In my line of work, it is nigh on impossible to avoid visiting a stable or livery yard every now and again. And although I am almost always visiting to tend my unshod horse-clients, I cannot help but notice just one or two of the stablemates; in particular, their feet!
Unfortunately, it is tactically unethical to take photos of these hooves, therefore I have restricted the images to one basic photo with annotation – hopefully just this one hoof will be clear enough!
In this first photograph fig. 1, try to discern the actual outline of this hoof – the photograph is has been taken almost at right angles to the hoof. Don’t cheat by scrolling down to look at the next image 🙂
So, here in fig. 2 we see the same hoof but now I have added a little annotation to help you. We can now clearly see an outline around the visible hoof and, as the orange lines show, this looks like a hoof with the oft prescribed low heels.
At a recent conformation clinic, this type of hoof was described to me as being one with low heels since you can see the distance between the coronary band at the back and the ground is quite small.
OK. Same hoof, but here in fig. 3 a different annotation; this is the actual outline of the hoof. Compare it with the perceived outline in fig. 2 above and have another look at fig. 1 the original photo to see just what we have annotated here.
In this annotation it is very clear that the actual contact point of the heel is much further forward than the perceived point shown above. The apparent height of the heel seems little changed but if we look at the actual height indicated by the orange lines, then we see that the heels are in fact high.
In fig. 4 we see the low heels again – but no longer on a perceived level but rather on the more ideal line of the hoof; the toe is now much shorter and although it may not become quite as flat as it appears here, the coronet should also flatten out a little if the shoes are removed.
So, just what is wrong with the heels in these photos? After all, a farrier has shod them and has obviously felt they were good enough.
Essentially, the whole weight-bearing structure of the foot has been moved forwards by – in this case – roughly 15 millimetres. If we consider the point at which the hoof is hinged with the rest of the leg, we see firstly that the weight is being carried further back than is intended and, secondly, that the length of the hoof at the toe creates a longer roll moment increasing effort – and stress – with every step.
Here in fig. 5, the blue line (↓) shows the centre of the weight-bearing axis and we can clearly see the extra length in the moment of the shod hoof (x) compared with that of the unshod hoof (✓). This extra moment costs energy and effort; although not exactly the same, you can experience the difference by lifting the end of a pole one metre long and lifting the end of one 1½ metres long. The lengths used in the analogy are not synonymous with that of the hoof but remember, the horse is rolling ±150kg over its front hooves – with every step!
If you are wondering why the green line does not reach front of the hoof wall, the answer is simple – when the hoof is correctly trimmed (or even allowed to wear naturally), the edge of the hoof is rounded bringing the rollover point back from edge of the front wall.
If we look further at the hoof, we see yet more evidence of farrier-damage. There are holes all around the outside wall from previous shoeing and these are allied to a crumbling lower edge. It is often – quite incorrectly – said that a horse needs shoeing because it has brittle hooves. The real case is that a horse has brittle hooves because it is shod. No amount of care, attention and biotin is going to protect a hoof from degrading if someone has hammered nails into it. This fact is frequently overlooked or even blatantly denied by proponents of shoeing; but how is it possible that when a hoof has been given a chance to develop in a nature conscious way, that this sort of damage is never evident, compared with presence in the majority of shod horses.
Very frequently a clear bulbous coronet is visible – this is often masked in two-dimensional photographs by the hair around the coronet, as is the case here. This bulbous form is caused essentially by the incorrect distribution of weight in the periphery of the hoof. By overloading the hoof wall, the coronet is pushed upwards and distorted – sometimes very severely.
We can also see a V shape under the heel bulbs caused by this same abnormal pressure. Compare the photographs left and right: the horse in fig. 6 has a clear V shape whereas the horse in fig. 7 the V is much flatter – almost to the point of being non-existent. The horse in fig. 7 is 8 years old and has never been shod; the horse in the other photographs is 10 years old and has been shod since before he was bought by his present owners when he was just 3 years old.
It is very important to note here that “bad feet” are NOT a result of breed, lineage or other genetic factors – although this can very occasionally play some role – but rather the effects of shoeing allied to being kept in a box or stable and in almost all cases exacerbated by bad feeding practices. Stabling a horse restricts its movement – a horse should be able to cover 12 – 18km per day – and forces it to stand for hours on end in its own excreta which seeps between the shoe and the hoof creating an ideal, airless environment for destructive bacteria to survive. Most (stabled) horses are fed two or three times a day, a mixture of grains and cereals – products ideal for mice and birds but certainly not for the digestive system of the horse – and only have limited access to raw hay/grass and other herbs which form 100% of the dietary requirement. This access to raw foodstuffs should be unrestricted since a horse grazes for a major part of the day – taking between 12 and 16 “meals” in every 24 hours. The horse moves to eat and eats to move – remove this elementary factor and the horse is put straight into an unhealthy situation.