4.1 Article

Circulating β-Endorphin, Adrenocorticotropin, and Cortisol Concentrations of Horses Before and After Competitive Show Jumping with Different Fence Heights

Journal

JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 740-746

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.02.021

Keywords

beta-Endorphin; Adrenocorticotropin; Cortisol; Horse; Show jumping

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry for Universities and Research (MIUR)
  2. University of Messina

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating beta-endorphin, adrenocorticotropin, and cortisol concentrations were studied before and after competitive show jumping in 18 trained jumper horses aged between 11 and 13 years and having the same level of show experience. Horses were subjected to the same type of management and daily training exercise. Each horse had been ridden by the same rider during both the daily training exercise and show jumping event. All horses, randomly divided into three groups paired by gender, performed in three competition levels with the same circuit design over 10 fences, with 5 upright and 5 cross-pole fences, differing for the fence height: group I (n = 6), 1.10 m; group II (n = 6), 1.20 m; and group III (n = 6), 1.30 m. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed a statistically significant effect of competitive exercise on beta-endorphin and cortisol changes in all groups, whereas the effect of exercise on adrenocorticotropin changes was exclusively seen in groups II and III. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance showed that the effect of fence height was significant (P = .03), and time (P = .0001) also affected cortisol changes. These results suggest that the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response is different with respect to the different fence heights of jumping course and the different time points of the recovery period. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available