Over the past decade, the barefoot movement has shifted from a niche philosophy to a mainstream conversation within the equestrian industry. What was once considered alternative is now, for many, positioned as a welfare-led default. At its core, the movement is rooted in a simple idea that the equine hoof evolved to function without shoes. Advocates argue that, given the right conditions, modern horses can return to this “natural” state, supporting better biomechanics, circulation, and long-term soundness. But like many welfare-driven trends, the rise of barefoot has been accelerated by the accessibility of information. Social media, owner-led experimentation, and growing scepticism of traditional practices have all contributed to a shift in mindset. The question has now diverted from whether barefoot is possible to whether it is better.
The Case for Barefoot
From a biomechanical perspective, there is evidence to suggest that removing shoes allows for greater hoof function. Research published in The Veterinary Journal found that conventional shoeing can reduce heel expansion by over 36% compared to barefoot conditions, indicating a restriction in the hoof’s natural movement (Clayton, Gray and Kaiser, 2019). This matters because the hoof mechanism (its ability to expand and contract) plays a role in shock absorption and circulation within the distal limb.
Similarly, motion analysis studies have shown increased hoof deformation and mobility in unshod horses, with greater expansion and contraction during movement (Dyson and Murray, 2007). These findings support the idea that barefoot hooves may interact more dynamically with the ground.
There is also emerging discussion around internal hoof health. Some studies suggest that horses capable of performing barefoot may have differences in hoof composition and structure, indicating that certain hooves are better adapted to withstand wear without protection (Hampson et al., 2023).
Taken together, the argument for barefoot is compelling. A system that allows the hoof to function as intended, potentially supporting more natural movement patterns. But this is only one side of the conversation.
The Case for Shoes
While barefoot advocates often frame shoes as restrictive, their role in modern equine management is far more nuanced. Shoes exist not simply as a tradition, but as a tool.
In many cases, they provide protection from excessive wear, particularly in horses working on hard, abrasive, or artificial surfaces. They can also offer mechanical support, redistribute load, and assist in managing pathology, from conformational imbalances to lameness (O’Grady and Poupard, 2003).
Even within research exploring barefoot benefits, there is no definitive conclusion that barefoot is universally superior. For example, while hoof expansion may be reduced with conventional shoes, alternative shoeing designs can mitigate these effects, suggesting that shoeing itself is not a singular, fixed approach (Clayton, Gray and Kaiser, 2019).
Perhaps more importantly, the demands we place on horses today are fundamentally different from those of feral populations. Performance horses, in particular, operate within environments and workloads that may exceed what the unprotected hoof can comfortably tolerate (van Heel, van Weeren and Back, 2019). In this context, shoes are less about overriding nature and more about adapting to modern use.
What Does the Science Say?
If the debate feels polarised, the science is anything but. One of the challenges in interpreting hoof research is that findings are often highly specific. A controlled study may demonstrate differences in hoof shape, movement, or loading, but these results don’t always translate directly to real-world outcomes like soundness or performance. For example, a crossover study published in Animals found measurable differences in hoof morphology between shod and barefoot horses over just seven weeks, including changes in hoof angle and circumference (Willemen, Savelberg and Barneveld, 1999). These findings highlight that shoeing does influence hoof structure, but they stop short of defining whether those changes are inherently beneficial or detrimental.
This is a recurring theme across the literature. We can measure differences. We can observe biomechanical variation. But long-term, large-scale evidence linking barefoot or shod management to definitive welfare outcomes remains limited (O’Grady and Poupard, 2003). In other words, the science provides insight, but not a universal answer.
The Role of Environment and Management
One of the most consistent threads across both research and practice is that hoof health is not determined by shoes alone. Surface, workload, nutrition, and overall management play a critical role in how the hoof develops and performs (van Heel, van Weeren and Back, 2019). A horse living on varied, abrasive terrain may naturally condition its hooves to withstand barefoot work. The same horse, kept on soft pasture and suddenly asked to work on hard ground, may struggle without protection.
Even within barefoot systems, success is rarely passive. It often requires careful trimming, controlled exposure to surfaces, and, in many cases, the use of hoof boots during transition or increased workload (O’Grady and Poupard, 2003). This aligns with broader equine welfare research, which increasingly emphasises environment as a primary driver of physical outcomes, not just individual interventions.
Individual Horses, Individual Needs
Perhaps the most important takeaway, and the one most often overlooked in online debate, is variability. Not all hooves are created equal. Differences in hoof quality, conformation, genetics, and previous management all influence whether a horse can comfortably perform barefoot. Research into hoof composition suggests that structural differences at a tissue level may affect a horse’s ability to tolerate barefoot workloads (Hampson et al., 2023). Equally, transition matters. Horses that have been shod long-term may require time and careful management to adapt, and not all will do so successfully (O’Grady and Poupard, 2003).
This is where the conversation often becomes oversimplified. The question is not “barefoot or shod?”, but “what does this individual horse need, in this environment, for this job?”
Finding the Right Approach for Your Horse
The barefoot trend has undoubtedly brought valuable attention to hoof function, biomechanics, and the importance of questioning long-standing practices. But like any trend, it risks becoming binary. The reality is more complex, and arguably more useful.
For some horses, barefoot management may support healthier movement and long-term resilience. For others, shoes remain an essential tool for protection, performance, or rehabilitation. Rather than viewing the debate as a choice between two opposing camps, there is value in reframing it altogether. Not as barefoot versus shod, but as a spectrum of hoof care strategies, shaped by evidence, experience, and the individual in front of you.
Reference List
Clayton, H.M., Gray, S. and Kaiser, L.J. (2019) ‘Effects of barefoot trimming and shoeing on hoof mechanics’, The Veterinary Journal.
Dyson, S. and Murray, R. (2007) ‘Management factors affecting lameness and performance in horses’, Equine Veterinary Education, 19(10), pp. 536–542.
Hampson, B.A., de Laat, M.A., Mills, P.C. and Pollitt, C.C. (2023) ‘Distal hoof wall structure and its relationship to function and stress in horses’, Journal of Animal Science. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad346
O’Grady, S.E. and Poupard, D.A. (2003) ‘Physiological horseshoeing: an overview’, Equine Veterinary Education, 15(3), pp. 160–167.
van Heel, M.C.V., van Weeren, P.R. and Back, W. (2019) ‘Shoeing affects the hoof shape and the kinematics of the distal limb in horses’, Animals, 9(12), 1118.
Willemen, M.A., Savelberg, H.H.C.M. and Barneveld, A. (1999) ‘The effect of orthopaedic shoeing on the force exerted by the deep digital flexor tendon’, Equine Veterinary Journal, 31(1), pp. 25–30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03792.x