Re: Horse Height & Bone

[Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

DVeritas@aol.com wrote:
> 
>     Susan,
>         I, like you and alot of the folks on "ridecamp", note CBC on endurance prospects, mine and others.  I do not "discount" the validity of CBC as a harbinger of soundness potential "down the trail".  I believe in the correlation.  However, I've yet to see you address the "dryness" of associated tendons.  <snip> I will continue to note CBC, but believe going a step or two further is prudent in evaluating front legs relative to endurance potential.

CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com wrote:

> Frank, I agree absolutely.  There are MANY factors which all go together to
> contribute to potential soundness, and those "meatball" legs are a negative in
> my experience, too.  Another real negative is the long back with the weak
> loin.  No matter HOW good the legs and HOW good the bone, if the horse can't
> round his back properly to carry weight, he will eventually take it out on his
> legs.  Have seen numerous unsound horses over the years with what I would have
> considered to be fabulous legs, and the fault has been in the body.
> 
> Heidi



Hi Frank and Heidi,

I will answer both of you by requoting a paragraph and another isolated
line from my earlier post:

"However, we did NOT see a statistical difference in CBC alone between
finishers and pulls, so CBC alone is not a predictor of success at
Tevis.  Our conclusions were that CBC is important, but that there are
many other closely related factors that can nullify the effects of
CBC--ie, foot size, joint angles, shoeing, bone density, integrity of
associated soft tissue, etc.  In other words, a 10" cannon won't help if
the foot is the size of a half-dollar and the shoulder and pastern are
both the same length!;-)"  

Also:
<snip> "There could be a lot of other factors that need to be
considered, such as stride length, stride frequency, biomechanics in the
hoof, not to mention a ton of things up in the back, etc." 


So, yes, absolutely, there are many, many, many other things that we
might measure that all add to the picture---but realistically, how much
of that can be done by two people during a pre-ride check on 200+ horses
just before Tevis?  It would be possible (and very interesting) to
ultrasound legs to measure cannon bone area, density, and have a look at
tendon size and density.  It would also be great to take detailed photos
of each horse to analyze joint angles and the relationships of
integrated skeletal features, along with some detailed analysis of each
rider along with their riding style and skill as they progress through a
100-mile ride.  Serial blood samples throughout the ride would also be
wonderful, except that then you need several DVMs that aren't busy
vetting horses, and riders historically have not been exceptionally
cooperative about invasive procedures once the stakes get higher towards
the end of the race (heck, some people didn't even want me potentially
upsetting their horse at Tevis by putting a tape measure around a leg
and a heart girth).  All of this would be wonderful and extremely
illuminating and all it takes is a whopping big grant of research
funding to do it.

None of this is by any means meant to sound defensive, just realistic. 
There are ALWAYS more questions than answers after any research
project---you might even say that's one of the definitions of scientific
progress.  If anyone would like to pass a hat and raise another $10,000
or so (which is actually dirt cheap by research standards, unless you
have to write the check yourself), I'd be tickled pink to continue
traveling to endurance rides and collecting data and crunching the
numbers as fast as my little fingers will go.  I think it's an important
research question that just might help a few horses avoid metabolic
failure or breakdown and that's worthwhile to me.  But until someone
else chips in, the questions will just have to go unanswered.:-\

Susan G