All these barefoot posts.....

[SusieT]

sorry, I think you'll find it inefficient to use studies without actually reading them..
I've explained above re: studies and why barefoot needs them to support some amazing claims. I'll find the study tomorrow, it will be in my past posts somewhere.

 

[cptrayes]

Quite the reverse actually. If you read several synopses which all relate that the article concludes that slipping is designed to reduce stress on the joints and that studs prevent slipping and that a Farrier has concluded that the use of studs, and possibly shoes, is detrimental to the horse, and you have a firm intention of never shoeing your horses, never mind studding them again ...

....then it is a completely ineffective use of a minute of your life to read the whole document.

You may not have better things to do with your time in such a situation, but I, thankfully, don't


Please give me a short synopsis of the study you intend me to read Susie, because I can tell you already that if it covers ten or less horses and they all have shoes and there is no control group, then I won't be reading that one either.

And if it's the one about wild horses in New Zealand that has been completely debunked if you do a bit more research. The horses were living in a completely unsuitable area on a diet of too rich grass. If anything, it absolutely confirms what we know about how feet are damaged by an unsuitable diet.

 

[Alyth]

One thing that seems to be overlooked in the various studies is that each herd of wild horses is adapting to a different type of terrain. Our Kaimanawa horses here in New Zealand live in what is a poorer part of New Zealand - but it is rich compared to desert conditions. Quite wet for 6 months or more of the year, but not as wet as the Camargue. So each herd adapts to its environment. So as everyone, either pro or anti shoes is saying, every horse is different, every condition is different. But being an evangelical barefooter !! I have to say even though there is no proof that horse shoes are bad for horses hooves, that is what I believe. Tradition since the middle ages demands that horses be shod. But as I believe shoes were invented to protect the knights horses hooves when they were brought in from the surrounding fields and kept in the confines of the castle and lived in their own muck and urine -- at that time shoes were essential for the times. As I grew up in the UK my ponies were shod for me to ride during the school holidays and barefoot and turned out through term time (while I was at boarding school). I, and everyone I knew accepted this as the way we did things "correctly". I have learned so much over the past 15 years - both with regard to "natural horsemanship" (which is tradition logicalised!) and the care of my ponies. I really feel it behoves everyone, both pro and anti to have an open mind. Each faction accuses the other of being "closed minded" and mud slinging doesn't achieve anything. Good discussion does. So can we please keep the discussion impersonal and objective. Thank you everyone!!

 

[amandap]

Just a small point I was reminded of reading an article last night. The 'big names' who have put a lot of effort into the modern barefoot thinking are farriers, they worked as farriers for years then found that another approach worked very well and often better. They are not people with no experience of shoeing who woke up one morning and 'made up' this thinking, it's been and still is a sharing of learning, science and hands on experience and observation also trial and error. Others are scientists working to share what they have learned about their studies on hooves some very important work dating back over 40 years (Rooney).

Science is for me a strange animal and it can be very deceptive and misleading as well as enlightening. The mantra of the huge majority of barefoot people is 'do no harm' and listening to the horse is the guide. We all know horses don't lie and don't have an agenda. Sadly, humans are much more complicated...

 

[MotherOfChickens]

here's the thing, I am a postdoctoral scientist and work in veterinary research although not equine anymore. I was initially put off by the 'barefoot' thing due to the language and some of the claims made by some bare footers. I was also put off by a mustang model of feet when looking at my exmoor ponies and lusitano who are expected to live in soggy Scotland. it is true that any evidence that comes out of the barefoot camp is anecdotal but what exactly are they supposed to do about that? funding studies cost money and there is precious little of that for equine research in the UK-who will pay for it? I would love to be involved so will keep buying the lottery tickets!

a lot of this anecdotal evidence, especially wrt diet does parallel what researchers have found (who have no interest in barefoot), some of it not published-in fact most of them are completely oblivious to barefoot. Some of it doesn't though and some of the more unscientific books I couldn't take seriously at all-2 in particular (one on shoeing, one on barefoot) were both very good. I did my own research.

as for online courses well-most of the trimmers I've met are interested enough and diligent enough to actually work through the course which is more than most owners are but yes, as a qualification it's not worth all that much.

I have 3 now trimmed by a local trimmer who has been around for a while and who doesn't subscribe to any one way of trimming although she is fully qualified. my big horse is sound when I was told he never would be again (although not a foot issue but he does have some interesting front leg confo which I believe the trimming 'allows' for), I don't have to worry about WLD, thrush, lost shoes, snow, slipping on roads and for really flinty tracks I have my backcountry boots which are awesome :8

 

[SusieT]

Well there's an open mind for you.. 'won't be reading that' and reading synopses- I think that really says it all when we talk about doing your research.. That is incredibly closed minded. Interesting. I have explained the concept of evidence to you but you don't want to grasp it, that's fine but you give a lot of 'this is definitely right' advice based on your incomplete evidence-so don't expect everyone to swallow it or to not object to it. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

Here is the study- it has over 50 horses, and if you read it is maintaining a lot of the same principles barefoot treatment is trying to achieve-
Navicular bone disease : Results of treatment using egg-bar shoeing technique by L. C. BSTBLOM. equine veterinary journal, 1984. If you can't access it, let me know and I'll email you a copy.

 

[ester]

Back in times gone by when 'barefoot' first appeared on this forum I remember asking for peer reviewed studies. I think my opinion on the evidence (when I last looked properly), as a researcher myself, is that it was rather insufficient in all courts (shoes/no shoes/damage/benefits) to be thoroughly convincing.

I remember a paper on collateral ligament injuries with several treatment groups, shockwave/adequan etc but all horses were shod which was probably a shame!

Overall I came to the conclusion that the current academic research and evidence wasn't really going to assist in what decision to make for my beast, much as I would like it to!

 

[amandap]

The concept I cannot grasp about shoes being used with navicular is they effectively support and clamp the hoof. In my, admittedly limited understanding, navicular is caused by persistent (over years) incorrect loading of the hoof (toe first landing and shoes restricting the hoofs ability expand and contract) which puts incorrect strain on every ligament, tendon (Rooney) and doesn't allow the caudal half of the hoof to develop enough strength or comfort for the horse to use that part of the hoof to land on, which is the correct way the hoof should be loaded for appropriate strain on ligaments, tendons and energy dissipation.
A shoe effectively immobilizes the hoof so how does it allow these caudal structures to develop and become up to the job they are designed for? All I can see a shoe does is support, immobilize and possibly allow ligaments and tendons to heal but then what? Has the actual cause been addressed? I don't believe it has. In my understanding this is the main reason this diagnosis traditionally has such a poor prognosis.

Here's an owner friendly interpretation of barefoot thinking about navicular for any one interested. http://www.hoofrehab.com/NavicularSyndrome.htm

ps. I am assuming James Rooney's research is proper science and wonder why vets aren't considering this fundamental reasoning. For me it all fits together and makes sense to rehab hooves barefoot to build the structures through exercize so horses can move and land their hooves as they are intended. This alleviates the unhealthy strains in the ligaments, tendons and other hoof structures in the long term.

 

[cptrayes]

Well there's an open mind for you.. 'won't be reading that' and reading synopses- I think that really says it all when we talk about doing your research.. That is incredibly closed minded.

Not at all Susie, I have a very enquiring mind, which is why, in spite of sceptism greater than yours will ever reach, I took the shoes off two lame horses seven years ago and will never put one back on a horse, just to allow it to work for me, again.

Interesting. I have explained the concept of evidence to you but you don't want to grasp it,

Congratulations Susie! Today's award for patronisation goes to SusieT. Big round of applause everyone

Thankyou so much Susie, but I did not actually need the concept of evidence explained to me. Likewise I do not need it explained to me, but you seem to, that just because something is anecdotal does not make it untrue.

that's fine but you give a lot of 'this is definitely right' advice based on your incomplete evidence-so don't expect everyone to swallow it or to not object to it. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

I don't expect everyone to swallow it, but while horses remain that are being shot with their shoes on because farriers and vets do not understand how likely it is that they can be cured with a barefoot rehab, I will continue to post.

And I'll bet that if you ever have a horse diagnosed with caudal hoof pain and are recommended to put it down after remedial shoeing and meds fail, that you will try a barefoot rehab first, in spite of there being no research to support it. And if you did not, no words exist which would adequately express my utter contempt.

Here is the study- it has over 50 horses, and if you read it is maintaining a lot of the same principles barefoot treatment is trying to achieve-
Navicular bone disease : Results of treatment using egg-bar shoeing technique by L. C. BSTBLOM. equine veterinary journal, 1984. If you can't access it, let me know and I'll email you a copy.

Can you explain to me why I would want to read a study showing that bar shoes made 50 horses less lame (for how long???) when I know of a similar number of horses which were still lame after bar shoes and conventional medication, and did one myself, which came sound with a barefoot rehab?


....

 

[cptrayes]

I've explained above re: studies and why barefoot needs them to support some amazing claims.

Barefoot does not need them.

People who believe in barefoot rehabs are already convinced.

It is sceptics like you who need them, and vets so that they can recommned it to their clients with some back-up in case they get sued.

So, since it is you who needs the scientific evidence, why don't you get it done?

I am proud of the fact that I know of horses who would by now have been shot or pensioned off who have been restored to full work because people on this forum have encouraged owners to go for a barefoot rehab for their horses, unsupported by scientific evidence.

Horses are alive. Owners have been saved heartache. Well done barefoot, I say.

You can knock it til you are blue in the face Susie, but you won't stop me trying to save other horses and owners from an unnecessary outcome.

 

[Oberon]

Aye - but things will never move forward until there is proper research out there.

It worries me why we don't have it.

Even Dr Bowker's work hasn't been 'properly' validated - that really baffles me.

Going BF rather than using shoes for a healthy horse is always going to be personal choice. But for pathalogical horses....to say 'modern' BF has been around for over a decade now, why hasn't anything been done to validate the use of it as a treatment?

 

[cptrayes]

Because the easiest way to get money for research is if there is an end product which can be sold at a profit to recoup the costs. Barefoot is a profit free zone for the drug companies It's not in the interest of any pharmaceutical company and it is completely against the interests of the big Vet clinics, which all make a whacking great amount of their money from diagnosing and treating horses with hoof lameness.

When I told my old vet that I could cure a navicular horse by taking off the shoes his immediate reaction was not "I don't believe you" it was "You'll put me out of business".

 

[ester]

but, despite that there is a lot of research, particularly at the PhD level which is what I call 'research or research sake' in fact it is often encouraged and my PhD has been criticised for being too practical in its goals (I am funded by the relevant industry, they have interest in the problem and would have liked to find a solution, but plenty are funded by research councils or university funds with no interest in having an end product). Maybe it is the hurdle of getting work that is publishable that is problematic, given that pathological horses are likely all a bit inherently different.

 

[SusieT]

another open minded post there cptrayes, basically we should believe you because you say so. There are no drugs able to be sold as a result of putting shoes on navicular horses either...

 

[cptrayes]

another open minded post there cptrayes, basically we should believe you because you say so. .

Susie I don't expect you to believe anything. You are a grown adult, though sometimes your posts make that difficult to credit, and you can believe exactly what you want to believe.

But while I continue to get PMs saying things like this, delivered 5 minutes ago from someone whose vet and farrier told her the horse would never work again, I will continue to post what I post whether you like it or not.

I'm so glad that I read yours and others posts on barefoot as I honestly think it has saved my horse's life.

 

[cptrayes]

There are no drugs able to be sold as a result of putting shoes on navicular horses either...

Are you completely unaware of just how much profit most farriers make from putting bar shoes, wedges and fillers on a horse?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

And if it's the one about wild horses in New Zealand that has been completely debunked if you do a bit more research. The horses were living in a completely unsuitable area on a diet of too rich grass. If anything, it absolutely confirms what we know about how feet are damaged by an unsuitable diet.

Or perhaps the study just had findings that showed barefoot horses were not perfect and suffered from hoof problems like navicular too ?

Far from these horses living in 'an unsuitable area', they were living in their own environment. Just as the mustangs live in an environment that bears no comparision to our domestic horses.

You can't cherry pick a perfect environment to further your propaganda.

Observations of groups of feral horses living in different climates and terrain shows that in fact there is no perfect hoof, the horse adapts to survive quite differently.

Have the Barefoot devotees moved away from the mustang role model yet or are they still trying to trim with this idea that the unshod hoof should replicate a feral horse living in harsh rocky terrain and travelling a 100 miles between forage and water ?
As most UK horses sqelch their way from a soggy field to a stable yard for a tootle around a menage, have a bucket of food and amble back to the paddock, I have never seen the relevence with mustangs for our domestic horses.

 

[cptrayes]

You can't cherry pick a perfect environment to further your propaganda.

But I can. This is what mineral balancing, keeping horses off grass in daytime, carefully matching exercise to foot growth, etc is all about. We are attempting, and most often succeeding, in cherry picking a perfect environment for our horses to work barefoot.

The study clearly shows, for me, why shoes were used in the first place. Because if you want an army full of horses all to be ready to work at the same time in less than perfect conditions then shoes are a necessity.

Horses are now leisure animals. The reasons for mass shoeing have disappeared.

I don't follow any "model" so I can't help with your other questions. I only subscribe to what keeps barefoot horses sound and in hard work in the environment where they live.

 

[cptrayes]

Or perhaps the study just had findings that showed barefoot horses were not perfect and suffered from hoof problems like navicular too ?

Correct me if I am wrong but if the study showed that the horses had "navicular" you mean that they had changes to the navicular bone. It is now widely known that a very substantial proportion of horses (I have been told 50%) will have navicular changes on xray, but very few of those will be lame. Moreover, if you MRI the ones that are lame then it is overwhelmingly the case that soft tissue damage will be found. Then also the case that if you fix the soft tissue damage the horse comes sound in spite of the fact that the changes to the navicular bone remain.

Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the logical conclusion that changes to the navicular bone are simply normal in horses and that they are not normally related to the lameness or otherwise of the horse.

Which would make it puzzling why one of the top veterinary hospitals told a friend of mine last year that, on the strength of the changes to the navicular bones, it was unlikely the horse would ever work again. The horse concerned was sound after four weeks at a rehab unit and remains sound. As an interesting aside, it was also barefoot before the lameness, but had insufficient movement over a wet winter and his feet had been allowed to grow to a point where his frogs were no longer in contact with the floor. In other words, he'd grown himself a shoe.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

You miss my point, you say the New Zealand research had been completely debunked. I didn't know that it had. If the Barefoot people wish to harp on about mustangs having the hooves that are ideal, it has to taken into account that horses living successfully adapt to their environment, as feral herds in different climates have quite differently shaped feet.
Diet, forage,the availability and type, terrain and climate are all equally relevant in research into understanding how to maintain soundness.


Saying barefoot horses do not get navicular syndrome is untrue.

Surely, observing feral horses living in the uk would be far more relevant than trying to mimic mustangs ?
But perhaps the Welsh pony roll isn't quite so exotic ?

 

[Oberon]

Have the Barefoot devotees moved away from the mustang role model yet or are they still trying to trim with this idea that the unshod hoof should replicate a feral horse living in harsh rocky terrain and travelling a 100 miles between forage and water ?
As most UK horses sqelch their way from a soggy field to a stable yard for a tootle around a menage, have a bucket of food and amble back to the paddock, I have never seen the relevence with mustangs for our domestic horses.

The AANHCP still (I believe) favour the 'wild hoof trim'.

While it is interesting to take in information such as short toe, low heel and well connected wall, it is not correct (IMO) to blindly follow any model. Each horse should be treated as an individual.

The Hampson/Pollitt Brumby study clearly showed there were differences between 'hard ground' horses and 'soft ground' horses.

The hoof is dynamic. So should the trim be.

 

[Oberon]

But perhaps the Welsh pony roll isn't quite so exotic ?

I imagine it would be more muddy

'Mustang roll' is a term coined by Jaime Jackson - so that would be the AANHCP again.

They don't represent the entirety of trimming practice

This is some observations from a lady on Dartmoor ponies

http://www.tribeequus.com/dartmoor.html

And other feral hoof forms

http://www.tribeequus.com/easternusa.html
http://www.tribeequus.com/burros.html
http://www.tribeequus.com/plainshorses.html

Not scientific in any way - but I found the different hooves interesting.

 

[paddy555]

When I told my old vet that I could cure a navicular horse by taking off the shoes his immediate reaction was not "I don't believe you" it was "You'll put me out of business".

years ago I used to buy my rasps from a farrier friend (before the days of online shopping) He knew my horses did OK unshod and his only comment was "don't tell my client's you'll put me out of business"

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Thanks for the links Oberon, just off to ride now but will have a read later.
These flipping unshod, spring grass eating horses need to work.

 

[cptrayes]

If the Barefoot people wish to harp on about mustangs having the hooves that are ideal,

I have never seen anyone on this forum harp on about that.

Diet, forage,the availability and type, terrain and climate are all equally relevant in research into understanding how to maintain soundness.

This, on the other hand, we all say until we are blue in the face.

Saying barefoot horses do not get navicular syndrome is untrue.

I do not understand why you are telling me this when I have just told you about a barefoot horse with navicular. They do get it. My experience is that the ones who get it are the ones who have grown a shoe and taken their frog out of contact with the floor.

Surely, observing feral horses living in the uk would be far more relevant than trying to mimic mustangs ?

I have no recollection of anyone on this forum suggesting that we should be trying to mimic mustangs. And most certainly not me because I do not follow a "model". The furthest I would go is to use the term "mustang roll" as a neat way to describe rounding off the sharp edge of a horse's hoof in order to prevent it from chipping. I'm really baffled why you are trying to have this particular discussion with me because it is nothing I have ever posted about. If you noticed, I only mentioned the NZ research to say that it didn't tell us anything very useful.

 

[Tinypony]

Good thread, very amusing to see someone arguing against things that nobody says in the first place.

 

[amandap]

Aye - but things will never move forward until there is proper research out there.

It worries me why we don't have it.

Even Dr Bowker's work hasn't been 'properly' validated - that really baffles me.

Going BF rather than using shoes for a healthy horse is always going to be personal choice. But for pathalogical horses....to say 'modern' BF has been around for over a decade now, why hasn't anything been done to validate the use of it as a treatment?

The glaring point for me is that there isn't any research that validates the treatments used every day by vets and farriers but many steadfastly remove to budge. Reading a blog yesterday a vet refuses to come out and see a horse that is now sound barefoot until the owner puts shoes on it!
It would be shameful in the extreme if ego and stubboness were playing a part rather than reason and common sense.

A model is only a guide to signs of health and normality. In my understanding the feral horse model allows for different adaptions in hooves depending on their environment. Every horse need a healthy frog, thick sole and thick wall of even thickness all the way round. Why people get hung up on a desert hoof being the aim is something I don't understand. The aim is a healthy strong hoof whatever it's environment. Most of the modern bf trims are almost identical from where I am sitting, the days of arguing about one trim over another are well over.

Imo feral horses that have unhealthy hooves should throw us the big question that if that is a 'norm' we want to embrace, then we have to ask about the ethics of riding and using an animal who is unable to be healthy.
Many have already demonstrated that healthy functioning bare hooves can be nurtured even in difficult domestic environments why would we want to start looking for reasons to justify having unhealthy hooves?
I just do not get it myself.

 

[amandap]

Anyway... who actually needs research? Horses all over the world are saying what works to those who are willing and open minded enough to listen. Just get on line and read if you cant travel and see...

This is what really bugs me about people demanding scientific research... they are happy to carry on doing something made up by humans used for centuries with no scientific research but they need scientific proof to believe what horses are saying and demonstrating. Reminds me of the general attitude of humans towards animals...

Medical models are by definition highly interventionist I prefer an holistic model myself.

 

[Moomin1]

Anyway... who actually needs research? Horses all over the world are saying what works to those who are willing and open minded enough to listen. Just get on line and read if you cant travel and see...

This is what really bugs me about people demanding scientific research... they are happy to carry on doing something made up by humans used for centuries with no scientific research but they need scientific proof to believe what horses are saying and demonstrating. Reminds me of the general attitude of humans towards animals...

Medical models are by definition highly interventionist I prefer an holistic model myself.

Holistic approaches don't cure cancer. Thank god we have got scientists out there saving lives every day.

 

[cptrayes]

Holistic approaches don't cure cancer. Thank god we have got scientists out there saving lives every day.

No Moomin, they don't cure cancer, they stop it happening in the first place.

It is well demonstrated that a wholistic approach to life, with a good diet, good exercise, getting the right amount of sun for vitamin D production, living in a clean place, not smoking, taking a 75mg dose of aspirin a day, etc etc are the best cancer preventative there is.