Gower Equine Podiatry - Gabby Wilcox

19/05/2026

LAMINITIS PREVENTION

It’s not about body fat. It's not even about grass.
It’s about insulin.

Yes, body fat and "lush" grass intake are often seen in laminitic horses - but they’re not the cause. Hyperinsulinemia is. I’ve seen this with my own eyes, during professional experience in undergrad with the Pollitt research group—where laminitis was experimentally induced by high insulin alone, in lean STB horses, with no access to grass. If you want to prevent the most common form of laminitis, you need to focus on what’s driving it.

Fat is more often a symptom or indicator in insulin dysregulated horses—not the root cause. Some overweight horses stay metabolically normal (and therefore laminitis-free), especially on low sugar/starch diets (and there is scientific evidence to support this). Some lean horses are insulin resistant and suffer terribly with laminitis despite perfect condition. That tells us fat is a risk marker, not a reliable trigger. The research around adipose tissue (fat) and inflammatory products is very contradictory in horses and there is no clear link between inflammation and insulin in horses to date - so let's stick to what we DO know.

Based on what we currently know, reducing insulin usually means keeping sugars and starches low across all parts of the diet, which will often result in fat loss also. Lower sugars --> lower insulin --> lower fat NOT the other way around.

Grass can be a factor, yes—but it's just one piece of the puzzle. And if you follow this page, you'll know that grass is not always high in sugar. I personally caused a flare up in Hakon's first bout of laminitis by assuming the grass the problem, taking him off it and feeding more hay. Turned out the hay was too high in sugar, and the grass was fine.

In most cases, keeping the diet low sugar/starch will do the trick, but we also have to acknowledge that not all cases respond to diet. Some horses remain laminitis-prone with high insulin despite doing everything “right”—which means there are other triggers at play that we don’t yet fully understand. It’s likely multifactorial, especially for these outliers. There are many other things that raise insulin (transport, stress, corticosteroids, pregnancy, hormonal conditions and season are among those we know of) who knows what other environmental/plant components might do the same?

So if you want two ways to prevent laminitis...

1. Reduce insulin.
2. Reduce insulin.

How you do that depends on your context.

17/05/2026

‼️ LAMINITIS WARNING ‼️ The weather is cooler, the Laminitis Risk app says the risk is low, and yet horses are dropping like flies. I’ve had half a dozen calls in the last few days letting me know of a laminitis diagnosis, and most of them are big warmbloody, finer types. Samson (pictured) is fine with careful management by the way.

I’m no grass geek, but I know that sunshine and rain along with mild temperatures make the grass grow extra fast. I also hear that last year’s drought forced the grass to send its roots down deeper looking for moisture. And the deeper you go, the more nutrients you find. Then when the conditions are right for growth…. Disaster.

Laminitis does not just affect horses with metabolic disorders or insulin resistance. The change from dry hay cut last summer to what’s growing out there now is drastic. The gut biome is set up for fibre and is suddenly being fed sugar which causes uproar on the inside. It’s a very easy trap to fall into, so please check pulses, supraorbital fossa (the concave place above the eyes) and crests daily. Be watching for discomfort when turning, footiness, fat pads, swollen sheath/underside, and puffy fetlocks. Please please don’t be caught out

09/05/2026

NAILED

EPISODE 8: TRANSITION

Removing a horse's shoes is straightforward. What follows is not.

The gap between how transition is described in barefoot literature and what actually happens in practice is wide enough to be worth examining honestly.

WHAT TRANSITION ACTUALLY IS

Transition is the period during which a previously shod foot adjusts to functioning without a shoe. It is not a single event. It is a process — biological, mechanical, and management-dependent — with a timeline that varies between individual horses and is not reliably predictable.

The foot that comes off a shoe is not simply a bare foot waiting to express its natural function. It is a foot that has been in a particular mechanical environment for months or years. The bearing surface has been defined by the shoe. The sole has not been in direct ground contact. The frog may have had limited stimulus. Internal structures have adapted — or failed to adapt — to whatever that environment provided.

Removing the shoe changes the environment. How the foot responds, how quickly, and how completely depends on factors that shoe removal itself cannot determine.

WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS

Controlled research specifically on the transition process is limited. Most published work captures short-term morphometric changes — hoof shape measurements over weeks — rather than the full adaptive trajectory from shod to functionally barefoot. Longitudinal studies tracking horses through a complete transition to working soundness are scarce.

What the research does show is that hoof shape changes measurably when horses move from shod to barefoot conditions. Hoof angle tends to increase. Solar circumference increases. The proximal hoof circumference — the measurement at the coronary band — decreases less than in shod horses, suggesting the coronary band is under less compression. These changes begin within weeks and are measurable at seven weeks.

What the research does not show is a reliable timeline for when transition is complete, because completion is not a single measurable event. A horse whose hoof angle has normalised may still have inadequate sole depth for the work required. A horse whose sole has thickened may still show sensitivity on certain substrates. A horse that appears sound in the field may show discomfort under saddle on hard ground.

A full hoof capsule is estimated to take approximately twelve months to grow from coronary band to ground surface in many horses — a biological estimate that sets a general ceiling on how quickly structural change can occur, but one that varies with individual growth rate, nutrition, and season. It does not guarantee that twelve months produces a foot capable of any given workload on any given surface.

THE SENSITIVITY QUESTION

Post-removal sensitivity is one of the most contested aspects of transition.

Some barefoot literature has framed sensitivity as part of a detoxification or adaptation narrative — the foot recovering its sensory function. The research supports a more mechanical explanation: inadequate sole depth for direct ground contact, altered loading patterns the foot has not yet adapted to, and in some cases subclinical pathology that the shoe was masking. These are not mutually exclusive in every horse, and the picture can include pathology, substrate issues, and loading adaptation simultaneously. But the mechanical explanation is more consistent with what is measurable than framing sensitivity as a necessary phase of recovery.

The distinction matters practically. A foot that is sensitive because it lacks sole depth for the surface being asked of it needs protection — boots, surface modification, workload reduction — while it develops. A foot that is sensitive because something is wrong needs investigation, not the assumption that sensitivity is a normal and expected part of the process.

Treating all post-removal sensitivity as transitional and temporary is one of the places where barefoot management has sometimes failed horses. Some sensitivity resolves as the foot develops. Some does not — and the difference is not always apparent without objective assessment.

WHAT DETERMINES TRANSITION OUTCOMES

The research and clinical experience are reasonably consistent on what predicts a successful transition.

Existing foot quality matters most. A horse with adequate sole depth, reasonable wall thickness, good horn quality, and no underlying pathology before shoe removal has significantly more margin than one with thin soles, compromised horn, underrun heels, or a history of pathology. Removing shoes from a foot that was already struggling does not address what the foot was struggling with.

Environment is the second most important variable. Horses with access to varied, firm substrate — track systems, gravel, mixed terrain — tend to develop faster and more robustly than horses maintained on consistently soft or wet ground. The stimulus the foot receives directly influences the adaptation it makes. A horse standing on deep sand or wet grass for twenty-three hours a day and ridden for one on tarmac is not being given conditions in which the foot can develop.

Nutrition affects horn quality and growth rate. Diets high in non-structural carbohydrates, or deficient in copper, zinc, and biotin, compromise the quality of horn being produced. A transition attempted on inadequate nutrition is working against biology.

Workload and surface must be matched to where the foot actually is, not where the owner hopes it will be. Gradually increasing contact with varied surfaces is consistently supported in clinical practice. Asking a recently de-shod foot to perform the same work on the same surfaces without protection is not a transition strategy — it is an assumption that the foot is ready when it may not be.

WHERE THE NARRATIVE HAS OUTRUN THE EVIDENCE

The transition narrative in barefoot literature contains several assumptions that deserve scrutiny.

The first is that all horses can transition successfully given adequate time and management. Some horses do not develop adequate foot for the workload required of them, regardless of management quality. Genetics, conformation, and pre-existing pathology set limits that management cannot always overcome.

The second is that the timeline is predictable. Figures of six to twelve months appear frequently in barefoot literature. Those figures reflect clinical observation rather than controlled research, and they describe general patterns rather than individual outcomes. Some horses transition faster. Some take longer. Some do not reach adequate function for their intended workload within any reasonable timeframe.

The third is that sensitivity during transition is always temporary and always resolves. It frequently does. It does not always — and treating the assumption as a fact has led to horses being pushed through periods of genuine discomfort rather than protected from it.

THE ROLE OF PROTECTION DURING TRANSITION

Hoof boots and temporary protective measures are part of a rational transition strategy, not a sign that transition is failing.

A foot that needs time to develop sole depth and horn quality benefits from protection on surfaces that would cause bruising or discomfort before that development is complete. Using boots during transition allows the horse to remain comfortable and in appropriate work while the foot adapts — which is preferable to either restricting work entirely or pushing a sensitive foot through surfaces it is not yet ready for.

The goal is not to achieve barefoot as quickly as possible. The goal is a foot that can do what is asked of it comfortably and sustainably. Protection during the process of reaching that goal is not a failure of the approach. It is good management.

WHAT GOOD TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE

It starts with an honest assessment of the foot before the shoes come off — sole depth, horn quality, wall integrity, presence or absence of pathology. That assessment determines whether transition is appropriate at all, and what conditions and timeline are realistic.

It proceeds with matched management: environment that provides appropriate stimulus, nutrition that supports horn quality and growth, workload that stays within what the foot can currently handle, and protection where needed.

It is monitored objectively — not against an expected timeline, but against what the foot is actually doing. Is sole depth increasing? Is horn quality improving? Is the horse comfortable on the surfaces being asked of it? If the answers are no over a reasonable period, that needs to be acknowledged and the approach reconsidered — including the possibility that shoes are the appropriate tool for this horse.

And it is honest about outcomes. Transition is not a commitment to barefoot regardless of what the foot does. It is a process with a goal. If the goal is not being reached, the process needs to change.

03/05/2026

As you may be aware there have been equine flu cases confirmed in our area. I want to reassure you that I will be implementing the Equine Biosecurity Protocol between yards by disinfecting my hands and boots, and relevant equipment, and changing gloves and outer top layer.
However if you have vulnerable horses (very young, very old or unvaccinated) and would rather postpone your visit please let me know, and of course if your horse or another on the yard has symptoms please let me know ASAP so we can implement extra precautions.
Thank you for your understanding, please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

29/04/2026

09/04/2026

BLAME THE OWNER ❤️

(Because this foot didn't happen by itself)

I don't post feet. Not client feet, not trim pics, not before-and-afters. There are good reasons for that and they haven't changed.

This one's an exception.

It's been a long, wet, muddy Scottish winter. We've all felt it — horses and humans alike. Feet that were marginal in autumn didn't get better. Ground that was difficult in November got worse by February. Many of us have spent months managing the damage rather than building on a foundation.

This is a Friesian. Pre-trim. And it's one of the nicest feet on my books.

What produces a foot like this isn't luck, and it isn't genetics quietly doing the heavy lifting. It's what was already in place before winter arrived.

– Four-week trim schedule

– Dialled-in diet and nutrition

– Regular, varied movement across different surfaces

– Consistent bodywork

– An owner who doesn't just show up — who pays attention

That's what you're looking at.

A foot that reflects months of correct management, photographed in the few minutes before I picked up my tools. The winter threw everything at it. The foot held because the foundation was already there.

That's the point of getting it right. Not just that things look good when conditions are easy. But that when conditions aren't — and in Scotland, they frequently aren't — the horse has the resilience to come through it without falling apart.

The trim is a small part of this. It always is. The rest happens in the weeks between visits — in the decisions made about feed, footing, movement, and care. Get those right and the foot tends to reflect it. Get them wrong and no amount of trimming fixes it.

This owner got them right.

P.S. Yes, I know. A scrubbing brush would have done it more justice. Consider this its natural habitat 😆

03/04/2026

What actually is the argument about Hoof Pastern axis?

I think one of the biggest sources of confusion in hoof balance discussions is that people think we are arguing about angles and lines, when in reality we are arguing about mechanics.

Very often the hoof pastern axis discussion gets reduced to “straight is good” versus “there is bio-diversity so straight doesn’t matter.” But that is an oversimplification of what is actually a much more interesting and much more three dimensional problem.

Even if we set the literature aside for a moment and just look at this from first principles, mechanics, physics, and what we repeatedly see in practice, hoof balance is not a purely two dimensional geometric problem. It is a three dimensional spatial equilibrium problem.

At mid-stance, when the limb is loaded, the system is trying to resolve forces around the centre of rotation of the distal limb. For equilibrium to occur, you effectively have to align two vectors and one point in space. The ground reaction force vector, the internal force vector, and the point about which those forces are acting must become spatially coordinated. When they do, net moment is minimised and the system becomes mechanically efficient. Static HPA is therefore not the goal in itself, but it is a proxy for what is happening at mid-stance.

This is why I often say that HPA reflects the relationship between the centre of pressure and the centre of rotation, and its relationship with the solar support base. When those relationships are spatially coordinated, the external geometry often falls into a certain range.

This is also where the banana shoe becomes so interesting, not just as a therapeutic tool, but as a mechanical demonstration.

If the shoe creates a non equilibrium state and then allows the foot to move, the system responds by rotating until it reaches the lowest cost shared load state available under those conditions. That is the important point. The shoe does not force the foot into a chosen angle. It removes resistance and allows the limb to express what the mechanics demand.

What happens then is extremely revealing.

When the system is given the freedom to move toward equilibrium, it settles into a position where the moments around the centre of rotation are reduced and the load is shared more efficiently. In practice, that settled state very often corresponds to near phalangeal alignment and a near straight hoof pastern axis.

That does not prove that every horse must be forced into a perfectly straight line. But it does expose something very important. When the digit is allowed to express the lowest cost equilibrium state, it does not usually settle into grossly broken alignment. It tends toward near alignment.

That is not dogma. That is signal.

The banana shoe therefore gives us a clue about the mechanical truth of the system. It suggests that near alignment is not just an aesthetic preference or a traditional ideal. It may be the external expression of a state in which the digit can share load with the lowest internal mechanical cost.

That is why I think this example matters so much. It shifts the conversation away from “what angle do we like” and toward “what state does the system itself choose when it is allowed to resolve force efficiently.”

I fully accept that there is bio-diversity between horses. Biology does not work in absolutes and we should not be forcing every horse into a rigid dogmatic straight line. But bio-diversity does not mean randomness either. Most biological systems exist within a normalised distribution, a bell curve, with a working tolerance around an optimal zone.

In my own documentation and experience, and as illustrated in the attached image, when you look across breeds and types of horses, and you remove the cases with obvious morphological distortions that significantly alter heel to toe height ratios, a large proportion of equine digits tend toward a near straight hoof pastern axis. Notice the wording carefully. Near straight, not perfectly straight.

That suggests that when the system is free from gross distortions and allowed to function within reasonable mechanical parameters, the external alignment often normalises toward a certain range regardless of breed. That does not eliminate bio-diversity, but it does suggest that bio-diversity lives within a range, not across infinite possibilities.

It is also important to acknowledge that HPA is not determined by the foot alone. Posture plays a huge role. Whole horse posture, limb orientation, muscle tone, and the way the horse organises its body over the limb all influence the orientation of the pastern and therefore the external HPA we observe. So we must be careful not to treat HPA as a foot only measurement. It is a whole limb and whole horse expression, not just a trimming parameter.

Another point that is often misunderstood is that a near straight external hoof pastern axis does not necessarily mean perfectly straight internal phalangeal alignment. External geometry is a proxy, not a direct measurement of internal joint angles. You can have a near straight external HPA with small variations in internal joint angles, and you can also have a straight looking dorsal wall that hides internal misalignment. This is why we must always remember that external landmarks are approximations of internal mechanics, not perfect representations of them.

So the goal should not be to force a textbook straight line. Nor should the goal be to abandon any idea of an ideal because of bio-diversity. The more rational position is this.

We should aim to create a situation where the mechanics of the limb can be satisfied, where forces can be resolved efficiently, and where the tissues can function within a reasonable mechanical environment. If we achieve that, then the external geometry, including hoof pastern axis, will usually fall within an appropriate working range for that individual horse.

In that sense, having an ideal is useful, not as a rigid rule, but as a direction of travel. An aim with tolerance is very different from dogma. But having no aim at all, and attributing everything to bio-diversity, risks us losing any mechanical reference point altogether.

What we really need going forward is more work to establish working tolerances. We need to better understand where normal variation sits, and at what point changes in internal joint angles or external alignment move from normal standard deviations into pathological patterns.

That is where I believe the discussion should be heading next. Not arguing about whether straight lines are good or bad, but trying to define the functional ranges within which the limb can operate efficiently, and beyond which mechanical compensation and pathology become more likely.

Because in the end, the question is not “does it look straight?”

The question is this.

When the system is given the freedom to express the lowest cost shared load state, where does it settle, and what does that tell us about normal function? And where are is the range of tolerance?

25/03/2026

𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗥𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺

The Equine Podiatry Association (UK) would like to highlight the ongoing DEFRA consultation regarding the proposed reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. We encourage all relevant stakeholders to be aware that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗪𝗲𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟱𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵.

The EPA UK welcomes the reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and recognises the importance of ensuring legislation remains fit for purpose in supporting high standards of animal welfare.

However, we have concerns that the current proposals do not adequately reflect the input of Allied Veterinary Professionals (AVPs). We believe this omission represents a significant gap, and as such, the proposals in their current form are incomplete.

The EPA UK strongly supports a collaborative approach and welcomes the opportunity to work alongside DEFRA and other AVPs to help shape updated proposals.

It is essential that future legislation fully recognises and incorporates the valuable role that AVPs play in promoting and safeguarding animal welfare.

A more detailed statement will be released in due course.

Have your say by clicking the link below 👇

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/reform-of-the-veterinary-surgeons-act/consultation/

04/03/2026

28/02/2026