|
| |
Some Horses Need Shoeing, Some
Don't
Tom Stovall, CJF © Copyright 2003
The relationship between clinical soundness and/or
biomechanical
efficiency in horses and traditional farriery has been well
documented over the last century, especially within the
last 30 years.
In terms of the treatment/palliation of pathological
conditions by
mechanical means, consider that two of the standard
veterinary
classroom textbooks, "Adams Lameness in Horses"
and Rooney's, "The
Lame Horse" - and the citations therein - create an
extremely
compelling argument for the benefits of traditional
farriery. Despite
the weight of more than 100 years' documentation, there are
several
groups of folks who would have folks believe that horses
never need
shoeing, that all horses are better off without shoes.
Not
surprisingly, most of the folks damning conventional
farriery have
something to sell, some kind of "special" trim
that only card-
carrying acolytes or franchise holders are capable of
rendering.
Hiltrud Strasser, a German veterinarian, is a leading
proponent
of the "barefoot movement." She's created a
cult of hoof butchery,
complete with self-fulfilling prophecies that insure the
weak minded
will never question the efficacy of her system.
Unfortunately,
the inherent flaws of her one-size-fits-all system have the
potential
to cause permanent damage to those horses that do not fall
within the
parameters of her system - and most horses don't!
I have several times suggested a simple test of the
efficacy of these
claims relative to the veterinary application of Strasser's
system
involving a horse diagnosed with navicular syndrome and
shod with bar
shoes, only to be met with specious arguments claiming that
it is
somehow "better" for a horse to endure the pain
of various pathologies
affecting the foot (e.g., founder, navicular syndrome, P3
fractures,
pedal osteitis, articular ringbone, etc.), instead of
having the
pathology treated, or the pain associated with the
pathology
palliated, by mechanical means. Any competent farrier
can easily
demonstrate the efficacy of various traditional methods of
mechanical
treatment/palliation because horses shod with such devices
become
lame without them. When one considers that the pain
of some
incurable, insidious pathologies can be readily palliated
by
traditional farriery to such a degree that the horse is
pain free for
years, Dr. Strasser's credo of, "no horse needs
shoeing", becomes
an indictment of her hypotheses.
With some horses, it's shod, sound; barefoot, lame.
The preceding challenge and a willingness to back it
with cash
is the reason the folks who champion Strasser - and, to a
lesser degree,
Jackson and Boker - are making excuses instead of
mortgaging the farm
and booking a flight for Texas. No one in the
barefoot camp is going to
take me up on my offer because I have what gamblers call,
"a mortal lock."
But, what about biomechanical efficiency? How does
one defend
traditional farriery in terms of biomechanical efficiency?
The websites
of the "barefoot is best" contingent are chock
full of misleading
statements regarding that aspect, but the fact is - again,
easily
demonstrable - that horses can pull more weight, run faster
and/or jump
higher when correctly shod in accord with the individual's
needs
relative to its particular environment than they can
barefooted. Does
anyone really wonder why most high-level jumpers are shod
with
screw-ins? Why reiners are shod with sliding plates?
Why race horses
are shod with various types of race plates? Why
pulling horses are
often often shod with heel calks and toe grabs?
In terms of objectively quantified biomechanical
efficiency, the current
practice of shoeing/not shoeing horses according to the
individual's
needs and the dictates of their environment is clearly
superior to the
concept of "barefoot is best". When
barefoot horses start outrunning
shod horses, jumping higher, or pulling more weight, then
an objective
observer might begin to believe some of the claims
emanating from the
barefoot camp. Until then, a horse owner would be
well advised to
relegate the claims of the "barefootedness" bunch
to the muck pile -
along with gallium nitrate, magnetic doodads, Cytek, and
all the other
flim-flam scams that exist without scientific basis on the
fringes of
the industry.
Some horses need shoeing, some don't. Simple as
that.
|
