Analyze Diet
Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)2013; 198(1); 92-97; doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.07.028

Girth pressure measurements reveal high peak pressures that can be avoided using an alternative girth design that also results in increased limb protraction and flexion in the swing phase.

Abstract: Girths are frequently blamed for veterinary and performance problems, but research into girth/horse interaction is sparse. The study objectives were (1) to determine location of peak pressure under a range of girths, and (2) to compare horse gait between the horse's standard girth and a girth designed to avoid detected peak pressure locations. In the first part of the study, and following validation procedures, a calibrated pressure mat placed under the girth of 10 horses was used to determine the location of peak pressures. A girth was designed to avoid peak pressure locations (Girth F). In the second part, 20 elite horses/riders with no lameness or performance problem were ridden in Girth F and their standard girth (Girth S) in a double blind crossover design. Pressure mat data were acquired from under the girths. High speed video was captured and forelimb and hindlimb protraction, maximal carpal and tarsal flexion during flight were determined in trot. In standard girths, peak pressures were located over the musculature behind the elbow. Pressure mat results revealed that the maximum forces with Girth S were 22% (left) and 14% (right) greater than Girth F, and peak pressures were 76% (left) and 98% (right) greater (P<0.01 for all). On gait evaluation, Girth F was associated with 6-11% greater forelimb protraction, 10-20% greater hindlimb protraction, 4% greater carpal flexion, and 3% greater tarsal flexion than Girth S (P<0.01 for all). Peak pressures were located where horses tend to develop pressure sores. Girth F reduced peak pressures under the girth, and improved limb protraction and carpal/ tarsal flexion, which may reflect improved posture and comfort.
Publication Date: 2013-08-20 PubMed ID: 23973365DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.07.028Google 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.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

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 impact of girth design on horse comfort, performance, and gait. The study finds that specially designed girth can reduce pressure on the horse, increase limb protraction and flexion, and enhance overall horse posture and comfort.

Study Objectives

The study primarily aimed at:

  • Determining the location of peak pressure under a range of girths.
  • Comparing horse gait between a standard girth and a specially designed girth aimed to avoid detected peak pressure points.

Conduct of Study

  • First, a calibrated pressure mat placed under the girth of 10 horses was used to determine the location of peak pressures. This led to the design of a new girth (Girth F) intended to avoid these pressure points.
  • Following this, 20 elite horses/riders with no lameness or performance problem were ridden using Girth F and their standard girth (Girth S) to compare the effect on the horse’s gait.
  • Both pressure mat data and high-speed video of the horses were taken for analysis.

Study Findings

  • The research found that standard girths have peak pressures located over the musculature behind the elbow, a common location for pressure sores in horses.
  • Girth F showed significantly lower maximum forces (22% left and 14% right) and peak pressures (76% left and 98% right) compared to Girth S.
  • Gait evaluation showed that the use of Girth F was associated with 6-11% greater forelimb protraction, 10-20% greater hindlimb protraction, 4% greater carpal flexion, and 3% greater tarsal flexion than Girth S.

Conclusion

Girth F that is designed considering peak pressure points not only helped in reducing these pressures but also improved limb movement and potentially the comfort of the horse. The study highlights the potential influence of considerate girth design on a horse’s performance and overall comfort.

Cite This Article

APA
Murray R, Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. (2013). Girth pressure measurements reveal high peak pressures that can be avoided using an alternative girth design that also results in increased limb protraction and flexion in the swing phase. Vet J, 198(1), 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.07.028

Publication

ISSN: 1532-2971
NlmUniqueID: 9706281
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 198
Issue: 1
Pages: 92-97

Researcher Affiliations

Murray, Rachel
  • Animal Health Trust, Lanwades Park, Kentford, Newmarket CB8 7UU, UK. Electronic address: rachel.murray@aht.org.uk.
Guire, Russell
    Fisher, Mark
      Fairfax, Vanessa

        MeSH Terms

        • Animals
        • Cross-Over Studies
        • Double-Blind Method
        • Equipment and Supplies / veterinary
        • Female
        • Forelimb / physiology
        • Gait
        • Hindlimb / physiology
        • Horses / physiology
        • Humans
        • Male
        • Physical Conditioning, Animal / instrumentation
        • Physical Conditioning, Animal / methods
        • Pressure
        • Range of Motion, Articular
        • Videotape Recording

        Citations

        This article has been cited 6 times.
        1. Marlin D, Randell O, Mayhew E, Blake R. The Effect of Girth Design and Girth Tension on Saddle-Horse Pressures and Forelimb Stride Kinematics in Rising Trot. Animals (Basel) 2025 Aug 29;15(17).
          doi: 10.3390/ani15172540pubmed: 40941335google scholar: lookup
        2. Murray R, Fisher M, Fairfax V, MacKechnie-Guire R. Saddle Thigh Block Design Can Influence Rider and Horse Biomechanics. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 27;13(13).
          doi: 10.3390/ani13132127pubmed: 37443924google scholar: lookup
        3. Sapone M, Martin P, Ben Mansour K, Chateau H, Marin F. The Protraction and Retraction Angles of Horse Limbs: An Estimation during Trotting Using Inertial Sensors. Sensors (Basel) 2021 May 30;21(11).
          doi: 10.3390/s21113792pubmed: 34070859google scholar: lookup
        4. MacKechnie-Guire R, Pfau T. Differential rotational movement and symmetry values of the thoracolumbosacral region in high-level dressage horses when trotting. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0251144.
          doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251144pubmed: 33956858google scholar: lookup
        5. MacKechnie-Guire R, Pfau T. Differential Rotational Movement of the Thoracolumbosacral Spine in High-Level Dressage Horses Ridden in a Straight Line, in Sitting Trot and Seated Canter Compared to In-Hand Trot. Animals (Basel) 2021 Mar 20;11(3).
          doi: 10.3390/ani11030888pubmed: 33804702google scholar: lookup
        6. MacKechnie-Guire R, MacKechnie-Guire E, Fairfax V, Fisher D, Fisher M, Pfau T. The Effect of Tree Width on Thoracolumbar and Limb Kinematics, Saddle Pressure Distribution, and Thoracolumbar Dimensions in Sports Horses in Trot and Canter. Animals (Basel) 2019 Oct 21;9(10).
          doi: 10.3390/ani9100842pubmed: 31640213google scholar: lookup