03/22/2026
This schema illustrates very well that conformation and tendon length have a major impact on the hoof angle and shape. And as a result, on the actual angle of P3.
As farriers, we cannot change the length of tendons. And as such, can only manage conformation imbalance. We unfortunately cannot "fix" poor conformation.
What creates the matrix – hoof geometry and limb conformation relationship
Hoof geometry – limb conformation relationship goes both ways... but it is not symmetrical.
Hoof geometry can influence DDFT tension and fetlock position to some degree (the second one being very individual and quite unpredictable).
On the other hand, from what I’ve observed, it is the baseline DDFT tension and the individual fetlock biomechanics that shape the long-term morphology of the hoof. This baseline is the result of the entire limb configuration (conformation + posture + body mass + movement patterns + use).
Fetlock position depends on multiple factors (suspensory ligament, SDFT, and to a lesser extent DDFT and more) – and in turn influences the tension in both tendons.
What we are dealing with is not a simple cause-and-effect, but a complex system.
Trimming and shoeing change hoof geometry directly and can influence that system. However, angles and alignment at one moment are not the same as morphology.
Two hooves can show identical angles right after trimming, yet have completely different load distribution and internal relationships.
Alignment may look similar - but each hoof will continue to grow in its own direction.
There are feet that stay stable for weeks or months with almost no intervention.
There are those that rapidly grow the toe, chronically crush the heels and overload the frog.
And those that grow excessive heel, compress the toe and tend to flare.
Some improve quickly after correction and stay that way. Others remain persistently painful in the heels, under the navicular region or at the sole. All of them may have been trimmed to exactly the same angles.
This is where the asymmetry of the hoof geometry - limb biomechanics relationship becomes critical.
Changing geometry can influence the system - but the system responds differently depending on its setup and limits.
Lowering the palmar angle and lengthening the toe does increase DDFT tension - but increasing tension in a low-angle foot (one with insufficient baseline DDFT tension) will not create a club foot (which comes from excessive baseline DDFT tension).
Baseline tension is one of the factors that defines the range we can actually work within and the natural tendencies of that specific hoof.
Can we help distorted feet? In most cases – yes, sometimes a lot.
Should we correct them? Absolutely – but while respecting the limits of the tissues.
Are we able to create ideal morphology on every hoof? Unlikely.
We need to find the best possible form for each foot, define the best trimming cycle and optional shoeing solutions.
A corrected, fully functional foot may still have a bit of underrun heels. It may still be a bit elongated or steep in PA if the DDFT doesn’t allow it to go lower. Some bowing in the coronary band may persist. The HPA may not be fully alignable.
When we leave different feet unattended, they distort in many possible ways depending on the factors above. This is exactly what the 3×3 matrix illustrates – different distortion tendencies depending on limb biomechanics, showing where the hoof is being shaped from internally.
The colours represent different DCA tendencies: yellow - normal range, red - narrow, blue - wide.
P.S. Funny how someone in the comments called limb and body conformation ‘external’ factors in reference to hoof morphology. A little reminder – the hoof is part of the horse, that's the point.
Link to Part 5 of the DCA series that elaborates on the above mentioned aspects in the comment.
