movement differeces - barefoot vs shod

[OneFineMess]

I know this is opening up a can of worms...

Do shoes affect movement? Are there any notable dressage horses who arent ridden with what seem like 'overkill' shoes to me? (ie specialty, new age shoes with space age pads ect ect ect).

[pintopiaffe]

The only comment I have on it (my guy is barefoot still, and doing third-ish. And I plan to keep him that way as long as humanly possible--right through FEI when we get there-- for several reasons... But I'm not opposed to shoes in a moral sense :lol: ) is this...

A farrier and RIDER & TRAINER whom I respect very much, told me once that to put shoes on the fronts only will compromise movement. That the horse will not be as confident behind because of the difference. Fronts going happily along, perhaps at more speed or less carefully because of the protection--then WHAM a bare hind goes down on gravel or whatever it is that the fronts didn't suffer... So either four or none. It made sense to me, the way it was explained. Eventually the 'not as confident' translates into posture and muscle development (or lack thereof) which would compromise the movement.

[merrygoround]

That is an interesting concept. I've owned horses barefoot forever, tho evented and competed at Third. But I've also known horses shod only behind, because of gait idiosyncracies, and those shod only in front. I know most UL riders prefer back shoes for extra support. I have a little trouble ascertaining "what"support.

I'm sure one of the farriers will be happy to illuminate.:)

[Fixerupper]

It's not about shoes or no shoes - it's about whether the foot works for the horse, The perfect foot is the perfect foot only for each particular horse....!

[pintopiaffe]

Sorry, complete hijack:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

This is simply BRILLIANT. :lol: Thanks.

[Fixerupper]

Thank ya, thank ya verra much ;)

[Valentina_32926]

My mare has shoes in front only - the shoes are because she has a clubby front right hoof and likes to paw with that hoof - therefore making the club effect worse by continually shortening that front hoof.

On a lark I had her shod behind before - she literally drug her hind legs through thr dirt until she became accustomed to them - without them she springs off the ground.

So for now - third level - we're keeping her barefoot behind. If there are indications in the future she needs shoes behind I'll have them put on (but not before a show!) :cool:

[JB]

The question is not "do" they affect movement, but more like "can" they.

I say that because "do" implies one way or the other, period.

The answer is yes, they *can* affect movement. For some horses it's for the worse, some for the better, and some show no difference. All 3 variations have been discussed on this board in some forum or another.

For the horse who is slightly footsore, or slightly lacking confidence in what his foot is setting down onto, shoes can indeed improve the movement.

Emma Hindle reported that her 2 horses moved better when she took the shoes off - lighter, more free.

It's a long-standing tradition in the Hunter world that if the horse is really needing to win the hack, and is already a good mover, but is up against stiff competition, to pull the shoes so the horse will move "better".

So, you have to take it for what it is - something that isn't a given, isn't necessarily a given for any individual horse, but CAN happen, either way.

[cyndi]

My horse is showing third (is coming 9) and also shod only in front. She was barefoot for a long time - probably until she was 7 -- but then she had a really deep bruise to her coffin bone that was so bad a tiny piece of the coffin bone actually died and broke off, creating multiple abscesses. Since when, I've kept her in front shoes for more support, and also to help protect her from bruising again.

I did notice difference in her gait when we shod her - she has more huntery movement than dressage movement, naturally. The shoes gave her just a tiny bit more 'knee' action. She just has standard keg shoes - not weighted, no pads. Just your "Wal-Mart' sort of horse shoe.:lol:

I only put shoes on my horse if it's really necessary. I have two 4 year olds and they will be barefoot forever if possible.

[slc2]

Who says so many dressage horses are 'over-shoed'. I think you're seeing what you want to see. MOST dressage horses are in very plain shoes.

When they are NOT in plain shoes or NOT barefoot, I have a feeling most of their owners are intelligent enough to be putting those shoes on for a reason. They may not want to share it with you, but I bet you there is a reason.

At several hundred dollars a time for special shoes and getting up to a hundred a time for ordinary shoes, I bet people do it for a reason.

I shoe only what my farrier recommends, and believe me, he doesn't go around trying to make extra work for himself. In fact he will work very hard to encourage an owner to keep things simple and not put on odd shoes or do unnecessary things.

He does only what's absolutely necessary, and nothing special unless the veterinarian prescribes it.

Some examples of horses that needed shoes, despite their owner's frequent attemtps to make them do without:

The horse with no heels needed egg bar shoes to protect his heels from bruising - wedges would have bruised that particular heel more. With egg bar shoes he did not get bruised in winter on the hard ground and he could be trail ridden without bruising. Otherwise he was practically living in his stall and the indoor arena. These days many people are using egg bars or similar shoes simply to protect the feet as a preventative measure.

The retired horse with the old ligament injury needed shoes to prevent his foot from swinging about and give it some needed stability. Shoes kept him more comfortable - without them, the uneven weight on his foot meant he broke big hunks of horn off his foot just in being retired and walking in the pasture.

The foundered horse may need pads the rest of his life. The alternative is to allow him to bruise his feet and be in pain. Their feet don't 'toughen up' if they have foundered more than a certain amount; how much a horse can tolerate is individual, and has to be respected.

My friend's horse who had a horrible case of thrush while she was ill needed shoes the rest of his life - after that his feet always bruised very easily. My friend's horse with white line disease after founder broke off huge sections of the toe without shoes.

The horse with the gigantic old front crack in the hoof got shoes because if he didn't have them, the crack would open up - the crack developed from a quittor that killed the horn producing cells. Not fixable. SHoes needed. The horse with great big old spavins behind had NO shoes so his hocks could twist and move around however they needed to to allow him to be as comfortable as possible.

I think the idea of shoes as protecting the horse on gravel (above, re not shoeing only the fronts) is incorrect. Gravel is loose and gets up in the sole of the foot badly even with shoes, and I've frankly never seen a horse fling its forelegs around with great abandon and ignore bad surfaces because its hind shoes were off.

I take off the hind shoes on lightly used horses or retired horses if they need to twist their hocks or make some compensatory movement. Horses with 'issues' often find ways to take the strain off an arthritic joint by moving not quite so correctly. My farriers have always advised me to allow that to happen. More active dressage horses need a heel, and they need to dig in and hind shoes help them. If a horse is making compensatory motions I don't have a conflict there, I just would not be having him be so active in training - he would be semi retired or retired if he needed to make more than very slight compensatory movements.

[quietann]

My mare (coming 11 year old Morgan) gets rave reviews about her hooves. her fronts wear a little unevenly because she toes in, but that was it as far as problems go until recently. She'd been barefoot her entire life, spent in Maryland where there are not so many rocks, but after 3 weeks at eventing camp last summer, her front hooves were so chewed up by the rocky terrain that she needed shoes on them. Her hinds are still barefoot and in good shape.

Front shoes help with the toeing in/uneven wear issue. She also got winter pads in them, which really helped her deal with snow/ice in this very rough New England winter.

I was hoping to take her back to barefoot, but her farrier, who breeds Morgans, did find some white line changes in front recently, and recommended that she keep her front shoes for that reason. We may add hinds eventually. My BO feeds really rich hay, the sort of stuff you want for big horses in heavy work, and that may have caused the problem. BO is used to big WBs and TBs, not tiny easy-keeper Morgans. The farrier said, her words, "Most Morgans need cr*ppy hay." Maresy is now getting mature, stemmy grass-mix hay and her hooves are happier for it. (And she is happier for it too, as she gets it free choice, and it takes a longer time to eat, so she spends more time chewing hay, which is her very favorite activity :lol:

That said, the majority of horses at the dressage barn where I board, and at the one where the other horse I ride lives, are shod all round. And many of them need it. For a few, being shod helps their movement as well.

[Dune]

That is an interesting concept. I've owned horses barefoot forever, tho evented and competed at Third. But I've also known horses shod only behind, because of gait idiosyncracies, and those shod only in front. I know most UL riders prefer back shoes for extra support. I have a little trouble ascertaining "what"support.
.

This thread is very interesting, I agree, and I like how the OP worded it. Just responding to the comment about having "a little trouble ascertaining what support", it can be a bit difficult to explain, actually. It's really something that you have to "feel". I would never unnecessarily put shoes on a horse, but when you feel that little extra is needed, I would never hesitate to help them either.

It's not about shoes or no shoes - it's about whether the foot works for the horse, The perfect foot is the perfect foot only for each particular horse....!

Of course.



For the horse who is slightly footsore, or slightly lacking confidence in what his foot is setting down onto, shoes can indeed improve the movement.

This comment is BRILLIANT!!! It requires someone with a good eye, good feel, and for them to not be SO invested in the idea of their horse being either shod or barefoot that it takes precedence over the well being of the horse. :yes:

Emma Hindle reported that her 2 horses moved better when she took the shoes off - lighter, more free.

Yes, that can be the experience, or as above it can be that suddenly said horse moves with the confidence they need once they have shoes on.

It's a long-standing tradition in the Hunter world that if the horse is really needing to win the hack, and is already a good mover, but is up against stiff competition, to pull the shoes so the horse will move "better".

Well, yes and no. You pull the shoes IF the horse has a bit to much knee with the shoe and only IF the horse will still be sound and move with the length of stride, confidence, bit of supension without the shoe. Another "it depends". I happen to own one of these. She has too much knee with the shoes, pull the shoes and she moves great in the sand/soft arena, but she's not "confident" moving well anywhere else.

So, you have to take it for what it is - something that isn't a given, isn't necessarily a given for any individual horse, but CAN happen, either way.

Correctamundo.:winkgrin:
See above

[JB]

I was hoping to take her back to barefoot, but her farrier, who breeds Morgans, did find some white line changes in front recently, and recommended that she keep her front shoes for that reason. We may add hinds eventually. My BO feeds really rich hay, the sort of stuff you want for big horses in heavy work, and that may have caused the problem. BO is used to big WBs and TBs, not tiny easy-keeper Morgans. The farrier said, her words, "Most Morgans need cr*ppy hay." Maresy is now getting mature, stemmy grass-mix hay and her hooves are happier for it. (And she is happier for it too, as she gets it free choice, and it takes a longer time to eat, so she spends more time chewing hay, which is her very favorite activity :lol:

I realize this is a bit OT, so apologies for that :)

It does indeed sound like perhaps your mare was experiencing some white line issues due to some mild laminitis. Her breed predisposes her to that.

However, I really disagree with the farrier's comment, and we've been discussing this sort of thing over on Horse Care. Horses don't NEED "crappy" hay. They ALL need GOOD hay, but many of them, such as yours, do indeed NEED hay that is lower in sugar. Hay can look like the bottom of the barrel horse hay, but still be way high in sugar. Hay can look very yummy, but be very low in sugar. Color is not an indicator of the sugar content (though can be an indicator of protein content). So, feeding "crappy" hay can leave the horse with still too much sugar, but also leave him with too little protein.

Just things to think about. If you have the ability to more personally manage your horse's diet, you may find that you can still feed her great hay, but low sugar hay, and have the best of both worlds :)