The Barefoot vs Shod debate - where do i stand?

Paint Me Proud

Paint Me Proud

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2010
Messages
4,166
Visit site
Ok, so i know how much tension there can be between the two camps of foot care but i was just wondering where i stand.

Chico is shod on his front feet but unshod (barefoot) behind.

I have a farrier come who shoes the fronts and trims the hinds.

So do we have a 'no mans land' camp for those of us who advocate both!! :D:D
 
Paint Me Proud said:
Ok, so i know how much tension there can be between the two camps of foot care but i was just wondering where i stand.

Chico is shod on his front feet but unshod (barefoot) behind.

I have a farrier come who shoes the fronts and trims the hinds.

So do we have a 'no mans land' camp for those of us who advocate both!! :D:D
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm. I can't join you in no man's land. I think there are a lot of horses who cope with no shoes on the hinds because it is so much more difficult to judge bilateral footiness in the back feet. They aren't truly right, they just aren't lame. I think that if a horse is truly rock stomping with the back feet, then it ought to be able to do the fronts too. For me, a barefoot horse is only one with no shoes on at all. Shoeless behind only, for me, is just that, shoeless behind, and doesn't count, sorry :rolleyes:!
 
I'm in it too! Neither of mine are currently shod, just trimmed by farrier. But big pony has had shoes most of her life dependent on work load. But I'd describe them as just trimmed rather than barefoot.
 
Kelly and Pebs are shod on front feet only.
Kelly kicks so not shod behind is probably better! Plus we've found that they slip on the roads (a few hills off our yard) if they're shod all round but she needs shoes on front as she has heart bars. So, I guess it just suits us having them like this :)
K x
 
I have had loads of referral clients who have had shoes in front and barefoot behind.
I always ask 2 questions
1) why do you have shoes on the front
2) why do you not have shoes on behind
Around 99% of the answers are ‘he/she won’t go without shoes in front’
So I then want to know what is it about the hind feet that make them able to go without shoes.
Answer ‘I don’t know’
This can either end the conversation and we move on, or it can start us, ( me and the client) talking about the possibilities of getting the front feet to be the same as the backs IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT
I have never had a conversation with an owner asking me to try and make the back feet need shoes!!!
As I say I see nothing wrong with ½ &½ if that is what the owner wants , but I usually find when they realise that it might be possible for the fronts to be the same as the backs then it is a road worth going down.
 
i have front shoes on because we do mainly road hacking and he wears his front hooves down faster than the back. Front shoes on prevent this excessive wear. I dont have shoes on the back because he doesnt wear them as much and having no back shoes gives grip on the roads where shod all round might cause slipping (we hack up lots of roads up and down hills).

I dont want to take his front shoes off and them find him foot sore from excess wear - that;s not fair on him IMO - i keep very close attention on his backs to make sure they arent wearing too much and he nearly went back in hind shoes at the beginning of the year.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, there's a middle ground I currently have 4 unshod and 2 with fronts. It all depends on the needs of the individual. Not the evangelical crusade we see on here everyday. There shouldn't be diehards and there certainly shouldn't be any 'camps'. Some on this forum will argue for ever and think they're leading authorities? Don't listen to them or me, listen to the horse.

LB, a barefoot realist
 
LOL I have found with my ponies the more roadwork I do barehoofed, the more they wear their hooves down, the faster they grow......
 
Yawn.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
 
Cedars said:
This is such a ridiculous arguement.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, if it causes people who have shoes on the back but not the front, and who have never thought of going without the fronts too, to do that, because there are still thousands of horses out there with shoes on for no reason.
 
Mine are unshod and in work, I prefer not to use shoes but the extremism of some of the diehard barefooters puts me right off, as does farrier and feed company bashing.


Instead of trundling off to find a trimmer with limited training or a self styled Ebay backroom supplement supplier, surely its better to canvas the professionals who have the expertise and resources available.

With the increasing trend of leisure horse ownership, times have changed, the experts are catching up to the needs of underworked, overfed pets, but in looking for answers, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Self proclaimed experts may be good at challenging old beliefs, but that doesn't mean they know the answers.
 
I don't understand what's so bloody difficult about it.

All horses start out barefoot. If your horse struggles like this, you have it shod by a professional. If your horse doesn't need shoes, you have it trimmed by a professional (my farrier does Puzzles feet, I don't understand why this has to be a barefoot trimmer...). If you're unsure, you get a professional to have a look. Surely it's that simple? Do what's best for YOUR horse, not what's fashionable at the moment.
 
And does it really matter if horses have shoes on but don't need them? REALLY? Compared to all our starving, neglected, beaten equines who are literally living life on a knife edge. Compared to the greater issues in the world, like children dying, like poverty, like the damage we're doing to our planet. Does it REALLY matter? It's not abuse, yes it might be a waste of money but that's the choice of the horse owner-plenty of people waste money on matchy matchy which I think is a far stupider expense, but we're not all kicking off about that?

The barefoot terrorists amongst you will come back now with statistics about how horses are crippled by shoes, they're in constant pain etc-I don't care. Because I know our horses, I know MY horse, I know what's best for them, and they will be shod, or not, accordingly. Shoes have been used for hundreds of years by thousands of people, they're not suddenly the enemy.

Simple: do what is best for your horse.
 
Well put cedars. And would also like to add that there are just as many people doing things for the wrong reason on both sides.
 
I tried to get my farrier to explain to me the difference between barefoot trimming and simply a horse without shoes on. It could explain why he now does my horses hooves when he knows I am not going to be there :p

My TB has front shoes only. His paddock mate has no shoes. My old boy had no shoes. My competition mare only had shoes on when we were competing, otherwise she had no shoes on.

From what I understand (of what my farrier said before he gave up on me), barefoot trimming is done differently to a horse who doesn't have shoes on. A horse without shoes isn't necessarily barefoot trimmed.

Oh bugger it, I have confused myself again. I am going to bed ;)
 
horserider said:
Instead of trundling off to find a trimmer with limited training or a self styled Ebay backroom supplement supplier, surely its better to canvas the professionals who have the expertise and resources available.
Click to expand...
Surely it's better to research for yourself and make an 'informed' choice, whatever that might be.
 
I was a true barefoot sceptic before my boy went to Rockley last month and much the same as everyone else who is sceptical I was a bit miffed at the Barefoot Taliban on here telling me listening to my vet and Farrier was bad for my horse. H don't think listening to the professionals who know the horse is bad, as I'm sure most of them don't either, they're just frustrated by having a good solution to some of the problems horses have being ignored. Nic Barker quotes a very interesting fact about how dentists develop anaesthesia for their patients before doctors did, and how the first dentist to use it was driven to suicide over it because the surgeons of the day all had a different skill set, ie speed with a scalpel rather than time and care which can be done under anaesthetic. The surgeons didn't want to change because they'd have to learn new ways to do things and I think there's an element of that in what we see with vets and Farriers over barefoot horses. I don't say either side is wrong but I do know that 4 weeks at Rockley has achieved what 6 months of shoeing could not. My boy is standing square almost all the time now, not toe pointing and not lame.

Everyone needs to do what's right for them and their horses, just so happened it's right for me and mine. :)
 
Bikerchickone, that to me is a sensible & logical approach. What I don't get are the fanatics on either side who pursue their belief regardless of what would be best for the horse. I have personal experience of both extremes. Owner one has recently discovered barefoot, poor horse has been sound all its life with shoes & has spent the last 6mnths barefoot hobbling on anything but grass. Case 2 horse has had years of remedial farriery, new farrier has actually said he wants to take its shoes off & balance its feet correctly, but owner insists no shoes is cruel. Both equally mad imo, neither is going about their prefered method correctly & both fuel the opposing sides opinion that only their way is right.
 
Cedars said:
And does it really matter if horses have shoes on but don't need them? REALLY?
Click to expand...

Yes. Some horses who are predisposed to lameness originating in the feet cannot cope with the frog being taken out of use by the hieght of the shoe and develop diseases in the back of the foot in the "navicular" spectrum. Many of those horses have, over the years, been shot when they would never have been lame if not for the shoes.

Yes. People are having to give up their horses due to cost. If they realised that with plenty of road work they could easily have a self-trimmng horse who will cost them £600-800 a year less to keep, they might not have to sell it.

Yes. Many horses are shod at three or four when they start work because they "cannot cope with the work". They go footie, but many of them are not footie because of the work, they are footie because they are full grown, their metabolism has dropped and they have low grade laminitis. Shoeing those horses does nothing to stop the fact that they are eating too much sugar, and many of them will go on to become full laminitics when a diet change would both have allowed them to remain without shoes, and made them healthier.

Yes. Why nail metal to a foot if it does not need it?





Littlelegs I completely agree with your post.



..
 
Last edited:
Paint Me Proud said:
Ok, so i know how much tension there can be between the two camps of foot care but i was just wondering where i stand.

Chico is shod on his front feet but unshod (barefoot) behind.

I have a farrier come who shoes the fronts and trims the hinds.

So do we have a 'no mans land' camp for those of us who advocate both!! :D:D
Click to expand...

I'm in your camp! Mine is definitely unshod behind though.

Perhaps we should start a new HHO clique.
 
moorman said:
Around 99% of the answers are ‘he/she won’t go without shoes in front’
So I then want to know what is it about the hind feet that make them able to go without shoes.
Answer ‘I don’t know’
.
Click to expand...

Would the fact that the majority of a horses weight is carried in front therefore they will normally go "footy" on the front feet first so shoes would be indicated sooner?
 
I'm with Bikerchickone :D
It's easy for me to be enthusiastic about barefoot as I have one TB with granite-like feet that have never been shod, and one cob, who was shod for 3 years, has now been barefoot for 3.5 and was fantastically easy to transition. We've never had a day's problem (touches wood :D ) but I hope I don't come across as fanatical or evangelical.
Whatever works for your horse and yourselves, I say. ;)
 
cptrayes said:
Yes. Some horses who are predisposed to lameness originating in the feet cannot cope with the frog being taken out of use by the hieght of the shoe and develop diseases in the back of the foot in the "navicular" spectrum. Many of those horses have, over the years, been shot when they would never have been lame if not for the shoes. but surely the exact same could be said for horses who are constantly sore, in and out of work, because their owners have been so focussed on keeping them barefoot when it hasnt been truly in their best interests?

Yes. People are having to give up their horses due to cost. If they realised that with plenty of road work they could easily have a self-trimmng horse who will cost them £600-800 a year less to keep, they might not have to sell it.you'd be pretty flipping daft to give up your horse without speaking to your farrier about other alternatives. This is not a valid arguement - if people are stupid enough not to realise that their horses COULD go without being shod (and I would suggest all could, some only on soft ground etc...) then they shouldn't own a horse!

Yes. Many horses are shod at three or four when they start work because they "cannot cope with the work". They go footie, but many of them are not footie because of the work, they are footie because they are full grown, their metabolism has dropped and they have low grade laminitis. Shoeing those horses does nothing to stop the fact that they are eating too much sugar, and many of them will go on to become full laminitics when a diet change would both have allowed them to remain without shoes, and made them healthier.My farrier would only put shoes on my horse if he felt that she genuinely needed this. Because he is a PROFESSIONAL with decades of expertise, he would know whether she's genuinely footy, or if she's got lami...!

Yes. Why nail metal to a foot if it does not need it?Why does it bother you? Go worry about something more important...like horses actually being harmed due to awful bitting, badly fitted saddles...something thats a genuine issue!





Littlelegs I completely agree with your post.



..
Click to expand...

Shall I repeat? DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR HORSE, IN LINE WITH AN EXPERT OPINION.

Puzzle will remain barefoot in all likelihood, because she is showing no signs of needing shoes. However I'm not going to put her through the pain of being footy, should she develop problems, just because I'm so desperate to fit in with the fashion.

Likewise, if one of our shod horses went lame, and there was no obvious cause, we would take shoes off and see what happened.

DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR HORSE!
 
amandap said:
Surely it's better to research for yourself and make an 'informed' choice, whatever that might be.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats my point exactly. Owners should not blindly hand over responsibility for their horse's well being to any 'expert', whether professionally trained or self-styled.

BUT just be careful about who's advice you listen to. Those who talk the talk aren't always as wise as they seem.
The notion of amateurs armed with soil and forage analysis turning their kitchens into makeshift labs to mix concoctions of minerals, spices and herbs is quite frankly, scary.
Not so long ago, Barefoot experts were advocating Seaweed as a supplement without mentioning the possibility of iodine toxicity. Now the latest fad is copper supplementation, which is fine if you know if your horse is deficient in it, and how much to give.
How much knowledge of chemistry is the average horse owner expected to know in order meet the acceptance of the BF movement ?

Better perhaps to ring the feed companies, find out exactly what is in the feed and what you want from it. Speak to the nutriontists and become better informed.
We are already seeing horse feeds available without molasses, alfalfa and more high fibre and herb mixes, thanks to the questions of ordinary middle-of-the-road people. We should be working with these companies rather than Ebay experts.
 
Last edited:
oh no i didnt want this thread to start a barefoot/shod debate. I was just interested to see how many others have half and half and how common it was.

Please lets not make this thread into a big argument and war.

I think every horses hoof is different and as an owner you pick what is best for YOUR horse. I for one am not swayed by popular thinking, and even if i did decide to remove his front shoes I would still have him attended to by a farrier, not a barefoot trimmer (well a farrier is effectively a barefoot trimmer, because he trims Chicos bare feet!!) :D:D

Please be nice everyone....
 
Paint Me Proud said:
oh no i didnt want this thread to start a barefoot/shod debate. I was just interested to see how many others have half and half and how common it was.

Please lets not make this thread into a big argument and war.

I think every horses hoof is different and as an owner you pick what is best for YOUR horse. I for one am not swayed by popular thinking, and even if i did decide to remove his front shoes I would still have him attended to by a farrier, not a barefoot trimmer (well a farrier is effectively a barefoot trimmer, because he trims Chicos bare feet!!) :D:D

Please be nice everyone....
Click to expand...

The thread was entitled 'The Barefoot vs Shod debate-where do I stand ? Perhaps if you had asked the question Who has horses just shod in front ? you might have got the answers you seem to be looking for ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top