Reddit Feeds

Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in

Why do people kill horses almost immediately whenever they break a leg?

I've heard on several occasions that horses are put down whenever they break one of their legs. Why are they unable to get treatment like us?

92% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
Endocrinology | Conservation Biology | Animal Behavior2.2k points·5 years ago·edited 3 years ago

Here is a great pdf review of this issue. There's a series of complications in horses that make limb fracture repair very difficult. #1, Horses cannot be kept lying down for very long. Their respiratory, circulatory and digestive systems all begin to fail rapidly. (see here for a review of complications under general anesthesia in horses. ) So they have to stand, which brings us to #2: Their body weight is so great that it's very hard to keep weight off the injured limb, and they have a high tendency to then injure the "support limb" (the uninjured limb). Particularly the support limb tends to get laminitis, which is separation of the hoof wall from the hoof bone - essentially the hoof begins to tear apart so that the limb bones begin to punch right through the bottom of the hoof. It's excruciatingly painful for the horse, is very hard to reverse and is often fatal. Also the surgical plates and screws developed for human fracture management often are not sufficient to bear equine body weight - there are cases of metal-and-screw repairs simply ripping right out of the bone that they were screwed into. Third: Horses are both not very intelligent and also very strong, and they have an unfortunate tendency to struggle with the cast and reinjure themselves. There's been a particularly sad problem in which the horse thrashes while coming out of anesthesia such that they either destroy the broken limb again, and/or end up breaking another limb. See here for a typical case report. This is what killed Ruffian, for example. This is a serious problem - to quote the first-cited ref, "postoperative recovery from anesthesia proved to be a major hurdle, with animals tearing apart in the recovery stall in a few seconds the efforts of many tedious hours of anatomical reduction and fixation of long bone fractures in the operating room." The best way around this is to lower the horse (by crane) into a swimming pool while it is still unconscious so that it wakes up in the swimming pool, then lift it out again (by crane again) once it's awake - obviously this is difficult and expensive. (This is the "pool-raft recovery" method. Pic here. And here's a full story about trying to fix the racehorse Barbaro's broken leg, with a pool raft photo.)

Fourth, a practical reason: Most owners can't afford it. Most horses are kept for practical jobs where they need to be able to run, jump, and carry a human's weight. Limb fracture repair is incredibly expensive and the horse will almost never be able to return to full use again. You're talking extremely expensive surgeries, then pool/sling recoveries, then months of intensive care, often with physical therapy in special horse-accommodating swimming pools, etc. Typically the only owners with BOTH the funds AND the desire to do this are owners of a racehorse that will be valuable at stud even if it cannot run again.

All that said though, some fractures can be repaired. There are now "standing fracture repair" procedures (ref) in which minor fractures can be repaired with the horse upright and conscious the entire time. There are much better limb casts for horses available now, and better bone screws. Minor fractures in the small bones of the hoof can often be repaired nowadays with weight-bearing casts that allow the injured limb to take some weight and spare the support limb. See here for the "external fixator" (3rd photo down) to see an example, and scan further down to see a horse wearing an external fixator. (btw those pics are from the review cited at top.) The pins go straight through the leg bone and connect to a brace that holds the horse's body weight. You can only use external fixators for certain fractures that are in the lower part of the leg.

But even with all the above advances, serious open fractures of the main bones of the leg are still very hard to treat - this study reported only 12% survival in such cases.

edit: typos

edit2: Great comments everybody, and sorry for the lack of responses - I wrote this yesterday on my day off, but I have to work full-time on a grant & some papers today.

73 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Im not sure if anyone has said this before, but there is also the issue about how humane it is for the horse. If the horse breaks its leg, we are talking about 6-8 months at least being inside its stall. Most horses start to loose weight from this and their mental status will decline. I have a really nice insurance on my pony that will cover most of the vetcare, but if I find her in her pasture with her leg broken, she will be put down instantly. Its not worth it, for her. Trying to get her in a trailer on three legs, driving for an hour with her in pain, surgery and then 8 months inside just to see if it healed and maybe have to face putting her down.. No. Its not worth it and I think alot of horse owners realize this too when their horse breaks a leg. I think this is also a big reason why alot of owners will put their horse down if it breaks a leg. This is, however a worst case scenario, and if its a very thin fracture I would consider try to have it fixed, but not if my horse seriously injures a bone. A friend of mines horse had a very very small fracture on one of the bones in his leg and was treated for it. As far as I know the horse is fine today, but he was only 1 year old and was miserable from the treatment.

Thank you for saying this. Also, I had a TB once who was on stall rest for a week. Towards the end of the week I would take him out to graze and he was freaking out over every little thing around him. So I can't imagine him being hold up in a stall for months.

It depends on the type, location, and severity of the fracture. Not all fractures require surgery (sx is only of they are displaced, or as in the cases presented in OP, total breaks). My horse (OTTB) was treated for a 70% radial spiral fracture with 3 months stall rest, boots, and wrapping for the first two weeks. Never had to leave the farm, vets have portable radiographs. She wasn't happy for the first few weeks, but most horses are stalled quite a bit these days anyways, and it's not like you're taking a mustang that's never been in a stall before and confining them to a 12x12. Hay in front of them constantly, and they're fine. It's much shorter, and less crisis driven situation than most people think. I would have put her down if she required sx, but it's not usually the case. The OP's study focused on catastrophic racetrack style breakdowns, which are far from the majority of cases.

Isnt this what I said? Maybe I wasnt clear enough. Small fracture = OK, lets give it a try. Severe fracture = Im putting my horse down. I dont care how much horses are stalled nowadays, most horses still tend to be very uncomfortable with having to be in the stall for 23 hours a day for months. They will eventually break down from it. My point is that it is not always humane to treat an injury that has an uncertain outcome. That is all.

Do wild horses have the same complications to the same extent? Also, do you happen to know if we have bred any specific problems into horses? (I find it interesting to look at the unintended consequences of selective breeding)

If a wild horse broke its leg, it would have probably have died. Most animals who break a leg in the wild die. Especially animal who rely on running to live.

Interestingly enough, we have a doe that lives out here who was either born with a severely deformed leg or was hit by a car/stepped in a hole and broke her front leg. Remarkably she still gets around and has mothered a daughter this year. She comes and eats in the back yard. She kinda hobbles a bit, but she gets around alright.

45 points·5 years ago

I presume there aren't very many large predators in the area then?

I've seen a number of whitetail deer which had broken legs that reset themselves wrong out in the wild.

Deer are very different than horses, they sleep laying down, and they weigh a whole lot less (200# vs 2000#) Compound fractures are still pretty much fatal though.

And deer, at least in most of North America (not sure about Europe) have very few natural predators because the wolf and mountain lion populations have decreased so much. That's one reason that controlled hunting is so important. Without it, the deer populations would explode and they'd be running wild everywhere.

Whitetail deer are pretty much running wild already, they do really well along the edges of civilisation. Their population has been expanding it's range and increasing for quite a while.

Blacktail and mule deer are less adept at foraging on farmland and their numbers are more stable.

As an example, this afternoon I had to chase a herd out of my suburban lawn that were harassing my cat. If said herd continues to breed as much as it has, I may be having venison for Christmas.

Horses are able to sleep laying down, though they don't tend to stay laying down for entirely long, maybe just an hour or two.

2 points·5 years ago

Yeah, I know nothing about horses, but my daughter is into them. They are laying down at the stable regularly enough for me to notice.

... because we, as a people have wiped out the predators. If there were any wolves within 100 miles of your location you may have seen her once, but probably not.

2 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Oh I wasn't trying to say that it happens very often, as, of course, most prey animals that have any impeded means of locomotion are likely to die. I was just providing a neat little personal story. (Im actually a pre vet major so I know this isn't a common example, and the fact that it is a deer without any natural predators doesn't help this situation.)

2 points·5 years ago

An isolated example,interesting,but highly unlikely. You break a leg,you die.

-7 points·5 years ago(0 children)

I always thought dogs were pretty good at getting by with three legs? Obviously as pack animals they are totally different from horses but I don't know if broken leg = death for social animals

Also, they are smaller animals, able to hide better, they weigh less, so there is less trauma to the uninjured limbs. They are predators and can defend themselves better, even with one broken leg, a horse can only kick, and IF it is still motile enough to turn around quickly, and not fall down from sheer exertion, bite. A dog, if cornered is pretty ferocious, and even with one broken leg, they can turn quickly to defend all sides, or flee.

-54 points·5 years ago(More than 32 children)

Amputation is different than a break though. If a bone is broken, the animal will be continually re-injuring the break, leaving an avenue for infection (not to mention the pain)

Most canids and felines can run and jump just fine with only three legs, though. An amputated limb is actually safer to heal for a wild animal than a broken one.

Foxes and Dogs are light enough for 3 legs to support them nearly without disadvantages. Horses aren't.

6 points·5 years ago

Well, first of all, how long have they had to care about traps in their evolutionary history?

Second of all, it's still a matter between certain death vs probable death.

Well, bear traps are certainly newish, but it isn't like a fox never got its foot stuck before bear traps.

7 points·5 years ago

Also wild horses are a.)herd animals and b.)prey animals. If a predator came across the herd the injured horse would get picked out pretty quickly for a meal. The other horses would probably not try to stop it because by sacrificing the injure d horse, which prevents them from moving quickly as a group anyway, they save the rest of the herd.

Do you seriously believe that the fox or dog makes the calculated decision to escape the trap while ensuring its future survival?

4 points·5 years ago(0 children)

And in reality.

Calculated decision? No. Instinct? Yes.

You would be surprised what an animal (humans included) will do when facing death in the eyes. When faced with that kind of situation most creatures will do ANYTHING for just a few more minutes of life.

-32 points·5 years ago(0 children)

I think the point is they don't want to die more than they have a concept of time to live.

-23 points·5 years ago(0 children)
Comment deleted5 years ago(0 children)
-25 points·5 years ago(0 children)
Comment deleted5 years ago(0 children)
5 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Animals don't think past a few minutes.

That is not necessarily true of all animals.

-9 points·5 years ago(0 children)

Well if you look at Pavlov's research, I believe that there is a correlation between a car ride and a beach visit. Rather than knowing about the impending beach visit, the dog will react to the car ride.

-6 points·5 years ago(0 children)
4 points·5 years ago

They are usually getting excited because you are excited. Or because they like riding in a car. If you got the point pf what the dude was trying to say, don't "nitpick". He was more referring to humans in that particular sentence, surely.

-6 points·5 years ago(0 children)

His point was it's an instinct, there isn't a rational thought process involved.

A horse needs all four limbs, while dogs and cats like animals can do with three limbs.

7 points·5 years ago

you're are assuming that this fox has a) been told that it will result in death. or b) it has seen a fox chew its leg off and die, and c) that it comprehend either of these experiences and decide it would rather die in the trap than escape and die elsewhere.

Comment deleted5 years ago(0 children)

i really think that you havent thought this through. gnawing your leg off is not a quick reaction or process, their first reaction would be to struggle with the trap and try and break free, then when they began to starve or something similar they would resort to biting their leg off, also my point is they don't know whether they will die after biting their leg off, they just know that they will die if they're stuck in the trap.

Always result in death? Maybe not. Usually result in death is more accurate.

A fox gets it's foot trapped and it freaks out. It's in pain, it's exposed, and it can't get away and hunker down somewhere safe. So it panics, and does the only thing it could think of to get free - it gnaws off it's leg. It manages to self-amputate, and runs off on it's three good limbs.

So now it's got a ragged stump that's got exposed bone and is bleeding like crazy. Let's assume that as it gets away, enough dirt clumps up the stump that it slows down the bleeding enough to clot. It's a wild animal, living out in a forest or whatever. Infection is going to set in, no two ways about it.

Infection has set in, the fox is already dealing with blood loss, and it's difficult as hell to hunt with just three good legs while the third one is one big mass of pain and sadness. It might get lucky and is able to scavenge, but that's a rare chance and it may have to fight off healthier animals who want a go at it.

With all this going against it, chances are good it's not going to survive. Not saying it wont, I've seen animals missing limbs out in the wild. Most of them, however, were squirrels, raccoons, or rats - animals that don't need to hunt and can climb a tree or whatever to avoid predation.

Probably is not always

1 point·5 years ago

Horses can't run on three legs, but dogs and foxes can.

Think of the differences in height, weight, and center of gravity. It all takes a part in this.

Also, he said "most animals", so of course it's not unilaterally true. Learn to read.

251 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Well for one thing, there are no more truly "wild" horses. "Wild" horses today are actually feral horses, meaning that they were originally in captivity. "Wild" horses in the Americas were introduced in the 1490's by none other than Christopher Columbus. The last of the truly wild-type horse species (Przewalski's horse) went extinct in the wild in the 1960's but have been successfully re-introduced. According to Wikipedia, there are around 300 of them in the wild as of 2011.

*edited to be factually correct as pointed out by pathodetached.

Actually Przewalski's horse has been reintroduced to the wild for some time. There was genetic bottleneck in the population but they are not extinct.

24 points·5 years ago
13 points·5 years ago(1 child)
7 points·5 years ago(0 children)

And the assateague pony and several still roam in the west (a trainer friend gets them saddle broke and sells them)

Assateages are feral, not truly wild either.

-7 points·5 years ago(More than 4 children)

People misuse the terminology.

wild = natural indigenous population
feral = human-bred domesticated strains released and left to fend for themselves

The last wild horses in the Americas died out 10-12,000 years ago.

At what point, if there is one, does feral become wild? Like if we released horses into a certain reservation and left them alone for certain periods of time would they become wild, or are they forever feral?

Forever feral. You can't reverse genetics. It's worth noting also that feral animals wreck havoc on the environment that've been dumped in since they don't fit into the local ecology. Feral cats are a dramatic example of this.

Actually assateague ponies come from the islands of the east side of virginia, not the west

Yes I'm speaking of two seperate varieties

1 point·5 years ago

Truth. When I was a kid I went to "zoo camp" out in Front Royal in Virginia where they pasture the Przewalksi's horses and other animals too rare or skittish for zoo proper.

Hey, that's pretty cool. We have a group herd of Przewalski's horses living in the wild about 30 minutes from were I live.

Comment deleted5 years ago(2 children)

There's actually a herd of them living near Chernobyl, and another in Hungary.

No, I'm from Holland. Are you sure they are Przewalski's horses? There are only 250 in the wild.

1 point·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I'd show you the website of the park where they live but it's all in dutch.

Edit: I may have been wrong in saying they live in the wild. I mean, they live in a nature reserve type thing, but they're not being fed or anything. I don't know exactly what constitutes "living in the wild".

Hmm good point, if it's a nature reserve then they're probably not wild? I don't know, pretty neat though!

11 points·5 years ago(More than 10 children)
42 points·5 years ago(0 children)
11 points·5 years ago(0 children)
8 points·5 years ago(0 children)
0 points·5 years ago(0 children)
3 points·5 years ago(0 children)
15 points·5 years ago(0 children)
13 points·5 years ago(0 children)
-2 points·5 years ago(0 children)

Holy sh..! They were really close to extinction. According to wikipedia all Przewalski's horse in the wild died and nowadays all of them are descending from merely 9 horses from zoos all around the world!

I didn't realize Columbus made it to the continental US.

14 points·5 years ago

Indeed he did in 1498 on his 3rd voyage. However, it was his 2nd voyage that is belived to be the one where he introduced horses to the continent.

I don't know why I'm having trouble finding the information. You gave me very specific information to look up, and I've read through the Wikipedia article a couple of times...

Also, it doesn't look like he made it to the continental US from the maps they've drawn...

What exactly do you mean by the continental US? I meant the contiguous continental US--as in from Maine to Florida, not the Virgin Islands or central America. Though I could see how guess he could have established a colony horses and the colonists take the horses to the mainland. Or maybe during his fourth voyage to Central America there were horses and they somehow made it to the plains of North America? No panama canal back then. Just a lot of miles, humans and predators to make it through.

17 points·5 years ago

He likely meant continental America, not US.

12 points·5 years ago

Well I said "the Americas" as in the two continents, not America as in the US. You did say continental US so it was my fault I didn't pay closer attention but that was my meaning.

2 points·5 years ago

I think jnbarnesuk's question is still valid and interesting. Feral horse populations have been in the wild for 10's of generations (in some cases maybe hundreds, but I'm having a hard time finding a reference for female breeding age in wild horses). They live a much more demanding lifestyle with different selection pressures than their domestic-living forebears. I think it's reasonable to wonder if they may be more robust in response to injury, and possibly less prone to it.


I find this very interesting. They almost went extinct due to interbreeding with other domesticated horses, and yet they suffer from a lack of genetic diversity. And so it seems that the way to increase the genetic diversity would be to interbreed with the wild strain, and yet that was the cause of their near extinction in the first place (?)

Would it be ok to introduce one or two other horse types just to get some new DNA in the mix? Or would that be determined sacrilige and ruin the entire species?

To me it seems horific to let them continue from a bottleneck of only 12 individuals. Maybe if they got up to 1000 we could introduce one or two half-Przewalski half-other into the mix just to get some new DNA?

I always found it interesting that horses evolved in North America, crossed into Asia, died out in North America, and were brought back by Europeans.

34 points·5 years ago

Those are not wild type horses, they are descendants of domestic horses, list brumbies in Australia

You mean horses were re-introduced by Columbus. There had been horses in America long before that.

34 points·5 years ago
5 points·5 years ago

They were gone. And Columbus didn't. The conquistadors did.


0 points·5 years ago

History major focusing on the America's, could be wrong, haven't spent much time on Columbus specifically but I believe that the conquistadors brought them, not Columbus, but like said, I could be wrong

2 points·5 years ago

Columbus did not bring horses to the americas. I believe the Spanish conquistadors were the ones who introduced them, in North America at least.

You're thinking about the tarpan horse -- tarpan is the one that went extinct.

2 points·5 years ago(0 children)

There are wild horses in the new forest, UK. I've seen them.

Those are feral. There's a difference.

Cumberland Island off of Georgia's coast has several "wild" horses.

1 point·5 years ago


Sable Island ponies...

Comment deleted5 years ago(2 children)

Like he said, those are feral.

Not wild, feral. Wild implies they have never been domesticated, which is wrong.

So your first statement is incorrect.. You mentioned the only remaining wild horse population. They do exist.

37 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Yes we have bred hoof problems into horses, specificaly race horses. Race horses are bred to be light and very fast, which means small hooves which support 500kg pus, as well as supporting enormous pressure when galloping. which is why they all have 'shoes' on, (normally for race horses aliminium, but can be steel my own personal horses have steel shoes) the hoof is normally in the wrong shape, biggest problem I see is the heel being to low to the ground.

there is a saying with horses 'no hoof no horse' which is why this is such a big problem, one hoof that is too bad can mean the end of their life.

for anyone who is interested this video describes how a horse actually works on the inside and the incrediable amount of pressure their tendons are under. It's truly interesting to watch! edit: sorry guys thought I did link the video:

It's kind of funny, modern veterinary care has weakened racehorses. 100 years ago, if a racehorse had a major injury it most likely would have died. Today, these injuries can often be repaired. What happens next is the horse is bred (if it was fast). This means that people are breeding these horses with genetic weaknesses that previously would have died. That causes them to have weak offspring, which also get hurt at a young age and are retired to stud. It's a cycle. Another bad thing is that a strong horse might race until it's 7 or 8 years old, after which it will retire and be bred. A weak horse will get hurt at age 3, and immediately be retired and bred. There's also no incentive for racehorse owners to keep their horses sound into their old age, because most big races are for young horses. For example, the triple crown is for 3-year-old horses. Most stallions retire immediately after winning a triple crown race, since it ups their stud value enough that the risk of racing them again is too high. This year, I'll Have Another won the first two races and then retired.

As the owner of a retired racehorse, I'm glad Barbaro didn't make it. If he had, he would have had thousands of foals, many of which would have shared his weak bones. It would have weakened the breed if Barbaro had survived. It really was for the best that he died, because if not, his foals would have suffered.

Yes most horses retire because it makes them worth more money, they don't want to risk losing that value, not injurying the horse. I disagree to be honest, racehorses are not 'weak' they simply do not get a chance to grow strong. If they are big enough they are broken in as yearlings, and worked 6 days a week. (I ride racehorses so I know) This in turn completley screws up their bone development, they are only babies and have so much growing to do, but because they are worked so hard at such a young age it causes a lot of problems in the legs. Most of which is horses at the age of two going "shinny" which is basically shin splint. They go out when they go shinny and come back a couple months later. My honest opinion is that they are raced at to young of an age, and it is not always because they are faster, we have an 8 year old who won a huge race at the start of the year, he won this race 4 years ago also, so he was against 4 year olds and still beat them. I believe that the youngest they should race at should be 4 years. This would allow them time to grow and develop strong correct bones as well as hooves, then the whole breed of tb's would become known as 'strong' and not 'weak'. But a lot of their problems are not related to their bones also, it can be a muscle problem, or teeth problem, and only the 'good' race horses get their backs and teeth done. My horse had a massage today and was extremley tight through the shoulders, making it very painful for him to stretch out, this is common in racehorses and to be able to gallop fast they need to be able to stretch out. So I wouldn't say they are a weak breed and are bred weak from day dot, they a simply not allowed to grow and become strong. A performance bred warmblood for example would not be broken in till the age of 4 or 5, until they had 100% finished developing.

Not trolling, I completely agree with you, I just wanted to throw this out there a semi-joking idea; let's throw some hardy Cobs into the mix! Our racehorses will be unstoppable!

Thanks for sharing. This is truly fascinating.

What video are you speaking of? Do you have a link?

sorry I thought I linked it, here it is :)

Thanks! Very interesting.

I always hear about people talking about race horses when bad hooves are in the conversation, but what about the pleasure horses? I show stock type hunter under saddle on the APHA circuit, and i can't tell you how bad the hooves and pasterns have gotten in the halter horses. Does this horse have legs or posts? Here's another horrible wonderful example of the hooves that are now bred into the halter horses. While you're at it, check out the pasterns on that bugger!

The second link didn't work, but I have very little knowledge when it comes to halter horses. Two out of the 3 thoroughbreds I have owned have had bad feet, one of them had his pedal bones tilting the wrong way! I owned arabians, welshs, anglo arabs, andalusian X holsteiner, and a tb x clydie x appaloosa, the only one that had bad feet out of them was the andy X, his were just sensitive, all the others went barefoot, and they were all competition horses/ pleasure horses. But yeah, I guess each horse for whatever discipline is bred for a specific purpose, performance horses need good hooves, so they normally have good hooves, race horses need speed, they are bred for speed.

What video?!

actually there were horses in america thousands of years before columbus - they were also hunted to extinction along with other large mammals like ground sloths long before columbus showed up.

Actually, this is not true.

Megafauna , including creatures like mammoths and ground sloths, did die out, but not because of humans doing. Mammoths and mastodons were hunted by Native Americans during the Pleistocene, but not in the large quantities needed to hunt the species to extinction. Most of the megafauna bones found today show little to no signs of butcher marks that indicate they were killed by people. Out of the bones that we have found, there is evidence of maybe 60+ total mammoths killed across what is the current United States. Keeping in mind as well that megafauna tended to migrate in herds within one region, the small Native American hunting parties that existed within this era would probably not have been able to hunt megafuana to extinction - even if they tried.

As for ground sloths, Native Americans never ate these - despite the fact that they were large, slow, and probably stupid. We have never found any sloth bones in conjunction to an archaeological site, and definitely none of the ones found with butcher marks on them. Honestly, as far as we can tell, ground sloths might have stunk really bad causing people to not want to eat them!

Now, for horses. Yes, there were in the Americas during the Pleistocene. Camels too! However, it appears as if camels and horses both traveled over Beringia to Siberia when water levels dropped significantly due to the glaciers, effectively cutting them off from North America until their reintroduction by Europeans later.

I have no links to back this up. These are my notes from my Anth 334: Midwestern Archaeology class and textbook.

I'll back up the horses in North America point.

Was watching a special showing on t.v. a few days ago - "history of the world in two hours" or something along those lines, and i specifically remember them stating horses existed in the americas except they stated that these horses actually went extinct.

I think he meant horses crossing beringia. It's not too hard to show that wild horses lives here 10k years ago.

Wild horses are exactly the same, they break a leg, more than likely they will die because it is prone to the exact same problems. They will eventually shift weight to the good leg, and it can't have all it's weight on that leg. No matter what, horses NEED all their legs, they can't survive without them.

The interesting thing is how hardy wild horses are. With domesticated horses, we shod their hoofs, we trim them, some are more sensitive, etc. Wild horses are a lot more hardy with their hoofs, obviously. They naturally trim their hoofs by just running around like they do. They can go over gravel and through rocks a lot more comfortably than the average domesticated horse. So I wonder if their hoofs can withstand an injury better than the domesticated horse, like laminitis.

Now to the selective breeding. I also find this really interesting. They fight that the average racehorse has been so over bred and their legs are getting skinnier, so when they race, all that extra weight their legs get are essentially to much for their twiggy legs.

However, I just saw a study not to long ago that I thought was incredibly interesting. There is a sire called Eclipse, and almost every modern thoroughbred can trace their lines back to him. Eclipse's handlers actually decided to measure him and we still have those measurements. So they measured a modern thoroughbred and lo and behold, they are the exact same measurements. This is after 225 years of selective breeding and there hasn't been a change.

This is also interesting. There is a stallion in the breed of Quarter Horses that was an incredible horse and won a ton, so what do you do? Breed a ton and so they did. What they didn't realize, he had a genetic flaw that actually STARTED with him and he just passed down this to all his babies, who passed it down to all his babies and so on. So after tons of breeding, it's a prominent Quarter Horse problem. Interestingly enough, there are two genetic diseases passed down through Quarter Horses called HYPP and HC.

As far as racehorses go, the biggest problem is over breeding. We have to many babies for our own good and lot of those are mutt breeding because people their that their breeding will be the next Kentucky Derby winner. When in actuality, that horse will never win a race, ever.

There is a fight that some breeders have semi-faulty stallions and they pass their injuries to their babies. Breeders are aware of it in the Thoroughbred industry, everyone is. Nobody can hide in the Thoroughbred industry, information can easily belong to anyone.

I can go on for days, but that's probably a bad idea :)

HYPP is a problem, but I wouldn't say it was a hugely serious one. Maybe I'm just insulated a bit--in my area, quarter horses are predominantly cow horse lines, not halter. There was one N/H at my barn that was put down last year for repeated seizures, but that's the only one I'm aware of. It just isn't an issue the horsepeople I'm around talk about.

I grew up as a cutting horse gal, and although HYPP may not be prominent in the cow horse world, we have just as serious of a problem with HERDA (which traces back to Poco Bueno) and a less serious but irritating problem of cryptorchidism tracing back to him as well. The horse world in general has ignored a LOT of things in order to get those "in demand" bloodlines. Now, with my Arabians i see a lot of club feet, almost always the right front, and parrot mouths have become prevalent across many breeds. I could go on for days regarding the continuations of undesirable traits or bad brains though multiple generations just because "So and So" was this colt's/mare's sire. People have failed to remember that it's not about the bloodline, it's about the horse standing in front of you.

/rant. Sorry! As a breeder and trainer, I get a little up in arms...

I absolutely agree about the horse in front of you. I've had many MANY people tell me over the years that it's too bad I have a gelding and not a mare, since he's such a fantastic horse with a great show record. Even if he were a mare, I'd never breed him. There's no guarantee his foals would get his temperament, and he's got not-great conformation and TERRIBLE feet (navicular--with changes as seen on xray--by age 7, now on daily meds at 14 to keep him sound.) I'd never ever breed that. It's been too frustrating and worrying to deal with!!

I'm not saying it's a major issue at all, I'm just saying due to us breeding as much as we do, we essentially created it and we passed it on to the rest of the Quarter Horse population.

It's just a good example of the breeding practices :)

A wild horse breaks a leg and its dead for sure.

2 points·5 years ago(2 children)

If they fracture a bone or tear a tendon and can't get away from a predator/ambulate they either get eaten or die from the same causes listed in op.

0 points·5 years ago


Well this is hard to say as there are very few "wild" horses in the world. The only true wild horses live in mongolia. What we think of as wild horses now are really feral horses; domesticated but then escaped or set free many generations ago. Through natural selection we can see that 4th or 5th generation feral horses they tend to have characteristics such as tough hooves, stockier bodies, thicker coats, and certain coat colors are more common. But these are all simply just better survival traits. It can definitely be said that certain highly bred breeds such as thoroughbreds, who tend to have issues like soft feet, or paint horses with HYPP disease, were affected by our breeding but for the purpose of this post, as far as skeletal strength we haven't really affected it through breeding.

Horses, while perfectly built for their original purpose, grazing, breeding, and being eaten, we ask far more of them physically then they should be able to do. But they do it. They are amazing animals, and smarter than most people think (with exceptions of course).

We have bred specific problems into horses, but that would take a whole thread of its own! There are interesting developments in natural hoof care, and changes in breeding standards for hooves, for example. Makes interesting reading.

In the wild, a horse with a broken leg becomes food. This is probably why evolution hasn't given them a means to recover from one.

1 point·5 years ago

I too am curious on how this (consequences of broken limbs) didnt effect their longevity as a species by selective breeding. I am very uneducated in the matter, but how have they (horses) managed to make it to 2012?

-10 points·5 years ago(3 children)

Well, wild animals would still encounter misfortunes. Getting in fights, getting chased by a cocky predator, perhaps even just falling off a small rise, all easy ways to break bones, when you weigh a tonnesource, you're pretty much fucked, as 4_word_replies_only mentions above.

4 points·5 years ago(0 children)

Basic evolutionary theory still applies.

As a horse owner who has gone through a fracture issue this past summer, while OP is dead on on a lot of this, their bleak picture is not true to the average riding world. Shatters and compounds are deadly, but average fractures are treated with stall rest, support under the opposite hoof to help avoid laminitis, extra calcium and occasionally a drug called Tildren. Most riding horse fractures are healed in 3-4 months and a result of pasture accidents - not the type of catastrophic racetrack breakdowns. The cost is extra time and a few rounds of radiographs. Total cost with my horse's fracture - bit under 2k. Splints are pretty common in young horses and actually a fracture.

Tl;dr - most breaks are minor and horses survive routinely without issue.

Even if you got around all of those difficulties somehow, I am pretty sure that the break just wouldn't heal well enough for the horse to be ridden again. My understand of the physiology of their legs leads me to believe there is very little tolerance for weak points or scarring.

And even if a horse can't be ridden, it still needs to be able to get around and hang out with a herd in order to have any quality of life.

-15 points·5 years ago(5 children)

The bone heals stronger than before


As I understand it, bones, like muscle, become stronger when regular pressure is applied. As it's healing, it becomes weaker due to lack of use...except at the break where calcium is deposited. So yes, during the healing process itself, the point of the fracture is stronger than the rest of the bone. However, everything equalizes once the limb has healed and is being used regularly. The bone does become stronger than it was while healing, but is no more or less likely to break.

You should try fracturing all your bones. I'm sure they'll be like adamantium after that.

Seriously? Just STFU you two... The man is siting medical papers, and supplied plenty of documentation.


And there are many, many different types of fractures, and you have to combine that with the personality of the type of horse you're dealing with, the owner's financial limits. But, it's very foolish to say fracture = death.

Can't they make like some type of crane apparatus with wheels to help take some of the weight off the leg that is broken?

Read past the first point. Horses tend to struggle against this sort of thing, and also it is far to expensive for many owners of workhorses to afford.

-5 points·5 years ago(1 child)

It is not fair to say that of all horse people, especially considering you should have read the large comment at the top explaining why it is so hard to rehabilitate a horse with a large fracture.

The facts are that some animals have jobs. Horses are one of those animals, and you hit the nail on the head when you said they are expensive. Now, I should say that if it were me, I would do everything I could if my own pet horse went down with a break - but there is a limit. It might be mental, might be time, but would probably be money. Horses not only eat a ton of very expensive foods, but routine care (worming, shodding, vetting and vaccinations, fly treatments, grooming) is expensive as well. Emergency care of you do not have insurance for your horse is astronomical.

Add the costs of a broken leg with the low rehabilitation rate and the misery of the horse for months and months. At the end of the day you have to do what is right for you and your horse. If you are very attached to your horse and you have the capital, by all means do it! But if you are like most horse owners, you love your horse but horses are financially draining as it is and you do not have the money or time to fix it.

By the same coin, do you eat eggs? Egg laying hens are tossed aside after they are done laying (about a year) and they don't even eat them afterward because the egg layers (leghorns or commercial blacks or reds) are not the same breed as the meatbirds (cornish cross). This is an example of another animal with a job - the reason why a pet dog is not the same as a flock guardian dog. Now, do I agree with the treatment of farm animals in most cases? No, and I don't eat meat because of it, and I have my own laying hens as pets (and have spent hundreds of dollars on vet care for sick chickens) so that I can eat eggs.

However, it would be very hypocritical of you to say that using something and tossing it aside is bad, when chances are you do it all the time, indirectly, by eating meat or eggs and drinking milk. The animals that produce these things are bred for a purpose, used, and then discarded when they are no longer useful.

The horse would go apeshit. When their fight or flight reaction kicks in, they will kill the threat, themselves, or you, without the smallest thought ever coming into their heads.

I don't agree that horses are stupid...For a herd animal they're brilliant. But they live by that fight or flight, and any sort of clanking restraint would drive them right around the bend.

Even if you somehow had a horse that wasn't freaking out as soon as it became conscious, anyone who has kept a sick horse inside the stable can vouch for the fact that long term they will not tolerate restrictions.

20 points·5 years ago

Yeah we had a horse that suffered a hairline fracture in it's cannon bone. It had to be yarded for a few months and you could see it getting more and more pissed off every day.

Could you not sedate them enough to not fight the apparatus, but still be able to stay upright? Or would the amount of sedatives needed knock them out enough that they would need to lay down (which is bad)?

You're talking massive sedation for a month or so. Seems like you'd be as likely to kill it.

And it would be ABSURDLY expensive.

It would be absurdly expensive to do with a human, and humans don't weight 1,000lbs.

Diazepines are not expensive. Do they not work on horses?

You'd need enough for a 1000 pound animal. That's about 40 mg of diazapam, for example. Multiply that by maybe 3 doses in a 24 hour period. That's 120 mg a day. Times 6 weeks? That's 5040 mg, or there abouts. I'm assuming this based on human weight dosages, or about 10 mg per dose. That's a LOT of sedative. It'd still be pretty pricey. It's more than the high call volume ambulance service I work for goes through in a couple of years. Scary amounts, those.

5 points·5 years ago

You'd also have to include all of the intravenous nutrition costs as well.

Comment deleted5 years ago(More than 1 child)

Who calls benzos "diazepines?"

Non-drug addicts.

To sedate a horse for 3 or 4 months, you'd need a Lindsay Lohan amount of drugs. I don't think it's possible.

0 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Incorrect. There are long acting sedation drugs such as Reserpine and Fluphrenazine which are approved for 30 day sedation of horses and have been used with great success, by myself included.

Edit: Note that these drugs do not work the same way as Dormosedan or Xylazine do. Instead of working via the central nervous system, they work via the circulatory system.

Edit 2: put Rifampin, meant Reserpine.

Sedatives in large doses over long periods of time have other health complications for horses such as ulcer formation. Then because the horse is sedated he is no longer able to eat or drink without the risk of choking The benefit would not out way the risk to perform such an undertaking.

I figured there was some reason it wasn't feasible. I know nothing of horses, so I was really just throwing out ideas.

2 points·5 years ago

thank you! I was a bit annoyed with the horses are "stupid" comment.

12 points·5 years ago(3 children)
5 points·5 years ago(0 children)
2 points·5 years ago(0 children)
4 points·5 years ago(0 children)
2 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Thank you for saying that they aren't stupid. Horses just think differently than cats or dogs do, and it seems like a lot of people don't take that into account. Everything is seen through a filter of "Am I at risk of getting eaten right now?" and flight almost always comes before fight. Given that a lot of what they do is perfectly sensible.

I used to ride, though by my early teens I was getting too big for it...The only horse I had access to that I could still ride was a stud...18 hands, but, for an uncut male, about as well behaved as any I've ever seen.

Fight always came first though. If he turned away from danger, it was because he thought he might need to give it a real kick.

I don't really understand your point. If horses are always afraid that they are going to be eaten, then they are rather stupid. At least relative to most other animals. Countless small critters have more courage than that, and they're much more likely to get eaten than a 2k pound horse.

Their irrationality is a pretty good indication of a dumb creature. They just don't know how to feel properly safe/comfortable it seems. Killing yourself because you're scared of a non-existing threat is not exactly the behavior of a smart animal.

You're saying they're stupid for the same reason people always do. They're prey animals, so they have a prey animal mindset. It might be stupid that they are afraid of getting eaten, but that doesn't make them stupid in general any more than a person who is afraid of spiders.

Horses can learn to open latches and process riding cues like "one leg at the girth, the other behind the girth, this rein loose and this one tight, means canter while leading with this leg". Just because they're wired for self preservation (even when it's uncalled for) doesn't make them any more stupid than a dog or cat.

Everything is wired for self preservation.

It is obvious though that they aren't as smart as cats and dogs.

3 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

It's not about courage. Horses evolved in herds. The protection of the herd means you run from predators. As long as you aren't the weakest individual you escape from the predator.

Those small creatures you mention don't have the safety of the herd to rely on. They have to adapt other methods because they likely cannot outrun their predators in many cases. So they do whatever they can to defend themselves including bluffing. If you stand up to the predator it has to determine weather you really do pose a threat or not, that means a few more seconds of life for these animals. A few seconds can open up some opportunities.

Horses don't account properly for restraint because restraint in the wild means certain death. This isn't stupid behavior for a horse. Remember that animals are not people, they don't necessarily have the option of stopping and figuring out a predicament the way we do.

You made all good points here except for that last paragraph. Stopping and considering a predicament is hardly limited to people. You do make a compelling point as to why horses don't do it though.

But it just goes to show that perhaps herding animals just can't be too smart. I imagine a diet of grass is a hard way to fuel a brain.

Flight has been built in through countless generations in evolution. However, in domesticated horses you usually get a second or two of thought, and training is reprogramming the brain to behave as you want.

"For a herd animal"? Dogs and gorillas and chimpanzees and dolphins and, well, humans, are all herd animals.

There is a difference between a herd and a pack. All the animals you mentioned are predators, hunters, attackers. They have very different reflexes from herds of herbivores.

Herbivores have evolved to be watchful and wary of predators...Their eyes are placed to give them the widest possible range of vision, not to give them the best depth perception. Their social nature is wholly a defense, not an aid for hunting large game or achieving cooperative goals.

Horses are tough, fast, and adaptable. They don't need the sort of massive herds that many other herd animals favor. They're strong and agile enough not to need horns, and they have very few natural predators.


Sure. They're omnivores, they can be aggressive...Very different from pure herbivores in habit.


Is the only difference between a herd and a pack whether the constituent animals are predators or not? If so, shouldn't gorillas be considered herd animals, since they are herbivores?

-7 points·5 years ago(3 children)

Considering everyone here is disagreeing with you, I think you either don't understand what we are talking about, or are just out of your depth.

Something tells me I'm the only person in this thread that's ever actually touched a horse.

For starters:

A horse bucked me off and I sprained my ankle once. Luckily, I wasn't put down.

Slings exist and are common in big hospitals but you have the same chest pressure issue as lying down and they're expensive. The most common treatment for fractures is just stall rest and is very successful. OP is truthful but speaking of massive issue fracture like occurs in racehorse breakdowns, not the more average fracture.

The issue with this (aside from the points others have brought up) is that horses rely on their feet for proper blood circulation. A horse has a triangle of spongy tissue on the bottom of their foot called a frog. Every time a horse takes a step this tissue compresses and helps circulate the blood around the coffin bone and back out of the foot. Even without standing on the sound foot, the horse can still develop laminitis or founder in it due to lack of proper circulation. This is why even horses that are on stall rest require at least a few minutes of hand walking every day.

-3 points·5 years ago(0 children)
4 points·5 years ago

You know the things that they make for babies that let them bounce around on their feet but still support most of their body weight without letting them fall over? Couldn't you design something similar to that for injured horses?

they have horse slings. but the sad fact is a horse raised for racing is normally a gelding and if there is no chance of it ever winning again the stable would see it as a lost cause to rehabilitate them.

Another thing to note is that in thoroughbreds (which are your racehorses those who don't know) they require live breeding, no artificial breeding is allowed, so obviously a broken leg poses a serious problem to a stallion (if anyone wondered why they don't just use them to make babies.)

Horses do not want your help. Our stallion broke his leg a few months ago (Dutch warm blood) and he has been the biggest reason it's not healing (thrashing)

You can look into a drug called Tildren. And make sure he has hay in front of him 24/7

He's recovering fairly well. Just a damn shame to see a giant athlete look so broken

1 point·5 years ago

As an RVT, i'd also have serious reservations about putting any horse with a previously broken leg up to a collection dummy to do AI. Way too easy to reinjure a leg, and injure the techs doing the collecting.

I didn't wAnt to, but he's not my horse, I only own 25%

4 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

get laminitis, which is separation of the hoof wall from the hoof bone - essentially the hoof begins to tear apart so that the limb bones begins to punch right through the bottom of the hoof.

This is what eventually ended secretariats life or is the reason they put him down. sad.

bararo is who you're thinking of

Secretariat also went because of laminitis, although it was many years after he retired and not due to a fracture.

1 point·5 years ago

ferdinand ended up being eaten by japanese businessmen.

This is why I love reddit: Experts in every field.

I hope you get your grants!

What would happen if you did not treat the broken limb at all? (Besides from disinfection or such if it's an open wound that may lead to immediate death by blood poisoning)

6 points·5 years ago

The broken leg would become further damaged as the horse attempts to move on it. It would then get to the point where the pain was so great that the horse would become immobile and you can figure out the rest. Note: The frog of the hoof helps pump blood back to the heart so if a horse is unable to walk it's pretty much buggered.

Veterinary Medicine | Equine Veterinary Medicine17 points·5 years ago

Frog pumping blood back up the leg is an incredibly common urban myth. It does help with circulation of blood through the foot.

5 points·5 years ago

Cool can you link me to some info regarding this?

Veterinary Medicine | Equine Veterinary Medicine12 points·5 years ago
1 point·5 years ago

How is the horse suppose to stand on 3 legs? His post says too that the reason this is a problem is that the supporting legs must now bear more weight then they can tolerate, thus another break can (most likely will) happen which would disable the horse even further and just add reason to end its suffering.

I don't know, I just wonder what happens to horses who break a leg when no one's there to care for them.

1 point·5 years ago

What do you think happens? They die a slower death vs. being shot. As this guy posted, a horse laying down is not good as their systems begin to shut down and the horse dies. So, if they horse doesn't have anyone to care for it in the wild and it breaks a limb, it will likely lay down until it passes out and passes away.

It's not just that more weight equals another potential break. It's the shifting of the weight. Horses are made so that all 4 legs handle all the weight, shift it, you just hurt the biology of that horses.

It can't handle that shift of weight and the horses hoofs become very prone to laminitis. That's what will kill the horse before it breaks another leg. Literally the bone separates from the hoof wall and the bone will begin to sink. A horse may or may not survive. Most won't survive because at that point, it's to much for them. You can't realistically sling them up and hoist them into the air to take ALL the weight off. Neither can they lay down for long periods of times because their organs can crush other organs, thereby killing them another way.

It's ethics and what's fair and what they can handle. Most won't survive it.

In the past, if a horse had a lameness that couldn't be diagnosed they'd often just turn them out for 6-12 months and see if it improved. Plenty of those cases probably were fractures. Minor fractures, non-open fractures, and stress issues can be solved by less work and time. It didn't always work, but many fractures are not a catastrophe.

This happened to by friend's horse in college. Had tendon surgery and it went great, then he went nuts coming out of anesthesia and broke his other leg. Hard enough to recover with one bad one, so he was put down. Was a horrible day.

3 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Thank you for such a well thought out and detailed post. I worked as a surgical technician at a specialty Equine Orthopedic Hospital so I had to deal with these issues every single day. What you've said above is an unfortunate truth that most people (i.e. those not in the horse business or veterinary business) don't realize. I'm not all for "killing animals," but sometimes there is just nothing else you can do when you're trying to do the right thing and spare an animal of serious complications, pain and suffering.

Are there any breeds of horses that are more resistant to or tolerant of leg and hoof injuries? Could traits be bred into common workhorses to alleviate these problems?

It seems like hardiness against life- or work- ending injuries would be very desirable, and I'm sure there are lots of resources focused on racehorse breeding now that could be turned to workhorse breeding. Is it not scientifically practical or not profitable?

5 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

What's interesting is that it's typically the horses that people have bred to be bigger and bigger boned such as Quarter Horses and Thoroughbreds that present more often with leg problems. It's thought that this is because it's not natural to the breed as feet and legs that long and small around are not meant to support weights that high. It has been shown that the bones on these types of "heavy boned" horses are not always as DENSE as the bones on lighter boned horses such as Arabians. Also, the larger the horse the less likely they are to be able to support extra weight or injury as they have all of their own weight to contend with. A horse such as an Arabian is more likely to be able to support weight on its back than a horse such as a Clydesdale.


Standardbreds seem to be a lot more durable than thoroughbreds are. You'll see many of them race upwards of 30 times a year (they could race 52 times a year if healthy enough, racing every week), whereas thoroughbreds typically get a few weeks in between races from what I've seen. My dad manages a stable of about 50-60 standardbreds, and most of the injuries that occur are usually soft tissue injuries or something respiratory related.

Most of the breeding seems to be done with speed in mind, trying to breed horses to go a little bit faster, and not necessarily be more durable. But the breed in general (standardbreds) is typically very durable as you don't see/hear about too many broken bones or catastrophic injuries. Standardbreds have a bit of an easier time racing through hoof injuries (quarter cracks, soreness, etc.) than thoroughbreds, probably because of how much force thoroughbreds exonerate while running. From what I've seen, most of the breeding is done to cross certain bloodlines that have in the past been successful, but also to breed horses that are well put together and have a decent size to them. A horse with very good breeding will get looked down upon if his/her size isn't up to par come sale time.

There's also the odd physiology of the horse. The inside of the hoof is shaped like a dome, and when the horse walks, the dome compresses then springs back up. This motion in each of the 4 hooves act like "mini hearts", helping blood pump up and down the leg.

So even IF the leg heals, the horse often has SERIOUS circulatory and respiratory problems.

2 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Interesting physics / breeding note from an engineering student: Horses were bred by humans over the years to be as big as they can get. The problem with that is, if you make something twice as big, it's yield strength (ie., how much stress it can handle) does not become twice as strong. Volume and mass increase at the power of 3, whereas compression strengths increase at a power of 2 (because the strength is determined by area, rather than volume).

SO, when the horses began to increase in size, their legs increased at the same proportion. So they got significantly heavier, but their legs remained the same proportion to the rest of their body, which is far too thin to properly support them at their new size. That is why their legs break so easily (as mentioned by 99trumpets' post, if one leg breaks, the other three are going to have a hard time supporting the horse, cause they're not all that strong). Imagine elephants, they are much bigger animals, and their legs are huge in comparison to their bodies, whereas ants have tiny legs in comparison to their bodies (and can still carry 50* times their own weight).

So, that means a bad prognosis for this guy, then?

2 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Horses do not deteriorate rapidly from lying down. Your article is relating to anaesthesia concerns not posture. This is a common myth, usually related to the pressure of their internal organs.

The primary issues with long-term lying down that it's a sign of a severe underlying condition. The only active problem is the inability of horses to get back up. The pressure puts their legs to sleep and cramps muscles, meaning after a certain period of time they are unable to stand on their own. Sores and infections would also develop quickly, but could be treated.

The problem with forcing a horse to lay down for the entire period of healing a break is that you can't force them, they will do more damage to their limbs from kicking and flailing than you'd intend to stop. Wake pools like the ones you listed at New Bolton Center are just used for recovery and not meant for long periods.

Curious, if a horse's body fails when it remains still for prolonged periods of time, how do they survive nearly a year in the womb?


Lying down is very different to being suspended in a liquid friend.

They are tiny when they are in the womb compared to when full grown. It's the intense weight they bear that causes the trouble.

Because as with any placental mammal the mother's body is its life support system.

That explains the respiratory system, but he said the circulatory and digestive systems fail as well. Foetuses pump their own blood and if I'm not mistaken digest the nutrients they receive from the mother themselves.

no they receive all nutrients processed predigested for use in growth and development. The placenta is just a high surface area diffuser between the circulatory system of the mother and the foetus.

-2 points·5 years ago

Clearly all of veterinary medicine is wrong and you are right. I'll inform them, don't worry.

I was asking a question I didn't know the answer to. You don't have to be an asshole.

I remember reading about bone glue a long time ago... Makes me think horses would be a perfect candidate for it. I bet FDA approval isn't as strict for animal usage.

Or is that one of those medical advancements that never made it outside of the lab?

Very good description, although with enough money it's not that much of a problem, I board race horses and rehabilitate injured ones, we have one guy (classic bryce ) with a broken leg right now and after spending close to $10,000 and having at least 1 veterinarian on site 24/7 he is on his way to recovery. But he is still worth a lot (running and stud fee) and racing is very profitable so we can throw that kind of money at him, but the average person could not do that for their $4000 hunter jumper/ stadium/ xcountry/ dressage horse.

thank you for your response - excellent answer.

Super informative and well written, thank you.

i agree with everything exept for you to say that horses are not intelligent just makes you look like an idiot that dosen't know what their talking about. take it from the horse trainer who has been riding since 2 and has had her own horse since 5. other than that couldn't have said it better.

Comment deleted5 years ago(9 children)

My horse has gotten some little sprains here and there, usually all they really want is a rinse with cool water and some time off to heal. I find it mighty odd that someone would ride horses their entire life and still think that it's okay to condemn them to death if they suffer a minor injury.

A broken leg and a sprain is two very different things.

Person above was worried about their horse's sprained leg and said their sister thought that a horse with a sprain was limp and deserved to be shot. No shit a break and a sprain are different things.

Yeah, I was messing up the context and who said what.

It's cool, no biggie

aboslutley not correct that a horse cannot come back from a sprain, nearly all high competition horses at somepoint in their career will do a tendon injury (normally a result of their hind legs overeaching and hitting their front leg tendons) 3 of my own horses have done tendons, and all, with time off (1 year on average) have come back 100%. can I ask what do you mean 'the horse will go crazy on a true ride without our trainer' what is a true ride? and what do you mean your trainer agrees with your sister, what does your sister say?

but from what I read, you are scared, and the horse picks up on it, did you know that when your riding a horse, they can actually feel your heart beating? they know if you are scared, and you are supposed to be their leader, this is when their flight of fight response kicks in. If their leader is scared, than they should be to.

2 points·5 years ago

if a horse has an injury that constantly causes it to be lame and that injury is not treatable then it is probably the best option to have it euthanized. Hoof infections can be fatal if left untreated for too long due to the damage that can be done to the hoof. I hope you have confused about what your sister meant by sprains as sprains are usually easily treatable.

My gf has been competing since she was 13. If she put her horse down every time it sprained something she would have been through a LOT of horses.

-1 points·5 years ago(0 children)
1 point·5 years ago

So how far removed from animal cruelty is horse racing and other related events prone to breaking horses' legs?

This makes me sad. Poor horses. :(

One can still be against horse racing, on the basis that dramatically increasing the horse's odds of breaking a leg for the sake of entertainment is abusive.

-5 points·5 years ago(14 children)

I think 99trumpets meant to say that horses are herd animals- they live in the fight-or-flight mindset. They will fight against restraints (like casts) and don't come out of anesthesia well. They aren't unintelligent; they just don't understand that these things are actually helping.

Comment deleted5 years ago(0 children)
33 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

Dogs and cats are not prey animals, their fight/flight instinct isn't as strong. Horses are suspicious of all sorts of potential threats that seem ridiculous to us, like a mailbox or a football sized rock, or a tent, or a bike. To them, anything new could be a predator and should be avoided. If escape isn't possible, they panic/attack. Anything restraining a horse is therefore a huge problem, without proper introduction and training.

Temple Grandin has some amazing insights on this. I was lucky enough to see her in March, and she talked about how a single dangling chain can be terrifying to a cow, who doesn't understand that chains are harmless. They don't get context, ie that a chain is part of a gate.

Another example: My horse is terrified of this one green tarp when it's hanging on the arena fence. If I pull if off the fence, he's fine. He'll even wear it over his face and drag it behind him! But when it's hanging there it becomes a horse eating monster. He's trained to pull a cart, and trained to stand perfectly still if his legs get tangled in the lines and become restrained, but if I altered that cart to support his hind end like a doggy wheelchair there's a good chance it would also suddenly be a horse eating monster.

Edit: TL;DR Dogs and cats are less likely than horses to panic when restrained or presented with something new.

2 points·5 years ago

Heh. I had this discussion with a client yesterday. Domesticated cats are in the precarious position of being both predator AND prey. Yes, they are true carnivores and hunt, but they're small enough that they can be eaten by other predators. Anyone who's ever had to dig a freaked out cat out from behind an x-ray table, sink, or ceiling tile knows that.

Yeah, Temple Grandin has said that cats are basically autistic and behave erratically when presented with new things. Their small size makes them easier to restrain, though!

Dogs and cats are descended from predatory animals. They are more prone to both investigate and trust their "pack." Packs work together so if you as the pack alpha are giving them this thing it won't be written off wholesale especially if they are introduced in a safe environment.

-3 points·5 years ago

You can keep a dog or cat near you nearly all the time you are home. You cannot do the same for a horse. The dog or cat will know that it is safe if you are showing care and compassion and an attitude of safety towards them.

Like if you break down and start crying, a dog or cat will almost always come up and start licking or rubbing against you to show support.

-5 points·5 years ago(0 children)
1 point·5 years ago

If you haven't seen a dog or cat "flipping their shit", then you haven't had much experience in veterinary medicine. Happens all the damn time.

I'm not saying they don't flip shit, but I'm saying you have a dog, who wakes up with a wheel for a leg. I don't think it's going to react the same as if a horse wakes up with a wheel for a leg. I'm not a vet, in any way, these are just harmless theories, no reason to hate.

They can be very smart and at the same time very stupid. They have the capacity to learn and are very perceptive, but when push comes to shove they are almost entirely instinctual and will act against what they've learned or what seems logical in order to survive.

3 points·5 years ago(0 children)

Being around humans


That's the most stupid thing I read today up to this point.

-4 points·5 years ago(0 children)
-6 points·5 years ago(0 children)

Sedate the horse, and keep them suspended off of ALL legs until they recover. They can thrash and struggle, but if you use suspension similar to how they transfer whales back into the ocean (though much sturdier and built to last/restrict more) it should not be a problem right?

-2 points·5 years ago

Good explanation, but I'll be the asshole who points out that you (ironically) misspelled intelligent.

-3 points·5 years ago

Couldn't the 4 reasons you've given be countered by a crutch? The only argument against this I've read (in the past 15 minutes) is the belief that a horse's fight-or-flight mechanism will do something so drastic it would be easiest to just kill them.

-5 points·5 years ago(2 children)

As a medical student writing a 10,000 word dissertation on broken bones I find that I use the words fix or repair for a bone and treat for a disease or illness.

1 point·5 years ago

I guess it is somewhat structural

-7 points·5 years ago(2 children)

Sounds more like an adaptation to living on your feet, like a lot of prey.

A unique feature doesn't need to have an adaptative reason behind its existence, and speculating wildly is unscientific.

Perhaps a horse's organs shut down when the horse lies down simply because the animal has evolved a body fit for long periods of standing. There doesn't need to be a deeper line of reasoning.

-16 points·5 years ago(0 children)
-11 points·5 years ago(3 children)

You should really read something to make sure you understand it before posting a reply.

-5 points·5 years ago(0 children)
Endocrinology | Conservation Biology | Animal Behavior2 points·5 years ago

I didnt read this so Im not sure what point you made,

I didn't read the rest of your comment so I'm not sure what point you made either.

Horse are not almost immediately killed when they “break a leg”. Absolutely, there are some types of leg fractures that are catastrophic and immediately incompatible with life, and these are identified on a case-by-case basis. It depends on what type of fracture it is, where it’s located, and the severity of the fracture.

Why are equine legs harder to heal than that of your pet cat or pet dog? Mostly, because their blood flow physiology is not like that of your cat or dog.

Equine leg/foot blood flow is quite dependent on the ability to fully weight the limb and evenly shift weight amongst all 4 limbs. Horses can usually handle a few days with a completely non-weight bearing limb, but not much more than that before damage to hoof/lower leg tissue starts to occur. They can often get by for a few weeks with limited weight bearing ability to a single limb, but usually not much longer than that.

The inability to fully weight a limb for more than a short-term duration results in poor blood flow to that lower limb, and simultaneously puts too much physical pressure on the other lower limbs. Both of these weight issues compromise blood flow to the lower limbs, cascading into a state of secondary injury (see “laminitis” if you’re really curious). Often times, this secondary injury, or the certainty of this state of secondary injury, is the reason for euthanasia.

The secondary state of injury I speak of (catch phrase “laminitis”) is very painful and can be unpredictable in the time it takes to heal, if it can be healed at all. When an owner and veterinarian evaluate the ability to heal a fracture, they factor in the likelihood of the onset of secondary injury and how that secondary injury would affect the healing stages of the initial insult. Humane euthanasia is a valid option to prevent suffering when a positive outcome is not likely.

Slings. Slings have specific, valuable, short-term use in the healing process for horses. For the reasons above alone, you can’t hang a horse up for the 30 – 120 days it might take to heal a fracture that requires no weight on the limb. Please don’t listen to anyone that suggests the absence of everyday use of slings is somehow due to non-caring by the owner or the vet…anyone that suggests such is talking out of their ass. If we could sling up moderate to severely injured horses for a couple months to heal them, you would see it as common practice and the apparatus to do so would be built into barns.

Casts. See above blood flow to limbs and weighting of limbs issues. Also, it’s a 1,400 pound animal. How the hell are you going to make a cast that’s going to immobilize the limb of an animal that large and not compromise their ability to shift weight evenly on all 4 limbs? Again, not a commonly used technique beyond a specific, short-term use.

Just as in humans, there are many different types of bone fractures. Some types of fractures require nothing more than 6 – 10 weeks of very limited “stall rest” to prevent unnecessary movement that would further the initial insult. Other types of fractures can be repaired with surgical screws/plates and can be survived with very limited “stall rest” back home.

Then, you enter the world of medicine where the fracture itself can be repaired, but the repair cannot bear the weight of the animal – then you’re back to the blood flow problem that comes from being non-weight bearing on a limb. Some owners take the risk and attempt to beat the odds – and they do so successfully. Many more take the risk and ultimately wind up euthanizing because “laminitis” sets in weeks down the road.

Yes, horses with fractures can destroy all the work of the surgeon from thrashing coming out of anesthesia. Fortunately, this is not a common outcome although it absolutely does happen. I would worry far more about the onset of “laminitis” in the upcoming weeks, though.

TL;DR – the blood flow (and healing) physiology of a horse is dependent on its ability to weight all 4 legs evenly. Fractures of the leg that allow the animal to stand evenly on all 4 feet are typically not life-threatening. Fractures that prevent even standing on all 4 limbs will likely result in a secondary state of injury from poor blood flow to the hoof/lower leg, and this secondary state is incredibly painful and difficult to heal. The prevention of this long and painful state of secondary injury is sometimes the rationale for electing humane euthanasia rather than attempting to treat the initial fracture.

Thank you for this. The title and misleading in this thread really pissed me off.

I have a mare that, when she was 4, shattered her fetlock/Pastern (basically her ankle). She was out of a very well known bloodline, and her injury was due too much stress in her work (she was young and I was trusting my trainer in her workload- too much, too fast), so we decided to due our best to save her.

Her leg was in over 20 pieces and it took 2 plates and 9 screws to put it all back together. We were lucky to have a fantastic surgeon who somehow got the thing to hold. The mare had to stay in a cast for 6 weeks. She also had to stay at the hospital the whole time.

During her entire recovery, it was touch and go. We were constantly worried about laminitis in her other feet. She was a great patient, which I believe is the main reason she came out relatively ok. She lied down willingly for a few hours everyday, which helped take weight off her good feet. She also didn't stress, which kept her from colicking or thrashing.

The only reasons our mare survived were a good surgeon, fantastic facility, and a quiet tempered mare.

She is now 10yrs old and lives in a pasture. She has produced 5 lovely babies so far. We do our best to keep her comfortable, but she will always walk with a limp because the whole joint is fused now. I think it bothers here more when it's cold.

The entire ordeal cost us over $10k. We've gotten some nice babies out of her, and I love being able to visit her in her paddock, but if I had to do it over again, I don't know if I would. I wonder if she really has a good quality of life. I feel bad on the days were she limps really badly and she seems sore.

TLDR-Mending bad fractures is a long expensive road that doesn't have the best endings and can be very painful.

20 points·5 years ago

Here's a previous answer. Basically, they're much less able to heal from that kind of damage than we are.

As an add-on to 99trumpets' comment, one reason for the horse's leg's weakness relative to their body weight is that humans have selected horses that can run very fast. This artificial selection means that horses that would have otherwise not reproduced (due to broken legs and the like) survive and are bred again since they are good race horses. This pushes the attributes beyond the most sensible attributes for survival in the wild. So the legs today are usually quite spindly and unable to support the weight of a horse properly if injured.

Interesting. I'd always assumed that it was because humans selectively bred horses to be bigger than their natural size, in order to be able to carry/pull more.

I suppose the ideal control would be to study leg fracture rates in Shetland pony racing, but I don't think that's a thing.


well different breeds have different trait selection. The thoroughbred does not have the same physical requirements compared to a Belgian draft Horse or Shetland pony. Breeding for a draft horse is definitely more toward stockiness and strength compared to a racing horse which needs large lung capacity and a thinner frame.

Certain breeds definitely have higher rates of fracture especially certain types of fracture) than others, thoroughbreds being the most notorious.

1 point·5 years ago

Race horses are often raced when they are 2-4 years old and their bones are still developing. The constant concussion from track work can cause a range of injuries.

Carrying and pulling more was probably selected for before mechanical devices took over the horse's role on say farms/war horses/horse drawn carriages. These days, I'd speculate that they are mostly bred for racing.

Agree with everything 99trumpets says, but want to stress the whole "It's expensive" part, it's not just broken legs that will cause a horse to be put down either, we had a young horse get colic (twisted gut) a few months back, so it needed major surgery, now it could definitely survive if it's given it but I think the estimate they gave was around four grand, which is more expensive than the horse itself was and there was no guarantee that it wouldn't need surgery as soon as 24 hours later.

The horse did receive the surgery and as far as I know is still alive and well, but it was touch and go on whether or not the boss would pay for it.

Source: I've worked with horses.

1 point·5 years ago

And horses that get surgery for a twisted gut often don't survive so you can end up with a dead horse and an expensive medical bill.

Just a curious note on this. Can you quantify the dollar amount? I wanted to compare to the cost of some treatments to humans as well as they animals to see how quickly we are 'drawing the line' so to speak.

In the southeast, when you put the horse on the trailer to send it to colic surgery, you just wrote a $5K check, minimum. If the horse dies or the surgery is entirely uneventful and the horse is released within a matter of days, your cost may stay around $5K for that surgery & hospital stay.

If the horse requires a longer hospital stay, count on adding a couple hundred dollars per day, depending on how intensive the level of care required is.

I hope that helps.

Yes, it is very common to put down horses when they break a leg for all the reasons 99 trumpets put above. The likelihood of a horse keeping it's life depends on A) The wealth of the owner- almost anything can be possible if you're rich! B) The temperament of the horse- the more mild mannered and calm the more likely a cast would be effective. C) The severity of the fracture- obviously minor fractures are much more treatable.

That said, I think the euthanasia of horses when they injure their legs is thought to be greater than in reality. A lot of what the public knows is based on racehorses or other high performance horses which could suffer more traumatic injuries than the average horse.

I personally know a pretty little Connemara mare who broke her back left leg when trying to jump out of a pipe corral while at a horse show who not only survived, but continues to compete today. She took almost a year to recover, but because her owners were willing to pay the price and she had a very easygoing temperament she was treated very successfully!

2 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

I know a little Arab mare who broke her coffin bone. She was an endurance horse but post-break moved into Western Pleasure and some serious trail riding (she trots for miles and miles, keeping up with the TN Walkers!).

I also know lots of horses that were euth'd for less serious injuries because the owners couldn't afford board plus vet bills for a horse that might never recover fully. Worst case scenario isn't just that the horse is no longer able to compete, but that you end up paying board for another 20 years for a horse that isn't sound and therefore you cannot afford a new horse. Even worse, the horse now needs extra management to stay comfortable, like special shoes, or needs to be kept in a stall with daily hand walks for years. A stall, special shoes, and hand walking four days a week costs about $700 a month, versus about $400 a month for normal shoes and pasture board.

It's also part of the artificial selection part. Race horses have been bread to be as fast as possible, but it hasn't come with out a cost. Because of the longer legs, they are a lot more fragile than a standard working/riding horse. So when they break a leg, regardless of cost or success of the horse, and the possibility to stud the horse,they don't want to pass on the genes of that horse because it has gotten too "delicate". If the race horse isn't fast and doesn't win, they don't breed it, if the horse is delicate, they don't breed it. The breeders are looking for that perfect equilibrium between speed and durability.

It's less the horse is to 'delicate', a stumble at the wrong time will break most racehorses legs. The issue is the way the leg breaks on a racehorse. The constant training often introduces microfractures into the leg bones. While these don't cause serious issues most of the time, if the leg breaks, they do! The break is often not a clean break, but a splintering of the bones. If the break is clean, it can be set and the animal can still be used for breeding (if it's female). If it's not clean, it's a lot harder. It's like dropping a vase and shattering it. You might be able to put it back together, but in this case it has to also stay full of water while your gluing it! The costs of this sort of treatment can run well into the £100,000 if not far higher. This is before the suffering the horse will have to endure to recover. And that is with no guarantee of success.

They'll risk more money on a top stallion rather than a mare, as the extra foal weight is possibly overloading a weak bone, and a stallion gets many more stud fees in a year than a mare who foals once per year and it takes at least a year of feed/care before you sell the foal.

Problem is, a stallion is very hard to train into a racehorse. They tend to have vital breeding equipment removed to deal with this. This, unfortunately leaves then rather useless for studwork. A mare can retire from racing and still be able to breed. Sometimes a male calf from will be used as a stud horse.

...please watch any major race. Most of the horses are stallions, not geldings

It tends to vary a lot depending on where you are and what sort of racing. I know when it comes to jumping, most tend to be mares or geldings. Flat racing is often used to prove 'stud' stallions, and so they are more prevalent in that.

Going through the comments, I didn't see a link to this video. I understand that it is still a very expensive option, and therefore unlikely to be widely available at this point, but I still think it is lovely and worth sharing. Also the implications of what could eventually develop for larger horses is pretty great.

Also, in reference to the question of what happens to wild horses when they can't walk or have broken limbs reminded me of a National Geographic documentary called "Cloud" (I couldn't find a video on YouTube, which is probably for the best). In short, a foal was born to one band or family group on a rivaling group's "territory" (as I recall, but since it has been a while feel free to correct me) and was unable to walk. After some time, a stallion brutally kills the foal. In reality, it was probably more humane in a sense than other methods of death, which would be imminent, but it is an interesting example of this type of problem in a documented wild/feral group.

Horses are huge animals. As the old saying goes, " no hoof, no horse" Due to their weight, and how they carry it, they cannot take weight off of an injured limb long enough for it to heal without developing other serious problems in their other limbs. the strain is too much, and the animal more likely than not would suffer even more for some time before their system just shut down. Killing them quickly is considered much more humane, as the chances of any recovery at all are very slin with a broken leg. However, with minor stress fractures, and some related injuries, modern medicine has improved the outlook. Horses like Seabiscuit have survived previously crippling injuries. Unfortunately, there's far more instances like Barbaro and Ruffian that never recover.

The real answer is that the cost of their recovery exceeds their value once they've been hurt; also they often die from blood clots.

Racing stallions and mares rarely get put down anymore...geldings are toast.

Working horses value is near zero once they've broken a leg, so they are generally put down.


Comment deleted5 years ago(2 children)
13 points·5 years ago·edited 5 years ago

I think what solvitNOW is positing is that there might not be a scientific reason behind it, that it's actually an economic factor driving the killings. The top comment on this thread offers a biological reason why horses are shot.

1 point·5 years ago

This is incorrect. Only horses that have minor leg fractures have the opportunity for any kind of treatment. Then whether or not the horse is worth it would come into play.

I had a horse. 3 year old quarter horse. Went to see him one day and found that another horse in his pasture (an older Arabian horse) had attacked him and shattered his hock (kinda like a knee I guess for those who don't know ) and the vet came and did an x-ray. He could have gotten a 20k surgery to fix it (didn't have the money for that) and it was a 50/50 chance of him surviving because horses need all four legs to hold all their weight. He would end up most likely having complications with his other hooves. So we had to put him down :'( it was about the same situation as the race horse Barbaro. But Barbaro's owners had the money to do surgery but it still wasn't enough. And my username is actually the registered name of my horse that had to be put down

1 point·5 years ago(0 children)

Because they lose their worth.

mostly because it wouldn't be fair to the horse to make it suffer that long just so it can walk around for a few years before it has to be put down. Also a working horse would hate being a pet and would just live the next few years being sad and wanting nothing more than to go back to work. And when you live out in the middle of nowhere and the nearest vet is a 4 hour trailer ride away that is just cruel to make them stand on a broken leg that long better to just end it quickly as sad as it sounds. I evan have it in writing when i go away and have someone else feeding that if any of my horses brake something or are seriously injured they are to be shot on the spot no questions asked.

I have the same thing for my daughter.

I'm surprised no one has said this, but pretty much all animals should be put down when they suffer an injury that makes them non-ambulatory. To not do so is it not compassionate. Animals don't understand time, there is no thought process that includes, I'll suffer now because things will get better, animals don't understand that complex emotion of "hope". If you don't kill them when they are grievously injured, it is cruel. The only reason people would medically try to prolong the life of any animal is distinctly selfish.

0 points·5 years ago

Anybody ever think to try a prosthetic wheel? No need to kill a perfectly good handicapped horse.

-7 points·5 years ago(0 children)
-6 points·5 years ago(0 children)
-8 points·5 years ago(0 children)
Community Details





Ask a science question, get a science answer.

Create Post


Please read our guidelines and FAQ before posting



r/askscience Rules

medical advice
offensive or abusive language
homework question
meme, joke, just link