Experiments and their Verification 159 



15.53 feet; even though the horse stood under at both ends more than 

 he should. His gait and action were rather rapid and not high. 



In the variations from the average stride that is, the difference of 

 individual strides over and below the average the fore showed 23 per 

 cent, more unsteadiness than the hind. This proves the forced and 

 bad effect of toe- weights in this case, quite the contrary to the effect 

 they had on the previous case of the mare, where the variations were 

 small and fairly evenly divided among the four legs. The gelding's 

 variations were as follows : 



n f of n h oh 



+4.116.83 +5-986.55 -f4>55378 +4.993-09 



total scope 



10.94 12.53 8.33 8.08 



It is evident from this that he labored with fore, as was actually 

 the fact. Here was, therefore, an effect of toe-weights that was un- 

 desirable and faulty. Under the shoeing of Fig. 125 they did not 

 benefit him. The shoeing was the trainer's own idea and the trial was 

 made under conditions as found. 



Later on, when the trial with one toe-weight only was made with 

 the mare, this gelding should have had the single weight attached to 

 his off fore instead of to his near fore. The shoeing was then changed 

 somewhat, as can be seen in Fig. 128. There is practically no change 

 in this except the angles of hoofs, particularly of hind ones, where angle 

 was increased to 52. The object of this was, of course, to check the 

 extension of the hind legs. The result shows such an effect, namely, 

 the separation instead of being an average of 2.60 feet is now 2.85 

 feet, or a gain of 0.25 foot or 3 inches. The difference between the 

 distances of the two pair of legs is also less (o.n), just one-half of 

 that of former trial (0.22). 



There is here also the effect of the toe-weight in the greater ex- 

 tension of near fore by one inch over that of previous trial, Fig. 126 

 (0.66 + 0.36 = 1.02 inches) ; but the desired effect of this toe- 

 weight upon the off hind is not visible. In fact, the relative positions 

 of hind feet is the opposite to what it was in Fig. 126. Looking at the 

 lateral extensions of Fig. 130 we find them all less than in Fig. 127, 



