Skeletal forelimb measurements and hoof spread in relation to asymmetry in the bilateral forelimb of horses

Abstract

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.Skeletal forelimb measurements and hoof spread in relation to asymmetry in the bilateral forelimb of horses SummaryReasons for performing study: Research has highlighted a high frequency of skeletal asymmetries in horses. In addition, research into hoof asymmetries has shown that within a bilateral pair, the hoof with the smaller angle is often subjected to greater loading. There has been limited attention paid to understanding compensatory mechanisms for skeletal asymmetries in the horse; the dynamic structure of the hoof could potentially be acting in a compensatory capacity.Objectives: To investigate the relationship between morphometry of forelimb segments and hoof spread and their incidence of asymmetry.Methods: Ten bilateral measurements of the hoof and forelimb were taken from 34 leisure horses. The relationship between hoof spread and forelimb segment measurements were analysed using a generalised linear model (GLM).Results: In relation to left hoof spread, the GLM identified significant negative relationships with left side measurements (third metacarpal length, elbow height), and significant positive relationships with right side measurements (fetlock height, third metacarpal length, elbow height). In relation to right hoof spread, the GLM identified significant negative relationship with left elbow height, and significant positive relationships with right side measurements (fetlock height, point of shoulder). The difference between the number of horses larger to the left or to the right was found to be significant for point of shoulder height ( 2 = 4.8, P<0.05), and highly significant for heel height ( 2 = 9.53, P<0.01) and the third metacarpal length ( 2 = 7.26, P<0.01). Conclusions and clinical relevance:The study demonstrated considerable asymmetry in left-right morphometry of the equine limb. The fact that measurements of hoof spread were significantly associated with limb segment measurements could possibly indicate that an interaction exists. Any asymmetry in hoof spread measurements may suggest unequal loading of the limbs, which in turn may contribute to injuries and reduced performance.

Horizontal moment around the hoof's centre of pressure during walking in a straight line

“…Grazing stance may be affected by limb preference (McGreevy and Rogers 2005) and van Heel et al (2006) related this preference to developmental asymmetries in hoof measurements. Asymmetries in limb segment measurements have been identified by Watson et al (2003) and by Wilson and McDonald (2008) who showed a bilateral interaction between limb segment lengths and hoof dimensions. Weller et al (2006) found 27 asymmetric measurements in a cohort of 108 National Hunt racehorses, of which 6 were hoof measurements, and suggested that these asymmetries could be due to either asymmetric farriery or asymmetric loading of the limbs during stance and gait.…”

Horizontal moment around the hoof centre of pressure during walking on right and left circles

“…(2006) showed that young horses have a preference for which forelimb they advance while lowering their head for grazing. Wilson and McDonald (2008) reported asymmetry of distal forelimb and hoof morphometry and suggested this was associated with unequal loading. Colborne et al .…”

“…McGreevy and Rogers (2005) and van Heel et al (2006) showed that young horses have a preference for which forelimb they advance while lowering their head for grazing. Wilson and McDonald (2008) reported asymmetry of distal forelimb and hoof morphometry and suggested this was associated with unequal loading. Colborne et al (2009) reported that horses walking in a straight line use their hindlimbs symmetrically, but that the horizontal moments under the forelimbs tended to be internal in the left limb, and external in the right.…”

Does a 4–6 Week Shoeing Interval Promote Optimal Foot Balance in the Working Equine?

“…Despite advances in research, farriery largely remains a profession based on traditional empirical craftsmanship, rather than scientific evidence [4,17]. Regular farrier treatments are recommended to maintain or improve the athletic performance capacity of the horse [6,18]. However an ‘optimal’ shoeing/trimming interval has not been defined.…”

“…However, intervals can vary beyond eight weeks, especially within the leisure horse population. Within research, the length of recommended shoeing/trimming intervals vary between four to six weeks, or six to eight weeks [4,6,7,18,19]. The majority of studies to date have evaluated changes in the hoof associated with eight week intervals [4,8].…”