A Logical Look at Shoes

It seems that time and time again, the argument why a horse “needs” shoes is that they are sore without, and the shoes solve that. It is also argued that some horses have “thin n soles”, and some argue that it is genetic, and nothing will solve that except shoes.

Let’s take a look at these statements with logic. Shoes only cover the outer part of the hoof – the wall – and leave the sole uncovered. Bruising and abscessing happens on the inner areas of the hoof or the bulbs – all of which are still open to the environment with shoes on. Ditto for the “thin soles”. Why would putting a shoe on the outer part of the hoof stop soreness on the inner part? It certainly does not protect it. Rocks can still penetrate and cause ouchies.

If the damage can still happen, then why does the horse walk out better? Magical shoe properties?

Let’s look at why we would sustain damage and not feel it – paralysis and lack of blood flow. When you wake up in the morning after sleeping on your arm all night, it is dead, and cannot feel anything. Perhaps the shoe restricts blood flow, deadening the feeling in the hoofs. The hoof is a complex structure, designed to take the entire weight and concussion of a 100lb animal in full flight. Huge stresses are absorbed by this small area. Stresses are either absorbed by deflection (expansion) or they are transferred directly to other structures up the leg. When metal is firmly affixed to the hoof, the expansion of the hoof is hindered. We don't often think about the expansion that happens in organic materials under thousands of pounds of stress. We also don't think about what holding those structures immobile will do to the blood flow. If I am held immobile for long periods, I start to lose feeling. Imagine what hapens when the hoof is held immobile for weeks and months at a time.

Let’s also look at thin soles. Ever walk barefooted over rocks? For most of us, it hurts, if it is not downright impossible. We use loofahs to remove callous from our feet to make them look pretty and feel soft. Soft, pretty feet do not walk on rocks without pain. Take those same feet, and let them build callous for a few months, and presto – you can walk on rocks without pain. It has nothing to do with whether or not your parents could walk on rocks without pain – just matters whether or not you have callous.

Callous is a thickening of layers of the skin due to repeated stimulus. It is not that much thicker than smooth, soft skin, but it is hundreds of times tougher. When you remove the callous, it exposes more sensitive material underneath, and it takes time for that to regrow.

It is well known and well-accepted that pulling the shoes and letting the feet ”rest” HELPS the hoof. If taking the shoes off helps, then is it not logical that shoes HURT the hoof?

It really amazes me what “herd” mentality will allow people to accept as okay when it has no logic. THINK about what you are doing to your animals. They are not human, and do not like human things. The problem is forcing them to live to our standards, not theirs. The sad fact is that a lot of traditional horse keeping practices are not healthy for the horse. Sure, most of the time they seem okay, but the problems show up as lameness, colic, and pain. Shoes may get rid of the symptom, but not the underlying issue. The problem still exists - a hoof that is not performing to the best of its abilities.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time or the inclination to educate the masses. People are resistant to change. As always, I just encourage people to think as much as possible.

The "S" Word

If you want to rile up horsepeople fast, just start a discussion about slaughter. It is more likely to start a flame war on a horse bulletin board than most other topics. People who have opinions on the issue generally have STRONG opinions – and generally, these people are not swayed no matter how much information is put in front of them.

Let’s look at some of the general background on this issue. Horses are defined as livestock, same as cows, pigs, and chickens. They are not labeled as companion animals like cats and dogs. One of the main differences in these labels(generally speaking) is that livestock is a designated food product, and companions are, well – pets. Livestock is generally excluded from land plots smaller than a certain size, and can be generally restricted and/or prohibited from within city limits. Livestock feed, care and services generally file under the lower-tax bracket reserved for farmers. Pet care, feed, and services fall under the normal tax laws. (This means you pay more taxes on pets than on livestock.)

There used to be several equine slaughter plants in the US. These processed the meat for overseas consumption where horsemeat is a delicacy. (Laws making eating horsemeat illegal in the states prohibit domestic consumption.) However, horsemeat can still be processed for other uses, including the rendering of carcasses for glue and pet food. (Euthanised pets are also rendered and recycled into pet food. This practice is partialy to blame for the mad cow disease scare - and the reson some foods have a "ruminant free" label.) Human consumption brings a much higher price, allowing slaughter buyers to make a profit even though they now have to transport horses to Canada or Mexico. Slaughter buyers can pick up horses for between $10-$300 at auctions across the country and make money. People who don’t want to take the time and/or effort to market their horse to a using home can turn a few dollars fast by using an auction.

Why are so many horses available for such a small amount of money? The short answer is: Supply and demand. Certainly, there will always be a few statistical outliers – horses who are not useful (too old or lame) or unmanageable/dangerous/untrainable. However, the steady availability of dirt cheap horses indicates that there are simply more horses available than for which there are homes.

Most horse owners deal with limited space. This is either a lack of horsekeeping facilities or a limit on funds for boarding fees. There is also the issue of usefulness. If someone is into a specific form of competition, then there is frequently a specific range of ages that can compete. For racing, most horses do not make it past their 3yo year. They don’t win enough or don’t hold up to the pressures and break down. A constant crop of new horses is bred and tried before being passed on. It takes a knowledgeable trainer to get these discarded horses ready for usefulness in another discipline – but these trainers are far less numerous than the horses in need of training. This can also be the case with show horses – futurity bids are for 2 and 3 year olds… they are considered “seniors” after this age. People who want to win year after year at these shows have to continually cycle through young prospects. Do you think they just retire all of their older and failed show horses to the back forty? These horses can be expected to live another 20 years past their futurity years…. Very few get to remain with the ones who showed them at a young age.

So - what to do with those horses who are older/not winning? Anyone who has sold a horse can tell you how much a chore it is to find an appropriate home for one horse, nevermind a cadre of horses every year. Pile this up for years on end, and it could be a full-time job just trying to place horses - leaving no time for the showing which is the reason for the sales in the first place. Quick and dirty solution? Run them through the local sale. Sure, you don't get a premuim, but it is done and no longer "their problem".

…to be continued….