Differences in horseshoe materials may have effects on gait that could change perceived esthetic qualities. Objective information regarding effects of shoeing on gait characteristics of horses is scant. The aim of this study was to determine differences in gait characteristics for horses under various experimental shoeing conditions (barefoot, aluminum shoes, steel shoes) on two surfaces (asphalt and soft footing) using body- and hoof-mounted sensors. We hypothesized that shoeing would affect hoof arc height during early (arc height a) and late (arc height b) swing phases but would not affect other gait variables. Twelve healthy, adult, client-owned horses were evaluated at a trot on asphalt and soft footing under the three experimental shoeing conditions. No significant (p < 0.05) effects of shoeing were detected for gait symmetry (Q score), mediolateral hoof deviation, stride length, or midstance, breakover, swing, and landing stride phase times. Hoof arc height a was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for aluminum versus steel shoes for right and left forelimbs on asphalt and soft footing. Hoof arc height b was significantly higher for aluminum versus steel shoes on soft footing for left (p < 0.001) and right (p = 0.02) forelimbs. Findings indicate that shoe weights affect early and late swing phase hoof heights differently. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether measured hoof arc height changes affect subjective esthetics of gait.

Background: Heel movement is critical to shock absorption and vascular perfusion of the equine digit. Conventional horseshoeing techniques are suspected to restrict natural hoof deformation, affecting hoof biomechanics. Several studies have explored the effects of shoeing on hoof function, though many have been limited to artificial conditions, cadavers, or homogenous populations. Objective: We aimed to compare the effects of two aluminium shoeing techniques, nail‐on versus indirect glue‐on fabric cuff shoes, on heel movement in horses. Our objective was to determine which technique allowed greater heel movement on hard and soft footing. Study Design: A controlled in vivo experimental study using a repeated‐measures design. Methods: Fifteen healthy horses underwent three trials: (1) indirect glue‐on fabric cuff shoes, (2) barefoot, and (3) aluminium nail‐on shoes. A displacement sensor was affixed to the heels of one forelimb. Measurements were taken on hard and soft footing. Data were analysed using mixed‐model ANOVA to determine differences in heel movement. Results: Heel movement was significantly greater when barefoot ( p < 0.0001). Mean heel displacement for the walk on hard ground was highest in barefoot horses (3.03 ± 0.67 mm), followed by glue‐on shoes (2.23 ± 0.58 mm), and aluminium nail‐on shoes (1.96 ± 0.48 mm). At the trot, mean heel movement was greatest in barefoot horses (3.29 ± 0.62 mm), followed by glue‐on shoes (2.56 ± 0.55 mm), and aluminium nail‐on shoes (2.12 ± 0.47 mm). Main Limitations: The two main limitations were: (1) The lack of an absolute zero baseline measurement, preventing differentiating between heel expansion and contraction. (2) Low heel conformation in some horses prevented recordings on soft footing, reducing the statistical power. Conclusions: This study reinforces previous findings that shoeing restricts heel movement. Indirect glue‐on shoes allow for more heel movement than nail‐on shoes at the trot; both techniques limit heel movement compared to barefoot.