Re: Big bone vs small bone

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-06-25 18:45:37 EDT, niccolai_m@yahoo.com writes:

<< If I were a track guy I would put my money on strong small, efficient
 bone. In endurance I could be convinced either way, but would tend to
 think that small bone would be best for flat Florida and big bone
 would be best for the Sierras. I could also be persuaded to believe
 that big bone is better for providing longer moment arms for tendons
 and ligaments, thus reduing stresses in these components too. However
 we know that we have to stress these to strengthen them too. if I were
 to bet on it I'd go big bone in general for endurance since systems
 with lower operating stresses tend to survive more load cycles than
 highly stresses systems.>>

You make some good points, Nicco.  The other variable that is not considered
here, and has to be looked at physiologically rather than physically is the
horse's own metabolic ability to remodel bone in response to stress and
produce stronger bone.  While to some degree, smaller bone tends to be denser,
a lot of this work involved looking at draft horse bone, which is really HUGE
bone, but is on horses that have never had to adapt to speed and hence have
had no selective pressure (from humans or otherwise) to build more dense bone.
Also, as the remodeling occurs, the bone DOES become larger--have seen my own
horses increase anywhere from 1/2" to 3/4" in cannon circumference over a few
years of conditioning and competing.  Intuitively I don't think it is becoming
weaker because it is becoming larger.  Old horsemen talk about bone
"quality"--that is a pretty ambiguous term, but seems like skilled,
experienced folks could almost "see" the difference between "good" bone and
"poor" bone.  I see it more as a matter of tendon and ligament quality, but
there is a "look" that does seem to be less prone to breaking.

Another interesting note--this is not at all scientific, but in looking at
photos of older Thoroughbreds and in looking at several of the premier
stallions in Kentucky, I get the impression that 1) Thoroughbreds as a breed
have less bone than they do now, that 2) the really class horses have more
bone than the population at large, and that 3) an appreciable number of
racehorses still break down, despite (or because of?) less bone.  Granted,
many of these went to the track too soon in their conditioning programs or
were run in the face of pending injuries, but how much did the lack of bone
contribute?  One of the most beautiful and balanced horses conformationally
that I have seen of ANY breed is a Thoroughbred stallion named Woodman.  He is
a pretty damned good sire, I understand.  He has bone galore.  To me it is no
surprise that he is noteworthy in his sport--I think he could have been
noteworthy in other sports, too, had he had the opportunity.

As a generality, though, your points are well taken.

Heidi