I was over at a friend’s farm and she has a baby that is of unknown breeding. She was told that his Dam was a Morgan that was about 15.2 and the Sire was supposed to be a Morgan too, but they didn’t really know for sure. But what I found so striking was that the little guy had the thickest, most post like legs I have ever seen. He looked like a regular 9 month old but with draft legs. I picked up his front feet and I had to feel his cannon bones several times b/c they were so thick they felt swollen. I did the string test (which I know is an estimate) and he didn’t even make 15 hands. Seemed inaccurate to me. How accurate have you all found it to be if you have done it on many horses? He is a doll BTW.
i thought the string test was only accurate after age 1? also, there is the cannon bone string test and then there is the swivel-from-the-elbow string test. i think the latter is more accurate, but only after they’re 1.
Usually only accurate after 1 1/2 years.
How did you do it? There are two ways, and imho are both fair accurate.
Not at all. You’d do better taking an average between the height of the sire and the height of the dam. IMHO, the string test is bullshit.
I’ve usually had semi-good luck at the string test where youo start at the ergot to elbow and then swing the string up from elbow to withers.
When I first learned the string test I was a youngster working in a really big barn. So of course being the dork that I am I ran around with a piece of twine and did the string test on every horse that would stand still. About 80% were within an inch or less correct in height…a few conformationally challenged ones were way off. This was on grown horses.
I’ve only ever ‘string tested’ younger horses from the age of about 18 months to 3 years old…I was told it worked on yearlings and over but never tried it on a yearling. Those younger horses all grew with an inch of their string test height.
The string test only seems to work out if the horse in question grows up well balanced…if they grow up with short legs and a thick body it will be off…and if they grow up with really long legs and a small girth it will be off. Otherwise it seems to be semi-accurate. Not really a science…the swivel string test isn’t so much an estimate in hands at adult height as it is how tall the horse might be if it grows up well balanced. Measuring the cannon one seems to be a real crap shoot.
I did the string test and the measurement from the knee to the coronet band and both were spot-on. Another general rule is to add 2 hands to a one year old and 1 hand to a 2 year old. Of course there are ALWAYS exceptions!
I do it two ways. The principle is that a horse’s leg has reached 90 percent of its final length at 1 1/2 years. Do both methods to help confirm the estimate. (I guess that’s an oxymoron – but this is an estimate, not an exact calculation.) Seems to work pretty well on WBs and TBs.
Method 1: Run string from widest, bony part of elbow to ergot at back of fetlock. Then pivot the string from the elbow up, following contour of the horse’s body. The length of string above withers should be an estimate of remaining growth.
Method 2: Run string from point at back of knee diagonally to point of shoulder. Pivot string from point of shoulder along contour of the shoulder to the withers and see if there’s any length of string remaining above the withers.
I’ve always wondered if that was accurate for warmbloods actually. seems to me that all the warmbloods I know did most of tyheir growing from 3-6 
yes i think it works fine- i’ve string tested several of the babies at our barn (for curiousity sake) and all of then have finished with in 1" of it… if you string test on my ADULT horses i’ve done it on all are about 1" above the string test results…
I’ve also had success with it, if done at 18-24 months of age.
The most puzzling, yet accurate result, was on my TB/QH
His dam was a dainty, barely 16hh TB. Sire a 15.3 QH.
I wanted a slightly more solid version of the mare, as I am quite petite and prefer shorter horses.
The string test showed this guy was going to be 16.2 and we all laughed at the stupid string test.
Well…sure enough, this guy finished off at almost 16.3.
I’ve found it to be very accurate. (I’ve done the ergot/elbow/withers test.) The problem lies in the fact that it’s difficult to keep the string at the correct spot at the point of the elbow because the skin will slide around and that can throw your measurement off. Also, you must keep the string lying against the shoulder as you measure to the withers, and that can be difficult sometimes. But when I do it correctly, I’ve found it right on.
I’ve found the string test that measures the cannon bone to be more accurate than the one that rotates up at the elbow. The one that rotates is only accurate for breeds that have a fairly leg to body ratio. I have arabs and arab crosses and they tend to be more leg than body. So using that method, even my old horses have about 2 more inches to grow.
OK, call me dumb, but what do I do with the string measurements to get a final estimated height in hands?
L
If your horse is 15 hands now, and the string shows 2 inches above the withers, then he should finish out around 15.2.
I agree that this works better with a full-bodied type of breed. I learned the technique from someone who buys young stock in Germany for import.
We did the middle of ankle to elbow and rotate upwards test in many of our horses, the spring they were turning yearlings and it worked within 1/2" on ALL of them, AQHA and TBs.
Tesio did it on over 200 TBs. He could follow most of them to mature and he said “it worked well in practically all of them”.
Since the growth plate in the elbow closes at about 1 1/2 to right before 2 years old, there may be that 1/2" difference in the length of that bone in those gelded before that, where it will grow for a few more months.
I would say that there may be some difference in growth patterns in horses that are growing with a good plane of nutrition than those not on continuous good management while growing up.
That may make a difference in mature size.
There are too many factors to consider for any such measurements to be very exact, but they sure seem to hold true for most horses, within a small difference.:yes:
That one small colt with the big bone, could the sire be a draft horse, or cob like?
We have TB/quarter horse crosses and warmbloods and string test from middle of the knee to cornet band - front of the leg with the string taut. This method has proved to be very accurate on all of our horses - and if I string test my mature horses - it’s right on the money. Is also true the measurement is most accurate when they are at least a yearling.
We have an appendix gelding out of a nice size TB mare and 15.1h stallion. As a yearling, Jr. string tested to 17.2h. My trainer said BS - this is not possible. Jr. is now 3 and guess what? He’s 17.1h. Who knew!
We do it from point of elbow to ergot…in inches.
Then, just double this measurement…easy enough to translate inches into hands.
No need to flip string around and worry if it’s still on the point of elbow. My arms aren’t long enough to do that!
The jury’s still out for me. I did both tests on my yearling Hanoverian colt just a couple of weeks ago.
Middle of his knee to his coronary band: 17"/17 hands if I didn’t follow the contour of his leg; almost 18"/18 hands if I did (wasn’t sure exactly which way to do it)
Elbow to ergot: 32" x 2 = 64"/4 = 16 hands
Yearling height + 2 hands: 17.1 hands
So…considering he’s already 15.1 withers and a hair over 15.3 behind, I’m thinking he’s going to be quite a bit bigger than 16 hands. So I’m gonna throw that method out. :lol:
Thoughts on the large deviation between the methods?
I prefer to wait and be surprised
