External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand

External hoof characteristics, balance, and conformation have been extensively studied in horses; however, mules remain understudied in these aspects. This study evaluated the size, shape, and symmetry of untrimmed and unshod forelimb hooves, compared the symmetry between forelimb hooves and stratif...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Animals (Basel) 2024-04, Vol.14 (8), p.1197
Hauptverfasser: Phannithi, Thawijit, Laikul, Aree, Pathomsakulwong, Watcharapol, Rungsri, Porrakote, Apichaimongkonkun, Tawanhathai, Watchrarat, Krisana, Cherdchutham, Worakij
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:External hoof characteristics, balance, and conformation have been extensively studied in horses; however, mules remain understudied in these aspects. This study evaluated the size, shape, and symmetry of untrimmed and unshod forelimb hooves, compared the symmetry between forelimb hooves and stratified external forelimb hoof measurements based on the body condition score of mules raised in the foothill plains of northern Thailand. The forelimb hooves of 38 mules were photographed and 33 parameters, including angular and linear measurements, were analyzed. A multivariate analysis was used to explore the influence of sex, age, and body condition scores (BCS) on angular, linear, and area parameters. Additionally, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test was used to compare these parameters across different BCS groups. Despite the absence of shoeing and trimming, these mules exhibited optimal left-right forelimb hoof symmetry, with no significant ( < 0.05) differences in: outer wall length and inner wall length (OWL-IWL: Left 0.11 ± 0.66 cm; Right -0.12 ± 0.43 cm); sole length and sole width (SL -SW: Left 1.65 ± 0.76 cm; Right 1.46 ± 0.89 cm); dorsal hoof wall length and heel length (DHWL-HL: Left 4.00 ± 0.80 cm; Right 3.81 ± 0.72 cm); and frog length and frog width (FL-FW: Left 3.88 ± 1.13 cm; Right 3.82 ± 0.18 cm). However, significant ( < 0.05) differences were observed within each body condition score group for forelimb hoof measurements for DHWL, IWL, heel separation (HS), heel bulb distance (HBD), SW, FW, and FL, while sex and age had no significant differences across the study variables. These findings provide valuable insights into mule welfare and management, contributing to understanding of the interplay between overall health and hoof conformation in the study area.
ISSN:2076-2615
2076-2615
DOI:10.3390/ani14081197