This message is from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 13:25:09 -0800 Jean Ernest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have a question for Brian J: how much does early nutrition affect the ultimate height in a FJord? ..... What I am asking, is there an increase in size/ height in North America due to better nutrition perhaps, rather than selecting for taller fjords?> Jean, I have wondered the same thing. I really think the answer is some of both. The conventional wisdom when I went through vet school was that better nutrition does not change mature size. Except for cases of severe deprivation, a horse is going to reach the size he/she was genetically programmed to reach. Good nutrition can speed it up. Poor nutrition can slow it down. But eventually the pre-programmed size will be reached. Prolonged starvation is an exception to this as it can permanently stunt bone growth. I will say, however, I have wondered at times if this conventional wisdom is always true. I hear enough examples like you gave about Bjorken, Jean, of horses getting tall, that it makes me wonder. Similarly, the Quarter Horses and Paints that we see around here that are pushed so hard for the show ring are getting absolutely huge before they are even two years old! Are we finally learning how to let them reach their full genetic potential as Dr. White mentioned? Concerning the effects of better nutrition over a period of years, this does seem to change mature size of a breed of animals. Or take people for example. The average height in the US is quite a few inches taller than it was just 100 years ago. Although I don't know that it has ever been proven, the best explanation out there is a more widely available and better-balanced diet. Is our nutrition here better than Norway though? I'm sure we have more feeds and hays to choose from. But that doesn't necessarily mean the nutrition in the US is better. We used to live at 6200 feet in the mountains of Colorado, and I have rarely seen better hay than the high altitude hay that was grown there. I am willing to bet they can grow some pretty darn nice hay in the mountains of Norway. Was it Anneli that told us that many people in Sweden and other parts of Europe make and feed haylage, which is even higher in protein and energy than dry hay? Also, they have oats and corn just like we do, and I'm sure there are commercial horse feeds to choose from which are probably just as good as ours. I guess it is probably safe to say that most Fjords' feeds in the US today are more balanced than what most Fjords' diets USED TO BE in Norway. I feel safe saying that because most horses' diets in the US today are better balanced than they used to be in the US also. So perhaps there has been a gradual change over the years due to an improvement in diet. Finally, to me, there is no question that some people/breeders in North America have made a concious effort to increase the size of Fjords. And that change can be made fairly quickly really, over just a few generations with selective breeding. I believe there are several reasons that they generally do not have the larger Fjords in Norway like we have in the US. First, they've already been there and done that, and they didn't like the results. Granted, it was by adding Dolehest blood, so it was changing a little more than just size. But as Steve McIlree straightened me out on, there used to be a lot of Dole Horse blood in Fjords, and the result was a bigger Fjord. The Norwegians purposely bred them back down to what we think of as more the traditional size, which was around 14 hands. Secondly, there is a certain size of animal that best fits a certain environment. There are many factors that play into this, among them availability of food, relative amount of heat loss due to body size, ability to handle difficult terrain, etc. The traditional size of the Fjord was what best fit their environment. Even if they can grow good hay in Norway, the amount they can grow is limited (short growing season, mountainous terrain), so they probably had just enough hay (or haylage) to feed the cows and relatively small horses, not some big draft horses. Also, in a cold climate like much of Norway has, conserving heat is important. A bigger animal has more surface area per unit mass than a smaller animal does, and loses heat easier when it's cold. Finally, smaller animals are, in general, more nimble on difficult terrain than larger ones. This is why elephants are plains dwellers and don't usually vacation in the mountains. All of this means that the more traditional sized Fjords just did better, all things considered, than the larger ones. We here in this country, though, are not necessarily worried about what size is best suited for our area. Many of us are looking for a Fjord with certain characteristics. We've heard it here on the List in the last few days; Some want a larger Fjord because they think they will feel more comfortable riding one. Some want a taller Fjord because they think that style will be better able to compete in dressage. Think about it; Even if you are a person that likes the traditional size of Fjords, don't you tend to admire a big, strong colt more than just an average one? There is something about us that admires bigger and stronger. So, Jean, I believe it's both a change in nutrition and selective breeding that have led to some taller/larger Fjords in North America. It's hard to say for sure which has had more of an influence, but I believe it's been the selective breeding. Brian Jacobsen, DVM Norwegian Fjordhest Ranch Salisbury, North Carolina
