AngieandBen
Well-Known Member
This is what I meant when I said there are lots of horses that can go barefoot but not so many owners ie they need/want to work their horses and if that means shoeing them so that they are comforrtable then so be it
thought on the whole shoes/barefoot thing
- Thread starter the watcher
- Start date
This is what I meant when I said there are lots of horses that can go barefoot but not so many owners ie they need/want to work their horses and if that means shoeing them so that they are comforrtable then so be it
Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
rhino
Well-Known Member
Theories, yes. Anecdotes, certainly. Not knowledge particularly though, which is why I worry when people take things as 'gospel'. As far as I am concerned, there is just not the research to say with 100% certainty some of the things that have been said about barefoot horses on this site, although I feel that it has been more balanced recently.
Cortez
Tough but Fair
Sorry, just havn't the time to keep on batting this about - got to go and ride my (unshod) horse now..........
Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
Yep, I think sometimes people take that as a criticism maybe? I don't. You are damn right I want my horse to work
I'd love to be one of these lovely types who takes simple pleasure in knowing my horse is alive but I don't. My simple pleasure is to ride and in order to be able to ride I need my horse comfortable - how I get there is much of a muchness to me, the end result is, I ride - I'm happy 
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
The difference being Cortez, is that you would be wearing boots on your own feet, not steel rings nailed into your toe.
Your analogy, is erroneous and stupid.
Your analogy, is erroneous and stupid.
TwoStroke
Well-Known Member
What makes me chuckle though is that there has been little/no scientific research done on shoeing, either. That is all anecdotal as well
.Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
In fairness to the barefoot tribe though, isn't that true for a large proportion of the posts here?
Isn't that hugely true for the horse-world in general maybe?
Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
My understanding was the nail doesn't go in your toe, it should be going into your toe-nail?
am I right am I wrong?
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
This is only arguing over semantics. The horse is unsound without shoes and sound with. If the shoes are removed again it is unsound again. Nothing has been fixed by the shoes, just temporarily removed, masked, covered up, abated, whatever.
If the horse could instead have prevented from becoming unsound by a gradual build-up to a higher workload, then that would be my own preference over shoes.
You were not in a position to do that, but that is no reason to feel that barefooters are criticising you, they are not.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
True, Booly, toe nail, just struggle with tiny keys on the phone, so tend not to be as precise as I should be, lol.
tallyho!
Following a strict mediterranean diet...
My understanding was the nail doesn't go in your toe, it should be going into your toe-nail?
Neither actually...
It should pass up through the white line and into the quarters hoof wall...
I am well up for splitting hairs... Too hot to do anything else...
rhino
Well-Known Member
What makes me chuckle though is that there has been little/no scientific research done on shoeing, either. That is all anecdotal as well
Absolutely. I don't think anyone claims any different though
I think there is a difference between someone saying 'I used this supplement/feed/drug etc. and it worked for my horse' and someone reeling off a whole list of supplements which have undergone no scientific testing. As I've said before, human nutrition is a poorly researched area, and animal nutrition is unbelievably underfunded and poorly understood. I don't believe all the marketing from feed companies any more than I believe the nutritional advice being given on here, but at least commercially sold supplements should have undergone some safety testing...
tallyho!
Following a strict mediterranean diet...
Absolutely. I don't think anyone claims any different though
I think there is a difference between someone saying 'I used this supplement/feed/drug etc. and it worked for my horse' and someone reeling off a whole list of supplements which have undergone no scientific testing. As I've said before, human nutrition is a poorly researched area, and animal nutrition is unbelievably underfunded and poorly understood. I don't believe all the marketing from feed companies any more than I believe the nutritional advice being given on here, but at least commercially sold supplements should have undergone some safety testing...
Yes they have... Usually on cows and sheep first
no you are right, however, there are basics that one should know about but not everyone does. Myself included. I think it has got better since people have been pointing to forage testing and letting some professionals do it if not confident to do it yourself. There are a few with scientific backgrounds, who have been very good at pointing people in the right direction. What people choose to do with the info is up to them.
Last edited:
Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I don't think anyone claims any different though
I think there is a difference between someone saying 'I used this supplement/feed/drug etc. and it worked for my horse' and someone reeling off a whole list of supplements which have undergone no scientific testing. As I've said before, human nutrition is a poorly researched area, and animal nutrition is unbelievably underfunded and poorly understood. I don't believe all the marketing from feed companies any more than I believe the nutritional advice being given on here, but at least commercially sold supplements should have undergone some safety testing...
But isn't the over view that people are giving useless or potentially dangerous advice and isn't that the same for every sphere and a lot of posts here?
I'm no barefoot preacher, in fact my horse is being shod as soon as I foal and I'll happilly admit I can't be arsed trying to transition her, BUT I don't think this barefoot movement are alone in perhaps sharing things that are perhaps unsafe/unfounded.
Not that that makes it right I suppose...
Ranyhyn
Well-Known Member
Neither actually...
It should pass up through the white line and into the quarters hoof wall...
I am well up for splitting hairs... Too hot to do anything else...
TY
What I was getting at really though was it wasn't the best counter analogy from PR either, because something going through your toe suggests a lot of pain, which of course shoeing shouldn't do.
If done properly, I don't think..
Losing my guts here
I have to say I have and continue to, find the whole thing really interesting, the arguments for and against etc. I think it is interesting to imagine that maybe we are sitting watching a change in the way people manage horses for the better? Maybe that's a bit romantic but I haven't seen any great changes through my riding life that have significantly made a difference to how horses were kept. As OP says it's been in the last year 1/2 that this seems to have taken off in a more mainstream fashion.
I do wonder if people sat round chatting, going through similar motions when someone thought up shoeing?
Last edited:
TwoStroke
Well-Known Member
None of the supplements available supply any minerals in levels equal to or exceeding the established toxic doses... I think that's as much safety testing as any commercial supplement has. Do you really believe NAF et al spend a fortune testing their supps in vivo under lab conditions? Or any conditions? So long as they contain no controlled substances I think you'll find that anything goes, commercially or otherwise.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
no we don't
No we aren't
If I understand you correctly, can you tell me what possible advantage you can see in paying for shoes and drugs when the horse can heal itself without? Especially when the cure rate for foot lameness is so much lower with remedial shoeing and prophylaxis?
Nope. There is a lovely body of people on here now who know what they are talking about and have been responsible between them for quite a number of horses which have returned to work instead of being pensioned off or shot.
If taking this kind of abuse from posters like you, is the penalty for helping those owners, bring it on
The term 'thick' and a poster being asked to stop posting are taken from barefoot posters. (I have also been asked to stop posting because I don't agree previously on other threads.)
You misunderstand me when I say caring prophylactically. Nothing to do with shoeing or not.
I meant that if, as an owner, you manage its wellbeing in such a way that problems are prevented, therefore avoiding many health issues. To be able to recognise signs of footiness or unbalanced trimming before it becomes a problem.
Of course some problems are bad luck but as a generalisation, good management means healthier horses.
rhino
Well-Known Member
Feeding any one vitamin or mineral in isolation affects the uptake of others; often in ways that aren't fully understood. I don't think the toxic doses are particularly 'established' either, as said before the quality of research is poor. Plus the fact that all horses are different and will uptake and metabolise nutrients differently. The NRC 2007 was a step forward but still provides very few answers. NAF actually does carry out a reasonable amount of testing, far more than other mainstream feed companies. If you knew much about veterinary diagnostics you would know that in vivo research is strictly limited and monitored.
This doesn't take away from completely unqualified people advising completely untested supplements though. Also no comeback if it does have a negative effect on your horse, unlike with 'professional' supplements.
BDC quite possibly, but I think there is a real danger of 'you say something often enough and people will believe it is fact' with some of the advice given on the barefoot threads, far more than on other subjects. Using homeopathy or magnets, for instance, is unlikely to have a negative effect, even if it doesn't do any good, but oversupplementation can be dangerous. Is that the fault of the people offering advice? Perhaps not
diamondrockharvey
Well-Known Member
china
Well-Known Member
I have done this.... Mine was barefoot for 18 months and I re shod. Biggest mistake i made as he is now lame again and I'm now on a last chance decision and debating whether to send him to rockley farm. He has navicular and 'typical tb feet' . I should have left him alone and let nature take its course. He grew a whole new foot, strong and for the first time he could have normal nails in, but why did I nail shoes back on when they were so strong? and now the angles have started to change again on his feet and he has rings around them. He has held his shoes on, even in this horrific weather, but I honestly feel poo seeing him lame again, I should have left him alone.
I was one of those, he cannot cope without shoes, he cannot even cope when he loses a shoe! but when your running out of choices bar going for de-nerving and Tilden etc, which I believe is bordering morally wrong, you take the plunge to give your horse a chance, and that I did. It was heartbreaking seeing him sore and unable to pick his feet up for me on a flat concrete yard because the pressure was to much, but... That's not normal! He's a HORSE! His wild relatives and ancestors are made to cross rough terrain, and my domesticated horse that will have been shod since the age of two cannot even stand on a concrete yard? You start to ignore the research and you go with your common sense and what your horse tells you, you give them options of what terrain they wish to go on, do they get a choice about what is nailed to there foot?
This is what crossed my mind when experiencing this process...
Put yourself in your horses position, going your life having metal shoes nailed to you foot, that's all you know, then the shoes come off, this strange sensation of your frog and foot touching the floor and this ignites all the blood and tissues in you foot as it expands and moves with the surface beneath it, what should be a natural feeling but yet it is completely alien to them, because we nail shoes to them......
I am not a barefoot inthusiast by any means, but I'm willing to try anything to make my horse comfortable, my youngster is shod infront, but would probably cope without, but there we go! Excuse the essay, but I'm feeling phooey for my needy and felt a little essay was required! Times like these make you think....really think.
Shanny_mare
Well-Known Member
Why oh why can't people just accept this?
My horse is unshod, barefoot - call it what you will - and I use a well trained trimmer who has also taught me how to keep on top of her feet myself. This decision was made for me by the horse - she deliberately pulled off her shoes on fencing - even when they were replaced. I also supplement her minerals to balance her hay and she is on limited turnout (IR as well). Her feet were flat and flared when I started, partly caused by a bad farrier, but much better now. It suits me and her to not bother with shoes.
However, my daughter's horse is shod because she show jumps and feels that she needs shoes to stud. I don't actually agree with her BUT that is her choice and her decision - apart from that, the horse is fed a good mineral supplement and seen by a good farrier who is improving what were a poor set of feet.
I prefer unshod/barefoot, daughter prefers shod - it's "horses for courses". What I do feel strongly about though is shoeing to hide an underlying problem - if a horse is lame without shoes, at least make sure that there are no major issues with the foot and trim before shoeing
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
How many times has it been posted all over the internet, that tarmac roads are excellent for barefoot horses. Yet people here continue to put, 'because I do a lot of road work I shoe my horse, I am also an idiot'.
I made the last bit up, lol.
I made the last bit up, lol.
quirky
Well-Known Member
Girl on our yard, had front shoes on only. Had those on due to injury and Liphook recommended shoeing ... not remedial but NB's.
Back feet were fine as a youngster and only just backed. When the roadwork was upped at 4, the mare ended up with very little toes on her back feet. If she had carried on shoeless, the mare would've been crippled. So, shoes went on and I think she is far from an idiot ... well she doesn't seem to be one, she could be a closet one of course
diamondrockharvey
Well-Known Member
I'd like to know more about this, I have been worried that my boy's footiness on stones may be to do with his feet having wore down too much??
He is completely sound on grass and fairly sound on smooth tarmac.
He has never had problems before and has been barefoot his whole life.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Girl on our yard, had front shoes on only. Had those on due to injury and Liphook recommended shoeing ... not remedial but NB's.
Back feet were fine as a youngster and only just backed. When the roadwork was upped at 4, the mare ended up with very little toes on her back feet. If she had carried on shoeless, the mare would've been crippled. So, shoes went on and I think she is far from an idiot ... well she doesn't seem to be one, she could be a closet one of course
Was the mare sore or were her toes just short?
Sticker
Well-Known Member
I think many people are now not shoeing to save money.
I certainly don't think the rise in the popularity of going 'barefoot' & the current economic climate are simply a coincidence.
Not shoeing is cheaper, simply. Even if hoof boots & extra supplements are purchased - trims by a farrier are still significantly cheaper than a full set every 5-6 weeks.
I am in no way implying this makes owners uncaring, or that a lot of thought still doesn't go into it. But it can be a sensible way to cut costs in tight times, in many cases...
I certainly don't think the rise in the popularity of going 'barefoot' & the current economic climate are simply a coincidence.
Not shoeing is cheaper, simply. Even if hoof boots & extra supplements are purchased - trims by a farrier are still significantly cheaper than a full set every 5-6 weeks.
I am in no way implying this makes owners uncaring, or that a lot of thought still doesn't go into it. But it can be a sensible way to cut costs in tight times, in many cases...
quirky
Well-Known Member
I don't think she was sore but her toe was, I would say dumped but I'm not sure if it's the correct term. You could see the laminar .... where the hoof was dark, the dumped part was white.
Auslander
Well-Known Member
Before I get quite beside myself with fury (Having just had my horse treated with Tildren) could you confirm what exactly you meant here? I could be taking it completely the wrong way, so wanted to ask before grumbling.
china
Well-Known Member
It is a personal opinion, I know of many who have had it but I wouldn't chose it for mine, the same as I wouldnt feel right with him being on constant pain relief for the rest of his life just to satisfy my needs.
It is not changing what is happening, merely disguising it or slowing it down for a short period of time and I am not comfortable with that. It seems to be proven that there is a high percentage of halting the degeneration of navicular without drugs which I am much more up for trying.
But for any treatment, we clearly need a bottomless pit of money.... Or a money tree!