Search

Does the skull of the sheep behave as a tube or as a complex of independent bones linked by sutures? Is the architecture within cranial bones optimized to local strain alignment? We attempted to answer these questions for the sheep by recording from rosette strain gauges on each frontal and maxillary bone and from single-axis gauges on each dentary of five sheep while they fed on hay. Bone structure was assessed at each rosette gauge site by stereological analysis of high-resolution radiographs. Structural and strain orientations were tested for statistical agreement. Ranges of strain magnitudes were +/-1200 mu epsilon on the mandible, +/-650 mu epsilon on the frontals, and +/-400 mu epsilon on the maxillae. Each gauge site experienced one strain signal when on the working (chewing) side and a different one when on the balancing (nonchewing) side. The two signals differed in mode, magnitude, and orientation. For example, on the working side, maxillary gauges were under mean compressive strains of -132 mu epsilon (S.D., 73.3 mu epsilon), oriented rostroventrally at 25 degrees -70 degrees to the long axis of the skull. On the balancing side, the same gauges were under mean tensile strains of +319 mu epsilon (S.D., 193.9 mu epsilon), at greater than 65 degrees to the cranial axis. Strain patterns on the frontals are consistent with torsion and bending of the whole skull, indicating some degree of tube-like mechanical behavior. Frontal and maxillary strains also showed a degree of individual loading, resulting from modulation of strains across sutures and local effects of muscle activity. The sheep skull seems to behave as a tube made of a complex of independent bones. Structural orientation was in statistically significant agreement with the orientation of working-side compressive principal strain epsilon 2, even though principal tensile strains may be as large or larger. Cranial bone architecture in sheep is not optimized to both strain signals it experiences., (Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

The relative contribution of a number of random and fixed variables to variation in surface strain magnitudes on the hoof capsule was assessed for healthy feet under normal conditions. Principal strains were recorded in vivo from 5 rosette gauges glued around the circumference of the right forefeet of 4 horses on 4 occasions over a 9 month period. Recordings were made at every other trimming and reshoeing. During each session, gauges were positioned with a template for repeatability. Strains were recorded at the trot and canter (at consistent speeds), for straight motion and turns, and before and after the hoof was trimmed and reset. Up to 30 strides were recorded for each combination of these variables. ANOVAs were performed on midstance strains of 7008 strides to determine the relative contributions to strain variation of individual horse, test day, gait and direction combined as one factor, gauge position on the hoof, trimming, interstride variability and the interactions among these factors. The ANOVA model explained 87% of the variation, of which approximately 84% was due to fixed effects and 16% to random effects. Circumferential position of the gauges and several of the interactions including this term were by far the greatest contributors to strain variation. Differences among gauge positions, individuals and gait + direction are consistent with previous work. This study has added the relative effects, which are small but significant, of trimming on a regular basis and of time. The change in strain magnitudes with trimming was different for each horse, which leads to the possibility that over- and underuse may have to be quantified on an individual basis.

A rider modifies the weight distribution and dynamic balance of the horse. But what effect does a rider have on the mechanical behaviour of the hoof during each stance phase? Does riding style have any effect on this behaviour? We attempted to answer these questions using strains recorded from 5 rosette strain gauges glued to the surface of the front hooves of 4 Warmblood horses. Comparisons were made between strains with and without a rider, and when the rider was sitting, rising at a trot, or in a forward seated position. The change in strains from trot to lead or nonlead at a canter, and the effect of turning were also studied. Changing lead at a canter had as least as much effect on strain magnitudes as did turning; strains were up to 43% higher for the nonlead foot, but with little redistribution. Perhaps surprisingly, strains were significantly lower on the quarters by up to 30% with a rider than without, with a 10% increase or decrease at the toe, depending on the individual. Riding style changed strain magnitudes by up to 20% and also caused strain redistribution: strains were higher medially for sitting, and laterally for forward seat, with strains for a rising trot being more evenly distributed and intermediate in magnitude. Studying the range of, and causes of variation in hoof wall strain gives baseline data aimed, in the long term, at providing a biomechanical definition of hoof balance.