FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / A Comparison of Devices for Race Day Characterization of Nor...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 14(1); doi: 10.3390/ani14010038

A Comparison of Devices for Race Day Characterization of North American Turfgrass Thoroughbred Racing Surfaces.

Abstract: Both pre-race meet and daily turf surface condition measurements are required by regulations adopted as part of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA). The Orono Biomechanical Surface Tester (OBST) is the primary device used for characterizing a racing surface and is used for the pre-meet inspections. Tools that are better suited for the daily testing of turf surfaces are also needed to meet the new federal regulations. The purpose of this study was to compare five simple tools commonly used in turf applications to the OBST. Data were collected with each of the six devices at plots chosen to approximate the current and potential compositions of North American turf racetracks. Correlations and linear regression models were then established between the simple tool measurements and the parameters measured by the OBST. The moisture probe was found to be the primary device for race day characterization due to its strong correlation to OBST measurements. The Longchamp Penetrometer is also prioritized for daily measurements due to its established correlation to horse performance and injuries. The Clegg Impact Hammer provides further improvement of the linear regression model. The Turf Shear Tester and GoingStick® were not found to correlate well to the biomechanically based device.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-12-21 PubMed ID: 38200768PubMed Central: PMC10777964DOI: 10.3390/ani14010038Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article investigates the effectiveness of different devices used for daily and pre-race meet measurements of turfgrass racing surfaces as mandated by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA). The study compared six different tools, including the Orono Biomechanical Surface Tester (OBST), with the moisture probe found most effective for race day characterizations due to strong correlations with OBST measurements.

Objective & Methodology

  • The overall aim of this study was to identify equipment that is both manageable for everyday use and accurate in characterizing the condition of turfgrass race tracks.
  • In particular, the study compared five simpler tools in turf applications with the OBST, the main apparatus currently used for characterizing racing surfaces during pre-meet reviews.
  • Data were collected utilizing all the devices at areas selected to reflect the current and potential compositions of North American turf racecourses.

Findings

  • The findings of this research indicate that the moisture probe was the most consistent device for race day characterization, showcasing a strong correlation to measurements undertaken by the OBST. This is essential for ensuring the safety of racehorses and jockeys due to varying track conditions.
  • Additionally, the Longchamp Penetrometer was also highly regarded for daily measurements, due to it having an established correlation with racehorse performance and injuries. These daily measurements allow for regular monitoring of the track, increasing safety and performance ability.
  • Furthermore, the study found that the Clegg Impact Hammer could enhance the linear regression model. This implies that the device might add value for more detailed or specific analyses of the turfgrass conditions.

Devices that did not correlate well

  • The Turf Shear Tester and GoingStick didn’t show a significant correlation with the biomechanically based OBST. As such, these instruments might be less reliable or informative for race day turf characterization.

Significance of the Study

  • This study is crucial to promoting the safety of racehorses and jockeys by identifying the best tools for the regular assessment of turfgrass conditions.
  • By establishing the best apparatus for daily turf condition testing, the findings could help horse racing authorities meet the federal regulations set out in the HISA, thereby improving the credibility of the sport.

Cite This Article

APA
Schmitt PR, Sanderson W, Rogers JT, Barzee TJ, Peterson MM. (2023). A Comparison of Devices for Race Day Characterization of North American Turfgrass Thoroughbred Racing Surfaces. Animals (Basel), 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14010038

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 1

Researcher Affiliations

Schmitt, Peter R
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503, USA.
  • Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, Lexington, KY 40502, USA.
Sanderson, Wayne
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503, USA.
Rogers, John Trey
  • Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Barzee, Tyler J
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503, USA.
Peterson, Michael Mick
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40503, USA.
  • Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, Lexington, KY 40502, USA.

Grant Funding

  • T42OH010278 / ACL HHS
  • U54 OH007547 / NIOSH CDC HHS
  • 6T42OH010278 / NIOSH CDC HHS

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Eisenberg J. Off to the Races. The Smithsonian Magazine Aug 1, 2004.
  2. Heleski C, Stowe CJ, Fiedler J, Peterson ML, Brady C, Wickens C, Macleod JN. Thoroughbred racehorse welfare through the lens of social license to operate—With an emphasis on a US perspective. Sustainability 2020;12:1706.
    doi: 10.3390/sህ1706google scholar: lookup
  3. . The Jockey Club Equine Injury Database. .
  4. Hitchens PL, Hill AE, Stover SM. The role of catastrophic injury or sudden death of the horse in race-day jockey falls and injuries in California, 2007–2012. Equine Vet. J. 2014;48:50–56.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12392pubmed: 25417895google scholar: lookup
  5. Peterson ML, Roepstorff L, Thomason JJ, Mahaffey C, McIlwraith CW. Racing Surfaces White Paper. .
  6. Pfau T, Witte TH, Wilson AM. Centre of mass movement and mechanical energy fluctuation during gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse. J. Exp. Biol. 2006;209:3742–3757.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.02439pubmed: 16985191google scholar: lookup
  7. Thomason JJ, Peterson ML. Biomechanical and mechanical investigations of the hoof-track interface in racing horses. Vet. Clin. North Am. Equine Pract. 2008;24:53–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2007.11.007pubmed: 18314036google scholar: lookup
  8. Tan H, Wilson AM. Grip and limb force limits to turning performance in competition horses. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2010;278:2105–2111.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2395pmc: PMC3107634pubmed: 21147799google scholar: lookup
  9. Self Davies ZT, Spence AJ, Wilson AM. Ground reaction forces of overground galloping in ridden Thoroughbred racehorses. J. Exp. Biol. 2019;222:jeb204107.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.204107pubmed: 31444280google scholar: lookup
  10. Crawford KL, Finnane A, Phillips CJ, Greer RM, Woldeyohannes SM, Perkins NR, Kidd LJ, Ahern BJ. The Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Injuries in Thoroughbred Racehorses in Queensland, Australia: How These Vary for Two-Year-Old and Older Horses and with Type of Injury. Animals 2021;11:270.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020270pmc: PMC7910838pubmed: 33494508google scholar: lookup
  11. Wiggers N, Nauwelaerts SL, Hobbs SJ, Bool S, Wolschrijn CF, Back W. Functional locomotor consequences of uneven forefeet for trot symmetry in individual riding horses. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0114836.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114836pmc: PMC4315574pubmed: 25646752google scholar: lookup
  12. Georgopoulos SP, Parkin TDH. Risk factors associated with fatal injuries in Thoroughbred racehorses competing in flat racing in the United States and Canada. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2016;249:931–939.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.249.8.931pubmed: 27700272google scholar: lookup
  13. Parkin TDH, Clegg PD, French NP, Proudman CJ, Riggs CM, Singer ER, Webbon PM, Morgan KL. Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds. Equine Vet. J. 2004;36:521–526.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044877332pubmed: 15460077google scholar: lookup
  14. Hitchens PL, Blizzard CL, Jones G, Day L, Fell J. Predictors of race-day jockey falls in flat racing in Australia. Occup. Environ. Med. 2010;67:693–698.
    doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.050567pubmed: 20573845google scholar: lookup
  15. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority. In: Rule 2000 Series—Racetrack Safety Program. Federal Register Volume 87, 2022, pp. 445–459.
  16. Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW, Reiser RF. Development of a system for the in-situ characterization of thoroughbred horse racing track surfaces. Biosyst. Eng. 2008;101:260–269.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.07.007google scholar: lookup
  17. Maeda Y, Hanada M, Oikawa MA. Epidemiology of racing injuries in Thoroughbred racehorses with special reference to bone fractures: Japanese experience from the 1980s to 2000s. J. Equine Sci. 2016;27:81–97.
    doi: 10.1294/jes.27.81pmc: PMC5048355pubmed: 27703403google scholar: lookup
  18. Gibson MJ, Legg KA, Gee EK, Rogers CW. The Reporting of Racehorse Fatalities in New Zealand Thoroughbred Flat Racing in the 2011/12–2021/22 Seasons. Animals 2023;13:612.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13040612pmc: PMC9951738pubmed: 36830402google scholar: lookup
  19. Dufour MJD, Mumford C. GoingStick technology and electromagnetic induction scanning for naturally-turfed sports surfaces. Sports Technol. 2008;1:125–131.
    doi: 10.1080/19346182.2008.9648463google scholar: lookup
  20. . Standard Test Method for In-Situ Testing of Functional Properties of Equine Surfaces: Artificial Surfaces. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2019.
  21. . Standard Test Method for Measuring Impact-Attenuation Characteristics of Natural Playing Surface Systems Using a Lightweight Portable Apparatus. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2018.
  22. . Standard Specification for Shock-Absorbing Properties of North American Football Field Playing Systems as Measured in the Field. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA,: 2007.
  23. Guisasola I, James I, Stiles V, Dixon S. Dynamic behaviour of soils used for natural turf sports surfaces. Sports Eng. 2010;12:111–122.
    doi: 10.1007/s12283-010-0036-1google scholar: lookup
  24. Schmitt PR, Stanton V, Peterson ML. Laser Diffraction Particle Size Distribution of North American Turfgrass Horse Racing Surfaces. J. ASABE 2023;66:735–746.
    doi: 10.13031/ja.15396google scholar: lookup
  25. Henderson JJ, Rogers JN III, Crum JR. The effects of natural and artificial root zone inclusions on the playing surface characteristics of trafficked Kentucky bluegrass. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2009;11:1107–1129.
  26. Henderson JJ. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USA: 2003.
  27. Hernlund E, Lonnell C, Roepstorff L, Lundholm M, Egenvall A. Equestrian Surfaces—A Guide. Svenska Ridsportförbundet 2014.
  28. Ratzlaff MH, Hyde ML, Hutton DV, Rathgeber RA, Balch OK. Interrelationships between moisture content of the track, dynamic properties of the track and the locomotor forces exerted by galloping horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1997;17:35–42.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(97)80456-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  29. Thomas VJ, Murphy JW, Field TRO. Racetrack Traction Assessment by Penetrometer Part I. The Model. J. Turfgrass Manag. 1996;1:37–49.
    doi: 10.1300/J099v01n04_04google scholar: lookup
  30. Murphy JW, Field TRO, Thomas VJ. Racetrack Traction Assessment by Penetrometer Part II. Application of the Model. J. Turfgrass Manag. 1996;1:51–62.
    doi: 10.1300/J099v01n04_05google scholar: lookup
  31. Sherratt PJ, Street JR, Gardner DS. Effects of biomass accumulation on the playing quality of a Kentucky bluegrass stabilizer system used for sports fields. Agron. J. 2005;97:1107–1114.
    doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.0182google scholar: lookup
  32. Blanco MA, Hourquebie R, Dempsey K, Schmitt P, Peterson ML. An Experimental Comparison of Simple Measurements Used for the Characterization of Sand Equestrian Surfaces. Animals 2021;11:2896.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11102896pmc: PMC8532901pubmed: 34679917google scholar: lookup
  33. . Standard Test Methods for Water Content and Density of Soil In situ by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR). ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2019.
  34. Graydon R, Northrop AJ, Martin JH, Lucey M, Schramel JP, Peham C, Roepstorff L, Sinclair J, Hobbs SJ. The Development of a Standardized Protocol for Quantifying Equestrian Eventing Cross-Country Ground. Animals 2023;3:343–361.
    doi: 10.3390/biomechanics3030029google scholar: lookup
  35. Kruse L, Traulsen I, Krieter J. The Use of a Technical Device for Testing the Sport-Functional Properties of Riding Surfaces. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013;33:539–546.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.08.008google scholar: lookup
  36. Kozlowski R, Zheng H, Daniels KE, Socolar JES. Stick-Slip Dynamics in a Granular Material With Varying Grain Angularity. Front. Phys. 2022;10:916190.
    doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.916190google scholar: lookup
  37. Clark AH, Behringer RP, Krim J. Vibration can enhance stick-slip behavior for granular friction. Granul. Matter. 2019;21:55.
    doi: 10.1007/s10035-019-0895-5google scholar: lookup
  38. Sion BD, Shoop SA, McDonald EV. Evaluation of in-situ relationships between variable soil moisture and soil strength using a plot-scale experimental design. J. Terramechanics 2022;103:33–51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jterra.2022.07.002google scholar: lookup
  39. Al-Shayea NA. The combined effect of clay and moisture content on the behavior of remolded unsaturated soils. Eng. Geol. 2001;62:319–342.
    doi: 10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00032-1google scholar: lookup
  40. Zhang X, Zhang D, Wang Y, Ji S, Zhao H. Dynamic characteristics of sphere impact into wet granular materials considering suction. Granul. Matter. 2023;25:18.
    doi: 10.1007/s10035-022-01304-9google scholar: lookup
  41. Scholtes L, Chareyre B, Nicot F, Darve F. Micromechanics of granular materials with capillary effects. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2009;47:64–75.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijengsci.2008.07.002google scholar: lookup
  42. Suescun-Florez E, Iskander M. Effect of Fast Constant Loading Rates on the Global Behavior of Sand in Triaxial Compression. Geotech. Test. J. 2017;40:52–71.
    doi: 10.1520/GTJ20150253google scholar: lookup
  43. Alonso EE, Gens A, Josa A. A constitutive model for partially saturated soils. Geotechnique 1990;40:405–430.
    doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.405google scholar: lookup
  44. Hernlund E, Egenvall A, Hobbs SJ, Peterson ML, Northrop A, Bergh A, Martin JH, Roepstorff L. Comparing subjective and objective evaluation of show jumping competition and warm-up arena surfaces. Vet. J. 2017;227:49–57.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.09.001pubmed: 29031331google scholar: lookup
  45. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, Italy: 1998.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,109 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.