a numpty asks - barefoot/unshod what's it all about?

[cptrayes]

The strasser debate is still up for discussion and the controversy was about how someone performed a Strasser style "Trim" on a foundered horse. I don't know the ins and outs of it. It came sound as was predicted but at the time it was distressing to the owner so she pressed charges. It was first recommended by TLC but after that they sort of said, oh better not and have been nervous about barefoot trimming ever since. I don't know if this has changed.. as far as I can see their website hasn't changed in at least 4 years.

As a vet, her work is on pathological issues, it's just "extreme" and scares people. I've read about some of her work and don't agree with some of it and find other bits interesting.

Tallyho it's established case law now. An invasive Strasser trim that deliberately draws blood is illegal in this country.

 

[Monkers]

Given what we now know about navicular syndrome lameness resulting almost invariably from soft tissue damage and not bone damage, I find this extremely unlikely.

I am guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the horse in question was very badly trimmed and lamed in all four feet (if this was a Strasser invasive trim, it was illegal and has all but died out in this country due to 2 successful prosecutions).

The horse was then xrayed and shown to have navicular bone changes and the assumption was made that the lameness was due to those changes. The horse was shod and improved.

It is, however, unlikely that the trim would have the remotest thing to do with the bone changes, becuase of the length of time needed to change the bone. It is also unlikely that the bone changes had anything to do with the lameness. Because if you xray 100 sound horses, something like half of them will have navicular bone changes. The state of the bone in navicular cases bears little relationship to the amount of lamenss, which on MRI or dissection is shown in nearly every case to be a result of soft tissue damage not bone damage.

So my guess is that this horse was so drastically trimmed (Strasser trimmers draw blood and as I said it is illegal) that it was sore for a long, long time and shoeing it removed the remaining soreness. Or that being made so sore caused the horse to mildly strain collateral ligaments or deep digital flexor tendon. Both conditions would have recovered in time with a proper trim without shoeing.

That's my guess, what's the reality???

Yes you are wrong. The horse was trimmed by an equine podiatrist for a number of years. She was not using the strasser method, there was no blood drawn and the horse was not significantly lamer after trimming.
The horse was on my yard for three years (not owned by myself) in which time I witnessed the horse get worse and worse. The owner's response was to have the podiatrist out more frequently. I eventually managed to get the owner to get the vet to her horse, who diagnosed severe deep bruising that had caused changes to the navicular bone. Bearing in mind that this was a young horse that had never been shod, it is highly unlikely that the changes were due to general wear and tear, given their severity.

As I said in my previous post, open mindedness on all sides of the debate is important. Barefoot advocates need to realise that this method will not suit every horse, indeed in some cases it it detrimental as it was in this one.

 

[littlescallywag]

If she's been barefoot for a while then her feet will be nice and hard, and if she's coping with barefoot then leave her be. My boy was barefoot when I got him and has never been sore or footy and I'm transitioning my other horse to barefoot and she has took to it like a duck to water, hacks out on roads etc and is never sore. The farrier can do a pasture trim every 6-8 weeks