Rockley Farm. Exciting evidence emerging in Navicular

only if people are open minded and want to listen, and not with their fingers stuck firmly down their ears singing lalalala
 
One problem is that the research centres have very big machines to pay for and anyone who supports an approach which does not require MRI or any drug bills is going to be very unpopular with the men in grey suits who do the books :(


But it is now clear in spite of what we have all been told, periosteum or no periosteum, the navicular bone can and does heal itself.
 
cptrayes said:
One problem is that the research centres have very big machines to pay for and anyone who supports an approach which does not require MRI or any drug bills is going to be very unpopular with the men in grey suits who do the books :(


But it is now clear in spite of what we have all been told, periosteum or no periosteum, the navicular bone can and does heal itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they could use their MRI's etc. to document changes. After all, surely they and we all want what's best for horses at the end of the day. Sod profits. ;)

ps. I actually think to ignore this is very unethical. I see Nic has posted that vets are becoming interested so there is hope for horses.

I was well aware bone could remodel but this evidence showing healing is just mind blowing to me, though it does make sense. Just shows what enabling truly correct biomechanics and function can do.
 
Last edited:
What I was always told was that the navicular bone could never remodel because unlike other bone it does not have a periosteum 'skin' around it. I always thought that was nonsense and I'm glad I'm right :)

I agree with you, it's completely unethical for the results being achieved by barefoot rehabs to be ignored by vets or farriers any longer. The difference in prognosis between traditional treatment and barefoot rehabs is astounding.
 
I've posted before about how I lost two mares to navicular, tried bf with the first, and vets could not have been more against barefoot.

I see horses that vary from unlevel/ slightly short to crippled and, despite this information being available, owners/vets/farriers are not prepared to change. They keep doing what they are doing while turning a blind eye to carry on doing what they want to do eg riding and jumping.

It's so frustrating.

I wish I'd had this information or even known 1/5 of what I know now then.

Through certain circumstances the vets at my old practice ended up with my Feet First, Jaime Jackson & Pete Ramey books and completely wrote it all off. The only thing they latched into (to ridicule) was 'the wild horse trim".

Like someone else posted I can't understand the ethics of leaving a horse in pain after shoeing etc. The amount of people I know who think it's acceptable for a horse to be sore after shoeing ' for a few days' is ridiculous. Why isn't every owner always looking for a better way?
 
Buddy is my horse and I am thrilled with the results we have had thanks to Nic and barefoot. I am lucky that my vet is incredibly supportive and is talking about Rockley to anyone who will listen (Buddy's feet were shown to three other visiting vets yesterday) and he has since had two other referrals to Rockley and views it as a genuine treatment programme. Even he couldn't believe that we had positive improvements on the X-ray as Buddy was written off 11 months ago.

However, I don't think it helps that there are lots of fluffy people who are also involved in barefoot and this reduces the credibility. When i first spoke to my vet about it he was concerned it was all strasser trims and crystals but Nic is so normal, no nonsense and speaks in a way that vets and scientists can relate to so that helps - but my vet was expecting something else and was surprised.

I think the more traditional people that learn about and go down the barefoot route will help to increase its credibility and remove the fact that people still believe you cannot have a barefoot performance horse. Until then we will have to continue to self fund this and create more evidence (of which I am convinced will continue to grow) and hopefully will become more mainstream.
 
well I am firmly convinced that my pony would not be sound if I had not gone down the bf route, he is so much happier and freer in his movement. vet was supportive and very interested in my research into it, farrier supportive but still doing pasture trim which is not really what I am aiming for so keeping an eye on that one
 
My horse was diagnosed with navicular from x-rays - they showed moderate bone degeneration. That was October 2010. Earlier in Jan this year (so about 15 months after diagnosis), she went lame and the vet wanted to convince me it was the navicular degenerating and I wanted to prove to him that it was an abscess so I took her for x-rays. No sign of degeneration to the navicular bone. (The lameness was a stubborn abscess!). I still believe my mare has ligament issues in the area as she finds tight circles difficult but it was a good sign that the navicular bone appeared good.
 
This makes me so excited for my horses future - he is hopefully off to Rockley in sept if I can find some transport and Icannot wait to see what happens
 
While I am glad that some people are seeing positive results with their horses and I have no problem with individuals seeking this type of treatment, this is certainly not the way to make research claims.

There is an established research culture, that includes standards of research trials (control groups, blind controls, recording of results, etc.), publication of results in peer reviewed journals and opportunities for others to replicate the research...what it does not include is random musing on websites counting as evidence.
 
Booboos said:
While I am glad that some people are seeing positive results with their horses and I have no problem with individuals seeking this type of treatment, this is certainly not the way to make research claims.

There is an established research culture, that includes standards of research trials (control groups, blind controls, recording of results, etc.), publication of results in peer reviewed journals and opportunities for others to replicate the research...what it does not include is random musing on websites counting as evidence.
Click to expand...



And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.
Click to expand...
Exactly! My point is that this should generate interest in research funding from 'the established culture' or even research scientists.

It is a non invasive horse centred approach that is demonstrating good results in performance, this very small sample of bone healing imo should shake the research establishment and Veterinary community awake and get them looking at other thinking and treatments not based on tradition and non research based rationale to back up that tradition.
 
cptrayes said:
And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.
Click to expand...

Agree - the hypocrisy is maddening. But also have to agree with the point Booboos made - some (most?) vets will demand to see properly conducted studies and peer-reviewed publications before they will even begin to take barefoot rehab seriously. I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?
 
'''I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?'''

Genuine question here? Why doesn't she do this? Surely if the evidence is there to back up these claims in more than one case, then it would be the most obvious thing to do to help bring on board other vets, and maybe even prick the interest of equine research scientists?
 
Buddy'sMum said:
Agree - the hypocrisy is maddening. But also have to agree with the point Booboos made - some (most?) vets will demand to see properly conducted studies and peer-reviewed publications before they will even begin to take barefoot rehab seriously. I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?
Click to expand...


It would cost a fortune. Each post-MRI will be over £1000. Nic's business cannot sustain those costs.
 
Last edited:
MrsJingle said:
'''I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?'''

Genuine question here? Why doesn't she do this? Surely if the evidence is there to back up these claims in more than one case, then it would be the most obvious thing to do to help bring on board other vets, and maybe even prick the interest of equine research scientists?
Click to expand...


Why do you think this is Nic's job?

She's pretty busy rehabbing horses that vets and farriers can't help, time after time after time. Her yard has a waiting list and she has no need to advertise and no capacity to save any more horses than she does now.

Why doesn't the FRC or the BVA pick this up and run with it. They have far more money than one little rehab yard ever will.
 
Last edited:
Why can't the money for a research project be found ?

In recent years with the demand for hoof boots/ products, the industry has grown along with training courses for trimmers and clinics etc. Its enconomic sense for the industry to fund a research project which might prompt further research from other sources.

The BHS funds research in conjuction with the uni at Cirencester and the 100 club. Has anyone approached these organisations for funding ?

I fail to understand why hoof boot makers/ hoof trimming organisations cannot even fund a small sample of MRI's for successfully rehabbed horses at the very least.
 
Fascinating.

I am a scientist and I like to think I am a no nonsense person, I event, I hunt ... and I have barefoot horses. I have always credited this to the way they kept - we have a long, narrow, flinty field (almost 40 acres of long and narrow) and the horses have to navigate it 24/7. Would love to track them overnight some time to see how much ground they cover - the feet get a lot of use over a lot of different terrains and I do believe this allows for the right balance of growth and usage.
 
dogatemysalad said:
Why can't the money for a research project be found ?

In recent years with the demand for hoof boots/ products, the industry has grown along with training courses for trimmers and clinics etc. Its enconomic sense for the industry to fund a research project which might prompt further research from other sources.

The BHS funds research in conjuction with the uni at Cirencester and the 100 club. Has anyone approached these organisations for funding ?

I fail to understand why hoof boot makers/ hoof trimming organisations cannot even fund a small sample of MRI's for successfully rehabbed horses at the very least.
Click to expand...


Why should the people you mention fund it or spend time campaigning for funding? They are the ones getting minimal income from doing it right. The people who need to fund it and organise it are the ones earning huge fees from medical treatments and remedial shoeing.

You overestimate, I think, how 'joined up' the various people and organisations involved in barefoot are.
 
cptrayes said:
Why should the people you mention fund it or spend time campaigning for funding? They are the ones getting minimal income from doing it right. The people who need to fund it and organise it are the ones earning huge fees from medical treatments and remedial shoeing.

You overestimate, I think, how 'joined up' the various people and organisations involved in barefoot are.
Click to expand...

Because they make an income from horses wearing boots and not being shod. It makes good business sense unless they are in it for the short term.

The BHS funds research, has anyone lobbied them ?

I don't think they are joined up as you quite rightly say, but I do see a lot of passion and effort from owners put into keeping horses barefoot and it seems a shame that this energy can't be used to further research. Nic's work is impressive but it is in reality a small venture with no time or capacity to search for funding. Edited to add.. has anyone approached the equine insurance companies who would actually have a lot to gain if the claims stand up to scientific research.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
Why do you think this is Nic's job?

She's pretty busy rehabbing horses that vets and farriers can't help, time after time after time. Her yard has a waiting list and she has no need to advertise and no capacity to save any more horses than she does now.

Why doesn't the FRC or the BVA pick this up and run with it. They have far more money than one little rehab yard ever will.
Click to expand...

I have not stated that I do think it is her job have I? I merely questioned why she hasn't done so, as one would assume from the title thread that there has been a breakthrough in proving that barefoot rehab for navicular does work? If this is the case I just wonder why we have not heard more about it and that MRI scans aren't being done to prove the theory? A very reasonable question I think, and thank you for your reply. I now understand that it is the financial cost of doing follow MRIs that is the issue.

That information would have been sufficient without getting defensive but thanks anyway.
 
Research funding is a very complex topic, but very briefly:

- if you can get a private company to fund you, then all you have to do is convince them that you might make them money and off you go (subject to REC approval if necessary), so let's leave this possibility to one side.

- public bodies and charitable trusts set up to fund research receive an enormous number of applications for very, very limited funds. Application success rates can be as low as 2% in some areas. To have ANY chance of success applicants have to show a previous record of successful publications (to establish their credibility and evidence the claim that their current work is likely to prove fruitful), have a very well thought out research plan (to prove value for money for the grant and to convince the peer reviewers this is good research) usually in a 'target funding' area for the research body (research granting bodies usually have priority areas identified in advance).

Despite the difficulties though evidence based claims are still the best way to advance our knowldge, otherwise anyone can upload anything they like on the internet and there is no way to evaluate the claims.
 
Thank you Booboos, that's informative. So basically, you have to approach someone with a proven tack record of research, like, for instance the Animal Health Trust or Liverpool uni ?
 
I cannot see why anyone would want to fund it as I cannot see anyone is going to make money out of it. The drug companies won't. The main company producing boots is a US company. If horses are totally barefoot people are not going to want their boots. AFAIK Nic does not rehab. by booting so why should they offer support.
There is not much in it for the vets. No drugs, take it's shoes off, put it on a track and get it walking.
Not much for farriers, the maximum required is a £30 trim.

The only places to make anything will be barefoot rehab yards and there is not going to be the profit margin there unless they increase their charges considerably in which case many won't be able to afford them.
At present a horse with foot problems is a source of profit for vets and farriers. What is going to be in it for them?
The only ones who stand to gain are the horses and I'm not sure how they are going to fund it.
 
I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?
 
You, if you want it?

Do you understand how tiny the trimming organisations are? All the money they get for training a handful of trimmers a year is spent on training those trimmers!
 
Last edited:
MrsJingle said:
I have not stated that I do think it is her job have I? I merely questioned why she hasn't done so, as one would assume from the title thread that there has been a breakthrough in proving that barefoot rehab for navicular does work? If this is the case I just wonder why we have not heard more about it and that MRI scans aren't being done to prove the theory? A very reasonable question I think, and thank you for your reply. I now understand that it is the financial cost of doing follow MRIs that is the issue.

That information would have been sufficient without getting defensive but thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

You're welcome :)
 
dogatemysalad said:
I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?
Click to expand...

First of all, I have yet to hear of an insurance company sponsoring any form of research. For example, their health insurance claims would be much less if we all ate healthier, drank less and smoked less - but oddly, they don't sponsor research into health promotion and illness prevention.

Secondly, a research programme that will carry any weight is not "a single scan". First, there's the cost of the research. You need to get a team of vets and probably veterinary radiographers on board. You need to recruit a group of horses who meet agreed criteria, and you will most likely need a control group who don't receive treatment. There's initial diagnosis - including a scan - and this needs to be done by one vet and confirmed by at least one vet to ensure consistency and reliability. Then there's treatment, which needs to be documented and monitored, with regular veterinary reports. Then there's post treatment scans, again needing to be done by one vet, and then confirmed (ideally by another vet "blind" to whether the horse was in the treatment group or not. There's also the issue of numbers - in order for any result you have to be scientifically meaningful, you need quite large numbers of horses in your study, not just two or three - and allowing for drop outs, you need to over recruit. The cost of the treatment needs to be covered as well.

Then there's the cost (not insignificant) of collating, analysing and writing up the data, and finally there's the happy dance of presenting your findings to a journal, getting feedback, potentially resubmitting, or if rejected, starting the submission process again with another journal. This process can take literally years...

So - given that even a small scale study is likely to cost a minimum of about £100,000 - who's paying?
 
dogatemysalad said:
I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?
Click to expand...


but lameness is big business. Vet's, farriers, drug companies etc do very nicely, thank you, out of lame horses. What on earth would happen to them if suddenly everyone rehabbed their horses by removing their shoes and got them walking. Cost would be minimal to the owner, loss of profits (and vets and farriers are in business to make a profit) would be enormous.
Ethics, obligations and welfare are all very well but profit is what they are looking for. When a horse gets lame the "cash tills" start ringing.

The insurance companies simply increase their premiums if they want to gain. Horses who are booted are the ones (for the most part) who cannot manage without. What is in it for the hoof boot manufacturers? as for the small retailers they simply don't have the margins to fund research.

How many single scans at £1000 each are you going to need to convince the sceptics? It would cost a fortune. Do the sceptics even want to be convinced? Financially why would they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top