Barefoot for Soundness: HORSESHOEING
HISTORY:
The Barefoot Horse website claims that
horseshoes were a result of medieval European castle siege warfare, which
caused horses to be kept in filthy standing stalls with no exercise, causing
the hooves to degenerate to the point that iron shoes were invented to hold
them together. After this, iron shoes became "stylish" and shoeing
became the accepted norm for hoofcare due to the ignorance of horsemen for the
next thousand years.
It's an amazing theory... But relatively
few horses should have been stalled up without exercise in castles. It's not
like they were under siege most of the time. When they were, horses were of
little use for castle defense, and they consume a great volume of stores. So
there was no point in bringing them in during a siege and keeping them around
long enough to get mushy feet. On top of that, any farrier can tell you that
putting shoes on a horse in such conditions wouldn't help matters anyway.
What's more unbelievable is the idea that
the "useless" practice of shoeing would've continued for a THOUSAND
YEARS. Contrary to what the BH author seems to think, people in centuries past
were not morons. They used horses every day and were very savvy about practical
horse care. There were various times and places in history where shortages of
iron, horseshoers, and forges made the use of barefoot horses unavoidable.
You'd think that, if going barefoot was so beneficial to working horses, people
would've realized how much better-off they were without horseshoes. But instead
they took their horses to the smithy before the mortar in the forge had even
set-up. Do you suppose farmers and freight coach drivers just wanted to be
fashionable? Or just maybe they wanted to be able to use their horses hard over
rocky roads without them coming up bloody-footed lame.
The Wave of the Future
or
New Age Snake Oil?
Fads... They come and go in the horse world
just like every other part of society. The latest fad among the equestrian set
is "naturalism". "Natural training" or
"communication". "Natural feed" regimens. "Natural
horsekeeping". And, of course, "natural" hoof care.
At first the "natural" hoof care
stuff wasn't too bad. The "4-point" trimming and shoeing approaches
had mechanical merit, so if labeling them "natural" helped Gene
Ovnicek and others get farriers to shorten breakover levers on long-toed
horses, more power to them.
But now, from Europe,
comes the "Barefoot for Soundness" philosophy attributed to Dr.
Hiltrud Strasser. Horseshoes are evil... Just use the new low-heel trimming
method, trash the old iron shoes, and your horses will live longer, jump
higher, run faster, look prettier, and do your income taxes to boot.
Nothing really new here. A quick look
through Henry Heymering's bibliographical reference tome "On the Horse's
Foot: Shoes and Shoeing" shows that this fad comes around every so often,
only to fade away like the Macarena or poodle skirts.
There's nothing wrong with letting a horse
go barefoot if that suits his use level and conditions. In fact, most farriers
recommend it. But the "Barefoot for Soundness" philosophy is based
primarily on two flawed notions.
One: The primary goal in horse management
is for the horse to be "natural".
Two: Horseshoes are bad.
As a farrier, I'd like to respond to these
notions and some of the others published on the Internet by proponents of the
Strasser ap
SCIENTIFIC STUDY:
Barefoot Horse says: "Around 1800
Bracy Clark made the first scientific studies of how irons affect the horse's
foot. In one study, he made plaster casts of a horse's feet, before it was ever
shod and at yearly intervals while shod. The heels rapidly became contracted,
and after two years he was so repulsed by the deformity that he ended the study
and returned the horse to its barefoot state."
Bracy Clark's results, published in 1809,
actually dealt with the horse over six years of shoeing rather than two. His
"study" is what we now call "junk science". He studied only
one shod horse and assumed that the changes in hoof shape over the years were
due to shoeing. He did not study a similar horse under similar conditions and
workload without shoes over the same period. There is no way to know whether
Clark's horse's hoof contraction was due to shoeing, aging, climate change,
congenital weakness, feedstuffs, or any combination of factors. It's sort of
like me saying that being married made my beard turn gray without considering
that the passage of a dozen years might've done that wife or no wife!
The fact is that physiologically correct
horseshoeing does not cause hooves to contract, nor is it otherwise
"bad" for the hooves in any way.
EVIL HORSESHOES:
BH says "the iron horseshoe is
inappropriate and destructive to the horse's hoof, which is a masterpiece of
living design".
In other words, horse owners for the last
millennium have been paying good money to screw up their horses' hooves and
only the folks in the Barefoot for Soundness Movement are smart enough to know
better.
The horse's hoof is indeed an amazing
design, but its wearing surfaces are still organic material. Softer than rock
and asphalt. And those hoof surfaces can, at best, only be replaced at the rate
of 1/50th of an inch per day. If you're going to grind those wearing surfaces
against rocks and sometimes pavement at 50-200 pounds per square inch on a
frequent basis... Well, you don't have to be a master engineer to figure out
what's eventually going to happen.
WONDERS OF THE BAREFOOT LIFE:
BH says "Barefoot horses are able to
live and work many years longer, well into their 30's. They gain in performance
and surefootedness; they rarely develop founder, navicular, or leg stress
injuries."
This is, quite frankly, a load of hogwash.
The Strasser approach hasn't been around long enough to make any such claims to
longevity, and I defy anyone to show me valid statistical evidence that shoes
shorten lives or working lifespan in horses. Sure, my 30+ year old horses are
barefoot. That's because they are retired. They wore shoes when they were
working for their oats. And they are still sound of hoof and limb today. I
doubt seriously that you can find many 30+ horses who have spent the bulk of
their working lives barefoot except in the soft-sod lowlands. And you'd have
trouble finding many owners of 30+ horses who know whether or not the horse was
shod regularly 15 years ago. If there is any statistical evidence showing that barefoot horses live longer, it almost certainly includes small ponies... Who tend
to live longer than horses by their nature, and are rarely shod or worked much
in recent decades.
Those who claim their barefoot horses
"gain in performance" are often comparing to previous BAD shoeing. Of
course the horse does better when you get rid of inappropriate or painful
shoes. He might do better yet with good shoeing! Those that claim
surefootedness often judge by the fact that the horse seems more careful and
aware of footing. This is quite a different standard than judging by the
horse's ability to traverse ground efficiently without slipping or stumbling.
I'd personally prefer for my horse not to make a big deal out of crossing every
rocky patch on the path.
That shod horses would experience more
navicular problems and athletic injuries than barefoot horses is to be
expected. It's not because of the shoes. It's because shod horses are more
likely to be used hard. That's why they were shod in the first place! Founder,
on the other hand, is not more common in shod horses. We see it more often in
barefoot broodmares and ponies than in working shod horses.
IS IT WORTH IT TO BE "NATURAL"?:
BH tells us that "having a barefoot
horse is different from having a shod horse". You will have to give your
horse 24/7 turnout in a big, dry pasture where he'll be encouraged to move
around a lot. He will be ouchy on gravel for the first few months, and will
probably have to wear some kind of strap-on boots when you ride on rocky trails
from now on. You can look forward to plenty of "rehabilitation abscessing",
which is somehow supposed to be different from regular abscesses. (Still
lameness and puss though!) There will be these little setbacks, but hey,
"Horses have gone barefoot for millions of years. It is part of their
design."
What so many of our Nature Oriented friends
seem to forget is that domestic horses exist for the use and enjoyment of their
masters, not just to "be natural". It is often not convenient, safe,
or practical to turn horses out to pasture 24/7. Our horses are kept in the ways
that serve our purposes best, and if that means they don't have the optimum
lifestyle for maintaining "natural" feet, that's just too bad!
Wild (actually feral, unless we're talking
about Przewalski's) horses do just fine barefoot. But nobody puts 85 kilos on
their backs and makes them go places they wouldn't choose to walk on their own.
Their value isn't based on being available to an owner who doesn't have time or
inclination to helicopter over a hundred square miles trying to find them for a
ride.
Is it really worth months of
"transition" lameness, indefinite diminished capability, massive
lifestyle changes, and messing around with expensive and unreliable shoe
alternatives just so that your horse can be "natural"? Especially considering
that proper horseshoeing is not harmful to your horse at all?
SHOES AND THE HOOF MECHANISM:
BH tells us that horseshoes are bad because
they inhibit all-important "Hoof Mechanism". The spreading of the
foot when it's on the ground (which theoretically pulls blood into the foot),
and "squeezing" back to size when the foot is raised (theoretically
pumping blood from the foot back up into the limb).
Because rigid, iron horseshoes are
nailed-on while the foot is in its "squeezed" state off the ground,
the hoof theoretically cannot spread when loaded and circulation is inhibited.
This argument demonstrates a greatly
oversimplified view of circulation within the hoof. It is true that loading and
unloading enhances circulation. But it's not a simple bellows-like function. At
the same time the hoof capsule's volume is increased by slight spreading under
a load, drawing in blood as described in the BH theory, the coffin bone is
being pressed down to drive blood out of the corium. There are several factors
driving blood into, out of, and around within the hoof when the horse is in
motion. Not all of them depend on the hoof wall doing a lot of flexing.
More importantly, the notion that iron
(actually steel) shoes significantly reduce normal hoof flexing is incorrect.
Yes, steel shoes are rigid, but they are not nailed to the entire perimeter of
the hoof wall. The only part of a healthy hoof wall that can actually flex is
in the rear 1/3 to 1/2 of the foot. That is the part which is attached to a
flexible cartilage internal structure. The front 1/2 to 2/3 of the hoof wall is
attached to rigid bone. Horseshoes are properly nailed and clipped only to the
front (bone-supported) part of the hoof, leaving the rear (cartilage-supported)
part of the hoof free to flex.
You may notice that a freshly-shod horse's
shoes fit overly full from the last nail back to the heel. Farriers call this
"expansion". It is done to allow for the spreading of the hooves both
under load and due to growth. When the same horse is due for a reset, you will
see that the rear part of the hoof wall is now flush with the outer edge of the
shoe. Since the shoe is rigid and couldn't get narrower, the hoof must have
gotten wider across the heel quarters. So much for the whole idea of shoes
restricting spreading and even causing contraction!
THE ALL-NATURAL ÜBERTRIM:
BH describes the Strasser trim. "The
heels are right down on the ground", "the bottom of the coffin bone
sits level to the ground", "frog on the ground", and "the
toe angle will wind up about 45 degrees in the front feet".
We are told that "With any heel length
at all, even an extra 1/8 inch, soreness and incorrect working of the hoof and
pastern joints shows up almost immediately."
Sounds familiar to farriers who've been
around a while. A decade or two back, the low-heel, 45° hoof was promoted in
some circles as a way to lengthen stride and improve movement... The result was
a veritable epidemic of navicular syndrome, lifeless hooves, and horses living
on bute. The backlash from the last low-heel, 45° fad resulted in many
horseshoers going too far to "leave all the heel", which isn't good
either. The healthy foot has neither overlong (underrun) heels, nor are its
bulbs in the dirt. It has enough strong, straight heel to put the digit into
proper alignment. That length varies between individuals.
The coffin bone is suspended within the
hoof by its front and sides. It does not rest on its base. So there is no
particular advantage to bringing the bone into a position where its
"bottom" is level to the ground. In fact, derotating the bone into
that position can put the bony column within the digit out of alignment. It
compresses the front of the coffin joint and opens the navicular area to direct
trauma from below. Most healthy hooves have the coffin bone slightly
tipped-down within the foot. This has the structural advantages of extending
the skeletal support as far down as possible where the peeling stresses are
greatest (at the toe) while keeping the solar corium up off the ground and
making it possible for the quarters to wear higher (ala the Four Point
concept).
The frog is a horny structure which wears
and exfoliates (sheds). Because of its variable height/thickness, it can't
really be used as a reliable gauge for heel lengths. The frog is not the blood
pump some have claimed, and does not have to bear weight for proper hoof function.
At 45°, the mechanical stresses during
breakover (when the hoof goes from resting flat on the ground to the toe
leaving the ground altogether) are greatly increased. In a typical hoof,
lowering the toe angle from 55° to 45° causes the hoof to lift the weight of
the horse an extra half-inch with every step. We're talking about an 80% stress
increase here. This stress can bow tendons, crush the navicular bursa, and peel
the hoof wall away from the coffin bone at the toe, thus ripping the laminae
(the tissues that connect the hoof wall to the face of the coffin bone).
Remember those "rehabilitation abscesses" you are likely to see with
the Strasser approach? Little wonder, since the torn laminae make such a great
doorway for infectious bacteria to get into the hoof capsule!
THE FUTURE:
BH tells us that "Horse-keeping in the
coming years is going to look different from what we see around us now. 24-hour
turnout will be standard, their feed will be grass hay available 24 hours a
day, they will be barefoot with a wild horse trim, and those that live on soft
ground will have their feet trimmed at about 3-week intervals. "
I hate to burst her bubble, but the Horse
of the Future is not going to be a pseudo-mustang galloping across 30 miles of
open country every day. We can't magically turn our increasingly city-locked 5
to 20 acre stables into sprawling tracts of outback just so the horses can be
"natural"... Not that this would be a particularly desirable goal to
begin with.
Your horse is not a wild animal. He is the
result of thousands of years of selective breeding to meet human needs. Nature
never made a 17 hand, 800kg horse. She never made a horse that could win
the Kentucky Derby or the grand national. Man did that. And while he was
at it, Man bred horses who do well in domestic conditions with practical hoof
care.
Your horse does not want to be a wild
animal. Why do you think he comes to the gate and sticks his nose in a halter
to go into his stall? Domestic living is not something mean old humans impose
on "natural horses". It's something our horses been bred to thrive on
for countless generations.
Being "natural" is not your
horse's job. Being ridden or driven is. The way your horse is kept is based on
keeping the animal fit and available for that job, regardless of how
"unnatural" that may be.
There's nothing wrong with letting your
horse go barefoot if he's normally a good candidate for it. Why spend extra
money on shoeing if you only do light riding on soft to moderate trails and
your horse does fine unshod? But if you're changing the way you use and keep
your horse just to avoid shoeing, you are cheating yourself.
Horses are for riding. So take yours out
wherever you want to go as often as you want to go there! If rocky trails,
pavement, or just plain wear and tear become a problem for your barefoot horse,
have a good farrier shoe the beast. Contrary to what BH says, it won't do your
horse a bit of harm.
Over the next few years Strasser will sell
some books, a bunch of people will make some money with "Natural Hoof
Care" workshops and seminars. Maybe the "Certified Hoofcare
Specialist" racket will make it across the Atlantic as well. Some noise
will be made, and it'll eventually fade as it has done so many times before.
And when the "Movement" is a
memory, horses will still be wearing steel shoes. Why? Because they work and
work well. It's hard to argue with centuries of success.
And in the wake of it all will be many lame
horses thanks to Strasser trims and "Natural" management. I shouldn't
complain. I specialize in therapeutic farriery, and this fad will make me a lot
of business. It's just too bad that the poor horses will have to suffer for
their owners'
Thanks Mr Folly..