Re: Bask-bred endurance horses

[CMKSAGEHIL <CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com>]

Susan's points were well-taken, and I can vouch for several of her statements
about La Croixs, Kellogg, and the *Bask horses in general.

Let me add a few comments.

First of all, in studying pedigrees of endurance horses, one must look at
several things.  1)  One must look at pedigrees of horses that are successful.
2)  One must look at pedigrees of horses that are NOT successful.  3)  One
must determine if there are differences in frequencies of types of pedigrees
between these two groups.  4)  One must look at the frequencies of particular
types of pedigrees in the Arabian population at large, and determine whether
the successes or failures are occurring in a bigger or smaller proportion than
they do in the population.  (For example:  a pedigree type that makes up 50%
of the population but is only represented as 25% of the successes is probably
not as desirable as a pedigree type that makes up 3% of the population but
shows up as 15% of the successes!)  I tend to look at success primarily in
terms of longevity in the sport, but consider longevity that also wins or runs
competitively to be even more successful.  I look at failure as horses that
become unsound or metabolically unfit at a relatively young age and cannot
continue in the sport, even if they run "up front" when they are competing.

One must remember that because *Bask WAS bred so much and was so sought after
that it is now VERY DIFFICULT in some areas to find horses that do NOT have
*Bask breeding.  However, one must look at the WHOLE pedigree.  There are a
high number of horses that have *Bask for an ancestor, but have well over 50%
sources totally outcrossed from *Bask.  One of our all-time greats is DR
Thunder Bask--he is 62.5% CMK, and that 5/8 of his pedigree looks like an
endurance breeder's candy factory!  I once asked the previous owner of On A
High (aka Elvis--gold medal and BC winner at Flagstaff) if she knew how he was
bred--he was well over 90% CMK, but her answer was that he was double *Bask!
In my experience, the vast majority of successful *Bask horses have
SIGNIFICANT influence in their pedigrees from other sources--CMK, old
Eygytian, "Patton" Polish (such as *Witez II and others), or whatever.  Even
those that are primarily modern Polish that are successful usually have
significant contributions from modern racing lines or some such. 

At any rate, it has been my observation that the *Bask horses in endurance
have "failed" at a much higher rate than horses of many other types of
breeding, and that the primary reasons for "failure" in this line have been
back problems (long back with weak loin) and suspensory problems.  The former
can be avoided by being more careful in selecting for correct conformation
(obviously not ALL of them are built like that).  The latter is more subtle,
and shows up frequently even in horses that appear to have good legs.  I have
two theories about this--one is that the soft tissue structures simply are not
as strong as they should be, and the other is that the huge, concussive trot
that these horses are noted for simply puts far too much stress on the legs.
I have only recently begun to wonder if the back problems may be related to
the leg problems, too, and will start to look for a correlation there in the
future.

It is interesting to note that many of the race breeders who deal primarily in
modern Polish lines also steer strongly away from *Bask horses in their
programs, as they, too, have experienced soundness problems with too much
*Bask breeding.

Also, in looking at pedigrees, one must remember that the pedigree is a
prognostic tool, and is just one tool among many.  If I am looking at a
successful mature gelding that is already campaigning, doing well, staying
sound, etc., I really don't care WHAT is in his pedigree (other than in an
academic sense to add to a database), as he has obviously inherited whatever
good genes were there to offer.  In looking at a young gelding, I will look
for a pedigree where the positives outweigh the negatives--I can look at the
conformation in front of me and evaluate whether he got the right "stuff" in
that department, but the pedigree is the only indicator I have of his
metabolic capability.  (Will he eat, drink, and take care of himself?  Is he
apt to have good recoveries?  Will he be prone to higher electrolyte needs or
imbalances?  All those things are just as heritable as his shoulder angle,
length of hip, and correctness of legs.)  I will not eliminate him from
consideration if there is more good to the pedigree than bad, especially if he
physically looks like the better parts.  On the other hand, if I am evaluating
a prospect that is also to go into a breeding program, I am VERY picky about
the pedigree, as the genotype may be quite different from the phenotype, and
even if the horse performs well, I also want him or her to pass those
qualities on to future generations.

I hope this is helpful.

Heidi Smith, DVM--Sagehill Arabians (Oregon)