter of the Old Blue Mare who was out of an Arab
> daughter.
Would these be some of the Appaloosas registered as QH's that you said
didn't exist?
> Please note the words "non appaloosa marked." By pedigree the horse could
> or could not have Appaloosa lines.
But that's not what you said. You said that no appaloosas were registered as
QH's. yet they were, it is a known fact and the AHQA records bear it out.
You also stated Marshall Peavy culled out the apps, yet the Peavy's produced
and promoted some of the best early apps around. Did you have him confused
with someone else?
> You are the one who said: "Theres strong blood back there and I think the
> color genes were more dominant."
> This is a typical argument that doesn't hold water. See my post regarding
> the Lapp study.
Yet, your statements bear what I said out. The color gene pool has been
diluted. The fact you misinterpreted what I said doesn't change what
everyone else understood. Breeding for color, on top of conformation is a
better plan then breeding solely for conformation and then playing Russian
roulette with color or breeding solely for color and hoping for
conformation. This is exactly what the halter breeders did. For proof look
at the old app journals. The halter and WP classes are colorless and the
games horses and cutting horses colored. Why? Because the older foundation
bloodlines were more prevalent in the performance horse classes. They hadn't
been bred out while seeking perfect QH clones.
So were the early breeders serious or not? They had little knowledge of
genetics and color combinations, do their contributions count?
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>However I imagine the spotted horses of the desert
>regions were culled simply because it was no feasible to have a horse who
>sunburns easily.
Spotted horses were culled simply because many Arab sects considered them evil.
>The beginning Appaloosa breeders, Claude Thompson and numerous others,
Wasn't numerous. Only 83 horses in the first 5 stud books were half -
Arabs and most of them were from just a handful of breeders. Arab crosses
represent less than .01% of total breedings.
Jane H. Kilberg
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
Jane wrote:
-- >> Both of the ones you mentioned are most definitely related to the
Roberd's Arab!
>Please elucidate.
I did. Read it.
>Arab was used by Coke Roberds after his foaling which is prior to 1898.
I should hope he let him grow up first before using him as a stallion. ;-)
>However The Blue Mare was a daughter of Primero, who didn't enter the
>picture until 1906.
Roberds only used Primero one breeding season before the fatal train wreck.
>>>"One of the daughters of Primero to survive the trip to Hayden was a roan
>>>Appaloosa mare. When mated to Bob H, the great son of Old Fred, this pair
>>>produced another roan Appaloosa mare known as "The Blue Mare."
>The daughter of Primero, the roan appaloosa was out of a Steel Dust mare and
>was totally unrelated to the Arab.
And you know this because..........?
You skipped a generation here. Roberds early breeding program was use of
those Steel Dust mares on Arab. (see AJ, April 1988). That produced half
Steel Dust - half Arab horses. He kept the mares. One of those, a roan
mare was then mated to Primero (half bro to The Senator). That roan mare
was eventually sold to Peavy and mated to Bob H. and then came The Blue
Mare.
>"Around 1898 Coke acquired nine Steel Dust mares which he mated to Arab
>until about 1906 when he bought his second stallion, a Thoroughbred called
>Primero
>At that point he crossed Primaro with the Steel Dust daughters
>This mating is what produced the Blue Mare's mother.
Wrong: Quote from April 1988 AJ (article by Frank Holmes): "The result of
this cross was the loud-colored Appaloosa stallion known as Arab." and
"Around the same time Coke acquired a small set of Steeldust mares which
he bred to Arab." and "Primero was crossed on the daughters of Arab......"
And from AN, March 1968 (article by Gene Carr): "Coke had aquired a mare
of running blood which he decided to breed to a stallion known as the
Circus Horse. The result of this mating was the Appaloosa stallion which
he called Arab (A-Rab or A-rab)." and "About 1898 Coke acquired nine Steel
Dust mares which he mated to Arab, until about 1906, when Coke bought his
second stallion, a Thoroughbred called Primero."
Also see AN, January 1970 (article by Gene Carr on Norell's Little Red).
Also Quote from February 1989 AJ (article by Lyn Jank): "Marshall Peavy
also owned Old Blue's dam, an Appaloosa roan by Primero (TB) out of an
Arab daughter."
>> The Old Blue Mare was bred by Marshall Peavy. She was out of one of Coke
>> Roberds mares, a roan Appaloosa who was the product of an A-rab daughter
>> mated to Primaro.
>No, it was a Steel Dust daughter not an Arab daughter.
And you know this because......? Please see my references and I did not
include my interview with Mavis Peavy in July of 1988 so you didn't think
I just made it all up. And in that interview, Mavis Peavy told me that The
Old Blue Mare was a grand daughter of Arab.
>>Arab's dam was one of Coke
>> Roberds Thoroughbred mares.
>So in that case, all the appaloosas would trace back to Arab's sire as being
>the main app
Yes, most definitely all of the Appaloosas you mentioned that you insist
were not related nor traced to Arab.
>as opposed to him, but they don't.
Okay, so I guess you are saying Mavis Peavy is wrong and so are all those
articles written about the lineage.
>How do you connect Old
>Fred and the Arab?
Old Fred was the 3rd stallion Coke Roberds used from 1916-1923 (after Arab
& Primero). Roberds crossed Old Fred on daughters from the Arab daughters
x Primero. He also crossed Old Fred on his Thoroughbred mares.
>>This also produced the Wapiti who was double bred
>> Flossie who was a daughter of the Old Blue Mare who was out of an Arab
>> daughter.
Would these be some of the Appaloosas registered as QH's that you said
didn't exist?
Please quote me where I said Appaloosas registered as AQHA horses didn't
exist. I think your imagination is getting the best of you.
> Please note the words "non appaloosa marked." By pedigree the horse could
> or could not have Appaloosa lines.
>You said that no appaloosas were registered as
QH's.
If you insist on using your imagination, you can continue to make a folly
of yourself.
>> You are the one who said: "Theres strong blood back there and I think the
>> color genes were more dominant."
>> This is a typical argument that doesn't hold water. See my post regarding
>> the Lapp study.
>Yet, your statements bear what I said out. The color gene pool has been
>diluted.
This shows your lack of knowledge; that's all. Dilution means to weaken
the strength of something. And that is not the case. The Lp gene is either
passed on or not. The Lp gene can be lost (not passed on), but it can't be
weakened in its strength or ability to express itself. The gene isn't a
dilute.The Lp gene is not diluted. It is either there or not there. It is
a dominant allele. Which part of this basic genetic principle don't you
understand?
>Because the older foundation
>bloodlines were more prevalent in the performance horse classes. They hadn't
>been bred out while seeking perfect QH clones.
But what happened to your insistance that the Lp gene "pool" is "diluted"
because of all the cross-breeding done by the early breeders? And if
that's your case, then explain why those horses you spoke about who were
mostly all QHs produced characteristic foals? Explain why Skip Bright who
is mostly QH produced more than 70% characteristic foals? And while you
are at it, explain why horses such as Cherry's Leader, Dreamfeature, Post
Haste, who are products of App x App produce much less characteristic
offspring?
So were the early breeders serious or not? They had little knowledge of
genetics and color combinations, do their contributions count?
They sure do...one learns what not to do as well as what to do.
Jane H. Kilberg
>TrinityApp wrote:
>>
>> The beginning Appaloosa breeders, Claude Thompson and numerous others,
used Arab blood to give refinement to the Apps as they struggled to bring
the breed back.
>
>The main foundation for the modern day appy used by Claide Thompson was
>as u say an arab "FERRAS" from purebred imorted stock
Ferras, AHR 922 (Crabbet/Maynesboro/Kellogg lineage) was sired by *Ferdin
and out of *Rasima. He was a chestnut and sired 17 registered Appaloosas
that were out of Appaloosa mares. He foaled in 1932 bred by W.K. Kellogg
of Pomona, CA. Claude J. Thompson traded a Percheron mare for Ferras (who
was then a weanling) to upgrade his Appaloosa stock which were very course
from draft breeding. Ferras stood at 14.2 hands.
Ferras' most famous Appaloosa offspring was Red Eagle F-209, a 1951
National Champion who sired two National Champions (American Eagle and Red
Eagle's Peacock. The other Appaloosa offspring from Ferras include Painter
III, Flash, Kismet, Sheila, Sheba, Raindrop, Hailee, Sharon, Gold Nugget,
Margo, Princess Beryl, Snowstorm, Chief, Night Flower, Technicolor, and
Dunez.
Ferras was used by Thompson as a genetic shortcut to refine the course
Appaloosas of that day. Ferras was sold to Marjorie Van Gilder of OR in
1951 and died in 1954.
Charles A. Hall
Jane H. Kilberg
>
> Because Appaloosas weren't used in the breeding programs you saw in the
> Middle East. However, Appaloosas were used at the Royal Stables at Amman,
> Jordan by the late King Jussein. He purchased several Appaloosas from
> Lorne & Vera Knisley in 1972.
>
However, in the other thread the discussion was involving coloured arabians.
The person in particular wanted a pinto arab. The discussion seemed to be
about registering as fullblood arab vs. partial blood. My question has to
do with the fact that, at least in the Middle East, spotted and coloured
arabs are not considered pure. Therefore, if the Lp gene is dominant over
other genes, how did Arabian arabs develop solely as solid-coloured horses?
I haven't studied the colour genes, not being involved in breeding and
having a solid-colour preference. In reading the discussions, I've gotten
intrigued. I had thought that you might have been able to give me a theory,
Jane.
Diane
cowboy
Schmdthaus
1.) without the proof provided by bloodtyping or DNA testing, these
affirmations are not provable.
2) Disagreements CAN be handled in a respectful manner -- they are, after all,
different interpretations of non-provable affirmations.
3) I think most of us would agree that there are numerous infusions of quarter,
arab and thoroughbred blood in Appaloosas. and . . .
4) Is it time to close the books?
Laurie
Arizona Vixen
> I don't know about "many Appaloosa breeders" using Arabs in breeding
> program. According to ApHC statistics, 30 Arab stallions were used in 1998
> about of 4,170 total stallions. That's less than .01%. In 1998, according
> to ApHC statistics, 149 AHRA mares were bred out of 15,105 total mares.
> That's less than .01%. Not a very significant number considering your
> claim as being "favored by many Appaloosa breeders."
>
Don't overlook the popularity of 1/2 Arab Appaloosa stallions.
Arizona Vixen
<trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
> Diane wrote:
>
> -- . But I am hearing that the appy genes are
> > dominant in colouring the horse. And my problem is this, if that is true,
> > then why didn't I ***ever***, in five years in the Middle East, find a
> > pinto/paint/appy-coloured Arabian?
>
> I have no idea. Horses with Appaloosa coloring are found on tapestries and
> pottery from the middle east and far east. Horses with spots were used at
> the Spanish Riding school and were the mounts of the aristocracy from
> regions were culled simply because it was no feasible to have a horse who
> sunburns easily.
I used to board at a place where the owner had a beautiful black
blanketed Appaloosa gelding. I asked her if he was registered, and
she cracked up laughing.
You see, his mother was a registered pinto; his sire, a registered
paint. Damnedest thing I'd seen -- he had better color than so many
products od Appy to Appy breedings!
Arizona Vixen
wrote:
> In article <9QsM3.2550$QI5.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "TrinityApp"
> <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>
> Spotted horses were culled simply because many Arab sects considered them evil.
>
So do a lot of us who own them <grin>
Vicki
cowboy
"Jane H. Kilberg" wrote:
>
> In article <3802797E...@ihug.co.nz>, cowboy <cowb...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Ferras, AHR 922 (Crabbet/Maynesboro/Kellogg lineage) was sired by *Ferdin
> and out of *Rasima. He was a chestnut and sired 17 registered Appaloosas
> that were out of Appaloosa mares. He foaled in 1932 bred by W.K. Kellogg
> of Pomona, CA. Claude J. Thompson traded a Percheron mare for Ferras (who
> was then a weanling) to upgrade his Appaloosa stock which were very course
> from draft breeding. Ferras stood at 14.2 hands.
>
> Ferras' most famous Appaloosa offspring was Red Eagle F-209, a 1951
> National Champion who sired two National Champions (American Eagle and Red
> Eagle's Peacock. The other Appaloosa offspring from Ferras include Painter
> III, Flash, Kismet, Sheila, Sheba, Raindrop, Hailee, Sharon, Gold Nugget,
> Margo, Princess Beryl, Snowstorm, Chief, Night Flower, Technicolor, and
> Dunez.
>
> Ferras was used by Thompson as a genetic shortcut to refine the course
> Appaloosas of that day. Ferras was sold to Marjorie Van Gilder of OR in
> 1951 and died in 1954.
>
cowboy
"Jane H. Kilberg" wrote:
>
> In article <3802797E...@ihug.co.nz>, cowboy <cowb...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Ferras, AHR 922 (Crabbet/Maynesboro/Kellogg lineage) was sired by *Ferdin etc
yes jane i am aware of all of that.
i have basically the same wording in front of me.
Liisa Sarakontu
breed, although I have never seen a purebred Appaloosa, and only about
half a dozen spotted horses (some of them Knabstrups or
Knabstrup-crosses) in my whole life. It is a rare pattern here in
Finland. Western riding is getting more popular here, and I'm quite
sure that some Appys have already been imported.
"Charles A Hall" <FINALJ...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>But I am hearing that the appy genes are
>dominant in colouring the horse. And my problem is this, if that is true,
>then why didn't I ***ever***, in five years in the Middle East, find a
>pinto/paint/appy-coloured Arabian?
Appy and probaby all known pinto genes are dominant, and so it is
rather easy to get a half-Arab with any wanted pattern: just breed a
solid purebred Arab to a patterned horse and about 50 % of the foals
will show the wanted pattern.
I have never heard of appy Arabs either, and it is possible that they
don't exist. But perhaps some minimally patterned (just
characteristics and perhaps some roaning) might have existed and still
exist today.
Tobiano, frame overo and splashed white patterns don't seem to exist
in purebred Arabs. But sabino pattern certainly is in the gene pool,
and as flashy Arabs seem to be favored, sabino gene is very common.
Most sabinos have just 2-4 high stockings and a blaze, but "crop-outs"
with much more white, even up to 95 %, can be born every now and then
when at least one of the parents is a sabino.
Liisa
Jane H. Kilberg
schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) wrote:
>I have a couple of comments.
>
>1.) without the proof provided by bloodtyping or DNA testing, these
>affirmations are not provable.
I'm not sure what you mean of proof concerning affirmations...of what?
Current research is locating the Lp gene, subsequent a test can be
developed. This will aid the breeder to know whether or not a horse is
homozygous for the Lp gene.
Studying genetics, keeping good accurate records goes a long way in
statistical analysis of the percentage involve in various aspects of
breeding. It can be applied to the goal of wanting a larger muscled horse,
shape of the horse, size, temperament, abilities, bone size, and even
characteristics such as the Appaloosa as well as particular colors
desired.
>2) Disagreements CAN be handled in a respectful manner -- they are, after all,
>different interpretations of non-provable affirmations.
And that's what discussions do - bring out different interpretations with
information and facts such as the Lapp study.
>3) I think most of us would agree that there are numerous infusions of quarter,
>arab and thoroughbred blood in Appaloosas. and . . .
Of course, even though Arab is limited. Thoroughbred lines are used more
extensively than Arab; however QH lines are the most prolific since both
registries began with light stock horse definitions.
>4) Is it time to close the books?
Never- I seriously doubt the AQHA, ApHC, nor the APHA will ever close
books. They are all registries of hybrid horses as most registries are.
Jane H. Kilberg
Hall" <FinalJ...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Jane H. Kilberg
>>
>> Because Appaloosas weren't used in the breeding programs you saw in the
>> Middle East. However, Appaloosas were used at the Royal Stables at Amman,
>> Jordan by the late King Jussein. He purchased several Appaloosas from
>> Lorne & Vera Knisley in 1972.
>>
>Yes I know, I saw them when I was at the stables on December 11, 1979.
>However, in the other thread the discussion was involving coloured arabians.
>The person in particular wanted a pinto arab. The discussion seemed to be
>about registering as fullblood arab vs. partial blood. My question has to
>do with the fact that, at least in the Middle East, spotted and coloured
>arabs are not considered pure. Therefore, if the Lp gene is dominant over
>other genes, how did Arabian arabs develop solely as solid-coloured horses?
By culling out the undesirables.
>I haven't studied the colour genes, not being involved in breeding and
>having a solid-colour preference. In reading the discussions, I've gotten
>intrigued. I had thought that you might have been able to give me a theory,
>Jane.
In practice, if one wants horse no smaller than 16 hands, one continually
culls out the shorter horses and horses who produce shorter horses.
Eventually the herd becomes homozygous for 16+ hand horses.
Color works in similar fashion but a bit more complicated depending on
what the original stock consists of in terms of color.
With Appaloosas, the characteristics are a bit more complicated in that it
isn't a single gene that produces all the blankets or a single gene that
produces blankets with spots. However, the Lp gene is responsible for the
characteristics. Without it, no characteristics appear, nor can the horse
pass on any of those characteristics. This has been shown time and time
again in several studies of which some were minor and some major.
The age old premise of breeding like to like gets like, doesn't always
hold true with the Appaloosa characteristics. There have been a handful of
breeders who concentrated on production of leopard coat patterns. Even
after years (40-60 years) of breeding, percentage of leopard production
was slightly higher but not significantly. On an individual basis, there
are horses who produce high levels of leopard patterns, yet their
offspring was unable to duplicate that level. Hence there is a modifying
effect going on genetically. This would account for different types of
patterns produced.
One thing known for sure is that a homozygous will pass on the Lp gene.
Minimum expression is mottled skin plus one other characteristic (sclera
or stripped hooves). Maximum expression includes a coat pattern. It takes
two heterozygous or one heterozygous and one homozygous to produce a
homozygous Appaloosa.
Breeding heterozyous Appaloosas to non-Appaloosas will increase the
heterozygous population as well as produce horses who do not carry the Lp
gene. With continual cross-breeding generation after generation, there is
an increase of minimally marked heterozygous Appaloosas, too. It is
thought that these horses also have less modifying capabilities. So
statistically & genetically, it is possible to have a highly colorful
characteristic heterozygous Appaloosa whose production of characteristic
horses is very low. This has been shown in the Lapp study I posted about.
Careful and knowledgeable selection of breeding mates is very important if
one wants to retain these Appaloosa characteristics.
Jane H. Kilberg
"Arizona Vixen" <vic...@usa.net> wrote:
>> I don't know about "many Appaloosa breeders" using Arabs in breeding
>> program. According to ApHC statistics, 30 Arab stallions were used in 1998
>> about of 4,170 total stallions. That's less than .01%. In 1998, according
>> to ApHC statistics, 149 AHRA mares were bred out of 15,105 total mares.
>> That's less than .01%. Not a very significant number considering your
>> claim as being "favored by many Appaloosa breeders."
>>
>
> Don't overlook the popularity of 1/2 Arab Appaloosa stallions.
In some circles, they are desirable. Some endurance & competitive distance
breeders utilize the Arab bloodlines. John L. Baker of PA is a breeder who
has utilized Arab lines for many, many years. Carol Ann Beckner of IN is
another. Most of the breeders of Arab-Appaloosa lines are east of the
Mississippi.
Schmdthaus
<<>1.) without the proof provided by bloodtyping or DNA testing, these
>affirmations are not provable.
I'm not sure what you mean of proof concerning affirmations...of what?
Current research is locating the Lp gene, subsequent a test can be
developed. This will aid the breeder to know whether or not a horse is
homozygous for the Lp gene.>>
I was referring to proof of parentage, Jane, particularly the parentage of
foals resulting from pasture breeding.
Jane H. Kilberg
Sarakontu) wrote:
>Interesting thread! I like to read about the history of Appaloosa
>breed, although I have never seen a purebred Appaloosa, and only about
>half a dozen spotted horses (some of them Knabstrups or
>Knabstrup-crosses) in my whole life. It is a rare pattern here in
>Finland. Western riding is getting more popular here, and I'm quite
>sure that some Appys have already been imported.
There are no purebred Appaloosas, never were any. The ApHC began
registering hybrids in 1940 and continues doing so.
A good book on the history of the Appaloosa I can recommend is:
"Appaloosa the spotted horse in art and history" by Francis Haines 1963.
The Appaloosa Horse Club has a few for sale. You can contact the club by
writing to 2720 W. Pullman Rd., Moscow, ID 83843 or calling (208) 882-5578
or checking out the web site at http://www.appaloosa.com for the Appaloosa
Collection section.
Jane H. Kilberg
schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) wrote:
Proof of parentage is readily available today. So if one is concerned if
the foal is by or out of certain parents, one can easily test for it.
Prior to when blood typing first came into use, one only had to use the
reputation of the breeder and people who kept accurate records. And yes,
there are horses whose parent(s) were falsified on various records.
One large controversy (although no one really cares today) concerns
offspring of Joker B. Some horses like Colida (TrinityApps favorite) will
always remain in a cloud of mystery.
robf...@my-deja.com
schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) wrote:
> I have a couple of comments.
>
> affirmations are not provable.
>
Well, no. But Mendel didn't have bloodtyping or DNA testing, yet he was
able to observe the results of careful crossing, and predict results of
subsequent crosses based on those observations. That's what (IMHO) is
lacking in the breeding programs of some Appaloosa breeders. Too much
breeding to hype and not enough investigation of pedigrees, produce,
and inspection of the animal in question.
After all, an Appaloosa without any characteristics is not an
Appaloosa. No Lp gene. I still don't think they should be admitted to
the registry. This can be, if not avoided, the chances minimized by
careful consideration of not only the parents' conformation,
performance, and temperaments but also their potential carriage of the
Lp gene.
Look at it this way: all other things being acceptable, breeding color
(LpX) to color (LpX) (meaning characteristic, bearing at least mottled
skin and one other characteristic) will give you at least a 50% shot at
a colored foal, more if one or both parents are homozygous (LpLp).
Breeding non-characteristic (lplp) to color (LpX) will give you no more
than 50%, maybe as low as 25% if the colored parent is heterozygous.
Breeding non-characteristic (lplp) to solid (lplp) will give you solid
(lplp). No Lp to pass on.
Non-characteristic is just another way of saying "My parents were
heterozygous and I missed the boat".
--
Lorri
Scratchbottom Shires and Spots
http://www.geocities.com/scratchbottom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Schmdthaus
<< >I was referring to proof of parentage, Jane, particularly the parentage of
>foals resulting from pasture breeding.
Proof of parentage is readily available today. So if one is concerned if
the foal is by or out of certain parents, one can easily test for it.
Prior to when blood typing first came into use, one only had to use the
reputation of the breeder and people who kept accurate records. And yes,
there are horses whose parent(s) were falsified on various records.
One large controversy (although no one really cares today) concerns
offspring of Joker B. Some horses like Colida (TrinityApps favorite) will
always remain in a cloud of mystery.>>
Obviously, TODAY'S technology will allow one to verify the offspring of
bloodtyped parents.
I'm not suggesting widespread, deliberate falsification of recordsin the past,
Jane. But, particularly in pasture breeding situations, accidents happen. And
we can not know for certain what the parentage of pre-bloodtyping era horses
were. In some cases, phenotype similarities are strong enough to practically
guarantee the genetics (e.g., our grandson of High Hand is a spitting image,
body type and coat pattern of his grandfather). But in some cases, they're not.
<<One large controversy (although no one really cares today) concerns
offspring of Joker B. Some horses like Colida (TrinityApps favorite) will
always remain in a cloud of mystery.>>
Tracy's not the only Joker B fan in the group.
There's a great photo of Double Six Domino for sale on eBay currently, for
those interested in older bloodlines.
Laurie
TrinityApp
-- > Neither - serious breeders who want good colorful (characteristic)
Apppaloosas
As opposed to serious breeders who want well conformed colored apps?
> And your point? There were a few doubled registered horses. In my
> investigations, so far it's amounted to about a dozen or so, mostly from
> the Arab & The Blue Mare.
You're leaving out the Old Fred connection.
These were varnish Appaloosa roans. At the time
> of origination of the ApHC & AQHA roans were considered roans, not
> specific as to the Appaloosa varnish roan. However, that was quickly
> remedied by the AQHA fairly early on.
>
Not always true. Even into the 50's there were out crops. My grandfather had
a registered QH mare that was bred to a registered QH stallion and had a
blanket hipped foal. This was his old stud Chief ( Not real original for a
spotted horse).
> Because dilution means to weaken the strength of something. And that is
> not the case. The Lp gene is either passed on or not. The Lp gene can be
> lost (not passed on), but it can't be weakened in its strength or ability
> to express itself. The gene isn't a dilute.
>
Jane, your nitpicking would get you shown the door at a dog breeders
conference. Dilution also means to thin out , not weaken . The gene pool is
thinned, so it is diluted.
Not a very significant number considering your
> claim as being "favored by many Appaloosa breeders."
>
You left out the FOUNDATION breeders. There were over 80 registered in the
first 4800 horse. This is significant because their descendants are found
in the pedigrees of most of the modern apps and the ones who qualify for FA
rating.
> The AQHA didn't knowingly register any horse that was deemed an Appaloosa.
Certainly they did. They registered on conformation alone at first and only
later did they stipulate the no app rule. Lee Arlandson states in her
interview with Coke Roberds "
Coke owned one of the largest single bands of broodmares to be admitted to
the AQHA registry." Since Coke started his ranch on the breeding of The Arab
and Primero and most of his broodmares felt under their descent, (And Old
Fred's) then it can safely be said that to appease him and get his business
the AQHA registered all the mares even the app ones.
> You are talking illogic logic here. Horses were horses. The AQHA defined
> what they determined to be registerable and what was not and called them
> Quarter Horses
No I'm rebutting your previous comment that no Appaloosas were registered as
QH's.
. When they later developed them, it
> became a great learning experience for both the ApHC & AQHA. By the mid to
> late 50s, the lines were identified along with the varnish Appaloosa
> roans.
However the later lines were not removed and this is evidenced by the sclera
and striped hooves as well as frosty roans that show up to this day in the
QH's/
> There is no such thing as an "outcrop" with the Lp gene since the gene is
> dominant. It is not recessive nor can it skip a generation.
>
No one said it skipped. It can however hide quite well for several
generations. Should it suddenly appear after several non colored generations
the parlance is outcrop.
And he'll tell you that without inheritance of
> the Lp gene, that horse can never produce any pattern
Hmm now how did those first appaloosas appear way back in the mists of time?
Breeding Appaloosas or any patterned horse is a two-fold process of equal
> >> importance. With Appaloosas this means quality (conformation,
disposition,
> >> athleticism, etc), and characteristics. Both go hand in hand and one
> >> should not be priority over the other
But in reality you can accomplish this without all the genetic mumbo jumbo
if you simply have a good program and know what you want.
Kris Carroll
> Well, no. But Mendel didn't have bloodtyping or DNA testing, yet he was
> able to observe the results of careful crossing, and predict results of
> subsequent crosses based on those observations.
Probably best not to bring Mendel into a serious genetics discussion these
days. There are substantial claims that he tidied up his notebook.
Kris C
Kris Carroll
> Jane, your nitpicking would get you shown the door at a dog breeders
> thinned, so it is diluted.
Lucky Jane. Dog breeders have a very tenuous grasp of honest and
knowlegable genetics discourse. Dilute is dilute. Thin, weaken - the end
product (an actual real animal) gets to live with the results of backyard
breeding disasters, which can take a few generations to turn up. Anyone
breeding by look and feel these days is insane. You've seen my knockdown
brilliant duel vizsla, with a pedigree to kill for - mild dysplasia, left
hip only. His line stops here. Breaks my heart.
No pointing fingers at App people, just injecting some neutral observation
based on experience.
Kris C.
Schmdthaus
<<Probably best not to bring Mendel into a serious genetics discussion these
days. There are substantial claims that he tidied up his notebook.>>
Damn! Another idol with feet of clay?
TrinityApp
> And you know this because..........?
Because in an article in the QH journal, where of course they always down
play the App connection, it stated that Primero was bred to the Steel Dust
daughters. And the results of these breedings were some of the foundation
app mares.
--
> Wrong: Quote from April 1988 AJ (article by Frank Holmes): "
Jane if you haven't realized by now that the AJ and the QJ have entirely
different concepts of what happened way back when you're in trouble.
> Also see AN, January 1970 (article by Gene Carr on Norell's Little Red).
This was one of the horses you specifically told me wasn't reg. as a QH on
the same thread where you called Wapiti a bay who roaned out, which he
definitely did not.
> And you know this because......? Please see my references and I did not
> include my interview with Mavis Peavy in July of 1988 so you didn't think
> I just made it all up. And in that interview, Mavis Peavy told me that The
> Old Blue Mare was a grand daughter of Arab.
>
Amazing, we (Bill and I) talked to Mavis Peavy ( would this be the same
Peavy you recently said culled apps out of her herd?) at the induction
ceremony and she stated that they imported into their herd several mares who
were from out of state. So how did these out of state mares become related
to Coke Roberd's stallion?
> Yes, most definitely all of the Appaloosas you mentioned that you insist
> were not related nor traced to Arab.
See above statement. While the Arab may have been around at the beginning of
the herds, he was not the only appaloosa influence. Otherwise the inbreeding
would have been phenomenal. Outside mares were brought in, some QH and some
App. BECAUSE by studying the shear numbers of the three herds there is no
way the Arab could have produced so many breeding age get in that short a
time.
). Roberds crossed Old Fred on daughters from the Arab daughters
> x Primero. He also crossed Old Fred on his Thoroughbred mares.
>
And from these TB daughters he got characteristic horses which when bred
back to QH and Apps produced app marked horses. Old Fred produced
characteristic marked horses long before Coke bought him. His contribution
to the Bright Eyes siblings and the effect of his crosses on Peter McCue
daughters,who were certainly not apps, produced some spotted babies. HINT I
Have a grandson of just such a cross.
> Please quote me where I said Appaloosas registered as AQHA horses didn't
> exist. I think your imagination is getting the best of you.
While I do not remember the name of the thread specifically I do remember
the content. You said Wapiti had never been registered a QH and that the
Norell horse hadn't either. It was also the thread where you said Wapiti had
roaned out. I presented the notes from Jim Wild attesting to Wapitis duel
registration and the fact that numerous other had been registered. At this
time you also argued that true varnish roans couldn't have lightening marks,
which I pointed out that my horses and his full brother were both varnish
roans and both possessed lightening marks. Now since deja search is totally
screwed up I haven't the faintest idea where to look.
> If you insist on using your imagination, you can continue to make a folly
> of yourself.
It is doubtful I would post the notes from Jim Wild and the Wapiti website
without having a reason.
> This shows your lack of knowledge; that's all. Dilution means to weaken
> the strength of something. And that is not the case
No, it shows your abuse of semantics. In every breed publication from AQHA
to JC and IAHA dilution means to thin out a gene pool. Your world needs to
catch up.
So does a dilute color mean a weaker colored horse Jane? Or does it mean a
horse who has had the color gene altered a bit?
> But what happened to your insistence that the Lp gene "pool" is "diluted"
> because of all the cross-breeding done by the early breeders
You're missing the boat. I said dilution from later breeders. I think the
early breeders crossed into color more and created a more intense gene pool
which the CPO program helped break down. You're ascribing stuff to me again,
like you did the 16 hands comment that I didn't say.
Explain why Skip Bright who
> is mostly QH produced more than 70% characteristic foals
Well duh Jane look at his pedigree, old time QH who came right out of the
weiscamp and Roberd's herds. You've turned yourself around and are arguing
the point I first made. OLD TIME BLOOD WAS STRONGER! Go back to the first
few posts.
And while you
> are at it, explain why horses such as Cherry's Leader, Dreamfeature, Post
> Haste, who are products of App x App produce much less characteristic
> offspring?
See above statement and they prove my point exactly. The color gene pool
has been diluted. You are now arguing with me about the statement I first
made. When did you change sides?
TrinityApp
-- > One large controversy (although no one really cares today) concerns
> offspring of Joker B. Some horses like Colida (TrinityApps favorite) will
> always remain in a cloud of mystery.
Colida is a mystery? Probably only to those who don't know Bill. One mystery
I can clear up right now. You know the Orren Mixer painting of the App used
as the symbol for ApHC? Those two white hind socks and the lightening marks
belong to none other than Colida. The horse is an amalgam of other famous
stallions and Bill Cass was requested by Roger Klamforth to supply pictures
of Colida to Orren. The letter Bill received back after the painting was
done is something else. As for his lineage, well Peter McCue is one sire who
went on to put the AQHA on the map and Old Fred is another. Things like
those pesky blankets just crop up.
Now for one that's a real mystery, and as far as I'm concerned a footnote in
ApHC history was Sundance 500. He has gaps top and bottom and produced
several of the heavy legged Draftaloosas. Chief Chelsea was also busted as
having a falsified pedigree.
TrinityApp
-- > After all, an Appaloosa without any characteristics is not an
> Appaloosa. No Lp gene. I still don't think they should be admitted to
> the registry.
This would be a tread lightly area. We have a solid mare. Grulla no
characteristics. Grand daughter of Skip Bright and Top San so she's app top
and bottom. She throws the wildest colored app babies, both my stallions are
out of her. I would say that it was my old stallion who put the color on
her, BUT I know her other foals and they are clones to what my horses look
like. So she's the possessor of the color.
Sheryl Huckaby
cross was 50/50 genetically, but the subsequent generations of such crosses
would be anywhere from 100% QH to 100%App (where the cross was between App &
QH) and that you could not really predict which way it would go.
Sheryl
Ashland City, Tennessee
Fall seven times, get up eight. - Japanese proverb
TrinityApp
-- > I'm not suggesting widespread, deliberate falsification of recordsin
the past,
> Jane. But, particularly in pasture breeding situations, accidents happen.
And
> we can not know for certain what the parentage of pre-bloodtyping era
horses
> were. In some cases, phenotype similarities are strong enough to
practically
> guarantee the genetics (e.g., our grandson of High Hand is a spitting
image,
> body type and coat pattern of his grandfather). But in some cases, they're
not
Undoubtedly true. And prior to the registries imposing block outs of certain
breeds both accepted anything that met color of conformation standards. Even
crossing back into the old TB lines up to 1943 gave a pretty good assurance
you could get arab blood.
> <<One large controversy (although no one really cares today) concerns
> offspring of Joker B. Some horses like Colida (TrinityApps favorite) will
> always remain in a cloud of mystery.>>
>
> Tracy's not the only Joker B fan in the group.
>
There isn't anything like a Joker B granddaughter for a broodmare! They flat
produce!
TrinityApp
> wrote:>
> Spotted horses were culled simply because many Arab sects considered them
evil.
That would need to be amended to Blatantly spotted horses were culled.
In John L. Baker's article, "Mesaoud, the Spotted Wonder" the parti-colored
horses of the Abbas Pasha descended from either the chestnut, Al Mahyubi or
his full brother, Jadib, a gray. Mesaoud traces to the two stallions a total
of four times. Both Al Mahyubi and Jadib are Seglawi Jedran. And it is from
these lines, and others, that the Arabian spot lines descend. Those horses
that were parti-colored: snowflakes, mottling, white sclera, and striped
hooves were a part of their makeup - their genetic constitution. A perfect
addition to the breed know for its color patterns and other visible
characteristics
--
And guess what? This ARAB line shows up in TB, QH, and APP bloodlines and so
do those pesky characterisitics.
R Bishop
schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) wrote:
Well, there's always been suspicions about Mendel, especially since his
counts were so very balanced. There should have been just a bit of slop
in his data but his counts always came out perfect.
Sue
Official Secretary of OSGSL
Dogs think they're human
Cats think they're God
R Bishop
"TrinityApp" <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>0500 jkil...@mcia.com (Jane H. Kilberg)
>> wrote:>
>
> > Spotted horses were culled simply because many Arab sects considered them
>evil.
>
Gawd, NOW Jane considers herself an expert on Arabians. Guess I need to
take her out of my kill file and whip her ass. Why on EARTH does she
want to sound like a complete asshole?
Jane, it wouldn't kill you to stick to something you KNOW about. Otherwise
you just contribute to your image as the 'wanna-be-know-it-all'.
>That would need to be amended to Blatantly spotted horses were culled.
>
Yes, in some cases. In others, it was quite admired. Show circles, yes,
but then, show circles is not ALL of the Arabian world. Or even a big part
of it.
>
>In John L. Baker's article, "Mesaoud, the Spotted Wonder" the parti-colored
>horses of the Abbas Pasha descended from either the chestnut, Al Mahyubi or
>his full brother, Jadib, a gray. Mesaoud traces to the two stallions a total
>of four times. Both Al Mahyubi and Jadib are Seglawi Jedran. And it is from
>these lines, and others, that the Arabian spot lines descend. Those horses
>that were parti-colored: snowflakes, mottling, white sclera, and striped
>hooves were a part of their makeup - their genetic constitution. A perfect
>addition to the breed know for its color patterns and other visible
>characteristics.
I have one mare here who has white sclera, high white stockings on one side
only (looks very odd), sugar-dusting of roan hairs over her back and rump.
And, yes, folks, she is purebred Arabian.
Sue
>--
>
>And guess what? This ARAB line shows up in TB, QH, and APP bloodlines and so
>do those pesky characterisitics.
>
>
>
>Tracy Meisenbach
> http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
>Trinity Appaloosa Farm
>http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
>Horse Diary latest entry 10-7-99
>
>OSGSL
>
>
Official Secretary of OSGSL
Charles A Hall
Jane:> Explain why Skip Bright who
> > is mostly QH produced more than 70% characteristic foals
>
the
> weiscamp and Roberd's herds. You've turned yourself around and are arguing
> the point I first made. OLD TIME BLOOD WAS STRONGER! Go back to the first
> few posts.
>
> > are at it, explain why horses such as Cherry's Leader, Dreamfeature,
Post
> > Haste, who are products of App x App produce much less characteristic
> > offspring?
Okay, I'm confused, completely and totally confused. We've got Mendel
tidying up his notebooks and QHs jumping in and out of being foundation
stock for Appys, and Appys being involved then not being involved in
foundation QHs, and genes mutating and diluting all over the place. For
those of us who don't study equid genetics (like me), Jane, can you explain
why, if genetics are a tried and true measure for producing colour, you're
now reversing your earlier arguments to fit synchronstically with Tracy's?
Diane, confused in Florida
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
I'm going to respond to this part separately.
>Look at it this way: all other things being acceptable, breeding color
>(LpX) to color (LpX) (meaning characteristic, bearing at least mottled
>skin and one other characteristic) will give you at least a 50% shot at
>a colored foal, more if one or both parents are homozygous (LpLp).
>Breeding non-characteristic (lplp) to color (LpX) will give you no more
>than 50%, maybe as low as 25% if the colored parent is heterozygous.
It gets a bit tricker than this. The first things one has to deal with is
the inheritance of the Lp allele as you so noted. If the Lp gene is
inherited, the next question is how is it going to be expressed. By
itself, it would be minimum expression. With modifiers, one would then
also have some type of coat pattern. However, the Lp can be inherited and
modifiers sequestered so the only phentotype would show minimum
expression. And then breed that horse, and one can get all sorts of coat
patterns. Or perhaps, none.
The early day breeders figured this out and noted that when mating flashy
animals consistently, the coat patterns tended to be few spots or none.
The public liked flash such as blankets, leopards, frosts, etc. However,
when mating to a minimally marked Appaloosas, the flash was more
consistent. This also happened when mating to QHs.
However, a peculiar thing happened. If one constantly cross-bred, less
flash was produced after 3-5 generations. So these breeders learned very
early on that one needs to breed back to flash and limit the number of
cross-breds in the lines.
This is kinda simplified, but you might get the jist of it.
Jane H. Kilberg
>In article <19991011215054...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
> schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) wrote:
>> I have a couple of comments.
>>
>> 1.) without the proof provided by bloodtyping or DNA testing, these
>> affirmations are not provable.
>>
>
>Well, no. But Mendel didn't have bloodtyping or DNA testing, yet he was
>able to observe the results of careful crossing, and predict results of
>subsequent crosses based on those observations. That's what (IMHO) is
>lacking in the breeding programs of some Appaloosa breeders. Too much
>breeding to hype and not enough investigation of pedigrees, produce,
>and inspection of the animal in question.
This is more true than you realize. There are still a number of good
breeders around who do know their genetics. And it shows in their breeding
program.
>After all, an Appaloosa without any characteristics is not an
>Appaloosa. No Lp gene. I still don't think they should be admitted to
>the registry. This can be, if not avoided, the chances minimized by
>careful consideration of not only the parents' conformation,
>performance, and temperaments but also their potential carriage of the
>Lp gene.
>
>Look at it this way: all other things being acceptable, breeding color
>(LpX) to color (LpX) (meaning characteristic, bearing at least mottled
>skin and one other characteristic) will give you at least a 50% shot at
>a colored foal, more if one or both parents are homozygous (LpLp).
>Breeding non-characteristic (lplp) to color (LpX) will give you no more
>than 50%, maybe as low as 25% if the colored parent is heterozygous.
>Breeding non-characteristic (lplp) to solid (lplp) will give you solid
>(lplp). No Lp to pass on.
>
>Non-characteristic is just another way of saying "My parents were
>heterozygous and I missed the boat".
There are three schools of thought on this issue. First are those who
believe the Appaloosa is a pedigree (bloodline) and color is a bonus or
gravy on the meat or icing on the cake. Then there are those who believe
the Appaloosa is a color breed in that both pedigree and characteristics
must be present for it to be an Appaloosa. The third school believes the
Appaloosa is characteristics; that any type horse or bloodlines can be an
Appaloosa if it has the characteristics.
The ApHC has been trying to find a middle ground in all this, but until
recently, it basically sits on the fence. The boards have agreed to foster
a combination of parentage and characteristics with limitations. Since it
is a hybrid, and that only one parent is necessary to produce
characteristics, the ApHC will continue accepting the one parent
requirement. As to characteristics, this has always been a problem with
various boards. The latest change is to only allow App X App crosses who
are N (non-characteristic) classification to make use of the CPO program.
This means that those who cross-breed to QHs, Arabs & TBs need to accept
responsibility for the increased risk factor of producing a
non-characteristic offspring.
To do that, the breeder needs to become a bit better educated in mating
selections. The new rule goes into effect with 2002 foals. So the ApHC
defines the Appaloosas as limited parentage with encouragement or
preference toward color (characteristics).