Picking The Right Saddle Tree For Fat Or Inshape Horse?

[GrampaJoel]

When measuring for a saddle tree, do you measure for when the horse is fat after winter or in shape after summer?

My mare gains a lot of weight in the winter. But she looses it during the riding season. So when do I measure for a saddle tree that will fit her best?

Thanks

Grampa Joel

[David Genadek]

When measuring for a saddle tree, do you measure for when the horse is fat after winter or in shape after summer?

My mare gains a lot of weight in the winter. But she looses it during the riding season. So when do I measure for a saddle tree that will fit her best?

Thanks

Grampa Joel

The horse owners management skills should always be considered as should their riding ability. A saddle tree will be somewhat self adjusting for weight gain and and loss with in normal parameters if the maker has actually fit the skeletal structure of a non pathological back and the rider is proficient in the five essentials of horsemanship. If not it is a crap shoot of shifting pathologies.

This works because of how the fat collects in the body. The whither will get thicker but fat will also collect along both sides of the spine, that is why on a really fat horse you can pour water on their back and it won't run off. If you have fit the ribcage the fat wi will lift the front of the saddle which is triangular shaped and as such it gets wider as it is lifted. This only works with in normal limits and it is the responsibility of every horse owner to know what those limits are for each individual and do all that is necessary to maintain their emotional and physical health.

David Genadek

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

We recommend that you get your saddle for a horse in his "normal working shape". A good saddle will have enough allowance built in to accomodate a few extra pounds. You may want to use a thinner blanket till they slim down in the spring, but if you are using them much that doesn't take long and they will then be in their "normal working shape" for most of the time they are ridden. (For some horses, their "normal working shape" is fat since they are never used enough to get in good shape!)

[GrampaJoel]

Rod and Denise Nikkel

Thank you for the reply.

It was stated very clearly and I now know what I need to do.

Thanks again!

Grampa Joel

[Billy H]

Grandpa Joel, You asked a great question!

If you dont mind (not trying to take your post over) ............. This is to Tree Makers, Saddle Makers, Where do you all feel the back of the bar should lay on the horses back once it settles in?

Billy

[Denise]

Billy, Could you rephrase your question please? I am not quite clear on what you are asking.

[Billy H]

Hi Denise, When I wrote my question it seemed so clear! LOL

The PICTURE that you show with you and Rod would be a great example. Once the Saddle Tree has found its place to ride on the horses back (settled in its spot)........... Where do you and other Makers think

the back end of the BAR lay. I hope that makes sense.

I ask because not all horses have the same length back. ( what is to short or to long past the back of the Cantle)

If you have a Quarter Horse (Average in build) and a Haflinger Horse (Average in build).........In my minds eye they would not take the same length BAR, but should the back end of the BARS end at the

same position on the back.

My apologies to all, In college I got a C in english. Thanks Billy

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Billy,

That is also a good question, and boy does it open a can of worms. First, we, as most custom or hand made tree makers, make a cut in the bar for the cantle (the same way as for the fork) and have a consistent length of bar behind that cut. This way of building trees helps to center the rider's weight over the whole bar. This also means that we don't make a standard bar length. Our bars vary in length between the fork and the cantle based on the room for the rider. The problem of bar length only arises when you have a short backed horse and a larger rider.

Our quick answer to your question is that the bar should end a bit ahead of the point of the hip at least. We can't give a specific distance because that will vary with the total length of the horses back, but you don't want to interfere with the hip. Because of its position high up on the back and its shape (curving toward the back bar tip), the bar itself won't be what interferes with the hip. The skirt may do that depending on its shape and how it is made, but since the bar length dictates the minimum skirt length, it needs to be considered.

What is absolutely crucial is not the total bar length, but the bar shape, especially the shape of the back bar tip. We have no problem with weight extending onto the lumbar or loin area of the horse. That really is not a problem (see below). What damages horses is excessive pressure from either back bar tips that dig in because they don't have enough relief built into them or from the tree bridging badly, creating four pressure points – two front and two back. You can have problems at the back of the bar with even really short bars if the shape is wrong. When we look at a bare tree on a horse, we want those back bar tips to be lifting off the horse. If they are down on the horse without weight in the saddle, they will be digging in when you add a rider. Some horses have a flat back front to back, and others have a rise into the croup. Either way, so long as the shape of the bar matches the horse, you shouldn't end up with excessive pressure.

An objective measurement we have found helpful in comparing the length of horses' backs (compared to a subjective assessment) is from the back of the shoulder blade to the point of the hip. The shortest we have measured was 23" on a really small Arab. The longest was 31" on a very large thoroughbred.

Now for the worms… If you Google "saddle fit" you will find THE RULES: seven, nine, eleven, fourteen, name your favorite number, of rules that supposedly determine if a saddle fits or not. One of most commonly stated rules is that nothing should extend past T18, the last thoracic vertebrae, or the last rib - depending on how they put it. The reason given for this is that "the loin should never carry any weight" and usually goes along with dire warnings of what will happen to your poor horses if any gear goes past the thorax. The original idea seems to have come from people evaluating English saddles, where the back of the saddle looks to end an inch or so behind the rider. If the back of an English saddle ended where the bars on a Western saddle end, the rider would basically be sitting on the loin, which is far behind the horse's center of gravity. (Note: in history, people have ridden everywhere on the horse's back from over the hips all the way up to the withers, as the art from over the last 2700 years depicted on this site shows. http://nicholnl.wcp....eatHistory.html ) "THE RULE" has then been transferred over to Western saddles, even though the rider is usually well over 6" ahead of the back of the bar, let alone the back of the skirts.

All this is supposedly based on "anatomy and biomechanics" and what "they" - the experts - say. Lots of people state it as fact. Lots of people state it very emphatically as fact. Lots of people with Dr. in front of their name state it as fact. But all are either stating their opinion or quoting something they have heard/read from another "they". Tracing this statement as far back in the academic literature as far as I can find it, I have been unable to find any objective studies or data of any kind that supports this rule (and personal communication from a veterinarian who is a researcher on equine backs concurs.) It just seems to have been stated as fact by an early author with no objective basis for the statement, and repeatedly quoted since. The idea seems to be that since most ribs are connected together as well as to the spine, the thorax is strong enough to support the rider but since the lumbar area has no rib support, it can't. What isn't looked at is muscle volume (much larger over the lumbar area) and the change in vertebral shape – large sideways extensions (transverse processes) on the lumbar vertebrae that support that muscle. The entire bar sits on the long muscles that support the back. The front of the bar also sits on major propulsive muscles for the front legs. The back of the bar, if it extends onto the loin, will sit on a major propulsive muscle for the back legs, though it is a small percentage of total surface area and therefore total weight that is carried that far back. In all cases, the muscles continue to work under the moderate pressure exerted by the rider's weight distributed over a large enough surface area. It is only when there is excessive pressure (and the numbers thrown around for that are also not based on any studies on horses either) that the horse's movement will be affected or damage will occur.

Practical experience tells us this is the case. Unless they have been made with super short bars and are put on a long horse, the bars on every western saddle extend onto the loin of the horse. The increased surface area that results from the longer bars (compared to English saddle panels) distributes the rider's weight better over the horse's back which is what allows for the long hours in the saddle put in by working cowboys. If just having weight on their loins really harmed horses, then the people who have depended and still depend on their horses for a living wouldn't be riding these saddles.

[Tosch]

As everyone on here knows, I am everything but an expert. That said, I will share my observations.

I once had a saddle buit on a Weatherly tree with a 16" finished seat size and a overall bar lenght of 22 1/2" . This is a bar lenght I seem to like. Maybe I have mostly ridden horses that were on the shorter side. I had this saddle on a ca. 15.1 + hand QH and on a much smaller Haflinger. Before putting the saddle on the horses, I'd doubted it would fit both - but it did (as far as I could tell).

I have a saddle with 23 1/2" bar lenght also built on a Weatherly tree with a 16" finished seat length. On a 15.1 hand OH/Akal Tekkiner (sp?) it fit fine. On a horse that was probably 15.1 hands,too, but way shorter, the tree was way too long as one could tell by the rub marks on the horse's back. So I tried what have I have heard named "creative padding". I used what we around here call a sandwich pad - with removable inlays. I cut them shorter. So the felt inlays stopped ca. 1 " before the back of the bars , and I had to do the same at front. No, it was not a perfect fit - but a workable fit, and the horse never showed signs of discomfort. Ok, I just get to ride -sometimes - in my spare time. But I saw this type of creative padding in one of the online pics about The Californios or a Ranch Rodeo (not sure). So if your tree is too long for a particular horse you could do some creative padding. That said, given the choice, I personally would go with a 22 1/2" bar lenght.

Hope this helps some. Tosch

Edited September 7, 2010 by Tosch

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Tosch, what you basically did with your padding was add more relief to the end of the bar, and it worked. If the bar was shaped like that to start, it wouldn't have been a problem. So it isn't the length, but the shape that caused the problem.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Rod and Denise Nikkel