That is the famous proverbial opinion that everyone has.
It is not safe to take horses out during winter on ice.
Plus all the mud in Spring thaw (you know ---- the comment I made about the mud sucking the boots right off our feet) —why would I waste money keeping shoes on a horse during such weather conditions, when enough mud sucking could result in the shoes coming off.
Where I am from, winter signaled a time for outdoor activities other than horseback riding. Why keep shoes on them when they were rarely being used? Our horses stayed broke and my horses still stay broke. I got on the oneriest one after a six year hiatus and he stood perfectly for me to get on and walked off like I never stopped riding. Good trail horses are just that way — they get their shoes pulled for winter and go out on the first Spring ride like their bridles had never gathered dust.
“Applying any sort of leave the shoes on for winter philosophy makes no sense whatsoever” when the horses aren’t being used. I can’t speak for the rest of the horse world or other people who do some occasional 20 minute hacking behind the boarding barn and call it trail riding.
“shoes off in the winter” has worked for my riding lifestyle for 50+ years and I’ve never had a lame horse — giving their hooves a break is a phrase I will continue to use, whether I mean it literally or figuratively -----------cheers:)
You’re right in that feet “expand” as they grow through the growth years, to about age 5. But shoes don’t hinder that, not unless they are incorrectly applied (too small all the time), and that’s a function of the application, not the product.
But feet DO expand and return with each step, from about the quarters back. That’s why farriers should not use the rear-most nail hole unless they must, for good reason that outweighs limiting the expansion of the back of the foot. It’s not just the frog, the whole back of the foot expands when weighted, and returns to it’s resting state when unweighted. You can see the results of that on shoes at the end of a cycle, as the constant expand/return (I hate to call it a contraction, since it’s more of a de-expansion) put a wear pattern on the metal.
I don’t know if it’s what sparked your question, but there’s a lot of gimmicky junk science out there about “natural barefoot feet” and “trimming horses like mustangs”. That is stupid. Why? The premise is mustangs have the ideal, natural feet… so the best thing for OUR horses is to trim there feet to look like that. Only… mustangs don’t get their feet trimmed.
Their feet DO get trimmed - by nature, every day. “Natural trimming” really means trimming feet as if nature trimmed them. And what that really means - or should mean - is trimming the feet as nature would in THAT environment. Meaning, you can’t trim the horse living in FL like the horse living in the high desert of Colorado. Or trim the foot living in a wet environment like you’d trim one living in a dry environment. The trim has to be appropriate for not just the horse’s work but his environment.
So inherent in that flawed idea is the admission that clearly what works for mustangs doesn’t work for “pet” horses, because what works for mustangs is NOT having their feet trimmed. So those farriers are already obviously wrong because they’re already hypocritically not following nature.
There are as many different ways to properly trim feet as there are environments and work loads and conformational deviations. But you are right in that everyone trying to trim feet according to how feral horses in desert or rocky areas get naturally worn, doesn’t work.
To the OP - whether a horse needs shoes, boots, glue-on shoes, glue-on boots, nailed on shoes, shoes that are glued and nailed, casts, or nothing, is all and only about what allows him to do his job comfortably and soundly.
ALL of those things can be done right, or wrong, just like a trim can be done right or wrong.
People have tried to prove that shoes are harmful to feet for a really long time, and always fail. Any “success” they claim is based on poor research, or inaccurate interpretations.
Properly applied shoes on properly trimmed feet do no harm, and can help the horse more than anything else every could.
It’s interesting to read people’s responses based on the experience of where they live. We don’t always think of what needs to be dealt with in other environments.
It makes perfect sense, walkinthewalk, to take shoes off so they don’t get ripped off in the mud or if the horse is not needing them, and the other half of the year they might need them.
We don’t always think of what it takes to keep the horse working in a perpetually wet or dry, very warm or very cold environment.
A question for those who live in very wet environments, like the tropics or the PNW, is it possible to keep shoes on if they are outside horses? I would imagine their feet become more like sponges and trying to put a show on that would be hard. I would not assume all horses in the very wet environments are inside a lot of the time.
The PNW is wet but cold, and doesn’t present the problems of the hot wet tropics. There are no problems keeping shoes on horses in cold, rainy weather (they certainly do it in Britain!) unless you happen to have a mud pit of a paddock. People in the PNW spend a lot of time and money making sure their horses are not in a mud pit or pool of standing water, and we know a lot about drains and topping up paddocks. Some horses live on pasture year round, and if the pasture is holding up as pasture (not turned into a mud pit) then walking around on wet weeds and grass does not especially harm their hooves.
Interestingly, I do see my horse’s feet change shape over the year depending on the weather. Her feet are at their best during the sharp frosts in December and january, and next best over the hot dry summer months. Her feet get harder, more concave and the false sole scours out. I would say they get a little flatter and softer in the fall and spring rains.
But the difference is not that huge, and horses that live mainly outdoors can certainly keep on shoes. Their feet do not get so soft that shoes fall off.
I try to make sure that her stall is very clean and dry in the wet months and her paddock topped up with enough fresh cedar mulch (“hog fuel”) that she is on a clean footing, and I spray on iodine as a general preventative.
The typical issue with horses and actual, non sponsored, neutral scientific studies is money and time. The difficulty and expense of keeping enough horses in identical conditions for long enough to draw any conclusions is prohibitive. Not like easily obtainable cats and dogs where litter mates can be raised and studied in identical environments for 5-10 years…and those don’t carry humans around doing a variety of jobs in a variety of conditions.
That applies to everything from supplements to shoes vs barefoot. You do sometimes see non sponsored research studies by a college referred to but when you review them there’s just a handful of unrelated horses with various work and health histories and no control group. Cannot apply conclusions of such limited studies to the general Equine population.
Interestingly, there are some good studies from the racing industry but they are generally specific to growth plate closure, breakdowns and longevity in the racing career…they do indicate early is better then later for bone development. But those horses are independently managed so there are an awful lot of variables.
We say our favorite answer is the unsatisfying “it depends” because it does. I mean, using the human and shoes comparison, can you say you wear shoes every step of your life or go barefoot every step of your life? If you get corns because your shoes don’t fit, do you jump on the barefoot bandwagon? Too many variables to make pronouncements.
Just be sure you know all the details of any study or research with horses before drawing any conclusions.
ETA One that often comes up on the Internet about this time of year is a short term college study out of Colorado-iIRC-involving blanketing. There was only a small handful of random horses, for a short period and it was some years back, more like an upper class undergrad project, not enough anything to prove a conclusion for the general horse population.
Well it’s great that it works for you. But it doesn’t work for everyone or every horse.
Correct. It’s not safe for horses to be on ice with plain shoes. That’s why many farriers apply traction of some type.
If the mud can suck the shoes off your horse, how do they possibly stay on while galloping or jumping? Maybe the horse is overreaching and stepping on its shoes because the mud is slowing down its turnover, but the mud doesn’t “suck the shoes off.” If it was that easy, there is no way a 1000lb horse could gallop 30mph in shoes, jump in shoes, XC in shoes, etc. (My shod mare does not lose her shoes in the mud.)
Here in NY it is the same; no one rides outside (seriously) in winter here. But some horses that need shoes for protection still need them. Maybe even more than in the spring/summer because of the turnout conditions - probably a lot different than Middle Tennessee.
Alternatively, if you can pull your horse’s shoes in the winter and still ride comfortably in an indoor arena - it sounds like they only needed them for trail riding anyway. Which is great…if that’s the horse you own.
It depends - on turnout conditions, how/when/where you ride, and your horse’s feet. I have 2 barefoot all year round and one retiree in shoes, all year. I’d love to take them off for my own convenience, but it doesn’t work for her.
Not specifically research on shoes, but the Aussies have done some research on the feet of brumbies and it calls into question some base assumptions, the primary one being that the feral horse foot, being the most natural, should be the ideal. https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2011/06/…oot-benchmark/
IIRC the iron shoe was invented sometime in the First Century A.D. by the Romans. The Roman roads were paved with stone and users soon found out that this would abrade the feet of draft animals (horses, mules, oxen, etc.). Foot covering of various types were tried and the iron shoe, nailed on, was found to be the best choice as it was inexpensive, long lasting, and greatly increased utility in horses and mules. I don’t know about use in other animals.
Over time it’s use spread through the Empire and was picked up by other cultures because it worked. By the Middle Ages it was used in horse cultures virtually world-wide.
The most successful mounted empire in history, that of the Mongols, was very selective users of iron shoes. The very scale of their army (with 6-8 horses per warrior being a good benchmark) would have made mass shoeing impractical. But the mongol warrior rode one horse only a few miles a day and they were ponied or driven the rest of the day. He could actually swap tack and horses while moving. That was not often done as the Mongols, being superb horsemen, knew that rest was essential for the long term soundness of the horse. The speed of advance of the Mongol army was usually less than 10 miles/day. An Arbatu, a group of 10 warriors, was the basic military unit (a squad, in modern terminology). These were combined in sets of 10 and ultimately comprised the ordu (the grand army) which might number up to 100,000 warriors. At six horses per warrior…well, do the math!
Any given Arbatu might travel many more miles than the army itself as they might be involved in scouting, raiding, foraging, etc. The Mongols were also know for their ability to “forced march” and cover enormous distances in remarkable time (for the era). But if they did this they were careful to rest the horses as much as military circumstances permitted.
Shoes were not in general use, but were used for horses that were expected to travel in rocky or other terrain that would excessively abrade the hoof.
It’s well to remember that the Mongolian horse was rather small and bred specifically for the military role in which it served.
So the most successful equine-based empire in history followed the Golden Rule of Equine Husbandry: give the horse what it needs, when it needs it, and in appropriate quantity and quality. Applied to shoeing, if the horse needed it to better do it’s job then shoe it. If it doesn’t then don’t expend the resources.
Not exactly a university level, double blind study here, but worth thinking about!
G, that was an enlightening post based on the need for a culture to survive by keeping horses sound and able to work regularly and hard, not participate in a double blind study for primarily hobby use.
Theres no right or only way that always applies to all, just what your horse does best with based on how you use them. It’s not an absolute science with black and white choices and ability to make sweeping generalities with no knowledge of individual circumstances.
The Aussie study is interesting. It shows that feral horses get laminitis which we’d expect from their seasonal swings in diet. But the very short rocky desert hooves seem to prevent that from turning into serious founder. The feral horses on soft sand and lusher forage have feet like neglected pasture ponies. It’s not being feral per SE that’s beneficial, it’s the constant wear. And I’ve also read that horses feral or semi feral in wetlands and fens get wider softer feet that self trim more easily and are adapted to that terrain. And look horrible from a riding perspective nothing you’d want on your barefoot endurance horse.
One of the deep flaws in using the desert dwelling feral horse as THE model is it eliminates all the other feral horses, by definition. I remember reading about an area of South America, possibly in Venezuela, where the range was arid for half the year and under several inches of water for most the area over the rest.
The Aussies also found that the range of the brumby was much narrower than previous suspected. IIRC the average travel per day ranges from about 7 miles to just about 20, with the average being around 9 or just a bit more. A lesson horse in one, average lesson (15 min. warm-up, 50 min. lesson, 10 min. cool out) will travel in the range of 7-8 miles. Some horses do 3 lessons/day, multiple days a week. Do the math on that one!!!
The Aussies debunk most of the arguments in favor of the feral horse as somehow being superior to the domestic horse in any meaningful way.
The moral in all of this is that one size does not fit all.
