21/06/2025
What is the equine foot? Depends who you ask.
Even the world’s leading researchers and clinicians in hoof science don’t all agree on what the foot is for, what its primary structures do, or how best to manage them. And yet, each of them has contributed essential insight to the modern understanding of hoof form and function.
Here’s a breakdown of some of the most influential voices in the field — and where their views converge and diverge.
Dr Chris Pollitt (Australia – Equine Laminitis Research Unit)
Pollitt’s work fundamentally altered our understanding of laminitis. He used histology, vascular perfusion studies and cadaver models to show how the lamellar attachment fails before displacement of the pedal bone occurs. He framed the hoof primarily as a protective, vascularly sensitive structure with form closely linked to blood flow and systemic function.
> Key view: Laminitis is a vascular and inflammatory condition that begins at the microscopic level — not merely a mechanical issue.
Dr Robert Bowker (USA – Michigan State University)
Bowker introduced the “caudal foot” concept — elevating the importance of the frog, digital cushion, and lateral cartilages in shock absorption, energy dissipation, and proprioception. He argues that most domestic horses have underdeveloped caudal structures due to lack of stimulation, and that steel shoes often inhibit healthy function.
> Key view: The foot is a living, sensory organ — the back of the foot is vital for circulation, feedback and resilience.
Mike Savoldi (USA – Farrier and Educator)
Mike Savoldi champions the “live sole plane” as the reference point for internal balance. He asserts that hoof distortions are often human-made, and correctable by trimming to natural internal boundaries. His work focuses more on alignment and proportion than on caudal foot theory.
> Key view: Hoof distortions are mechanical and can be corrected through precise trimming guided by internal structures.
Dr Jenny Savoldi (UK – Comparative Anatomist)
Jenny Savoldi’s in-depth dissections and tissue mapping challenge conventional hoof diagrams. Her work reveals complex connective tissues and highly individual structural variability, particularly in the fibrocartilaginous zones. She questions static models of what is “correct”.
> Key view: The foot is more complex — and more individually variable — than textbook diagrams suggest. There is no single “normal”.
Dr Debra Taylor (USA – Equine Clinical Vet, Auburn University)
Taylor bridges research and rehabilitation. She supports Bowker’s theories on internal development and believes in promoting tissue regeneration through loading and movement. While she sees value in barefoot rehab, she’s pragmatic about the need for protection and individualisation.
> Key view: Healthy feet remodel when stimulated appropriately — but rehab must be tailored and evidence-based.
Dr Hilary Clayton (USA – Equine Biomechanics Researcher)
Clayton takes a dynamic view: hooves must be considered in motion. Her research shows how hoof conformation affects stride, breakover, and ground interaction. She stresses that trimming and shoeing choices directly influence biomechanical loading.
> Key view: The hoof doesn’t function in isolation — movement and loading patterns shape both form and outcome.
Dr Renate Weller (UK – Veterinary Anatomist, RVC)
Weller brings a systems approach. Her work on navicular disease, hoof conformation and limb biomechanics reveals how whole-body asymmetry and external forces affect hoof pathology. She’s vocal about the need for evidence-based education and data-driven change in farriery and vet practice.
> Key view: The hoof must be viewed as part of a larger biomechanical system — and scientific rigour must trump tradition.
Dr Jenny Hagen (Germany – Leipzig University)
Hagen’s research focuses on the locomotor system, and she’s a strong advocate for integrative hoof science. She has published extensively on the influence of hoof shape on gait, loading, and joint stress, especially in performance horses. She supports models that integrate dynamic force distribution with internal anatomical integrity.
> Key view: Hoof shape and balance directly affect locomotor function. The foot must support efficient, pain-free movement — and it must be evaluated dynamically, not just statically.
Do they agree on anything?
Surprisingly — yes.
- The hoof is not static. All agree that the equine foot is a living, dynamic structure, constantly remodelling in response to use, environment and management.
- Internal structures matter. Whether they emphasise the laminae (Pollitt), the digital cushion (Bowker/Taylor), the distal phalanx (Savoldi), or connective tissue zones (J. Savoldi), they all agree that what happens inside the hoof is more important than external appearance alone.
- Mechanical balance affects health. Regardless of method, they recognise that poor hoof mechanics can cause or exacerbate pathology — whether through incorrect trimming, shoeing, or loading.
- Hoof care must be individualised. There is no one-size-fits-all. Every horse has different conformation, movement, workload, and pathology risk — and the hoof responds accordingly.
- Evidence matters. These researchers are united in their call for a more evidence-based approach, and a move away from purely traditional or anecdotal methods.
The foot is alive. It adapts. And it deserves to be understood in all its complexity.
