White Line Disease and Seedy Toe in the Horse: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Veterinary Management and Farriery Considerations
Introduction
White line disease (WLD) and seedy toe are terms frequently encountered by farriers, veterinary surgeons and horse owners when discussing pathological separation within the equine hoof capsule. The terms are often used interchangeably in clinical and practical settings, although this can create confusion because they do not necessarily describe precisely the same anatomical or pathological process. White line disease is particularly problematic as a term because the principal pathological process occurs within the deeper layers of the hoof wall rather than simply representing an infection of the anatomical white line or zona alba (O'Grady and Burns, 2021). Similarly, seedy toe is traditionally a descriptive farriery term associated with focal separation and cavitation of the dorsal toe rather than a precise diagnosis based upon a specific infectious organism (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
White line disease is generally regarded as a keratolytic process involving the deeper layers of the hoof wall, resulting in progressive separation between the hoof wall and the underlying structures. The exact aetiology remains incompletely understood, with both mechanical and microbial factors implicated. Anaerobic bacteria and fungi have been identified in affected tissue, although it remains uncertain whether particular organisms initiate the disease or whether they predominantly colonise tissue that has already undergone mechanical separation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
The condition is important to the farrier because it can initially be clinically silent while progressively compromising the structural integrity of the hoof capsule. A horse may remain apparently sound while a cavity develops between the hoof wall and the underlying lamellar structures. As separation becomes more extensive, the mechanical contribution of the hoof wall to support of the distal phalanx may be compromised, potentially resulting in hoof capsule distortion, instability and, in severe cases, displacement of the distal phalanx (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Consequently, white line disease represents an important intersection between pathology, microbiology, biomechanics, veterinary diagnosis and therapeutic farriery. Successful management requires more than simply treating microorganisms within the hoof. The clinician and farrier must also identify and address the mechanical and environmental factors that may have contributed to the development or persistence of the separation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Definition of White Line Disease
White line disease is generally described as a keratolytic pathological process involving the deeper layers of the hoof wall and resulting in progressive hoof-wall separation. Keratolysis refers to the degradation or dissolution of keratinised horn. Within the affected hoof, this process produces cavities containing loose, degraded horn and air, with the separation potentially extending proximally within the hoof wall (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
A more precise understanding requires consideration of hoof-wall anatomy. The equine hoof wall is conventionally divided into the stratum externum, stratum medium and stratum internum. The stratum medium forms the majority of the wall and provides much of its mechanical strength, while the inner region forms the interface with the lamellar apparatus connecting the hoof capsule to the distal phalanx (Pollitt, 2010; Kummer et al., 2006). White line disease is associated with separation within the inner portion of the stratum medium and at its junction with the stratum internum (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Consequently, the terminology "white line disease" can be misleading. The normal white line visible on the solar surface represents the junction between the hoof wall and sole and is not, in itself, the principal pathological structure being destroyed. The pathological process occurs deeper within the hoof wall (O'Grady and Burns, 2021). Indeed, the current literature has questioned whether WLD is best regarded as a single disease with a definitive aetiology or more appropriately as a syndrome involving hoof-wall separation, microbial degradation and, in more advanced cases, hoof capsule distortion (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
The clinical severity can range from a relatively small area of separation through to extensive disruption of the external lamellar attachment. In severe cases, the loss of mechanical integrity of the hoof capsule may contribute to displacement of the distal phalanx (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024). Therefore, the visible lesion should not necessarily be considered representative of the full extent of the pathology.
Definition of Seedy Toe
Seedy toe is a traditional farriery term principally used to describe focal separation and cavitation in the dorsal toe region of the hoof. The cavity can contain crumbly horn, dirt and other debris, giving the affected tissue its characteristic "seedy" appearance. The term has historically been used alongside white line disease, hollow wall and other descriptions of hoof-wall separation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Importantly, seedy toe is primarily descriptive rather than etiological. O'Grady and Burns (2021) describe seedy toe as a focal separation occurring centrally at the dorsal toe, associated anatomically with the region of the crena marginalis of the distal phalanx. This is more specific than simply describing any hoof-wall separation at the toe.
A horse can nevertheless develop mechanical separation of the dorsal hoof wall without a primary microbial disease being established. Once separation exists, the resulting cavity can become colonised by bacteria and fungi capable of degrading keratin. Therefore, microbial colonisation may be secondary to the initial mechanical separation rather than its initiating cause (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
This distinction is clinically important. If a horse presents with a long, distorted dorsal wall and a focal area of toe separation, simply identifying the lesion as "seedy toe" does not explain why it developed. The farrier must investigate hoof capsule conformation, loading and previous pathology as well as the condition of the separated horn.
For practical purposes, seedy toe can therefore be understood as a descriptive term for a particular distribution of hoof-wall separation, whereas white line disease is generally used to describe a keratolytic process associated with progressive degradation and separation within the deeper hoof wall. There is considerable overlap between the terms, but they should not automatically be considered exact synonyms.
Differences Between White Line Disease and Seedy Toe
The principal distinction between the terms relates to anatomical distribution and terminology. White line disease can occur at different regions of the hoof capsule, including the toe, quarters and heel regions, whereas seedy toe traditionally refers to a focal dorsal-toe separation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021). Consequently, a lesion at the toe may be described as seedy toe, while the underlying pathological process may be consistent with white line disease.
A second distinction concerns separation and infection. The presence of microorganisms within a hoof-wall cavity does not necessarily demonstrate that microorganisms initiated the lesion. The current veterinary literature considers the aetiology of WLD incompletely understood and recognises both bacterial and fungal involvement (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Beasley and Abuelo, 2024). This makes the common description of WLD as simply a "fungal infection" an oversimplification.
The mechanical environment is therefore fundamental. Abnormal hoof shape and loading can produce stresses that promote separation of the hoof wall. Once a separation exists, microorganisms may exploit the protected, low-oxygen environment within the cavity. The disease process can consequently involve an interaction between mechanical separation and microbial degradation rather than a straightforward primary infection (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
This distinction has direct implications for treatment. A topical antimicrobial treatment may influence the microbial component, but it cannot correct excessive toe leverage, hoof-wall flare, capsule distortion or other mechanical factors that continue to place stress upon the separated region.
Causes and Predisposing Factors
The aetiology of white line disease is multifactorial and remains incompletely understood. Mechanical factors are particularly important because hoof-wall separation changes the manner in which forces are transmitted through the hoof capsule. Abnormal hoof shape, long toes, excessive dorsal wall flare and underrun heels have all been associated with abnormal hoof-wall stress and capsule distortion (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
The hoof is a dynamic load-bearing structure that undergoes deformation during weight bearing and movement. The external shape of the capsule therefore has important biomechanical consequences. Hoof capsule distortion can alter the distribution of forces through the wall, and understanding these forces is central to therapeutic farriery (Redden, 2003). Long toes and distorted hoof capsules may increase leverage and mechanical demand on the dorsal wall, particularly when the wall has already become structurally compromised.
The relationship between hoof shape and mechanical stress is supported by experimental and modelling studies. Research examining hoof-wall strain demonstrates that changes in trimming and loading can alter the distribution and magnitude of mechanical strain within the hoof wall (McGuire et al., 2001). Similarly, biomechanical modelling demonstrates that changes in heel height and hoof configuration can alter stresses and deformation within the hoof capsule (Hinterhofer, Stanek and Haider, 2000).
This does not mean that a particular hoof shape should automatically be regarded as the cause of WLD. Rather, hoof conformation and trimming should be considered potential contributors within a multifactorial process. A farrier should assess the relationship between the dorsal hoof wall, sole, heels, distal phalanx and overall hoof-pastern alignment rather than treating the visible cavity in isolation.
Environmental conditions may also influence disease progression. Repeated wetting and drying can affect hoof-horn properties, while persistently wet or contaminated environments may facilitate microbial colonisation of existing defects. However, environmental moisture alone should not be regarded as a sufficient explanation for WLD. A structurally compromised hoof is more likely to develop significant separation than a healthy hoof exposed to the same environmental conditions (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Microorganisms are clearly relevant to the keratolytic process. Both anaerobic bacteria and fungi have been implicated, but the precise contribution of individual organisms remains uncertain (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024). This uncertainty is clinically important because it demonstrates why WLD should not be managed exclusively as an infectious disease.
Nutrition should also be considered where hoof quality is poor. A balanced diet is necessary for normal hoof growth, but nutritional deficiency should not automatically be assigned as the cause of an individual case. Dietary assessment should consider the complete ration, forage, concentrates, supplements and overall management rather than relying upon indiscriminate supplementation.
Previous hoof pathology can also be relevant. Laminitis can alter the relationship between the hoof capsule and distal phalanx and produce substantial changes in hoof growth and capsule mechanics. Horses with previous lamellar injury may consequently present with hoof-wall distortion that creates a different mechanical environment from that of a normal hoof (O'Grady, 2010).
Clinical Signs
One of the most significant features of white line disease is its potentially insidious nature. Early cases may produce few or no obvious clinical signs, and the horse can remain sound while pathological separation progresses. Consequently, the farrier is frequently the first professional to identify the condition during routine trimming or shoeing (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
On the solar surface, the farrier may observe widening or irregularity of the white line, particularly in the toe region. The horn may appear soft, chalky or crumbly. Gentle exploration can reveal that apparently healthy horn is separated from deeper structures, with the cavity extending considerably further than the visible solar opening suggests (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
The external surface of the hoof wall may initially appear completely normal. This is an important clinical feature because a superficial inspection can therefore underestimate the severity of the lesion. Gentle percussion of the wall can sometimes produce a hollow sound over areas where separation has occurred, providing a useful adjunct to visual and manual examination (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
As the separation progresses, hoof-wall flaring and distortion may develop. Increasing loss of wall attachment can reduce the mechanical contribution of the hoof capsule to support of the distal phalanx. In severe cases, this can contribute to instability or displacement of the distal phalanx (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Lameness is not necessarily an early feature. Where lameness occurs, possible causes include secondary infection, abscessation, sole bruising, pressure from accumulated debris or mechanical instability associated with extensive wall separation (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024). Consequently, the absence of lameness should not be interpreted as evidence that the lesion is clinically insignificant.
Veterinary Diagnostics
Diagnosis begins with a detailed clinical examination of the hoof. The hoof should be thoroughly cleaned so that the solar surface and white line can be evaluated. The veterinarian and farrier should assess hoof conformation, wall quality, solar appearance, areas of separation and any evidence of pain.
Affected horn is often soft and chalky and can be removed relatively easily from the margins of the lesion. Careful exploration can establish the extent of the cavity, although the complete proximal and circumferential extent may not be visible from the solar surface (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Percussion of the hoof wall can provide additional information because separated sections may produce a hollow sound. However, percussion is an adjunct rather than a definitive diagnostic procedure. The findings should be interpreted alongside visual examination, exploration and, where indicated, diagnostic imaging.
Radiography becomes particularly valuable where separation is extensive, hoof capsule distortion is present, the horse is lame or there is concern regarding the position of the distal phalanx. Tangential or horizontal radiographic projections can demonstrate radiolucent regions within the hoof wall and help identify the proximal extent of the cavity (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Multiple radiographic projections may be required because WLD is a three-dimensional lesion. Radiographic examination can also provide information regarding the relationship between the hoof capsule and distal phalanx and identify concurrent pathology. The diagnostic value of radiography is highly dependent upon appropriate positioning and image quality (Eggleston, 2012).
Radiographic assessment is particularly important where extensive wall separation raises concern about loss of mechanical support to the distal phalanx. The lamellar apparatus forms the critical attachment between the hoof capsule and distal phalanx, and disruption of this attachment is central to the pathological consequences of laminitis (Pollitt, 2010).
Differential diagnoses should also be considered. Laminitis, hoof abscessation, mechanical wall separation, hoof cracks and other pathological processes can produce similar external findings. A widened white line should therefore be regarded as a clinical finding requiring investigation rather than automatically being diagnosed as established WLD.
The diagnostic process benefits considerably from veterinary-farrier collaboration. The farrier provides information regarding hoof conformation, trimming and shoeing history and changes observed over time, while the veterinarian can assess lameness, internal structures and concurrent disease. In complex cases, this multidisciplinary approach allows treatment to be based upon both the external hoof and the internal anatomy.
Treatment
The fundamental principle of treatment is to remove compromised and undermined hoof wall sufficiently to expose healthy, firmly attached horn and eliminate the protected cavity in which microbial degradation can continue. Resection and debridement are consistently identified as central components of WLD treatment (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Removing the affected wall exposes the lesion to the external environment and allows the full extent of the separation to be assessed. Importantly, the purpose is not to remove large quantities of hoof indiscriminately but to establish a clear boundary between diseased or mechanically unsupported horn and healthy, structurally attached horn.
The amount of resection should therefore be determined by the extent of separation. Excessive removal of healthy wall can unnecessarily weaken the hoof, whereas leaving undermined horn in place can allow the pathological process to continue. Treatment should consequently balance complete removal of compromised tissue with preservation of viable structural support (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Once the compromised material has been removed, topical antiseptic or antimicrobial treatment may be used as an adjunct. A variety of products have historically been advocated, including iodine-, chlorine dioxide- and other antimicrobial preparations. However, the scientific evidence supporting many commercially promoted topical treatments remains limited, and the literature does not support reliance upon one universally effective preparation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
The importance of debridement should therefore not be obscured by discussion of topical products. The essential treatment objective is to remove the diseased or undermined horn and create conditions in which the lesion can be monitored and managed while healthy hoof grows.
Environmental management is also important. The exposed area should be kept appropriately clean and protected from excessive contamination. Stable hygiene, bedding management and appropriate turnout conditions can help reduce contamination while the hoof undergoes rehabilitation.
The horse should then be monitored through hoof growth. Successful resolution does not occur simply because the cavity has been cleaned; the affected wall must ultimately be replaced by newly generated, structurally attached hoof horn. The time required therefore depends upon the size and location of the defect and the individual horse's rate of hoof growth.
Farriery Options
Farriery is central to the management of WLD because mechanical forces acting on the hoof must be considered alongside the pathological process. Corrective trimming is particularly important where hoof capsule distortion has contributed to abnormal loading. The precise approach must nevertheless be individualised rather than based upon a universal "white line disease trim".
A farrier may need to reduce excessive toe leverage, address dorsal wall flare, improve the distribution of weight bearing and establish a hoof configuration that minimises mechanical stress on compromised structures. However, aggressive correction should be avoided. The objective is to establish a mechanically appropriate hoof while maintaining sufficient structural integrity to support the horse during rehabilitation.
Hoof capsule distortion is a dynamic process, and correction may therefore need to be progressive. Redden (2003) emphasised the importance of understanding the individual components of capsule distortion and developing mechanical solutions that reduce the forces responsible for the distortion. This principle is particularly relevant where a large section of hoof wall has been removed.
Where sufficient healthy hoof wall remains, conventional shoeing may provide appropriate protection and mechanical support. Where wall loss is extensive and nail placement would compromise remaining healthy horn, alternative attachment systems may be appropriate.
Glue-on shoes and other adhesive-supported appliances can therefore have a role where conventional nailing is undesirable. The decision should be based upon the amount and location of healthy wall, the horse's workload, environment, conformation and the mechanical requirements of the foot rather than upon the diagnosis of WLD alone.
In severe cases where mechanical support of the distal phalanx is required, specialised shoes or plates may be considered. Heart-bar or other frog-supporting designs can have a role in appropriate cases, particularly where there is concurrent or suspected lamellar compromise. However, frog pressure must be applied according to the individual anatomy and biomechanics. Applying frog pressure simply because a horse has WLD is not justified.
Similarly, sole protection may be necessary where extensive wall resection has exposed or weakened structures. Pads, impression materials or other protective techniques can be considered where appropriate. Their purpose should be to protect vulnerable tissues and control loading rather than merely conceal the defect.
There is also increasing practical interest in antimicrobial materials incorporated into hoof packing and repair systems. Copper-containing materials have historically been used in therapeutic hoof management, including packing associated with WLD. Recent experimental work demonstrates antimicrobial activity of metals against relevant hoof-associated bacteria, but the evidence base for their clinical efficacy in vivo remains limited (Caughron, Weaver and Burns, 2026). Consequently, copper sulphate-containing packing may be considered as an adjunct in selected cases, but it should not be presented as a substitute for debridement, mechanical management and appropriate veterinary oversight.
This distinction is particularly important because excessive or inappropriate use of chemical agents can potentially irritate tissues. The 2026 research literature emphasises that considerably more work is required before the efficacy, optimal concentrations and safety of metal-containing hoof products can be established clinically (Caughron, Weaver and Burns, 2026).
The Importance of Addressing the Primary Mechanical Problem
Perhaps the most important farriery principle in WLD is that the visible cavity should not be regarded as the entire disease process. If a horse has a markedly long toe, excessive dorsal flare, underrun heels or another form of hoof capsule distortion, removing compromised horn without addressing the mechanical environment may leave the horse vulnerable to continued separation or recurrence.
The farrier should therefore evaluate the hoof as a complete mechanical structure. Questions should include whether the toe is excessively long, whether the dorsal wall is flared, whether the heels are appropriately positioned, whether the hoof-pastern relationship is appropriate, whether previous laminitis has altered the hoof capsule and whether loading appears symmetrical.
This is particularly relevant in horses with chronic hoof capsule distortion. The visible separation may represent the consequence of a mechanical problem that has developed over many months or years. The hoof cannot necessarily be returned to an ideal mechanical configuration during a single shoeing. Progressive rehabilitation may therefore be required.
The importance of a measured approach is supported by research demonstrating that trimming can significantly alter radiographic measurements of the relationship between the hoof capsule and distal phalanx (Kummer et al., 2006). Consequently, aggressive alteration of the hoof without consideration of internal anatomy can potentially create further mechanical problems.
Where significant internal pathology is suspected, radiography provides valuable information regarding the relationship between the external hoof capsule and distal phalanx. This enables the farrier and veterinarian to develop a treatment strategy based upon the internal and external anatomy rather than external appearance alone (Eggleston, 2012).
Prefer an audio version? Listen below:
Prognosis and Monitoring
Prognosis depends upon the extent of separation, the proportion of the hoof wall affected, the degree of capsule distortion, the presence or absence of distal phalanx displacement, the horse's soundness and the ability to correct contributing mechanical and environmental factors. Localised lesions identified early are generally more straightforward to manage than extensive separations involving a substantial proportion of the hoof wall (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
More extensive disease is challenging because loss of hoof-wall attachment can compromise the mechanical support provided to the distal phalanx. In severe cases, displacement of the distal phalanx can occur, producing consequences that overlap with some of the structural changes observed in chronic laminitis (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
Monitoring should therefore continue throughout the rehabilitation period. The farrier should document the location and extent of the defect, assess the growth of new hoof wall and monitor changes in hoof capsule shape. Serial photographs can be particularly valuable because they provide an objective visual record of progress.
The horse's soundness should also be monitored. An apparently healthier external hoof does not necessarily demonstrate complete resolution of internal pathology, while the presence of a substantial cavity does not automatically indicate severe pain. Clinical examination, radiography where appropriate, hoof growth and mechanical assessment should therefore be interpreted collectively.
Recurrence is also possible, particularly where the underlying mechanical or environmental factors have not been adequately addressed. Continued farriery management and regular inspection are therefore important after the visible lesion has resolved (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Conclusion
White line disease and seedy toe represent closely related but conceptually distinct terms within equine hoof pathology. Seedy toe is traditionally used to describe focal separation and cavitation involving the dorsal toe, whereas white line disease generally refers to a keratolytic process involving the deeper layers of the hoof wall and progressive hoof-wall separation. Although the terms are commonly used interchangeably, recognising their anatomical and pathological differences allows more precise clinical communication (O'Grady and Burns, 2021).
The aetiology of white line disease is complex and remains incompletely understood. Mechanical factors, including hoof capsule distortion and abnormal wall stress, appear important, while bacteria and fungi may participate in the degradation of separated horn. Environmental conditions can influence disease progression, but no single factor should automatically be regarded as the cause. The available evidence therefore supports a multifactorial model rather than a simplistic fungal-infection model (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Beasley and Abuelo, 2024).
Clinical examination remains fundamental, and the farrier is frequently the first professional to identify the condition. The relatively small defect visible on the solar surface can conceal a much larger cavity within the hoof wall, making careful exploration and, where indicated, radiographic assessment important. Radiography becomes particularly valuable where there is extensive separation, hoof capsule distortion, lameness or concern regarding the position and stability of the distal phalanx (Beasley and Abuelo, 2024; Eggleston, 2012).
Treatment is similarly multifactorial. Diseased and mechanically unsupported horn should be appropriately removed, the exposed area managed and the hoof monitored as healthy horn grows. Topical antimicrobial preparations may have a supporting role, but they should not distract from the primary objectives of debridement, mechanical correction and appropriate protection. Current evidence for many topical preparations remains limited, and recent research similarly demonstrates that the clinical efficacy of metal-containing products requires further investigation (O'Grady and Burns, 2021; Caughron, Weaver and Burns, 2026).
For the farrier, the most important lesson is that successful treatment is not simply a matter of "cutting out the seedy toe". The farrier must determine why the hoof wall separated, how extensive the separation is, what internal structures may have been affected and how the hoof can be mechanically managed while new horn develops. Corrective trimming, appropriate shoeing or alternative attachment methods, protection of vulnerable structures and regular reassessment may all form part of an appropriate treatment plan.
Ultimately, white line disease demonstrates why modern farriery cannot be separated from an understanding of anatomy, biomechanics and veterinary pathology. The farrier's role is not merely to remove defective horn but to interpret what the hoof is demonstrating, identify mechanical factors that may have contributed to the pathology and work collaboratively with the veterinarian when internal disease is suspected. Early recognition, accurate assessment, appropriate debridement and carefully considered farriery can prevent a relatively subtle hoof-wall separation from developing into a much more serious structural problem.
References
Beasley, B. and Abuelo, A. (2024) 'White Line Disease in Horses', Merck Veterinary Manual. Available at: Merck Veterinary Manual – White Line Disease in Horses (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Caughron, J.E., Weaver, G.M. and Burns, T.D. (2026) 'Antibacterial efficacy of metals in preventative and therapeutic equine podiatry applications', Equine Veterinary Education. doi: 10.1111/eve.14201.
Eggleston, R.B. (2012) 'Equine imaging: the framework for applying therapeutic farriery', Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, 28(2), pp. 293–312. doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2012.05.001.
Hinterhofer, C., Stanek, C. and Haider, H. (2000) 'The effect of flat horseshoes, raised heels and lowered heels on the biomechanics of the equine hoof assessed by finite element analysis', Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A, 47(2), pp. 73–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0442.2000.00263.x.
Kummer, M., Geyer, H., Imboden, I., Auer, J. and Lischer, C. (2006) 'The effect of hoof trimming on radiographic measurements of the front feet of normal Warmblood horses', The Veterinary Journal, 172(3), pp. 584–589. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2005.03.008.
McGuire, R., Moyer, W., Linford, R. and Fyhrie, D. (2001) 'Photoelastic stress analysis of strain patterns in equine hooves after four-point trimming', Veterinary Surgery, 30(2), pp. 123–130.
O'Grady, S.E. (2010) 'Farriery for chronic laminitis', Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, 26(2), pp. 407–423. doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2010.04.008.
O'Grady, S.E. and Burns, T.D. (2021) 'White line disease: A review (1998–2018)', Equine Veterinary Education, 33(2), pp. 102–112. doi: 10.1111/eve.13201.
Pollitt, C.C. (2010) 'The anatomy and physiology of the suspensory apparatus of the distal phalanx', Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, 26(1), pp. 29–49. doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2010.01.005.
Redden, R.F. (2003) 'Hoof capsule distortion: understanding the mechanisms as a basis for rational management', Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, 19(2), pp. 443–462. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00027-0.
Comments