HUSK Comparative Test VS well known Air Teque Horse Boot
Primary: To compare the temperature change after 1hr of exercise from initial temperature readings of bare leg prior to exercise between HUSK and well known Air Teque horse boot.
Secondary: To compare the temperatures of the boots 10 min after exercise to demonstrate the insulating effects of each boot
Two readings of air temperature was taken initially using two temperature probes. Horse’s skin temperature was taken adjacent to the upper part of the Deep Digital Flexor Tendon on the front right leg and back right leg prior to exercise with two temperature probes.
HUSK Ultimate boot was applied to the front legs and the competitor to the back legs.
Horse was exercised for 1 hr with 15min uphill canter, 20min trot and 25min walk.
Temperatures were taken at the same points on the front and back right legs immediately after exercise with the two temperature probes.
Boots were removed and left for 10 minutes, the temperatures of the boot inner material were taken with the two temperature probes at the points that touched the same points on the horse’s skin where the temperatures were taken.
Observations were made relating to sweat on legs. Hair movement on legs was also recorded with images, as well as hair left on boot to assess movement.
(in degrees Centigrade)
T1 – 20.2
T2 – 20
Prior to exercise temperatures of horse’s legs:
Leg 1 (HUSK leg)
T1 – 31.2
T2 – 30
Leg 2 (competitor leg)
T1 – 30.4
T2 – 30.3
Post exercise temperatures of horse’s legs:
Leg 1 (HUSK leg)
T1 – 31.4 (+0.2 than baseline)
T2 – 31.2 (+1.2 than baseline)
Leg 2 (Competitor leg)
T1 – 32.5 (+2.5 than baseline)
T2 – 32.6 (+2.3 than baseline)
HUSK vs Competitor Temperature Increases
T1 – Competitor > HUSK = 2.3
T2 – Competitor > HUSK = 1.1
Av temp difference between HUSK vs Competitor
Competitor > HUSK = 1.7
Temperature of boot material (degrees Centigrade) 10min post exercise
T1 – 24.6
T2 – 25.5
T1 – 26.5 (+1.9 than HUSK boot)
T2 – 27.4 (+1.9 than HUSK boot)
It is clear that the temperature difference between baseline prior to exercise is greater for the competitor boot in comparison to the HUSK boot. One could comment on the fact that the leg temperature will rise naturally during exercise to explain the rises in temperature, but it I’d clear that HUSK boot does not increase the temperature as much as the competitor Air Teque boot. Furthermore the temperature readings on the boots themselves after 10min post exercise demonstrate that the competitor boot holds more heat within the material than the HUSK boot, even when removed from the skin, which suggests that it is the materials used in the boots that have a level of responsibility for the temperature readings.
Images taken show sweat accumulation on the competitor boot leg as opposed to no sweat under the HUSK boot, which not only suggests a cooler environment, but also suggests air flow around the leg to assist in the drying and evaporation of the sweat.
With regard to hair movement and loss to the boot, images show, and visual assessment confirms that the hair was disturbed on the leg of the competitor boot, in comparison to smooth hair on the leg of the HUSK boot. Further confirmation also shows hair left on the competitor boot in comparison to none on the HUSK boot. This suggests that possibly the competitor boot rubs against the skin of the horse more than the HUSK leg leading to discomfort for the horse and potential skin irritation.
Limitations to the test are that we only tested one horse, and more horses need to be tested to give a statistical significance, however these results show clearly the differences between the boots on this particular horse. And for this horse it is concluded that the HUSK boot offers a more cooling and comfortable environment than the competitor boot.