Re: small horses again

[Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

Glenn, I did my thesis research project on this whole weight-carrying
subject.  This was the talk I gave last week at the West region
conference, and the same study that was just accepted for publication in
one of the peer-reviewed journals (and I say that only to demonstrate
this is Real Data, not theory).  If you give me your snail-mail address,
I will send you the four-page summary of the results of the study. 
However, this is the bullet:

Of a group of 360 horses, horses were capable of carrying up to 31% of
their own body weight over a 100-mile course (Tevis) without injury, and
the weight they carried didn't affect their completion rate or how fast
they finished.  31% is not necessariily the upper limit, just the
heaviest load we measured in over two years at Tevis.

Body condition score did make a big difference.  Horses that are too
thin run into metabolic trouble earlier and earlier as they got
thinner.  Horses that had a moderate condition (no ridges along the
back, no ribs, no hipbones sticking out) had an overall completion rate
of over 90%.  The average completion rate declines markedly as condition
decreases.  Condition score has to do ONLY with body fat, not with
breed, size, conformation, fitness, hydration or nutritional status.

Successful Tevis horses have a cannon bone circumference larger than
that considered average for normal horses.  The average circumference
measurement was 7.41" measured midway between the knee and fetlock.  If
you add up the total mass of the horse's body weight plus the weight of
the rider and tack, and divide that number by the cannon bone
circumference, and then divide that number by two; the resulting number
should not exceed 80 (lbs per inch of cannon bone circumference) and
ideally should be 75 or less.  Horses that have to carry more than 80
pounds of weight per inch of cannon bone had a higher incidence of
lameness.  I would suggest you use this formula to judge whether this
small horse you're looking at is capable of carrying the weight you
expect her to.  Height has relatively little to do with it---relative
amounts of body fat, the overall mass and amount of bone means much
more.

Susan Garlinghouse

Glenn Foster wrote:
> 
> I know that the subject of "small", that is 14.0-14.2 hh
> horses has come up before several times, and there are
> quite a few postings in the archives as well as recent
> discussions on riders weight in general. <snip>> 
> The reason I am so interested in this, is that last September
> I started working with a just-gelded five-year old. 
> 
> And I just found out his 3 yo sister is available.
> 
> And I can think of several important practical and otherwise reasons
> why 14.0 - 14.2 hh is a very good size.
>