Re: Big bone vs. small bone

[fmechelh@c-s-k.de]

Trish, you wrote:

>  Irregardless
> of the bone, I think the gradually increasing stress loads encouraged by
> endurance training are much better for a horse than "typical" track training;
> horse is trotted for 5 minutes, breezed for a mile around the track for 2
> minutes, put on the hotwalker for 15 minutes, then back in the stall for the
> next 23 and1/2 hours.  I have never seen an endurance horse snap a cannon.  It
> happened with regularity at the track.

I think that's true. poor bone structure should be no matter for the endurance
horse - if growing-up and basic conditioning are alright. To stress bone, or to
train bone moreover, you need high speed. speeds that are typical for the track
(and causes i.e. bucked shins at a 2-3 year old racehorse), but not for endurance.

To stress, or to hurt tendons, ligaments and joints you don't need high speed.
This can also be done with missteps/fatigue, long duration of exercise, bad
footing, and/or bad shoeing or trimming (i.e LTLH). As far as I know, this happens
more often to an endurance horse than trouble with cannons. I read somewhere that
the load capacity of tendon directly relates to diameter of the tendon fibre.
That's why I like big short cannon bones on my horses, because tendon is hanging
on bone, and thick cannons have enough surface to keep thick tendons. So as far as
endurance is concerned, I would convert the "big bone, soft bone"-theory to "big
bone, big tendons". At least for the dry type (Arabian or partbred) commonly used
for endurance...

- or I am deadwrong ?

regards
Frank Mechelhoff (Germany)

& Natjasha (5) who has *at least* 8 inch cannon bones...