Re: RC: Now Cannons was Belesemo

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/30/00 9:14:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Trailrite@aol.com writes:

<< << just a shy over 15 hands.....8" cannons, >>
 
     I wish people would quit referring to cannon measurements.  I have never 
 seen an 8" cannon bone on any Arab.  This measurement saying should read as 
 the "Cannon Area."  Since it includes the tendons & cannon bone.  Also, how 
 many broken cannon bones to you hear about in the sport of endurance?  Not 
 many I'm sure. >>

Although the name is not entirely accurate, the measurement popularly called 
"cannon circumference" DOES include suspensory ligaments and flexor tendons.  
It is not an "absolute" measurement but rather one used as a rough guideline. 
 

My pet peeve, though, is that people flip that number out there and fail to 
relate it to the horse's WEIGHT--and it is only as a ratio to WEIGHT that the 
number  has any meaning at all.  The original poster stated that the horse in 
question was just over 15 hands.  Well, I'm sorry, but that tells me nothing 
much about the significance of the cannon circumference.  I've seen 15-hand 
horses weigh anywhere from 800# or less on up to 1200# or so (the latter not 
usually being Arabs).  In the latter case, 8" "bone" would be woefully 
inadequate.  The thumb rule is a MINIMUM of 8" cannon circumference per 1000# 
of weight, with the understanding that the relationship is not exactly linear 
(the physics folks on this board can--and have--come up with good ways of 
estimating if you get too far one way or the other from 1000#).  I hate to 
see a horse much over 15 hh that doesn't tip the scale at least somewhere 
close to 1000# in fit weight, and while granting that the original poster's 
horse is a youngster (and hence apt to both develop more "bone" and put on 
more muscle with maturity), I'd have to say that for the average 15+ hh horse 
with adequate muscling, 8" is just getting into the adequate range.

Heidi