Interesting article about temperature regulation in horses. Worth a read

Pearlsasinger said:
What a pity you didn't ask this in your first post, rather than telling an international expert that he was wrong just because you didn't understand what he was saying.
Click to expand...

I didn't tell him he was wrong because I didn't understand PaS.After consulting someone who studied thermodynamics at degree level, I told people on the forum he was wrong that they need to rug a horse in a stone stable more just because it's stone, because he is wrong. He wrote "stone shelters or stables will "draw" heat from a horse, and they won't". I refer you to DD's post 117 and my post number 118.
 
Last edited:
DabDab said:
An exercise in using science to overcomplicate an issue.
Click to expand...

Yes! The original article suggested that you should consider the fact that your horse may be colder in a stone stable than a wooden one because of radiant heat transfer. That is a simple suggestion with real-world implications that means people may deliberately rug more in a stone stable because they are concerned that the stone wall is drawing heat from the horse even if the ambient air temperature feels ok. This is where posters are disagreeing or requesting clarification. I believe the radiant heat transfer from a horse to a stone wall to be so small in comparison to convection or conduction as to be something that does not need consideration when making deciosn on rugging. I also believe that a stone buildings stay warmer overnight due to their large thermal mass. Of course they stay colder longer too once cold - but again the key is the ambient air temp. If it feels fairly warm in your stone stable then you can trust that and rug accordingly.

If I am wrong I want to understand why. I do care about what my horses are lying on and I do care about the air temps that are surrounding them because of the large effects of convection anf conduction. I don't worry about the walls they are standing near. If I should worry about the walls independently of the ambient air temperature then that is important. The radiant heat transfer calculations are not that complicated - can someone do them and explain what the number you get out might mean in practical terms?

I also don't know why this discussion has to get heated/personal. I find it very interesting and it seems others do too. Science in action with real-world validity. It's great to see people engaging with it.
 
Tiddlypom said:
Indeed there are, and funnily enough many of them don't feel the need to browbeat folk in a pompous and arrogant way. If all knowledgeable folk posted on here in the arrogant manner of 'Don't you know who I am' Dr David Marlin, this place would not be the mostly supportive environment that it is now.

It's quite possible to get your point across without resorting to attempts at humiliation. I actually enjoy reading the good dr's offerings on FB. It's as if he has a personality transplant when he comes on here.
Click to expand...

He didn't start this thread, and he responded to YBCM's thread where she just rubbished his comments in her usual rude and pompous way, in his usual polite manner. I don't think he has humiliated anyone, but certain people can't and won't be told because they have, across all their posts, an 'I know better' attitude.
 
ycbm said:
I did not say you had spoilt the thread. I said you had spoilt your own argument doing the rounds on Facebook. Which is a shame because over rugging is a definite issue and it needs influential people to speak up about it.
Click to expand...

he has. and you rubbished the science.
 
KautoStar1 said:
He didn't start this thread, and he responded to YBCM's thread where she just rubbished his comments in her usual rude and pompous way, in his usual polite manner. I don't think he has humiliated anyone, but certain people can't and won't be told because they have, across all their posts, an 'I know better' attitude.
Click to expand...

I love you too KS 😍
 
KautoStar1 said:
he has, you rubbished the science.
Click to expand...

Yes, the science, a tiny part of the article, is unfortunately not right. Posts 117/8.

Unless of course you believe that toasters emit more radiation if the bread is frozen than if it's thawed.
 
Last edited:
blitznbobs said:
Wow ... just wow... over complicating much? If your horse is cold - put a rug on it, if it’s not don’t... if your worried about the temperature of your stable buy a thermometer... you can get minimum and maximum ones ... I hate it when academia gets in the way of common sense ...

And yes I say that from the prospective of someone with an alphabet after my name ...
Click to expand...

AMEN!

Personally don't feel the need to apply physics to the rug/not rug decisions I make. Most experienced horse people can tell if a horse is warm or cold or liable to become warm or cold during the night. Do we always get it right? Nope. Will applying physics help us get it right every time? Nope.

Does YCBM always get things right? Nope. But she sure as hell does not deserve to be humiliated in the way she has been.
 
I
DabDab said:
I very much doubt it. There's just too many variables. Modelling the thermodynamics is one thing, but modelling lots of different 'horses' to plug into the model is just completely unrealistic.

And even if you could reliably model all of that, when are we saying that an individual horse is cold and in need of a rug? Beyond a certain energy usage? Is that per unit or cumulative? I can be happily maintaining my body temperature but I'm still 'cold'. Is it the same for a horse?

An exercise in using science to overcomplicate an issue.
Click to expand...

That’s kind of my point...
 
Actually I do need to apologize to David. My signature says this:

Small Print: The view expressed in this post is my own. You should take no action on any opinion given without verifying the facts for yourself. Like all humans,I can be wrong. Polite correction is welcomed.
Click to expand...

And did not correct him in the polite way that I have asked people to correct me if I am wrong. I allowed myself to carry over previous unhappy exchanges over confusion as to whether he was or was not connected with Cambridge University into this discussion in using the word 'rubbish'. That was wrong.


Can we go back to the point?

Rug your horse if it's cold.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
What a pity you didn't ask this in your first post, rather than telling an international expert that he was wrong just because you didn't understand what he was saying.
Click to expand...
Having read this thread end to end yesterday for the first time I actually think that's rather harsh. A query was raised, DM didn't explain his reasoning particularly well and got touchy and then it all got rather heated - on both sides in my opinion.
 
When someone hasn't understood something all scientists should take the time to read back what they wrote to see why that might have happened and if it can be addressed. Sadly lots don't even those with higher levels of public engagement. As I said earlier I have appreciated HHOers clarifications about the topic which has increased understanding.
 
KautoStar1 said:
He didn't start this thread, and he responded to YBCM's thread where she just rubbished his comments in her usual rude and pompous way, in his usual polite manner. I don't think he has humiliated anyone, but certain people can't and won't be told because they have, across all their posts, an 'I know better' attitude.
Click to expand...
Erm, KS, DM's reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect was humiliating and wholly unnecessary.
Dr David Marlin said:
Thank you :) The Dunning-Kruger effect is clearly alive and kicking on H&H Forum ;)
Click to expand...
In addition, he started the following thread on FB and has apparently relished his followers reaction to it, in which HHO generally gets a good drubbing.
https://www.facebook.com/233421046862124/posts/918428698361352

It's quite possible to be highly qualified in your field and to be able to impart your knowledge without patronising or belittling a non specialist audience. On here, think of Be Positive's informative and helpful posts as a lesson to us all. I have learned huge amounts off HHO, not least about footcare and feeding, but I'd have run a mile if putdowns like the above were commonplace.

The rugging debate itself is an important and valid one, which we can all learn something from.
 
I do think putdowns about HHO are commonplace tbh... there were people on the BD forum who posted in the past about what a horrible place this was, for example. From memory there was a slating on CoTH on more than one occasion. I'm sure there are others. I think this is a great place for the most part, it's a shame if people can't see the good but it's usually because they have dipped a toe in and not had a representative experience of the types of really decent folk here.

Dr Marlin does tend to write articles on subjects where people have strong "I was always taught..." type feelings about things, and so I think it's almost inevitable that tensions can run high on threads linked to his content. Someone mentioned the PC teaching people to scrape water off their horses to avoid overheating, for example.. during the summer there were some strident posts from various people on here about the same subject and contrary to the advice he was giving. I guess it can become frustrating if you're someone who is very well versed in the science, and hard to remain patient enough to explain things in ways that people can understand without actually compromising the science bits.
 
Tiddlypom said:
Erm, KS, DM's reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect was humiliating and wholly unnecessary.
In addition, he started the following thread on FB and has apparently relished his followers reaction to it, in which HHO generally gets a good drubbing.
https://www.facebook.com/233421046862124/posts/918428698361352

It's quite possible to be highly qualified in your field and to be able to impart your knowledge without patronising or belittling a non specialist audience. On here, think of Be Positive's informative and helpful posts as a lesson to us all. I have learned huge amounts off HHO, not least about footcare and feeding, but I'd have run a mile if putdowns like the above were commonplace.

The rugging debate itself is an important and valid one, which we can all learn something from.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with this.
 
ester said:
When someone hasn't understood something all scientists should take the time to read back what they wrote to see why that might have happened and if it can be addressed. Sadly lots don't even those with higher levels of public engagement. As I said earlier I have appreciated HHOers clarifications about the topic which has increased understanding.
Click to expand...

absolutely. tbf ycbm could have merely asked for an explanation rather than denouncing it as absolute rubbish-which was rude.

But to then take it onto a public FB page and the post and comments that followed, well that should be well beneath a grown up, let alone a world renowned academic.

if you can't be bothered to do do public engagement well, then just don't do it.
 
I think the bottom line is that if you can't explain to (a vast number of) people that horses are not humans and generally do not require wrapping up in layers of duvets, but that some may need more (or less) rugging/feeding/shelter to suit their particular needs, then you are never going to clarify things by bringing physics into it. Having said that, I found the physics bit very interesting.

Sadly there is no way to teach common sense, but even experienced horse people get rugging wrong sometimes.
 
What a great article!!! I only rug when my good doer native pony is clipped and then my unclipped 22 year old pony has a 50g on if wet, cold, windy! My pony currently has a chaser clip so 50 g on at night and no rug during day. In Winter, I always pop a 50g over her 100g rug at night. I don’t understand why people leave horses in the same rug 24/7 when it gets colder at night! Also, when people have hairy, natives in rugs now when it really isn’t cold yet!
 
Hack4fun said:
I hope I have explained that. The term "draw" is used because the net effect of radiation is that heat transfers from the warm horse to the cold wall.

DabDab said:
A low heat emitting body does not draw radiant heat from a higher heat emitting body, it simply gains from the heat that is freely given out by being in proximity.


So now I’m really confused. Are we saying that if I put my horse in a stone stable then the cold wall is actively going to draw the heat out of my horse ?
Because if that’s the case then I am going to think about how i rug my horse compared to if it’s in a wooden stable.
Or is the heat lost from my horse just absorbed by the cold wall and therefore I don’t need to worry?
Sorry physics not my strong point!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sorry my points showing up under DabDab quote, can’t multi quote properly, another thing I’m not good at !
 
Chattygoneon3 you wrote

"So now I’m really confused. Are we saying that if I put my horse in a stone stable then the cold wall is actively going to draw the heat out of my horse ?
Because if that’s the case then I am going to think about how i rug my horse compared to if it’s in a wooden stable.
Or is the heat lost from my horse just absorbed by the cold wall and therefore I don’t need to worry?
Sorry physics not my strong point"


The article says yes you should consider that as a stone wall will draw heat from the horse via radiant heat transfer. That was new information to me and potentially would alter my management so I checked it out with my OH who is a Physicist by profession. A senior scientist/technical lead who literally does these sorts of calculations in real-world scenarios all day long. He read the original artiticle. An extract from our subsequent conversation:

"The bit about radiant heat is nonsense"
"But it was written by a professor"
"Well he's obviously not a professot of PHYSICS"

And indeed he isn't, however esteemed he may be in other fields.

His science is not 'wrong' it is just not relevant to the question under discussiuon. Basically there is some heat transfer to the stone walls but it is a very small amount compared to the amount of heat transfer to the air (convection) or to the ground (conduction). So what they lie on and the air they stand in matters (ie temps and air flow/draughtiness). The walls - for all practical purposes - do not.

The beauty of science is that it is not just opinion - generally you can prove your position. I have (twice) invited Dr Marlint to dispute the above by calculating radiant heat transfer of a horse to a stone wall to demonstrate that radiant heat transfer contributes meaningfully to the overeall heat loss, and twice he has not taken up the offer. So for now I am going with my OH and ignoring walls!
 
Last edited:
Ambers Echo thank you for that, makes sense. I do wonder if the word “ draw” was an unfortunate choice, as it changes the whole meaning .
I agree it would be good if DM could answer some of the queries ,especially as he’s been active on the thread. Having the author of an article answering questions from said article would be very helpful , especially for a non academic like me.
 
They use the word 'draw' because the net effect is that the horse radiates more heat than the wall (all objects radiate heat) so the effect is for the horse to get cooler and the walls warmer - hence this can be usefully visualised as the walls 'drawing heat' even though that is not quite right. But I don't think it is relevant anyway as the amounts are (I believe) not significant enough to matter.
 
Ambers Echo , thanks again , I suppose the word “draw” to me makes me think of an active process with the walls sucking the heat out of the horse 😂
 
Tiddlypom said:
Erm, KS, DM's reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect was humiliating and wholly unnecessary.
In addition, he started the following thread on FB and has apparently relished his followers reaction to it, in which HHO generally gets a good drubbing.
https://www.facebook.com/233421046862124/posts/918428698361352

It's quite possible to be highly qualified in your field and to be able to impart your knowledge without patronising or belittling a non specialist audience. On here, think of Be Positive's informative and helpful posts as a lesson to us all. I have learned huge amounts off HHO, not least about footcare and feeding, but I'd have run a mile if putdowns like the above were commonplace.

The rugging debate itself is an important and valid one, which we can all learn something from.
Click to expand...
I've noticed some people who are considered to ve
Ambers Echo said:
Chattygoneon3 you wrote

"So now I’m really confused. Are we saying that if I put my horse in a stone stable then the cold wall is actively going to draw the heat out of my horse ?
Because if that’s the case then I am going to think about how i rug my horse compared to if it’s in a wooden stable.
Or is the heat lost from my horse just absorbed by the cold wall and therefore I don’t need to worry?
Sorry physics not my strong point"


The article says yes you should consider that as a stone wall will draw heat from the horse via radiant heat transfer. That was new information to me and potentially would alter my management so I checked it out with my OH who is a Physicist by profession. A senior scientist/technical lead who literally does these sorts of calculations in real-world scenarios all day long. He read the original artiticle. An extract from our subsequent conversation:

"The bit about radiant heat is nonsense"
"But it was written by a professor"
"Well he's obviously not a professot of PHYSICS"

And indeed he isn't, however esteemed he may be in other fields.

His science is not 'wrong' it is just not relevant to the question under discussiuon. Basically there is some heat transfer to the stone walls but it is a very small amount compared to the amount of heat transfer to the air (convection) or to the ground (conduction). So what they lie on and the air they stand in matters (ie temps and air flow/draughtiness). The walls - for all practical purposes - do not.

The beauty of science is that it is not just opinion - generally you can prove your position. I have (twice) invited Dr Marlint to dispute the above by calculating radiant heat transfer of a horse to a stone wall to demonstrate that radiant heat transfer contributes meaningfully to the overeall heat loss, and twice he has not taken up the offer. So for now I am going with my OH and ignoring walls!
Click to expand...

That's the thing isn't it. I think experts in one particular field are often given too much credit when they give their opinions on a different matter. Perhaps that explains the often thin skinned response when people raise questions.
 
I had pretty much the same conversation with my husband as Ambers Echo did with hers. Is that a husband consensus? 😂 I only deferred to him because he's an engineer and I'm a biologist and I wanted to check my understanding.
 
Husband consensus club member here 😂. My husband is an engineer who studied thermodynamics at degree level and is also an expert in insulation.

His response is that a horse radiates a certain amount of heat. That does not change just because something near enough to receive it is cold or hot. Or if it is one material or another.

The only thing that matters is whether your particular horse is warm or cold in their particular stable.




My last night's measurements, in an unheated room above a stable which a large hot human had been doing manual work all day.

Temperature of wood external wall. 14c
Temperature of stone external wall 15c

Temperature of stone external wall in an area where nobody had been working 13c

Both surfaces had picked up radiant heat from the worker. The stone more than the wood. Both will release that extra heat back to the air in the room over time. The stone has more to give back than the wood. Stone stables are not uniformly colder than wood ones, and the material your stable is made of should not figure in your rugging decisions.
 
mule said:
That's the thing isn't it. I think experts in one particular field are often given too much credit when they give their opinions on a different matter. Perhaps that explains the often thin skinned response when people raise questions.
Click to expand...

Yes! Hence the importance of anonymous peer review in academic papers to prevent people being distracted by 'names'. I was very surprised at how DM reacted though. Scientists disagree with each other all the time. That's why they publish a full account of how they arrived at theor conclusions so others can scrutinise what they say and either support it, question it or refute it. Ok I can see how very knowledgeable people being critiqued by Prof Google is irksome but many of the comments on this thread were perfectly reasonable questions. Not sure why an ego-massaging visit to FB was necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top