alternate viewpoint on some modern thinking

appellativo · alternate viewpoint on some modern thinking

Here's an excerpt from a very interesting article I read arguing against what many barefoot/natural trimmers operate on. This really got me thinking.

"I have had hoof care professionals tell me they have learned to “read” the
hoof. It tells them how to trim for a horse’s environment and lifestyle. In their
words, it tells them “what the horse needs.” I’ll give you an example. I have read
if you find particular hoof structures, like the bars, grow back quickly following
a trim, the hoof is “telling you” it needs those structures to be longer. Therefore,
they should not be trimmed as short the next time.
Such logic is weak at best and certainly open to misinterpretations. I could
easily argue the opposite. For example, did you know that our finger nails grow
approximately 3.6 times faster than our toe nails. Does that mean fingernails
should be left longer or trimmed less frequently than toe nails. I don’t think so.

"Our finger nails grow faster because they normally wear faster as a result of how
we use our fingers. The faster growth compensates for the more rapid wear.
When growth out runs wear, fingernails need to be trimmed more frequently
than toenails to maintain an optimal length. Applying the same logic to the
structures of the hoof, I could argue that structures which grow back fast
following a trim need to be trimmed more frequently than other structures.
More-or-less the opposite of what some hoof care professionals conclude from
“reading” the hoof." for the rest of the article/book (30 pages or so), click here.

http://www.liberatedhorsemanship.com/

then click on original NHC related articles

and then find 'hoof adaptation as I see it" by Bruce Nock, Ph D

What are y'all's thoughts on this?

karmikacres

Stimulation causes growth. I see additional bar growth in the winter when the collateral grooves get packed with snow and ice.

Mike

appellativo

right, but the discussion is whether or not something that is there (or keeps coming back when it's trimmed) should be left alone because 'its needed', or whether it should continually be trimmed. What do you think?

Leah

Kim Cassidy

appellativo

cool. I wasn't necessarily expecting a blanket answer. I was just wondering if anyone agreed with what the lady in the article was saying.

kristie

appellativo

That reminds me of the queensland brumby project leah mentioned. where the mare who was used to sandy footing was turned loose in the desert for three months, and whereas her hooves looked better, they were wearing down too fast (faster than growth) and she had lost body condition and 'was not doing well.' I wonder if she'd been given more time to adapt if she would have, or if she'd have deteriorated. Like your husband, how long should you expect a horse to hang in there in the hopes that it would get better soon? Like that analogy, "If you swim across the river and get too tired halfway across, isn't it just the same to swim the rest of the way across as it is to turn around and go back?"

Am I making any sense here? (Did y'all read the rest of the article?)

coveredbridgefarm

Erin wrote:

appellativo

I disagree! If the 'other side' was a desireable destination, If I in fact turned back on day one, I'd be wishing I'd kept going instead so I wouldn't have to 'dread' doing the swim from scratch on the second day! lol

but yeah, if the other side was not a desireable destination, you'd be right. Sometimes, the only way to know for sure, is to (try to) go there and check it out

coveredbridgefarm

The key element here is that you don't know, because it depends. Using the "swim" analogy, you may find that the fact that you don't know what's on the other side will factor into your decision at the half way point to continue on or to turn back. Your uncertainly about what exists at your destination might make turning back the more attractive alternative. Not only that but the extra anxiety created by the uncertainty might make the rest of the trip more arduous, especially if you contnue on.

Ideally, you would know exactly what exists on the other side before you started but that may not be possible, because it all depends on some things that may be impossible to determine before you begin swimming.

Please feel free to ignore my ponderings.

Almost everything becomes a gray area in the final analysis for us humans. Maybe not so much so for horses. That's why they spook more than we do.

Which is why they have been around for 55 million years and why we won't be around that long.

Larry

appellativo

God I hope that if one of us has to go, its the humans, not the horses!

Here's another point to ponder. See the second article in this newsletter by Robin LaPierre. In it she ponders whether man's unnatural use of the horse exceeds even 'a perfect hoof's' ability to support what we ask of it. It's a question I'd never thought of before. So maybe, hoof augmentation IS inevitable (not in all horses, as there are some of those crazy endurance horses that go a hundred miles with a rider barefoot. Of course not all horses have everything going for them regarding genetics and husbandry).

http://www.appliedequinepodiatry.org/articles/MindSet.pdf

coveredbridgefarm

Erin wrote:

Hank

Let us remember that "good hooves" is NOT a breeding criteria. Pretty, trot or gallop fast, good gaits, color, "halter" conformation, nice head, ect. are the things that humans value, and since the automobile came into common use, humans could breed horses for all the frivolous purposes.

Not that remedial shoeing is a new idea, but we seem to rely on it more and more.

Hoof augmentation (thanks Leah, I LOVE that term) is going to be a fact of horse life for sometime, I fear. No matter how much I wish it weren't so.