Originally Posted by ChickenLover200
Originally Posted by Peaches Lee
Exactly what Forrest Gump said. Horses are anatomically designed heavier in the front. Also, many people ride their horses on the forehand, leading to more wear and tear on the front feet.
to add, also. If you notice the contour of the horse's body, the larger part of the stomach/chest is toward the front. The heart alone weighs up to 10lb. Or more.
But let's not confuse volume with mass - a lot of what is in that stomach/chest area is lungs, and the lungs are mostly air. A large percentage of the muscle mass is in the rear, and as tissue goes, muscle is pretty dense.
I'm not arguing that horses are heavier at one end or the other, what I'm musing about is wear, and there is more involved in that than just weight distribution. (which I am told is more like 60/40 than 67/33, and that's while standing still)
See, we have highly organic soil around here, and when it is wet, it doesn't hold weight well. At its worst, it can turn into mud several feet deep. There is a particularly muddy section in my big horses' paddock that they avoid when it is really bad. When I see my big horses crossing that section, if it is muddy, their back ends are always lower than their fronts. If they are indeed heavier in the front than in the rear, weight alone can't account for that - based on weight distribution, the front end should sink more than the rear. Apparently, the force of trying to move that big body forward more than makes up for the extra weight on the front feet, and the back feet sink down more than the fronts do - which I'd think could translate into at least equal opportunity for damage from wear.