Shoeing evangelism?

[flyingfeet]

gedenskis_girl - you are talking about pure bred arabs doing one discipline. I don't think you can expand this to everything (other breeds and disciplines).

Yes if you can go barefoot without making them lame, then great you are saving around £40 per 6 weeks

Saying those that go lame when barefoot is due to poor management is total bollocks

My fathers old hunter who has been retired for 5 years still needs to be shod on the front, because he has irreparable sand cracks. He is fed formula4feet, but otherwise out at pasture 24/7. He has gut damage probably from a high worm infestation before we got him.

Now you crazy barefoot people would have the gall to turn around and say its my fault for not managing him right? He is not even ridden, the only reason he is shod is to keep him sound and dad obligingly spends the money on him as he was a favourite.

The romans used shoes due to not be able to keep their horses sound and gave them an advantage in battle. Clearly they were feeding too much sugar and cereal..... *sigh*

 

[A1fie]

Forgot to add he also has little plastic thingy's on his shoes that raise parts of the shoe. My farrier tested him with this 'new fangled' machine which tested him by raising each foot alternatively in six places so we could work out by elimination which areas he was most comfortable having raised.

I haven't explained that well at all! The machine is something that attaches to the foot and markers are set at different points raising part of the hoof thereby giving a clear indication of where the horse needs support. It took 3 hours to do and we graded and wrote down every angle and the results showed clearly which areas needed support.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound a lot more ranty than me. Why does it upset ypu so much?
<font color="blue"> It upsets me because I hate to see horses suffer - and in my experience a proportion of 'barefoot' horses are lame on all four, but their owners can't see it. If a horse is sound barefoot, great. If not - put shoes on. Simples

</font>
To answer your questions - the stats in the first paragraph are the official Tevis Cup stats.
<font color="blue">I wasn't questioning their authenticity - just that you need to clarify what they refer to - I have no idea. </font>
Genetically all horses have the potential to have great feet. Monk is not an exception by any means. He's just been managed correctly, trimmed properly and had the right conditioning to produce the sort of feet that you will see on every single wild mustang in the US.
<font color="blue"> No, genetically some horses have poor horn quality/poor hoof shape/club feet. Genes don't change - they don't have the potential to change. Genes are what they are, and nothing you do will make any difference to them. My Shire x Tb has genes for hard horn/good feet. My Tb doesn't. I have the genes for hazel eyes, other people have the genes for those inferior blue eyes. Now if my Tb was deficient in some micro nutrients, then changing her diet might improve her horn quality. But if she has no deficiencies, then nothing (bar adding iron

) will help. </font>

But in the event at Kentucky this week more horses competing were shod, so statistically the fact that any barefoot horses were in the top ten is significant.
<font color="blue">If that is your argument, you need to give the full facts - numbers competing shod/unshod, and their results. </font>

Everything in my post is based on evidence from the Tevis Cup results, from the AERC Championship results and from the Kentucky Cup results. I'm not sure if you think I've made these results up?

What better evidence can you get than cold hard results?
<font color="blue">I don't dispute their results - rather your selection of which ones to report, and which to omit. And you have to also recognise that the results from the American Endurance Riding Club's competition are not valid for any other circumstance. I could say that all horses should be unshod, because 9/10 Shetlands don't wear shoes. Obviously it would be nonsense. </font>

The post I was answering stated that barefoot was only good for horses in light work. I think I answered that sensibly, backed up with evidence. Not sure how else to reply to you than that but you don't seem to want to discuss anything sensibly yourself so I guess whatever I say you'll just dismiss me as a zealot. Que sera

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I would be more interested in a serious debate, and a recognition of both sides. I agree entirely that if a horse can do its job (whatever that may be) unshod, then there is no reason to shoe it. However, in my opinion and experience, some horses can't do their work unshod (which may be why shoes were invented

. Life is complex, horses are genetically individual. What works for one, doesn't work for another.
S

</font>

 

[mrdarcy]

I'm not sure I'd say it was simple but yes get the diet and environment right you'd be amazed - you'd have to agree that laminitis is cured by getting diet and environment right? It's true that some horses are more challenging than others so the right diet and environment might mean a horse can never be turned out in grassy field again. Getting away from the attitutude that grass is good for horses is the biggest leap I've had to make. the old adage Dr Green is still bandied about. How many posts do you read complaining about lack of grass in livery yard fields? Or excited posts come Spring when the grass starts to grow? Now I understand that grass is the enemy it's made things much easier.

But there's other things in the average horses diet that I had no idea were bad. Preservatives, molasses even in small amounts, the flash drying process used for most chops, chemical wormers, any sort of addititves used in compound feeds. It's a bit of a mine field and you think you're doing your horse good by buying expensive mixes from the best feed companies, when in fact these feeds can be crammed with stuff that negates healthy hooves.

And obviously horses that have badly structured feet (from being shod/unsuitable diet etc) need rehabilitating but this can be done without shoes - the growing amount of evidence of horses recovering from navic syndrome is just one example.

I know most owners do what they truly believe is best for their horse. I was the same when I was providing a lovely grassy field for my horse and feeding it concentrates because I was competing heavily. But I only have to look at how beautifully his feet have developed and how he no longer gets horribly filled legs after a competition and how much calmer and more relaxed he is to ride to see that taking his shoes off and changing his diet has made a massive difference.

 

[flyingfeet]

So you are saying for this horse's retirement when he is over 25 years old, he should not be on grass?

So rather than being out in a huge field with the herd where he is very happy (and the boss), I should be "managing" him differently rather than just bunging two shoes on....

Not very realistic now is it???

 

[Flame_]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I'd say it was simple but yes get the diet and environment right you'd be amazed - you'd have to agree that laminitis is cured by getting diet and environment right?

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the worst example you could have given. It is a common misconception that laminitis can be cured and managed purely by getting the diet and environment right. Sometimes it is this simple, but often laminitis can only be cured with medication, and sometimes it can't be cured at all. Laminitis and foot problems are very much linked to the horse as a whole, but there are many other factors in play than just diet and environment. Genetic predisposition being the hardest to influence.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I'd say it was simple but yes get the diet and environment right you'd be amazed - you'd have to agree that laminitis is cured by getting diet and environment right?
<font color="blue"> OMG - no! There is no real 'cure' for laminitis - horses just have to be managed according to their individual needs. And some laminitis cases are due to underlying conditions such as hormone imbalances, tumours, Cushings syndrome and other diseases. I am surprised and a little disappointed that you don't know this.

</font>

It's true that some horses are more challenging than others so the right diet and environment might mean a horse can never be turned out in grassy field again. Getting away from the attitutude that grass is good for horses is the biggest leap I've had to make. the old adage Dr Green is still bandied about. How many posts do you read complaining about lack of grass in livery yard fields? Or excited posts come Spring when the grass starts to grow? Now I understand that grass is the enemy it's made things much easier.
<font color="blue">And yet Przewalski's horses seem to do just fine on the grassy plains... and the Camargue feral herds seem to manage fine, too. I think saying 'grass is the enemy' is a little extreme - modern grass types have been developed to be higher in nutrients, I agree. Just as modern horses have been bred for things other than horn hard enough to cross rough terrain.

</font>

But there's other things in the average horses diet that I had no idea were bad. Preservatives, molasses even in small amounts, the flash drying process used for most chops, chemical wormers, any sort of addititves used in compound feeds. It's a bit of a mine field and you think you're doing your horse good by buying expensive mixes from the best feed companies, when in fact these feeds can be crammed with stuff that negates healthy hooves.
<font color="blue">Who told you they were bad? How do you know? What else do you do regarding worming (unless your horses are roaming the plains, leaving their worm eggs far behind them every day? Unless of course, you own onagers? If you follow that reference...

</font>

And obviously horses that have badly structured feet (from being shod/unsuitable diet etc) need rehabilitating but this can be done without shoes - the growing amount of evidence of horses recovering from navic syndrome is just one example.
<font color="blue">Define 'rehabilitating for badly structured feet'. My Tb girl has flat feet and poorish horn - no amount of rehab is going to change that! </font>
I know most owners do what they truly believe is best for their horse. I was the same when I was providing a lovely grassy field for my horse and feeding it concentrates because I was competing heavily. But I only have to look at how beautifully his feet have developed and how he no longer gets horribly filled legs after a competition and how much calmer and more relaxed he is to ride to see that taking his shoes off and changing his diet has made a massive difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> That's great, that your horse can go without shoes. My Tb needs shoes - that doesn't mean I can tell you that if you had managed and ridden your horse properly he would have been better, calmer, and more relaxed with shoes, so he isn't fearful of taking a step.
I think you really believe that all horses are identical in their genetic make up and therefore management needs. I don't know how to explain more simply to you that horses are different.

Did you see the programme on human twins a while ago? Two twins - one ate junk, was a sofa slob, the other a health food addict/fitness fanatic. The unfit twin had a heart attack, the other twin was checked out - he had exactly the same heart disease. Genes are THAT important - you can't overcome them by diet and environment.
S

</font>

 

[siennamum]

I would love to have no more farriers bills, and for the horses to go shoeless.
I simply can't with Sienna, and it's entirely due to her genetics. She has been shoeless for 2 months on her holiday, her feet look great &amp; get trimmed but they are slowly cracking and splitting &amp; she is crippled on anything but concrete.
She useless on stony ground WITH shoes on, without she is in real discomfort. There is no sensible reason to not have her shod correctly.

 

[mrdarcy]

Nope not all purebred arabs. A friend of mine regularly competes up to 50 miles on her barefoot coloured cob. He has incredible feet. And there are plenty more out there.

As for your father's old hunter - he's out at pasture 24/7. You've answered your own question.

The Romans shod their horses because the conditions they were kept in were not conducive to hard feet - tied in stalls, standing in their own excretment. Same is true of the medieval age. And beyond that shoeing became a status symbol - only reasonably wealthy people could afford to shoe their horses. It was an early example of pimping your ride.

I know I'm not going to convince you. Up until this year I was just like you. No way could I take the shoes off my horse and still compete. Barefoot people talked the talk but didn't actually do anything competitive with their horses. But I was persuaded by a friend - it's only taken her two years! - to give it a go. The results have amazed me. Watching his feet change week on week has been fascinating. And when you start researching the subject (which I did extensively and am still doing) you realise how much you don't know and how counter intuitive a lot of established horse management 'rules' are.

But don't take my word for it. Do your own research - especially as you think it's all a load of rubbish. Give The Horse Owner's Guide to Natural Hoof Care by Jaime Jackson a read. If you still think it's a load of codswallop after reading that then fair enough.

 

[A1fie]

Completely agree about the importance of diet and it certainly a subject which is becoming more important and rightly so. I am definately interested in learning more about it.

I also agree that a lot of horses with navicular have become sound by having their shoes off - and I was swept along with 'barefoot cure for navicular' in my desire to help my lad. In my case, wrongly. He is better with shoes.

All discussions about shod/unshod are helpful because they help to spread knowledge and awareness but a difficulty in the rise 'barefoot' is that some horses will suffer as a result of it.

You must accept that being unshod is not suitable for all horses surely? I can happily accept that being shod is not the answer for all horses.

I would worry that without full knowledge, more and more people will take shoes off without having the skills or enviroment suitable for it.

I agree with Shils in that I have also seen 'footy' horses which cannot cope. It is unfair to expect them to be given months to harden the soles up. They are clearly uncomfortable.

 

[mrdarcy]

If you can remove the trigger of the laminitic attack then of course you can 'cure' it. Not really sure why you think once a horse has laminitis he will always have it. Laminitis is a specific response of the horses physiology to a toxic overload.

The grasses that make up the diet of the Carmargue and Przewalski horses are nothing like the lush grass of the UK - are you seriously saying that our fertilised, rye grass dominated fields are akin to the salty, reed grasses of the Carmargue or the dry, arid grasses of the Steppes?

You seem to be really upset about this whole thing - not sure why it's getting you so irate. We're never going to agree which is fair enough but I do wish you'd do a little reading around the subject. Read the research, look at the results. If you still think it's nonsense then fine but just to dismiss it without doing your own research is not very reasonable.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can remove the trigger of the laminitic attack then of course you can 'cure' it. Not really sure why you think once a horse has laminitis he will always have it. Laminitis is a specific response of the horses physiology to a toxic overload.
<font color="blue">No, a toxic overload is only ONE of the 'triggers' as you put it, to laminitis. There are others, which I mentioned earlier, but which you seem to have missed? </font>

The grasses that make up the diet of the Carmargue and Przewalski horses are nothing like the lush grass of the UK - are you seriously saying that our fertilised, rye grass dominated fields are akin to the salty, reed grasses of the Carmargue or the dry, arid grasses of the Steppes?
<font color="blue">Again, this illustrates your inability to be specific. Your post stated 'grass is the enemy'; you didn't clarify which grasses you disapproved of in the equine diet, so presumably all species are your enemy? Horses do better on rough grazing, in my experience. But then, in my experience, some horses need shod too.

</font>
You seem to be really upset about this whole thing - not sure why it's getting you so irate. We're never going to agree which is fair enough but I do wish you'd do a little reading around the subject. Read the research, look at the results. If you still think it's nonsense then fine but just to dismiss it without doing your own research is not very reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I'm not irate or upset, but it is true I sometimes don't suffer fools as gladly as I might. I will try harder.
Nice to see you employing the good old 'deficit model' though - haven't met it for a while

.
And I do understand; it's much easier for your to infer that I am lacking knowledge/understanding and possess no knowledge of research than it is for you to answer my questions. Clearly.

As soon as someone starts ignoring the points, and instead attacks the poster, as you are doing with me, it is a sign that they have no valid answers, and nothing further to say.
I accept that you are bowing out, and will hope that more informed 'barefoot' people will come on to discuss the aspects of genetics.
S

</font>

 

[TGM]

QR:

I am most interested in this theory that all horses are genetically programmed to have good hooves, and it is our management that is the problem. How does this explain the situation in some studs where the youngsters are all managed and fed the same, yet some have feet that crack easily and some have feet that are hard as nails? The management is the same for all, so surely there must be some genetic susceptibility to poor horn quality in some of the animals?

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
QR:

I am most interested in this theory that all horses are genetically programmed to have good hooves, and it is our management that is the problem. How does this explain the situation in some studs where the youngsters are all managed and fed the same, yet some have feet that crack easily and some have feet that are hard as nails? The management is the same for all, so surely there must be some genetic susceptibility to poor horn quality in some of the animals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and my two youngsters live together, eat together, same feed, same management, etc - one has 'ok' feet, the other has excellent feet.
It's a mystery how I can be so marvellous at managing one, yet so poor at managing the other.

S

 

[Spudlet]

On laminitis - a horse which has had laminitis will always be prone to it. So they will always be 'laminitic'.

For these horses, careful longterm management is needed, possibly including remedial footcare if the original attack was serious enough to cause foot deformities. So it is not correct to say that you can 'cure' laminitis simply - once a horse has been laminitic you must always be on your guard.

I followed the shod vs unshod debate in the Vet Times and I am convinced that the only way forwards is treating horses as individuals in all aspects of their management - including footcare.

 

[mrdarcy]

And now you resort to personal insults? In what way is that a sensible discussion?

Not sure where I've attacked you - if you think I have then could you point it out to me? If saying you're upset and irate is attacking you then I apologise but that's how you're coming across.

You knew when I said grass was the enemy I was talking in the context of this country. And why are you so hostile to the idea of doing your own research? If you already know everything then you'll read it all very quickly. And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about then why wouldn't you want to go away and read what the professionals have to say?

I've clearly got your back up - again not sure why it godes you so much. Very odd.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
And now you resort to personal insults? In what way is that a sensible discussion?

Not sure where I've attacked you - if you think I have then could you point it out to me? If saying you're upset and irate is attacking you then I apologise but that's how you're coming across.

You knew when I said grass was the enemy I was talking in the context of this country. And why are you so hostile to the idea of doing your own research? If you already know everything then you'll read it all very quickly. And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about then why wouldn't you want to go away and read what the professionals have to say?

I've clearly got your back up - again not sure why it godes you so much. Very odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so I'm odd, irate, upset, hostile, lack any knowledge of research, insulting - did I miss any?

And only rye grass grows in the UK - my bad, I had thought there were a few species...

Call me all the names of the day - it is clearly much easier for you than answering any of the questions put to you (and other 'barefooters') by me, A1fie and others.
As I said earlier, I accept we have plumbed the depths of your knowledge, and I hope someone else can answer our questions, politely.

S

 

[hackedoff]

I have to add re the pimp my ride bit about shoeing (hope this doesnt provoke the pimp my ride co to do shoes with diamantes!) that a major problem in equine care in underdeveloped countries is the use of shoeing techniques. they dont shoe to be fancy or to be like westerners, they shoe to keep working animals on the road. Okay they might not have optimum nutrition but they also I doubt have high sugar diets and fat under exercised animals. Why do they try to shoe I wonder - I suspect it is to ensure that their animals cease being foot sore.

Personally I found OP's original post a bit irriating (sorry OP) but the subsequent posts including Op's as a whole have been thought provoking and useful what ever side of the debate you are on.

p.s. fascinated to read that Romans never mucked out - is that a historic conjecture or true fact? As an ex reanactor most romans seem to have been clean freaks so thats a shocker for me. Ditto the medieval horse.

 

[AmyMay]

[ QUOTE ]
Genetically all horses have the potential to have great feet

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so - would love it to be the case. My TB X could certainly never go barefoot. Genetically he has no potential what so ever to do so.

However, my little cob mare did wonderfully without shoes.

As they say - horses for courses

 

[AmyMay]

[ QUOTE ]
The crusaders favored the big Flemish horses -- which had weak, flat feet from being raised on the damp lowlands. Shoes not only protected the horses' weak feet........

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess that contradicts the genetics theory a bit. The crusades took place 1096 - 1270.

Also find this quite interesting too:

[ QUOTE ]
In the days of Xenophon horses were not shod either for civil or military purposes. The armies of Alexander suffered from the effects of wear upon the feet of their horses, and we are told that cavalry was left behind, owing to the damaged state of the horses' hoofs. A form of sandal woven of grass is the earliest protection for the horse's foot recorded, and it was not constantly used, but only employed on horses that were too lame to travel without some temporary cover for the worn or broken hoof. Probably the next stage in hoof-protection would be the use of leather, as less cumbersome than the sandals made from vegetable fibre. Then we pass to the use of metal plates to strengthen the sandals, and next to metal plates attached by leather thongs.


[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]

You are very self righteous and TBH its this kind of attitude that gets peoples backs up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so true. If you really want to promote the benefits of having a horse barefoot and persuade people to give it a go, I suggest you learn how to communicate and inflence people effectively. No-one is going to listen to you while you behave like this.

On the other hand if your aim is to get people's backs up and start an arguement there is little anyone can teach you

 

[criso]

A lot about this whole thread bothers me – it seems to be so difficult to get objective information about barefoot versus shoeing.

I am the owner of a horse with soft tissue damage in his front feet (MRI’d). While he does not officially have a diagnosis of Navicular Syndrome, he has the type of damage that often gets included in that category.

Listening to other people’s experiences perhaps he could benefit from going barefoot.

However I get stuck in between both sides telling you it is tantamount to animal cruelty to take shoes off/leave shoes on depending on their viewpoint.

I have read a lot of people on here who have had success going barefoot however there are others for whom it has not worked and reading the posts seem to have done everything they can do provide the right nutrition and care.

There is a lot of talk of right conditions etc but these seem so rigorous that it makes me think I would never be able to provide them.

The OP may well be a very respected and knowledgeable person and while I know they were trying to get a point across; the tone of the original post does not make me want to rush out and put my horse in their hands. I’m sorry but for an owner sitting on the fence it didn’t bring me over to your side.

Nutrition
If there is a lot wrong with how we graze and feed our horses then shouldn’t this be looked at separately from the barefoot/shod issue. Surely even those who intend to keep shoeing would benefit from making adjustments if needed.
Not sure how you resolve pasture in the UK not being suitable for horses as for most people this is the only option they have. Especially if they have a horse like mine who is desperately unhappy without alot of turnout.

 

[Oberon]

(OP was just being a bit naughty). I have two barefoot horses, one was shod for 13 years and the other has always been barefoot. I researched the whole thing thoroughly before I made the decision. Both my horses are out 24/7 in summer and all day in winter. I mix my own feed rather than a mix - I know then exactley what I'm feeding. I use a barefoot trimmer. Both my horses do everything a shod horse can do with no pain.

I was regarded as a nut on my yard. And my trimmers were treated with suspision and bad mouthed by a well respected farrier.

Eventually - after seeing the results, my trimmers are asked for advice from the very people suspicious of them. They have quite a few clients on my yard now.

If one of my horses developed a problem I would not immediately reach for the shoes - I would investigate first. The feet will tell you alot about what is going on when listened to. If shoeing was the only thing to help - then I would shoe.

The fundamental point is that shoeing doesn't have to be the first thing to do when a horse starts to work (like I did with my old boy). But then if it's the right thing to do for the horse - then so be it.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]

The fundamental point is that shoeing doesn't have to be the first thing to do when a horse starts to work (like I did with my old boy). But then if it's the right thing to do for the horse - then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone on HHO is brainwashed enough to think that all horses must be shod. Neither are they stupid enough, though, to think that all horses can work unshod.
Each horse should be treated as an individual - if my youngsters don't need shoes, they won't be shod.
I've read the OP's blog (if I am correct in her ID) and think she is misguided, rather than 'naughty'.

I feel for horses forced to suffer for someone's ego in trying to be smarter than all the vets, farriers, nutritionists, etc.
S

 

[Oberon]

Actually I WAS so brainwashed when I first got my old boy 18 years ago. He was five and I was taught that the horse needed shoes if he was to work. I have recently seen a 4 year old put in shoes because he was pawing at the stable floor and the very experienced, competition winning owners slapped shoes on rather than address the horse's distress at being kept in.

I wasn't aware I was accusing anyone here of being brainwashed. I was merely stating my own feelings on the subject - surely that is allowed on a public forum?

I would like to add that I do not feel that questioning what I am told by vets/farrier ect is egotistical.
I am a nurse and I question doctors all the time. I can honestly say I have personally saved two people's lives by doing so.
I will not blindly follow anyone - no matter how many exams they sit.

 

[A1fie]

Y'know what Shils - we just have to accept that we are wrong and barefoot evangalists are right. It's as simple as that. Never mind the fact that we agree that not all horses should be shod and ignore the fact that you actually have unshod horses, we are close minded and know nothing.

The massive problem I have with this issue is that no one on the 'barefoot side' will say that some horses should wear shoes because it is better for them. The nearest they get is that if owners are too lazy to find a suitable enviroment and feeding for them then the horse will have to wear shoes. The implication being that whatever the problem, illness or state of the feet enviroment, feeding and unshod will fix it and that owners are too lazy to find the solution.

Some horses will always need shoes and for me the barefoot argument will always be weaker if that is not accepted.

 

[TGM]

I think your reply sums the situation up perfectly, A1fie!

 

[Oberon]

[ QUOTE ]
Y'know what Shils - we just have to accept that we are wrong and barefoot evangalists are right. It's as simple as that. Never mind the fact that we agree that not all horses should be shod and ignore the fact that you actually have unshod horses, we are close minded and know nothing.

The massive problem I have with this issue is that no one on the 'barefoot side' will say that some horses should wear shoes because it is better for them. The nearest they get is that if owners are too lazy to find a suitable enviroment and feeding for them then the horse will have to wear shoes. The implication being that whatever the problem, illness or state of the feet enviroment, feeding and unshod will fix it and that owners are too lazy to find the solution.

Some horses will always need shoes and for me the barefoot argument will always be weaker if that is not accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me - but I think I did make that point in my first post. Some horses DO need shoes to be comfortable.

Mine don't. Lucky me.

 

[Arabelle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Y'know what Shils - we just have to accept that we are wrong and barefoot evangalists are right. It's as simple as that. Never mind the fact that we agree that not all horses should be shod and ignore the fact that you actually have unshod horses, we are close minded and know nothing.

The massive problem I have with this issue is that no one on the 'barefoot side' will say that some horses should wear shoes because it is better for them. The nearest they get is that if owners are too lazy to find a suitable enviroment and feeding for them then the horse will have to wear shoes. The implication being that whatever the problem, illness or state of the feet enviroment, feeding and unshod will fix it and that owners are too lazy to find the solution.

Some horses will always need shoes and for me the barefoot argument will always be weaker if that is not accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me - but I think I did make that point in my first post. Some horses DO need shoes to be comfortable.

Mine don't. Lucky me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ermm - its not all about you

Good post Alfie - sums it up well

A

 

[brucea]

Crisco - I think several times in the thread folks with "navicular" horses have been pointed towards Nic Barker's Rockley Farm site - it's really worth a look and if you really want to know more then I'm sure Nic would take a call. She is a wealth of practical experience in rehabilitating back of the foot problems.

The problem with the barefoot vs shod argument is that there is no correct answer, only a correct answer for that horse in the circumstances that horse is in - and the answer will change if the circumstances change.

But I think what is being missed about the barefoot approach is that , yes we might have a horse who may perform better with shoes - but the "barefooters" are attempting to understand why that horse in those particular circumstances on that diet is footy in the first place and take the long view on the recovery of the hoof.