WHY?

Forces between hoof and ground determine performance as well as risk of orthopaedic injury

We know that every force generated by the horse has a counter force which is the ground

We know the mechanics and forces of horse locomotion

We know details about the vertical and horizontal forces when the hoof touches the ground

We have indentified five factors (functional properties) that characterise surfaces

Hoof ground interaction biomechanics

•  Three important and different events

Impact

Loading

Propulsion/push off

The mechanical

hoof

Properties and features of the Orono mechanical hoof

• Both Vertical and horizontal • Load cells and accelerometers

• Horse hoof landing speed • Horse load,15 kN • Horse load rate

• Important due to viscoelastic properties

Summary BASIC STUDY

•  We have developed and applied a standardised testing method

•  We have measured over 400 competition and training surfaces

•  As a result we know •  Details of surface properties •  The basics of how construction affects the body of the

horse •  That maintenance is of equal importance as

construction •  The basics of how maintenance interact with

construction

Sweden: Lars Roepstorff Agneta Egenvall Elin Hernlund Cecilia Lönnell

UK, AHT: Rachel Murray Vicki Walker Carolyne Tranquille

UK, Myerscough: Sarah Jane Hobbs Alison Northrop Jaime Martin

US: Mick Petersson Christie Mahaffey

EQUESTRIAN SURFACES – A GUIDE

THE FIVE FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES

•  Is necessary to characterize how the footing affects the horse

Surface firmness

Surface firmness

Cushioning

Cushioning

Responsivness

Responsivness

Grip

Grip

Uniformity

FEI footing study RIDER EVALUATION

•  We have compiled data from 10 different 4 and 5* events during autumn 2013

•  We have asked >300 top riders to evaluate competition and warm-up arenas. 54% response >600 arena evaluations

•  The riders graded the same properties that were objectively measured

•  As a result we have concluded that the subjective judgment of riders matches the objective measurements

•  We can now recommend a range of measurements satisfying rider expectations for competition surfaces

Event L

Event Y

Maximal vertical acceleration / Surface firmness

B

D

G

L

Y

O

P

S

V

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 to

5 s

cale

eva

laua

tion

Arena number

Firmness

Subjective evaluation

Mechanical hoof

Linear(Subjective evaluation)

Linear(Mechanical hoof)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 to

5 s

cale

eva

laua

tion

Arena number

Cushioning

Subjective evaluation

Mechanical hoof

Linear(Subjective evaluation)

Linear(Mechanical hoof)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 to

5 s

cale

eva

laua

tion

Arena number

Responsivness

Subjective evaluation

Mechanical hoof

Linear(Subjective evaluation)

Linear(Mechanical hoof)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 to

5 s

cale

eva

laua

tion

Arena number

Grip

Subjective evaluation

Mechanical hoof

Linear(Subjective evaluation)

Linear(Mechanical hoof)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 to

5 s

cale

eva

laua

tion

Arena number

Uniformity

Subjective evaluation

Mechanical hoof

Linear(Subjective evaluation)

Linear(Mechanical hoof)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 12 10 4 22 11 5 2 3 21 30 9 29 24 16 23 28 26 17 1 20 15 19 7 8 14 18 13 25 27

Over all evaluation LSM +/- 2SE

The way forward

• The tool exists • Recommendation on thresholds can be given • Evolution

The perfect footing??