Is it possible foot pain could be caused by our shoeing methods which haven’t really changed for thousands of years?
Well, I went to Mongolia and took a four day horse trek once. At the end I was pretty concerned my horse had a soft tissue injury. the owners seemed oblivious but I was pretty certain. We’d stepped in a bog and both taken a roll the day before. I wanted to walk and lead the horse but they wouldn’t let me. They aren’t made of iron or anything. It wasn’t dead lame but it was not perfect, for sure.
[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8419730]
Hasn’t foot pain been the most common problem in horses since the beginning of time?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. Do you?
[QUOTE=Kolsch;8419851]
I’d love to see some back radiographs of those Mongolian horses. Sure they’re more like the original horse, but who’s to say they support the rider more soundly than the horses we’ve selected to do the job for generations? Carrying a rider was not part of the original horse design.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure these animals “support a rider more soundly” than do our purpose-bred riding horses. But the source of soundness problems created by increased weight were down low in the legs, probably the suspensory apparatus and other soft tissues. And I’d be willing to bet that the cause that has a greater effect on those problems is the size and weight of the animal, not the too-large rider on him for part of his life.
[QUOTE=mvp;8419934]
I don’t know. Do you?[/QUOTE]
I really don’t know, but that has always been my assumption based on my own personal experience, plus anecdotal evidence, etc. It’s one of those “truths” I’ve always taken for granted, whether rightly or wrongly.
I’m not suggesting conformation doesn’t play a role, but to me it seems the domesticated horse is destined to eventually go lame one way or another and that, more often than not, a hoof is involved.
“No foot, not horse” and all that jazz.
[QUOTE=Pocket Pony;8419784]
And wouldn’t an equally valid conclusion be that shoes are a source of the problem? Considering that all horses in general, and certainly not in the various disciplines you mentioned, aren’t the same size…yet it is likely that the majority of competing horses wear shoes. Just so long as we’re throwing suppositions out there…[/QUOTE]
Er, well, no that would not be my supposition. If I had to suppose on the matter, I would conclude that horseshoes probably prevented more lamenesses than they ever caused.
I’ve had a general interest in feral horse populations ever since I was a teenager riding a born-feral horse. The local trail riding stables imported a truck load off on Indian reserve in Alberta in the spring, rough broke them on the dude string, and then sold them off to teen age girls over the summer and fall. I always felt it would have been romanticizing things to call her a “mustang” :). She was just feral. Anyhow, I got to know her well, plus several individuals that were clearly her cousins to some degree.
The conclusion I reached then seems to be valid, which is that left to their own devices, populations of feral horses will breed back to something close to a Mongolian pony or a Przewalski’s horse: 14.2 hands maximum, short neck, big head, short economical gaits, tough as nails, air fern. In more constrained conditions (like barrier islands), they get even smaller.
So there is some design imperative going on there, and it’s only hard work by human breeders that keeps size, elegance, big gaits, and pretty necks and heads in them mix.
Scribbler, that’s an interesting theory. I think would depend on the size and type of horse in the feral population.
My trainer and friend made a name for herself training a BLM mustang to FEI. He was 17 hands tall, culled from a herd in Nevada. I knew someone who had a nearly identical huge black BLM mustang from the same area, believed to be related to Andy. This herd apparently had a lot of Percheron in the mix.
Story here:
http://www.eurodressage.com/equestrian/2009/11/23/fighting-windmills-jb-andrew-cultivated-freedom
Scribbler, to a point, I do agree with you - but also think man has a hand in that. All the “nicer” mustangs are culled because they are easier to sell - the bigger ones, the prettier ones, the nicer colors. Which means the horses left to reproduce are the short necked, big headed ones. So we may be creating that with our culling and selling. I was just at an auction last weekend - BLM horses that went through 90 days of “gentling” - and that was a source of discussion.
As for those Mongolian horses - they have scrawny little legs and feet, and relatively heavy heads, necks, and bodies. I think the smaller size is really more to keep them more food-efficient. And I don’t think they are more sound - when you watch the documentaries and videos of the races - a lot of those horses break down and die/are injured in the race. And my parents saw them in a trip to Mongolia and brought back video, and I swear half of them looked lame to me. As long as they can stiff gimp around, they are considered sound, and when they can’t gimp around, they are killed. Once we stress a horse (any horse) beyond its natural element, it is going to start breaking down.
But wait - before you think awww, it is all about humans asking too much… The natural lifespan of a wild mustang is 8 to 15 years in most of the reports I read, while in captivity, a horse’s average life goes up to 20 to 25 years. So those small horses really don’t life or last longer.
I to agree, as we make them more and more athletic, we do create more and more stress on those legs - and it just emphasizes that we need to breed carefully, it is one reason I think a stallion’s performance record is important - showing he stayed sound under long term work. But I think one of the biggest things to realize - dressage riders are SO much more conscious of soundness - it may not be that our horses are less sound, so much as we are AWARE of it.
[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8420025]
Er, well, no that would not be my supposition. If I had to suppose on the matter, I would conclude that horseshoes probably prevented more lamenesses than they ever caused.[/QUOTE]
I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Another poster mentioned a book she had read that about equine soundness and how the author discussed issues in different breeds / disciplines. That poster came to her own conclusion from the anecdotal evidence presented by the author, which was that the size and our use of horses these days is overstressing the foot.
I was merely presenting another conclusion that could be made from the same information.
Another conclusion could be the guess that the horses discussed are used longer and harder in their lives (meaning, if they are show horses, then the likelihood of them being started at a younger age before they are fully grown is higher).
Another conclusion could be the fact that they are ridden at all.
Without a scientific study, many conclusions can be drawn from anecdotal evidence; and many people can draw different conclusions based on the same anecdotes.
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8420049]
The conclusion I reached then seems to be valid, which is that left to their own devices, populations of feral horses will breed back to something close to a Mongolian pony or a Przewalski’s horse: 14.2 hands maximum, short neck, big head, short economical gaits, tough as nails, air fern. In more constrained conditions (like barrier islands), they get even smaller.
So there is some design imperative going on there, and it’s only hard work by human breeders that keeps size, elegance, big gaits, and pretty necks and heads in them mix.[/QUOTE]
My mustang came from Nevada. He has a short neck, big head, relatively short pasterns (but appropriate for his size), big bone, tough feet, and is an easy keeper. He is not bred for sport, but he is hardy and knows how to survive. His movement has been improved by dressage, but no one would ever be impressed by him and call him anything close to fancy.
People often comment to me how big he is for a mustang, and he’s maybe 15.2, but he is solid. The others that I know are around his size or smaller, but I have heard of bigger ones out there, like the one someone else mentioned above.
I agree that a lot of their size has to do with the area they are from. My former horse dentist traveled all over the west and he would tell me about the differences in the horses from different areas.
As an aside, mine was rounded up in a non-HMA, but somewhere “they” (TPTB) decided they just didn’t want horses anymore.
This is a very intriguing discussion. I do think that we need to be careful when breeding horses, I think we can see from the dog world that things can go too far (ex the french bulldog who is not capable of reproducing naturally). However I think the way we use horses (dogs don’t have to be athletic) should help us to breed responsibly.
I do think the hottest stallion trend could be detrimental. I don’t know if these large gaits are bad for soundness or not but I think the best way to tell is time. If a horse is doing GP at 19 it is probable pretty sound. If we breed to that horse we have good chances. but if we always breed to the trendiest young stallion we could run into problems. (I am not saying this is the case, I know there are a lot of breeders who do lots of research and produce sound and lovely horses.)
Also I don’t think that Mustangs are a good comparison. Wild horses are often smaller because of the food they get (or lack there of). The bigger the horse the more it needs to eat, and I have seen mustangs in the wild I have know Idea how any of them survive, there is so little food. So the size is not necessarily for soundness, but because smaller horses need to eat less.
I can’t remember what study/article it was, but there was a very compelling piece written by Dr. Deb Bennett about substance in modern horses as it relates to bone. The just was that it takes about 8 in. of bone (measured as the circumference of a front cannon bone) to truly adequately support a 1,000 lb horse.
Measure today’s average riding horse, you’d be lucky to find one that measures 7 in.
The idea of “smaller is better” is absolutely true and based in scientific fact. Smaller horses create less force on joints and tissue based just on the fact that they weigh less. Most people would agree that the hardiest breeds are large, draft-y type ponies. They are not the most refined or “athletic” by show ring standards, but they by far are the most durable horses. I believe, in the same article, draft horses are discussed, and why foot issues are so prevalent…same idea. The hoof tissue was never designed to support a one-ton animal. If you go by the requirements for bodily support listed above, a 2,000 lb. draft would need 16 INCHES of bone circumference to be adequate. No draft in the world has that. But yet we are breeding horses in the 16.2-17.2 range, draft horse size, yet with the substance of a 15 hand horse. Not going to cut it.
It is my personal belief (and my experience) that we do not breed horses for longevity of soundness. We never really have. Sure, breeders are looking at conformation, all right, but they are looking at what characteristics will produce this or that movement, ease of collection/extension…i.e., what will win in the show ring trend at the moment.
Hmm interesting Idea Abbie, It is true that with most creatures that if you get too large you are less healthy ex Great Danes ect.
I have not read Dr. Bennett’s article, so take this with a grain of salt but the example of small draft breeds seems like it might have some leeway. I agree that breeds such as the Haflinger or Fjord seem to be hardy, sturdy animals how ever when I looked up their average weight it could be as high or higher than large warmbloods, which would make it seem that it is not merely a weight factor.
I think you are not being fair to breeders, Yes they are breeding for horses who will win but they usually breed for the AA and AA not only want to have nice moving horses but usually even more important is temperament and soundness. And as some one mentioned earlier, horses are staying sound and living longer than ever before.
[QUOTE=Pocket Pony;8419784]
And wouldn’t an equally valid conclusion be that shoes are a source of the problem? Considering that all horses in general, and certainly not in the various disciplines you mentioned, aren’t the same size…yet it is likely that the majority of competing horses wear shoes. Just so long as we’re throwing suppositions out there…[/QUOTE]
I cannot tell if you are joking. If you are, then how about saying that global warming is the source of the problem? Or equal rights? Or… :lol:
I think it is pretty well known that riding horses on average have been bred to be considerably larger and taller even over the past 40 years, and that the “natural” size of wild-breeding populations of horses tends to top out at about 14.2 hands.
16 hands was a huge English riding horse when I was a kid, and now is considered skimpy 
Yes, individual mustang herds might have larger individuals if there were drafts in the mix within the past several generations, that makes sense. This was deliberately done at times in the past, to increase the size of feral horses when they were still a natural resource, rather than just a nuisance. Also, most mustang herds have not been closed populations, but absorbed lost, strayed, or abandoned domestic horses.
The various historically wild-breeding populations (New Forest, Dartmoor, Mongolian, Shetland, Chincoteague, Sable Island, etc) are pony-sized, and the harsher the climate (Shetland Islands), the smaller the pony. Of course many of these are now established breeds dependent on human husbandry. Even the Arabian is historically a smaller horse.
I’ve always found it interesting that the widely-dispersed wild-breeding populations end up looking so similar. Certain traits presumably confer a competitive advantage.
It isn’t just horses that are getting taller. Humans also are growing taller, and average height has increased more in affluent countries where people are more likely to own and ride horses.
Ironically, the Netherlands is known as “a land of giants.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/04/05/the-height-gap
[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8420022]
I really don’t know, but that has always been my assumption based on my own personal experience, plus anecdotal evidence, etc. It’s one of those “truths” I’ve always taken for granted, whether rightly or wrongly.
I’m not suggesting conformation doesn’t play a role, but to me it seems the domesticated horse is destined to eventually go lame one way or another and that, more often than not, a hoof is involved.
“No foot, not horse” and all that jazz.[/QUOTE]
Right, but the whole animal’s conformation and the ability of his feet to support all that are related. That was my original point, and my reason for brining up Dyson’s findings.
I don’t know if the vets consulted for her book were the first people to ever make the case. I don’t know if shoeing or breeding for increased size caused “foot pain” to become so prevalent; I don;t know if you could parse out those historical trends such that you could figure out which contributed more to foot pain as a common cause of lameness.
In any case, the point was to consider a few things:
-
The commonality of the basic equid architecture as it relates to:
-
Increasing the size and weight of these animals without a significant re-design.
-
The effects of some redesign as the critic in the OP has considered.
And I don’t think the argument that breeding for greater power in the hind limbs might not overwhelm the biomechanical limits of the front limbs…particularly because they are already taxed pretty hard by the sheer size and weight of the modern horse.
So it doesn’t matter for this argument that a mongolian horse can get a soft tissue injury from falling in mud. Of course he can, and it doesn’t testify one way or the other as to his type’s comparative soundness vis-a-vis a much larger horse if both animals are spending most of their time carrying only their own weight around.
- The only reason that I thought the point about foot pain being so common is that I think it points to the effects of size on the equid body plan.
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8420049]
…populations of feral horses will breed back to something close to a Mongolian pony or a Przewalski’s horse: 14.2 hands maximum, short neck, big head, short economical gaits, tough as nails, air fern. In more constrained conditions (like barrier islands), they get even smaller.
So there is some design imperative going on there, and it’s only hard work by human breeders that keeps size, elegance, big gaits, and pretty necks and heads in them mix.[/QUOTE]
When I think about the biomechanics of those stubby little gaits, I’m reminded that the legs are relatively straight and close to the horse’s body when they hit the ground for the first part of the weight-bearing phase of the stride. No “spider movement” up front for these little ones! What that means is that it’s bone all lined up in a pillar, not soft tissue at the back of the leg, doing most of the load-bearing work.
If it researchers discover that those spidery-moving horses end up tearing up their suspensories more often than average, I won’t be surprised.
Well, sure, gravity is going to play a role. Gravity is a bitch! It may be true that heavier horses suffer more foot problems, but overall the hooves have always been the most common source of lameness in horses (there are actual surveys confirming this but I don’t have the link handy).
As for Deb Bennett’s “Ranger” article noted earlier, while she makes some compelling arguments, this article only represents her personal opinion based on observations and growth plate studies. It doesn’t constitute scientific research in any way, shape or form.
The OP video is still a load of hooey as far as I’m concerned. “One-legged trot” … my eye.
