FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Comparison of Gait Characteristics for Horses Without Shoes,...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2025; 15(16); 2376; doi: 10.3390/ani15162376

Comparison of Gait Characteristics for Horses Without Shoes, with Steel Shoes, and with Aluminum Shoes.

Abstract: 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 ( < 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 ( < 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 ( < 0.001) and right ( = 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.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-08-13 PubMed ID: 40867705PubMed Central: PMC12383219DOI: 10.3390/ani15162376Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Objective Summary

  • This study examined how different types of horseshoes (barefoot, aluminum, and steel) affect the way horses walk, particularly focusing on specific hoof movements during running on different surfaces.
  • The researchers wanted to see if shoe type influenced certain gait characteristics, especially the height of the hoof during specific parts of the swing phase, and if these differences could impact the perceived aesthetics of a horse’s gait.

Background and Purpose

  • Horseshoes come in various materials, primarily steel and aluminum, which vary in weight and physical properties.
  • Differences in shoe materials could potentially alter how a horse moves, which might change both functional performance and the aesthetic appearance of a horse’s gait.
  • Despite anecdotal beliefs, there is a lack of objective, scientific data on how different shoe materials affect gait mechanics in horses.
  • The study aimed to objectively assess gait characteristics under different shoeing conditions (barefoot, aluminum shoes, and steel shoes) and on different surfaces (hard asphalt and softer footing).
  • The primary hypothesis was that shoeing would influence the hoof arc height during early and late swing phases of the horse’s stride, but would not significantly affect other gait variables such as stride length or timing phases.

Methods

  • Participants: Twelve healthy, adult horses owned by clients were selected for the study.
  • Shoe Conditions: Each horse was tested under three experimental conditions:
    • Barefoot (no shoes)
    • Aluminum shoes
    • Steel shoes
  • Surfaces: Gaits were evaluated on:
    • Asphalt, representing a hard surface
    • Soft footing, representing a softer, more natural surface
  • Data Collection:
    • Sensors were attached to the horses’ bodies and hooves to capture movement data during trotting.
    • Measured variables included hoof arc height during early (arc height a) and late (arc height b) swing phases, gait symmetry (Q score), mediolateral hoof deviation, stride length, and timing of midstance, breakover, swing, and landing stride phases.

Key Findings

  • Gait Symmetry and Timing:
    • No significant differences were found in gait symmetry, lateral hoof deviations, stride length, or phase durations among the different shoeing conditions.
  • Hoof Arc Height:
    • Early Swing Phase (arc height a): Aluminum shoes resulted in significantly lower hoof arc height compared to steel shoes on both forelimbs across both surfaces (p < 0.001).
    • Late Swing Phase (arc height b): Aluminum shoes caused significantly higher hoof arc height than steel shoes on soft footing for both left (p < 0.001) and right (p = 0.02) forelimbs.

Interpretation and Implications

  • The weight and material of horseshoes influence specific aspects of hoof movement during the swing phase of trotting, with aluminum and steel shoes producing different hoof arc heights at distinct times.
  • These effects were consistent across both hard (asphalt) and soft surfaces, indicating that shoe material impacts hoof kinematics regardless of surface type.
  • No significant effects were observed on overall gait symmetry or timing, suggesting that shoe material does not drastically alter the general gait mechanics within the parameters measured.
  • The study’s findings highlight that while shoe materials may not affect broad gait characteristics, they do subtly influence the style of hoof movement, which could contribute to how aesthetically pleasing the gait appears.
  • Further research is encouraged to explore if and how these quantified hoof arc height differences affect subjective perceptions of gait aesthetics among riders, trainers, or judges.

Summary

  • This research provides objective evidence that different horseshoe materials affect specific hoof movement patterns during trotting, specifically the height of the hoof in early and late swing phases.
  • Such biomechanical variations could potentially influence the visual appeal of a horse’s gait, an area needing further investigation.
  • The study enhances understanding of the biomechanical impacts of shoeing, guiding better-informed decisions regarding equine shoe selection related to performance and aesthetics.

Cite This Article

APA
Gottleib K, Trager-Burns L, Santonastaso A, Bogers S, Werre S, Burns T, Byron C. (2025). Comparison of Gait Characteristics for Horses Without Shoes, with Steel Shoes, and with Aluminum Shoes. Animals (Basel), 15(16), 2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162376

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 16
PII: 2376

Researcher Affiliations

Gottleib, Katherine
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Trager-Burns, Lauren
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Santonastaso, Amy
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Bogers, Sophie
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Werre, Stephen
  • Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Burns, Travis
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Byron, Christopher
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.

Grant Funding

  • 180473 / Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 31 references
  1. Huguet EE, Duberstein KJ. Effects of steel and aluminum shoes on forelimb kinematics in stock-type horses as measured at the trot.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2012;32:262–267.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2011.09.069google scholar: lookup
  2. Loushin K, Bailey M. Shoe-Pulling Remains Legal and More Action from USHJA Annual Meeting. The Chronicle of the Horse 2021.
  3. Singer E, Garcia T, Stover S. Hoof position during limb loading affects dorsoproximal bone strains on the equine proximal phalanx.. J. Biomech. 2015;48:1930–1936.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.04.014pubmed: 26003484google scholar: lookup
  4. Hill AE, Gardner IA, Carpenter TE, Stover S. Effects of injury to the suspensory apparatus, exercise, and horseshoe characteristics on the risk of lateral condylar fracture and suspensory apparatus failure in forelimbs of Thoroughbred racehorses.. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2004;65:1508–1517.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.1508pubmed: 15566089google scholar: lookup
  5. Amitrano FN, Gutierrez-Nibeyro SD, Schaeffer DJ. Effect of hoof boots and toe-extension shoes on the forelimb kinetics of horses during walking.. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2016;77:527–533.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.77.5.527pubmed: 27111020google scholar: lookup
  6. Kelleher ME, Burns TD, Werre SR, White NA. The immediate effect of routine hoof trimming and shoeing on horses’ gait.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;102:103633.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103633pubmed: 34119199google scholar: lookup
  7. Aoun R, Takawira C, Lopez M. Horseshoe effects on equine gait–a systematic scoping review.. Vet. Surg. 2025;54:31–51.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.14162pmc: PMC11734879pubmed: 39278729google scholar: lookup
  8. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Harborne D, Brinkley L, Carnall H, Hammond L, Peterson M, Millard S. Influence of speed, ground surface and shoeing condition on hoof breakover duration in galloping Thoroughbred racehorses.. Animals 2021;11:2588.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11092588pmc: PMC8472780pubmed: 34573553google scholar: lookup
  9. Willemen MA, Savelberg HHCM, Barneveld A. The improvement of the gait quality of sound trotting warmblood horses by normal shoeing and its effect on the load on the lower forelimb.. Livestock Prod. Sci. 1997;52:145–153.
    doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00130-9google scholar: lookup
  10. Wickler SJ, Hoyt DF, Clayton HM, Mullineaux DR, Cogger EA, Sandoval E, McGuire R, Lopez C. Energetic and kinematic consequences of weighting the distal limb.. Equine Vet. J. 2004;36:772–777.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044848046pubmed: 15656514google scholar: lookup
  11. Rumpler B, Riha A, Licka T, Kotschwar A, Peham C. Influence of shoes with different weights on the motion of the limbs in Icelandic horses during toelt at different speeds.. Equine Vet. J. 2010;42:451–454.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00231.xpubmed: 21059044google scholar: lookup
  12. Clayton HM. The Dynamic Horse: A Biomechanical Guide to Equine Movement and Performance.. .
  13. Keegan KG, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y, Maki H, Pai F, Dent E, Kellerman TE, Wilson DA, Reed SK. Assessment of repeatability of a wireless, inertial sensor-based lameness evaluation system for horses.. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2011;72:1158–1163.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.72.9.1156pubmed: 21879972google scholar: lookup
  14. McCracken MJ, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, LaCarrubba A, Rasch M. Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation.. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:652–656.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.xpubmed: 22563674google scholar: lookup
  15. Pagliara E, Marenchino M, Antenucci L, Costantini M, Zoppi G, Giacobini MDL, Bullone M, Riccio B, Bertuglia A. Fetlock joint angle pattern and range of motion quantification using two synchronized wearable inertial sensors per limb in sound horses and horses with single limb naturally occurring lameness.. Vet. Sci. 2022;9:456.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci9090456pmc: PMC9502055pubmed: 36136672google scholar: lookup
  16. Hagen J, Jung F.T, Brouwer J, Bos R. Detection of equine hoof motion by using a hoof-mounted inertial measurement unit sensor in comparison to examinations with an optoelectronic technique—A pilot study. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;101:103454.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103454pubmed: 33993950google scholar: lookup
  17. Hagen J, Bos R, Brouwer J, Lux S, Jung F.T. Influence of trimming, hoof angle and shoeing on breakover duration in sound horses examined with hoof-mounted inertial sensors. Vet. Rec. 2021;189:e450.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.450pubmed: 33993524google scholar: lookup
  18. Crecan C.M, Pestean C.P. Inertial sensor technologies-Their role in equine gait analysis, a review. Sensors 2023;23:6301.
    doi: 10.3390/s23146301pmc: PMC10386433pubmed: 37514599google scholar: lookup
  19. Reed S.K, Kramer J, Thombs L, Pitts J.B, Wilson D.A, Keegan K.G. Comparison of results for body-mounted intertial sensor assessment with final lameness determination in 1,224 equids. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2020;256:590–599.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.256.5.590pubmed: 32068513google scholar: lookup
  20. Singleton W.H, Clayton H.M, Lanovaz J.L, Prades M. Effects of shoeing on forelimb swing phase kinetics of trotting horses. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2003;16:16–20.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632749google scholar: lookup
  21. Lanovaz J.L, Clayton H.M. Sensitivity of forelimb swing phase inverse dynamics to inertial parameter errors. Equine Vet. J. 2001;33:27–31.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2001.tb05353.xpubmed: 11721563google scholar: lookup
  22. Mendez-Angulo J.L, Firshman A.M, Groschen D.M, Kieffer P.J, Trumble T.N. Impact of walking surface on the range of motion of equine distal limb joints for rehabilitation purposes. Vet. J. 2014;199:413–418.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.12.001pubmed: 24556081google scholar: lookup
  23. Bowker R.M, Lancaster L.S, Isbell D.A. Morphological evaluation of Merkel cells and small lamellated sensory receptors in the equine foot. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2017;78:659–667.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.78.6.659pubmed: 28541151google scholar: lookup
  24. Hagen J, Geburek F, Kathrinaki V, Naem M.A, Roecken M, Hoffmann J. Effect of perineural anesthesia on the centre of pressure (COP) path during stance phase at trot in sound horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;101:103429.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103429pubmed: 33993942google scholar: lookup
  25. Haussler K.K, le Jeune S.S, MacKechnie-Guire R, Latif S.N, Clayton H.M. The challenge of defining laterality in horses is it laterality or just asymmetry?. Animals 2025;15:288.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15030288pmc: PMC11816311pubmed: 39943060google scholar: lookup
  26. Lanovaz J.L, Clayton H.M, Colborne G.R, Schamhardt H.C. Forelimb kinematics and net joint moments during the swing phase of the trot. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 1999;30:235–239.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05225.xpubmed: 10659259google scholar: lookup
  27. Parkes R.S, Weller R, Groth A.M, May S, Pfau T. Evidence of the development of ‘domain-restricted’ expertise in the recognition of asymmetric motion characteristics of hindlimb lameness in the horse. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:112–117.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X343000pubmed: 19418737google scholar: lookup
  28. Asti V, Ablondi M, Molle A, Zanotti A, Vasini M, Sabbioni A. Inertial measurement unit technology for gait detection: A comprehensive evaluation of gait traits in two Italian horse breeds. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024;11:1459553.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1459553pmc: PMC11521968pubmed: 39479203google scholar: lookup
  29. Balch O.K, Clayton H.M, Lanovaz J.L. Weight- and length-induced changes in limb kinematics in trotting horses. Proceedings of the Annual Convention American Association of Equine Practitioners; Denver, CO, USA. 8–11 December 1996; pp. 218–219.
  30. Serra Bragança FM, Brommer H, van den Belt AJM, Maree JTM, van Weeren PR, Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan MM. Subjective and objective evaluations of horses for fit-to-compete or unfit-to-compete judgement. Vet. J. 2020;257:105454.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2020.105454pubmed: 32546354google scholar: lookup
  31. de Chiara M, Montano C, De Matteis A, Guidi L, Buono F, Auletta L, Del Prete C, Pasolini MP. Agreement between subjective gait assessment and markerless video gait-analysis in endurance horses. Equine Vet. J. 2025. epub ahead of print.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14516pmc: PMC12699118pubmed: 40257418google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,000 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.