A practical history of barefoot hoof research: what we know, what we don’t, and why context matters 1. Where the modern “barefoot” conversation began
Jaime Jackson was among the first to popularise observations of wild U.S. mustang feet in an arid, abrasive environment. He argued that natural movement over firm ground produced short toes, thick soles, and robust frogs, and that domestic horses might benefit if their living conditions and trims encouraged similar function. His Natural Horse(1992) and Paddock Paradise (2006) introduced the idea of track systems to promote movement and environmental variety. These works are foundational for many barefoot programmes, although they are primarily observational rather than controlled clinical trials (Jackson, 1992; Jackson, 2006).
Typical hoof wear pattern from the Hacksin Study in the Great Basin
Gene Ovnicek approached the foot through functional balance, developing methods to locate the distal interphalangeal joint’s centre of rotation from external landmarks. His “natural balance” work emphasised breakover placement and sole support, applicable to both barefoot and shod horses, and provided radiographic data to support a function-based rather than aesthetic approach (Ovnicek, 1995).
Ovnicek, following on from Fave Duckett FWCF, focused on hoof mapping the point if breakover
Mike Savoldi advanced similar ideas through hoof mapping, stressing the importance of uniform sole thickness as a safeguard for the internal foot. Like Jackson, his contributions have been widely adopted in practice, even though they are largely practitioner-driven rather than peer-reviewed (Savoldi, 1998).
Mike Savoldi of Cal Poly advocated hoof maintenance based on the concept of uniform sole thickness as an indicator of the plane
Of the coffin bone
2. The Brumby studies and why they mattered
To test whether the feral foot truly represents an “ideal model,” Brian Hampson and Chris Pollitt led a series of peer-reviewed studies in Australia. Two clear findings emerged:
Environment drives hoof form. Across multiple feral populations, harder substrates and greater daily mileage produced shorter toes, thicker soles, and different wear patterns compared with softer environments (Hampson et al., 2013a).
External form does not guarantee internal health. Radiographs and histology revealed that apparently “good” external hooves could harbour internal pathology, reminding us that appearances can be misleading (Hampson et al., 2013b).
Earlier studies of New Zealand’s Kaimanawa horses likewise found high rates of abnormalities, suggesting that a softer environment produces less self-trimming and more conformational issues (Hampson et al., 2010). These findings highlight that there is no single “feral model”; hoof shape is heavily context-dependent.
Hampsons ground breaking Brumby studies revealed
That a similar Nature and levels of pathology were prevalent in both feral and Domestic horse populations.
3. Other strands of influence.
Robert Bowker’s anatomical and microvascular studies explored the digital cushion, frog and lateral cartilages as shock-absorbing structures. He demonstrated that robust fibrocartilage development depends on frequent frog loading, especially in young horses, and argued that firm varied surfaces stimulate stronger internal structures (Bowker, 1998; Bowker, 2003).
Domestic conformation studies have since shown that changes in toe length and hoof angle alter the centre of pressure and moments on the distal interphalangeal joint, providing mechanistic evidence that balance—rather than any single shape—is critical for soundness (Roepstorff, 2001).
Bowker concentrated on hemodynamic and differentials in cartilage composition between feral and domestic feet.
4. Methods and environments: why conclusions differ
Study type. Jackson and Savoldi wrote largely from observation and experience, whereas Hampson and Pollitt employed controlled sampling, radiographs, and histology.
Environment. The arid Great Basin mustangs Jackson studied differ radically from wetter or softer environments such as Sable Island or the Kaimanawa ranges. The hoof that environment creates is not universal.
Measures of success. Some authors emphasised external conformation, while others looked at radiographic and histological health. This divergence explains why “good looking” feet may not always mean “healthy inside.”
5. Barefoot versus shod: morphology and pathology
Studies comparing feral and domestic hooves consistently show that feral feet vary widely, sometimes with notable abnormalities (Hampson et al., 2010). Domestic studies confirm that shoeing and trimming cycles influence hoof mechanics, but they also highlight that management factors such as turnout, footing and diet are equally powerful (Mellish et al., 2023).
Metabolic health is also critical. Horses predisposed to insulin dysregulation or obesity show lamellar weakness regardless of whether they are barefoot or shod (Senderska-Płonowska et al., 2022).
Farriery scholars such as Miller (2014) have cautioned against uncritical adoption of the feral model, emphasising that domestic management, workload and conformation mean that hoof care must remain multifaceted.
6. Practical implications
Environment matters most. Surfaces and mileage determine wear patterns, frog use and sole robustness.
Function-based trimming is essential. External landmarks can guide breakover and heel support but should be validated by radiographs where appropriate.
Expect variation. Different disciplines and terrains require different trimming or protection strategies.
Metabolic health underpins hoof resilience. No trim or shoe can overcome poor systemic health.
Farriery and barefoot are both tools. Boots, pads and shoes remain valid when environmental conditions or workloads exceed the natural hoof’s limits.
The evidence strongly suggests that hoof health, form and function are heavily influenced by the environment
References
Bowker, R.M. (1998). Functional anatomy of the cartilage of the distal phalanx and digital cushion in the equine foot. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 59, 961–968.
Bowker, R.M. (2003). Contrasting structural morphologies of “good” and “bad” footed horses. Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation White Paper.
Hampson, B.A., de Laat, M.A., Pollitt, C.C. et al. (2010). Morphometry and abnormalities of the feet of Kaimanawa feral horses in New Zealand. Australian Veterinary Journal, 88, 124–131.
Hampson, B.A., de Laat, M.A., Mills, P.C., Walsh, D.M. & Pollitt, C.C. (2013a). The feral horse foot. Part A: Observational study of the effect of environment on morphometrics. Australian Veterinary Journal, 91, 14–22.
Hampson, B.A., de Laat, M.A., Mills, P.C., Walsh, D.M. & Pollitt, C.C. (2013b). The feral horse foot. Part B: Radiographic and histopathological assessment. Australian Veterinary Journal, 91, 23–30.
Jackson, J. (1992). The Natural Horse: Lessons from the Wild. North Pomfret: Trafalgar Square.
Jackson, J. (2006). Paddock Paradise: A Guide to Natural Horse Boarding. Star Ridge Publishing.
Mellish, M.A., et al. (2023). Visual and morphometric description of feral horse hooves (Sable Island). Canadian Veterinary Journal, 64, 987–995.
Miller, M. (2014). The limitations of the feral model in domestic horses. Fellowship Thesis, Worshipful Company of Farriers.
Ovnicek, G. (1995). Natural balance hoof care: using external reference points to locate internal structures. Practitioner publication.
Roepstorff, L. (2001). Influence of hoof conformation and trimming on equine locomotion. Equine Veterinary Journal, 33(6), 561–565.
Savoldi, M. (1998). Hoof mapping and uniform sole thickness principles. Practitioner paper.
Senderska-Płonowska, M., et al. (2022). Histological changes in lamellae associated with equine metabolic syndrome. Animals, 12(15), 1954