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) / External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2024; 14(8); doi: 10.3390/ani14081197

External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand.

Abstract: External hoof characteristics, balance, and conformation have been extensively studied in horses; however, mules remain understudied in these aspects. This study evaluated the size, shape, and symmetry of untrimmed and unshod forelimb hooves, compared the symmetry between forelimb hooves and stratified external forelimb hoof measurements based on the body condition score of mules raised in the foothill plains of northern Thailand. The forelimb hooves of 38 mules were photographed and 33 parameters, including angular and linear measurements, were analyzed. A multivariate analysis was used to explore the influence of sex, age, and body condition scores (BCS) on angular, linear, and area parameters. Additionally, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test was used to compare these parameters across different BCS groups. Despite the absence of shoeing and trimming, these mules exhibited optimal left-right forelimb hoof symmetry, with no significant (p < 0.05) differences in: outer wall length and inner wall length (OWL-IWL: Left 0.11 ± 0.66 cm; Right -0.12 ± 0.43 cm); sole length and sole width (SLS-SW: Left 1.65 ± 0.76 cm; Right 1.46 ± 0.89 cm); dorsal hoof wall length and heel length (DHWL-HL: Left 4.00 ± 0.80 cm; Right 3.81 ± 0.72 cm); and frog length and frog width (FL-FW: Left 3.88 ± 1.13 cm; Right 3.82 ± 0.18 cm). However, significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed within each body condition score group for forelimb hoof measurements for DHWL, IWL, heel separation (HS), heel bulb distance (HBD), SW, FW, and FL, while sex and age had no significant differences across the study variables. These findings provide valuable insights into mule welfare and management, contributing to understanding of the interplay between overall health and hoof conformation in the study area.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-04-16 PubMed ID: 38672345PubMed Central: PMC11047516DOI: 10.3390/ani14081197Google 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 study examines the external hoof characteristics of untrimmed and unshod, or unshoed, mules in northern Thailand, analyzing their size, shape, and symmetry, as well as how these variables are influenced by factors such as sex, age, and body condition scores. Despite the absence of shoeing and trimming, the mules maintained an optimal level of symmetry in their forelimb hooves, although there were significant differences observed in forelimb hoof measurements within individual body condition score groups.

Overview of the Research

In this research, the authors study the external features of the hooves of mules living in Northern Thailand. These mules are neither shod nor have their hooves trimmed. Various measurements were taken, such as the size, shape, and symmetry of their forelimb hooves. The data was then analyzed according to a mule’s sex, age, and body condition score (BCS).

  • The research involved 38 mules and their forelimb hooves were photographed.
  • 33 different parameters were measured and analyzed. These included both angular and linear measurements.
  • A multivariate analysis was performed to understand the influence of variables such as sex, age, and body condition scores on the hoof measurements.

Key Findings

The mules showed an optimal level of symmetry in their forelimb hooves despite the absence of shoeing and trimming.

  • There were no significant left-right differences in several measurements including the outer wall length and inner wall length, sole length and sole width, dorsal hoof wall length and heel length, and frog length and frog width.
  • Within each body condition score group, there were significant differences for forelimb hoof measurements for parameters such as dorsal hoof wall length, inner wall length, heel separation, heel bulb distance, sole width, frog width, and frog length.
  • However, the factors like sex and age did not show any significant differences across the study variables.

Implications of the Research

The findings from this research provide valuable information for the welfare and management of mules. It adds to the existing knowledge by providing insights on mules, which are typically understudied, especially in northern Thailand. By understanding the interplay between the mules’ overall health and hoof conformation, better strategies can be developed to care for these animals.

Cite This Article

APA
Phannithi T, Laikul A, Pathomsakulwong W, Rungsri P, Apichaimongkonkun T, Watchrarat K, Cherdchutham W. (2024). External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand. Animals (Basel), 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14081197

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 8

Researcher Affiliations

Phannithi, Thawijit
  • Veterinary Clinical Studies Program, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen, Nakorn Pathom 73140, Thailand.
Laikul, Aree
  • Department of Large Animal and Wildlife Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen, Nakorn Pathom 73140, Thailand.
Pathomsakulwong, Watcharapol
  • Equine Clinic, Kasetsart University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Sean, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand.
Rungsri, Porrakote
  • Equine Clinic, Department of Companion Animal and Wildlife Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50100, Thailand.
Apichaimongkonkun, Tawanhathai
  • Equine Clinic, Kasetsart University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Sean, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand.
Watchrarat, Krisana
  • Veterinarian of Royal Stable Unit, The Royal Thai Army, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Cherdchutham, Worakij
  • Department of Large Animal and Wildlife Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen, Nakorn Pathom 73140, Thailand.

Grant Funding

  • 65/01 / Faculty of veterinary medicine, Kasetsart University
  • 64_05 / Faculty of veterinary medicine, Kasetsart University
  • VET.KU2023-ทวพ.13 / Faculty of veterinary medicine, Kasetsart University

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 57 references
  1. Brosnahan M.M.. Genetics, Evolution, and Physiology of Donkeys and Mules. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2019;35:457–467.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.003pubmed: 31672199google scholar: lookup
  2. Goodrich E.L., Behling-Kelly E.. Clinical Pathology of Donkeys and Mules. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2019;35:433–455.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.002pubmed: 31672198google scholar: lookup
  3. Neves E.S., Chiarini-Garcia H., França L.R.. Comparative Testis Morphometry and Seminiferous Epithelium Cycle Length in Donkeys and Mules. Biol. Reprod. 2002;67:247–255.
    doi: 10.1095/biolreprod67.1.247pubmed: 12080024google scholar: lookup
  4. Norris S.L., Little H.A., Ryding J., Raw Z.. Global Donkey and Mule Populations: Figures and Trends. PLoS ONE 2021;16:e0247830.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247830pmc: PMC7906361pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  5. Ali A., Orion S., Tesfaye T., Zambriski J.A.. The Prevalence of Lameness and Associated Risk Factors in Cart Mules in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2016;48:1483–1489.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1121-7pubmed: 27587009google scholar: lookup
  6. Savory T.H.. The mule. Sci. Am. 1970;223:102–109.
    doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1270-102pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  7. Celani G., Robbe D., Martucci P., Petrizzi L., Stratico P., Carluccio A.. “Iron and Fire”: History and Advances of Mule Shoeing. Large Anim. Rev. 2021;27:215–220.
  8. Watson T., Kubasiewicz L.M., Nye C., Thapa S., Norris S.L., Chamberlain N., Burden F.A.. “Not All Who Wander Are Lost”: The Life Transitions and Associated Welfare of Pack Mules Walking the Trails in the Mountainous Gorkha Region, Nepal. Animals 2022;12:3152.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223152pmc: PMC9686551pubmed: 36428381google scholar: lookup
  9. Silva G.A.O., Rodrigues L.M., Monteiro B.S., de Souza V.R.C., Filho H.C.S., Coelho C.S.. Effect of a Marcha Field Test on Some Blood and Electrocardiographic Parameters of Mules. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018;70:42–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.08.009google scholar: lookup
  10. Reilly J.D.. “No Hoof No Horse?”. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1995;27:166–168.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1995.tb03058.xpubmed: 7556042google scholar: lookup
  11. Souza A.F., Kunz J.R., Laus R., Moreira M.A., Muller T.R., Fonteque J.H.. Biometrics of Hoof Balance in Equids. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2016;68:825–831.
    doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-8848google scholar: lookup
  12. Eliashar E., Mcguigan M.P., Wilson A.M.. Relationship of Foot Conformation and Force Applied to the Navicular Bone of Sound Horses at the Trot. Equine Vet. J. 2004;36:431–435.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044868378pubmed: 15253085google scholar: lookup
  13. Lizarraga I., Janovyak E.. Comparison of the Mechanical Hypoalgesic Effects of Five Alpha2-Adrenoceptor Agonists in Donkeys. Vet. Rec. 2013;173:294.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.101684pubmed: 23878192google scholar: lookup
  14. Grosenbaugh D.A., Reinemeyer C.R., Figueiredo M.D.. Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Donkeys. Equine Vet. Educ. 2011;23:523–530.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00291.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Dyson S.J., Tranquille C.A., Collins S.N., Parkin T.D., Murray R.C.. External Characteristics of the Lateral Aspect of the Hoof Differ Between Non-Lame and Lame Horses. Vet. J. 2011;190:364–371.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.11.015pubmed: 21169041google scholar: lookup
  16. Gordon S., Rogers C., Weston J., Bolwell C., Doloonjin O.. The Forelimb and Hoof Conformation in a Population of Mongolian Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013;33:90–94.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.05.058google scholar: lookup
  17. Wilson A., Agass R., Vaux S., Sherlock E., Day P., Pfau T., Weller R.. Foot Placement of the Equine Forelimb: Relationship Between Foot Conformation, Foot Placement and Movement Asymmetry. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:90–96.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12378pubmed: 25523459google scholar: lookup
  18. Labuschagne W., Rogers C.W., Gee E.K., Bolwell C.F.. A Cross-Sectional Survey of Forelimb Hoof Conformation and the Prevalence of Flat Feet in a Cohort of Thoroughbred Racehorses in New Zealand. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;51:1–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.11.013google scholar: lookup
  19. Dyson S.J., Tranquille C.A., Collins S.N., Parkin T.D., Murray R.C.. An Investigation of the Relationships Between Angles and Shapes of the Hoof Capsule and the Distal Phalanx. Equine Vet. J. 2011;43:295–301.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00162.xpubmed: 21492206google scholar: lookup
  20. Mostafa M.B., Abdelgalil A.I., Farhat S.F., Raw Z., Kubasiewicz L.M.. Morphometric Measurements of the Feet of Working Donkeys Equus Asinus in Egypt. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020;31:17–22.
    doi: 10.1294/jes.31.17pmc: PMC7316701pubmed: 32617071google scholar: lookup
  21. Turner T.A.. The Use of Hoof Measurements for the Objective Assessment of Hoof Balance. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners; San Antonio, TX, USA. 5–8 December 1993; pp. 389–395.
  22. Moyer W.A., Carter G.K.. Examination of the Equine Foot. In: Floyd A.E., Mansmann R.A., editors. Equine Podiatry. 1st ed. Elsevier; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2007. pp. 112–127.
  23. Balch O., White K., Butler D.. Factors Involved in the Balancing of Equine Hooves. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1991;198:1980–1989.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.1991.198.11.1980pubmed: 1874681google scholar: lookup
  24. O’Grady S.E., Poupard D.A.. Physiological Horseshoeing: An Overview. Equine Vet. Educ. 2001;13:330–334.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2001.tb00123.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Moleman M., van Heel M.C.V., van den Belt A.J.M., Back W.. Accuracy of Hoof Angle Measurement Devices in Comparison with Digitally Analysed Radiographs. Equine Vet. Educ. 2005;17:319–322.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2005.tb00401.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  26. Broster C.E., Burn C.C., Barr A.R., Whay H.R.. The Range and Prevalence of Pathological Abnormalities Associated with Lameness in Working Horses from Developing Countries. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:474–481.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X373907pubmed: 19642408google scholar: lookup
  27. Reix C.E., Dikshit A.K., Hockenhull J., Parker R.M.A., Banerjee A., Burn C.C., Pritchard J.C., Whay H.R.. A Two-Year Participatory Intervention Project with Owners to Reduce Lameness and Limb Abnormalities in Working Horses in Jaipur, India. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0124342.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124342pmc: PMC4405470pubmed: 25898014google scholar: lookup
  28. McLean A., Varnum A., Ali A., Heleski C., Navas González F.J.. Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare. Animal 2019;9:488.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9080488pmc: PMC6719969pubmed: 31357421google scholar: lookup
  29. Pritchard J.C., Lindberg A.C., Main D.C., Whay H.R.. Assessment of The Welfare of Working Horses, Mules and Donkeys, Using Health and Behaviour Parameters. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005;69:265–283.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  30. Florence L., McDonnell S.M.. Hoof Growth and Wear of Semi-Feral Ponies During an Annual Summer ‘Self-Trimming’ Period. Equine Vet. J. 2006;38:642–645.
    doi: 10.2746/042516406X158350pubmed: 17228579google scholar: lookup
  31. Phannithi T., Cherdchutham W., Laikul A., Pathomsakulwong W., Rungsri P.. Hoof disorders of Mules in Northern Thailand. Thai J. Vet. Med. 2023;53:253–255.
  32. Khan R.Z.U., Rosanowski S.M., Parkes R.S.V.. Hoof Morphometry in a Population of Lame and Nonlame Working Donkeys in Pakistan. Equine Vet. J. 2023;55:435–445.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13861pubmed: 35837758google scholar: lookup
  33. Carroll C.L., Huntington P.J.. Body Condition Scoring and Weight Estimation of Horses. Equine Vet. J. 1988;20:41–45.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  34. Cruz C., Thomason J.J., Faramarzi B., Bignell W.W., Sears W.R., Dobson H., Konyer N.. Changes in Shape of the Standardbred Distal Phalanx and Hoof Capsule in Response to Exercise. Equine Comp. Exerc. Physiol. 2006;3:199–208.
    doi: 10.1017/S1478061506617258google scholar: lookup
  35. Hampson B.A., Ramsey G., Macintosh A.M., Mills P.C., de Laat M.A., Pollitt C.C.. Morphometry and Abnormalities of the Feet of Kaimanawa Feral Horses in New Zealand. Aust. Vet. J. 2010;88:124–131.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00554.xpubmed: 20402699google scholar: lookup
  36. White J.M., Mellor D.J., Duz M., Lischer C.J., Voute L.C.. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Photography and Image Analysis for the Measurement of Foot Conformation in the Horse. Equine Vet. J. 2008;40:623–628.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X313625pubmed: 19165930google scholar: lookup
  37. Thiemann A., Rickards K.J.. Donkey Hoof Disorders and Their Treatment. Practice 2013;35:134–140.
    doi: 10.1136/inp.f1074google scholar: lookup
  38. Thiemann A.K., Poore L.A.. Hoof Disorders and Farriery in the Donkey. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2019;35:643–658.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.012pubmed: 31587970google scholar: lookup
  39. Cust A.R., Anderson G.A., Whitton R.C., Davies H.M.. Hoof Conformation and Performance in the Racing Thoroughbred in Macau. Aust. Vet. J. 2013;91:108–112.
    doi: 10.1111/avj.12012pubmed: 23438463google scholar: lookup
  40. Hampson B.A., de Laat M.A., Mills P.C., Pollitt C.C.. The Feral Horse Foot. Part A: Observational Study of the Effect of Environment on the Morphometrics of the Feet of 100 Australian Feral Horses. Aust. Vet. J. 2013;91:14–22.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2012.00995.xpubmed: 23356367google scholar: lookup
  41. Kauffmann S., Cline C.. The Essential Hoof Book. 1st ed. Trafalgar Square Books; North Pomfret, VT, USA: 2017. p. 548.
  42. Craig M.. A Modern Look at The Hoof. 1st ed. Outskirts Press, Inc.; Parker, CO, USA: 2015. p. 337.
  43. Casanova P.M., Oosterlinck M.. Hoof Size and Symmetry in Young Catalan Pyrenean Horses Reared Under Semi-Extensive Conditions. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2012;32:231–234.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2011.08.020google scholar: lookup
  44. Turner T.A.. Examination of the Equine Foot. Vet. Clin. Equine. 2003;19:309–332.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00023-3pubmed: 14575162google scholar: lookup
  45. Van Heel M.C., Barneveld A., van Weeren P.R., Back W.. Dynamic Pressure Measurements for the Detailed Study of Hoof Balance: The Effect of Trimming. Equine Vet. J. 2004;36:778–782.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044847993pubmed: 15656515google scholar: lookup
  46. O’Grady S.E., Poupard D.A.. Proper Physiologic Horseshoeing. Vet. Clin. Equine. 2003;19:333–351.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00020-8pubmed: 14575163google scholar: lookup
  47. Stashak T.S.. Adams Lameness in Horses. 5th ed. Williams & Wilkins; Baltimore, MD, USA: 2002. Avulsion Injuries of the Foot; pp. 725–732.
  48. Parks A.H., Ovnicek G., Sigafoos R.. The Foot and Shoeing, in Diagnosis and Management of Lameness in the Horse. Elsevier; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2003. pp. 250–275.
  49. Craig M.. The Value of Measuring the Hoof. TrailBlazer Magzine 2008.
  50. Clayton H.M., Gray S., Kaiser L.J., Bowker R.M.. Effects of Barefoot Trimming on Hoof Morphology. Aust. Vet. J. 2011;89:305–311.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00806.xpubmed: 24635632google scholar: lookup
  51. McClinchey H.L., Thomason J.J., Jofriet J.C.. Isolating the Effects of Equine Hoof Shape Measurements on Capsule Strain with Finite Element Analysis. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2003;16:67–75.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632762google scholar: lookup
  52. Thomason J.J.. Variation in Surface Strain on the Equine Hoof Wall at the Midstep with Shoeing, Gait, Substrate, Direction of Travel, and Hoof Shape. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 1998;26:86–95.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1998.tb05126.xpubmed: 9932098google scholar: lookup
  53. Ovnicek G.D., Page B.T., Trotter G.W.. Natural Balance Trimming and Shoeing: Its Theory and Application. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2003;19:353–377.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00017-8pubmed: 14575164google scholar: lookup
  54. Leśniak K., Whittington L., Mapletoft S., Mitchell J., Hancox K., Draper S., Williams J.. The Influence of Body Mass and Height on Equine Hoof Conformation and Symmetry. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;77:43–49.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.013pubmed: 31133315google scholar: lookup
  55. Van Heel M.C., van Dierendonck M.C., Kroekenstoel A.M., Back W.. Lateralised Motor Behaviour Leads to Increased Unevenness in Front Feet and Asymmetry in Athletic Performance in Young Mature Warmblood Horses. Equine Vet. J. 2010;42:444–450.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00064.xpubmed: 20636782google scholar: lookup
  56. Souza A.F., Souza Junior A.A.. Relationship Between Body Mass and the Hoof Area: Understanding the Turner’s Formula. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;103:103682.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103682pubmed: 34281650google scholar: lookup
  57. Casanova P.M.. A Nonlinear Model for Estimating Hoof Surface Area in Unshod Meat-type Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2011;31:379–382.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2011.03.020google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.