The truth about barefoot

yup, leeches, maggots, honey, am sure I can think of some more.

I am actually quite up for a tapeworm for weightloss, never sure why that hasn't been more exploited (wonders if she can make a lot of money)
 
[ QUOTE ]
yup, leeches, maggots, honey, am sure I can think of some more.

I am actually quite up for a tapeworm for weightloss, never sure why that hasn't been more exploited (wonders if she can make a lot of money)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it'll never catch on.
Although I've heard tapeworms can make your singing better....
tongue.gif

S
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would hope that someone with true expertise in this area would answer ALL the questions, not just those which they deem 'the questions worth answering' (that somehow reminded me of the BNP debate, and instilled little confidence in your knowledge).

[/ QUOTE ]
The above says the debate was like the BNP's recent time on BBC's Question Time-answer what you want not what is put to you.
She diddnt call you fascist racist but you did throw names in her direction...maybe you were overdue that nap
wink.gif

For whatever reason,you cannot deny that you diddnt bother to answer ALL the questions put to you.


[ QUOTE ]
Want the research references? - do your own work I'm not your bl**dy slave! Start with Rockleyfarm.co.uk, pick up references from there and carry on. Buy "Performance Barefoot" - if for no other reason than there is a super picture of my horse jumping a lovely big fence with his bare feet on the front.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh come on!
It might be a pain in the but to get links to any/all studies you have been involved with/read in your research,but if you want people to pay attention to your claims of research either link the papers or give names of the people to google.

I could claim pretty much anything,and claim research to back it up.It's a forum,no-one knows who you are,what your background is or if your proffesional opinion is one that can be trusted.
Just that you posted with no evidence....

As for barefoot,I see shoeing a horse that doesnt need them as a pointless expense for an animal that allready costs more then enough.
If the horse or pony can manage without shoes wonderfull.
If it is better with shoes (whatever the reason) wonderfull.
But there is no way I would let anyone but a farrier touch the feet of a horse in my care.
 
[ QUOTE ]
a website is not a reference

a peer reviewed paper is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another can of worms. I used to be an editor of a global research journal. I was recruited for my editing and project management skills. I was horrified to find that most of the medical research I was asked to report on wouldn't have stood up to the standards of my 'A' levels. Yet these were all 'peer reviewed'.

One memorable, published paper cited a health issue linked to thumb size - the size of the sample? 8. Not 8,000, 800 or even 80. Just 8.

I am not a mathemetician, I sometimes struggle with more than the basics. But I found myself having to check the figures provided by an expert who was receiving in excess of £20,000 for their work (around £500/hr). All it took was a calculator and about an hour to find the mistakes. My work was double checked and my findings proven.

Oddly enough, what with these examples and being let down countless times by vets and farriers alike I choose to educate myself and form my own opinions.

My old horse did 50 miles a week on roads in all gaits (she could be a bit fresh at times) totally barefoot.

I am currently rehabilitating a horse that was badly shod (and badly handled). At the moment the plan is to keep her barefoot, but as always her welfare comes first. If she needs them she shall have boots. To find out more look at her blog http://danceswithgrace.blogspot.com
 
[ QUOTE ]

You should believe the hypothesis which is supported by most of the scientific evidence - this is where RCTs come in.
So to find out, you would take a number of horses with comparable tendon injuries, bandage half, leave the other half, and compare the results.
S
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

How many horses would you need to make a valid study?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You should believe the hypothesis which is supported by most of the scientific evidence - this is where RCTs come in.
So to find out, you would take a number of horses with comparable tendon injuries, bandage half, leave the other half, and compare the results.
S
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

How many horses would you need to make a valid study?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, the more horses used, the more carefully the control and experimental groups are matched, and the fewer other variables involved, the more reliable the findings will be.
S
grin.gif
 
So can I ask again about uinshod horses and the incidence of abcesses in the hoof? If my memory serves me correctly the research suggests quite a significant increase (sorry can't remember the refeences
blush.gif
)
 
barefoot that is always a problem though I have some truely dreadful science, I dont take anything published and peer reviewed as wrote and have had some feedback from reviewers that havent got the whole point of the paper at all. But it does lay out what was done in an appropriate manner for all to see.

gg, IMO more than 15 that was one of the rollkur studies!
 
QR
Oh and can I add that not only does our farrier note the general condition, way of going etc of the horses, but has also on occasion given a very interesting lecture on the structure and functioning of the sheeps feet!
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


gg, IMO more than 15 that was one of the rollkur studies!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a globally agreed number that validates a piece of research?

Or is it just a case of the researcher deciding how many is enough and then if the paper gets published that gives it validation? Surely that means two subjective decisions (researcher and publisher) become key - which doesn't sound very scientific.

It makes me think of the MMR outcry a couple of years ago. All the research seemed to point in the direction of MMR causing autism, so much so that many parents stopped vaccinating their children. Yet that research has since been proven to be wrong by yet more research that proves the opposite. What are the chances in another couple of years that yet more research will reassert it does cause autism after all?
 
nope numbers are entirely dependent on numbers viable to test as in you do the best you can but the lower the number the reduced power of the stats particularly if there is a lot of variability so its harder to say any difference is signifcant.

If you try hard enough you can always get stats to say what you want significance wise.

I cant remember why now but the first bit of MMR research by one doc was very unscientific!

eta science is about questioning and criticising everything, not just reading a paper and assuming its right.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So can I ask again about uinshod horses and the incidence of abcesses in the hoof? If my memory serves me correctly the research suggests quite a significant increase (sorry can't remember the refeences )

[/ QUOTE ]
I can only reply from my experience. I have 4 barefoot horses, doing varied amounts of work, breeds vary too. Touch wood, abcesses are rare. I was trying to remember when we last got an abcess. I think my Arab/Welsh got one about 5 years ago.
 
Ditto I can only speak from experience. All the horses I have taken out of shoes have had poor feet to start. 1 abcessed a lot - but it had the most damage to undo. Grace has terrible corns and may yet abcess. The other 5 did not abcess (although one got an abcess when it had shoes on.)
 
QR

I have been informed that horse studies are notoriously difficult to validify scientically. The nature of horses (their size, individualisms, ethical considerations etc) make it quite hard to do any studies on a test group of any size.

Just a thought.
 
[quote

Just because we are discussing equine science, does not mean the standards of scientific research should be any lower.

The fact you infer a divide between 'academia' with their silly need for peer review, RCTs etc, and the real world where things are true, based on an individual's anecdotal case study, reveals the poor science behind many of the barefoot hypotheses.
Prove me wrong - I'd love the references (links to websites are not, as other posters have pointed out, references).
S
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets reverse this:

Provide some references meeting your requirements that prove horses need shoes to work on roads, rough tracks etc.

Links to websites where case studies are presented are valid reference, they allow people to review what is written there and make their own mind up.

Links to websites where the experience of a police force mounted division with maybe 40 horses is given are valid reference.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Just because we are discussing equine science, does not mean the standards of scientific research should be any lower.

The fact you infer a divide between 'academia' with their silly need for peer review, RCTs etc, and the real world where things are true, based on an individual's anecdotal case study, reveals the poor science behind many of the barefoot hypotheses.
Prove me wrong - I'd love the references (links to websites are not, as other posters have pointed out, references).
S
grin.gif


Lets reverse this:

Provide some references meeting your requirements that prove horses need shoes to work on roads, rough tracks etc.

Links to websites where case studies are presented are valid reference, they allow people to review what is written there and make their own mind up.

Links to websites where the experience of a police force mounted division with maybe 40 horses is given are valid reference.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I say 'US Bomber Found on Mars', it is true unless you can prove to me that there is no plane on the whole planet?

I LOVE the idea, but it's not quite how science works!
grin.gif


And no, links to anecdotal case studies, and police force activities are not valid references.

S
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, sorry, anyone who thinks that a website is sufficient "proof" of a theory is very misguided
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

What theory are you talking about?

The websites I have given you links to contain information. It is up to you to decide whether that information is appropriate for your situation or not, or whether you want to use it or not.

The Houston police are like police forces anywhere they keep detailed records. What they have found is that since taking the shoes off their horses they have fewer horse days lost to illness or injury. This is not a peer reviewed theoretical paper but is simple statistical evidence based on facts and experience.

I personally know of several navicular horses that have been brought back to soundness by a combination of taking their shoes off and suitable management and environment.

But maybe these horses are just freaks of nature, and what worked for them will not work for any other horses. But then again maybe it will.
 
[ QUOTE ]
^
Case studies are all very well but at the very least the information from them needs to be collated and reviewed not just in barefooters own magazines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thought.

If you want to find specalist information out youusually research the specialist magazines/publications. I am but a simple engineer engineer and if I have a engineering problem I look in the specialist engineering magazines, rather than Horse and Hound.

The editors of mainstream equestrian magazines have to keep their advertisers happy, so many of them may consider publishing articles about barefoot very carefully in case it upsets their advertisers.

Indeed, one of the the contributors for this very magazine spend a day hunting on Exmoor last season, and did a good report on it.

One one thing he did not mention though was that the horse he had been lent was barefoot. This was visible in the pictures

I often wonder why. Did he not notice? Difficult to believe. Not relevant to the report? Possible. Was it included, but was removed by the management in case it upset the advertisers? possible
 
[ QUOTE ]
As I said earlier we didn't make the original post so the onus isn't on us to provide references.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have been given links to where information can be found.

It is up to you whether you follow those links and read what is there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So if I say 'US Bomber Found on Mars', it is true unless you can prove to me that there is no plane on the whole planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure of the relevance of this.

But to answer it - Assuming you are referring to the planet Mars, I do not have to prove that there are no planes on the whole planet, but that the current generation of US bombers cannot reach Mars, and this is easy to prove.

All current US bombers have air breathing engines, therefore they cannot get out of the atmosphere, and have a maximum operational altitude of around 100,000 ft.

Mars is well outside of earth's atmosphere and is several million miles from earth.

Therefore there cannot be a US bomber on Mars as they simply cannot get there.

Ont the other hand if you are referring to locations that use the MARS suite of software by Logitech, well there could be a US bomber located on one of these locations.

[ QUOTE ]
I LOVE the idea, but it's not quite how science works!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I am but a simple engineer so why do you expect me to understand how science works?

Engineers are by nature practical

[ QUOTE ]
And no, links to anecdotal case studies, and police force activities are not valid references.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually in engineering terms a link to a website that contains previous experience is a valid reference. The onus is on the person using the information to ensure its accuracy and relevence.

Anecdotal case studies means that the case studies are based on hearsay. Is this what you are inferring? In which case you are incorrect as the cases studies in the websites you were given are based on first hand experience.

Turning now to the police case this is a reasonable sample of about 40 horses of different breeds. This is akin to the failure rate information used to assess the reliability of the components in a design. Their results are statistically significant

The evidence for sucessful barefoot horses is out there if you want to find it. If you do not then fine.

The choice is yours.

But the evidence is not science and research based it is evidence and experience based.
 

You forgot to mention 'illiterate' idiots. Great blog - I've read the book and it all makes a lot of sense. I will be attempting shoelessness with my TB mare and will let you know how it all turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top