Relationship Between Body Mass and the Hoof Area: Understanding the Turner's Formula

Souza, Anderson Fernando de; Souza, Abelino Anacleto de

doi:10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103682

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SA was not significantly different among BCSs; however, a study in riding school horses indicated that increased body size has a greater influence on the conformation of the hooves, with hoof base width appears to have larger hooves or increase in greater solar surface area [54]. The loading of hooves has been documented, where excessive weight in a small area can elevate the risk of lameness, [55,56]. In instances of high body condition, a critical value greater than 5.5 kg/cm 2 in adult horses, as identified by Turner [21], indicates that the hoof size may be too small.…”

Section: Comparison Of the External Hoof Characteristics Stratified B...mentioning

confidence: 97%

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

Phannithi,

Laikul,

Pathomsakulwong

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External hoof characteristics, balance, and conformation have been extensively studied in horses; however, mules remain understudied in these aspects. This study evaluated the size, shape, and symmetry of untrimmed and unshod forelimb hooves, compared the symmetry between forelimb hooves and stratified external forelimb hoof measurements based on the body condition score of mules raised in the foothill plains of northern Thailand. The forelimb hooves of 38 mules were photographed and 33 parameters, including angular and linear measurements, were analyzed. Despite the absence of shoeing and trimming, these mules exhibited optimal left-right forelimb hoof symmetry, with no significant (p < 0.05) differences in: outer wall length and inner wall length (OWL - IWL); sole length and sole width (SLS - SW); dorsal hoof wall length and heel length (DHWL - HL); and frog length and frog width (FL - FW). However, significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed within each body condition score group for forelimb hoof measurements for DHWL, IWL, heel separation (HS), heel bulb distance (HBD), SW, FW, and FL. These findings provide valuable insights into mule welfare and management, contributing to understanding of the interplay between overall health and hoof conformation in the study area.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of the External Hoof Characteristics Stratified B...mentioning

confidence: 97%

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

Phannithi,

Laikul,

Pathomsakulwong

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was observed that the donkeys have hooves proportionally greater than horses, measured by body mass: hoof area ratio (Turner, 1992), with mean values of 4.71 AE 0:47 kg/cm 2, 3.75 AE 0:41 kg/cm 2 and 3:35 AE 0.46 kg/cm 2 for horses, mules and donkeys respectively. The calculation for this parameter was recently revised, and an adjusted formula was presented (Souza & Souza Junior, 2021). It was also noted that donkey hooves are more upright (larger toe and heel angles), which generates less tension in the deep digital flexor tendon.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Letter to the Editor: A review of laminitis in the donkey

Souza¹

2021

Equine Veterinary Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

Phannithi,

Laikul,

Pathomsakulwong

et al. 2024

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External hoof characteristics, balance, and conformation have been extensively studied in horses; however, mules remain understudied in these aspects. This study evaluated the size, shape, and symmetry of untrimmed and unshod forelimb hooves, compared the symmetry between forelimb hooves and stratified external forelimb hoof measurements based on the body condition score of mules raised in the foothill plains of northern Thailand. The forelimb hooves of 38 mules were photographed and 33 parameters, including angular and linear measurements, were analyzed. A multivariate analysis was used to explore the influence of sex, age, and body condition scores (BCS) on angular, linear, and area parameters. Additionally, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used to compare these parameters across different BCS groups. Despite the absence of shoeing and trimming, these mules exhibited optimal left–right forelimb hoof symmetry, with no significant (p < 0.05) differences in: outer wall length and inner wall length (OWL–IWL: Left 0.11 ± 0.66 cm; Right −0.12 ± 0.43 cm); sole length and sole width (SLS–SW: Left 1.65 ± 0.76 cm; Right 1.46 ± 0.89 cm); dorsal hoof wall length and heel length (DHWL–HL: Left 4.00 ± 0.80 cm; Right 3.81 ± 0.72 cm); and frog length and frog width (FL–FW: Left 3.88 ± 1.13 cm; Right 3.82 ± 0.18 cm). However, significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed within each body condition score group for forelimb hoof measurements for DHWL, IWL, heel separation (HS), heel bulb distance (HBD), SW, FW, and FL, while sex and age had no significant differences across the study variables. These findings provide valuable insights into mule welfare and management, contributing to understanding of the interplay between overall health and hoof conformation in the study area.

show abstract

Relationship Between Body Mass and the Hoof Area: Understanding the Turner's Formula

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

Letter to the Editor: A review of laminitis in the donkey

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About