03/17/2026
There seems to be a very thin line between:
'Every hoof should look like this - otherwise itโs unbalanced.'
And:
'Whatever the hoof looks like, it should stay that way.'
The first view often comes from people who work with very few horses, or from pure theory.
The second often comes from burnt out practitioners who have seen too many hooves that refuse to change - or only improve temporarily before returning to the same problems.
Whilst both positions are understandable to some degree, they are both also very limiting.
Because if every hoof must look the same, then we ignore biology.
If nothing can change, then we ignore biomechanics.
I believe the line between those 2 extremes is exactly where the true science lies, and where the most space for real understanding and development exists.
What if the shape of the hoof is not random or 'just' created by the vague and misterious 'conformation' - but it is determined by a specific set of underlying biomechanical factors?
Understanding those factors may allow us to do much more than just try and make the hoof look an ideal or than trim everything to a fixed method.
It may allow us to understand why they look the way they do, what problems we may be dealing with in this specific type of a hoof, what forces are we fighting, where the potential pathologies may be expected, what intervention may be needed and what limitations to expect. It may help predict growth tendencies, localize areas that need special protection and help develop a more comprehensive plan to help each individual limb in the best possible way.
This is exactly what I try to explore in the DCA series, including a proposed framework of nine dorsopalmar hoof types based on limb conformation and load distribution.
Link to the latest article (Part 5) in the comments.