Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To quantify variation in the jumping technique within and among young horses with little jumping experience, establish relationships between kinetic and kinematic variables, and identify a limited set of variables characteristic for detecting differences in jumping performance among horses. ANIMALS: Fifteen 4-year-old Dutch Warmblood horses. PROCEDURE: The horses were raised under standardized conditions and trained in accordance with a fixed protocol for a short period. Subsequently, horses were analyzed kinematically during free jumping over a fence with a height of 1.05 m. RESULTS: Within-horse variation in all variables that quantified jumping technique was smaller than variation among horses. However, some horses had less variation than others. Height of the center of gravity (CG) at the apex of the jump ranged from 1.80 to 2.01 m among horses; this variation could be explained by the variation in vertical velocity of the CG at takeoff (r, 0.78). Horses that had higher vertical velocity at takeoff left the ground and landed again farther from the fence, had shorter push-off phases for the forelimbs and hind limbs, and generated greater vertical acceleration of the CG primarily during the hind limb push-off. However, all horses cleared the fence successfully, independent of jumping technique. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Each horse had its own jumping technique. Differences among techniques were characterized by variations in the vertical velocity of the CG at takeoff. It must be determined whether jumping performance later in life can be predicted from observing free jumps of young horses.

Abstract: A rider modifies the weight distribution and dynamic balance of the horse. But what effect does a rider have on the mechanical behaviour of the hoof during each stance phase? Does riding style have any effect on this behaviour? We attempted to answer these questions using strains recorded from 5 rosette strain gauges glued to the surface of the front hooves of 4 Warmblood horses. Comparisons were made between strains with and without a rider, and when the rider was sitting, rising at a trot, or in a forward seated position. The change in strains from trot to lead or nonlead at a canter, and the effect of turning were also studied. Changing lead at a canter had as least as much effect on strain magnitudes as did turning; strains were up to 43% higher for the nonlead foot, but with little redistribution. Perhaps surprisingly, strains were significantly lower on the quarters by up to 30% with a rider than without, with a 10% increase or decrease at the toe, depending on the individual. Riding style changed strain magnitudes by up to 20% and also caused strain redistribution: strains were higher medially for sitting, and laterally for forward seat, with strains for a rising trot being more evenly distributed and intermediate in magnitude. Studying the range of, and causes of variation in hoof wall strain gives baseline data aimed, in the long term, at providing a biomechanical definition of hoof balance.

Abstract: Abstract Tölt is a symmetric four-beat gait with a speed range extending into that of trot and canter. Specific shoeing methods, such as unnaturally high and long hooves, are used to enforce individual gait predisposition. The aim of this study was to assess the consequences of this shoeing style on loading and movement of the limbs at walk, tölt and trot, and at different velocities. Simultaneous kinetic and kinematic gait analysis was carried out at walk (1.4 m/s) and at two tölting and trotting speeds (3.3 m/s and 3.9 m/s) on an instrumented treadmill. Thirteen sound Icelandic horses were first measured with high, long front hooves (SH) and, 1 week later, after trimming the hooves according to standard shoeing principles (SN). Comparing SH with SN, front hooves had 21 ± 5 mm longer dorsal hoof walls, and the shoeing material per hoof was 273 ± 50 g heavier. In all three gaits, gait quality, as it is currently judged, was improved with SH due to a lower stride rate, a longer stride length and a higher, but not wider, forelimb protraction arc, which were also positively associated with speed. Forelimb–hind limb balance remained unchanged, but limb impulses were higher. Apart from an increase of ⩽2.2% in the forelimbs at the faster speed of both tölt and trot, SH had little influence on vertical peak forces.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Earlier studies have developed a clinical tool to evaluate objectively the function of the equine back. The ability to differentiate horses with back pain from asymptomatic, fully functioning horses using kinematic measures from this tool has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the kinematics of the back at walk and trot in riding horses with back dysfunction to the same parameters in asymptomatic sport horses. METHODS: The kinematics of the back in 12 horses with impaired performance and back pain were studied at walk and trot on a treadmill. Data were captured for 10 sees at 240 Hz. Range of movement (ROM) and intravertebral pattern symmetry of movement for flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) were derived from angular motion pattern data and the results compared to an earlier established database on asymptomatic riding horses. RESULTS: At walk, horses with back dysfunction had a ROM smaller for dorsoventral FE in the caudal thoracic region (T13 = 7.50 degrees, T17 = 7.71 degrees; P<0.05), greater for LB at T13 (8.13 degrees; P<0.001) and smaller for AR of the pelvis (10.97 degrees; P<0.05) compared to asymptomatic horses (FE-T13 = 8.28 degrees, FE-T17 = 8.49 degrees, LB-T13 = 6.34 degrees, AR-pelvis = 12.77 degrees). At trot, dysfunctional horses had a smaller (P<0.05) ROM for FE at the thoracic lumbar junction (T17 = 2.46 degrees, L1 = 2.60 degrees) compared to asymptomatic horses (FE-T17 = 3.07 degrees, FE-L1 = 3.12 degrees). CONCLUSIONS: The objective measurement technique can detect differences between back kinematics in riding horses with signs of back dysfunction and asymptomatic horses. The clinical manifestation of back pain results in diminished flexion/extension movement at or near the thoracic lumbar junction. However, before applying the method more extensively in practice it is necessary to evaluate it further, including measurements of patients whose diagnoses can be confirmed and long-term follow-ups of back patients after treatment. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Since the objective measurement technique can detect small movement differences in back kinematics, it should help to clinically describe and, importantly, objectively detect horses with back pain and dysfunction.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Force transmission under an English saddle (ES) at walk, trot and canter is commonly evaluated, but the influence of a side saddle (SS) on the equine back has not been documented. HYPOTHESIS: Force transmission under a SS, with its asymmetric construction, is different from an ES in walk, trot and canter, expressed in maximum overall force (MOF), force in the quarters of the saddle mat, and centre of pressure (COP). The biomechanics of the equine back are different under a SS compared to ES. METHODS: Thirteen horses without clinical signs of back pain ridden in an indoor riding school with both saddles were measured using an electronic saddle sensor pad. Synchronous kinematic measurements were carried out with tracing markers placed along the back in front of (withers, W) and behind the saddle (4th lumbar vertebra, L4). At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter with both saddles (ES, SS) were measured. Out of the pressure distribution the maximum overall force (MOF) and the location of the centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. RESULTS: Under the SS the centre of pressure was located to the right of the median and slightly caudal compared to the COP under the ES in all gaits. The MOF was significantly different (P<0.01) between saddles. At walk, L4 showed significantly larger (P<0.01) vertical excursions under the ES. Under the SS relative horizontal movement of W was significantly reduced (P<0.01) at trot, and at canter the transversal movement was significantly reduced (P<0.01) . In both trot and canter, no significant differences in the movement of L4 were documented. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The results demonstrate that the load under a SS creates asymmetric force transmission under the saddle, and also influences back movement. To change the load distribution on the back of horses with potential back pain and as a training variation, a combination of both riding styles is suitable.