FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Vet Sci / The Descriptions and Attitudes of Riders and Arena Owners to...
Frontiers in veterinary science2021; 8; 798910; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.798910

The Descriptions and Attitudes of Riders and Arena Owners to 656 Equestrian Sport Surfaces in Sweden.

Abstract: Horses in equestrian sports are commonly trained in arenas with prepared footing. Information on the number and variants of such arenas is generally unknown. This paper provides an overview of the primary construction types of riding surfaces in Sweden including details on composition, constructions principles, usage frequency, maintenance, and cost of operation as well as to investigate rider perception of the ideal arena properties using a large population of riders. Data on 656 equestrian surfaces in Sweden obtained up to 2014 are presented, of which 373 were outdoor and 283 were indoor arenas. Dressage and show-jumping were the main disciplines conducted in the arenas. Sand-mineral arenas were most common outdoors and sand-woodchips arenas most common indoors, followed by sand-fibre arenas and even fewer synthetic arenas. Comparing the three most common arena types, dragging was most often done on sand-woodchips and sand-fibre arenas. Harrowing was less often done on sand-mineral arenas compared to sand-woodchips and sand-fibre arenas. Combining dragging, harrowing, deep harrowing, and rolling, arenas with higher usage were maintained more frequently, compared to those used less frequently. It was commonly claimed that the top-layer needs renovation every other-4th year or every 5th to 10th year. Few respondents allocated more than 10,000 SEK in yearly maintenance costs, with the exception for sand-woodchips and sand-fibre arenas followed by synthetic arenas. The shortest duration perceived between required renovations was found for sand-woodchips top-layer arenas. Ideal surface properties were evaluated by 3,158 riders. Dressage and show-jumping riders differed somewhat regarding ideal spans of functional arena properties: for impact firmness, responsiveness, and grip. The current study likely included well-utilised arenas, compared to those less well-utilised. The resources necessary to keep an arena consistent over time seemed underestimated. Knowledge of maintenance and priorities for arenas are important to users and arenas managers, be they construction companies or arena managers in order to maximise the outcome of efforts for arena improvement and optimise locomotor health for horses that use them. Further, many arenas were new and research into organic arena management is important, especially if equestrians continue to build and renew arena surfaces.
Copyright © 2021 Egenvall, Roepstorff, Peterson, Lundholm and Hernlund.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-12-23 PubMed ID: 35004931PubMed Central: PMC8732755DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.798910Google 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 investigates the characteristics and rider perceptions of equestrian sport surfaces in Sweden, detailing the composition, maintenance, and attitudes towards these surfaces. The study gathered data from 656 equestrian surfaces, assessing both indoor and outdoor arenas, and also considered the perspective of riders regarding their ideal arena properties.

Overview of Equestrian Arenas

  • The study included data from 656 equestrian surfaces in Sweden, gathered up to 2014, with 373 outdoor and 283 indoor arenas.
  • The majority of these arenas were used for dressage and show-jumping.
  • The most common types of surface for outdoor arenas were sand-mineral, while for indoor arenas, sand-woodchips surfaces were more common, followed by sand-fibre and synthetic arenas.

Maintenance and Costs

  • The three most common types of arena surfaces required different maintenance activities. Sand-woodchips and sand-fibre arenas were often dragged, whereas sand-mineral arenas were less frequently harrowed.
  • Arenas with higher usage were maintained more frequently than those with less use. Typical maintenance activities included dragging, harrowing, deep harrowing, and rolling.
  • Although many participants assumed that the surface layer needed renovation every two to four years or every five to ten years, few allocated more than 10,000 SEK annually for maintenance costs. The only exceptions were sand-woodchips, sand-fibre, and synthetic arenas.

Rider Perceptions

  • The study collected views from 3,158 riders on the ideal surface properties for arenas. Dressage and show-jumping riders had differing opinions on ideal levels of impact firmness, responsiveness, and grip.
  • Sand-woodchips arenas required the shortest duration between needed renovations according to the perceptions of riders.

Conclusions and Implications

  • The need for maintenance appeared to be underestimated, suggesting that more resources are required to keep an arena in good condition over time.
  • Developing a deeper understanding of maintenance needs and priorities is important for users and managers of arenas, construction companies, and managers to maximize efforts for improving the arenas and optimize horse health.
  • As a significant number of the arenas surveyed were new, further research into organic arena management is needed, particularly if equestrians continue to build and renew arena surfaces.

Cite This Article

APA
Egenvall A, Roepstorff L, Peterson M, Lundholm M, Hernlund E. (2021). The Descriptions and Attitudes of Riders and Arena Owners to 656 Equestrian Sport Surfaces in Sweden. Front Vet Sci, 8, 798910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.798910

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 8
Pages: 798910

Researcher Affiliations

Egenvall, Agneta
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Roepstorff, Lars
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Peterson, Michael
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Lundholm, Marcus
  • Department for Riding Schools, Swedish Equestrian Federation, Ridsportens Hus, Strömsholm, Sweden.
Hernlund, Elin
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 27 references
  1. Hernandez J, Hawkins DL, Scollay MC. Race-start characteristics and risk of catastrophic musculoskeletal injury in Thoroughbred racehorses.. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2001) 218:83–86.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2001.218.83pubmed: 11149721google scholar: lookup
  2. Parkin TDH, Clegg PD, French NP, Proudman CJ, Riggs CM, Singer ER. Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds.. Equine Vet J (2004) 36:521–6.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044877332pubmed: 15460077google scholar: lookup
  3. Murray RC, Walters JM, Snart H, Dyson SJ, Parkin TDH. Identification of risk factors for lameness in dressage horses.. Vet J (2010) 184:27–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.020pubmed: 19369100google scholar: lookup
  4. Egenvall A, Tranquille CA, Lönnell AC, Bitschnau C, Oomen A, Hernlund E. Days-lost to training and competition in relation to workload in 263 elite show-jumping horses in four European countries.. Prev Vet Med (2013) 112:387–400.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.013pubmed: 24125697google scholar: lookup
  5. Peterson ML, Reiser RF, Kuo PH, Radford DW, McIlwraith CW. Effect of temperature on race times on a synthetic surface.. Equine Vet J (2010) 42:351–7.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00072.xpubmed: 20525055google scholar: lookup
  6. Hernlund E, Egenvall A, Hobbs SJ, Peterson ML, Northrop AJ, Bergh A. 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
  7. Hobbs SJ, Northrop AJ, Mahaffey CA, Martin JH, Clayton HM, Murray RC. Equine Surfaces White Paper.. (2014).
  8. Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW, Reiser RF. Development of a system for the in-situ characterisation of thoroughbred horse racing track surfaces.. Biosyst Eng (2008) 101:260–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.07.007google scholar: lookup
  9. Northrop AJ, Hobbs SJ, Holt D, Clayton-Smith E, Martin JH. Spatial variation of the physical and biomechanical properties within an equestrian arena surface.. Proc Eng (2016) 147:866–71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.288google scholar: lookup
  10. Hitchens PL, Morrice-West AV, Stevenson MA, Whitton RC. Meta-analysis of risk factors for racehorse catastrophic musculoskeletal injury in flat racing.. Vet J (2019) 245:29–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.11.014pubmed: 30819423google scholar: lookup
  11. Hernlund E, Lönnell C, Roepstorff L, Lundholm M, Bergström L, Andersson M. Equestrian Surfaces – A Guide.. (2014).
  12. Bridge JW, Mahaffey C, Peterson ML. Analytical test methods used to characterize granular composite sport surface materials.. Appl Mech Mater (2014) 440:74–81.
    doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.440.74google scholar: lookup
  13. Bartlett R. Sports Biomechanics: Preventing Injury and Improving Performance.. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; (1999).
  14. van Weeren PR. On surfaces and soreness.. Vet J (2010) 186:129–30.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.09.006pubmed: 20933447google scholar: lookup
  15. . Netigate. (2021).
  16. Tranquille CA, Walker VA, Hernlund E, Egenvall A, Roepstorff L, Peterson ML. Effect of superficial harrowing on surface properties of sand with rubber and waxed-sand with fibre riding arena surfaces: a preliminary study.. Vet J (2015) 203:59–64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.10.027pubmed: 25510315google scholar: lookup
  17. Nigg BM, Yeadon MR. Biomechanical aspects of playing surfaces.. J Sports Sci (1987) 5:117–45.
    doi: 10.1080/02640418708729771pubmed: 3326948google scholar: lookup
  18. . Paddex. (2021).
  19. SvRF. (2014). Available online at: https://www.ridsport.se/globalassets/svenska-ridsportforbundet/dokument/forbund/verksamhetsberattelser/ridsport_siffror_2014.pdf (accessed November 15, 2021).
  20. Thomason JJ, Peterson ML. Biomechanical and mechanical investigations of the hoof-track interface in racing horses.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Practice (2008) 24:53–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2007.11.007pubmed: 18314036google scholar: lookup
  21. Holt D, Northrop A, Owen A, Martin J, Hobbs SJ. Use of surface testing devices to identify potential risk factors for synthetic equestrian surfaces.. Proc Eng (2014) 72:949–54.
    doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.160google scholar: lookup
  22. Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW. Effect of track maintenance on mechanical properties of a dirt racetrack: a preliminary study.. Equine Vet J (2008) 40:602–5.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X330347pubmed: 19031517google scholar: lookup
  23. Setterbo JJ, Yamaguchi A, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. Effects of equine racetrack surface type, depth, boundary area, and harrowing on dynamic surface properties measured using a track-testing device in a laboratory setting.. Sports Eng (2011) 14:119–37.
    doi: 10.1007/s12283-011-0073-4google scholar: lookup
  24. Murray RC, Walters J, Snart H, Dyson SJ, Parkin TDH. How do features of dressage arenas influence training surface properties which are potentially associated with lameness?. Vet J (2010) 186:172–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.026pubmed: 20888276google scholar: lookup
  25. . ESTC Guide Processing End of Life Synthetic Turf Sports Surfaces 2021, Edition,. (2021).
  26. Egenvall A, Lönnell C, Roepstorff L. Analysis of morbidity and mortality data in riding school horses, with special regard to locomotor problems.. Prev Vet Med (2009) 88:193–204.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.10.004pubmed: 19042047google scholar: lookup
  27. Egenvall A, Lönnell C, Johnston C, Roepstorff L. Orthopaedic health status of horses from 8 riding schools - a pilot study.. Acta Vet Scand (2010) 52:50.
    doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-52-50pmc: PMC2939618pubmed: 20727185google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Rohlf CM, Garcia TC, Marsh LJ, Acutt EV, le Jeune SS, Stover SM. Effects of Jumping Phase, Leading Limb, and Arena Surface Type on Forelimb Hoof Movement. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 27;13(13).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13132122pubmed: 37443919google scholar: lookup
  2. Adepu S, Lord M, Hugoh Z, Nyström S, Mattsson-Hulten L, Abrahamsson-Aurell K, Lützelschwab C, Skiöldebrand E. Salivary biglycan-neo-epitope-BGN(262): A novel surrogate biomarker for equine osteoarthritic sub-chondral bone sclerosis and to monitor the effect of short-term training and surface arena. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2023 Jun;5(2):100354.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2023.100354pubmed: 36968250google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.