barefoot vs shod argument - from 130 years ago!

Gillies_mom · barefoot vs shod argument - from 130 years ago!

I've been reading some extracts from a book, called Horses and Roads by JT Denny, written in 1880. Here's some interesting paragraphs arguing the benefits of barefoot:

During the mutiny in India many of our cavalry horses went unshod, because they could not get shod, and they never went better in their lives.

In the ‘Morning Advertiser’ of July 18 last, the special military correspondent at the Cape gives an interesting account of a ride that he made with irregular cavalry on a raid. He says: ‘Few of the men have their horses shod in front; some do not shoe at all;’ and he remarks that, in his excursion, they had to go over ‘sheets of polished, wet, slippery stone in the torrent beds, making one wonder how our unshod horses could keep their feet.’ It is worthy of remark that this was only a few days before the battle of Ulundi, in which these horses took such an active part. In fact, they saw the whole war through; and, on August 9, we find the special war correspondent of the ‘Daily News’ reporting of these same animals that ‘the constant work they have had naturally keeps them devoid of superfluous flesh; but, for all this, they are as hard as nails, and good in the wind.’ All through the reports on the war, not a complaint was made as to these horses falling lame. Surely there must be something in this. Sheets of wet, slippery rock, and rolling stones in river beds, would be calculated to try the hoofs to the utmost; yet in the pursuit of the Zulus, when they fled at Ulundi, these ‘ponies’ (from 14½ hands downwards) were able, we are told, to follow miles further than the shod horses.

The shoe adapted for traffic on one kind of pavement ill suits another.’ But is it so? Ask Mr. Smither. ‘If we had a uniform kind of pavement, a shoe for universal use would be quickly invented. The ingenuity of man would devise horseshoes to travel over glass, were glass the only pavement in use.’ This is an insult to the common sense of its readers. It has been widely, and for a long time, proved that the naked foot of the horse is as much at home on one kind of hard road as on another, and can pass over all of them alternately without wearing out, or inconveniencing the horse, and that on none of them will he slip, or on wet grass either. In Mexico, Yucatan, Honduras (both British and Spanish), Guatemala, San Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the United States of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Brazil, horses, mules, and donkeys are worked over every description of hard roads, most of them exceedingly rough, carrying very heavy packs from the back country down to the seaboard, and in some cases making a journey of several hundreds of miles, and they load back again; yet they never wear out their hoofs. The writer speaks from experience; for it has been his lot to own and work hundreds of animals at a time in more than one of these countries; and if shoeing could have helped him in the slightest he would most certainly have resorted to it. No man could see four or five hundred animals incapacitated from work without seeking such a simple remedy; but it was never wanted, and many years of experience of this kind have naturally convinced him that horses work better, and can travel further, without shoes than with them.

Nor is this all. Unshod horses enjoy almost a total immunity from diseases of the feet and legs. Side-bones, sandcrack, seedy toe, ringbone, thrush, and quittor were never seen in the writer’s stables. Spavins, curbs, splints, and windgalls were very rare. Thrush is effectually cured by removing the shoe from any horse that suffers from it. Professor Coleman said that ‘the frog must have pressure, or become diseased;’ and Mr. Douglas says that ‘contraction prevents a supply of blood from reaching the sensitive frog that produces the insensible frog; and so, becoming useless for the purpose nature intended it, instead of coming to horn it oozes out a noxious-smelling fluid.’ The unshod horse has frog pressure; so, unless he should stand upon rotten litter, thrush he cannot get. Quittor is caused by pricking with a nail, or by the horse resting with the toe of one foot, and bearing with the heel of the shoe of that foot (especially should the shoe be calked) upon the coronet of the opposite one. Hence unshod horses can with difficulty get quittor, neither do they. An unshod horse ‘feels his feet,’ and knows what he is doing with them; so he scarcely knows what it is to overreach himself; and even if he does such a thing, no evil consequences are ever noticed, because the horn cannot inflict injury like iron. For sandcrack and seedy toe there are no names in the above-cited countries, and no one can bring the natives to understand that such diseases exist. If you suggest corns to them they laugh in your face, and no wonder. Mr. Dalziel says: ‘Corns on the human foot are practically known to most people, being one of the unpleasant and unnecessary attendants on civilisation, for they came into fashion with boots and shoes. So with corns on the foot of the horse.’ Mayhew says: ‘Spavin, splint, or ringbone are no more the legitimate consequences of equine existence than noads and anchylosis are the natural inheritance of human beings.’ By illegitimate treatment ninety-nine hundredths of the diseases of the feet and legs are caused — shoeing being the most to blame.

You can read more here (only up to chapter 12 so far)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Horses_and_roads

becdubie

Well, how 'bout that.
Thanks for posting.

appellativo

ha ha. this just proves once again that there is nothing new under the sun

and 'it's so old its new again.'

Chablis

That was an interesting read. Thank you for posting.

Gillies_mom

appellativo

"...and is vain enough to think that he can alter it to advantage."

I think it's more like, "...is ignorant enough to not see (it's perfect design) or notice the reasons for the subsequent decline in the form of the hoof and then has to go about tinkering to try to fix what we messed up" LOL

In the end it doesn't really help to be critical though; we are all doing the best we can. I do believe that humans were intended to make full use of the world and the animal kingdom (in a responsible way), and we are, for the most part trying to do the best we can!! Life is a journey.....

I offered to write an article in response to Horse Illustrated's recent article that addressed what a proper hoof should look like with a focus on all the different factors that cause the decline in hoof form. I wonder if they'll take me up on it (I would do some writing and some research/interviews from hoof care professionals/farriers and then organize the article). It sounds like a fun project!

becdubie

Not only this....

appellativo

well maybe that is some of it. but I don't think there are a majority of farriers who do what they do and still think that it's not for the good of the horse. And certainly there are farriers who do a service to horses who have not had the opportunity from birth to form a physiologically correct hoof form or for whatever reason (genetics/poor breeding being one).

Although one of the reasons Joe Camp uncovered in his book 'Soul of a Horse' why more vets don't recommend barefoot is they fear the repercussions to their practices (backlash from the farrier industry) if they steer business away from farriery towards the barefoot movement. Imagine if farriers went around to all their clients saying, "Don't use Dr. Suchitysuch, (insert reason here)" because they are irked that the vet shows preference to barefoot versus shod for health reasons. (He was told this by a vet himself.)

becdubie

yeah...true. Most farriers I have met truly care about the horses..
What I meant was the companies that make shoes, and tools and stuff the farriers use.
I donno....it's an industry stuck to it's traditions.

appellativo

OMG don't get me started on industry/corporations stuck in traditions and not with the good of the people/animals at heart!....(oil, pharmaceutical, ad nauseum)