Frequently Asked Questions

The initial research focused only on the axis of the heel movement (expansion and contraction) which is considered to be the key variable of the hoof mechanism. The research study demonstrated that there is no significant difference in heel movement between a Twin™ Shoe and barefoot. However, the research study did clearly demonstrate a significant restriction (+/- 36%) in heel movement with a traditional shoe.

The answer is simple and obvious: if the conditions (environment, surface, usage, …) allow a horse to be barefoot, then it is best to leave the horse barefoot. However, there are many conditions and circumstances in which a horse is either not able to stay or perform barefoot or in which a horse is better off with shoes.

Firstly, to develop a strong barefoot hoof the horse needs to be able to move as it would in the wild. Feral horses travel on average 10 miles per day. Domestic horses kept in a stable with small paddock only move around 1 mile per day and domestic horses kept in a larger pasture travel around 3 to 5 miles per day. Without sufficient movement the hoof/foot cannot develop properly.

Secondly, a hoof adapts to its environment and specifically to the soil and ground conditions it is used to move in. While shoes will protect the hooves when the horse moves and performs in different and especially more abrasive soil conditions, the barefooted horse will likely struggle with such change of conditions.

Thirdly, certain conformational/postural disorders or medical conditions require shoeing to keep the horse sound especially when ridden.

Finally, under certain circumstances the hoof growth cannot keep up with the hoof wear (which is actually the reason why shoes were invented in the first place). In barefoot horses, this would lead to tender footedness and/or  sole bruising, so a form of protection such as shoes is required. The benefit of the Twin™ Shoe versus a traditional shoe in such and other cases is that the Twin™ Shoe allows the normal hoof mechanism to function as if the horse was barefoot while protecting the horse’s hoof.

The Twin™ Shoe is the only shoe on the market today that can provide all the actual benefits of a shoe without compromising the benefits of a barefoot hoof. It is a win-win situation for horse and rider where science meets nature.

The Twin™ Shoe is a concept which can be incorporated in many shoeing modifications designed to help with conformational issues. Furthermore, the Twin™ Shoe helps to prevent hoof deformities or abnormalities such as low heels, shunted heels or flares due to the fact that there is reduced friction of the heels on the shoe during heel expansion and because the Twin™ Shoe allows for independent movement of the heels.

Yes, see previous question. The Twin™ Shoe features are combined in a concept that is not limited to a specific shoe material.  It can be made of different materials such as aluminium and polyurethane, not just steel.  Currently, the first-generation Twin™ shoes is made out of steel, but in the near future they will become available in other materials to support the broader market needs.

While certain design features are crucial for the function and stability of the Twin™ Shoe and as such relatively fixed, other design features such as thickness of the Twin™ Shoe and width of the branches are adaptable. As for thickness and wear resistance, it is important to understand that the Twin™ Shoe tends to wear more evenly across the entire surface of the shoe (due to improved biomechanics of the landing, loading and breakover pattern of the hoof) resulting in less focal pressure/stress points, rather than at a specific area such as the lateral toe often seen in traditional shoes. For this reason, together with the fact that we don’t reset Twin™ Shoe (as they are split), there is no need for a thick shoe.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that increased weight of a shoe (by increasing the thickness and/or width) increases the stresses on the navicular area. Not only will a thin shoe minimize these negative effects by making the shoe lighter, but a thin shoe will also engage the frog more (an important shock absorber) as well as improve the stability of the Twin™ Shoe.

We recommend 4 nails per branch, 8 in total. The 6 nail holes on each side give the farrier flexibility to change the nail position depending on the hoof wall condition. When the hoof wall allows it, we advise to use the first and last nail hole on each side to create optimal stability of the shoe on the hoof. In some cases it is difficult to use 4 nails on the inner branch, in such cases 7 nails can be used (3 on the inner and 4 on the outer branch).

With traditional shoes, nails act as stress points on the hoof wall and can limit heel expansion as the shoe does not move with the hoof. Therefore, most farriers try to limit the nails used to only 4 to 6 nails per hoof (2 to 3 on each side). With a Twin™ Shoe however, the stress on the nails (and as such their potential harmful effect on the hoof wall) is significantly less and the farrier can nail as far back as he can without the nails limiting heel expansion as the shoe moves with the hoof

Nailing farther back is actually not only going to improve the stability of the Twin shoe but also its function. By nailing as far back as possible you shorten the lever arm between first point of shoe/ground contact at landing and last nail hole. As such, reducing the torque on the branch. Furthermore nailing as far back as possible will ensure the shoe and especially the heel part of the shoe to move in sync with the hoof (they move as one unit) not only during heel expansion at impact and mid-stance but it will also prevent the heels lifting of the shoe at push-off and then smashing back down onto the shoe at impact, which will in turn limit heel wear of hoof and shoe.

Pads (with or without silicone) have been used with traditional shoes for more protection and support without significantly adverse effects. With the Twin™ Shoe however we do not recommend the use of standard available pads as these will negatively affect two important benefits of Twin™ Shoes: heel movement and/or lateral flexibility.

Furthermore, as the thickness of the pad increases the distance between the sole and ground surface the hoof wall becomes artificially longer. This extension creates a higher leverage effect on the nails and as such increases the risk of a shoe becoming loose before the end of the shoeing cycle (this adverse effect actually applies to both traditional shoes and Twin™ Shoes when using pads).

​Further research is ongoing to see which materials work best with the Twin™ Shoe in case more frog or sole support is needed. We are currently working on the development of a stretchable Twin™ pad specifically designed to be used with a Twin™ Shoe without compromising stability and function of the shoe.

Wedge pads are not needed as Twin™ Shoes do not cause uneven wear of the heel versus the toe as traditional shoes do. Moreover, our field trial data show that Twin™ Shoes can be particularly helpful in correct low/underrun heels and solar angles.

​With horses shod with Twin™ Shoes we see that the hoof structure, balance and shape often improve significantly by the end of the 5th shoeing cycle (after 6-8 months) because of the improved hoof growth and the more balanced growth and wear from toe to heel.

We do not recommend the use of additional devices/material to resist wear of the shoe or to improve traction.

Firstly, the Twin™ Shoe has shown to provide more traction/grip then a traditional shoe as the Twin™ Shoe allows for lateral flexibility i.e. independent vertical movement of the heels and lateral cartilages. This lateral flexibility, allows for a bigger contact surface with the ground especially during turns and uneven footing which results in better traction and grip.

​Secondly, the natural heel movement allowed by the Twin™ Shoe enhances this surefootedness effect even on grass or slippery surfaces.

​Nevertheless, we understand that under certain circumstances traction devices may be needed. However, at this point in time we do not recommend the use of Heel Calks/studs with Twin™ Shoes as the torque created by the calks could pull the shoe off.

​As the Twin™ Shoe tends to wear evenly because of its larger contact surface area with the ground, spots to resist excessive wear of the shoe are not really needed. Spots tend to create extra stress (through leverage and torque) on the nails which in turn increases the risk of losing a shoe during the cycle.

Yes, the Twin™ Shoe can be both hot or cold fitted, although we generally recommend hot fitting for a better fit (seating) of the clips. There is no risk of breaking of the shoe during fitting as the toe of the shoe is only weakened just before nailing the shoe on the hoof. After weakening the shoe by deepening the groove, mainly at the solar/support surface, the shoe is nailed on and in a final step completely split with a handsaw (hacksaw).

No, The Twin™ Shoe has been specifically designed to maintain stability on the hoof after the Twin™ Shoe has been split. The addition and position of the clips and nail holes as well as the application and finishing process of the branches and heels has been thoroughly analysed and tested to guarantee the stability of the shoe on the hoof once it is split in two halves.

If trimmed and shod correctly according to the Twin™ Shoeing principles, we do not necessarily see a higher shoe loss rate compared to traditionally shod horses. However, during the initial transition period from traditional shoes into Twin™ shoes, you may experience some increased shoe loss as the hoof capsule changes and grows out the less healthy and less strong hoof wall.

Generally during this transition period of 6-8 months it helps to shorten up the shoeing intervals to 4-5 weeks instead of the standard 6-week intervals that we normally recommend when using Twin™ Shoes. In specific cases, the hoof wall can be temporarily strengthened by using a Kevlar cuff while transitioning from traditional shoes into Twin™ Shoe.

​From our data we see that the hoof health improves when horses are shod with Twin™ Shoes and that most of the measured hoof parameters stabilize around 6-8 months. Once we restore the health of the hoof and especially the hoof wall quality and shape, shoe/branch loss is not an issue. It is to be noted that in these first 6-8 months, especially when you start off with a weak/unhealthy hoof it will require some micro-management of farrier and caretaker as the Twin™ shoe does not bind the hoof vs a traditional shoe. The latter works as a brace to protect the weak(end) hoof structure. But remember a hoof is like any other tissue, the more you protect it the weaker it will get and to break the vicious cycle, movement is needed to make it stronger and healthier. In the case of the hoof that is done by allowing the hoof mechanism to function and that is what the Twin™ Shoe does. 

​From a fitting perspective, the Twin™ Shoe is less likely to be pulled off than a traditional shoe as the Twin™ Shoe does not require a lateral/medial or palmar/plantar heel extension i.e. does not need to be fit full. 

Also, a Twin™ Shoe will not bend (“sprung shoe”) like a traditional shoe by stepping on it.  If a horse would pull off one branch of the Twin™ Shoe and the other part stays on, there is no immediate risk as the lateral flexibility is maintained and as such the hoof capsule is able to compensate for this unevenness.

In general, horses that lost a branch in our study did not show any lameness after pulling the shoe/branch, we think that is related to the fact that the Twin™ Shoe conditions the hoof to become stronger like a barefoot hoof and as such when he/she loses a branch it does not seem to affect him/her being barefoot. 

One of the important features of the Twin™ Shoe is that the clips (and the nails) do not restrict the hoof as is the case with traditional shoes simply because the Twin™ Shoe moves entirely with the hoof. This also results in less focal stress on the nails and clips compared with traditional shoes. This obviously contributes to a better (and healthier) horn quality.

​The shape, size and position of the clips of the Twin™ Shoe have been thoroughly analysed and tested to optimize the stability of the shoe and are specifically designed to improve pressure distribution and avoid focal stress points on the hoof wall and also to reduce the potential trauma when stepped on.

​In the unlikely event of a Twin™ Shoe being pulled off, the risk of injury or damage to the hoof wall is low and not different from a traditional shoe. From the more than 30 horses shod over the last 2 years we only had three incidents (0.5%) where the horse accidently stepped on the shoe nail/clip while throwing a shoe/branch. All cases resolved with standard management of soaking the hoof with an antiseptic such as betadine or white lightening and packing the foot (e.g. magic cushion) for a couple of days, after which the horse could be reshod.

We have not noticed excessive stress on the hoof wall at or by the toe clips if applied correctly according to the Twin™ Shoeing principles.

However, superficial vertical toe cracks can be seen in some instances such as weak/flared dorsal hoof wall (club feet with dorsal hoof wall dish), excessive thinning of the dorsal hoof wall by the farrier’s rasp (overdressing), toe length becoming to long from excessive growth or to long of a shoeing cycle, unbalanced trim (long toe pillars with medial/lateral flare), branch loss, unequal tension on both toe clips during shoeing application, hoof with large crena or seedy toe, and incidentally creating a small cut in the dorsal hoof wall when splitting the Twin shoe with the handsaw.

​To prevent the occurrence of a vertical toe crack it is important to keep a strong strut of hoof wall between the two toe clips, seat the toe clips nicely in the hoof wall, avoid creating a weak spot in the dorsal hoof wall by overdressing the dorsal hoof wall or cutting into the hoof wall when splitting the toe. All vertical toe cracks in our study remained superficial, did not cause any lameness, and resolved over time.