Hi All,
Welcome to the seventh topic for 624EHS - Contemporary Issues in Equine Science.
This topic is all about arena surfaces and tracks. Make sure that you look at the launch powerpoint, which has been posted in the Classroom. Distance learning students have from now until 1 pm on Thursday 16th May to contribute to this blog, to debate the issues surrounding arena surfaces and tracks. Ensure you can also evidence your opinions and remember that you are also required to submit a reference list (word document emailed to module leader) by 1 pm on Thursday 16th of May. You will be graded on the quality and quantity of both your blog contributions and your reference list. Remember, the point of this is to debate the issues, so you should be replying to each other's posts. I will be keeping an eye on the blog, but if you have any issues, you should email me.
Rosa
Arena tracks and surfaces of course play a major role within many aspects of equestrianism. Whether this is for performance, reducing risks of injury or to provide variation to the horses work. Many researchers have argued that man-made surfaces are increasingly used for training and competing (Murray et al., 2010), however there is actually little known about the effect many surfaces have on performance or injury risk (Chateau et al., 2009a; Murray et al., 2010). Studies have shown that a waxed track offers progressive loading and fewer horizontal stresses on distal forelimbs, however with reduced SL it suggests reduced performance (Chateau et al., 2009b). Studies have found that SFREQ is positively correlated with surface density and further that shock forces on the equine distal limb were reduced when surfaces were composed of natural fibre, water, and wood (Barrey et al., 1991; Tranquille et al., 2015). Arguing for the use of natural materials, perhaps mixed within the surface in order to reduce the forces put on the equine distal limb and anatomy to minimize the risk of injury occurring from surface type.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing surfaces in relation to performance and reducing injury risk it is important to remember that the way a surface is used is just as important as the surface used.
DeleteEvidence suggests that to reduce injury training variation is key. Training variation means riding on a variety of surfaces. This includes using more than one arena, but especially riding on varied natural terrain, roads and bridleways. The body of the horse adapts to the surface used. If the horse is constantly ridden on the same surface the musculoskeletal system is not prepared for any variations, thereby increasing the risk of injury (FEI, 2014).
Yes. Totally agree here with you Daisy. The use of varying surfaces as a form of training technique/practice has long been recognised as being beneficial for reducing injury risk. However, as I think I may have mentioned below in an additional comment although varying the surface is good for reducing injury risk, if those surfaces are particularly rough or uneven then it is rather unlikely that the horse may be able to adapt with each stride. Although, I suppose this brings into question our choice of surfaces, as in the wild the ground (fields etc) would not have been even and horses will have been virtually continually moving around across the uneven terrain. Therefore, do we need to factor in perhaps how the discipline or the demands of riding in this modern age may actually be what is affecting horses and their risk of injury, rather than the surface itself?
Delete(Eleanor Secker)
Additionally if a horse competes on a surface with certain properties, the training preparation should include exercising on the same type of surface to allow for adaptation. Such as if competitions are on grass, it is preferable for the horse to also train on grass. Prior training on surfaces that the horse will use at competition should allow the horse to experience the surface properties at a reduced work intensity, rather than having to do this while also being asked to perform to its optimum level during competition. Adaptation has several aspects, one of which is that the horse’s pattern of movement is changed and probably adjusted to different surfaces. An example is the observation that horses not used to working on fibre sand tend to trip in the beginning until they get used to it. Adaptation is also a question of rebuilding the musculoskeletal system in line with the demands. This can take weeks or even months (FEI, 2014)
DeleteAdding to that here are some main points in relation to different types of surfaces:
DeleteHard ground such as concrete, tarmac and sun-baked ground – magnifies the concussive forces as it absorbs very little of the energy. There is normally a reduction in stride length, the swing and stance phase of the stride, foot flight arc and moment of suspension. There is an increased risk of injury to bones, joints and cartilage; however, walking and short bursts of trot can improve bone density.
Soft ground such as some arenas or maneges, clay soils or beach – there is a significant reduction in the concussive forces but conversely, the muscles need to work harder to enable recoil of the limb and takes more energy. There can be a risk of increased soreness, injury and tendon/ligament strain.
Hillwork improves cardiovascular fitness, endurance and general strength. Strengthens horse’s topline, builds gluteal and hindlimb musculature, improves balance, co-ordination and proprioception.
Water – moving through water not only strengthens the muscles during the swing phase of the stride, it encourages the horse to lift his feet and strengthens the abdominal and core musculature, improving posture and performance. It also provides therapeutic cooling of the legs, it also depends on what the surface is under the water (beach, XC course, flooded roads)(Waterside Chiropractic, 2015)
In answer to Ellie's original point reguarding surface having an effect on performance Peterson et al., (2010) found that even external factors such as tempreture could effect surface and overall performance. Average air, surface and subsurface temperatures changed significantly throughout the day. Temperatures were higher during the afternoon race sessions and race times were significantly slower compared to morning work times. Temperatures at which some of the components of the wax began to soften were found to be within the range of temperature measured during track operation. A correlation was found between temperature of the synthetic track and speed of horse. Race times were quicker during the morning when tempretures were cooler in comparison to the evening when high tempretures had been experienced and wax matierals had experienced thermal transformation which was hypothises to effect the intergrity of the wax surface. Therefore, it should be considered that enviroment should be considered before installation to ensure that a surface will remain useable during all potetnial weather conditions experienced.
DeleteIn addition, it will be important to discuss the use of different arena maintenance methods available, from harrowing to rolling to other equipment commonly used. Superficial harrowing has been found to affect surface properties differently and is argued to perhaps not be suitable for universal use. For example, standard deviation (SD) values stayed constant for a sand/rubber mix pre and post harrowing, whereas a waxed surface had large SD values (Tranquille et al., 2015). Although horses have been found to adapt to different surfaces, it is unlikely that they effectively adapt every stride on an inconsistent surface, increasing the risk of injury if an inappropriate maintenance method is used (Tranquille et al., 2015).
ReplyDeleteNorthrop et al. (2013) however found that preparations did not significantly alter the actual surface properties, but small changes to the surface did influence locomotion, the most obvious being increased MCPJ (fetlock) extension. Evidence is contradictory across a lot of studies as to whether the preparation method significantly alters the surface and thus locomotion, or whether it is that locomotion is affected by the surface type. It could therefore surely be argued that it is questionable how much the preparation procedures has on locomotion, or whether the original surface type is more important.
Further, a study by Hernlund et al (2017) argues for the need for standardized comparisons between equestrian surfaces based on objective measurements and how this will be key to harmonizing between-arena comparisons. Measurements should incorporate riders’ perceptions of surface performance to gain legitimacy from within the sport. This was due to their study demonstrating that objective surface assessments, measuring the functional surface properties of impact firmness, and to a lesser extent, cushioning and grip, were significantly and positively associated with riders’ assessments of the same properties. However, even at the top level, riders still displayed substantial variation when assessing the same surfaces. Thus emphasizing the need for an objective measurement to ensure the safety standard of surfaces is optimized.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA study by Crevier-Denoix et al., (2015) found that classical ground preparation procedures such as harrowing and rolling significantly affected the impact phase and the longitudinal and vertical loading of the limb during stance. Because loading rates are important variables when considering injury risk and prevention, they recommended regular harrowing for surfaces which are prone to compaction in order to reduce the forces acting upon the equine limbs. However, they state that in the future a kinematic analysis is required to more completely assess the respective effects of the
Deletetwo preparation procedures on the hoof and limb joint motion (Crevier-Denoix et al., 2015). This obviously contradicts the research Ellie mentioned by Hernlund et al., (2017) where they state that harrowing may not be the most suitable method of surface preparation. Thus further research is required to clarify which method of surface preparation is most ideal for varying surface types.
Building on from the point made by Ellie reguarding the importance of maintence Holt (2017) conducted research investigating the ability of horses to adapt to abrupt changes in surface caused by differing maintenance methods and quantify kinematic and neuromuscular responses of the horse. Horses (n=7) were trotted in hand at a consistent speed across an arena surface that had been prepared in four ways: continuous firm; continuous soft and when the surface presented a camouflaged, abrupt change from firm to soft and soft to firm. Awareness of the abrupt change significantly increased stance duration, duty factor and peak metacarpophalangeal. There was also some evidence of neuromuscular contributions that helped to stabilise the forelimb and control posture immediately before hoof impact and during stance. The gait modifications observed demonstrated horses can alter their balancing strategy to cope with a change in surface condition. Reduced limb retraction shifted the centre of mass position relative to the hoof position at lift off more caudal and reduced a falling forward posture as the horses stepped down onto the soft surface and with awareness. When the horses travelled from soft to firm, vertical impulses increased in the hindlimb, which was thought to maintain pitch stability. Vertical impulses showed a more even distribution between the fore and hind limbs with awareness suggesting the fore limbs played a larger role raising the forehand. Therefore, this research demonstrates that horses make kinematic and neuromuscular adjustments in order to deal with changes of surfaces with awareness. This also supports Daisy's point reguarding varying surfaces to provide well rounded training.
DeleteAdding on further harrowing and correct maintenence can reduce differences seen within surface types as shown by Setterbo et al (2011) who found that a synthetic race surface was generally less stiff, and had 26–73% lower maximum impact forces and load rates, than the dirt surface. However, regular harrowing decreased stiffness and overall differences between dirt and synthetic properties. Meaning that dirt could still be just as a suitable a surface for racing as synthetic surface providing proper management is provided.
Deletestudies have also seen that deeper harrowing is needed on a regular basis in order to maintain the surface, something which may become expensive and time consuming. also the maintenance of the surface during competitions is important and something that could also apply to other situations such as riding schools. due to the volume of horses which ride on the surface of an arena during any competition the surface begins to compact in certain areas. something which could reduce its absorption and support. this has been seen by Hernlund et al (2017).
DeleteThere a varied amount of surfaces for arena. There are pros and cons for all surfaces. Some work better for some disciplines and others work better for lungeing pens/ turn out.
ReplyDeleteWood chip is the less expensive surface and is suitable for most disciplines. It is used for indoor and outdoor, lungeing, turnout pens. However, can be slipperly when wet, as its light it can blown around in the wind.
Rubber and rubber chips are long lasting and dust free. Also, does not freeze in the winter. However, it is expensive. It is mostly used for outdoor arenas and for jumping in particular.
Sand surface is expensive but is used for all weather tracks for racing. However, if not maintained properly it can been deep and this then puts more strain on the horses limbs and effects the movement,. This is Europes leading surface in the field in developing new sands and mixes in the UK. Companies have picked up on the tend for more of an equine friendly substance.
Waxed surfaces are being used more to bind together with sand and less surface movement and allowing bounce and absorption impact. (Horse and Hound, 2019)
Overall there is advantages and disadvantages for both but its people preference and the best for the comfort and performance of the horse.
In response to your comments r.e lunging surfaces, I found an interesting piece of research by Pfau et al (2014) who investigated lunging of lame and sound horses on different surfaces, assessing the amount of head movement (as a display/measure of lameness). They found that In forelimb-lame horses, surface and rein were identified as significantly affecting all head movement symmetry measures (rein, all P<0.0001; surface, all P<0.042). In the symmetrical group, no significant influence of surface or rein was identified for head movement symmetry. Further, no significant influence of surface or rein was identified for any of the pelvic movement symmetry measures in either group. However, horses objectively quantified as lame on the straight showed decreased movement symmetry during lungeing, in particular with the lame limb on the inside of a hard circle.
DeleteThey argued for the need to assess horses during lameness tests on both hard and soft ground, so offering support to what is typically currently done. This way it allows the assessor to objectively see any differences in movement both of the limbs and the head/neck movements.
Also, as with many surface types it is all about the actual type of material used. For example, it is imperative the correct type of silica sand is used as the wrong one can cause the arena to become very deep and ultimately lead to it needing to be replaced.
DeleteI totally agree with this.
DeleteAnother important factor that needs to be considered with arena surface is the depth. The arena surface is there to provide the horse with a stable and even surface to work on. It is therefore recommended that the top surface be between 3 and 6 inches thick. This is obviously dependant on the surface which is being used which can depend heavily on the discipline and the budget which the area or surface is being done in (the horse, 2017). If the surface is too deep, it may cause horses of certain disciplines to be at a higher risk of injury than those of another discipline. Certain disciplines will require more cushioning than others which require more support, an issue which could arise on shared yards (Huggett, 2018).
ReplyDeleteBuilding on from your point regarding the issue of shared yards Mia, I found in a few studies the reference to the importance of regular arena maintenance in particular to do with how many horses were using it on a daily or weekly basis. Yards such as riding schools, competition yards etc were deemed as obviously being at higher risks of having inadequate surface depth/evenness. With recommendations that really the arena should be levelled or maintained regularly after each lesson for example. However sadly in reality how practical/likely is this to occur due to the busy nature of such yards. Although contradictory evidence would also suggest that over managing the surface will alter the properties even further and lead to increased risk of injury. Perhaps there is a need for exploring further (as with many areas of equine research) how we can better each type of surface to withstand the demands of busier yards without altering the quantity of surface/track available to our horses.
ReplyDeleteAdditional research by Clauben et al (2019) who investigated rotational sheer forces (RSF) with regards to surfaces found that wearing studs led to the highest RSF values: the use of studs led to 27.47%–65.18% higher TMax values for RSF than when no studs were used. Also, they found that arena ‘grooming’ (watering and dragging/levelling) led to a significant reduction in TMax values (so lower RSF), however only the day when the grooming occurred. Thus arguing for the need for ideally daily maintenance procedures to occur to ensure that the surface quality is at its optimum.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to the research by Claussen et al., (2019), Hüppler et al., (2016) found that varying designs of horseshoe such as bar shoes and open toe shoes affected the biomechanics of the hoof-ground interaction on varying surfaces. Some designs caused varying peaks in pressure meaning that, depending on the surface, different footwear is ideal (Hüppler et al., 2016). Unfortunately this would be difficult to implement into a performance horse's routine, as during the peak competition seasons they would likely compete too often to be changing shoes every time. Thus, further research is needed into shoe design and materials to ensure that the negative effects of varying surfaces, such as mediolateral sink, do not become a factor in the injury risk for performance horses (Hüppler et al., 2016).
DeleteJust a quick comment Emily, totally agree with you and I believe somewhere I read some research which made use of a specialized shoe that measured GRF on different surfaces. Perhaps this type of device could be used to try and find the best shoe type/material for each individual horse? As you say, changing the shoe type/form regularly is not practical nor is it likely to actually be good for the horse I would imagine? As it does take horses time to become accustomed to their shoes, so surely changing the type of shoe regularly would actually be increasing injury likelihood? Just a couple of thoughts there.
DeleteInterestingly from what Emily said reguarding the effect of surface on shoe type efficiency Machaffey et al (2014) conducted a labatory dynamic study on different shoe types on dirt and synthetic surfaces. Peak loading and loading rates were measured vertically and horizontally (craniocaudal), simulating aspects of primary and secondary impacts of the hoof in a galloping horse. Maximum vertical and shear loads and loading rates were not significantly different between shoe types, with the exception of a reduced craniocaudal loading rate for the V‐Grip shoe on the synthetic surface. Although the V‐Grip may reduce craniocaudal peak load rates in a synthetic material with relatively high wax and/or low oil content, the reduction in load rate is less than the difference found between materials. This study concluded that shoeing has little effect, and that a track's surface material and its preparation have a greater significant effect on the dynamic loading during the impact phase of gallop. However, obviously Emily's research has been conducted more recently and Machaffey et al's (2014) was conducted under labatory conditions and therefore may not be relatable to real life enviroments. Yet, I still felt this research as important to consider.
DeleteI agree with both Ellie and Courtney. As you mentioned Ellie, changing a horse's shoe type regularly is likely to have just as damaging effects as the surface type, and thus changing shoes based on surface is entirely unpractical with the technology we currently have. Perhaps, therefore, there is a need for a standardised surface type which is researched and shown to be best for all types of shoe and discipline? This could then be a BHS requirement for all BHS registered yard, or perhaps a requirement for all BD / BSJA / BE competition venues, however factors such as cost must be considered.
DeleteAs for Courtney's comments, I agree that the current research surrounding peak loading and pressure of varying types of shoe is conflicting and thus in the future more thorough research needs conducting where different types of shoe are tested on varying types and gradients of surface in order to determine if type of shoe has a direct influence on the hoof/surface interaction.
DeleteThe safety and quality of surface is an inportant topic relating to competitions. The development of safety and quality standards for equestrian surfaces needs to be based on objective, repeatable measurements which allow comparisons between surfaces. These measurements should in corporate the assessment of surface performance by riders. A study by Hernlund et al (2017) looked into data from objective and subjective assessment of functional properties of high-level showjumping competition and warm-up arenas. Twenty-five arenas in nine international showjumping events were evaluated. Mechanical measurements of impact firmness, and to alesser extent cushioning and grip, had a significant positive association with the riders’ perception. Responsiveness was negatively associated with the riders’ perceptions. Objectively measured uniformity showed no useful association with riders’ perception. Even though arena assessments were made by top level riders, a substantial inter-rider variation was demonstrated. (Hernlund et al, 2017).
ReplyDeleteYes, building on from both mine and your comments r.e. Hernlund et al (2017), van der Hiejden et al (2017) carried out the following study. They attempted to make evaluation testing more accessible to arena and racetrack owners, research was undertaken to assess various riding surface materials using a direct shear force apparatus. The results were used to ascertain if small scale laboratory testing yields an understanding of how the riding surfaces will behave in the field under actual horse loadings. Direct shear testing on various engineered surfaces suggest that the maximum shear strength of a riding surface and the compression/dilation behavior during shearing relate to the many characteristics experienced by horses and riders in the arena. Thus, their study argues for the need to make this sort of testing more accessible to the everyday yard owner as it may be a useful way to assess multiple surface characteristics through measurement of shear force. Therefore, making it easier to work out if the surface type and/or maintenance method is working well enough for that yard.
DeleteA study by Crevier-Denoix et al (2017) evaluated the effect of surface firmness on the development of musculoskeletal injuries in French Trotters during 4 months of race training.
ReplyDelete86 lesions were identified, of which 46 (53.5%) were classified as potentially clinically relevant (grade, ≥ 2). Of the 18 moderate and severe lesions, 15 were identified in horses of the hard-track group, and 10 of those were in forelimbs. Moderate to severe tendinopathy of the superficial digital flexor tendon of the forelimb developed in 3 of the 6 horses of the hard-track group but none of the horses of the soft-track group. Metatarsal condyle injuries were more frequent in horses of the hard-track group than horses of the soft-track group. Severe lesions were identified only in left limbs. These results indicate that track surface firmness is a risk factor for musculoskeletal injuries in horses trained for harness racing.
(Crevier-Denoix et al, 2017)
Further to Daisy's comments surrounding the influence of surface on injury risk in horses, Parkes and Witte, (2015) found that both internal and external factors can influence the interaction between the horse's hoof and the surface. This includes things such as fore-hind mass distribution, leading limb and whether moving on a curve or in a straight line (Parkes and Witte, 2015). Thus it could be suggested that the surface is merely one factor contributing to injury, however may not be a sole factor. For example, conformation or fitness may alter the fore-hind mass distribution and thus also contribute to affecting the injury risk. Thus further studies are required into the influence of individual factors on a horse's way of going and hoof-surface interaction to draw accurate conclusions on how much different surfaces can increase a risk of injury, when compared to each other. In this way, a superior surface type may arise which would benefit the equine industry and equine welfare.
DeleteContradictory evidence for performance about the use of dry sand surfaces. Dryer surfaces found to reduce the amplitude of shock and impact force during landing for both the vertical and Ho directions… BUT dryer surfaces also found to result in a DECREASED stride length and an INCREASED stride frequency (Chateau et al., 2010) leanne
DeleteMitchell et al (2013) demonstrated the importance of the effect of differences between surfaces upon diagnosis and management of lameness within horses, specfically within forelimb lameness. They found that In sound horses, only 1 out of 7 Movement Symmetry measures were significantly affected by surface (decreased MS on hard surface). In horses with forelimb lameness, decreased MS of the head was found when the affected limb was on the inside of the circle, on both surfaces. They concluded objective lameness assessment on different surfaces is crucial for the diagnosis of lameness and the monitoring of treatment, especially in foot-related lameness where foot-surface interaction plays an important role. This is potentially a reason for the use of lunging on a surface and on hard ground during prepurchase examinations as the difference in surfaces highlights lameness.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to consider with surface is the effect that it can have when completing a rehab programme using a surface for exercise (Mendez-Angulo et al, 2013). Nine sound horses were walked on hard ground (HD), soft ground (SF) and a land treadmill (LT), and five complete gait cycles were recorded by a digital video camera. Retro-reflective markers were placed on the skin at four anatomical locations on the left fore and hind limbs, and data were analyzed using two- dimensional (2D) motion-analysis software. Maximal flexion/extension angles and range of motion were calculated for each joint,and the percentage of the stride spent in stance phase was determined for each stride. Overall, walking surface dramatically influenced flexion/extension of the carpus, tarsus and fetlocks in healthy horses, this should be considered when walking equines during rehabilitation cases. If the surfaces had such a dramatic effect on joint flexion/extension and range of motion only at the walk it must also be considered the effects on the joints during different gaits.
ReplyDeleteThe human aspect of surface use could also be considered. What do riders want from an arena surface and what helps them determine which surface they would purchase/ prefer to use. Holt et al, (2014) conducted a survay based investigation initiated by the negative reaction of the competitors to the surface used for the Olympic test event in 2011 causing a change in the surface composition used for the Olympic equestrian events in 2012. A survey was used to ask riders (n = 342) to describe characteristics that they liked about their favourite venue across Northern England. The two most popular surfaces (both well‐established wax, sand and fibre) were harrowed before being measured at several plots. An Orono Biomechanical Surface Tester and traction device were used to compare the functional properties of the two surfaces. The respondent's reasons for choosing their favourite venue were associated with specific surface measures including peak load, rebound timing and traction. The favourite venue was selected because the surface was not too deep or slippery and provided good support, spring and cushioning. The peak load (P = 0.002) and traction (P>0.001) were significantly higher on the favourite surface compared to the second favourite. Higher peak load values may be responsible for supporting a good performance and higher traction values could explain why riders felt that the surface was not ‘slippery’. Although, it was not considered the effect these properties may have on the horse in the long run.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting aspect of surfaces, especially in indoor arenas, is the level of air quality. A study by Venable et al., (2016) found that using a recycled shredded rubber surface provided better air quality than a typical sand surface (Venable et al., 2016). This is beneficial not only for equine welfare, but also for performance. Reduced levels of particles such as dust in the air means the respiratory tract is not being irritated, which is especially beneficial for horses with issues such as equine asthma. Because the airway is less irritated, the horse can perform better and more comfortably. However, there is currently little research into other types of surface to create a comparison on air quality between the different types. Thus with further research, air quality could become a deciding factor when selecting an arena surface.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is research out there however, I feel more research can be done to understand he surfaces and the effects of performance of the horse.
ReplyDeleteRacetrack surfaces behave in a dynamic way during hoof impact, this dynamic behaviour is a likely cause and added risk factor for racehorse injuries and fatalities. A device which tests track dynamics, which stimulates the equine hoof was used to evaluate the surface type (dirt or synthetic), number of layers (2-4+), test boundary area, harrowing and impact angle.
ReplyDeleteThe properties in surfaces have been found to impact kinematics of the equine limb in disciplines such as racing and trotting.
During extended trot on a synthetic arena surface, a greater fetlock extension was found, in comparison to extended trot on dirt.
leanne
the maintenance of the surface plays a key role in their influence on injury occurrence, commonly used is rolling/harrowing.
ReplyDeleteTranquille et al., 2015: argued that harrowing may not be suitable for use on all arena surfaces. Found to significantly reduce the maximum vertical loads and deceleration on a waxed sand surface, but not sand with rubber.
Small changes to the surface cushion after maintenance found to increase MCPJ extension (Northrop et al., 2013)
(above comment by leanne )
ReplyDeleteSand + rubber surface are found to be more stable and uniform (Murray et al., 2010)
ReplyDeleteSurfaces with a large proportion of organic particles in them (e.g. wood chip, wood fibre… etc.) able to reduce shock forces (Barrey et al., 1991) so surface type should be chosen depending on discipline it will be used for, as disciplines such as show jumping involve repetitive loading of the front limbs and would benefit from a surface with a higher shock attenuation absorbing capacity whereas competitions such as showing will have less loading impact occurring. (leanne)