Horseshoe Alternatives.
"My Natural Barefoot Trimmed horses get ridden nine-hundred
miles per day, eight days a week, over broken glass and twisted
scrap metal, and they're never lame and have beautiful feet!"
That's the song many Barefoot Enthusiasts sang when prospective
barefooters weren't sure their horses could handle working without
shoes. We still hear that sort of thing from a few of them today...
Indeed, under the right conditions,
some horses can develop
remarkably durable hooves that hold-up well barefoot where one would
expect shoes to be a necessity. But not all horses have the genetic
potential to become shoeless rock crushers, and not everyone has the
option of providing the diet and lifestyle needed to produce optimum
hoof capsule strength. Eventually, the Barefoot Movement had to
admit that some horses might need artificial protection for their
feet...
But, after going to great lengths to paint conventional farriery
as the root of all hoofcare evils, they couldn't very well go back
to horseshoes. So alternatives were embraced.
Nothing new under the sun...
19th Century precursor to the Easyboot.
Most of these alternatives actually have a place in practical
hoofcare. Hoof boots, for instance, can be handy 'spare tires' if a
horse throws a shoe. They also make sense if extra protection is
only needed once in a while. (Even though shoes need not be
detrimental to the hooves, it just doesn't make sense to keep a
horse shod all season long for the sake of a couple day-trips to
the mountains.)
For frequent, extended use, however, boots may not be such a
great idea.
First off, one of the supposed draw-backs of conventional
horseshoes is that they interfere with hoof capsule flexing. But
the hoof sits
on top of the shoe, and is attached only at
the front... Boots, hoof casting, and most glue-on shoes
encase
the hoof. We only do that with a steel shoe (continuous clip) when
we
want to immobilize the hoof after a P3 fracture.
Otherwise, the conventional horseshoe is more like a flip-flop
sandal compared to the alternatives, which are akin to tight-fitting
full shoes. Which really seems like it would allow more natural
foot function?
The hoof is more of a living, 'breathing' thing than most people
realize. One of the prime-movers in hoof capsule strength and
function is moisture content and
gradient. The hoof gets
plenty of moisture from within. It evaporates moisture out through
the wall and sole. Ideally, the wall is relatively dry, rigid, and
hard on the outside, while being wet, flexible, and soft inside.
The balanced combination allows maximum durability. The sole can
release even more moisture in less time, to regulate overall content
in the hoof. (You may have noticed that an apparently dry horse can
leave damp footprints on white pavement after standing in one place
for a few minutes.)
Encasing the hoof capsule for extended periods interferes with
the release of excess moisture, and can invert the moisture gradient
of the wall. A couple hours in boots for a rocky trail ride now and
then won't do any real harm. But extended, constant use of anything
that 'seals in the juices' can eventually be bad news.
Another frequent claim against conventional shoes is that they
isolate the hoof from the ground, depriving it of the stimulation
that would make it strong and tough. But the conventional shoe only
armors the bearing surface of the hoof wall and perimeter of the sole, leaving most of the
sole and frog exposed to direct stimulation from the ground, and
increasing their
net elevation only by around 1/16" inch.
Boots, casts, plastic, and synthetic rubber alternatives tend to
cover all, or much, of the bottom of the foot. They are also
thicker than modern steel shoes, especially if used in conjunction
with pads, as is popular practice. They boast greater shock
absorption than steel shoes, but is that really a good thing? If a
wafer of steel isolates the foot from the ground and prevents it
from being as strong and tough as it could be, wouldn't having the
horse walk around with veritable pillows strapped to his feet be
much worse?
Horseshoe alternatives actually predate horseshoes by centuries.
The steel horseshoe wasn't imposed on the horse world by arbitrary
decree, nor did it spring fully-formed from the brow of Zeus. It
evolved and was refined over generations, competing with various
well-established hoof protection devices all the while. The
horseshoe as we know it emerged as
the standard because it
was more effective, reliable, and practical than the other options.
It should also be noted that applying shoes does not
inherently
preclude the preservation of sole mass and the process of building
concavity. It's just a wear plate, and can be applied to hooves
trimmed to the same fundamental parameters as a restorative Barefoot Trim.
Some have wondered why farriers react so negatively to the
Natural Barefoot Movement... But, when you really look at it, the
movement isn't that emphatic about "natural" (synthetic rubber,
acrylics, polymers, etc.) or "barefoot" (hooves encased in boots,
casts, epoxies can't really be considered "bare", can they?) It
appears that the movement is really
Anti-Farrier, rejecting
conventional horseshoes primarily because they are
conventional...
Even if that means relying on inferior, even counter-productive
alternatives.
The ultimate silliness of the
'ANYTHING but convention farriery'
thinking has got to be the
alternative solution based on
affixing a steel wear plate with nails. The Laser Tip!
"Then I'll ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest...
But I'm NOT an alien!"
(Tom Servo.)
Seriously folks... If your horse does well barefoot, terrific. But if it needs shoes, find a
competent farrier and have it shod. Don't go to ridiculous lengths to avoid what works so well just because some think conventional farriery is unfashionable these days.
- 30 -
...