Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Little is known in quantitative terms about the influence of different head-neck positions (HNPs) on the loading pattern of the locomotor apparatus. Therefore it is difficult to predict whether a specific riding technique is beneficial for the horse or if it may increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of forelimb-hindlimb balance and its underlying temporal changes in relation to different head and neck positions. METHODS: Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: HNP1 – free, unrestrained with loose reins; HNP2 – neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 – neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 – neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; HNP5 – neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; HNP6 – neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge. HNPs were assessed by comparing the data to a velocity-matched reference HNP (HNP2). Differences were tested using paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test (P<0.05). RESULTS: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5. Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs. CONCLUSIONS: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: An extremely high HNP affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The economic impact of soundness problems in racehorses is very high and low hoof angle at the toe has been associated with a lack of soundness. However, it is not clear what environmental and management factors might contribute to a low hoof angle. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the hypothesis that the hooves of racehorses become flatter when in gallop training, as well as to determine factors contributing to this trend. METHODS: Weekly hoof measurements were taken with a hoof gauge from 45 Thoroughbred racehorses; 4 Thoroughbred show horses kept in consistent conditions and shod by the same farrier as some of the racehorses; and 6 unshod free-ranging horses. A further 15 horses were measured twice in one day to determine the repeatability of the method. RESULTS: Repeatability coefficients were 0.31 degrees for the left hoof and 0.37 degrees for the right. Racehorses in training showed a significant decrease in hoof angle over time while free ranging horses and show horses did not. Free-ranging horses had a significantly lower angle in winter (wet) compared with summer (dry) in both left (P = 0.040) and right (P = 0.017). Show horses had no significant change in hoof angle. Racehorses that had a period of rest during the experiment (n = 11) showed a decrease in hoof angle during training and an increase over their rest period for both hooves (P = 0.005 for the left hoof, P = 0.0009 for the right). CONCLUSIONS: Training for fast exercise in Thoroughbred racehorses is associated with a reduction in hoof angle and wet pasture conditions may also be associated with a reduced hoof angle in free-ranging horses. Potential relevance: Gallop exercise has a potentially large effect on hoof angle and therefore, a change in angle should be expected to occur in racehorses starting fast exercise work. Hence management of horses with abnormally low hoof angles may require an adaptation to their training regime in order to minimise this effect.

Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to gain more insight into the contribution of the forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse to energy changes during the push-off for a jump. For this purpose, we collected kinematic data at 240 Hz from 23 5-year-old Warmbloods (average mass: 595 kg) performing free jumps over a 1.15 m high fence. From these data, we calculated the changes in mechanical energy and the changes in limb length and joint angles. The force carried by the forelimbs and the amount of energy stored was estimated from the distance between elbow and hoof, assuming that this part of the leg behaved as a linear spring. During the forelimb push, the total energy first decreased by 3.2 J kg(-1) and then increased again by 4.2 J kg(-1) to the end of the forelimb push. At the end of the forelimb push, the kinetic energy due to horizontal velocity of the centre of mass was 1.6 J kg(-1) less than at the start, while the effective energy (energy contributing to jump height) was 2.3 J kg(-1) greater. It was investigated to what extent these changes could involve passive spring-like behaviour of the forelimbs. The amount of energy stored and re-utilized in the distal tendons during the forelimb push was estimated to be on average 0.4 J kg(-1) in the trailing forelimb and 0.23 J kg(-1) in the leading forelimb. This means that a considerable amount of energy was first dissipated and subsequently regenerated by muscles, with triceps brachii probably being the most important contributor. During the hindlimb push, the muscles of the leg were primarily producing energy. The total increase in energy was 2.5 J kg(-1) and the peak power output amounted to 71 W kg(-1).

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Basic information about the influence of a rider on the equine back is currently lacking. HYPOTHESIS: That pressure distribution under a saddle is different between the walk, trot and canter. METHODS: Twelve horses without clinical signs of back pain were ridden. At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter were measured kinematically. Using a saddle pad, the pressure distribution was recorded. The maximum overall force (MOF) and centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. The range of back movement was determined from a marker placed on the withers. RESULTS: MOF and COP showed a consistent time pattern in each gait. MOF was 12.1 +/- 1.2 and 243 +/- 4.6 N/kg at walk and trot, respectively, in the ridden horse. In the unridden horse MOF was 172.7 +/- 11.8 N (walk) and 302.4 +/- 33.9 N (trot). At ridden canter, MOF was 27.2 +/- 4.4 N/kg. The range of motion of the back of the ridden horse was significantly lower compared to the unridden, saddled horse. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Analyses may help quantitative and objective evaluation of the interaction between rider and horse as mediated through the saddle. The information presented is therefore of importance to riders, saddlers and equine clinicians. With the technique used in this study, style, skill and training level of different riders can be quantified, which would give the opportunity to detect potentially harmful influences and create opportunities for improvement.

Abstract: Measurement of peak vertical ground reaction force (GRFz) from multiple limbs simultaneously during high-speed, over-ground locomotion would enhance our understanding of the locomotor mechanics of cursorial animals. Here, we evaluate the accuracy of predicting peak GRFz from duty factor (the proportion of the stride for which the limb is in contact with the ground). Foot-mounted uniaxial accelerometers, combined with UHF FM telemetry, are shown to be practical and accurate for the field measurement of stride timing variables, including duty factor. Direct comparison with the force plate produces a mean error of 2.3 ms and 3.5 ms for the timing of foot on and foot off, respectively, across all gaits. Predictions of peak GRFz from duty factor show mean errors (with positive values indicating an overestimate) of 0.8+/-0.04 N kg(-1) (13%; N=42; mean +/- S.E.M.) at walk, -0.3+/-0.06 N kg(-1) (3%; N=75) at trot, -2.3+/-0.27 N kg(-1) (16%; N=18) for the non-lead limb at canter and +2.1+/-0.7 N kg(-1) (19%; N=9) for the lead limb at canter. The substantial over- and underestimate seen at canter, in the lead and non-lead limbs, respectively, is attributed to the different functions performed by the two limbs in the asymmetrical gaits. The difference in load experienced by the lead and non-lead limbs decreased with increasing speed.