FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
PloS one2023; 18(7); e0288664; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288664

Reliability of surface electromyographic (sEMG) measures of equine axial and appendicular muscles during overground trot.

Abstract: The reliability of surface electromyography (sEMG) has not been adequately demonstrated in the equine literature and is an essential consideration as a methodology for application in clinical gait analysis. This observational study investigated within-session, intra-subject (stride-to-stride) and inter-subject reliability, and between-session reliability of normalised sEMG activity profiles, from triceps brachii (triceps), latissimus dorsi (latissimus), longissimus dorsi (longissimus), biceps femoris (biceps), superficial gluteal (gluteal) and semitendinosus muscles in n = 8 clinically non-lame horses during in-hand trot. sEMG sensors were bilaterally located on muscles to collect data during two test sessions (session 1 and 2) with a minimum 24-hour interval. Raw sEMG signals from ten trot strides per horse and session were DC-offset removed, high-pass filtered (40 Hz), full-wave rectified, and low-pass filtered (25 Hz). Signals were normalised to peak amplitude and percent stride before calculating intra- and inter-subject ensemble average sEMG profiles across strides for each muscle and session. sEMG profiles were assessed using waveform similarity statistics: the coefficient of variation (CV) to assess intra- and inter-subject reliability and the adjusted coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) to evaluate between-session reliability. Across muscles, CV data revealed that intra-horse sEMG profiles within- and between-sessions were comparatively more reliable than inter-horse profiles. Bilateral gluteal, semitendinosus, triceps and longissimus (at T14 and L1) and right biceps showed excellent between-session reliability with group-averaged CMCs > 0.90 (range 0.90-0.97). Bilateral latissimus and left biceps showed good between-session reliability with group-averaged CMCs > 0.75 (range 0.78-0.88). sEMG profiles can reliably describe fundamental muscle activity patterns for selected equine muscles within a test session for individual horses (intra-subject). However, these profiles are more variable across horses (inter-subject) and between sessions (between-session reliability), suggesting that it is reasonable to use sEMG to objectively monitor the intra-individual activity of these muscles across multiple gait evaluation sessions at in-hand trot.
Copyright: © 2023 St. George et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-07-14 PubMed ID: 37450555PubMed Central: PMC10348569DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288664Google 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
  • Observational Study
  • 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 study evaluates the reliability of the surface electromyographic (sEMG) method when used to measure muscular activities in horses during trotting. The outcome demonstrates that sEMG can provide consistent measurements within the same session for individual horses but shows variability across different horses and sessions.

Research methodology

  • The study examined eight horses which were not clinically lame.
  • sEMG sensors were placed on the horses to gather data during trotting over two different sessions separated by at least 24 hours.
  • The raw sEMG signals from ten trot strides for each horse and session were normalized to peak amplitude and percent stride.
  • Strides were examined through two statistical measures – coefficient of variation (CV) for assessing the reliability of the measurements within and between horses, and the adjusted coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) for evaluating the reliability between sessions.

Findings

  • CV data indicated that within and between sessions, the recordings for an individual horse were more reliable than between different horses.
  • Certain muscles (bilateral gluteal, semitendinosus, triceps, longissimus, and right biceps) showed excellent reliability between the two sessions, with group-averaged CMCs > 0.90.
  • Two other muscles (bilateral latissimus and left biceps) displayed good reliability between sessions, with group-averaged CMCs > 0.75.

Implications

  • The findings suggest sEMG is a reliable tool for analyzing muscular activities within individual horses over different sessions.
  • However, due to variations in measurements between different horses, the methodology may not be as reliable for making comparisons across different horses.

Cite This Article

APA
St George L, Spoormakers TJP, Roy SH, Hobbs SJ, Clayton HM, Richards J, Serra Bragança FM. (2023). Reliability of surface electromyographic (sEMG) measures of equine axial and appendicular muscles during overground trot. PLoS One, 18(7), e0288664. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288664

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 18
Issue: 7
Pages: e0288664

Researcher Affiliations

St George, L
  • Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.
Spoormakers, T J P
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roy, S H
  • Delsys/Altec Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Hobbs, S J
  • Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.
Clayton, H M
  • Sport Horse Science, Mason, Michigan, United States of America.
Richards, J
  • Allied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.
Serra Bragança, F M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Muscle, Skeletal / physiology
  • Electromyography / methods

Conflict of Interest Statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: author SR is employed by Delsys Inc., the manufacturers of the sEMG sensors used in this study. The remaining authors declare that no competing interests exist. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

This article includes 60 references
  1. Valentin S, Zsoldos RR. Surface electromyography in animal biomechanics: A systematic review.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2016 Jun;28:167-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.12.005pmc: PMC5518891pubmed: 26763600google scholar: lookup
  2. Harrison SM, Whitton RC, King M, Haussler KK, Kawcak CE, Stover SM, Pandy MG. Forelimb muscle activity during equine locomotion.. J Exp Biol 2012 Sep 1;215(Pt 17):2980-91.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.065441pubmed: 22875767google scholar: lookup
  3. Zsoldos RR, Kotschwar A, Kotschwar AB, Rodriguez CP, Peham C, Licka T. Activity of the equine rectus abdominis and oblique external abdominal muscles measured by surface EMG during walk and trot on the treadmill.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010 Nov;(38):523-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00230.xpubmed: 21059055google scholar: lookup
  4. St. George L.. Surface EMG signal normalisation and filtering improves sensitivity of equine gait analysis. Comparative Exercise Physiology 2019. 15(3): p. 173–185.
  5. Robert C, Valette JP, Degueurce C, Denoix JM. Correlation between surface electromyography and kinematics of the hindlimb of horses at trot on a treadmill.. Cells Tissues Organs 1999;165(2):113-22.
    doi: 10.1159/000016681pubmed: 10516424google scholar: lookup
  6. Robert C, Valette JP, Denoix JM. The effects of treadmill inclination and speed on the activity of two hindlimb muscles in the trotting horse.. Equine Vet J 2000 Jul;32(4):312-7.
    doi: 10.2746/042516400777032246pubmed: 10952380google scholar: lookup
  7. Robert C, Valette JP, Denoix JM. The effects of treadmill inclination and speed on the activity of three trunk muscles in the trotting horse.. Equine Vet J 2001 Sep;33(5):466-72.
    doi: 10.2746/042516401776254745pubmed: 11558741google scholar: lookup
  8. Robert C, Valette JP, Pourcelot P, Audigié F, Denoix JM. Effects of trotting speed on muscle activity and kinematics in saddlehorses.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2002 Sep;(34):295-301.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2002.tb05436.xpubmed: 12405704google scholar: lookup
  9. Licka TF, Peham C, Frey A. Electromyographic activity of the longissimus dorsi muscles in horses during trotting on a treadmill.. Am J Vet Res 2004 Feb;65(2):155-8.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.155pubmed: 14974571google scholar: lookup
  10. Licka T, Frey A, Peham C. Electromyographic activity of the longissimus dorsi muscles in horses when walking on a treadmill.. Vet J 2009 Apr;180(1):71-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.11.001pubmed: 18314362google scholar: lookup
  11. Hodson-Tole E.. Effects of treadmill inclination and speed on forelimb muscle activity and kinematics in the horse. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 2006. 3(2): p. 61–72.
  12. Zaneb H, Kaufmann V, Stanek C, Peham C, Licka TF. Quantitative differences in activities of back and pelvic limb muscles during walking and trotting between chronically lame and nonlame horses.. Am J Vet Res 2009 Sep;70(9):1129-34.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.70.9.1129pubmed: 19719429google scholar: lookup
  13. Spoormakers TJP, St George L, Smit IH, Hobbs SJ, Brommer H, Clayton HM, Roy SH, Richards J, Serra Bragança FM. Adaptations in equine axial movement and muscle activity occur during induced fore- and hindlimb lameness: A kinematic and electromyographic evaluation during in-hand trot.. Equine Vet J 2023 Nov;55(6):1112-1127.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13906pubmed: 36516302google scholar: lookup
  14. St George LB, Spoormakers TJP, Smit IH, Hobbs SJ, Clayton HM, Roy SH, van Weeren PR, Richards J, Serra Bragança FM. Adaptations in equine appendicular muscle activity and movement occur during induced fore- and hindlimb lameness: An electromyographic and kinematic evaluation.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:989522.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.989522pmc: PMC9679508pubmed: 36425119google scholar: lookup
  15. Reeves J, Jones R, Liu A, Bent L, Nester C. The between-day reliability of peroneus longus EMG during walking.. J Biomech 2019 Mar 27;86:243-246.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.01.037pubmed: 30732910google scholar: lookup
  16. Arsenault AB, Winter DA, Marteniuk RG. Is there a 'normal' profile of EMG activity in gait?. Med Biol Eng Comput 1986 Jul;24(4):337-43.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02442685pubmed: 3796061google scholar: lookup
  17. Audigié F, Pourcelot P, Degueurce C, Denoix JM, Geiger D. Kinematics of the equine back: flexion-extension movements in sound trotting horses.. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999 Jul;(30):210-3.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05219.xpubmed: 10659253google scholar: lookup
  18. Faber M, Johnston C, van Weeren PR, Barneveld A. Repeatability of back kinematics in horses during treadmill locomotion.. Equine Vet J 2002 May;34(3):235-41.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776186010pubmed: 12108740google scholar: lookup
  19. Byström A, Hardeman AM, Serra Bragança FM, Roepstorff L, Swagemakers JH, van Weeren PR, Egenvall A. Differences in equine spinal kinematics between straight line and circle in trot.. Sci Rep 2021 Jun 18;11(1):12832.
    pmc: PMC8213771pubmed: 34145339doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92272-2google scholar: lookup
  20. Degueurce C, Pourcelot P, Audigié F, Denoix JM, Geiger D. Variability of the limb joint patterns of sound horses at trot.. Equine Vet J Suppl 1997 May;(23):89-92.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1997.tb05062.xpubmed: 9354298google scholar: lookup
  21. Martinez-del Campo L.. The use of high-speed videography to generate angle-time and angle-angle diagrams for the study of equine locomotion. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 1991. 4(04): p. 120–131.
  22. Winter DA, Yack HJ. EMG profiles during normal human walking: stride-to-stride and inter-subject variability.. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987 Nov;67(5):402-11.
    doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90003-4pubmed: 2444408google scholar: lookup
  23. Guidetti L, Rivellini G, Figura F. EMG patterns during running: Intra- and inter-individual variability.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1996 Mar;6(1):37-48.
    doi: 10.1016/1050-6411(95)00015-1pubmed: 20719661google scholar: lookup
  24. Di Nardo F, Maranesi E, Mengarelli A, Ghetti G, Burattini L, Fioretti S. Assessment of the variability of vastii myoelectric activity in young healthy females during walking: a statistical gait analysis.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2015 Oct;25(5):800-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.07.004pubmed: 26198265google scholar: lookup
  25. Karamanidis K, Arampatzis A, Brüggemann GP. Reproducibility of electromyography and ground reaction force during various running techniques.. Gait Posture 2004 Apr;19(2):115-23.
    doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(03)00040-7pubmed: 15013499google scholar: lookup
  26. Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, Gainey J, Gorton G, Cochran GV. Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait.. J Orthop Res 1989;7(6):849-60.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100070611pubmed: 2795325google scholar: lookup
  27. Kadaba MP, Wootten ME, Gainey J, Cochran GV. Repeatability of phasic muscle activity: performance of surface and intramuscular wire electrodes in gait analysis.. J Orthop Res 1985;3(3):350-9.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100030312pubmed: 4032106google scholar: lookup
  28. Bogey R, Cerny K, Mohammed O. Repeatability of wire and surface electrodes in gait.. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003 May;82(5):338-44.
    doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000064717.90796.7Apubmed: 12704271google scholar: lookup
  29. Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB, Bird AR. Reliability of lower limb electromyography during overground walking: a comparison of maximal- and sub-maximal normalisation techniques.. J Biomech 2010 Mar 3;43(4):749-56.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.10.014pubmed: 19909958google scholar: lookup
  30. Pullman SL, Goodin DS, Marquinez AI, Tabbal S, Rubin M. Clinical utility of surface EMG: report of the therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.. Neurology 2000 Jul 25;55(2):171-7.
    doi: 10.1212/wnl.55.2.171pubmed: 10908886google scholar: lookup
  31. Zsoldos RR, Voegele A, Krueger B, Schroeder U, Weber A, Licka TF. Long term consistency and location specificity of equine gluteus medius muscle activity during locomotion on the treadmill.. BMC Vet Res 2018 Apr 6;14(1):126.
    pmc: PMC5889605pubmed: 29625573doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1443-ygoogle scholar: lookup
  32. Buchner HH, Savelberg HH, Schamhardt HC, Merkens HW, Barneveld A. Kinematics of treadmill versus overground locomotion in horses.. Vet Q 1994 May;16 Suppl 2:S87-90.
    doi: 10.1080/01652176.1994.9694509pubmed: 7801509google scholar: lookup
  33. Cram JR, Rommen D. Effects of skin preparation on data collected using an EMG muscle-scanning procedure.. Biofeedback Self Regul 1989 Mar;14(1):75-82.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00999342pubmed: 2752060google scholar: lookup
  34. Clancy EA, Morin EL, Merletti R. Sampling, noise-reduction and amplitude estimation issues in surface electromyography.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2002 Feb;12(1):1-16.
    doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(01)00033-5pubmed: 11804807google scholar: lookup
  35. De Luca C.J.. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 1997. 13(2): p. 135–163.
  36. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74.
    doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(00)00027-4pubmed: 11018445google scholar: lookup
  37. Roepstorff C, Dittmann MT, Arpagaus S, Serra Bragança FM, Hardeman A, Persson-Sjödin E, Roepstorff L, Gmel AI, Weishaupt MA. Reliable and clinically applicable gait event classification using upper body motion in walking and trotting horses.. J Biomech 2021 Jan 4;114:110146.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110146pubmed: 33290946google scholar: lookup
  38. St George L, Clayton HM, Sinclair J, Richards J, Roy SH, Hobbs SJ. Muscle Function and Kinematics during Submaximal Equine Jumping: What Can Objective Outcomes Tell Us about Athletic Performance Indicators?. Animals (Basel) 2021 Feb 5;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020414pmc: PMC7915507pubmed: 33562875google scholar: lookup
  39. Elsais WM, Preece SJ, Jones RK, Herrington L. Between-day repeatability of lower limb EMG measurement during running and walking.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2020 Dec;55:102473.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102473pubmed: 33002858google scholar: lookup
  40. Hof AL, Elzinga H, Grimmius W, Halbertsma JP. Speed dependence of averaged EMG profiles in walking.. Gait Posture 2002 Aug;16(1):78-86.
    doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(01)00206-5pubmed: 12127190google scholar: lookup
  41. Lyytinen T, Bragge T, Hakkarainen M, Liikavainio T, Karjalainen PA, Arokoski JP. Repeatability of knee impulsive loading measurements with skin-mounted accelerometers and lower limb surface electromyographic recordings during gait in knee osteoarthritic and asymptomatic individuals.. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2016 Mar;16(1):63-74.
    pmc: PMC5089457pubmed: 26944825
  42. Yang JF, Winter DA. Electromyographic amplitude normalization methods: improving their sensitivity as diagnostic tools in gait analysis.. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984 Sep;65(9):517-21.
    pubmed: 6477083
  43. Burden AM, Trew M, Baltzopoulos V. Normalisation of gait EMGs: a re-examination.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003 Dec;13(6):519-32.
    doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00082-8pubmed: 14573367google scholar: lookup
  44. Shiavi R, Bugle HJ, Limbird T. Electromyographic gait assessment, Part 1: Adult EMG profiles and walking speed.. J Rehabil Res Dev 1987 Spring;24(2):13-23.
    pubmed: 3585781
  45. Faber M, Schamhardt H, van Weeren R, Johnston C, Roepstorff L, Barneveld A. Basic three-dimensional kinematics of the vertebral column of horses walking on a treadmill.. Am J Vet Res 2000 Apr;61(4):399-406.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2000.61.399pubmed: 10772104google scholar: lookup
  46. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.. Sports Med 1998 Oct;26(4):217-38.
    doi: 10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002pubmed: 9820922google scholar: lookup
  47. Winter DA. Biomechanical motor patterns in normal walking.. J Mot Behav 1983 Dec;15(4):302-30.
    doi: 10.1080/00222895.1983.10735302pubmed: 15151864google scholar: lookup
  48. Winter D.A.. Kinematic and kinetic patterns in human gait: variability and compensating effects. Human Movement Science 1984. 3(1–2): p. 51–76.
  49. Growney E.. Repeated measures of adult normal walking using a video tracking system. Gait & Posture 1997. 6(2): p. 147–162.
  50. Albertus-Kajee Y, Tucker R, Derman W, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI. Alternative methods of normalising EMG during running.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011 Aug;21(4):579-86.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.03.009pubmed: 21531148google scholar: lookup
  51. St George L, Hobbs SJ, Richards J, Sinclair J, Holt D, Roy SH. The effect of cut-off frequency when high-pass filtering equine sEMG signals during locomotion.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2018 Dec;43:28-40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2018.09.001pubmed: 30219734google scholar: lookup
  52. De Luca CJ, Gilmore LD, Kuznetsov M, Roy SH. Filtering the surface EMG signal: Movement artifact and baseline noise contamination.. J Biomech 2010 May 28;43(8):1573-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.027pubmed: 20206934google scholar: lookup
  53. Hug F, Drouet JM, Champoux Y, Couturier A, Dorel S. Interindividual variability of electromyographic patterns and pedal force profiles in trained cyclists.. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008 Nov;104(4):667-78.
    doi: 10.1007/s00421-008-0810-ypubmed: 18629533google scholar: lookup
  54. Pierotti SE, Brand RA, Gabel RH, Pedersen DR, Clarke WR. Are leg electromyogram profiles symmetrical?. J Orthop Res 1991 Sep;9(5):720-9.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100090512pubmed: 1870036google scholar: lookup
  55. Granata KP, Padua DA, Abel MF. Repeatability of surface EMG during gait in children.. Gait Posture 2005 Dec;22(4):346-50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.11.014pmc: PMC1628350pubmed: 16274917google scholar: lookup
  56. Dyson S., Greve L.. Subjective gait assessment of 57 sports horses in normal work: a comparison of the response to flexion tests, movement in hand, on the lunge, and ridden. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2016. 38: p. 1–7.
  57. Rhodin M, Egenvall A, Haubro Andersen P, Pfau T. Head and pelvic movement asymmetries at trot in riding horses in training and perceived as free from lameness by the owner.. PLoS One 2017;12(4):e0176253.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176253pmc: PMC5404851pubmed: 28441406google scholar: lookup
  58. Kleissen RF. Effects of electromyographic processing methods on computer-averaged surface electromyographic profiles for the gluteus medius muscle.. Phys Ther 1990 Nov;70(11):716-22.
    doi: 10.1093/ptj/70.11.716pubmed: 2236215google scholar: lookup
  59. Hershler C, Milner M. An optimality criterion for processing electromyographic (EMG) signals relating to human locomotion.. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1978 Sep;25(5):413-20.
    doi: 10.1109/TBME.1978.326338pubmed: 700710google scholar: lookup
  60. Valentin S, Licka TF. Spinal Motion and Muscle Activity during Active Trunk Movements - Comparing Sheep and Humans Adopting Upright and Quadrupedal Postures.. PLoS One 2016;11(1):e0146362.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146362pmc: PMC4704739pubmed: 26741136google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Verhaar N, Geburek F. Real-time ancillary diagnostics for intraoperative assessment of intestinal viability in horses-looking for answers across species. Vet Surg 2025 May;54(4):648-664.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.14248pubmed: 40114354google scholar: lookup
  2. St George LB, Spoormakers TJP, Hobbs SJ, Clayton HM, Roy SH, Richards J, Serra Bragança FM. Classification performance of sEMG and kinematic parameters for distinguishing between non-lame and induced lameness conditions in horses. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1358986.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1358986pubmed: 38628939google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.