After seeing a few threads...

Y

youngfarmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 October 2011
Messages
169
Location
Essex
Visit site
After seeing a few threads on here and other forums, and also conversations with people on FB groups etc, I thought I would see if anyone had seen this journal yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...5683004949a/1-s2.0-S0749073907000715-main.pdf

(Hopefully that works!)
It is basically about effects of early training (including ridden work) on horses. I've seen a lot of people get quite upset and irate about horses being backed at 2 years old, but actually as this research proves it is beneficial to your horse in the long run rather than leaving it until the horse is rising 4 or coming up for 5.

What are your thoughts on this? Obviously some people will disagree but 1) wanted to bring it to other peoples attention as not a lot of people have seen it and 2) get peoples thoughts on it and why they think it is good or bad

:)
 
cptrayes said:
Um. $31.50 to read it?

Want to tell us what it says instead??
Click to expand...

It would be pretty difficult to explain really. In a nutshell, it talks about why early training and riding (as in from 2 years) is beneficial to horses and how their body adapts to lessen the chances of injury when they are older due to the adaptations that take place in bone/cartilage/tendons/muscles etc.

Just wanted to see other peoples views on it and bring it to attention of others!
 
Pass it on to me if it's free for you JFTD. It isn't something we have rights to :(

I've heard that these studies exist though and in honesty it wouldn't surprise me if some work was beneficial or at least, not harmful. Horses are designed to run from the second they get up after birth so it wouldn't be a huge leap to imagaine that a certain amount of work might not be detrimental to them even from a very young age!
 
What did they do? How did they compare the effects between different ages of starting horses - did they just look at how likely they were to receive treatment for an injury or did they do something more inventive? What time frame did they observe them over? How many in each cohort?

If I could access the article without paying now, I wouldn't have to ask all this. Damn subscription-only journals :mad:
 
wee bit suspect that it acknowledges the racing board of new zealand and a horseracing betting levy board for funding and yet no one has said there may be a conflict of interest?? May be a little bit of bias there :confused:
 
jesstinsel said:
Pass it on to me if it's free for you JFTD. It isn't something we have rights to :(

I've heard that these studies exist though and in honesty it wouldn't surprise me if some work was beneficial or at least, not harmful. Horses are designed to run from the second they get up after birth so it wouldn't be a huge leap to imagaine that a certain amount of work might not be detrimental to them even from a very young age!
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly do that, Jess, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to :p But since I am a rebel who believes all science should be open access, I will do :D I can't guarentee I'll be able to get it, but I do have an Athens log in there, and given the nature of my institution we should have access!

I agree - but it depends on whether they mean a 2 year old should be weight bearing (which seems unlikely) or being long reined / worked loosely (which is plausible) etc...
 
CloBauble said:
wee bit suspect that it acknowledges the racing board of new zealand and a horseracing betting levy board for funding and yet no one has said there may be a conflict of interest?? May be a little bit of bias there :confused:
Click to expand...

The HBLB fund my work too and I am in no way biased towards the racing industry ;) I doubt my supervisor has any feels on horse racing at all! Just because they're funding it doesn't mean they will have any input in the publications...
 
I have seen this - or a very similar article a while back.
If I remember correctly the study was done on comparing horses that were in work i.e. being ridden, to horses that were kept stabled for majority of the day or very restricted area for exercise.

Like any of these studied there were not a lot of horses studied and I well remember thinking that it was a very unbalanced study.
 
CloBauble said:
and they only follow up to 3year olds in race training and there is little mention of injury just bone density on the conclusion. I am not convinced.
Click to expand...

Have you got access?

If that is the case, bugger all conclusions can be drawn from it.

If you're loading a 2 y/old you would expect higher bone density than in a similar aged, unloaded animal - that's basic stuff :rolleyes: Doesn't mean there aren't other problems!
 
I'm not actually sure why it's asking you to subscribe as it hasn't asked me to and I've not accessed it from my university site etc? Very strange!

Apologies as well-had said before that it was a study but is actually many studies put together (not a review of them though, actually contains all of the results and methods etc).

1) They assessed the adaptations of bone/muscle/tendons/ligaments/cartilage/joints etc in different groups of horses (mainly TB's but also SB's and WB/Sport horse types) which ranged in age (foal upwards)
2) Many groups of horses-ones of the same ages/types were given different exercises to perform at different ages and of different loads. Stress/macro and micro cracking etc and changes within the body were assessed, as were any injuries which occured
3) They looked at how the different training methods/regimes effected adapted the horse and at what rates. How these benefited the horse or how they impaired the horse. Looked at the horse throughout competition career (depending on discipline/types etc)
4) Observed some from foals (for any defects etc which may have affected the foals future ridden career) and then put into training from 2 years old to 5 years old. Assessed the horses competitive career and how likely the horse was to receive injury (career ending injuries, not just cuts etc in the field)
50 Each study varied-from 40 horses to over 100 horses. Overall study puts together the information from these other studies and has done some experiments themselves to prove/disprove this information.

The study basically says that horses who are put into work earlier (even ridden work) actually are less likely to have serious injury or any issues (arthritis etc) and be able to perform better in the discipline if they have had the mechanical loads required for that discipline established earlier. Most horses will show no positive change in bone after 2 years old and definitely none at 4/5 years old. The muscle/tendons/ligaments/joints/cartilage etc also benefits from earlier training as it can be strengthened and 'moulded' as it were to specific disciplines.

Definitely well worth reading if training youngsters is something that interests anyone. It is quite hard to sum up as there is just so much useful information within the study and the other studies attached.
 
CloBauble said:
and they only follow up to 3year olds in race training and there is little mention of injury just bone density on the conclusion. I am not convinced.
Click to expand...

If you read more than the conclusion, there is a lot of mention of injury throughout (nearly every 3 or 4 sentences at the very maximum). The whole study was put towards looking into adaptations within the horse at different ages and for different disciplines and if training earlier is likely to reduce the chance of injury:)
 
Ladyinred said:
Might as well start sending small children back up chimneys whilst you are at it.

I will stick with Dr Debs study: http://www.equinestudies.org/ranger_2008/ranger_piece_2008_pdf1.pdf
Click to expand...

Haven't seen this study before but both studies clearly conflict with each other. Personally I would rather go with a more recent study which is now being backed up by many vets across the world, but I will read this one you have given me anyway as may learn something

EDIT: After reading just a small amount more of the study you have provided me with, it actually seems to be more attacking racing and criticising rather than proving leaving a horse to 'mature' is better. So far, I've read about a paragraph of this that is just completely slating the racing industry? It is also all about American training methods within the racing industry-which are actually very different to the UK training methods. Must say, would rather be able to read a study applied to mainly the UK (but including other countries) rather than just about America, where even their ground is very much different to ours
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the summary YF - you have convinced me it is worth looking at tomorrow if I can get it. Alternatively I may ask you to indulge in a little unlicensed circulation if you're willing? :D

The other "study" is not a study, it's not referenced and not published in a peer reviewed journal. I've read it before and while I agreed with some of the sentiments, it's largely unsupported and hyperbolic...
 
Well, my youngters live out and I will back them at four. This is what I believe is best having read various info and from my own observations (mainly ex-racehorses).
 
I want to read it. I have a big problem believing that horses starting work early are LESS prone to arthritis when, I think, the reverse has been proved to be true of human sportmen and women? Joint usage causes cartilage wear and cartilage wear causes arthritic changes, no??? Though maybe adaptation of bone/tendon/ligament early could feasibly prevent the cartilage wear??


My own anecdotal experience is that TBs raced at 2 do not have nearly as long working lives as TBs not raced at all, but maybe my sample is too small.

If anyone finds a way to copy it legally, please do.
 
pm me tomorrow, in case I forget, if you don't find a copy by other means, cptrayes.

I think the manner of useage will affect the likelihood of developing arthritis? I believe it is less prevalent in classically schooled dr horses than competition horses - and the latter have longer working lives. though I have no evidence for that other than what I've heard. Perhaps younger horses learn to carry themselves better if worked younger as they are at an earlier stage in development (and may be more maleable in terms of development?). I'm theorising wildly... I have no idea until I read the paper.
 
I can't read the study, but from what I gather it only follows the studied horses up to the age of 5? If that is the case I don't know how the comment on career longevity and arthritis can be at all relevant.

I have seen the results of horses started too young and they aren't pretty. To be honest I will trust my own experience and common sense rather than a study that seems in my opinion far from complete.

Even if you don't believe the effects are physical, the mental maturity issue is cause enough for me to wait with any horse I am dealing with. You see it every day in the competitive circles many horses don't continue competing past 6 or 7 because they can no longer cope with the mental stresses inflicted upon them from such a young age, that is if they haven't physically broken already (knackered joints, kissing spine, chronic unsoundness).
 
JustFindingTheDecorations said:
Thanks for the summary YF - you have convinced me it is worth looking at tomorrow if I can get it. Alternatively I may ask you to indulge in a little unlicensed circulation if you're willing? :D

The other "study" is not a study, it's not referenced and not published in a peer reviewed journal. I've read it before and while I agreed with some of the sentiments, it's largely unsupported and hyperbolic...
Click to expand...

If I knew how to do that I happily would! Haha unfortunately I don't know how to get it off the internet and into an appropriate format to send. If you know-feel free to PM me! (Apologise for the delays in reply now-I'm supposed to be doing an assignment :rolleyes:). Definitely is worth the read imo, even if not something people agree with it provides a lot of information and also references which is valuable to anyone training any age of horse
 
team barney said:
I can't read the study, but from what I gather it only follows the studied horses up to the age of 5? If that is the case I don't know how the comment on career longevity and arthritis can be at all relevant.

I have seen the results of horses started too young and they aren't pretty. To be honest I will trust my own experience and common sense rather than a study that seems in my opinion far from complete.

Even if you don't believe the effects are physical, the mental maturity issue is cause enough for me to wait with any horse I am dealing with. You see it every day in the competitive circles many horses don't continue competing past 6 or 7 because they can no longer cope with the mental stresses inflicted upon them from such a young age, that is if they haven't physically broken already (knackered joints, kissing spine, chronic unsoundness).
Click to expand...

Some of the other studies which are referenced follow the horses past the age of 5, but most don't go right through a horses ridden career unfortunately-which would be very interesting if someone was willing to do a study which was over that large period of time.

I do agree with you in some respects, as training horses is an art as well as a science and some horses won't respond to early training well. However, in other respects I agree with what these studies are saying and feel they put across very valid research and possibly training methods and techniques which are better suited to a wider range of horses.

Each horse is different and each method people use to train their horse is different. Genetic and physical make up of a horse is as detrimental to their career and sometimes no training can influence that for better or worse. If we didn't have such diverse training methods it would be a very boring place really!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top