Effects of shoeing materials on equine gait

(c) Keseniya Abramova Dreamstime.com

 Horses are often fitted with metal shoes to protect the hoof from wear and to provide additional traction during training and competition. While the practice of shoeing is widespread, the choice of shoe material may influence more than just durability and grip. In particular, subtle changes in gait caused by different shoe types could alter the perceived aesthetic qualities of movement; an important factor in disciplines such as dressage, showing, and other judged sports. However, despite the prevalence of shoeing in equine management, there is relatively little objective scientific evidence on how different shoeing materials influence gait characteristics. 

The two most common metals used in horseshoes are steel and aluminium. Steel is the traditional material, valued for its strength and longevity, while aluminium is lighter and often preferred in certain competitive disciplines, such as racehorsing and showing, because it is believed to produce a more “elevated” or aesthetically pleasing gait. These beliefs are largely anecdotal, and until recently, only a limited amount of research had systematically examined the measurable effects of shoeing on gait mechanics.

To address this gap, Katherine Gottleib and colleagues at the Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, designed a study to investigate whether shoeing condition influences equine gait. Their specific aim was to compare gait parameters in horses under three different conditions: barefoot, aluminium-shod, and steel-shod, while trotting on two surfaces - hard asphalt and soft footing.

 The researchers hypothesised that shoeing would affect hoof arc height during both the early swing phase  and late swing phase of the stride, but that no other gait variables would be influenced.

Twelve healthy, adult, client-owned horses were enrolled in the study. Each horse was fitted with hoof- and body-mounted motion sensors that allowed precise measurement of stride characteristics. Data were collected while the horses trotted on both asphalt and soft footing under the three shoeing conditions (barefoot, aluminium, and steel).

The results provided some interesting insights. For most gait variables - including stride symmetry, mediolateral hoof deviation, stride length, and the timing of midstance, breakover, swing, and landing phases - there were no significant differences between shoeing conditions. However, shoe material did influence hoof arc height. 

Specifically: 

• Early swing phase: hoof arc height was significantly lower in aluminium shoes compared with steel shoes, on both asphalt and soft footing.
• Late swing phase: hoof arc height was significantly higher in aluminium shoes compared with steel shoes, but only on soft footing.

These findings suggest that the weight of the shoe can affect hoof movement differently depending on the stride phase and the surface type. In other words, while aluminium’s lighter weight did not alter overall stride length or timing, it did influence the vertical motion of the hoof at certain points in the stride cycle.

 From a practical perspective, this research indicates that shoe material may subtly alter aspects of gait that could influence how a horse’s movement is perceived by judges or riders in disciplines where style and aesthetics are valued. However, the measured differences were relatively small, and the study did not assess whether these biomechanical changes were noticeable to human observers. 

The authors concluded that further investigation is needed - not only into other shoe materials and designs, but also into whether changes in hoof arc height translate into meaningful differences in the subjective aesthetics of gait as judged by humans.

 

For more details, see: 

 Gottleib, Katherine, Lauren Trager-Burns, Amy Santonastaso, Sophie Bogers, Stephen Werre, Travis Burns, and Christopher Byron. 

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

Animals (2025) vol 15, no. 16: 2376. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162376