I'm going to stick my neck out now - Barefoot trimmers

Sorry, RosieTedMollySnoop but I don't know many retired or otherwise unridden horses (broodmares, youngsters) that are still shod - those that are it is probably on a vets advise for a specific problem. I'd rather trust a vet and qualified farrier in that case
 
As with everything in life, there is a continuum between those whose horses are always shod traditionally, and those who will employ the latest 'trend' or, to be kind, development in footcare.
I think there's a place along that continuum for everyone...and for every horse. Out of my three horses, my TB mare needs shoes even when out of work in the field...or she can't walk. My rising 4yo has hard blue horn, and probably will be able to work unshod. My rising 3yo (3/4 TB will probably need shod when required to do any level of work.
I do think, though, that before I trust a 'barefoot trimmer' they'd have to do something slightly more rigorous in terms of qualification than that feeble diploma mentioned above, particularly if they are to give advice on specialist subjects as wide ranging as nutrition, gait analysis, fittening as described above!
Unfortunately, where there is a 'trend' in the equine industry, and there are owners willing to pay (with the best of intentions) there are unscrupulous people who will set themselves up as 'experts'...and barefoot trimmers (along with behaviourists) need proper qualification, regulation, and some sort of legal framework to ensure owners and their horses, are protected.
S
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying the trimmer wasn't at fault

[/ QUOTE ] Have you actually seen the photos of the horse's feet? Can't believe anyone would say they were OK!
 
I'm not saying that, haven't a clue what the details are and am in no way defending the trimmer, however, to be honest, with the greatest respect ANY foot expert will tell you that photos on the net are NO way to make a judgement on a foot. The only way that can be done is with the horse in front of you and a full history.

The only thing I was saying is that there was more going on with this horse than just his feet and his owner has posted about his EPSM problems. Plus at this point in time, whatever the owner posts is quite understandably going to be emotive and seen from her point of view - which may be completely right for all I know, but could equally be a little clouded.

Still no reason to write off all trimmers, the same as all farriers cannot be written off as c**p at barefoot trims, even though I personally have known a few farriers who are absolutely appalling at the job of shoeing let alone trimming.

Balance in everything and my personal view is that the sooner some sort of official recognition and regulation is put in place, as happened with dentistry, the better.
 
I am actually fully aware of the whole story behind this episode, however this doesn't detract from the state of the horse's feet, and the dismissive attitude of the trimmer's trade association. No-one is trying to write off all trimmers, but just want them to be properly regulated.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that an unshod hoof is growing at a faster rate due to the increased stimulation and blood flow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain how having an unshod hoof increases circulation, over and over a shod hoof for the same level of work?

[ QUOTE ]
This will counteract the greater wear.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it won't necessarily. It will only counteract the greater wear if increased horn growth (and I struggle to see how horn growth would increase anyway) is directly proportional to the amount of wear on the hooves - and that assumes that wear on hooves is independant of the surface on which the horse walks, which we no is not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
A barefoot horse doing moderate road work will have better grip than it would in shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of work is irrelevant but I agree that the level of grip is greater for unshod hooves on surfaces such as concrete and tarmac than it is for (metal) shod hooves. Rubber shoes would provide better grip still. Interestingly, on surfaces such as rubber, arena surfaces etc, grip is infact higher for shod hooves than unshod hooves.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Because there is increased stimulation to the foot, which increases the blood flow and causes the hoof to grow.

[/ QUOTE ]
But you've failed to answer the question - why is the blood flow increased, particularly if the horse is unshod? Increased stimulation is bollocks, the part of the hoof that is in contact with the ground is the hoof horn, which is insensitive (thats why we ram nails through it when we shoe our horses). If more of the hoof (i.e. the sensitive parts of the hoof) are in contact with the surface on which the horse is walking then you are infact going against nature and will end up with a very foot sore and potentially lame horse!

[ QUOTE ]
Its a survival thing, in the wild if a horses hoof didnt grow enough it would end up lame, if it grew too much it would end up lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, therefore only the insensitive horn is in contact with the ground. As I have already replied to someone, for unshod hooves grip (and therefore wear) is greater than for shod horses on surfaces such as concrete and tarmac. In the wild horses move on rough/rocky/sandy/muddy/grassy terrains where infact grip is higher for shod hooves than unshod hooves so you cannot compare the wear on hooves through roadwork with the wear of hooves in the wild.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hooves are laminate, as you know, and designed to flex on contact with the ground (which doesn't happen with a shod hoof)..

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does, talk to any good farrier and they will tell you all about it! The materials they use to make the shoes also allow for the hooves to expand when they come into contact with the ground. Incidentally, I wouldn't describe it as flexion (if you bend your elbow you flex it and when the hooves contact the ground this isn't what happens. But yes, the hooves do change ever so slightly in there shape when they make contact with the ground and the hoof takes the horses weight.
[ QUOTE ]
When they flex, the blood supply to the hoof is stimulated, and the hoof growth is increased.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't, no more than if the hoof was shod. The impact of the shock waves that pass through the internal structure of the hoof would be responsible for any incraesed circulation anyway, not the horn changing shape.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the frog acts as an auxillery pump when it makes contact with the ground and increases the blood supply to the legs...obviously this wouldn't happen so efficiently with a shod hoof....and again it helps with the general circulatory system of the horse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't - thats one of the biggest myths around. No one really understands what it is that the frog does, infact many scientists believe that it doesn't actually have a true "purpose" and is possibly a throw back from an evolutionary cahnge. Furthermore, if your horses frog is in contact with the ground then you are going to have a very foot sore and lame horse as what is understood about it is that it is not a structure designed to cope with abrasion. When I started my youngster she initially only had front shoes on. Within 4 weeks her backs had to be put on as hacking out her back hooves had worn down and her frogs were not only in contact with the ground but had actually been worn flat. I felt awful when I realised how bad it was and the farrier pointed out she wouldn't have gone the full 6 weeks between shoeings as her frogs would have been so badly worn that they would have started to bleed within another few hacks.
 
I think there is a fundamental difference between barefoot, and "barefoot".

I kept mine barefoot due to good feet, not so much work, and no real reason for shoes. They were trimmed and checked by a farrier, and aside from the normal flattening of an unshod hoof were kept as 'normal' looking as possible.
No lameness, no chips, nothing, just normal, happy looking feet.
Put front shoes on a pony who pawed, just to save his feet, but that was it.

Now, the "barefoot" brigade in the news are the ones that think it's "natural" for them to cut off half their horses hooves, cripple them with rediculous angles and claim it's going to cure things like laminitus and navicular with no veterinary or dietry help.
Simply put, it's become cool to cripple your own animal.

The former description of barefoot is nothing to do with the latter. Not everyone who keeps animals barefoot thinks they're saving them by crippling them. Most the people I know with barefoot horses use professionally trained farriers.

The "barefoot" craze should be illegalised. All this babble about changing the foot angle, I was talking to a trained farrier about how easy it is to change a horses gait with a bit of rasping and a bit of repositioning with the shoe, and he spent years in training. How anyone can cut a horses foot to look rediculous and claim they've done a better job than a farrier is beyond me. Do these "barefoot" supporters even know the difference between lame and sound?
Dare I say it - can they tell which end of the horse poops and which end eats?
 
Maia thank you for poo pooing this rubbish about the frog being a pump. Its impossible for this to be the case!

Much more likely that the frog acts as a protective cushion for the sole preventing penetration by sharp stones etc.

There are plenty of photographic examples of truly wild horses, especially on this side of the Atlantic where the ground is softer and the terrain altogether different to the great plains of the States, where hooves are much more upright naturally than those so often quoted as being 'the ideal barefoot'.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I kept mine barefoot due to good feet, not so much work, and no real reason for shoes. They were trimmed and checked by a farrier, and aside from the normal flattening of an unshod hoof were kept as 'normal' looking as possible.
No lameness, no chips, nothing, just normal, happy looking feet.
Put front shoes on a pony who pawed, just to save his feet, but that was it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this I totally agree with - shoe (or not) according to feet condition and work but without all the psudoscientific bullsh*t that most people use because actually they haven't got a ****ing clue. I have no problem with people who choose not to put shoes on their horses because actually they are not needed for that horse, its level of work, and the quality of its feet and it is good to read a post like this.
smile.gif
 
hollycat, nice reasoned posts, certainly lots of info and thought and not the average farrier bashing
laugh.gif
Lovely to see!
 
Having just done a bit today on the foot, in which it was stated (And shown) that the frog only comes into contact with the ground under extreme situations (ie galloping), that puts the pump theory out!
It also showed that hoof contracting and expanding with each movement which was very interesting.
If I had a youngster who had never had shoes, I would attempt to keep them shoeless. For the rest of ours who are generally sore on concrete etc without shoes (therefore making a daily journey to/from the field painful) they will remain shod..
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have not yet met a traditionally trained farrier that as part of his clients consultaton will include gait analysis, give nutritional advice, conditioning advice, rehabilitation advice, advice on boots and all the other aspects that should be considered with a barefoot horse, more particularly one working at a high level. No farrier has ever asked me to fill in a questionaire, including details of work, surfaces worked on, feed, yard routiene, health problems etc etc. Vets, physios and barefoot trimmers have all asked these questions but not any of my farriers

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know - I think there might be legislation preventing them from giving this sort of formal advice. They'd probably be struck off. After all if your horse has problems and needs remedial shoeing they are required to work with your vet, rather than give pseudo-scientific advice and by-passing the vet.

Of course, many farriers are expert horse people, who might give general advice during conversation, but to treat it as a consultation
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying the trimmer wasn't at fault, I don't know that, but there were other contributing factors, not least a messy personal relationship deterioration between owner and trimmer I believe.

Things are never quite so clear cut as we pick up on these boards on the net.


[/ QUOTE ]]

How true. Years ago I started researching barefoot/unshod, as my pony hated the nails going in. I started with Strasser and swiftly moved on! I saw some horrible sights first hand and was disgusted with it. I later did some KC La Pierre courses (with the aim of becoming a DAEP), but stopped due to expense, time required and being disillusioned with how it was managed. Things have improved these days, from what I gather, but I'd have to start again, so haven't bothered.

The point of this post is that, during my training, I went out and trimmed some horses to gain experience, requesting that only non-pathological cases should be referred. It turned out that every single case I trimmed (I had about 10 on my 'books') was either pathological or extreme behavioural. One horse actually reared up and slammed a hoof on the back of my neck - after which I didn't go out trimming again, since I value my life! Without exception, every client disregarded my advice and kept their regimes unchanged, including a horse that stood in dirty bedding and went out for 6hours a day on mud. Not surprisingly, he continued to struggle on the stony track jusst outside the yard, particularly as the same owner 'never got round' to treating the severe white line disease. All other clients had horses that didn't leave the paddock except for my trim. I had one stupid cow with an unhandled NF, that I trimmed twice. Despite me saying she needed to handle his feet and I needed to go back 4 weeks later (he had hoof upon hoof), I got a call 14 weeks later to say 'they'd forgot'. When I went back, they hadn't so much as picked a hoof out, so he was worse than the first time, throwing himself to the floor with stress.

I basically ended up firing all my clients, apart from one of the above, who decided to go back to shoes. I now have an admiration for farriers and can relate to the frustration of a client who complains when shoes fall off but only have the farrier every 12 weeks... The last time I trimmed someone else's horse was 3 years ago and don't regret quitting one bit! I manage my own as a joint initiative with my farrier, who does a damn fine job of shoeing (I don't have hard standing so struggle to condition in summers like the last one!). I'll stick to that!

I must say that during my training I trimmed one horse with the most amazing feet, but the owner was in Dover, so too far to visit regularly. She was the only one who took the trouble to disinfect, pick out and RIDE, rather than let the horse rot in a field. God, it showed!
 
i only know what suits my horses from experience.im not really pro either way as ive got 2 naked and one shod in front.

two of my 3 are barefoot

my ish mare who used to have very TB looking feet than improved dramatically when naked.
she happily copes with 2 hours hacking over all surfaces everyday,as well as school work.
and a 2yo who i will keep barefoot as long as she is comfy.

my old mare (conny x) was barefoot all her life(pts last year aged 49) ,we did jumping and PC activities no problem.

increased blood will promote growth just from the simple fact it will be brings nutrients and removing harmful waste more efficiently,just as we are to keep a good supply of blood to wounds by increasing movement(which helps venous return-obviously applies more to the upper parts with muscles)

an unshod hoof will contract and spread with the horses weight whereas the shod hoof cannot-it is constricted by the metal and nails.
this would in theory increase blood flow in the foot.

im not sure if an unshod hoof has significantly more blood flow than a shod hoof,im not personally aware of any validated research into this.

however i would say my mares feet started to grow faster and her walls became thicker when her shoes came off.

its hard to guage exactly how much faster her feet grew as she is obviously wearing them down all the time
but the horn removed every 5 weeks was about the same as when she had shoes on
(so obviously she grew more as about the same was removed plus the amount that had worn away walking on the roads and sand etc)

my horse that is shod is 17h and ish.he does alot of road work and jumping.i have yet to try barefoot with him-although he is only shod in front and copes fine over all ground.he has no problems with his front shoes on,although i may decide to take them off in the future.unfortionaly i dont want him to have ,possibly, lengthy time out from competition to condition his front feet.

some horses DO need shoes
but probably most do not provided the hoof is conditioned.which not everyone has time/inclination to do.

personally as long as the feet are seen to regularly by someone who balances the foot correctly, the horse should have healthy functioning feet.

my gripe is anyone who doesnt get their horses feet seen regularly-barefoot or not!
 
Oh I know bad ones exist - I'm not saying that at all. Just that the lack of regulation for trimming means it's more likely a trained farrier will have half a clue what they are doing.

I met a 'parelli person' at the weekend who does her own trimming after a 2 day clinic. I just think that is bonkers to be honest.

My current farrier is a natural balance specialist and very good. I wouldn't not check up on a farrier nowadays. Luckily my job has connected me directly to the Master for the farriers livery company and they have some excellent recommendations.

I thought the person trimming mine was qualified but I was living 100 miles away at the time and wasn't there when she was done.

Hindsight and all...
 
This is one of those arguments that's never going to end.

There are bad farriers who ruin horses, and there are good farriers who understand foot physiology and biomechanics and how to apply them. Sadly, having taught vet students for years, I can confirm that going on a 6 year training course doesn't necessarily teach you how to think, nor does it give any common sense that wasn't there originally.

similarly, there are idiot foot trimmers, and some very conscientious ones who train long and hard at vast expense to learn all they can. And they do - definitely - save some horse's lives.

The American Farrier's Journal, in November 2000, v. 26, number 6 said the following:

'Of the 122 million equines around the world, no more than 10 percent are clinically sound. Some 10 percent are clinically, completely, unusably lame. The remaining 80 percent of these equines are somewhat lame... and could not pass a soundness evaluation or test.'

Of course, that may not be true and the UK may be a paragon of sounds horses - but if you go to any UK abattoir and examine the feet of horses put down for reasons other than unsoundess, you'll find an awful lot that have serious, chronic foot pathology - and at least 80% of those will be shod.

So - if you can find a good farrier, fine. But if you can find a good barefoot trimmer, and adjust your management to suit - because barefoot management is as important as the trimming - then you can do endurance on a barefoot horse. People do. And the feet *grow* during the rides. It's been measured - hoof action causes foot growth. Shoes diminish this growth.

and, for those who don't like the frog pump idea... the hoof is an enclosed, semi-rigid capsule. The soft parts of the foot naturally expand and contract when the foot is in use if there's no shoe to stop it (and an iron shoe will *always* stop foot expansion/contraction). If you have cartilagenous structures inside a capsule with a fluid interface, the fluid will follow the path of least resistance when under pressure, following basic laws of physics. This is the foot pump. The frog has to be a part of it.

If you're interested, look at this website. It's one of the better ones.

http://www.performancebarefoot.co.uk/
 
i have looked at this thread/your photos SEVERAL times over the last 24 hrs......and TBH I am looking at feet that are far too long at the toe..in ALL pics..they are asking for "heel problems" for sure...and the head on pics are, in fact, wonky!!!! unlevel in leymans terms.


so all in all, not a very good job, really....
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know - I think there might be legislation preventing them from giving this sort of formal advice. They'd probably be struck off. After all if your horse has problems and needs remedial shoeing they are required to work with your vet, rather than give pseudo-scientific advice and by-passing the vet.

Of course, many farriers are expert horse people, who might give general advice during conversation, but to treat it as a consultation

[/ QUOTE ]

Atwork, maybe you just don't like my use of the English language - us lawyers get that you know
tongue.gif

As a lawyer I would be very interested in this legislation you mention. I have not heard of such legislation under English or Scots Law.

Call it a 'consultation', a 'session' an 'appointment', a 'meeting', a 'chat' or whatever you will, the term doesn't matter
laugh.gif
. As you quite rightly said, farriers are experts in their field - which is feet - but SO MUCH influences feet that if they do not have a basic understandng of the multitude of factors that DO affect feet then they will not do their job properly. I am not talking about giving advice on nutrition, biomechanics, etc to degree level - just a basic level of understanding which would allow the farrier/trimmer to identify any current/potential problems and allow the horse to be referred to an expert as appropriate.

Would you be happy with a farrier shoeing or trimming a very fat native pony grazed on lush pasture but who did not mention to the inexperienced owners that lush grass was not the best nutrition for that pony? That is nutritional advice and IMHO a farrier that doesn't give such advice is the one who should be struck off for neglecting his duty of care to the pony, not the one that does give such advice. Basic advice on biomechanics would include walking and trotting the horse up to see how it moves and how its feet lands. My own farrier does this before every trim. Rehabilitation advice (where most farriers fall down and barefoot trimmers excel) could include advice on the correct use of hoof boots/pads and conditioning feet that have poor structure. This isn't necessarily pathology that requires veterinary attention. For example many horses suffer discomfort when having their shoes removed and the use of pads/hoof boots and subsequent conditioning the feet can be very useful. I would rather have a farrier/trimmer that can advise on how best to minimise this discomfort than leave a horse to get on with it or fill it full of bute. I would be very reluctant to foal down a shod mare for example as foals are easily trod on - a scenario where it would be preferable to remove shoes.

Eceni makes some very valid points. Prof Robert Bowker writes some great articles on feet for those others of you who are scentifically minded
cool.gif


My current horse is unshod and it is my strong preference. My next horse may be shod if there is no other way. I keep an open mind and do what's best for the horse in relation to what the horse is doing. Personally I am at a loss as to why anyone would prefer an poorly educated farrier than one who is constantly striving to update his skills, complete CPD and keep up with the latest developments in footcare and the issues that relate to it. Each to his own though.
laugh.gif
 
I think this is slightly untrue, but based on the European legislation that has been or is planned to be imposed on the UK saying that any "farrier" who has practised for a certain length of time in other EU countries (don't know how long, but I thought it was 4 years or something) can register as a farrier in the UK, even though a lot of EU countries have no official training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top