In April 2006 the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association changed the way it identifies and records the color of Tennessee Walking Horses. This is not just an update of the old system. It is a new system based on the science of equine color genetics. This is the culmination of a year-long effort by a committee of the TWHBEA Breeders’ division in consultation with internationally recognized scientists specializing in the study of equine color genetics. These expert consultants include: Dr. Melba Ketchum, Shelterwood Lab; Dr. Kathryn Graves and Dr. Timoney at the University of Kentucky; and Dr. Philip Sponenberg.

Understanding a few basic facts about the inheritance of color will help you understand the new system.

Horse color is purely genetic. Seasonal and weather conditions may cause some colors to fade or bleach. It is possible to dye or bleach a horse’s hair but the inherited color returns when the horse grows a new coat with the change of seasons. Color is the simplest, least important aspect of equine genetics, yet it is obvious and unaffected by training or management. This makes color the easiest part of equine genetics to research and understand.

Like all mammals, each horse inherits half of its genes from its father and the other half of its genes from its mother. Thus a horse has only 50% of the genes of each parent. The 50% of each parents’ genes that the foal did not inherit are omitted, dropped, discarded, deleted, lost.

There is no "undo" button in genetics and no recycling of the discard bin. The 50% of the parents’ genes that the foal did not inherit are gone. They no longer exist in the genetics of that particular foal. However, every foal from the same parents inherits a different 50% of the genes of each parent. Thus each foal is unique and will have some genes that its full siblings do not have. This is how selective breeding can be used to eliminate genetic defects. This same fact can be very frustrating when the genes controlling traits breeders want are lost.

The color genotype of the parents, and only the biological parents, dictates what color a foal will be. Tracing a horse’s color ancestry can be interesting and may alert us to suspicious pedigrees, but only if the researcher keeps in mind that the color of each generation is determined by the color genotype of that individual’s parents. It is the parents’ color genotype, not their phenotype, that the foal’s color is derived from. What’s the difference?

The color genotype is all of the color genes, dilutions, modifiers and patterns each horse inherits from its own parents.

The color phenotype is what the horse itself is wearing – the color we perceive the horse to be when we look at it.

A few horses have such a simple color genotype they wear all the color genes they have, but we can’t tell that by looking at them because other horses wear the same color derived from a more complex genotype. Most horses have color genes that they inherited from their parents but are not wearing themselves because color, patterns, dilutes and modifiers interact with each other and co-exist in ways the scientists do not yet fully understand. However, no matter what color a horse is, it will never be a color that does not exist in the genotype of its own biological parents. This is how color tattles on fraudulent pedigrees.

The scientists who have been studying horse colors have concluded that there are only two color genes: Black and red. Every horse is basically one of these colors, or both. All other horse colors are the result of: diluting black, diluting red, modifying black, modifying red, overlaying black with a pattern, overlaying red with a pattern, or combining dilutes, modifiers and/or patterns on top of red and/or black.

Black is designated ‘E’ in genetic notation. Black is dominant over red so horses that inherit only one black gene from either parent will be black as their base color. A black horse may inherit and carry a red gene. This does not change the horse’s appearance but it may produce red foals when bred to another horse with at least one red gene. Horses that inherit two black genes are homozygous for black, meaning all of their foals will inherit at least one black gene. Homozygous blacks and all of their foals have black as their base color. Genetic color testing is the surest way to identify homozygous black.

Red is designated ‘e’ in genetic notation. Red is recessive to black. All chestnut and sorrel horses are homozygous red, meaning they inherit two red genes, one from each parent. Chestnut and sorrel horses are wearing the genotype of their base color. Chestnut and sorrel horses have no black genes so they always give all of their foals one red gene. Mating chestnut to chestnut, chestnut to sorrel, or sorrel to sorrel always produces a base color of chestnut or sorrel. Chestnut and sorrel horses may have the agouti gene that creates bay, but because they have no black the agouti is invisible. A chestnut/sorrel horse carrying a concealed agouti gene may produce bay or brown when bred to a horse with a black gene.

Bay is the result of the agouti gene, which is designated ‘A’ in genetic notation. Agouti restricts black to the lower legs, mane, tail, forelock, and tips of the ears and nostrils. Agouti turns the neck and body red. Agouti is dominant, so only one agouti gene is needed to turn a black base into bay or brown.

TWHBEA has opted to classify bay as a third color along with black and chestnut/sorrel to simplify identification of the dilute colors. TWHBEA defines brown as a category of bay, thus defining a brown TWH as having black lower legs, mane and tail.

The new TWHBEA color brochure treats dilution genes in two different ways. It lists dun and silver as dilutions. The colors created by the cream and champagne dilution genes are listed as colors under the black, bay and chestnut/sorrel categories.

The cream dilution gene is genetically dominant. One parent must have at least one cream gene. Cream acts on red so chestnut/sorrel and bay horses who have cream will be wearing a cream dilute color. One cream gene dilutes the hair with minimal affect on skin and eye color. Two cream genes turn the skin pink; the eyes blue, and turn the red hair creamy-white. Black hides one cream gene, but a black with two cream genes will be wearing cream.

The champagne dilution gene acts on skin, eyes and hair of both red and black horses creating mottled skin and hazel or greenish eyes along with the diluted hair color. Champagne is genetically dominant so at least one parent is champagne. If the horse has a champagne gene it will be wearing it. If the horse is not wearing champagne it has no champagne genes, though combining champagne with cream may result in a pale color that can be identified only by genetic testing.

Dun acts on both black and red. Dun lightens the coat but has minimal affect on skin and eye color. The distinctive trait of dun is a dorsal stripe and zebra stripes or bars on the legs near the elbows and stifles. Dun is dominant so a dun horse must have a dun parent and will be wearing dun. If the horse is not wearing dun it does not have the dun gene.

The silver dilute acts on black, creating a silvery or flaxen mane and tail with a "chocolate" body color. When silver combines with agouti the black points become chocolate, making a silver bay appear chestnut. Silver is dominant so all silver horses have at least one silver parent. Red hides silver.

Roan modifies any color. A roan has a mix of white and colored hairs on the neck, body and upper legs. The head, lower legs, mane and tail of a roan are a solid color with few or no white markings. Roan is dominant so the horse that has one roan gene will be wearing it and must have a roan parent. It has long been thought that a horse that inherits two roan genes is dead. This assertion has been disputed in recent years but the scientific study of homozygous roans is incomplete. Roan can combine with other patterns.

Grey is a dominant modifier that, over time, turns every other color to white. Thus gray eventually conceals all other colors, patterns and modifiers. This is why gray horses are banned from most color registries. If the horse inherits one gray gene it will be wearing it by the time it is 10 years old, if not sooner. A horse may inherit two gray genes, guaranteeing that all of its offspring will be gray, but this has no affect on the horse’s appearance. A gray horse must have one gray parent.

Tobiano, Sabino, overo, tovero, and tobiano/sabino are white patterns overlaid on red, black and any dilute or modifier.

Tobiano is dominant so the horse must have a tobiano parent. All horses that have a tobiano gene are wearing it. Two tobiano genes do not change the appearance but guarantee that all foals of that horse will be tobiano. Tobiano can combine with both sabino and overo. Tobiano may be concealed by homozygous cream, cream plus champagne, and gray. There is a genetic test for tobiano.

Ongoing scientific research has overturned much of what we thought we knew about the genetics of the overo pattern. Tests for overo are being developed.

Sabino is a dominant master gene which interacts with all other color genes in a variety of ways. Sabino can co-exist with all other colors, dilutes, modifiers and patterns. If the horse has sabino it is probably wearing it, but it may not be obvious. In it’s minimal form sabino puts a few white markings on any other color. A maximal sabino looks white. Sabino may look like overo with roaning added. Sabino is not the same thing as roan but when sabino combines with roan it increases the roaning while minimizing sabino. Sabino is not a dilute but it may lighten red to pink or lighten black to dark brown, slate grey or blue, with or without roaning. There is a genetic test for sabino.

White does exist as a separate color but is so rare that a TWH foal born white should be genetically tested to be sure it is not a maximal sabino or dilute.

TWHBEA’s new color brochure and Elsie Darrah’s article explaining a four-step process for correctly identifying a horse’s color are on TWHBEA’s web site: www.twhbea.com. You do not have to be a TWHBEA member to download and print the PDF file of the new color brochure. You will need Adobe Acrobat program and a color printer. The brochure’s text may be hard to read if your computer has reduced it to fit printer margins on 8 ½ " x 11" paper.

The Tennessee Walking Horse world has been arguing over methods of gait modification for 60 years.  On one side we have those who insist that pads, weighted shoes, action devices, head sets and extreme bits are acceptable ways to make the horses perform their “best.”  On the other side we have those who insist on snaffle bits and bare feet, changing their horses’ gaits through physical gymnastics to achieve the “best” performance.

At first glance these appear to be totally different philosophies.  But are they?  Isn’t using natural training and gymnastics to change the gait merely a more respectable side of the same coin?  Both methods assume that it is necessary and desirable to change the horse’s inherited movement.

This fight over method is a red herring that diverts us from a more fundamental question that every gaited horse owner continually answers about every gaited horse we own.

Is it ethical to modify a horse’s gait at all?

If you’re reading this magazine you’ve probably already decided that the extreme shoeing, weights and gimmicks method of gait modification is not for you.  The pros and cons of the paraphernalia have been argued and widely publicized for 25 years or more so we won’t spend any ink on it here.

Instead we’ll look in the mirror and ask questions you may never have considered.  Could natural horsemanship, snaffle bit, gymnasticizing of a barefoot horse ever be unethical?

Let’s look at the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of words commonly applied to these alternative methods of training Tennessee Walking Horses.

Natural – Not acquired, inherent.  In biology - Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned.  Not altered, treated or disguised.

Inherent – existing as an essential constituent characteristic; intrinsic.

Essential – basic or indispensable, necessary.

Intrinisic – of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.

Innate – possessed at birth; inborn; possessed as an essential characteristic, inherent.

Acquired character – in biology - a nonhereditary change of function or structure in a plant or animal made in response to the environment.

Modification – in biology - Any of the changes in an organism caused by environment or activity and not genetically transmissible to offspring.

Artificial – made by human beings; produced rather than natural.

Breed – a group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propogation.

There it is in black and white plain, standard English.  Natural gaits are what the horse inherited and does at birth before any training, conditioning or equipment has been applied.

Note that the definitions of natural and acquired character say nothing about how the change was accomplished, just that something that is acquired is not natural.  Therefore a gait that is developed through conditioning or gymnasticizing of the horse is not a natural gait.  It is an acquired characteristic that is very specifically excluded from the basic definition of the word natural.  According to the dictionary the entire concept of “natural gait modification” is an oxymoron.

An acquired characteristic, by definition, is not genetically transmissible.   When a natural Pacing horse, Racking Horse, Fox trotter, or Trotting horse is trained and conditioned to do a running walk that training cannot be genetically transmitted to the offspring.  They will inherit the genetic gait of the parents, not what the parents were taught and conditioned to do.  Thus each new generation has to have its gait changed.

Under this system there is no genetic progress in improving the consistency or quality of the running walk because there is no need for an inherited running walk.  In fact, the past 50 years of TWH history demonstrate that habitual gait modification selects AGAINST a truly natural running walk!  And this is where ethics comes into it.

According to normal English usage the Walking Horse name promises and implies that the running walk is the primary distinctive inherited characteristic of all the horses of that breed.  However, if a certificate of registration is issued to a horse that is not a natural running walker the certificate is mis-identifying the horse.  Can such a mis-identification be good, right, or ethical?

Some people reason that because the running walk is the defining characteristic of the breed every registered Tennessee Walking Horse must be made to running walk even if the horse naturally prefers some other gait(s).   This is backwards.

 The purpose of a breed registry is to record the identity of the individuals that have inherited the distinctive traits of the breed.  The certificate does not and cannot create natural traits.

 It has been asserted that horses cannot lie.  But a horse that has acquired a gait to comply with a registry certificate has been compelled to create a false identity.  This is disrespectful of the true nature of the horse.

Is it ethical to establish and maintain a false identity?

Is it ethical to create a false identity for another living being?

Is it ethical to disregard or overrule the horse’s true nature?

Other people justify gait modification with the assertion that it is “good for the horse.”  The reasoning is that because some gaited horses develop arthritis in their back the gait they were doing was “bad” for the horse.  This line of reasoning is most commonly applied to the pace and rack.  There are several flaws with this:  It ignores the possibility that when pace or rack are truly natural gaits the horse will be able to do them without damaging its spine.  It ignores the possibility that other genetic or management factors that might cause arthritis.  It also presumes that arthritic changes attributed to the ventroflexion are some how worse for the horse than the arthritic changes attributed to collection.

If we assume that the concerns about spinal damage are correct then it stands to reason that the horse should never be allowed to do gaits that might use the “bad” body position.  If this is true then we should never attempt to teach a trotty horse to do a four-beat gait because if the horse can gait at all it will do so only in the “bad” body position.

If we must protect horse from their own inherited movement then we must not only teach Pacing horses to running walk, we must also teach natural Running Walkers to foxtrot, and teach natural Fox trotters to trot.   How often do people convert a gaited horse’s gait to the trot?

Is it ethical to be more concerned about a pacing horses’ back than a trotting horse’s back just because the gait that results from “protecting” a Pacer’s back is more comfortable for the rider than the gait the result from “protecting” a Trotter’s back?

If the horse’s welfare is truly the motive then the rider’s comfort or preference should not influence whether we modify gait, or how much we modify it.

If you don’t like the gait the horse inherited wouldn’t it be easier and more honest to acquire a horse that inherited a preference for the gait you want?

For that matter, how can a natural gait be bad for the horse?

If you believe in pure random chance evolution then survival of the fittest eliminated horses with self-destructive movement long  before  humans ever thought of riding or training horses.

If you believe in intelligent design then asserting that a natural gait is bad for the horse is an insult to the anonymous intelligent designer.

If you believe the Bible then asserting that inherited movement is “bad” for the horse is telling God He made a mistake in designing horses and didn’t know what He was talking about when He called His creation good.

Now wait a minute!  You may be thinking.  “I’ve seen my horse do more different things than I can identify all on its own out there in the corral or pasture!  I’m not influencing what it does out there so all those gaits are natural.  I’m just getting the horse to do the gait I want when I want it.”

Fair enough.  A gaited horse inherits anywhere from 5 to 13 gaits.  Today’s average Tennessee Walking Horses inherit 8 or 10 gaits but generally exhibits some preference for the stepping pace and pace.  This fact does not let us off the ethical hook.  It makes the ethics of the situation even more complicated!

All domestic horses need to be educated and physically conditioned to do the work we ask them to do.  Suppling, strengthening and conditioning enable the horse to do it’s job safely, easily and comfortably.  The best performance is achieved when a fit, healthy, well-educated horse enjoys working in a partnership with the rider doing things that match the horses’ inherited abilities.  Perfecting the consistency and quality of the horse’s natural gait is not the same thing as changing what gait the horse does.

At what point does the gait enhancement that results from necessary and beneficial training and conditioning become a mentally and emotionally abusive mis-representation of the horse’s natural character and attributes?

Why spend days, weeks, month or years persuading a horse that prefers some other gait to do a running walk?

Wouldn’t it be more honest and more humane to spend that effort perfecting whatever gait(s) the horse naturally prefers, regardless of what some piece of paper says it “should” do?

Why do we settle for spending so much effort on coaxing something that passes for the running walk out of horses that prefer some other gait?

Why do we pretend that horses who are so multi-gaited they don’t know what gait they want to do are “Natural Walking Horses”?

Why are we so obsessed with modifying the horse’s gaits that we fail to teach the horses the basic skills they need to be safe, enjoyable riding horses?

 Do we really think practicing the oxymoron of “natural gait modification” is the highest standard of excellence to which breeders, riders and trainers can aspire?

Why are we so enamored with the illusion of acquired gaits we cannot see or appreciate the beautiful reality of a truly natural running walk?

We reward the most successful gait conversions as if a running walk acquired out of a multi-gaited horse represents the ultimate in natural performance.

Nonsense!

Do we dare to imagine what the results might be if we invested the time and effort in horse logical training and humane conditioning of horses that have truly inherited a strong preference for the running walk?

We have to imagine it because, with the exception of a very few individuals, we do not have it in today’s Tennessee Walking Horse breed.

When will we summon the courage and integrity to dare to create an entire breed of properly trained, useful, honest Walking Horses whose running walk actually complies with the standard dictionary definition of the word natural?