Barefoot fans - what is your opinion on these glue-on shoes...

little_flea

little_flea

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 September 2007
Messages
3,339
Location
London (but Swedish)
Visit site
http://www.soundhorse.com/

Just interested in your thoughts. Sigafoos vs traditional shoes, Sigafoos vs barefoot, advantages and disadvantages. Would you rather shoe your horse with these instead of traditional shoes?

(The cost of shoeing with these is very high, so that is a distinct disadvantage, of course.)

Thoughts and opinions appreciated!
 
This is my understanding of Sigafoos vs Imprints:

Imprint shoes are quite different to Sigafoos in the way that they are attached to the sole so they can to some degree affect growth and movement of the hoof.

Sigafoos are not attached to the sole but to the wall of the hoof, and have gel cushioning so the hoof can grow undisturbed (important for low heels).
 
They are no different from normal other than they're glued to the hoof wall, not held on by nails.

They are still metal and therefore don't flex (there's three versions of them - series I are prefrabricated with aluminimium plates already attatched, series II are for the farrier to cut their own shoe or pad from a metal board and attatch them to the cuff and series III are just the cuff for the farrier to attatch any shoe they want). They are still firmly and tightly attatched to the hoof wall and the fixing can't flex - it's hard and solid. They still cause the foot to entirely wall load, with no sole or frog loading. And they still stay attached to the fot 24/7 for weeks and weeks.

In fact I can't help thinking they may be worse than normal shoes - metal shoes should not have wall attachments further back than the quarters of the wall (i.e half way round) so the heels can flex and spread at least a little. Those shoes are firmly and inflexibly fixed all the way round the foot, right to the heels. And the fact they seem proudly to say they don't have any contact with the sole is odd and off putting - a horse SHOULD load the foot on the sole callus (the rim round the inside of the wall) and therefore Imprints have the advantage there. They shouldn't be GLUED to it, but the sole should bear weight.

Now, if the shoe was flexible rubber , and the cuff fitting was flexible and soft then they would be great. But why not just by a pair of Easyboot Glue-on Gloves, which you can fit yourself, take on and off yourself, reuse and cost a hell of a lot less? AND they don't need to wear them 24/7 for weeks and weeks.

Nope, not impressed I'm afraid - the fact they can be used to fit shoes into crumbling, damaged walls if good, but personally I'd rather find out why yhe walls are crumbling and damaged in the first place. My thinking it would be caused by shoes.......
 
Kallibear said:
They are no different from normal other than they're glued to the hoof wall, not held on by nails.

They are still metal and therefore don't flex (there's three versions of them - series I are prefrabricated with aluminimium plates already attatched, series II are for the farrier to cut their own shoe or pad from a metal board and attatch them to the cuff and series III are just the cuff for the farrier to attatch any shoe they want). They are still firmly and tightly attatched to the hoof wall and the fixing can't flex - it's hard and solid. They still cause the foot to entirely wall load, with no sole or frog loading. And they still stay attached to the fot 24/7 for weeks and weeks.

In fact I can't help thinking they may be worse than normal shoes - metal shoes should not have wall attachments further back than the quarters of the wall (i.e half way round) so the heels can flex and spread at least a little. Those shoes are firmly and inflexibly fixed all the way round the foot, right to the heels. And the fact they seem proudly to say they don't have any contact with the sole is odd and off putting - a horse SHOULD load the foot on the sole callus (the rim round the inside of the wall) and therefore Imprints have the advantage there. They shouldn't be GLUED to it, but the sole should bear weight.

Now, if the shoe was flexible rubber , and the cuff fitting was flexible and soft then they would be great. But why not just by a pair of Easyboot Glue-on Gloves, which you can fit yourself, take on and off yourself, reuse and cost a hell of a lot less? AND they don't need to wear them 24/7 for weeks and weeks.

Nope, not impressed I'm afraid - the fact they can be used to fit shoes into crumbling, damaged walls if good, but personally I'd rather find out why yhe walls are crumbling and damaged in the first place. My thinking it would be caused by shoes.......
Click to expand...

In answer to your question:

• they are different to nail on shoes in that horses who have this hoof walls and become sore with nail-on shoes, can avoid that issue. They also have gel-cushioning which reduces shock (though of course there are these options with "normal" shoes as well). I also understand that aluminium reduces shock more than standard steel shoes, but i could be wrong.

• The shoes have gel cushioning (thicker at the heel) which is softer than hoof, so the gel contracts and allows for the hoof to grow. My mare has grown more foot with these shoes than she did in "normal" shoes.

Well, yes, they do stay attached to the hoof 24/7… - they are still shoes after all.

I have used these now for a few months on my mare and she seems very comfortable - her hoof wall is this and nails make her uncomfortable, and based on advise from farrier and vets, barefoot has not been recommended for her. I am very pleased that she is so much more comfy in these shoes – though they are very expensive.
 
ferrador said:
just another tool in the hoofcare box . they can be very useful in some situations but are not a practical solution to everyday care
chris
Click to expand...

Cost aside, why not? My farrier shoes several horses that show jump internationally and have worn these for years.

It may be possible to do in some cases, but most show jumpers would not want to jump on grass without studs (so therefore shoes), and certainly not at the very highest level.
 
i travel europe shoeing high end performance horses and very rarely do we come across sigafoos . this season on the sunshine tour i can only think of 4 horses that have had a glue on type of shoe and do not recall any horse not shod
chris
 
ferrador said:
i travel europe shoeing high end performance horses and very rarely do we come across sigafoos . this season on the sunshine tour i can only think of 4 horses that have had a glue on type of shoe and do not recall any horse not shod
chris
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not sure what this proves...? Sure, traditional shoes are certainly more frequent than glue-ons, just wondering why these could not be used long-term?
 
The gel cushion just tries to replicated the constant stimulation that a barefoot normally gets, replace the strong digiatal cushion a barefoot hoof should have and tries to give a similar level of shock absorbtion a barefoot hoof would have. Better than a normal shoe maybe but still no where near as good as a barefoot hoof.

And it still doesn't make up for the most damaging fact that they are attached 24/7 and are inflexible.

If anything 'extra growth' is a bad thing in shoes unless they're changed almost weekly. They do not allow lateral expansion of the heels and excessive growth is channeled into a 'tube' by the shoe: much more damaging that no growth at all! That's where contracted, underrun heels come from. In a barefoot hoof the heels would grow OUT and DOWN, flaring then chipping. In a shod foot the hoof can't grown out so it grows IN and FORWARDS.

I agree that glue on it better than nailing for a thin-walled hoof, but the thin walls are caused by shoeing in the first place! Thick strong walls are created by stimulation of the hoof as it expands and contracts whilst working on hard surfaces (i.e barefoot horse on roads). My horse was a amazing example of that - spent 5yrs in a soft field barefoot and, although the foot was ok, the walls were very thin due to lack of work. He develped the most incredible ridge down his feet, marking where he started road work - the higher hoof was a good couple of mm thicker than the lower hoof and so different in strenght and thickness that it split slightly round the hoof wall. His walls went from maybe 2-3mm thick to well over 1cm in places. It took 6 months or so to grow out and the wall coming down behind it was amazing quality.

And no, most vets and many farriers won't 'reccommend' barefoot because most don't know much about managing a horse working hard with barefeet. Vets get F all training on shoeing and NONE on barefoot (beleive, I know as I did it), and many farrier have little interest in maintaining a barefoot horse and the only answer to foot problem is to put shoes on.
 
little_flea said:
In answer to your question:

• they are different to nail on shoes in that horses who have this hoof walls and become sore with nail-on shoes, can avoid that issue. They also have gel-cushioning which reduces shock (though of course there are these options with "normal" shoes as well). I also understand that aluminium reduces shock more than standard steel shoes, but i could be wrong.

• The shoes have gel cushioning (thicker at the heel) which is softer than hoof, so the gel contracts and allows for the hoof to grow. My mare has grown more foot with these shoes than she did in "normal" shoes.

Well, yes, they do stay attached to the hoof 24/7… - they are still shoes after all.

I have used these now for a few months on my mare and she seems very comfortable - her hoof wall is this and nails make her uncomfortable, and based on advise from farrier and vets, barefoot has not been recommended for her. I am very pleased that she is so much more comfy in these shoes – though they are very expensive.
Click to expand...

But it is the distortion of the hoof on the ground that stimulates inner wall growth which is what holds nails firm - thin walls are caused usually by lack of distortion of the hoof wall - you lose inner wall so are reliant on the outer wall holding the nails - the outer wall is more brittle and prone to damage by nails if there is insufficient inner wall.

Gel cushioning that is softer than hoof exacerbates the problem by allowing even less distortion of the hoof capsule so over time you get even less good inner wall growth.

IMO its just a plaster to buy crap feet some more time to peform...
 
IMO its just a plaster to buy crap feet some more time to peform...
Click to expand...

And back to ferador's point - it is another tool - and it it makes the horse comfortable who would otherwise be unhappy and in pain, then it has a role to play.

I do have concerns about the adhesives - anything like this has to bond to the wall and therfore may compromise it in some way.

I am a barefooot convert, but also a ruthless realist. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top