Introduction

For the UK Suffolk Horse in 2022, life is very different when compared to the heyday of a working horse. These were times when the Stud Books were packed to the brim with horse and mare registrations, transfers, and export details. Stallion Lists were pages long; Volume 26 published in 1922, listed 226 Suffolk stallions, singled spaced over five pages. By contrast the latest Suffolk Stud Book to hand, Volume 97 published in 2020, lists 24 stallions on less than one page. The March 2022 Licensed Suffolk Stallion list shows only 18 stallions; possibly some are in the process of being inspected for Licensing and will be passed in time to add to the 2022 List.

The the modern day Suffolk Punch Horses are no longer undertaking the role in which they excelled as agricultural workers. Today the horse ‘bred for the furrow’ is more usually bred for the saddle and the show ring.

In the UK there is an increasing trend to use the Suffolk Horse as a riding horse, rather than as a working draught horse. This shift is a response to the seriously declining demand for actual working horses and thus a need to find a new use for them. It is believed that this will lead to more Suffolk Horses being bred and sold, will help increase the numbers of this officially designed Rare & Endangered breed, leading to beneficial outcomes for their preservation and continuance.

Does changing the use, husbandry and style of the Suffolk Horse have implications for its Phenotype? Some owners and breeders are convinced it does.

Part 1 of this series of March 2022 articles looks at the work to perfect the breed, and its phenotype from 1880, through the writings and records of such people as Herman Biddell, Fred Smith, and Raymond Keer – the first three Secretaries of the Suffolk Horse Society, together with other writers through the time span 1880-2022.

It explores the viewpoint that continuing down this more recent path, is changing the Phenotype.

Phenotypes and Genotypes

The website, YourDictionary: (https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-genotype-phenotype.html) gives clear examples of genotype and phenotype and the differences defined:

“Genotype and phenotype are two fundamental terms in the science of genetics. The two terms are often used at the same time to describe the same organism, but there is a difference between genotype and phenotype:

- - - - An organism’s genotype is the set of genes in its DNA responsible for a particular trait.
        
        An organism’s phenotype is the physical expression of those genes.

“For example, two mice that look virtually identical could have different genotypes. But if they have visibly different traits – say, one has white fur and the other has black fur – then they have different phenotypes.”

From the website https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/phenotype-phenotypes-35/ Phenotype / Phenotypes

“The term “phenotype” refers to the observable physical properties of an organism; these include the organism’s appearance, development, and behaviour. An organism’s phenotype is determined by its genotype, which is the set of genes the organism carries, as well as by environmental influences upon these genes. Due to the influence of environmental factors, organisms with identical genotypes, such as identical twins, ultimately express nonidentical phenotypes because each organism encounters unique environmental influences as it develops. Examples of phenotypes include height, wing length, and hair colour. Phenotypes also include observable characteristics that can be measured in the laboratory, such as levels of hormones or blood cells.”

The National Human Genome Research Institute’s (NHGRI) definition of a Phenotype is:

‘A phenotype is an individual’s observable traits, such as height, eye colour, and blood type. The genetic contribution to the phenotype is called the genotype.’

Substitute the word “horse” for “individual”, and the NHGRI’s definition becomes more meaningful to horse owners. Many owners and breeders are familiar with the term “Phenotype”. Google the term, and up comes multiple links, the vast majority of them relating “Phenotype” to coat colour. But it is much more than coat colour and pattern.

Using the NHGRI’s definition as a base, and adding detail from www.nature.com , the term Phenotype can be expanded to include in its definition:

Learning from The Past to safeguard The Future: The Suffolk Horse 1880-2027

To date (March 2022) there have been 97 Volumes of the Suffolk Horse Stud Book from 1880.

Volume 98 is due for release in April 2022, containing entries for 2021.

Within these Stud-Books is a wealth of information on the pedigrees of all horses appearing in their pages: the owners and breeders, the Studs and where they were situated, and the prize winners at the assorted Shows.

It is surprising to realise just how small the total population was for the Suffolk (horses and mares): since 1880 -2020: 38, 972 total. It may well be a little less, since some registration numbers are missed or cancelled. In the earlier times of the first Volumes when the Prefix to names was not commonplace, some Suffolks were renamed and re-registered by the new owners.

Using the time span of 1880-1956, 36,126 were registered. This is 95% of the total 38,069 of 1880-2020. Only 5% of all Suffolk Horses registered are in the period 1957-2020.

True to Type – Herman Biddell et al

In 1880 the very first Stud Book on the Suffolk Horse was published by the then named The Suffolk Stud-Book Association. It proudly declared: The Suffolk Stud-Book, a History and Register of the County Breed of Cart Horse, from the Earliest Records to the Present Day. *

The Editor was Mr Herman Biddell. He also edited Volumes 2 and 3 before handing over the reins as Secretary to his previous Associate Secretary, Mr Fred Smith in 1886.

In Volume 3 of the SHS Stud Book, Herman Biddell wrote in his distinctive style:

“In conclusion, the Editor of the Suffolk Stud-Book takes this opportunity of thanking those who have so ably assisted him in the completion of the present Volume. Year by year, the Committee have done more and the Editor less. To the Assistant Secretary, Mr Fred Smith, of Rendlesham, has fallen the lion’s share of the MS work, and the Committee have to thank him for the exertions he has made, to induce the more careless to avail themselves of the opportunities offered for the registration of their animals.”

Volume 28, was published in 1925 with Mr Raymond Keer as Secretary and Editor. He remained Secretary of the Suffolk Horse Society until his death in 1966. As Philip Ryder-Davis (Secretary & Editor 1978 – 1999) wrote in the Preface to the Compilation Stud Book (1960-1985), ‘between Fred Smith and Raymond Kerr, their continuous service as Secretary to the Suffolk Horse Society, and Editor of the Stud Book, amounted to 80 years.’

But If one adds in the extraordinary contribution of Herman Biddell from when he began to collect the information on the Suffolk Punch lines, these three Secretaries to the Suffolk Horse Society, and Editors, dedicated themselves for more than 100 years.

Additionally their commitment to the Suffolk Horse Society also continued for long after they retired from the Secretaryship and as Editor. Both Herman Biddell and Fred Smith were made Honorary Life Governors at their retirements from the roles of Secretary and Editor. Raymond Keer, however, was still Secretary, a role he held for 42 years until his death in 1966.

Adding up ALL their years of contribution to the Suffolk Horse and the Suffolk Horse Society is almost unbelievable – 169 years.

Messrs. Biddell, Smith and Keer, together with their extended families, were farmers in Suffolk. All three were Suffolk Punch owners and breeders with their own Studs.

In his Introduction (p.23) to Volume 1, 1880, Herman Biddell says:

As a not unsuccessful breeder of Suffolk horses for six-and-twenty years¹ and in close connection with one whose success for a much longer period has been far beyond my own ², I feel that in our efforts to improve them, we, and our brother breeders are dealing with something more than the taste of the hour.

1. from 1854 2. His brother, Manfred Biddell, 1822-1894

They regularly attended as many Agricultural Shows as possible and the Royal Show with other draught horses breeds as well as Suffolks; they judged all draught horse classes. The time span of their lives covered 132 years. It is irrefutable that all three would have seen, and knew, a great many more Suffolk Punch draught horses, and, importantly, the horsesmen who worked and cared for them, than anyone alive today, or even the last six decades.

It is not known if any of these three gentlemen would have heard such terms as ‘phenotype’ and ‘genotype’. What is clear to modern day owners, breeders, and supporters of the Suffolk Horse, is that with the combined experience of breeding and immersion in the desired and required breed characteristics of the Suffolk Horse, Messrs Biddell, Smith, & Keer knew more than most in their own times how that horse, mare or young stock should look and behave to the eye of the beholder.

Equally important, they knew how it should perform as a working horse – in the furrow, or hauling a wagon. With the increasing demand for dray horses in towns, Suffolk geldings were favoured by the railway companies, carters, etc for their clean legs, strength, ability to work. The Secretaries attended the many Sales of Suffolks in the bustling sale yards of the regional towns, as well as organising for the four Society sales per year.

* All subsequent Stud Books up to and including The Compilation Stud Book, Volumes 55 – 62 covering the years 1960-1985, maintained the tradition: “The Suffolk Stud-Book, a Register of the Country Breed of Cart Horses, Collected, Compiled and Edited for The Suffolk Horse Society by……(name of the current Editor).

The Phenotype of the Suffolk Horse as described by Messrs. Biddell, Smith and Keer.

Herman Biddell – Secretary to the Suffolk Horse Association (the earlier name of the Suffolk Horse Society) 1877 – 1888, edited Volumes 1, 2 and 3

Herman Biddell continued to contribute his views in print, not only as articles in the Suffolk Society Stud Book, and through newspaper articles, and interviews, but to six editions of the book, Heavy Horses Breeds and Management, from the first edition in 1894 to the sixth edition, published in 1919 (two years after his death). His chapter was Chapter 2 and from first to last he was adamant in his view that the Suffolk Horse had arrived at the type of a draught horse which was distinct and unmistakeable.

“They were never large. Mark the result of those efforts have been directed to the attainment of more size. That is easily obtained by selecting for use out-sized stallions.

But thence come disease, roaring, and the over-topped legs; perchance a grand animal oft hand, but one which sooner or later the judge or the veterinary most surely rejects—a type, it may be added, which has done more to prejudice the breed than any other.

“The bone of the Suffolk horse looks small, but denuded of hair and skin, more is left than on many a rough-legged rival. Those who, years ago, attempted to introduce what they took to be more substance, invariably failed, for with the big bone comes what is too often mistaken for it, the thick skin, the coarse hair, and the disease which seems indigenous to the lower extremities of the larger breeds.

“Marked instances of this will occur to those who watched the efforts of the breeders who, before the Stud Book was started, tried the effect of an outside cross. Failures in the opposite direction may occasionally be traced to in-and-in breeding from one strain of the pure breed; but by careful selection of the best stallions, breeders in the county of Suffolk now send into the show yard horses with feet and legs which no unprejudiced judge can find fault with.

“No, the Suffolk horse is a short-legged, clean-boned animal, of ample size for any agricultural work in any district in England, and admirably fitted for active town work as well. He should be deep in the carcase, wide in front, square behind, with hard, short legs, close-knitted joints and devoid of all tendency to coarseness.

“Unless extremely well put together anything over 16.1 should be viewed with suspicion. If those who make trial of the breed will keep such a type in their eye, the significant signs of antiquity of origin will take care of themselves. The chesnut colour, the marked capacity of thriving on a scanty diet, and long hours in the collar will be there. And so will the docile temper, the never-ending patience at the dead pull, and the many days so remarkable in the age of the Suffolk Horse.

“Fortunately the Stud Book has saved the disappointment which the introduction of the out-sized cross has so repeatedly inflicted on the experimental breeder; but the hints here given may serve to warn those who, in starting a stud, imagine that by selecting flashy seventeen-hand specimens to breed from, they are going to produce a more powerful animal suited for town work.”

from: Chapter 2, The Suffolk Horse by Herman Biddell, Live Stock Handbooks, No. III, Heavy Horses. Breeds and Management, published by Vinton & Company, Ltd., London, 1st Edition, 1894

Fred Smith – Secretary to the Suffolk Horse Society (1886-1924) – a total of 38 years. Secretary and Editor Volumes 4 – 27

Under Fred Smith’s stewardship as Secretary and Editor, the ‘Scale of Points for Suffolk Horses’ was adopted by the Suffolk Horse Society 19^th July 1904 and first published in Volume 15, 1905. A small revision was adopted 11th November 1919 and the revised Scale of Points for Suffolk Horses first appeared in Volume 23, published in 1920. The same Scale of Points for Suffolk Horses has been printed in every volume of the Stud-Book every since. As at March 2022, that is 101 years.

Fred Smith would also have contributed material to the UK Board of Agriculture & Fisheries’ booklet: British Breeds of Live Stock first published in 1910, with the second and third editions in 1913 and 1923, to promote the export of all breeds of British livestock, including horses. In their section on The Suffolk, they relied on the information from Volume 1 of the Suffolk Horse Stud Book, and its subsequent Volumes.

“The height averages about 16 ¼ hands but varies from below 16 up to 17. The girth behind the shoulders is about 8 feet, sometimes a little more.”

There is reference to Crisp’s Horse (404) of Ufford:

“…advertised at’15 ½ hands high; light chestnut; fit to breed good stock for coach and road’; and ‘every animal of the breed now in existence traces its descent in the direct line in one unbroken chain to Crisp’s horse.’ A detailed description of a descendant of this horse varies little from the Suffolk horse of to-day – the short legs, the round carcass, the longevity with vitality are still the well-known characteristics of the Suffolk Horse.”

And go on to describe The Suffolk’s advantages over other draught horse breeds:

“The Suffolk is also notable for the power of doing well on little food, working long hours without a meal, and of continuing to work to a great age.

“….. Suffolks in the Eastern Counties lie out in yards all through the winter, the only shelter provided being an open shed, and they are only brought into the stables to be baited and harnessed. They keep in excellent condition through the most severe weather and look almost as well in the coat as other breeds kept in stables.”

Fred Smith was notable for the care he took in managing the exports of Suffolk Horses to America and Canada, Australia, South American, South Africa, and also to countries in Europe. He welcomed visitors from overseas, and made overseas visits himself. He encouraged the formation of new studs, and kept meticulous records.

He was concerned, however, about the numbers of Suffolk Horses exported. Fred Smith first voiced this concern in Volume 14 (1904):

“19 Suffolks exported in 1902 with 50 exported 1903… If the average of entries for the two years is taken it will be found that we exporting no less than 22 per cent of all animals registered; this, it is believed, is unsurpassed by any pure-breed Society in the world, and it is a matter for earnest consideration if it would not be to the advantage of home breeds to retain all females for breeding purposes. It will be found that of the animals exported, United States and Canada take the larger portion, whilst the others are distributed to Australia, South Africa, South American, New Zealand and Mexico.”

In 1925 Fred Smith published a 23-page report titled The Suffolk Horse in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 86. This was made available as a booklet. Within its pages is discussion of the prepotency of the Suffolk Horse over:

“…. instances of the infusion of strange blood, but the remarkable point is that although the experiment may prosper for a period, ultimately the stock disappears and the old breed is left to “carry on.”

“Hence it is that the strain running through all the Suffolk Horses of the present day in direct male line is either the Wedgewood or the Eclipse and under a careful scrutiny this line would be found intermixed to a prodigious degree in all the studs now in existence. (added emphasis by suffolkpunchaustralia.com)

There’s a note of familiar warning from Fred Smith in 1925, of the risk of too close breeding, and of the choice of Elite Sires – the Champions of the time.

Recording the Statistics of Wedgewood 1749 and Eclipse 2010

“Considering the prominent position these two stallions hold, a brief authentic description may be welcome.”

Throughout their writings, both Herman Biddell and Fred Smith were conscious of passing down to future generations, their understanding of what is now referred to as The Characteristics of the Breed of Suffolk Horses.

“Although there may be a certain amount of difficulty in arriving at a correct description of an animal, such as would give breeders in generations to come a comparative idea and a reliable criterion of present-day animals, a record of weight and measurements of prize-winning animals cannot fail to be of interest.

“Fortunately, the Council of the Suffolk Horse Society came to the same conclusion and appointed officials in 1891 for the purpose of recording the authentic weights and measurements of the first and second prizewinners at the Suffolk County Show, held at Ipswich.” from pp.8 – 10, The Suffolk Horse, 1925

“…..If breeders will but bear in mind the old princely type, having moderate-sized feed of good quality, and short legs with clean joints, devoid of all tendency to coarseness, possessing a deep well-ribbed-up carcass, with width behind as well as in front, and standing about 16 ½ h.h., there will be little to fear from outside competition where’er it may come in the shape of horseflesh or mechanical power. It appears to be human to go after strange gods and some are apt to be inclined to sacrifice everything in the endeavour to obtain greater size.

“Is it not universally admitted to all horse-breeding authorities that it is much more difficult to breed a big, good animal than a small good one? And the latter is much more likely to be free from unsoundness. Why then strive for an animal 17 h. h. or over with the chance of it being cast in the veterinary examination, especially in the present days when the steam wagon is supplanting the heavier horse for long distances on the road, which is becoming more and more difficult for horse traffic?

“If the Suffolk Horse is bred on the lines indicated he will be found capable of exerting the old endurance at the dead pull, will be blessed with a docile temperament and marked capacity for thriving on short rations, while no day will be too long at the collar.

“With such an animal there is no fear of there not being a place for the Suffolk amongst the numerous vicissitudes of this workaday world. Competition must, no doubt, become more acute in the direction of mechanical traction, but the Suffolk Punch will still be an animal desirable and use to man”

Fred Smith. P.23, The Suffolk Horse (Author’s Reprint, and booklet) 1925

Looking at the not-very-good images of these two Prize Winning Champions, it’s hard for the average viewer to correlate those areas of the draught equine body with the areas given in Table 2.0.

Figure 3.2 below is reproduced, with thanks, from a modern day American publication: Draft Horse Handbook.

Raymond Keer – Secretary to the Suffolk Horse Society (1924-1966) – a total of 42 years.

In many ways, Raymond Keer had the hardest row to hoe. The zenith of the agricultural horse in Great Britain was reached in 1911, with totals of 1,087,000 animals for England, Wales, and Scotland. After that, although ‘agricultural horses’ were in apparent abundance the steadily irreversible decline, was to be permanent. Delayed by two World Wars, and the Great Depression it was not until almost five decades later, that mechanical traction ultimately triumphed over the horse drawn.

It was, however, a bitter-sweet stewardship, and certainly no sinecure. In the period 1924-1956 Raymond Keer processed more Registrations than the first two Secretaries and Editors combined: 52% to 48%.

Figure 4.1 below is derived from Table 70 p.129, Horses for Agricultural Use (including Mares kept for Breeding) in Great Britain 1870-1966 in A Century of Agricultural Statistics by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland.

It was only in retrospect that 1911 was seen to be the zenith of the Agricultural Horse in Great Britain. During Raymond Keer’s 42-year tenure as Secretary and Editor, the shrinking population of Suffolk Horses in East Anglia was not so dramatically obvious. Philip Ryder-Davies sums up 1925-1966 for Raymond Keer :

“For 40 years Mr Keer annually judged Suffolk Horse turnouts at the London Cart-Horse Parades, and he saw the breed at the height of its popularity when the Ipswich 2-day Sales attracted 400 horses, and he saw it at its lowest ebb.” The Compilation Stud-Book 1960-1985, p.9

Raymond Keer detailed in Volume 41, published in 1938:

Suffolk Horses at the four sales held under the auspices of the Society in 1937, and Ipswich and Norwich, sold to the value of £24,366 : 1 : 6, the 97 foals sold in the Ipswich Autumn sale averaged £28 : 1: 0. (equivalent to approximately £1,234,448.71, for total monies at the four sales, and approximately £1,421.09 per foal).

There were almost 800 registrations in 1940, with six- and one-half pages of single-spaced Licensed Stallions.

Then came the devastating plunge in numbers of horses of the 1950s and 1960s.

It was not only the agricultural horses in decline. Post WW2 the big estates were hit hard with a variety of taxes, as well as increasing taxation. This in part contributed to the decline in total agricultural workers, whose figures had been bolstered by the Women’s Land Army and the use of Prisoners of War during WW2. Older horsemen some of whom had stayed on throughout the war years, finally retired.

The decline in agricultural workers was also increased by fewer younger men taking up employment as horsemen. To paraphrase Australian writer K.M. Dallas in his 1968 book, Horse Power,¹ young and returning veterans from WW2, preferred to insert an ignition key in a tractor, rather than rising hours earlier to feed, groom and harness horses¹. Men who had acquired mechanical skills in the Forces preferred a slightly shorter working day than that of 48.1/4 basic hours at a rate of 1s. 6d. per hour.³ Many chose to seek work in industry or manufacturing away from rural communities.

1. Dallas, K. M (1968). Horse power. Richmond, Devonport, Tasmania

2.. “The horseman was the earliest riser on the farm. He got up at 4.00 a.m.; took a bite of bread and cheese and hurried to the stables to feed the horses. For between the time when the horses had their first bait (or meal) and their turning out to plough at 6.30am two hours must elapse. This was an unalterable rule in Suffolk; and to give the Suffolk breed of horse a shorter time than this for his morning bait, was to treat him less than well, since had nothing more to eat until he returned to the stable at 2.30 in the afternoon. It was essential, therefore, that the horse should have a good morning meal and plenty of time in which to digest it. The horseman kept the above hours throughout the spring and summer months: during the other half of the year (October to April) he turned out to plough half an hour later – 7 a.m. instead of 6.30.”

from: The Horseman’s Day, in The Horse in the Furrow, George Ewart Evans, Faber & Faber, 1960

3. from Table 27: Estimated annual average minimum & basic hours of ordinary adult male agricultural workers: England & Wales A Century of Agricultural Statistics, Great Britain 1866-1966. Ministry of Agriculture Fishers & Food. Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland.

The 1957 Stud-Book, Volume 53, was a slender shadow of those of the 1930s, and The Preface carries a sadly sombre tone:

“The Registration of Stallions and Mares herein recorded shows a decrease when comparison is made with numbers published in recent Volumes and this decrease is unfortunately larger than had been anticipated taking into account the extent of the Society’s financial aid during these two years (1955 and 1956) towards the cost of breeding and rearing Foals.

“It is not surprising that some Owners should be backward in registering their Colt Foals, for many would be in all probability come to the market as Geldings, but as the Society is anxious that all foals should be entered, it has been decided to continue to offer the sum of five pounds to Members, for each Colt or Filly Foal that they breed and enter in the Stud Book during the years 1957 and 1958.

“The Registration Fees to Members are the same now as they were thirty-five years ago – Filly Foals, 10/- Colt Foals, 20/-.”

The reductions in foal registration costs were the equivalent to £13.35 per Filly Foal, and £26.70 per Colt Foal. The subsidy of £5.0 was the equivalent of £133.50 in 2022. Such subsidies though welcome, did not slow the rate of decrease.

Figure 4.3 outlines the decrease in numbers of agricultural workers, the decline in use of the working horse, and the steady increase and dominance of the tractor in the post war years.

What did decimation mean for the UK Suffolk Horse?

The Gene Pool for the Suffolk Horse in Great Britain also decimated

As the numbers dwindled, so did the gene pool. The very last List of Pedigree Suffolk Stallions, licensed under the Horse Breeding Act of 1918 and 1948, for the period 1st November 1951, to 31st October 1952 was published in V0lume 51, 1953. There were only 11 Suffolk Stallions on the List. One easily recognisable name leaps off the page: that of Springfield Commander 8222. In NASHA’S e-Stud Book, he is credited with 43 offspring. Foaled in 1949, Licensed in November 1951, his first foal appears to be born in 1955, and his last in 1963. Total foals in that 8-year period – 43. The NASHA e-Stud Book gives his descendants as ‘5000 animals in 12 generations” and has the note: ‘The maximum number of animals allowed was reached, there may be more progeny related to this animal“.

2. A Change in the Use of the Suffolk Horse

From being a working horse in the furrow, throughout 1950s the demand was for geldings, to be exhibited in teams of 4, 6 and 8. These activities bought the Suffolks before a wider public who delighted in the action and the spectacular nature of a woman driver handling these teams of big horses as did Jennie Caldwell and Cheryl Clark. From the rural landscape to a cityscape, from the quietness of a rural scene to the hustle and bustle of a densely populated town, yes this was different. Two major atttributes remained the same: the horses were still harnessed and driven – “the push was the pull”. And the people who drove them were consummate horsemen and horsewomen, such as Roger and Cheryl Clark who also used their horses to work their farm and who trained the horses of others. They, like the horsemen of the previous century, really knew their horses.

3. A change in the Husbandry of the Suffolk Horse

Now instead of a herd of Suffolks, and the roofed straw filled yards in winter, it was a loose box or stable. It was travelling in big pantechnicons along with exhibition harness and others in the team.

Is the Phenotype of the UK Suffolk Horse Changing?

It appears so. The 2021 Stallion List issued in March 2021, detailed 22 Stallions.

Height is increasing as well as bone measurement at a young age.

For 104 years ‘Height” in the Suffolk Horse, is only mentioned to reiterate the words of Herman Biddell:

“… anything over 16.1 should be viewed with suspicion”;

and of Fred Smith

“It is not universally admitted to all horse-breeding authorities that it is much more difficult to breed a big, good animal than a small one?… When then strive for an animal 17 hh or over…”

Since December 2012 – March 2021 The UK Suffolk Horse Society , makes no mention of measurement of cannon bone, only saying : “… short cannon bones.” “Good flat bone with strength below the knee and hock ” (2012 & 2021).

There is, however, a variation between 2012 and 2021 – only NINE years, viz:

December 2012: “Height – Ideal height at maturity is between 15 ¾ hh and 17 hands”

March 2021: “Height range at maturity is between 15 ¾ hh and 17 hands. Note: There are instances of individual animals exceeding 17 hh.”

The questions needs to be asked:

Does the Characteristics of the Suffolk Horse Breed need to be amended on the basis of 11 stallions in the Licensed Stallion List, who, by the way, would not meet Messrs Biddell, Smith and Keer’s criteria for a Suffolk Horse. These gentlemen with a combined ‘experience of 169 years experience of Suffolk Horses and their management (see Table 1.0, this article) compared to those on the SHS Council nowadays?

Does this mean that mares are also exceeding their previous expected maximum heights?

Who makes such decisions on behalf of the Members of the UK Suffolk Horse Society?

A More Detailed Look at the Licensed Stallions List of 22 Stallions for 2021

Just a reminder: As used in the measurement of height in a horse, a hand = 4 inches, Two hands (2 h.h.) is equal to 8 inches. Consider this when reading Table 3.2; the difference between a mare of 15.2 hh and a stallion of 17 .2h.h is that the latter is 8 inches taller than the former.

Height

1. 1. 36.32% of the Stallions conform to the ‘standard’ maximum of 16.1 hh but six of the eight stallions are beginning to age.

2. 50% of the Licensed Stallions are between 16.3 and 18.0 hh. Of these five of the eleven still have the potential to increase in height as they are young: one 3-year-old, and four 5-year-olds.

Bone Measurement

1. There are no bone measurements for 5 stallions in the 2021 Stallion List.

1. Assuming bone dimensions have been correctly measured, there are variations in size of bone to height and age. Of concern is age to bone size with 45% of the Listed Stallions being in the age group of 3 – 6 years, with the potential to increase in height as well as bone size. (But note that one 11-year-old 16.1 hh stallion has a bone measurement of 9.5 inches. Again, this measurement might be misaligned. If it is not, it is troubling).

3. 18.16% of the 16.3 -18 hh group, have bone measurements at in the range of 11.5 -12.5 inches.

- - - - 1/4 at 16.3hh
        
        4/22 were 16.3 hh but only one of them had the bone measure listed at over 11 inches
        
        3/4 had no bone measurement listed
        
        3/4 were 11 years and over with 1/4 at 5 years the potential to increase in height.
        
        2/22 were 17.0 hh, 1/22 17.1 hh, 2/22 17.2 hh, and 2/22 18.00 hh
        
        1/7 had bone measurement of 11 inches , 1/7 had bone measure of 11 ½ inches, both at only five years so potentially could increase
        
        1/7 had bone measurement of 12.0 inches but at 12 years old unlikely to develop further
        
        3/7 had bone measurement of 12.1/2 inches, of which one at age 16 years unlike to develop further, but one at only three years has the potential to develop further in both height and bone.

But is such a tiny sample size valid?

It’s all there is, unfortunately- apart from the frozen semen stocks. There is the possibility that a few more stallions are yet to go through the Licensing procedure and may be available for 2022, but these are young stallions, perhaps three – four years of age. At 7 years of age, they may look different from what they do now.

What about the Breed Standard for the UK Suffolk Horse?

Surprisingly, there was no definitive Breed Standard for the Suffolk Horse. There is, however, a ‘Scale of Points for Suffolk Horses’ which was first approved by the UK SHS Council in July 1904, and published in Volume 15, 1906. . For each section described, points were awarded, out of a total of a potential 100 points and to be used to judge the Suffolk Horse. This Scale of Points lasted for 15 years, until November 1919 when some clarifications to the various sections were made: the separation sections on Feet and Legs sections were combined with a new mention of Joints

The Scale of Points Suffolk Horses lasted from November 1919 to December 2012 – some 93 years, when it was joined by Characteristics of The Suffolk Breed of Heavy Horse in Volume 90, 2013 of the Suffolk Horse Society, published in 2014. It seems this later addition may have been required to comply with the then Commission Decision 96/78/EC ‘laying down the criteria for the entry of animals into equine stud books with the objective of harmonising stud books in European Union countries to enhance the trade in pedigree animals.”

(See: Suffolk Horse Society, Volume 90, 2013, Preface, p.ii, published 2014)

(and: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31996D0078)

A review of the article published September 2017 on this website, The Clock is ticking … … … Part 2 is a useful reminder of the Suffolk Horse Society’s approach.

(https://suffolkpunchaustralia.com/clock-ticking-part-2/)

“Objective: To maintain the purity of the breed known as the Suffolk Horse and to promote the breeding of the same. The Suffolk breed of heavy horse is a livestock animal indigenous to the United Kingdom that has been developed and refined over many generations through careful selection to possess a set of specific inherited characteristics. It is recognised as a critical category rare breed by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust acting as an independent authority basing its definition on published conservation criteria. The continuity and prevention of extinction of the Suffolk as a breed conforms to the first principle of public benefit, that the benefit must be identifiable, because not only is the Suffolk a manifestation of a rural cultural heritage but also it constitutes a genetic reservoir and as such is included in the DEFRA conservation strategy for UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources.”

See the Section: The Purity of the Breed

And more generally – see: Breed – what it actually means in this same article.

“Simply defined, a breed can be taken to mean a specific group of animals that, through selection and breeding, have similar characteristics (including for example appearance and behaviour) that are passed on to their offspring and which distinguish them from other animals of the same species.”

In other words – the Phenotype.

But there is a catch:

“Despite the centrality of the idea of “breeds” to animal husbandry and agriculture, no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists.

“A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.

“When bred together, individuals of the same breed pass on these predictable traits to their offspring, and this ability – known as “breeding true” – is a requirement for a breed.”

See: an updated version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

Also, from the Wikipedia page on “Purebred”

“Purebreds are “cultivated varieties” of an animal species achieved through the process of selective breeding. When the lineage of a purebred animal is recorded, that animal is said to be “pedigreed“. Purebreds breed true-to-type which means the progeny of like-to-like purebred parents will carry the same phenotype, or observable characteristics of the parent

And from the same Wikipedia page:

“True breeding

In the world of selective animal breeding, to “breed true” means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like; that is, that the progeny of any two individuals of the same breed will show fairly consistent, replicable and predictable characteristics, or traits with sufficiently high heritability.^[1]

The same entry goes on to say:

“However, breeding from too small a gene pool, especially direct inbreeding, can lead to the passing on of undesirable characteristics or even a collapse of a breed population due to inbreeding depression. Therefore, there is a question, and often heated controversy, as to when or if a breed may need to allow “outside” stock in for the purpose of improving the overall health and vigour of the breed.

“Because pure breeding creates a limited gene pool, purebred animal breeds are also susceptible to a wide range of congenital health problems. This problem is especially prevalent in competitive dog breeding and dog show circles due to the singular emphasis on aesthetics rather than health or function. Such problems also occur within certain segments of the horse industry for similar reasons. The problem is further compounded when breeders practice inbreeding. The opposite effect to that of the restricted gene pool caused by pure-breeding is known as hybrid vigour, which generally results in healthier animals.^”

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred

A Horse of a Different Hue: The Suffolk Horse 1880-2022 Part 1, March 2022