Hoof impact on synthetic, dirt and turf surfaces

[WinterTriangle]

I got into reading Jurga's blog during Big Brown's hoof ailments last year. Interesting stuff. She has this up:

New study done at J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/VORL/default.html) at the University of California at Davis, who studied hoof impact on synthetic, dirt and turf surfaces. There is also a video. The study was also published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research.

I also looked up the actual abstract of the study, and it appears that it was done in concert with not only ortho vets at UC but along with Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group and the Physiology /Cell Biology guys. (If anyone has membership to AJVR I'd love to read the full text version, all I'm entitled to is the abstract.....my vet runs an equine clinic so I'll ask him to print out for me.)

I like science, esp. when confronted with opinions, and hopefully, more will come out, since I can't base an opinion on one or two such studies, but I liked this one, it really presents an engineering viewpoint.

http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html

[gm10]

I got into reading Jurga's blog during Big Brown's hoof ailments last year. Interesting stuff. She has this up:

New study done at J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/VORL/default.html) at the University of California at Davis, who studied hoof impact on synthetic, dirt and turf surfaces. There is also a video. The study was also published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research.

I also looked up the actual abstract of the study, and it appears that it was done in concert with not only ortho vets at UC but along with Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group and the Physiology /Cell Biology guys. (If anyone has membership to AJVR I'd love to read the full text version, all I'm entitled to is the abstract.....my vet runs an equine clinic so I'll ask him to print out for me.)

I like science, esp. when confronted with opinions, and hopefully, more will come out, since I can't base an opinion on one or two such studies, but I liked this one, it really presents an engineering viewpoint.

http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html

This is very interesting. I did some reading on this a few months ago, and although I am far from a physics expert, my 'conclusions' (guesses) were very similar to what these researchers find.

As I said I'm no physics expert, but imo this explains why synthetic surfaces are quicker, and why agile horses with a turn of foot do better on it than the tanks who excel on the dirt.

[andymays]

Any study to improve racing and any study that could help reduce injuries and breakdowns is certainly a worthy endeavor.

The problem I see here is that when it comes to synthetic surfaces they degrade with weather, usage, and maintenance. I don't think this is as true for dirt or turf from year to year. For example people on the ground at Del Mar and Arlington will tell you that the surface has lost most of it's cushion from the day it was installed so testing on a newer surface vs an older surface is like night and day. The numbers below that sound so great have to be broken down by the age of the surface. In my opinion from following racing in Southern California these surfaces need to be replaced every two years to keep the cushion. Just adding wax or whatever they add is not enough!


http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html

Excerpt:

Results of the study according to the abstract:

1. The synthetic surface often had the lowest peak accelerations, mean vibration, and peak GRFs. Peak acceleration during hoof landing was significantly smaller for the synthetic surface (mean ± SE, 28.5g ± 2.9g) than for the turf surface (42.9g ± 3.8g).

2. Hoof vibrations during hoof landing for the synthetic surface were < 70% of those for the dirt and turf surfaces.

3. Peak GRF for the synthetic surface (11.5 ± 0.4 N/kg) was 83% and 71% of those for the dirt (13.8 ± 0.3 N/kg) and turf surfaces (16.1 ± 0.7 N/kg), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion another problem is that the public, some owners, and some Trainers want the surfaces to play like dirt. When these surfaces are not used to specifications other problems come up. The public, some Trainers and owners complain because the surface is slow and frontrunners have a tougher time winning ala Del Mar 2007 (Baffert complained and Zayat left). The other problem is that when they speed up the surface the turns aren't banked enough. When they use it to specifications the 2 or 3 degree of bank on the turns is fine but when it has less cushion and is faster the turns need to be banked at about 6 degrees like the old dirt tracks (one mile ovals).

[WinterTriangle]

The numbers below that sound so great have to be broken down by the age of the surface.

You make some good points here, and with the banking issues. Something that could be passed on to this research group, if you so desire. I'm sure they would appreciate the feedback.

The video itself is interesting, observing how the hoof meets/slips/sinks as per surface.

I imagine there are also implications for farriers.

Definitely deserves more study.

[andymays]

Earlier I emailed Dr Stover at UC Davis regarding the study and asked some questions. I put my questions above her reply by copy and pasting for the reply on the Board. I'm hoping to hear more from them as she CC'd two other poeple doing the study. I will post any responses as I get them!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andy wrote:

Dr Stover, please pass this on if I am contacting the wrong person regarding the study.

Since we now know that synthetic surfaces degrade with weather, usage, and maintenance doing the study on a fairly new surface is quite different than doing the study on a 3 or 4 year old surface.


Case in point Del Mar:

When the Del Mar Polytrack was put in around early 2007 it was deep with a good cushion. There were many complaints by Horseplayers and Horsemen alike because it played slow and frontrunners struggled over it. Bottom line is that most people hated it but it was a safer surface. Three meets later the Del Mar surface was hard and fast and there were quite a few breakdowns and injuries. Although it is still Polytrack it is not the same surface it was when it was installed. How can you do a study on a synthetic surface that changes from month to month as far as the cushion goes? How can anyone determine that there is X amount less vibration or whatever?

The other problem I have observed is that when synthetic surfaces are installed the specifications call for a 2 or 3 degree of bank on the turns. This is fine when the surface is used as intended ala Del Mar 2007 (deeper, slower, and a lot of cushion). When the surface becomes faster and less forgiving the 2 or 3 degree of bank is not enough and I believe this is where many of the injuries start. The centrifugal force on the turns becomes too great for the banking. The old dirt surfaces had 6 degrees of bank! Nobody seems to want to talk about the banking.

Anyway if you could pass this on to someone who could answer my questions I would appreciate it! Rick Arthur would not be a good choice!


Thanks,

Andy


-------------
Response from Dr Stover

Andy,

Thank-you for your comments. I concur that surfaces change over time with exposure to the environment, horses, and maintenance equipment; and that a new surface will behave differently from a weathered surface. However, knowledge about how a surface behaves and how the behavior changes with time will enhance our ability to engineer safer surfaces for horses. Granted, we don't know all the information we need yet - but collectively we are working on it; and that is progress toward achieving our common goal of enhancing the welfare of our horses and the people that work with them. I hope that our work, in conjunction with the race surface monitoring that Dr. Mick Peterson is doing, will help us answer some of these questions.

I also concur that banking is an issue that we have not fully grappled with. I am hoping that work we are doing in the laboratory will set the scene for understanding the effects of banking and surfaces on the horse's limb in the future. Your comments are well received.

Regards, Sue

[gm10]

I'm pretty sure that a lower banking angle actually benefits the front runners. Steeper banking makes life easier from horses in the outside lanes.

I've never read that the Cal tracks have a banking problem. The Cal government on the other hand.

[WinterTriangle]

Really cool, Andy!

I sense from her response that these are people genuinely interested in the "science" of surface, and in the welfare of horses. That's a good start.

I'm sure it will be a decade before they complete more studies, but surely notes from people like you, asking the right questions, would be very valuable to them.

I wonder how many of these people are into racing/wagering? Be interesting to find out.

[Tom]

:sleeping: Turf courses do not wear out and dirt course never deteriorate.

[WinterTriangle]

:sleeping: Turf courses do not wear out and dirt course never deteriorate.

...or freeze rock-solid. :)

[andymays]

Really cool, Andy!

I sense from her response that these are people genuinely interested in the "science" of surface, and in the welfare of horses. That's a good start.

I'm sure it will be a decade before they complete more studies, but surely notes from people like you, asking the right questions, would be very valuable to them.

I wonder how many of these people are into racing/wagering? Be interesting to find out.

It is interesting science. Dr. Stover seems to be very willing to have a debate on the different ways of looking at how the study is conducted regarding the changing conditions of the surfaces.

What scares me with these studies is that there are Tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line when it comes to synthetic surfaces and their success or failure in the United States. Some of the participants in this study have advocated on behalf of synthetics and some may have recieved compensation from one or more of the manufacturers. Having said that I liked the response I got and will post any more that come my way.

[Show Me the Wire]

After watching the video many times, to my visual observation it looks like the hoof stops more abruptly on the synthetic. On the dirt and Grass surface it looks like the hoof slides forward in a very slight downward angle to a stop.

What also seems interesting is the amount of energy off the turf. A turf race usually favors closing types with a quick turn off foot. It seems high energy would correlate with closing energy. If one accepts dirt surfaces favor front running horses. It seems lower energy and higher impact indicates a correlation with front running styles..

Intuitively based on the dirt model it would seem the less impact and the less energy a front runner style would be preferred. What throws the correlation off is that it seems synthetics favor closing ability while having the least impact and energy of any surface.

Go figure.

[gm10]

After watching the video many times, to my visual observation it looks like the hoof stops more abruptly on the synthetic. On the dirt and Grass surface it looks like the hoof slides forward in a very slight downward angle to a stop.

What also seems interesting is the amount of energy off the turf. A turf race usually favors closing types with a quick turn off foot. It seems high energy would correlate with closing energy. If one accepts dirt surfaces favor front running horses. It seems lower energy and higher impact indicates a correlation with front running styles..

Intuitively based on the dirt model it would seem the less impact and the less energy a front runner style would be preferred. What throws the correlation off is that it seems synthetics favor closing ability while having the least impact and energy of any surface.

Go figure.

I think you're right about the slo-mo. I think that the hoof does indeed stop more abruptly. As a consequence, muscles that would be used to stabilize the horse on the dirt, are used for propulsion on the poly. This may explain the different of injuries that trainers are seeing.

I'm not so sure about your second point (about energy). Hoofs don't slide on the poly and firm turf, so I think it's easier for the horse to switch over the propulsive phase again on these surfaces. Compare with trying to increase the speed of your car on a concrete road vs a muddy dirt road.

[andymays]

Monday, October 19, 2009
Video: Breeders Cup Piques Interest in Surfaces; Instrumented Horseshoe for California Racetrack Surface Study at Keeneland


http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html


Does anyone find it curious that a California Racetrack Surface Study would take place at Keenland? ;)

The last time I checked UC Davis was located in California! ;)

The last time I checked California Racetracks were in California! ;)

Dr. Rick Arthur is an advocate of synthetic surfaces and is listed as a collaborator in the study. ;) http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/VORL/people.html

Dr Rick Arthur is also the He is also the Equine Medical Director for the CHRB. ;) http://www.chrb.ca.gov/departments.htm#med

Under Richard Shapiro the CHRB mandated synthetic surfaces in California. A few months ago he was quoted saying the "sytnhetic mandate was a mistake"! ;)

Backed by years of experience and two of the most recognizable names in the equine industry — Keeneland and Martin Collins International — Martin Collins Surfaces and Footings (MCSF) is the world’s leading manufacturer of synthetic surfaces.

Keenland http://www.keeneland.com/lists/copy/polytrack.aspx

Martin Collins International http://www.mceltd.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before the study is a worthy one but is anyone troubled by some of the associations?

Wouldn't it be a better study if it was totally independent of people that had a vested financial interest in the success of synthetic surfaces?

[Tom]

Must be no one is interested in doing one. Or one would have been done by now.

[WinterTriangle]

is anyone troubled by some of the associations?



No.

Out of all the researchers, there would usually be somebody who is in favor of synth.

Unless you're suggesting that before any scientist work on this study, they must sign an affidavit that they are either 100% against synth, OR, have no opinion? How many who worked on the study, in any capacity, were against synth?

This is the whole purpose of the study.......to find out if one should be for or against it.

I'm sorry, Andy, I guess our logical minds just work differently. You seem to make some pretty broad jumps. You pull one collaborator out of a study done by many, and use that to support your conspiracy theory.

How many, total, scientists participated and/or collaborated in the study?
What % of those were 1) for synth and 2) against synth and 3) had no opinion?

Unless you can deliver those numbers, picking out one or two who are for it, and saying "see? it's a fixed study!" just justifies your opinion, you will find a way for the study to turn out a certain way, because it will support your opinion. This is bad science, and bad logic.

You also seem to make the mistake that this one small study will have some big effect. It won't. There would have to be 50 more, so at this early juncture, it doesn't really matter where the samples are....poly, proride, etc. at keeneland or in CA. It's a preliminary study.

Really, I'm not politically interested enough to pursue the behind the scenes details, I just posted the study as I thought it was interesting that somebody is even doing one.

BTW, to the poster who mentioned the video and hoof slippage, that was mainly what I got out of watching it.

[andymays]

No.

Out of all the researchers, there would usually be somebody who is in favor of synth.

Unless you're suggesting that before any scientist work on this study, they must sign an affidavit that they are either 100% against synth, OR, have no opinion? How many who worked on the study, in any capacity, were against synth?

This is the whole purpose of the study.......to find out if one should be for or against it.

I'm sorry, Andy, I guess our logical minds just work differently. You seem to make some pretty broad jumps. You pull one collaborator out of a study done by many, and use that to support your conspiracy theory.

How many, total, scientists participated and/or collaborated in the study?
What % of those were 1) for synth and 2) against synth and 3) had no opinion?

Unless you can deliver those numbers, picking out one or two who are for it, and saying "see? it's a fixed study!" just justifies your opinion, you will find a way for the study to turn out a certain way, because it will support your opinion. This is bad science, and bad logic.

You also seem to make the mistake that this one small study will have some big effect. It won't. There would have to be 50 more, so at this early juncture, it doesn't really matter where the samples are....poly, proride, etc. at keeneland or in CA. It's a preliminary study.

Really, I'm not politically interested enough to pursue the behind the scenes details, I just posted the study as I thought it was interesting that somebody is even doing one.

BTW, to the poster who mentioned the video and hoof slippage, that was mainly what I got out of watching it.


You must not have been following Southern California racing this past Del Mar meet. Dr Rick Arthur had an interview about every other day making claims about synthetic surfaces that were extraordinary to say the least. This is what I'm basing most of my assertions on. He is the Equine medical Director for the CHRB and openly advocates on behalf of synthetic surfaces.

One of the biggest problems with the Horse Racing Industry is that it is not transparent enough. Especially in California. I am surprized that you and others cannot see a potential conflict given some of the participants.


http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html

One of the assertions made by the study was:


Results of the study according to the abstract:

1. The synthetic surface often had the lowest peak accelerations, mean vibration, and peak GRFs. Peak acceleration during hoof landing was significantly smaller for the synthetic surface (mean ± SE, 28.5g ± 2.9g) than for the turf surface (42.9g ± 3.8g).


These are the types of facts that are used by synthetic advocates to promote synthetic surfaces. I do believe that the assertion is factual given the surface it was tested on. I do not believe the data is wrong. I do believe that the test was done over a new synthetic surface ala Del Mar 2007 and not a synthetic surface like Hollywood Park 2009 or Del Mar 2009. If the tests were done on those synthetic surfaces the results would be much different.

Once again anything that helps Horses survive and thrive is good by me. What is not good by me is people with a vested financial interest taking part in the study.

[WinterTriangle]

Once again anything that helps Horses survive and thrive is good by me. What is not good by me is people with a vested financial interest taking part in the study.

I don't disagree with you on this.

As I said, they would have to do 50+ studies to have it mean anything.

I'm therefore not overly-invested in the outcome of this *one*.

This is what bureaucracies and lobbyists do. I remember clearly the tobacco industry "trials", the whistleblowers, the liars, all of it. All that probably took up 40 years.

[andymays]

I don't disagree with you on this.

As I said, they would have to do 50+ studies to have it mean anything.

I'm therefore not overly-invested in the outcome of this *one*.

This is what bureaucracies and lobbyists do. I remember clearly the tobacco industry "trials", the whistleblowers, the liars, all of it. All that probably took up 40 years.

The guy that invented the shoe is a hero in my opinion. His name is Michael Peterson.


http://www.umainetoday.umaine.edu/issues/v7i4/highstakes.html

Excerpt:

University of Maine Professor of Mechanical Engineering Michael Peterson invented a biomechanical hoof device for testing racetracks. Designed to duplicate the force produced by a running horse, the mechanism measures the impact and horizontal movement of the hoof hitting the surface. With it, Peterson can test the response of the track to the impact of a horse hoof during a race and measure the forces placed on a horse's leg. Data generated by the robotic device can help horse owners and trainers, jockeys and track managers make more informed decisions about racing on certain surfaces and in particular conditions. In addition, it could lead to standardization of tracks, ensuring uniformity between racing surfaces.

I can't wait 40 years! :D

[Cratos]

I got into reading Jurga's blog during Big Brown's hoof ailments last year. Interesting stuff. She has this up:

New study done at J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/VORL/default.html) at the University of California at Davis, who studied hoof impact on synthetic, dirt and turf surfaces. There is also a video. The study was also published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research.

I also looked up the actual abstract of the study, and it appears that it was done in concert with not only ortho vets at UC but along with Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group and the Physiology /Cell Biology guys. (If anyone has membership to AJVR I'd love to read the full text version, all I'm entitled to is the abstract.....my vet runs an equine clinic so I'll ask him to print out for me.)

I like science, esp. when confronted with opinions, and hopefully, more will come out, since I can't base an opinion on one or two such studies, but I liked this one, it really presents an engineering viewpoint.

http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html

WinterTriangle, very informative and thanks for posting.