What is considered "good bone"?

[sisu27]

I would think it is sort of relative to the rest of the horse but I hear people speak of a horse having good bone and wonder where it starts?

I have a thbd that is around 16.1 and his cannon bones are 9". Is that big? He looks big and I am always being asked what sort of warmblood he is :winkgrin: Legs look in proportion to the horse though so...?

Just useless musings from a boring Tuesday morning at work.

[okggo]

I have slight, medium, and large boned on our property. I've never really considered one good and one bad, as long as the bone matches the body (aka not spindly legs on a draft horse body). However, I PREFER stocky bigger boned mounts - it's a sheer comfort thing, it's much nicer for ME to ride (being tall and leggy).

[Waterwitch]

Good bone is relative to the user of the word I think, but a general guideline I've seen is 8 inches for every 1000 lb of horse for "soundness".

In the ID world we say a 16hh horse should have a minimum of 9 in of bone and taller horses should have proportionately more (16.2/9.5 in, 17hh/10 in, etc) although length of cannon bone and quality/flatness of bone is important in our breed as well.

I think a TB with 9 in of bone at 16.1hh is quite good. I believe your horse would be eligible to show as a heavyweight hunter in the UK.

[Tamara in TN]

[QUOTE=Waterwitch;4398091]Good bone is relative to the user of the word I think, but a general guideline I've seen is 8 inches for every 1000 lb of horse for "soundness".



my welsh cob is 8.5" up front and 10" back behind and he is 14.1

and sound as a dollar:)

[Waterwitch]

LOL. I believe that guideline is meant to be interpreted that a sound horse will have "at least" 8 inches per 1000#, not "at most" 8 inches per 1000#, so I'd say you're fine :winkgrin:

[sid]

In the "olden days" when the WB started gaining popularity almost all advertising listed the measurement of "bone" at the cannon relative to the height and weight of the horses.

Hardly ever see than now.

[kookicat]

Good bone is relative to the user of the word I think, but a general guideline I've seen is 8 inches for every 1000 lb of horse for "soundness".

In the ID world we say a 16hh horse should have a minimum of 9 in of bone and taller horses should have proportionately more (16.2/9.5 in, 17hh/10 in, etc) although length of cannon bone and quality/flatness of bone is important in our breed as well.

I think a TB with 9 in of bone at 16.1hh is quite good. I believe your horse would be eligible to show as a heavyweight hunter in the UK.

He could show as a middleweight or heavyweight, depends on the rest of the package. :)

Info here (http://www.theshowring.co.uk/hunters.php) if anyone wants to read it. :)

[TKR]

That term along with "alot of bone" or how many inches of bone came along when the wb's got popular -- simply a "buzz" word in my opinion that means next to nothing. The bone should be ample to support the mass. Even then, "good bone" cannot be measured by the mass or size of the bone -- it is strictly a question of the integrity of the bone as in the density. Large bone can be very porous and not be synonymous with hardiness or soundness. If you have more bone than needed to support the mass, the horse is just packing it around and hitting the ground harder for no good reason. Those terms are just a means of advertising and promoting a horse for sale or a stallion by trying to impress someone who doesn't ask questions or understand what it (doesn't) mean. You would have to ultrasound to get a true reading on the integrity or density of the bone. Just as alot of muscular mass doesn't mean anything as far as athleticism or any other positive as opposed to a less massive horse. Correct structure is alot more important than how much bone mass there is!
PennyG

[fp_wonders]

In the ID world we say a 16hh horse should have a minimum of 9 in of bone and taller horses should have proportionately more (16.2/9.5 in, 17hh/10 in, etc) although length of cannon bone and quality/flatness of bone is important in our breed as well.


Except for in a few breed circles, I (and maybe it's only me) don't hear anything about flat bone in discussions about legs over in the USA. I'm glad you brought it up! I think if someone wants to know about good bone, the terms "round bone" and "flat bone" should at least be mentioned. Quoted from an old conformation book I had that had a good definition, "undesirable round bone occurs when the cannon bone and tendon are too close together all the way down. This type of leg won't hold up as well as one with flat bone, with the tendon set back father from the bone. In a horse with round bone, there is always excessive friction between the moving parts." Round bone makes the horse look like they have legs like tree trunks; flat bone can look like much less bone than it actually is. This is what I was taught, at least :) Irish Drafts, Mountain & Moorland breeds, and I'm sure there are other breeds out there, put a lot of importance on good, flat bone in addition to just X inches of bone.

[Waterwitch]

That term along with "alot of bone" or how many inches of bone came along when the wb's got popular -- simply a "buzz" word in my opinion that means next to nothing. The bone should be ample to support the mass. Even then, "good bone" cannot be measured by the mass or size of the bone -- it is strictly a question of the integrity of the bone as in the density. Large bone can be very porous and not be synonymous with hardiness or soundness. If you have more bone than needed to support the mass, the horse is just packing it around and hitting the ground harder for no good reason. Those terms are just a means of advertising and promoting a horse for sale or a stallion by trying to impress someone who doesn't ask questions or understand what it (doesn't) mean. You would have to ultrasound to get a true reading on the integrity or density of the bone. Just as alot of muscular mass doesn't mean anything as far as athleticism or any other positive as opposed to a less massive horse. Correct structure is alot more important than how much bone mass there is!
PennyG

As mentioned by fp_wonders, the term "bone" is not taken literally and does not refer to "mass". Bone refers to the cross-sectional area of the metacarpus (-tarsus) which includes the suspensory apparatus and flexor tendons.

[Flying Hearts]

I had a mare who just just in between 16.0 and 16.1, and she had 9 inches of bone and she was a very substantial looking mare all around.

[fp_wonders]

I had a mare who just just in between 16.0 and 16.1, and she had 9 inches of bone and she was a very substantial looking mare all around.

You're talking about Encore, right? I agree, but she didn't have legs like a tree trunk...you could tell there was substance, but it wasn't round bone. She had very nice flat bone. It helped her to look more like than warmblood she was than a draft cross, considering how big-bodied and big headed she was (in a very attractive way, lol).

[Waterwitch]

Evaluation of Indicators of Weight-Carrying Ability of Light Riding




Debra M. Powell MS, PhD, Karen Bennett-Wimbush MS, PhDa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0), Amy Peeples AAS, BSa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0) and Maria Duthie BSa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0)

aOhio State University Agricultural Technical Institute, Wooster, Ohio







Abstract

To answer the question of whether horse height, cannon bone circumference, and loin width can be used as indicators of weight-carrying ability in light horses, eight mature horses underwent a submaximal mounted standard exercise test under four conditions: carrying 15, 20, 25, or 30% of their body weight. Heart rate was monitored, plasma lactate concentration was determined in jugular blood samples pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 10 minutes post-exercise, with serum creatine kinase activity determined at the same times as plasma lactate concentrations, with additional samples collected at 24 hours and 48 hours post-exercise. Muscle soreness and muscle tightness scores were determined using a subjective scoring system 24 hours before and 24 hours after exercise. Heart rates remained significantly higher when the horses carried 25 and 30% of their body weight. Plasma lactate concentrations immediately and 10 minutes after exercise differed when horses carried 30% of their body weight compared with 15, 20, and 25% weight carriage. Horses tended to have a greater change in muscle soreness and muscle tightness when carrying 25% of their body weight, and a significant change in soreness and tightness scores was found in horses carrying 30% of their body weight. Loin width and cannon bone circumference were found to be negatively correlated to the changes in muscle soreness and tightness scores. In conclusion, the data suggest that horses with wider loin and thicker cannon bone circumference became less sore when carrying heavier weight loads.

[dr j]

Evaluation of Indicators of Weight-Carrying Ability of Light Riding




Debra M. Powell MS, PhD, Karen Bennett-Wimbush MS, PhDa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0), Amy Peeples AAS, BSa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0) and Maria Duthie BSa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75GX-4RKSKWH-7&_user=2910604&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1024380942&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=13106&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=156&_acct=C000056106&_version=1&_urlVersio#implicit0)

aOhio State University Agricultural Technical Institute, Wooster, Ohio







Abstract

To answer the question of whether horse height, cannon bone circumference, and loin width can be used as indicators of weight-carrying ability in light horses, eight mature horses underwent a submaximal mounted standard exercise test under four conditions: carrying 15, 20, 25, or 30% of their body weight. Heart rate was monitored, plasma lactate concentration was determined in jugular blood samples pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 10 minutes post-exercise, with serum creatine kinase activity determined at the same times as plasma lactate concentrations, with additional samples collected at 24 hours and 48 hours post-exercise. Muscle soreness and muscle tightness scores were determined using a subjective scoring system 24 hours before and 24 hours after exercise. Heart rates remained significantly higher when the horses carried 25 and 30% of their body weight. Plasma lactate concentrations immediately and 10 minutes after exercise differed when horses carried 30% of their body weight compared with 15, 20, and 25% weight carriage. Horses tended to have a greater change in muscle soreness and muscle tightness when carrying 25% of their body weight, and a significant change in soreness and tightness scores was found in horses carrying 30% of their body weight. Loin width and cannon bone circumference were found to be negatively correlated to the changes in muscle soreness and tightness scores. In conclusion, the data suggest that horses with wider loin and thicker cannon bone circumference became less sore when carrying heavier weight loads.

Thanks for posting this Liz. I now feel better asking my 14.2 1/2, 1000 lb Connemara with 9 inches of bone to carry by fluffy arse around! LOL ( even though I thankfully weigh much less than 25% of her! LOL)

[TKR]

I can see where the above evaluation would be relative to what they were trying to prove. However, without knowing the integrity of the bone (i.e. dense or porous) you still can't evaluate how it would hold up.
PennyG

[Waterwitch]

without knowing the integrity of the bone (i.e. dense or porous) you still can't evaluate how it would hold up.
PennyG

Bone density or lack thereof is relative to strain (and in extreme cases, nutrition). Bone remodels in response to stress and therefore density is directly related to exercise. There have been several longitudinal studies in Europe and the USA evaluating foals and race horses under various exercise regimes which have demonstrated this.

When discussing weight carrying ability and general soundness however, bone density is only one part of the puzzle. One must consider weight bearing surfaces and base of support. The greater the base of support, the more difficult it is to displace the center of mass - ie. the greater the base of support, the greater the stability and the less muscular activity required to maintain equilibrium. Light framed horses on a small base of support have an advantage in maneuverability (while losing some stability) but it is obviously counterproductive to equine sporting endeavors to have a large framed horse on an anatomically small base of support. The bigger framed/heavier the horse, the greater the requirement for a broad base of support to distribute the horse's mass.

[Pally]

Except for in a few breed circles, I (and maybe it's only me) don't hear anything about flat bone in discussions about legs over in the USA. I'm glad you brought it up! I think if someone wants to know about good bone, the terms "round bone" and "flat bone" should at least be mentioned. Quoted from an old conformation book I had that had a good definition, "undesirable round bone occurs when the cannon bone and tendon are too close together all the way down. This type of leg won't hold up as well as one with flat bone, with the tendon set back father from the bone. In a horse with round bone, there is always excessive friction between the moving parts." Round bone makes the horse look like they have legs like tree trunks; flat bone can look like much less bone than it actually is. This is what I was taught, at least :) Irish Drafts, Mountain & Moorland breeds, and I'm sure there are other breeds out there, put a lot of importance on good, flat bone in addition to just X inches of bone.

You know what, as a kid doing 4-H judging (usually on QH or drafts) I was always taught to look for flat bone, but it was never really explained why that was desirable. The friction between parts makes sense. Thanks for bringing that up.

[fp_wonders]

I can see where the above evaluation would be relative to what they were trying to prove. However, without knowing the integrity of the bone (i.e. dense or porous) you still can't evaluate how it would hold up.
PennyG

While flat bone technically has the word "bone" in it, it refers to how the leg is put together as a whole, bones and tendons, with their relation to each other being the most important aspect. The term would have come about before x-rays and would have referred to how the tendons made the bone appear visually as an indicator of soundness. No, we don't know how porous or dense the bone is and can't evaluate those aspects from looking at the outside of a leg. That is a much more modern advancement. But same as a horse that's over at the knees or tied in at the knees, we assume that it would or would not hold up as well based on the placement of tendons and the size of the bone itself.

Saying that you can't evaluate the bone without knowing how dense or porous it is seems to be missing the point of the term and adding aspects to it that weren't originally intended to be there. It's a perfectly valid point, but it's going above and beyond the term and taking it very literally.

I honestly don't know a lot about what creates bone density, other than little bits I've read that say that exercise, mostly limited work on hard surfaces, can improve it. It seems to me that bone density is not something that's static and can be improved, while tendon placement and bone size is static and cannot be changed or modified. You can't start with round bone and achieve flat bone; it's part of their basic conformation. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missing information regarding bone density.

[fp_wonders]

You know what, as a kid doing 4-H judging (usually on QH or drafts) I was always taught to look for flat bone, but it was never really explained why that was desirable. The friction between parts makes sense. Thanks for bringing that up.

You're welcome. I'm jealous, you must have had a good 4-H group. I remember my 4-H leader stating that the terms paint and pinto had to do with coat colors, much less bringing up anything about flat bone. :eek: I judged statewide nationally within FFA in high school and never heard the term there either.

[TKR]

I am in agreement regarding the bone size should match the structure or mass of the horse as well as the conformational aspects. As far as round or flat -- racehorses have been shown to actually remodel or reshape bone as a result of the speed work. It causes for more bone to be laid on and the shape remodels, but it's a bit of a sticky situation as the work can also lead to other problems, such as splints, fractures or shin bucking. However, the integrity of the bone is still an issue (to me) and can certainly not be measured by the naked eye or the size or even shape of the bone. It would take a vet with diagnostic equipment. My point is simply that the more finer boned horses can and do hold up as well or better than a heavy boned horse depending on having adequate structure to support the mass as well as correct conformation and hard, flinty bone (as opposed to softer, more porous bone). The reason I have pointed this out is that so often you have seen ads or hear people talk about how much bone a horse has or the circumference as if it guarantees a more sound horse -- it does not!
PennyG

[fp_wonders]

I am in agreement regarding the bone size should match the structure or mass of the horse as well as the conformational aspects. As far as round or flat -- racehorses have been shown to actually remodel or reshape bone as a result of the speed work. It causes for more bone to be laid on and the shape remodels, but it's a bit of a sticky situation as the work can also lead to other problems, such as splints, fractures or shin bucking.

Do you know of any online studies that talk about remodeling or reshaping the bone? I'm curious to read more and get a more in-depth explanation. I can understand bone thickening, but I think it's different than round vs. flat bone, which refers to the leg as a whole, not just bone. Integrity of the bone is definitely an issue in and of itself, but that's not what these terms refer to.

I am aware of endurance riders thickening the bone with limited work on concrete and hard surfaces, but is it a thickness that could be measured in inches or with a measuring tape? I don't want to sound like I'm saying bigger is better with that last statement; I agree with you that there's a balance. I'm just talking about having a good amount to begin with without reshaping or remodeling.

Is soft, porous bone something that is found in certain lines, certain breeds, or does it apply to horses as a species? Is it genetic? Related to the nutrition or environment? It's not something that I'm aware of being an issue within Fell Ponies, which is the breed that I know best. I've worked on TB farms and heard the term, but never investigated much. Never heard the term on Arab farms I've worked on. I did a quick search and couldn't come up with anything that looked related.

The reason I have pointed this out is that so often you have seen ads or hear people talk about how much bone a horse has or the circumference as if it guarantees a more sound horse -- it does not!
I agree, but how I define quality bone is different. There's always those who hear a term and never bother to learn, and they always end up importing or buying the worst of the breed for a cute head or color or feather amount and then claim quality that doesn't exist because someone told them it was a good example of the breed.

[Kyzteke]

I can see where the above evaluation would be relative to what they were trying to prove. However, without knowing the integrity of the bone (i.e. dense or porous) you still can't evaluate how it would hold up.
PennyG

Indeed. And with only 8 horses in the "study" that is hardly enough to do more than indicate the possibility of their hypothesis.

I look at the Arab breed, which pretty much dominates endurance and many of them seem "light boned" to me, compared to, say a WB. I've been told that Arabs as a breed have "denser" bone, but I have no idea if that is true or not.

But like others, the guideline I've always been told is 8" per 1000lbs is the MINIMUM a horse should have. But then, I've also seen plenty of horses with more bone than that fail to stay sound for any length of time.

[dr j]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10850832?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


This is a link to a study done several years ago with young TBs. Bone quality is built by the continued remodeling of the bone while under stress.

The take home of Dr. Nunamaker's research- we actually don't push our horses at "too early" of an age, just the opposite in fact. To build it- you have to be using it ( placing it under stress).

Our idea of what "builds" bone is/was amiss - it doesn't happen in long slow works, but in short bursts of speed ( stress). Think about - that's the way mother nature does it too.

So the balance to be found is enough slow steady work for cardiovasular fitness with enough speed work to build a good musculoskeletal unit.

Another point made was surface- you need to "build your bone" on the surface it will be "used" upon. ie- a horse worked on dirt will build different type of bone than a horse worked on turf and vice versa.

A copy of his whole study is in one of the AAEP proceedings from 2002 ( I think) - and makes for a great read.

Most of his work is with the third metacarpal- and as it relates to dorsal metatcarpal disease ( bucked shins).

[TKR]

Thanks dr j -- exactly the kind of information I remembered reading and researching when I was involved at the track -- just couldn't remember in what publication or where I read the material. I also remember reading that the finer boned light horses used in sport or for riding over the centuries had the hard, flinty (dense) type bone that would hold up under stress. The heavier (draft) breeds had more porous, although larger bones, that showed a negative response to the same kind of stress. I think that is probably another factor the Thoroughbred and Arabian have brought to the table in the sportbreeding equation and helped with as the warmbloods have evolved. The heavier horses in the same equation probably did not have the same bone integrity since they hadn't been used in that respect over the years. I think what many people don't seem to understand is that having a larger boned horse as opposed to a more fine boned horse does not in any way enhance their chances of staying sound or make them more durable based only on that with all other components being equal. Larger bone has always just been a "buzz" word or phrase for advertising that is actually meaningless on it's own. JMHO!
PennyG

[fp_wonders]

I have to read through that and it takes more time than I have at the moment, but I do appreciate you posting it.

I think what many people don't seem to understand is that having a larger boned horse as opposed to a more fine boned horse does not in any way enhance their chances of staying sound or make them more durable based only on that with all other components being equal. Larger bone has always just been a "buzz" word or phrase for advertising that is actually meaningless on it's own.

I agree. Haven't we been saying the same thing all along?

Please keep in mind that my point of talking about flat bone versus round bone doesn't have to do with size; it has to do with how the bones and tendons are put together as a whole, which equates to what I consider quality bone. Talking about bone density (flinty bone vs. porous bone), while it's interesting and a valid point in and of itself, is not really relative to the definition of flat bone...but is relative to the definition of good bone, which is what this thread started on. I simply wanted to expand on flat bone because I think it's often misunderstood, and now I want to learn more about porous bone vs. flinty bone. I'm glad we agree that more is not necessarily better. I'm just trying to say that more is not necessarily worse either. There are many factors. I think this is the point of the thread.