Pete Ramey barefoot trim...comments? [Archive]

username

Jan. 15, 2005, 08:31 PM

hmmmmm....well, coming, as I do, from a long line of women for whom "having your hair styled" has always meant you stand in front of any handy reflective surface and chop off anything you notice sticking out, I am sort of trying to carry that Common Sense (ie cheap!)
approach over to horse care.

I do truly appreciate all your considerations!

Currently my method is to keep up what the horse gods have granted as a boon: our feet are wonderful (no wait - their feet are wonderful - mine need a right great toe fusion cause the #@*! joint has disappeared) and what "trimming" I do now is just to even off anything on the outside that is not smooth using a sureform tool, leaving the sole to heavenly protection. It has been working (no problems I have noticed) but I do not feel as though I know what I am doing, and would prefer to understand what I am tinkering with.

My really BIG intervention is if it looks like they are getting ahead of me we all go for a walk on a nearby paved road or on the local packed stone dust nature preserve trail, which, oddly enough, seems to help! I do not have a farrier because, life being what it is, we could not afford everything and something had to give. So, if I can do it myself, I do it! The farriers I know get really bent if you only call them for "rescue" work anyway...(understandable of course!)

I wondered how much experience this guy had as well. But if he is not going to do anything dangerous.... I certainly am not going to make any drastic changes (ain't broke - don't fix it!) I'd mostly like a bit more technique than to have me sit on an overturned bucket while horsie stands with a foot on a folded towel on a higher overturned bucket, or sometimes just in my lap, while I work on him. (yeah, as you might have guessed their collective response to a bomb blast would be to possibly stop chewing and wiggle an ear ot two!). I would like to know WHAT I am doing and WHY I am doing it. I actually hate doing black-toe-nailed dogs nails for the same reason and usually dump that on the understanding vet....

I guess I will get the book and go from there. Maybe if he gets close enough I will do a clinic. He has a training class too, but that sounds far too much for what I need. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a method that set off alarms among those that know a lot more than I do and is safe in moderation (kind of like drinking beer with your pizza???) : )

LMH

Jan. 16, 2005, 04:23 AM

Interesting opinion Lookout...would you say the same of Jaime Jackson?

LMH

Jan. 16, 2005, 04:26 AM

username, he isn't dangerous...I know Pete and he has trimmed my horses.

Are you familiar with the Strasser method of trimming? Bear in mind many who criticize Pete advocate the Strasser method which can lame a horse in 3 seconds flat.

My horses are "performance horses" and I have had them barefoot over a year using the wild horse trim advocated by Jaime Jackson-and by trickle down theory, also used by Pete.

My horses are sound and have great feet and do not wear off the feet faster than they grow.

I know SEVERAL other people that use Pete and the trim and have wonderfully sound horses.

Lookout

Jan. 16, 2005, 03:37 PM

I don't know much about JJ but I can say that he bases his ideas on a model he has studied extensively in the field for years, and to my knowledge does not make anatomically unsupportable claims.

EBO

Jan. 16, 2005, 03:48 PM

Username--Here's a site I find useful for touch-ups: Lotsa pictures! www.ironfreehoof.com (http://www.ironfreehoof.com)

I have a horse who I am rehabbing from chronic laminitis (and founder), so needed to do heel lowering and toe shortening in between farrier appointments.

username

Jan. 16, 2005, 10:16 PM

thanks all! appreciate your time and considered opinions! and experience!

PS at risk of opening a can of worms...who is Strasser?

grinanride

Jan. 17, 2005, 04:53 AM

www.thehorseshoof.com (http://www.thehorseshoof.com)
www.naturalhorsetrim.com (http://www.naturalhorsetrim.com)
www.strasserhoofcare.com (http://www.strasserhoofcare.com)

Dr Hiltrud Strasser is a German veterinarian- you can begin to learn about her teachings at the above links.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by happytrails1:
http://www.thehorseshoof.com
http://www.naturalhorsetrim.com
http://www.strasserhoofcare.com

Dr Hiltrud Strasser is a German veterinarian- you can begin to learn about her teachings at the above links. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strasser's "teachings" are apparently designed to separate the unwitting from their chump change, they have no scientific basis. She is the leader of a cult who sells hoof trimming franchises. The husbandry component of her franchise was old when Xenophon was a boy; the trimming component of her cult can best be described as one-size-fits-all, overly invasive, hoof butchery.

Although Strasser claims to have formulated her hypotheses relative to horseshoes more than 20 years ago, they remain untested. Her website, and the websites of the Faithful, consist of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies that blame shoeing for everything but Kennedy's assassination. In reality, such testimonials are as scientifically significant as distant mouse flatulence: her hypotheses relative to trimming have NEVER been tested with the results published for peer review, while the efficacy of shoeing has been tested ad nauseam.

After formulating the trimming component of her hypotheses, rather than go through the bothersome process of testing, publication and peer review as is dictated by the scientific method, Strasser chose to start immediately milking the suckers by selling franchises to the intellectually unwary. She's been very successful in demonstrating the validity of the Phineas Factor, but her trimming protocols - by her own admission - put horses at risk.

http://www.anvilmag.com/farrier/207f2.htm

I've had a little proposition on the board for four or five years that would effectively test the validity of her claim that no horse needs shoes, but for some inexplicable reason, the strasserite camp has failed to take me up on a public test of her claims, a failure that perhaps speaks more eloquently than all of her claims.

Here's my proposition - bear in mind that it's a test of the validity of her claims relative to horseshoeing and does NOT include a husbandry component: I'll furnish a shod horse (or several shod horses) that has been diagnosed with navicular syndrome. The horse(s) will be moved on a hard surface and its (their) movement evaluated by several veterinarians currently, or formerly, on the staff of the Veterinary School at Texas A&M University. Next, the shoes will be pulled and the horse(s) trimmed by anyone chosen by the barefoot camp. Immediately thereafter, the horse(s) will be moved barefooted, in the same manner, on the same surface, and evaluated by the same veterinarians who will determine if the effects of having its (their) shoes pulled and feet trimmed has been beneficial or deleterious. I - and a other few farriers, veterinarians, trainers, owners - are willing to bet the rent money that the horse(s) will move better with shoes than without.

Obviously, this is a sucker bet because it's readily demonstrable that some horses NEED shoes; however, the reticence of the strasserites indicates Strasser's hypotheses won't stand even this simple test of efficacy.

http://www.katyforge.com/somehorses.html

bibiche

Jan. 17, 2005, 10:13 AM

Tom S.:

longtime lurker here and wife of a canadian AFA CJF (just to show my bias) - your last post amen. If you were in front of me I would hug you.

LMH

Jan. 17, 2005, 10:56 AM

One hole in your proposition Tom-even those advocating barefoot would say a horse can be sore immediately after pulling off shoes.

What about 2 weeks after?

slb

Jan. 17, 2005, 11:19 AM

I agree with LMH...you can't expect anyone to buy into that scenerio. No one advocates that all horses walk off sound when newly barefoot....just as if the opposite bet were made, not every horse that was lame would walk off sound when shod.

grinanride

Jan. 17, 2005, 12:24 PM

Efficacy - noun - meaning the power of producing effects

yes - the use of metal shoes produces effects -

"That shoeing is a necessary evil cannot be denied. Shoes fitted and applied in the best known method are detrimental to the free functioning of the foot structures. Every nail driven into the wall of the hoof destroys a number of horn fibers and tends to weaken the main weight bearing part of the foot. The shoe raises the frog from the ground and interferes with the functioning of the horny frog and elastic structures." The Calvary Horsehoer's technical Manual - War Dept 1941

" The shoe restricts the normal expansion of the hoof wall." Rooney - The Lame Horse 1998

"The hooves are, through shoeing, impaired in their development; also are shod horses often exposed to excessive exertions and are prematurely ruined. Moderate work on the field does not harm a young horse, but for this it does not require shoes. The shod hooves are exposed to more damages than unshod hooves, because the shoe itself, even though it is necessary to use the horsee on hard streets, has detrimental effects on the hoof, since is more or less prevents the hoof mechnaism, and so slows the blood flow in the hoof, which in turn results in decreased horn growth of the hoof." A Lungwitz, professor of hoof sciences, Royal veterinary University in Dresden 1896

" No horse should be shod before it is 5 years of age." Vet Wilhelm Blendinger Healthcare and first aid for the horse 1980

Rudolf Zierold dissertation 1910 - findings - in outwardly healthy appearing shod hooves the sensitive laminae showed significant structural alterations and various unphysiological branchings when compared to unshod hooves, regardless of the age of the horse.

Luca Bein University of Zurich 1983 - dissertation - A hoof shod with metal lacks 60 - 80% of it's natural shock absoption. " A shod foot moving on asphalt at a walk receives three times the impact force as an unshod foot moving on asphalt at the trot."

Dyhre-Poulsen 1994 compared concussion dampening forces in shod vs unshod hooves - Impact vibration was higher inside the hoof in the shod hoof.

Pollitt Hoof studies video - clearly shows restriction of arterial blood flow to the corium in a shod hoof as the blood flows takes an alternative path to the toe.

"Research has shown that an unshod foot has a longer duration of breakover. This suggests that shod feet, because they breakover faster, have less time for the hooves to dissipate the energy of impact." Lisa S Lancaster The Sound hoof 2004

"horses are usually shod on the basis of tradition and not on the basis of scientific study." Adam's Lameness in Horses

Anyhow - seems to me a better use of time would be to help educate owners who keep their horses shod or not about what constitutes a healthy hoof, how it functions and relates to the whole horse, how to prevent as much damage as possible and have the healthiest horses possible in the domestic situation, how to recognize "correct" shoeing, recognize deformity as it begins and steer clear of bad
shoeing!

Dr Hiltrud Strasser Vet Med PHD ( anatomy ) has for the past 25 years researched and educated on the prevention of lameness and recovery of soundness to lame horses - She has been a
catalyst for horse owner education whether you agree with her or not - A large amount of what is written about her on the internet is incorrect at best. There are many intelligent and thoughtful owners and even some veterinarians taking the time to learn what she has to offer.
R

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
I agree with LMH...you can't expect anyone to buy into that scenerio. No one advocates that all horses walk off sound when newly barefoot....just as if the opposite bet were made, not every horse that was lame would walk off sound when shod. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You good folks are missing the point: Anyone who claims that no horse needs shoes (i.e., strasserites and the lunatic fringe of the barefoot uber alles contingent) cannot use the argument that some horses require a transition period between shod and unshod because their premise is that no horse needs shoes. EVER! If a horse walks up sound and walks off unsound and the ONLY thing that's changed is that the horse has gone from shod the unshod, then unless one wishes to argue that being unsound is somehow "better" than being sound, the horse was undeniably better off shod than unshod.

It's a test of pragmatic efficacy, not conjecture. Some horses need shoeing, some don't.

Lookout

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:00 PM

They also argue that shoeing damages the foot, so a transition period of healing is required. Come on.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by happytrails1:
Efficacy - noun - meaning the power of producing effects
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong! "Efficacy" means the ability to produce a DESIRED effect, not just an effect.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
yes - the use of metal shoes produces effects -
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses need shoeing for three reasons: protection, traction, or the therapeutic change of gait. The use of metal shoes produces the DESIRED effects of protection, traction, and the therapeutic change of gait, all of which may be impossible to attain on a timely basis without the use of shoes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"That shoeing is a necessary evil cannot be denied. Shoes fitted and applied in the best known method are detrimental to the free functioning of the foot structures. Every nail driven into the wall of the hoof destroys a number of horn fibers and tends to weaken the main weight bearing part of the foot. The shoe raises the frog from the ground and interferes with the functioning of the horny frog and elastic structures." The Calvary Horsehoer's technical Manual - War Dept 1941
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can only wonder why you left out the part of the manual that mandated that ALL calvary horses be shod, the reasons why, the fact that ALL troopers were required to be conversant in replacing a lost shoe, and that ALL troopers carried a spare shoe and nails. Was it your intention to be disingenuous, or did you just quit reading too soon?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"The shoe restricts the normal expansion of the hoof wall." Rooney - The Lame Horse 1998
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read for content: According to the same source, a correctly applied shoe cannot restrict the "expansion" of the hoof wall because the wall does not expand appreciably on loading/unloading; instead, the hoof capsule elongates along the central axis, lengthening, not surprisingly, at it weakest point, the bulbs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"The hooves are, through shoeing, impaired in their development; also are shod horses often exposed to excessive exertions and are prematurely ruined. Moderate work on the field does not harm a young horse, but for this it does not require shoes. The shod hooves are exposed to more damages than unshod hooves, because the shoe itself, even though it is necessary to use the horsee on hard streets, has detrimental effects on the hoof, since is more or less prevents the hoof mechnaism, and so slows the blood flow in the hoof, which in turn results in decreased horn growth of the hoof." A Lungwitz, professor of hoof sciences, Royal veterinary University in Dresden 1896
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep reading Lungwitz, you may learn something. Pay careful attention to what he had to say about "expansion" and remember: you can't have it both ways.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"No horse should be shod before it is 5 years of age." Vet Wilhelm Blendinger Healthcare and first aid for the horse 1980

Rudolf Zierold dissertation 1910 - findings - in outwardly healthy appearing shod hooves the sensitive laminae showed significant structural alterations and various unphysiological branchings when compared to unshod hooves, regardless of the age of the horse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Should you tire of mindlessly quoting various "authorities" out of context, feel free to name every horse that has won or placed in any major objectively quantified event involving horses during the last 100 years.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Luca Bein University of Zurich 1983 - dissertation - A hoof shod with metal lacks 60 - 80% of it's natural shock absoption. " A shod foot moving on asphalt at a walk receives three times the impact force as an unshod foot moving on asphalt at the trot."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only place I've ever seen a reference to this Bein's dissertation was on strasserite websites. Want to guess how much validity an untested dissertation has?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Dyhre-Poulsen 1994 compared concussion dampening forces in shod vs unshod hooves - Impact vibration was higher inside the hoof in the shod hoof.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One can only wonder why you failed to mention that no deleterious effect was either demonstrated or claimed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Pollitt Hoof studies video - clearly shows restriction of arterial blood flow to the corium in a shod hoof as the blood flows takes an alternative path to the toe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please delineate the EXACT means by which you feel Pollitt "clearly shows restriction of blood flow to the corium in a shod hoof..." Be sure to note WHICH particular corium was allegedly affected, any deleterious effect to the affected structures, and demonstrate that similar "restrictions" do not take place in a bare foot under exactly the same conditions. An abstract would be nice.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"Research has shown that an unshod foot has a longer duration of breakover. This suggests that shod feet, because they breakover faster, have less time for the hooves to dissipate the energy of impact." Lisa S Lancaster The Sound hoof 2004
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have confused the support phases of movement with non-support phases of movement. Perhaps both Ms. Lancaster and yourself would benefit from a course in remedial biophysics. On impact, the horse's primary defense against concussion is the incompressibility of fluids, the interaction of soft and hard structures within the hoof capsule, and the dampening effect of the suspensory apparatus. All of which takes place immediately following impact, during the SUPPORT phases of movement. Turnover is a function of phalangeal length and angulation and is a non-support phase of movement.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"horses are usually shod on the basis of tradition and not on the basis of scientific study." Adam's Lameness in Horses
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Adams was adamant in his condemnation of the traditional use of grabs in race horses, not of farriery.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Anyhow - seems to me a better use of time would be to help educate owners who keep their horses shod or not about what constitutes a healthy hoof, how it functions and relates to the whole horse, how to prevent as much damage as possible and have the healthiest horses possible in the domestic situation, how to recognize "correct" shoeing, recognize deformity as it begins and steer clear of bad shoeing!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better yet, owners should steer clear of both bad shoeing, bad trimming, and untested protocols!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Dr Hiltrud Strasser Vet Med PHD ( anatomy ) has for the past 25 years researched and educated on the prevention of lameness and recovery of soundness to lame horses - She has been a
catalyst for horse owner education whether you agree with her or not - A large amount of what is written about her on the internet is incorrect at best.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I've ever written anything about Strasser's butchery you think is "incorrect", please be kind enough to point it out. Among other things, I've written repeatedly that Strasser has NEVER subjected her cockamamie hypotheses to scientific testing, publication, and peer review. Do you find anything "incorrect" in my statement? If you wish to challenge its validity, you have only to post the path to any test of her hypotheses published for peer review in any scientific journal.

If you can't - and you damn sure can't - you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

LMH

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:29 PM

Tom I will let you battle with the Strasser's on that issue---I don't have a debate there.

However I think it is narrow minded to say if a horse needs a week or 2 to get tougher feet it means he NEEDS shoes.

People regularly pull shoes for the winter or off season and expect a bit of time for the horse to adjust...that by no means is proof the horse must then have shoes.

I have pulled shoes off horses-2 weeks adjustment and all are still sounded and cruising.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
They also argue that shoeing damages the foot, so a transition period of healing is required. Come on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
C'mon yourself and think! Specious arguments concerning horses' feet are as common as white on rice. Why would anyone think a horse that presents sound is in need of "healing"? If the shoes are pulled and the horse becomes unsound, the salient point is that the horse is no longer sound and any claims of a need for a "transition period" are meaningless in light of the fact the horse is no longer sound.

In my business, limping is not considered a Good Thing, no matter how high blown the rhetoric surrounding the limp.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
One hole in your proposition Tom-even those advocating barefoot would say a horse can be sore immediately after pulling off shoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope you're not saying it's okay to make a horse hurt for some indeterminate period in order to appease to the Great God of Barefootedness.

HossShoer

Jan. 17, 2005, 06:50 PM

Hey Tom, YES.
Thank you.
Regards John

Voe

Jan. 17, 2005, 07:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:

C'mon yourself and think! Specious arguments concerning horses' feet are as common as white on rice. Why would anyone think a horse that presents sound is in need of "healing"? If the shoes are pulled and the horse becomes unsound, the salient point is that the horse is no longer sound and any claims of a need for a "transition period" are meaningless in light of the fact the horse is no longer sound.

In my business, limping is not considered a Good Thing, no matter how high blown the rhetoric surrounding the limp. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, don't be silly. From what I can see, you must have read enough of the barefooter arguments to know that we, at least, think that shoeing restricts circulation. This would not only cause damage, but cause that damage to go unnoticed due to lack of feeling. Let's say, for example, you have a navicular horse. If said horse was nerved and walked out fine, would you say that horse's feet are as good as an average sound horse? If you could completely heal said navicular horse through whatever means, but it caused the horse brief discomfort, would you say nerving is better? (This is supposing that nerving gave instant painless results, which we all know it doesn't.)

Pocket Pony

Jan. 17, 2005, 07:29 PM

I'm having a hard time with the whole barefoot trim. I must say I'm jealous of you who have easy transitions, because I have not had that experience. I pulled Miles's shoes and it has been six months now and he's still not rideable without boots on. I have gravel (which may mean different things to different people - my gravel is sharp and pointy and big) in my driveway, down my street, and on the walkway to my arena. My arena is sand. Miles isn't really comfortable anywhere except the pasture, and even at that he's hardly 100%. He has shown improvement in the six months, but I wonder how long this "transition" is supposed to take? Since it is super muddy right now, I'm not going to bother putting shoes on him at this point. But come springtime and dry ground, if he's not up to being barefoot, the shoes go back on. I tried to buy into the barefoot methodology, but to be honest I've been quite disappointed. I have a trimmer whom I've been working with, but am considering ditching him and having my farrier (I have two barefoot, one shod) do the barefoot trims also.

For the farriers on here...how do you trim differently for barefoot than for shoes? Barefoot people will generally tell you that farriers don't do barefoot properly, and to stay away from a "pasture trim". I'd be interested in your input.

Miles's feet DO look much better, and I think they are better balanced overall. But function certainly is not following form at this point.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 17, 2005, 07:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Voe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:

C'mon yourself and think! Specious arguments concerning horses' feet are as common as white on rice. Why would anyone think a horse that presents sound is in need of "healing"? If the shoes are pulled and the horse becomes unsound, the salient point is that the horse is no longer sound and any claims of a need for a "transition period" are meaningless in light of the fact the horse is no longer sound.

In my business, limping is not considered a Good Thing, no matter how high blown the rhetoric surrounding the limp. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, don't be silly. From what I can see, you must have read enough of the barefooter arguments to know that we, at least, think that shoeing restricts circulation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What some folks think has no basis in reality. It has NEVER been demonstrated that a properly applied shoe restricts circulation in any way. Not once, not ever.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
This would not only cause damage, but cause that damage to go unnoticed due to lack of feeling. Let's say, for example, you have a navicular horse. If said horse was nerved and walked out fine, would you say that horse's feet are as good as an average sound horse?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If granny had wheels, she'd be a wagon. You're operating on the basis of a false premise, try again.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If you could completely heal said navicular horse through whatever means, but it caused the horse brief discomfort, would you say nerving is better? (This is supposing that nerving gave instant painless results, which we all know it doesn't.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please have someone explain to you the difference between the palliation of symptoms of an incurable pathology (e.g., navicular fractures, pedal osteitis, articular ringbone, etc.) by means of a mechanical procedure - farrier stuff - and a neurectomy, which is a surgical procedure and the province of veterinarians. Simply put, the former stops the reason for the pain while the latter stops the pain from reaching the brain. surely you're not another of those scholars who'd rather see a horse in pain instead of shod.

Dallas

Jan. 17, 2005, 08:33 PM

Tom -
As an experienced farrier do you believe
that taking a horse barefoot allows
a contracted and underun heel area to
correct faster than in shoes?

My farrier
suggested this and we pulled shoes last
year and this for several months - it helped
both the contraction and the underun heels - when he goes in shoes he seems to revert a little. I think maybe the farrier is short
shoing when shoe and that is the problem.

Anyway - the post is to ask you if you think
there are times that a couple of months of
barefoot is the cure (even though the horse
works better in shoes - we just use the bare
foot period to correct a problem) ??

CHJoker

Jan. 18, 2005, 03:07 AM

You, as a horse owner, have to do what is best for your horse. Period. No one makes that decision except for you. Does your horse need shoes?? Maybe. For a variety of reasons. Can he go barefoot? Maybe. For a variety of reasons.

I can tell you that for me, the best thing I ever did was take my horse barefoot (HPT type). It made a world of difference, and my horse is sound and moving beautifully. Was there pain in the beginning?? Yes, I am sure there was. Especially on uneven concrete and gravel. But, there was pain before the shoes came off, on all terrain, so I had to make some decisions. My horse is now pain free. Was it worth it?? Absolutely.

Life is not always sunshine and roses, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made. Get all the information you can, from all sides, read like crazy, and make your own decisions.

But remember to consider the sources of information... barefoot gurus are going to push barefoot, and farriers are going to push shod. It is just the way it is. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, and it is up to you to find it. But don't let a guilt trip about "pain" be the deciding factor. Many times, when people get desperate enough to take off the shoes, pain is a fact of life for their horse, not something that suddenly appears.

In response to the OP, I think the "Ramey" trim is fine. It is a variation of the "High Performance Trim". It seems there are 3 main players, Jaime Jackson, Pete Ramey, and KC La Pierre, and they all have interesting ideas, and alot of information about the horses hoof is available. I am not sure why the whole discussion of Strasser came up... she is rather the extreme example, and the other three do NOT advocate her.

Each camp, of course, claims theirs is the best, but if you look past the hype, there IS alot of good information,and I find the methods to be VERY similar (excluding Strasser). Interestingly, KC La Pierre was a professional farrier for 20 years. His "life history" is very interesting. But I really like Rameys book, too http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Be sure to read his website, he updates it regurally, and some of his ideas have changed slightly.

But as someone said.... you can't measure the validity or "efficacy" of having a barefoot horse by whether or not it is immediately sound after taking off the shoes. Kind of like gaining weight... What took months or years to obtain won't come off in a few minutes, hours or days.

Tom, with your "challenge" it is in fact asking for a miracle. There are too many variables, and incredibly unfair and unrealistic. That no one "takes you up on your offer" shows nothing, except that they are not stupid. NO ONE has claimed that if you remove the shoes, your horse will IMMEDIATELY be sound. What has been proposed is that if you remove the shoes, put the hoof in an optimum healing position, and be a bit patient, you may see incredible results.

What would be of more interest (to me at leasthttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) is to have controlled clinical studies done with groups of horses with very similar pathologies, some shod (various methods), some nerved, some taken barefoot (various methods; HPT, strasser, traditional pasture"); all controlled in a similar environment and work load, and followed for a period of about 2 years . I would be interested in the results from THAT study.

Up until that point, however, I must rely on my own clinical study, with my own unsound horse, and I am thrilled that I can report the result as "efficacy demonstrated".

LMH

Jan. 18, 2005, 05:13 AM

Tom-have you EVER pulled shoes off a horse and found it tender for a few days after? Did you IMMEDIATELY put shoes back on ?

You know darn well I am not talking unbearable pain for months on end...and you also know there can be tenderness on hard or rocky ground when a horse has shoes pulled.

AND if it means a week or 2 of slight tenderness so I have never have to nail shoes on again, Yes I will sleep quite nicely for it.

Now months and years? I might struggle with that decision-but I have not experienced that so don't know why that happens-unless the trim is bad. (edited to add-or of course if the horse has some damage-I am refering to otherwise normal healthy feet).

grinanride

Jan. 18, 2005, 05:18 AM

Nothing I have written is out of context - these are simply some of the findings - that damage occurs is a fact - how much damage is acceptable is up to an owner - no where does a study exist that states the use of metal shoes does no harm.

That some horses cannot walk comfortably on their own feet without the use of an appliance is also a fact -

the most important issue for horses that are shod is to try and limit the damage done by first knowing what is healthy, raise a healthy footed horse in the first place through as natural a lifestyle as possible on proper terrain for the breed, do not shoe before the age where the horse has fully developed it's hoof, about age 5. Continue with lots of movement and as healthy a lifestyle as possible, have a good farrier and reset at a shorter interval, give the horse time without shoes as much as possible. This is the way to get the longest use.

Many horses that are taken barefoot and cannot walk on their own feet were never allowed to develop a good foot in the first place, the owners were not aware - then through a less than healthy lifestyle and perhaps bad shoeing over time the hoof became more unhealthy - in time the metal appliance alone can not keep the horse comfortably on its own feet, various appliances and adjustments are made till no matter, the horse could not ambulate comfortably on it's own feet.

The owner reads about barefoot, this may be the way to reclaim soundness for the horse. Maybe not either, there are hooves that are too far gone, no matter the way they are trimmed.

Owners should be realistic based on knowledge and should try to gain enough knowledge to make an educated guess as to what to expect and for how long when they attempt to take a horse barefoot. Some expectations are unrealistic - other owners may be pleasantly surprised but it takes knowledge and practice to know what is likely.

My own horses are kept as close to the Strasser protocal as I am willing and able based on my experience and have been for 5 years. It is not butchery nor one size fits all.

R

bibiche

Jan. 18, 2005, 06:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>. Maybe not either, there are hooves that are too far gone, no matter the way they are trimmed.

Dragging myself out of lurking again.

Let's get a collective grip here on the fact that some horses have a genetic predisposition where weak collagen bonds or poor vascular systems and other physiological issues result results in poor feet from the outset and not borne out of evil farriery or trimming jobs. I repeat, this no matter how good the trim is and certainly aggravated by a bad one. For these horses, adjuncts such a glue on shoes or pour in pads, wide webbed shoes and other are often the only way these horses are going to lead productive lifes as RIDING horses. Sure they can cope in the pasture with little demands placed upon them by undue riding. Better yet, should they happen to be bearers of a set of ovaries, invariably the owners will resort to breeding these horses in order to salvage their economic loss since regular riding is not a manageable option and often perpetuate the problem.

Ideally - all horses would have good hooves and could cope with their jobs barefooted.

And for all you owners out there who think that this "shoeing" plague is a great ploy by farrier to unjustly enrich themselves on your backs, Ill let you in on a little secret of the trade, WE MAKE FAR MORE MONEY WITH TRIMS. The cost of shoes, nails, tools (drills, grinders, clamps etc.) propane, outfitting a truck to carry all and inventories that must be kept on hand to service a varied clientele just does not compare wth the cost effectiveness of trimming good footed horses that are soundly managed.

I'm glad for those who have found that bare was best - the ultimate end goal IS to have happy sound and productive horses. But by lord, it's not a religion or a cure all.

Ouf - leaping off the soapbox and going back into hiding - not really sure why I bothered ...

And I obviously failed "quote 101"

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 18, 2005, 06:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Tom-have you EVER pulled shoes off a horse and found it tender for a few days after? Did you IMMEDIATELY put shoes back on ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Counselor, at issue is the strasserite and barefoot uber alles proposition that no horse NEEDS shoes, not anyone's conjecture about whether some horses may become sore, then recover at some point in time after their shoes are pulled. Please be kind enough to read the fine print: The subject of my proposition is a horse(s) has been diagnosed with navicular syndrome, has been shod, and presents clinically sound to a group of veterinarians. You may assume the horse(s) NEEDS the appliance in order to maintain that level of soundness as long as his regimen, husbandry, and environment are unchanged. You may also assume that when I offer to bet the rent money, the horse will be afflicted with a pathology that cannot be addressed without the use of a mechanical appliance.

In answer to your question as it relates to my proposition - assuming the horse's regimen, husbandry, and environment are to be unchanged - I would not pull my shoes off a sound horse that had been diagnosed with NS because I will not knowingly cause a horse pain and I KNOW that removing the appliance will result in pain.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You know darn well I am not talking unbearable pain for months on end...and you also know there can be tenderness on hard or rocky ground when a horse has shoes pulled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, you are attempting to digress rather than address the issue at hand: my proposition was specific relative to a particular pathology and the immediate effect of removing the shoes from a horse so afflicted.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
AND if it means a week or 2 of slight tenderness so I have never have to nail shoes on again, Yes I will sleep quite nicely for it.

Now months and years? I might struggle with that decision-but I have not experienced that so don't know why that happens-unless the trim is bad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How would you sleep after pulling the shoes off a horse that was sound, but had been diagnosed with an incurable pathology (e.g., fractured navicular bone, pedal osteitis, articular ringbone, etc.) that cannot be effectively addressed without the use of some form of horseshoe?

LMH

Jan. 18, 2005, 06:26 AM

Fair enough-I am not going to debate that one....http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Truly-sorry-I thought the conversation had digressed beyond just NS horses into just plain ole shoe-pulling! (where is the blonde icon?)

Carry on then!

CHJoker

Jan. 18, 2005, 06:53 AM

"I'm glad for those who have found that bare was best - the ultimate end goal IS to have happy sound and productive horses. But by lord, it's not a religion or a cure all."

This theme comes up OVER and OVER again. That barefoot is a "religion", cult, wierd science, whatever. Actually, a horse being barefoot is about as natural as it gets....and it seems to work pretty well on many horses.

Who, exactly, is saying that EVERY HORSE ON THE PLANET must be barefoot or face a lifetime in Hell? That barefoot will fix EVERYTHING wrong with your horse? That no horse should EVER have shoes? That you are EVIL if you shoe your horse?

I can say that for sure, Ramey and La Pierre do not say this. The facts are, La Pierre for one used to be a farrier. He now does not shoe horses. The reasons why are intriguing, to be sure! But, it is far from a "religion". I would say, actually, having a barefoot horse is more "nature" oriented, than anything.

Lastly, With all the "amens" and " I would hug you if I was near you" comments from farriers on this board, , I find it funny that it is the BAREFOOT advocates who are accused of being religous. Sounds like a revival around here sometimes, to listen to the farriers.

I for one am not saying every horse on the planet can go barefoot. I am saying it is worth trying, especially if you are dealing with foot pathologies that are not being fixed "traditionally". It is worth a try before you put the horse down or into retirement.

How do you think all these success stories with barefoot rehabilitation came to light?? Because owners with perfectly sound and happy horses just collectively decided to pull the shoes and see what happened?? Try instead...

Many of us were DESPERATE. And guess what?? It worked. In my case, it worked.

Why are you so against being barefoot?? Or, are you?? Tradition dictates in many cases that horses are shod, not the extreme examples of genetic malformations, etc, that have been used to justify shoeing. No one says there is not a place for certain methods of shoeing. Some of us are just questioning the commonly held belief that ALL/MOST HORSES certainly need shoes if they are to be anything other than pasture potatoes.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 18, 2005, 06:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by happytrails1:
Nothing I have written is out of context - these are simply some of the findings - that damage occurs is a fact...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, you are mistaken. None of your quoted material was in context and no scientific evidence suggests that Strasser's claims relative to the alleged "evils" of shoeing have any scientific basis. Quotes out of context and testimonials of the faithful are not double blinds published for peer review.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
My own horses are kept as close to the Strasser protocal as I am willing and able based on my experience and have been for 5 years...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses have survived protocols of dubious efficacy for many years, but their survival does not demonstrate the validity of the protocol. On the other hand, in terms of demonstrable efficacy, it should be noted that no barefooted horse under saddle has ever won or placed in any major objectively quantified equine competition. Not once, not ever.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It is not butchery nor one size fits all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong again. Strasser's overly invasive trimming can best be termed "butchery" and her idiotic 30 degree hairline and P3 parallel to the ground certainly qualify as "one-size-fits-all".

CHJoker

Jan. 18, 2005, 07:13 AM

"Horses have survived protocols of dubious efficacy for many years, but their survival does not demonstrate the validity of the protocol. On the other hand, in terms of demonstrable efficacy, it should be noted that no barefooted horse under saddle has ever won or placed in any major objectively quantified equine competition. Not once, not ever. "

Hmmmm...let's see...what could be the toughest on horses hooves..hmmm...say maybe long distance endurance riding?? You might want to ask Darolyn Butler-Dial about never winning any major competitions on her barefoot endurance horses. There are a few others as well... I believe there is another barefoot endurance champion in the UK. I just read a story of a GP jumper who is now barefoot and doing well. (I have to look for the name). There are some GP Dressage riders who have barefoot horses. ARe they riding in the Olympics?? Well, realistically, how many of us are?

But, please, let's not rehash this same tired arguement about how all performance horses need shoes. We (and many others)did it before, on another thread.

Once again, Tom, you say "some horses need shoes, some don't" but what you seem to really mean (at least from the mixed messages) is something more like

"High performance sport horses of any type need shoes, they make your horse faster, better, and stronger, and some horses don't need shoes, but only if they are sitting in a pasture or already lame and useless".

I can't say that I agree with this. But, we are all entitled to our opinions http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

grinanride

Jan. 18, 2005, 07:44 AM

Yep - comes up around and around usually having no relationship to the original thread - the original thread was a gal asking if she would be okay using Pete Ramey's version of the Jackson trim, to which the concensous seemed to be yes, in her circumstance.

Near hysteria then ensues, especially when Dr Strasser's name is inserted. Barefoot is not for all horses and owners that is a fact. But it is also a fact that damage of some sort occurs to the horse through the use of metal shoes whether you can see it in the short term or not. I am awaiting research that has a different conclusion.

Even Dr Strasser has stated in writing that IF a horse has to be shod for an event they should be shod in a plastic shoe and that not all horses should be trimmed following her protocal for various reasons.

bibiche

Jan. 18, 2005, 08:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> How do you think all these success stories with barefoot rehabilitation came to light?? Because owners with perfectly sound and happy horses just collectively decided to pull the shoes and see what happened?? Try instead...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CHJoker - I will not stoop to a personal attack - this being said, any farrier worth his salt should be able to counsel his client in what is appropriate to rehabilitate a horse and that does include pulling off shoes and trying to remediate the foot naturally. they can in fact be your partner in this adventure - too bad you could not get the support you needed from your "professional" team and good for you in having the conviction to pursue an avenue that served yours and your horse's purpose.

Try instead? We do it all the time and my own have been a sound happy mixture of bare or shod as the circumstances dictate.

Options - it should all be about keeping options open. I have no comments to add to the ORIGINAL post - don't know the gentleman, or the poster or his/her horse. I was reacting to the mish mash below the original thread to which you all contributed, good, bad and indifferent. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

CHJoker

Jan. 18, 2005, 08:22 AM

That wasn't a personal attack on you, so thank you for not making a personal attack on me http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree. It is about keeping your options open, and working with what is available!! It just seemed you were pretty steamed about the whole barefoot thing... but glad to hear you are not!

HONESTLY, if I were faced with a horse that I could not keep sound without shoes, despite all my efforts, I would put shoes on! Just as I decided to pull the shoes, as nothing else was working! However, as with everything, application of the shoes and the trim have so much to do with the results (or lack thereof).

Where I get a bit tired is the belief that most horses should have shoes,and that all performance horses require them. Just as I am SURE you get tired with the belief that all horses should be able to go barefoot. Neither is true.

Lookout

Jan. 18, 2005, 08:28 AM

Please post the studies indicating this.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bibiche:
Let's get a collective grip here on the fact that some horses have a genetic predisposition where weak collagen bonds or poor vascular systems and other physiological issues result results in poor feet from the outset ...
QUOTE]

Bea

Jan. 18, 2005, 08:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by happytrails1:
But it is also a fact that damage of some sort occurs to the horse through the use of metal shoes whether you can see it in the short term or not. I am awaiting research that has a different conclusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
happytrails1, to me the near hysteria ensures because of the sentence above. It seems to me that yes, there is research suggesting some differences between shod feet and unshod feet. But I've yet to see a proper research study stating conclusively that those changes that might occur to the feet from correctly applied shoes result in unsoundness.

From my limited reading it appears there's some major difficulties in developing methodology for studying impact on horse's feet. Many research studies are still trying to figure out a fool proof way to do it. Knowing that one fact to the small extent I do, means when I read your list of citations I realize how questionable they are.

How do they measure force of impact and concussion in a horse's foot? Researchers have been trying to develop ways for years and still haven't completely cracked it. Using cadaver feet? A useful method but must be acknowledged as incomplete and therefore with limited conclusions.

What gadget do they use to measure force of impact? They've tried developing horse boots with measuring gadgets to place on feet. And I believe realized that has its limitations. Force plates inserted between the shoe and hoof? That seems to work reasonably well. But how do you attach those to a barefoot hoof? Without the foot being affected by the methodology?

Given the difficulties today's researchers are having, back in the 1800's they must really have been struggling.

On the other hand, there are numerous studies proving the benefits of shoeing to relieve unsoundness.

So, for me personally the barefoot folks serve a valuable purpose. Why shoe? Do you really need to have shoes on your horse? Why not save all the money if you don't need to shoe?

Tom Stovall supports that questioning as well, I believe. At least he's stated numerous times on this BB that some horses don't need shoes.

But it appears Strasserites go further than simply asking why shoe? They state, as you did above, that shoes cause damage to the feet. And I for one take as implied in that statement that that damage is harmful and adversely affects the horse. And I've yet to see true studies proving that fact.

bibiche

Jan. 18, 2005, 08:49 AM

Lookout - frankly – I have no such time today but might revisit this when I feel like being dissected sans anesthesia. Try reading Pollit, spend 20 + years tracking dam, stallion and babies on large breeding farm and forming a personal opinion through handling of 4 or five generation’s toes, OVC studies that link pathology for weak collagen bond issues whether causing hoof / laminae deterioration or such skin lesions as nodular necrobiosis, Bob Sigafoos has interesting things to say about hoof wall micro mechanics and why how structural damage occurs … you know – in essence do your own research – I’m done with this topic.

Thank you CHJoker – that was a thoughtful reply.

Bye - this sure was entertaining.

Lookout

Jan. 18, 2005, 10:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by bibiche:
Lookout - frankly – I have no such time today but might revisit this when I feel like being dissected sans anesthesia. Try reading Pollit, spend 20 + years tracking dam, stallion and babies on large breeding farm and forming a personal opinion through handling of 4 or five generation’s toes, OVC studies that link pathology for weak collagen bond issues whether causing hoof / laminae deterioration or such skin lesions as nodular necrobiosis, Bob Sigafoos has interesting things to say about hoof wall micro mechanics and why how structural damage occurs … you know – in essence do your own research – I’m done with this topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course you are. It's only barefoot proponents that need to back up their statements with studies. I've read Pollitt, he doesn't prove this, breeding farms show you what environment and living conditions produce, personal experience is not a study, and linking pathology to weak collagen doesn't prove genetics as a cause.

Lookout

Jan. 18, 2005, 10:49 AM

Look around you. Don't all the lame horses you see, or the ones people are constantly writing about here, seemingly without solutions, tell you anything?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bea:
But it appears Strasserites go further than simply asking why shoe? They state, as you did above, that shoes cause damage to the feet. And I for one take as implied in that statement that that damage is harmful and adversely affects the horse. And I've yet to see true studies proving that fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bea

Jan. 18, 2005, 11:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
Look around you. Don't all the lame horses you see, or the ones people are constantly writing about here, seemingly without solutions, tell you anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lookout, I honestly have to say I can't really relate to your question. So I'm not sure if I understand it properly. But no, if this is what you meant, I don't hear of a lame horse and automatically assume the cause is the fact it's shod. Do you?

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 18, 2005, 12:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by happytrails1:
Near hysteria then ensues, especially when Dr Strasser's name is inserted. Barefoot is not for all horses and owners that is a fact.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Barefoot is not for all horses..."??? Not according to Strasser.

Strasser's name engenders controversy because she has been extremely vocal in her condemnation of farriery, made all sorts of pie-in-the-sky, undocumented claims, but she has never, ever, not even once, submitted her hypotheses to objective testing, publication, and peer review.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
But it is also a fact that damage of some sort occurs to the horse through the use of metal shoes whether you can see it in the short term or not. I am awaiting research that has a different conclusion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, that's not how it works. Since it's YOUR
claim that the correct application of metal shoes has a deleterious effect on horses, the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not the skeptic. Spare me quotes out of context, references to obscure doctoral dissertations, testimonials of the faithful, and similar nonsense: double blinds will do nicely.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 18, 2005, 12:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
Hmmmm...let's see...what could be the toughest on horses hooves..hmmm...say maybe long distance endurance riding??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Horses have survived protocols of dubious efficacy for many years, but their survival does not demonstrate the validity of the protocol. On the other hand, in terms of demonstrable efficacy, it should be noted that no barefooted horse under saddle has ever won or placed in any major objectively quantified equine competition. Not once, not ever. "
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You might want to ask Darolyn Butler-Dial about never winning any major competitions on her barefoot endurance horses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wrote, "objectively quantified major competitions"; you wrote, "major competitions." Your response, perhaps inadvertently, is rather disingenuous because endurance contests are NOT objectively quantified. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Once again, Tom, you say "some horses need shoes, some don't" but what you seem to really mean (at least from the mixed messages) is something more like, "High performance sport horses of any type need shoes, they make your horse faster, better, and stronger, and some horses don't need shoes, but only if they are sitting in a pasture or already lame and useless".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since the vast majority of successful horses engaged in objectively quantified equine activities are shod, one can surmise they require shoes for maximum efficiency of movement in a particular endeavor; or, behind Door Number Two, one might argue they don't really need shoeing and would move more efficiently barefooted but their stupid connections really enjoy paying the farrier to drop by ever so often in order to apply unneeded appliances that will make their horses move less efficiently. My money's on the former scenario, but one never knows: the barefoot bunch might think it's a conspiracy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I can't say that I agree with this. But, we are all entitled to our opinions http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please be kind enough to argue with what I've written, not your spin. As I've written, ad nauseam, there are only three valid reasons for shoeing a horse: Protection, traction, or to effect a therapeutic change of gait. For your edification, all veterinary appliances fall into the first category, shoes with traction devices offer demonstrably more traction than a bare foot, and Dobbin is unarguably better off moving cleanly than he is whacking himself.

LMH

Jan. 18, 2005, 01:05 PM

stop the madness...honestly...there are 3 groups of people in this world.

1. Horse MUST have shoes
2. Shoes ALWAYS make horses lame
3. It just depends.

It is just a no win discussion...How about everyone just worries about his or her own horse and does what she thinks is best based on her research and epxerience.

The OP wanted to know about Pete Ramey-so she is obviously interested in NOT having shoes-at least at this moment with this horse.

Other than that, the rest of this sounds so darn familiar...and still no one has changed teams.

CHJoker

Jan. 19, 2005, 12:52 AM

Hey Tom,

This isn't meant to be personal, really http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This DOES sound familiar, because it IS familiar, and the same tired arguements over and over. I am not here to convince you to stop shoeing horses!! Really!! But seperate the wheat from the chaff...not all barefoot trims are "Strasser and her uber whatevers!!"

The OP asked about the RAMEY barefoot trim. As LMH pointed out, information about this trim is wanted.

So, instead of arguing with my "spin" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif , why don't you tell us what YOU think of the RAMEY trim, based on the "wild horse model". Have you read the book, or looked at what is proposed, by any chance (seriously?)?

Do you agree with the basic model of low heels, walls balanced to the live sole plane, NOT removing any live sole?? Let's not discuss the extremes of barefoot trimming, let's discuss the specifics of the "HPT". Have you, by any chance, seen KC La Pierres DVD series or attended any of his clinics? What did you think?

What kind of trim do YOU apply when you take shoes off the horses that don't need shoes?? I am quite curious.

Thanks!

username

Jan. 19, 2005, 01:09 AM

Yikes! I didn't mean to start a firestorm! Have been sick with The Bubonic Cold and not looked here for a few...now I'm almost afraid to break cover!

Thanks, CHJoker, that was indeed my question. My own became bare by accident initially (due to lost shoes) then, when that seemed to work for them, the farrier just trimmed them. and now, when I find quality horse-keeping to be very expensive, I'd like to try it myself.

Bear in mind that I own what are basically a collection of lawnmowers - nothing fancy here - and riding consists of an occasional pleasant amble.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
The OP asked about the RAMEY barefoot trim. As LMH pointed out, information about this trim is wanted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I replied in the early going that I was indifferent to the so-called "Ramey" barefoot trim because it's probably not going to hurt any horse that doesn't need shoes and is not doing anything remotely stressful. As long as a horse is not going fast, turning quick, jumping, or doing similar stressful stuff, just about any of the trendy designer trims that feature a SHORT phalangeal lever are okay because there's not a nickel's worth of real difference between them in terms of effect on the horse until stress becomes a player. When stress enters the picture, efficiency becomes more important than adhering to some self-styled guru's designer duds and whoever is doing the whacking had better know precisely where, what, and how much to cut off and exactly how his tender ministrations will affect the beast's performance.

Since I like horses and don't have anything against the OP, I warned against Strasser's one-size-fits-all butchery because it is overly invasive and we already have enough Burger Kings.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So, instead of arguing with my "spin" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif , why don't you us what YOU think of the RAMEY trim, based on the "wild horse model".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you don't want your "spin" argued with, don't apply it to my posts. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Any trim based on a feral foot in an abrasive environment is fatally flawed in terms of efficiency and data obtained from the model cannot be extrapolated to domestic horses in varied environments because feral horses do not carry weight, pull loads, or engage in forced exercise. Simply put, as long as a horse isn't doing a helluva lot, his levers are short, and he's not leaving a blood trail, he's probably going to be okay, footwise. For that reason, testimonials of the faithful of each barefoot camp are legion, but the "success" of the various designer trims has more to do with a short toe and a lack of stress than with an efficient model.

On the other hand, when a horse is routinely placed in stress situations, efficiency becomes the most important consideration and the trim must be tailored to the individual horse and what it does to earn its oats. Thus, if one is seeking a model, the best model to use for horses engaged in a particular activity are the feet of horses those horses that are most successful in that activity, not the feet of a feral horse.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
What kind of trim do YOU apply when you take shoes off the horses that don't need shoes?? I am quite curious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I trim each individual on the basis of its conformation and job description and don't do anything new, trendy, or worthy of note. Assuming no compelling reason to do otherwise, I trim the foot in such a manner that the horse has a short phalangeal lever, aligned phalanges, normal angulation, and I leave in as much exfoliating sole as is possible without making the sole a primary weight bearing structure. I trim the bars to the level of the sole and trim the frog so the lateral sulci are more-or-less self-cleaning. Finally, I radius the hell out of the ground surface wall so turnover is facilitated in any forward direction.

Nothing new, nothing radical, nothing trendy. In terms of its effect on the horse, with the exception of maintaining whatever phalangeal angulation is "normal" for the individual, there's not much real difference between my usual trim and those based on the feral model. However, bear in mind that my insistence on the maintenance of normal, aligned, phalangeal angulation is at variance with the philosophy of those barefoot camps that insist on whacking the heels off everything that happens by.

Bethe Mounce

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:34 PM

So, enlighten me here folks........who is Ramey? And why does he have a "trim" named after him? In other words, what sets him apart from all the other farriers of this world? Aren't all horses trimmed the same way keeping angles and hoof quality in mind? Oh, and of course said horses' behavior at the time of the trim.

LMH

Jan. 20, 2005, 05:34 AM

He is Pete Ramey and there isn't a trim named after him. He is a part of an association called AANHCP (American Association of Natural HoofCare Practitioners).

The head of AANHCP is Jaime Jackson-known for studying wild horse feet and promoting a trim based on this "wild horse model." Pete has worked with Jaimed for awhile now.

The difference between Jaime, Pete and other natural hoof care practitioners is (at least these 2) were former farriers who now promote barefoot for horses only (no shoes).

I know Pete and he helped teach me to trim...I have also spoken with Jaime several times.

CHJoker

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:15 AM

KC La Pierre is also a former farrier.

Thanks for the explanation Tom. Have you read any of the books or the research done by Jaime Jackson, Pete Ramey,and KC La Pierre, by any chance?

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 20, 2005, 10:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
KC La Pierre is also a former farrier.

Thanks for the explanation Tom. Have you read any of the books or the research done by Jaime Jackson, Pete Ramey,and KC La Pierre, by any chance? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know of any bona fide scientific research that has been done by Jackson, Ramey, LaPierre, Ovnicek, Bowker, Redden, et al. To my knowledge, all of their so-called "research" is based on the model of a feral foot in an arid, abrasive, environment and consists of observations, anecdotes, and testimonials of the faithful. No scientific testing, no double blinds, no nothing: just the extrapolation of questionable data - from a set of horses that exist under very specific environmental conditions and do not maintain any form of work load - to a much larger set of horses - that exist in extremely varied environments and maintain widely varying work loads. Obviously, the model is intrinsically flawed; however, this does not mean that the feral foot cannot be used as a model for horses that don't do much because the feral foot encases a short phalangeal lever; however, it does mean the model cannot be used for horses that do a lot because there's more to efficient movement than a short phalangeal lever.

Archimedes made the initial observations on levers and the work involved in moving loads. Beyond the dead Greek factor, there's really no basic difference between any of the trendy trims touted by the self-anointed gurus of barefootedness and that lack of difference does not necessarily put the horse at risk because biomechanical efficiency does not become a primary consideration until a horse is routinely placed in a stress situation. When the need for biomechanical efficiency becomes paramount, the flaws of the feral model become obvious - which is why the model cannot be successfully applied to most horses engaged in objectively quantified
activities.

For more food for thought, please see: http://www.anvilmag.com/farrier/106d2.htm

Lookout

Jan. 20, 2005, 01:47 PM

KC LaPierre and Jaime Jackson were true farriers before switching to barefoot only. AFAIK Pete did his own horses, briefly, before he was convinced to try barefoot.

I don't believe Bowker and Redden use the feral model, certainly Redden doesn't. People tout Bowker's "ten years of research" because it says so on his MSU's press release but when you actually go looking for it, it's pretty slim pickings.

Bethe Mounce

Jan. 20, 2005, 02:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
He is Pete Ramey and there isn't a trim named after him. He is a part of an association called AANHCP (American Association of Natural HoofCare Practitioners). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is the difference between a "regular" farrier and a natural hoofcare farrier?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The difference between Jaime, Pete and other natural hoof care practitioners is (at least these 2) were former farriers who now promote barefoot for horses only (no shoes). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No shoes ever? No matter what is going on with a horses' hoof?

LMH

Jan. 20, 2005, 02:34 PM

Regular farrier vs. Natural...according to farriers like Tom-of course nothing.

According to what my horses looked like with a regular farrier vs. with a natural hoofcare "farrier"---alot.

Pretty much no shoes...ever.

slb

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
People tout Bowker's "ten years of research" because it says so on his MSU's press release but when you actually go looking for it, it's pretty slim pickings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow Lookout, and to think that Strasser uses his finding in her "Blue Book" to back up what she writes. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

swampgum

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:14 PM

Not wanting to get into a "to shoe or not to shoe"debate but just passing on my own first hand experiences and findings.
I am also qualified to make the statement , after working with horses for 30 years, that the majority of horses with proper regular trimming can go barefooted and the surfaces they work on DO NOT affect their performance. It is also apparent that horses that have spent some time in metal take a bit longer to transition to complete effective barefoot than those that have never been shod. Boots are a great accessory while going through the transition. My business partner who spent a lifetime believing horses have to be shod to work now has 20 barefoot horses working very effectively in a trail riding situation over all sorts of terrain. They are of all breeds including thoroughbreds.My own horses (5) are also barefooted , two of which were previously shod. No matter whose"form"of trim is being used the way to successful barefoot horses is " low heels allowing the frog maximum loading, scooped bars,no flare on walls with rolled edges at ground level and a slightly rolled toe. Keeping the hooves in contact with firm footing is also important to keep up the conditioning process. You will also find that in the driest weather hooves trimmed as I have mentioned do not crack or split. So my simple message is yes, if you want to keep your horses barefooted then you CAN and it does work very well. If you want to shoe then shoe

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by swampgum:
My business partner who spent a lifetime believing horses have to be shod to work now has 20 barefoot horses working very effectively in a trail riding situation over all sorts of terrain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses that don't do much don't require much in the way of biomechanical efficiency. However, when those same horses start doing a little something, the cheese gets a little binding. I understand that our definitions of "work" will differ considerably, but in my world, a horse that's packing a load at glacial speed is not working, it's just moving at rest. To be sure, such horses rarely NEED shoes, and, as you note, most can get by just fine with virtually any kind of a short toed trim that doesn't leave a blood trail.

On the other hand, when horses are required to do things that raise their heart and respiration rate for hours at a time, the need for biomechanical efficiency requires trimming/shoeing that's specifically geared to the individual's conformation, environment, and job description - not to some self-titled guru's concept of the way things oughta be.

reillyshoe

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:24 PM

Everyone knows what good hoof care is except nobody agrees as to what that is. Each expert's theory must (presumably)work well enough in their hands. Until there is much more research done, which of us is smart enough to judge how appropriate another's theory is? I spend all day hearing farriers, vets, and owners criticize each other when the truth is we don't have enough research to get past this impasse. My only problem with Strasser's work is her condemnation of shoes. Stick to talking about what works. It's just another theory, and if it works for you, great!
We might all agree that long toes and low heels are bad, but how long is too long? How low is too low? It is a slippery slope. If it's your decision then make it, but try to keep an open mind until all the facts are in. And keep the critisism to a minimum.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
Regular farrier vs. Natural...according to farriers like Tom-of course nothing.

According to what my horses looked like with a regular farrier vs. with a natural hoofcare "farrier"---alot.

Pretty much no shoes...ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Counselor, take this to the bank: Anyone who uses "natural" as a proper noun is trying to sell folks something they can't eat. There's nothing "natural" about riding or driving horses and foot of a feral horse is a demonstrably flawed model in terms of biomechanical efficiency.

With the exception of Strasser and her merry band of hoof butchers, there's simply not enough difference in the short toe trims advocated by the current crop of self-proclaimed "experts" to say grace over until the horse is required to do something stressful. To reiterate: the "natural" hoopty-doo of the various gurus gets a lot of the credit that rightfully belongs to Archimedes.

Personally, I think the pundits should spend more time teaching folks about equine anatomy and physiology instead of touting their personal piece of trimming's One True Cross. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I think the FIRST thing anyone conducting a clinic on trimming should do is to teach the students how to determine the correct amount to cut off ANY foot that presents.

LMH

Jan. 20, 2005, 05:06 PM

Tom-I am not going to disagree or agree with you...I can only speak from my experience in the horses I see.

Now granted that isn't alot...but enough to compare and notice a difference.

I would agree with you that there SHOULDN'T be a 'natural' trim or a 'barefoot performance trim'---a good trim should be that-a good balanced trim for the horse.

Sadly, many of those in your chosen profession can't manage that (IMHO) simple task. If they all did there wouldn't be so many hoof threads and feet troubles.

And those that can balance a foot are just too darn arrogant to share the knowledge.

I wanted to learn how to trim forever-I couldn't find anyone to even show me how to rasp off a rough edge until I found a "barefoot trimmer."

I can't speak for all farriers and I am very certain there are MANY good ones out there-but I had to look elsewhere to get the knowledge I wanted and needed.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 20, 2005, 05:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by reillyshoe:
We might all agree that long toes and low heels are bad, but how long is too long? How low is too low? It is a slippery slope. If it's your decision then make it, but try to keep an open mind until all the facts are in. And keep the critisism to a minimum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I beg to differ.

I'm not much on sugar coating reality to make it palatable to the masses and any protocol that cannot be adequately defended from criticism is worse than useless. Over the past 30 years, farriery has been inundated by junk science and a whole crop of folks who are long on untested theories and woefully short on practical knowledge - and it appears most of 'em are putting on clinics.

An open mind does not imply the blind acceptance of untested protocols, an open mind is indicative of one's willingness to demand adequate testing and conformation of any hypothesis before jumping on the bandwagon.

irishcas

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:27 PM

Tom and All:

I'm coming into this tired old argument late but still feel the need to comment.

First off Pete has as much credentials as the next farrier, I know him personally and know that he does an excellent job as a Farrier. He just doesn't apply shoes anymore. Flaring is EXTREMELY harmful to a horses feet, more harmful than the darn shoes themselves. If the majority of farriers would address and fix flares horses feet would be better off. I challenge you to explain the feet on my website www.clickandtrim.com/murray.htm (http://www.clickandtrim.com/murray.htm). Does it really surprise you that he has soreness going from shod to barefoot. The vet and farrier both recommended leaving him in shoes until he grew the cracks out. This horse is a pasture ornament, he hasn't been ridden in 4 years. The owners are wealthy and just like looking at horses on their property, nothing wrong with him but his feet.

This horse walked around without limping (in shoes) but touch his back and he'd practically fall down. I was hired to come and ride/train this horse and I refused when I saw his feet. The owners had a CERTIFIED Farrier trimming him and you can see in the photos the result. This horse was 4 weeks into this shoe job so no he hadn't gone a long time between resets. I pulled the shoes and he is very sore with a limp, boots are on the way to provide some relief. Give me a few months and he won't be but right now he is in a transition period. Yes transition time is needed when going from shod to barefoot for most horses because the shoes and the trimming are so bad. Shoes and trimming being done by certified farriers, this one brags all the time about his schooling at Cornell.

Pete Ramey is an excellent trimmer and his book is a good addition for any horseman's library.It's sad when people don't even make an attempt to learn new modalities.

As for horses only being barefoot when they don't "Do" anything... Well thats a load of crap as well. I personally know of horses who are barefoot and ride endurance, jump and peform at high level dressage tests. My horse is "Doing" Dressage, Long Trail Rides, Hunter Paces, Hunts and he is Barefoot. 2 years ago he was foundered with 10 degrees of rotation, now his feet are beautiful, sound and no rotation - fixed without shoes.

I can't wait for the day when this ridiculous debate is over and people look back and say "I can't believe they put shoes on horses"

The reason why people like Pete or Jamie or myself call ourselves "Natural" barefoot trimmers is that we are trying to distinguish ourselves from those folks who put shoes on. I know Pete has gone back to calling himself a Farrier and these days I call myself a Barefoot Farrier. Nope no certifications after my name but I'm confident in my skills and abilities and the horses are as well.

To the original poster, if you get a chance I highly recommend going to see Pete at one of his clinics, he's great. His website is really informative as well www.hoofrehab.com (http://www.hoofrehab.com) so is Paige's site www.ironfreehoof.com (http://www.ironfreehoof.com)

Kim Cassidy
www.clickandtrim.com (http://www.clickandtrim.com)

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by irishcas:
As for horses only being barefoot when they don't "Do" anything... Well thats a load of crap as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What part of my statement was beyond your comprehension?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I personally know of horses who are barefoot and ride endurance, jump and peform at high level dressage tests. My horse is "Doing" Dressage, Long Trail Rides, Hunter Paces, Hunts and he is Barefoot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doing is not winning. You cannot name a single barefooted horse that has ever won or placed in any objectively quantified, high level, contest of equine athleticism conducted under saddle. Not a single one! Come to think of it, I can't think of many barefooted horses that have ever won much of anything in any contest that causes an elevated heart and respiration rate - cutting, reining, roping, penning, cross country, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I can't wait for the day when this ridiculous debate is over and people look back and say "I can't believe they put shoes on horses"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure it will happen just as you describe - shortly after porcine levitation become commonplace.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The reason why people like Pete or Jamie or myself call ourselves "Natural" barefoot trimmers is that we are trying to distinguish ourselves from those folks who put shoes on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, you call yourselves "Natural" because you are admittedly incapable of giving every horse that walks across your mats exactly what it needs to do whatever it does as best it can. As a farrier, I appreciate your candor.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I know Pete has gone back to calling himself a Farrier and these days I call myself a Barefoot Farrier. Nope no certifications after my name but I'm confident in my skills and abilities and the horses are as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your confidence is admirable; when your knowledge catches up with your confidence, you might someday be able to make a hand with horses that actually do something. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Txfarrier11

Jan. 20, 2005, 09:37 PM

I tell ya, Tom, the 10 degree rotation saga kinda got my BS alarm kickin in.

CHJoker

Jan. 21, 2005, 12:34 AM

"Personally, I think the pundits should spend more time teaching folks about equine anatomy and physiology instead of touting their personal piece of trimming's One True Cross. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I think the FIRST thing anyone conducting a clinic on trimming should do is to teach the students how to determine the correct amount to cut off ANY foot that presents. "

LOL, Tom... this tells me that you haven't, in fact, read or studied any of the work of Pete Ramey or KC La Pierre (Jackson I haven't really studied). They do stress this very point. They do, in fact, offer ALOT of theory and hoof structure/anatomy education(La Pierre especially... his DVD series is 3 DVD's theory, hoof structure, etc, and 1 DVD trimming).

If you had attended a clinic, or even looked at the websites, you would see that he and Ramey both teach theory, and that their whole approach is based on learning how to trim based on evaluating the individual hoof, guided by the sole.

So what is the problem here?? Please, Tom, don't forget... you sound alot like a "self proclaimed expert" with the CJF title posted behind your name and the obvious attitude that you are best qualified to divide the fact from the fiction regarding matters of the hoof around here.

In fact, where is your scientifically quantified documented research, book, etc?? What do you have, except an education and certification as a farrier, along your own personal experience, and a few articles you have written? Hey, I am not knocking that, really, you have more than me...but to label everyone else out there as hack seems a bit unfair, don't ya think??

KC La Pierre is not a "self proclaimed" expert. He IS an expert, enough that Cambridge University (and many others) invited him to speak to their vet students. He is highly regarded, from everything I have seen and read, and his work does stem from a huge amount of research and education. This is far from "junk science".

If, in fact, this is "truth", ie, the hoof should be balanced according to the live sole plane, toes shouldn't get too long, heels shouldn't be underrun, feet should be attended to as needed, ETC..then this truth will be self evident, and in fact, it won't matter WHO gives the lecture, or applies the trim, it will just matter that the INFORMATION and APPLICATION is correct. If this is true, then even the stupidest person in the furthest remote areas of the world could apply this trim, and if done correctly, their horse would be able to travel and work correctly. Okay, Tom, maybe not winning the Kentucky Derby, but you get my point.

Surprisingly...that is exactly what seems to happen. The end result from many of these trims, from many of the people out there, seems to be a sound, serviceable horse. These "legions of faithful" are much less "barefoot guru worshipers", and much more "satisfied horse owners".

Hey look, this is not a debate about barefoot vs. shoes. This is about Pete Ramey's style of trim (for lack of a better desciption, we ALL know he didn't invent the wheel!!), and I think we have more or less established it is fine to do. It is not controversial, and it works for many horses. Be sure to read his website for updates though!!

He does seem to have a number of clients who are happy, and horses that are barefoot and sound. In fairness, Tom, probably you do to!! What does this mean?? Maybe that the "soundness" and "efficacy" factor has more to do with the correct trim, balance, and maintenance with or without shoes, than the actual shoes themselves.

But, what some people have discovered along the way is that they can trim and maintain the hooves themselves, do a better job than their "self proclaimed expert" farrier, and that many horses don't actually need shoes in the first place. Talk about "food for thought" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

marta

Jan. 21, 2005, 02:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Your confidence is admirable; when your knowledge catches up with your confidence, you might someday be able to make a hand with horses that actually do something. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is wrong w/ you? can't you maintain a conversation w/o such nasty insults?

irishcas

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:17 AM

Tom,

I do have names of real live horses who compete in and win in Endurance, Dressage and Barrel Racing and Jumping. The other types of competition are not something that I cross paths with here in the New York area. I will put together a list for you if you are truly interested and post later today. I have to call the people and get the horses names and city/state location.

As for Txfarrier your BS alarms SUCKS. The 10 degree rotation is no saga, I have the Xray's to prove it. I also have a vet to prove it as well, if you'd like to see another fabulous example of certified farrier work go to www.ironfreehoof.com/case8.htm (http://www.ironfreehoof.com/case8.htm) and look at the horse I'm talking about.

Tom, you can use all the words you like to throw up your smoke screen of discontent against whatever we do and call ourselves. I have a very large client base with both my barefoot trimming and my clicker training. It does not take a CJF to help keep horses feet healthy. I have YET to see a good farrier trimmed horse. Not a one and I go to a lot of A circuit boarding barns where the farriers charge lots of money and are touted by the big name trainers. They do a horrible job and thats the horses opinions as well as mine. I see so many horses who are thought to be old at the young ages of 10 because of poor hoofcare and excessive competitions. I travel to lots of shows and the Equine Affaires and the like, I see lots of feet and most are shod poorly with no addressing of the flares.

I just remembered something else Clinton Anderson of www.downunderhorsemanship.com (http://www.downunderhorsemanship.com) has pulled the shoes on all of his own horses after attending a Pete Ramey clinic. Pete is going out to Clinton's facility and will be giving another clinic there and teaching Clinton's folks to trim the horses. I know Clinton does Reining competitions so we will see what happens. Fact folks not Fiction.

Tom I would be really interested to see some of your work, any photos of any current shoes jobs? I have TONS of photos so I'm definitely not shy about sharing my work.

Anyway, Tom open your mind, it's really fun if you do.

Kim Cassidy
www.clickandtrim.com (http://www.clickandtrim.com)

bibiche

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I have YET to see a good farrier trimmed horse. Not a one and I go to a lot of A circuit boarding barns where the farriers charge lots of money and are touted by the big name trainers. They do a horrible job and thats the horses opinions as well as mine. I see so many horses who are thought to be old at the young ages of 10 because of poor hoofcare and excessive competitions. I travel to lots of shows and the Equine Affaires and the like, I see lots of feet and most are shod poorly with no addressing of the flares.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

how can the totality of thousands upon thousands of farriers be so misguided?
Like any other unregulated trade - I'm certain there are poorly skilled farriers as there exists poorly skilled barefoot trimmer.
You speak the word like that of a plague and revolt when same is done onto you Irish. Snot nice at all.

Txfarrier11

Jan. 21, 2005, 06:29 AM

Sorry but my BS aleart is clicking pretty dang loud (I use a clicker, too)

Is the horse in the posted pictures the one that is supposed to have had 10 degrees of rotation?

I see no evidence that the horse has been foundered and surely not 10 degrees of rotation.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 21, 2005, 06:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
"Personally, I think the pundits should spend more time teaching folks about equine anatomy and physiology instead of touting their personal piece of trimming's One True Cross. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I think the FIRST thing anyone conducting a clinic on trimming should do is to teach the students how to determine the correct amount to cut off ANY foot that presents. "

LOL, Tom... this tells me that you haven't, in fact, read or studied any of the work of Pete Ramey or KC La Pierre (Jackson I haven't really studied).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll cheerfully admit I haven't bought any of their books or attended any of their seances, but I've read what they've published on the internet and I've had one of their students ask me how much foot to cut off. (Has anyone but myself noticed that LaPierre's website mentions he passed the written portion of the AFA Journeyman test - but fails to note that he passed any of the three practical components of the test?) At any rate, all the folks you've mentioned, and a whole herd you didn't, use the feral foot as a model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If you had attended a clinic, or even looked at the websites, you would see that he and Ramey both teach theory, and that their whole approach is based on learning how to trim based on evaluating the individual hoof, guided by the sole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Untested theory and a five dollar bill might get you a cup of coffee down at Starbucks.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So what is the problem here?? Please, Tom, don't forget... you sound alot like a "self proclaimed expert" with the CJF title posted behind your name and the obvious attitude that you are best qualified to divide the fact from the fiction regarding matters of the hoof around here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit to thinking that more than 45 years experience, tens of thousands of horses trimmed
and shod, being an AFA Certified Journeyman
Farrier since 1983, attending and/or conducting many lectures, clinics, seminars, and wet labs, plus working with equine practitioners on a regular basis probably gives me a slight leg up in matters of the hoof.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
In fact, where is your scientifically quantified documented research, book, etc.?? What do you have, except an education and certification as a farrier, along your own personal experience, and a few articles you have written? Hey, I am not knocking that, really, you have more than me...but to label everyone else out there as hack seems a bit unfair, don't ya think??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Had I labeled anyone a "hack", it would be unfair, but you said that, not me. I've pointed out, quite accurately, that anyone who uses "natural" as a proper noun is likely selling the sizzle, not the steak, because the model is demonstrably flawed in terms of biomechanical efficiency.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
KC La Pierre is not a "self proclaimed" expert. He IS an expert, enough that Cambridge University (and many others) invited him to speak to their vet students. He is highly regarded, from everything I have seen and read, and his work does stem from a huge amount of research and education. This is far from "junk science".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you think being repeatedly invited to speak to the faculty and students of a prestigious veterinary college implies expertise? Or, that being asked repeatedly to lecture and demonstrate one's technical skills to one's peers is indicative of expertise?

As to "junk science," does anyone really believe that observation without testing complies with the most basic tenets of the scientific method?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If, in fact, this is "truth", i.e., the hoof should be balanced according to the live sole plane, toes shouldn't get too long, heels shouldn't be underrun, feet should be attended to as needed, ETC...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In technical terms of what "should be", the hoof should be balanced in terms of the entire bony column - not merely the live sole plane - with biomechanical efficiency being the primary criterion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Surprisingly...that is exactly what seems to happen. The end result from many of these trims, from many of the people out there, seems to be a sound, serviceable horse. These "legions of faithful" are much less "barefoot guru worshipers", and much more "satisfied horse owners".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you review the bidding, you'll note that I've consistently maintained that as long as a horse has a short toe and doesn't really do much, he'll probably be just fine, but the credit belongs to Archimedes, not the feral foot model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Hey look, this is not a debate about barefoot vs. shoes. This is about Pete Ramey's style of trim (for lack of a better desciption, we ALL know he didn't invent the wheel!!), and I think we have more or less established it is fine to do. It is not controversial, and it works for many horses. Be sure to read his website for updates though!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correction: Any barefoot trim may be "just fine" until the horse demonstrates a need for increased biomechanical efficiency - then any form of barefoot trim may no longer be what the horse needs to operate most efficiently. For example: How many flat races have barefooted horses ever won?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
But, what some people have discovered along the way is that they can trim and maintain the hooves themselves, do a better job than their so called expert farrier, and that many horses don't actually need shoes in the first place. Talk about "food for thought" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've long been of the opinion that horses in the United States would greatly benefit from some sort of licensing procedure for farriers modeled after the AFA's basic test, an opinion admittedly not shared by many of my peers. Do-it-yourself owners are welcome to trim their own, but as to owners doing a "better job" of trimming than a professional farrier, that seldom happens unless a farrier is incompetent or fails to apply his expertise. Perhaps you might benefit by hanging out with better class of farriers. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 21, 2005, 07:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by irishcas:
I do have names of real live horses who compete in and win in Endurance, Dressage and Barrel Racing and Jumping.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doubtless, a blind sow will find an acorn occasionally, but I think I mentioned something about "high level" and "objectively quantified."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It does not take a CJF to help keep horses feet healthy. I have YET to see a good farrier trimmed horse...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one has claimed it takes a CJF to keep a horses foot healthy, but if you've NEVER seen a "good" farrier trimmed horse, then you are obviously not qualified by either education or experience to make that determination.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Tom I would be really interested to see some of your work, any photos of any current shoes jobs? I have TONS of photos so I'm definitely not shy about sharing my work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pictures on the internet don't mean a helluva lot, so why not just list a few of those horses you've trimmed that've won stakes races, major jumping competitions, or professional barrel races?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Anyway, Tom open your mind, it's really fun if you do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not interested in having "fun", I'm interested in giving every horse that walks off my mats EXACTLY what it needs to operate as best it can.

CHJoker

Jan. 21, 2005, 07:54 AM

" I'll admit to thinking that more than 45 years experience, tens of thousands of horses trimmed and shod, being an AFA Certified Journeyman Farrier since 1983, attending and/or conducting many lectures, clinics, seminars, and wet labs, plus working with equine practitioners on a regular basis probably gives me a slight leg up in matters of the hoof. "

LOL, ALL of the "barefoot gurus" can list similar or MORE credentials than this.

I have never seen that you published a book, the scientific research you have worked on, etc., etc. Most of the "gurus" aren't there/here to have "fun" either, they are here to make sure every horse that walks on their mat gets exactly what he needs. So where is the difference?

"Had I labeled anyone a "hack", it would be unfair, but you said that, not me. I've pointed out, quite accurately, that anyone who uses "natural" as a proper noun is likely selling the sizzle, not the steak, because the model is demonstrably flawed in terms of biomechanical efficiency. "

Tom, Tom, Tom http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Quite frankly, according to your glowing descriptions of these "gurus", "Hack" might be too nice a word to describe them. But, enough on the wordplay. We have bigger fish to fry... So, you are saying that the model of the feral horse foot is inherently flawed? For what, the feral horse?? It seems to work pretty well, as there are plenty of creatures waiting for the opportunity to pounce if it doesn't. "Flawed" in a feral hoof means "DEAD".

So, you mean "flawed" in what sense, exactly? You mean because the feral horse does not pull or carry weight?? Are you really convinced that this simple fact (of carrying weight) changes the way a horses foot functions? Because if it doesn't...well, you know the saying.. if it ain't broke...don't fix it. Carrying weight and pulling affects more than just the feet, and while it is clear that horses are not "designed" to pull or carry weight...they seem to do it pretty well, gasp, even the barefoot ones, and have for thousands of years now.

I agree, if you are asking your horse to skid down the long side of an arena, well, he needs something on his feet other than his own hooves, because his hooves were just not designed for this, they were designed for traction.

In trying to find out a bit more about you out on the internet, I came upon this article written by Gene Ovnicek, in response to an article you wrote. I found it interesting. http://www.hopeforsoundness.com/techsupport/faq/nonspec.html

Other than that, though...I found no clinic schedules, no invitations to top veterinary colleges, and no books or research you had published.

" Do you think being repeatedly invited to speak to the faculty and students of a prestigious veterinary college implies expertise? Or, that being asked repeatedly to lecture and demonstrate one's technical skills to one's peers is indicative of expertise? "

Is this a trick question???? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif The short answer would be ... YES.

"As to "junk science," does anyone really believe that observation without testing complies with the most basic tenets of the scientific method?"

These are not untested theories. The testing would be to apply the theory, and then... see what happens... is the horse sound?? To what degree? What kind of work can he do??? And when the results are the same, time after time ....most would say.... there might be something to this....

Are you aware that at one point in history, doctors would not wash their hands between patients, and the one doctor who insisted this killed people was labelled a heretic?? Change doesn't ever come easily, and I think the older you get, in general, the harder it is. Not that you are too old Tom, but you know...old dog...new tricks....

Look, Tom, we can agree to disagree, but why don't you check out IN DETAIL what some of these guys are saying? Why don't you attend some clinics and see the work firsthand? Are you absolutely sure there is NO VALUE in the work these men are doing?

In closing, Tom, you mentioned I "would benefit from hanging out with a better class of farrier". I am happy to report you are right!! Not only have I benefitted, but my horse has as well...amazingly well, in fact. The catch is, of course, that this "better class of farrier" happens to apply a barefoot trim to my horse http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jan. 21, 2005, 08:30 AM

irishcas, I look forward to information on barefoot horses winning endurance, dressage, barrel racing, and jumping. Especially since 3 out of those 4 ARE objectively quantified, despite what someone else might say. Ok, maybe 2 1/2 of them, since there is some subjective ruling in endurance.

marta, no, he can't. I think that's where he gets his fun http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LMH

Jan. 21, 2005, 11:07 AM

OH Tom while we are having so much fun http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...I actually would be interested in knowing what champions you have worked with.

This isn't meant to be said with a snarl...it just seems while we are all rubbing elbows may as well throw it all on the table.

I currently am only working on FUTURE champions! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Bea

Jan. 21, 2005, 11:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by irishcas:
I just remembered something else Clinton Anderson of http://www.downunderhorsemanship.com has pulled the shoes on all of his own horses after attending a Pete Ramey clinic. Pete is going out to Clinton's facility and will be giving another clinic there and teaching Clinton's folks to trim the horses. I know Clinton does Reining competitions so we will see what happens. Fact folks not Fiction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
irishcas, do you know any more details about this? As a reiner, it sounds extraordinary to me. Clinton Anderson does compete in reining, although I believe he would be the first to admit his program still needs to be proved in the competition ring. Hasn't as of yet, but I admire him for having this goal.

It makes no sense to me he would be able to keep his horses barefoot in reining competition. Fronts possibly. But proper reining without sliding plates most people would deem cruel. Lowest level reining might be possible barefoot, I suppose.

I'm very intrigued. And could find out with a few phone calls. But do you have more details? Pulled the shoes off his non reiners? Temporarily pulled shoes off reiners. Pete will be teaching Clinton's clients who aren't reiners how to trim their horses' feet? They'll be doing Pete Ramey trims and then putting on sliding plates? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

irishcas

Jan. 21, 2005, 11:53 AM

Hi Bea,

I just called Pete and left him a message, when I hear back from him I'll let you know the exact details.

Kim Cassidy
www.clickandtrim.com (http://www.clickandtrim.com)

Bea

Jan. 21, 2005, 11:59 AM

Many thanks, irishcas!

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 21, 2005, 12:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
"_I'll admit to thinking that more than 45 years experience, tens of thousands of horses trimmed and shod, being an AFA Certified Journeyman Farrier since 1983, attending and/or conducting many lectures, clinics, seminars, and wet labs, plus working with equine practitioners on a regular basis probably gives me a slight leg up in matters of the hoof._"

LOL, ALL of the "barefoot gurus" can list similar or MORE credentials than this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? All of them have 45+ years experience and are AFA Certified Journeyman Farriers? I must've missed that part of their collective curriculum vitae.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I have never seen that you published a book, the scientific research you have worked on, etc., etc. Most of the "gurus" aren't there/here to have "fun" either, they are here to make sure every horse that walks on their mat gets exactly what he needs. So where is the difference?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't know a farrier had to publish or perish, I thought simply having one's knowledge and motor skills recognized by one's peers was sufficient. That said, the difference between those folks and myself is that some of the horses walking on MY mats have needs that cannot be met using the model of the various "barefoot" gurus.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"_Had I labeled anyone a "hack", it would be unfair, but you said that, not me. I've pointed out, quite accurately, that anyone who uses "natural" as a proper noun is likely selling the sizzle, not the steak, because the model is demonstrably flawed in terms of biomechanical efficiency. _"

Tom, Tom, Tom http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Quite frankly, according to your glowing descriptions of these "gurus", "Hack" might be too nice a word to describe them. But, enough on the wordplay. We have bigger fish to fry... So, you are saying that the model of the feral horse foot is inherently flawed? For what, the feral horse?? It seems to work pretty well, as there are plenty of creatures waiting for the opportunity to pounce if it doesn't. "Flawed" in a feral hoof means "DEAD".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Allow me to correct your misconception: Feral horses in the USA have no significant natural enemies. As you note, the feral foot serves the feral foot well because feral horses don't really do anything, but it does not follow that the feral foot will serve a domestic horse well - or at all. The foot of any horse at liberty is a reflection of the beast's environment, not the most efficient biomechanical model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
So, you mean "flawed" in what sense, exactly? You mean because the feral horse does not pull or carry weight?? Are you really convinced that this simple fact (of carrying weight) changes the way a horses foot functions? Because if it doesn't...well, you know the saying.. if it ain't broke...don't fix it. Carrying weight and pulling affects more than just the feet, and while it is clear that horses are not "designed" to pull or carry weight...they seem to do it pretty well, gasp, even the barefoot ones, and have for thousands of years now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In reality, the shape of a horses foot - more correctly, the length and angulation of the phalangeal levers - has a great deal to do with the transference of muscle energy into motion, aka, "biomechanical efficiency." Efficiency is not a big deal with domestic horses which, like feral horses, don't really do much; however, when domestic horses engage in athletic activities under saddle, especially those quantified objectively, efficiency becomes a Very Big Deal.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I agree, if you are asking your horse to skid down the long side of an arena, well, he needs something on his feet other than his own hooves, because his hooves were just not designed for this, they were designed for traction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's a bit more to biomechanical efficiency than sliding plates; bare hooves evolved, they weren't "designed"; bare hooves do not afford horses sufficient traction to successfully and/or safely engage in many activities under saddle; e.g., polo, jumping, flat racing, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
In trying to find out a bit more about you out on the internet, I came upon this article written by Gene Ovnicek, in response to an article you wrote. I found it interesting. http://www.hopeforsoundness.com/techsupport/faq/nonspec.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you found that interesting, you might find my response to Mr. Ovnicek similarly interesting:

http://katyforge.com/response.html

Or, this one:

http://katyforge.com/dirt.html
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Other than that, though...I found no clinic schedules, no invitations to top veterinary colleges, and no books or research you had published.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Drat! It's that publish or perish thing again: Did I go through the Looking Glass and wind up in academia?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"_ Do you think being repeatedly invited to speak to the faculty and students of a prestigious veterinary college implies expertise? Or, that being asked repeatedly to lecture and demonstrate one's technical skills to one's peers is indicative of expertise?_ "

Is this a trick question???? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif The short answer would be ... _YES_.

Yes'm, it's a trick question. You're probably not going to like learning who was instrumental in instituting the ongoing farrier/veterinarin information exchange at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University or that the same fellow has been invited to lecture that assemblage on several occasions. A&M ain't Edinburugh, but it'll do for prestigious. I'm not the least bit bashful - I once did a plating demo in the Grand Ballroom of the old Houston Hilton during an AFA Convention and I've done countless demos for other groups ranging from 4H and FFA clubs to farriers and vets. I guess the main difference between me'n the current crop of "natural" gurus, is that I'm not trying to sell anybody anything: I've never taken a nickel from anybody for lecturing or demonstrating.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"_As to "junk science," does anyone really believe that observation without testing complies with the most basic tenets of the scientific method?_"

These are not untested theories. The testing would be to apply the theory, and then... see what happens... is the horse sound?? To what degree? What kind of work can he do??? And when the results are the same, time after time ....most would say.... there might be something to this....
[/QUOTE]
Au contraire! All of the hypotheses using the feral foot as a model are based on observations, anecdotes, and testimonials - not a single one has been tested. The definitive form of testing a model has to do with stopwatches and cameras.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Are you aware that at one point in history, doctors would not wash their hands between patients, and the one doctor who insisted this killed people was labelled a heretic??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might want to check your facts: Joseph Lister is considered the father of antiseptic surgery, but he was never labeled a "heretic."
[/QUOTE]
Look, Tom, we can agree to disagree, but why don't you check out IN DETAIL what some of these guys are saying? Why don't you attend some clinics and see the work firsthand?
[/QUOTE]
I'm always willing to learn, but I'm fairly conversant in the value of a short phalangeal lever and I know the foot of a feral horse is a flawed model because it cannot be successfully used on all horses in all activities. For me, Archimedes is a much better instructor than any of many barefoot clinicians - and he doesn't charge me anything for the lessons.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Are you absolutely sure there is NO VALUE in the work these men are doing?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you said that, not me. I think that as long as a horse doesn't do much, there's a great deal of value in the use of a feral foot as a model because not doing much is what feral horses do; unfortunately, the model won't work for ALL domestic horses, especially domestic horses in hard use.

CHJoker

Jan. 21, 2005, 01:53 PM

"Allow me to correct your misconception: Feral horses in the USA have no significant natural enemies. As you note, the feral foot serves the feral foot well because feral horses don't really do anything, but it does not follow that the feral foot will serve a domestic horse well - or at all. The foot of any horse at liberty is a reflection of the beast's environment, not the most efficient biomechanical model."

WELL...misconceptions aside... there most definately ARE natural predators for not only feral horses, but domestic horses as well. Horses evolved as prey, act like prey, because they ARE prey, even if Sir Tom instists they are not.

You can't have it both ways... claiming that their theories are " junk science" in the face of their documented research, when in fact you don't have anything better to offer up, other than exactly what you criticize them for... observation, continuing education, and experience.

And finally Tom, I wasn't speaking of Lister. I was speaking of a Hungarian doctor named Semmelweiss, long before Listers time.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blantisceptics.htm

According to Wikipedia*, "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865) was the Hungarian physician who demonstrated that puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") was contagious and that its incidence could be drastically reduced by enforcing appropriate hand-washing behavior by medical care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic conclusion, however, he was ultimately vindicated.

Semmelweis realized that the number of cases of puerperal fever was much larger at one of his wards than at the other. After testing a few hypotheses, he found that the number of cases was drastically reduced if the doctors washed their hands carefully before dealing with a pregnant woman. Risk was especially high if they had been in contact with corpses before they treated the women. The germ theory of disease had not yet been developed at the time. Thus, Semelweiss concluded that some unknown "cadaveric material" caused childbed fever.

He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the reception by the medical community was cold, if not hostile. His observations went against the current scientific opinion of the time, which blamed diseases on an imbalance of the basical "humours" in the body. It was also argued that even if his findings were correct, washing one's hands each time before treating a pregnant woman, as Semmelweis advised, would be too much work. Nor were doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many deaths. Semmelweis spent 14 years developing his ideas and lobbying for their acceptance, culminating in a book he wrote in 1861. The book received poor reviews, and he responded with polemic. In 1865, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an insane asylum where he soon died from blood poisoning.

Only after Dr. Semmelweis's death was the germ theory of disease developed, and he is now recognized as a pioneer of antiseptic policy and prevention of nosocomial disease."

It's late here, and I have had a very busy day. Good night to all!

Lookout

Jan. 21, 2005, 03:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
Nor were doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many deaths.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This, here, is the heart of the matter. What a perfect analogy to farriery. It's a shame the vindication always seems to have to wait till after the person's death.

Bea

Jan. 21, 2005, 04:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:This, here, is the heart of the matter. What a perfect analogy to farriery. It's a shame the vindication always seems to have to wait till after the person's death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I for one can't imagine Dr. Strasser wants horses to die in order to achieve vindication. Reining, for example, is by far the cheapest FEI discipline. For relatively little money Dr. Strasser could purchase a top reiner. Pull their shoes and send them out to win the FEI World Cup. I have no doubt reiners would sit up and take notice. Given we're the poorest group, the proof that we could save $100 or so every six weeks would have a huge effect.

Lookout

Jan. 21, 2005, 04:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bea:
Well I for one can't imagine Dr. Strasser wants horses to die in order to achieve vindication. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh? Sorry did you misunderstand me? Who said anything about horses dying?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>group, the proof that we could save $100 or so every six weeks would have a huge effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you figure that?

Bea

Jan. 21, 2005, 04:53 PM

Lookout, rereading your newest post, I think I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. But I'm not sure if I read your previous post incorrectly. CHJoker posted that doctors were not eager to admit they had caused deaths. You followed that up with what a perfect analogy to farriery. According to my dictionary's definition of analogy it means: equivalency or likeness of relations. Add perfect and I read it to mean you were saying farriers who shoe are not eager to admit they cause deaths. Hence my post.

Regarding your question of reiners liking to save money, I can't speak for them all. But reiners are notorious poorer than many other disciplines. Someone who's struggling for money, likes not to spend unnecessary money, no?

irishcas

Jan. 21, 2005, 04:59 PM

Bea:

Here is Pete's response to my query...Posted with permission.

________________________________________________

Ok yes the horses are bare. The ones competing have sliders on the back hooves (barefoot horses don’t slide!!!!!)

Pete went up last June and pulled all the shoes. He trained Clinton’s apprentices to do the trimming. Clinton currently has three apprentices with him they generally stay for four+ years. We went back in October to “check up” on how things are going. All is well. If you look on his website (you have to go under his schedule) you’ll see that he endorses our clinic with “hoof care method Clinton uses on his own horses.” When we go up for the clinic in June we are going for a filming on his show (I didn’t know if you knew that)

So how’s that “form the horses mouth.”

Bethe Mounce

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:43 PM

slb

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:54 PM

I also have a Peruvian that came to us with severe rotation...15 and 18 degrees. He has been in what would be considered a "natural" trim since we aquired him 4 years ago. He is sound for riding on most terrain (and has been since the first year) without shoes. The biggest problem was discovering the correct way to feed him to prevent continuing bouts of laminitis.

Although we don't feel that the trim we use is anthing but good farriery, it does liken itself to what many call "natural". This isn't "trendy", it is simply correctly balancing and aligning the hoof.

BTW, have you had your Peruvian check for metabolic disorders? Mine is insulin resistant. From converstations on the Peruvian boards, it appears that these issues are rather common in Peruvians.

Bethe Mounce

Jan. 21, 2005, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
I also have a Peruvian that came to us with severe rotation...15 and 18 degrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prime Minister has slight rotation, very minimal according to the xrays taken at the time. He lost all blood supply to his toes and grows only the sides of his hooves, so in order to keep the hoof walls together and compact, he wears shoes. When he lost the toe growth he developed white line disease.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> He has been in what would be considered a "natural" trim since we aquired him 4 years ago. He is sound for riding on most terrain (and has been since the first year) without shoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great. Prime Minister has to have shoes, I have no choice in the matter. Without them he is severely lame.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The biggest problem was discovering the correct way to feed him to prevent continuing bouts of laminitis.
Although we don't feel that the trim we use is anthing but good farriery, it does liken itself to what many call "natural". This isn't "trendy", it is simply correctly balancing and aligning the hoof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prime Ministers hooves are correctly balanced and aligned with shoes; the lack of toe growth makes it impossible to be barefoot like all my other horses. Feeding him is no big deal.........he does nicely on Purina's equine senior, a small handful of alfalfa hay and all the coastal he wants. He doesn't go out to pasture though until the afternoons, the dew has to dry and he has to be in a mud free pasture. Dirt is just not the best thing with his hoof situation and no toe....instead there is this gelatinous like stuff that will never go away. Once it gets wet, his toes crumble. He's high maintenance, but worth it.......a great baby sitter for the weanlings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>BTW, have you had your Peruvian check for metabolic disorders? Mine is insulin resistant. From converstations on the Peruvian boards, it appears that these issues are rather common in Peruvians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, haven't had a need to. This horse came to me for training, and I liked him so much I bought him and he has been the best. Showed him a long time ago in the luxury gelding classes and he used to do the sidesaddle thing with his former owner. But since the laminitis thing, he's been retired (for well over 10 years), ridden periodically to check fenceline and babysit the baby. Will never have another Peruvian again after he is gone, have had 3 and the leg issues that plague the hind end are not worth the price one pays for the horse. They are lovely and comfortable, but not worth it for me.

Lookout

Jan. 21, 2005, 06:14 PM

Bea, we seem to be totally miscommunicating. I said it was a shame that people like Semmelweis always seem to be dead by the time they are vindicated, by their ideas being proved true.
Maybe reiners like to save money (I wouldn't know), but my question is how do you figure barefoot would save money? And I don't know that Dr. Strasser has ever claimed that reining can be done barefoot. I'm not familiar with it and don't know the requirements, so couldn't say.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 21, 2005, 07:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
"Allow me to correct your misconception: Feral horses in the USA have no significant natural enemies. As you note, the feral foot serves the feral foot well because feral horses don't really do anything, but it does not follow that the feral foot will serve a domestic horse well - or at all. The foot of any horse at liberty is a reflection of the beast's environment, not the most efficient biomechanical model."

WELL...misconceptions aside... there most definately ARE natural predators for not only feral horses, but domestic horses as well. Horses evolved as prey, act like prey, because they ARE prey, even if Sir Tom instists they are not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses are prey animals but feral horses exist without meaningful predation. Without natural predators, feral horses often overrun their range to such an extent their habitat will no longer support their numbers. Large predators do not exist in significant numbers in the Lower 48.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You can't have it both ways... claiming that their theories are "junk science" in the face of their documented research, when in fact you don't have anything better to offer up, other than exactly what you criticize them for... observation, continuing education, and experience.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What exactly is "documented research?" In the usual order of business, after making an observation, the observer formulates a hypothesis to explain what he's seen, the hypothesis is tested to confirm of disprove it, the testing protocols are published for peer review, and anyone with an interest must be able to replicate the tests with similar results. Failure to adhere to the basic tenets of the scientific method is quite correctly called, "junk science."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And finally Tom, I wasn't speaking of Lister. I was speaking of a Hungarian doctor named Semmelweiss, long before Listers time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Clairvoyance is not one of my talents, please be specific. Dare I point out that both Lister and Semmelweiss lived at the same time? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 21, 2005, 07:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
OH Tom while we are having so much fun http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...I actually would be interested in knowing what champions you have worked with...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not involve my clients or their horses in my posts on public forums.

LMH

Jan. 21, 2005, 09:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
OH Tom while we are having so much fun http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...I actually would be interested in knowing what champions you have worked with...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not involve my clients or their horses in my posts on public forums. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then I guess if we all take this position we will just have to trust each other that in fact we deal with high performance horses.

CHJoker

Jan. 22, 2005, 01:46 AM

"What exactly is "documented research?" In the usual order of business, after making an observation, the observer formulates a hypothesis to explain what he's seen, the hypothesis is tested to confirm of disprove it, the testing protocols are published for peer review, and anyone with an interest must be able to replicate the tests with similar results."

Well, my friend, you just described exactly what the "gurus" are doing. In fact, they are not only publishing the "testing protocols", they are teaching people how to peform the "clinical trial" themselves. They then photograph, document, and publish the results.

The basic "proof of concept" would be...is your horse sound and working? (If the expected result was just a soundness question) OR, Is the horse better now vs. when he was shod?(If your desired result is an improvement over the current state of affairs).

Didn't we establish this fact about 2 or 3 posts ago?? But, no matter.

Ahh..for Lister... yes, actually he was born in the same era, but he wasn't publishing his work until after Sammelweiss was already dead (from what I have read http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was most certainly before my time). I am sure Sammelweiss would have loved the support http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lister wasn't met with praise and awards in the beginning either... his ideas were initially rejected by many, however, the climate in the medical community was obviously better, because his ideas were eventually accepted as fact (which of course...they were).

Finally Tom, if you want to refute a point, picking at minute, unimportant details doesn't actually do that. It does provide a distraction, I suppose... and is good for my writing skills, as I must spell everything out, but it does prove tiring http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

reillyshoe

Jan. 22, 2005, 05:24 AM

Same song, different day. As someone who eats, sleeps, and dreams hoofcare, the best part of reading these posts has been smiling at the realization that others are as passionate on the subject as I am.
We are all guilty of finding snipets of research and forming an entire theory around it. We don't even have an ideal model to study, and every foot I have seen suffers from pathology.
Here is an open invitation to all. I am planning conference for the fall of 2005. The premise is to evaluate a horse using the following:
1.digital pictures/radiographs
2.motion analysis
3.force plate analysis
4.nuclear scintigraphy?
Experts will then have the opportunity to work on a hoses feet, making whatever changes they deem necessary, and the evaluations repeated. The before and after data will then be presented and the effects of the changes examined.
I have already contacted several clinicians, although I would welcome anyone (wouldn't it be great if Tom and Strasser were both there?). Of course this would prove nothing, but it would be interesting to assess actual horses with actual data.
Contact me for more info on participating.
Pat@theFarrierCenter.com

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 06:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by reillyshoe:
Same song, different day. As someone who eats, sleeps, and dreams hoofcare, the best part of reading these posts has been smiling at the realization that others are as passionate on the subject as I am.
We are all guilty of finding snipets of research and forming an entire theory around it. We don't even have an ideal model to study, and every foot I have seen suffers from pathology.
Here is an open invitation to all. I am planning conference for the fall of 2005. The premise is to evaluate a horse using the following:
1.digital pictures/radiographs
2.motion analysis
3.force plate analysis
4.nuclear scintigraphy?
Experts will then have the opportunity to work on a hoses feet, making whatever changes they deem necessary, and the evaluations repeated. The before and after data will then be presented and the effects of the changes examined.
I have already contacted several clinicians, although I would welcome anyone (wouldn't it be great if Tom and Strasser were both there?). Of course this would prove nothing, but it would be interesting to assess actual horses with actual data.
Contact me for more info on participating.
Pat@theFarrierCenter.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Utterly fascinating!

If you can figure out a way to add before and after 50 yard sprints to your tests, you can count me in. p&m

Txfarrier11

Jan. 22, 2005, 07:07 AM

Sounds like a good deal to me. If you can add the 50 yard sprints I'm in too.

One thing I know for SURE is that I can beat Stovall in a sprint.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 07:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
"What exactly is "documented research?" In the usual order of business, after making an observation, the observer formulates a hypothesis to explain what he's seen, the hypothesis is tested to confirm of disprove it, the testing protocols are published for peer review, and anyone with an interest must be able to replicate the tests with similar results."

Well, my friend, you just described exactly what the "gurus" are doing. In fact, they are not only publishing the "testing protocols", they are teaching people how to peform the "clinical trial" themselves. They then photograph, document, and publish the results.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Any report of the testing of a hypothesis that has been tested without controls - no matter how well documented, photographed, or where published - is correctly called a "testimonial", not a "clinical trial."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The basic "proof of concept" would be...is your horse sound and working? (If the expected result was just a soundness question) OR, Is the horse better now vs. when he was shod?(If your desired result is an improvement over the current state of affairs).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The objective evaluation of a hypothesis cannot exist without controlled testing. As has been noted many times, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Jan. 22, 2005, 07:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
...but my question is how do you figure barefoot would save money? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, that's pretty easy. My old farrier charged $80, minimum to shoe, and $25 max to trim.

Now that I do my own trims, that brings the cost to near $0.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 07:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Txfarrier11:
Sounds like a good deal to me. If you can add the 50 yard sprints I'm in too.

One thing I know for SURE is that I can beat Stovall in a sprint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You win.

My running days are past, I don't even jog anymore, I just walk a few miles every day.

I think a before and after sprint for the HORSES involved would be a meaningful addition to any test of the efficacy of various trimming/shoeing protocols, but I can't figure out how to test the fatigue factor without possibly hurting the horse.

Txfarrier11

Jan. 22, 2005, 07:28 AM

Well, OK, I guess it would be cool to have just have the horses sprint. Not near as much fun, though

slb

Jan. 22, 2005, 08:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Any report of the testing of a hypothesis that has been tested without controls - no matter how well documented, photographed, or where published - is correctly called a "testimonial", not a "clinical trial."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or if comparative data is kept, it is commonly called a "field trial" and therefore considered a part of scientific research.

slb

Jan. 22, 2005, 08:21 AM

But JB, didn't you know that Strasser trimmers are so darn good and take such care adjusting the trim to the individual (1-2 hrs) that they often feel compeled charge the same as an average farrier does for shoeing?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
...but my question is how do you figure barefoot would save money? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, that's pretty easy. My old farrier charged $80, minimum to shoe, and $25 max to trim.

Now that I do my own trims, that brings the cost to near $0. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jan. 22, 2005, 08:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
But JB, didn't you know that Strasser trimmers are so darn good and take such care adjusting the trim to the individual (1-2 hrs) that they often feel compeled charge the same as an average farrier does for shoeing?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gifhttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Pocket Pony

Jan. 22, 2005, 09:21 AM

So, how long do your trims usually take, if not one hour per horse? I read in Pete Ramey's book that once you learn how to do it, a trim is easy - maybe 20 minutes or so.

Anyone have any comments on how long their farrier takes for a barefoot trim vs. any other "barefoot trimmers"?

slb

Jan. 22, 2005, 09:32 AM

My farrier takes approx. 20 mins. for the average trim...this includes addressing bars, sole, frog and hoof wall.

Lookout

Jan. 22, 2005, 10:10 AM

$120 an hour - not bad!

irishcas

Jan. 22, 2005, 10:44 AM

JB,

I live in the NYC area, farriers on Long Island charge anywhere from 125 to 300 for shoes. In upstate NY farriers charge anywhere from 85 - 125 to shoe.

So I charge 100 to trim on Long Island and 75 to trim in NJ, Upstate NY.

Farriers whether applying shoes or not need to pay for gas, tolls, mileage, so that plays a part in the price. I am not a Strasser Trimmer and I definitely do not take 2 hours to trim.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that people who go and stay barefoot do not always save money. Unless of course they are trimming themselves.

slb

Jan. 22, 2005, 11:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lookout:
$120 an hour - not bad! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WOW Lookout....is that whay you make? Not bad at all! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bea

Jan. 22, 2005, 11:16 AM

irishcas, many thanks for finding out about Clinton Anderson. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 12:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Any report of the testing of a hypothesis that has been tested without controls - no matter how well documented, photographed, or where published - is correctly called a "testimonial", not a "clinical trial."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or if comparative data is kept, it is commonly called a "field trial" and therefore considered a part of scientific research. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Comparative data" implies the testing of two or more groups with the same test(s) and a comparison of the data, or the application of the same test(s) to the same group(s) at different times and a comparison of the data.

For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results.

slb

Jan. 22, 2005, 01:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
"Comparative data" implies the testing of two or more groups with the same test(s) and a comparison of the data, or the application of the same test(s) to the same group(s) at different times and a comparison of the data.

For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparative simply impies a comparison...such as data collected before a trim...say angles, x-rays indicating alignment, photos, assessment of movement, grading of lameness (if applicable)....and data collected after applying a different trim (same data, different trim).

Comparative can also imply group A and B with same nutrition, management, and terrain, but different trims.

There is more to life than your tunnel-vision view of competition. Not all things have to be compared at a competative level to be "true". They may also be compared at a level that makes a horse sound, healthy or otherwise different/better than it was previously.

Jan. 22, 2005, 02:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to do that sort of comparison, you'd better have another group that you train and run shod first, then remove the shoes and train/run barefoot second. Obviously 90 more days of training is going to have an effect on their run results. Wouldn't want to skew the results towards shoeing is better now would we http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 04:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to do that sort of comparison, you'd better have another group that you train and run shod first, then remove the shoes and train/run barefoot second. Obviously 90 more days of training is going to have an effect on their run results. Wouldn't want to skew the results towards shoeing is better now would we http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I figured the barefooted folks would whine interminably if a bunch of horses were only allowed three months to over the "evils" of shoeing, but you're absolutely right: to be plumb fair, you'd have to split the groups: leave half barefoooted, plate the other half give 'em 90 days, work 'em, then pull the plates off one bunch, plate the other bunch, give 'em 90 more days, work 'em again, then see which ones worked the fastest.

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 04:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by slb:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
"Comparative data" implies the testing of two or more groups with the same test(s) and a comparison of the data, or the application of the same test(s) to the same group(s) at different times and a comparison of the data.

For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Comparative simply impies a comparison...such as data collected before a trim...say angles, x-rays indicating alignment, photos, assessment of movement, grading of lameness (if applicable)....and data collected after applying a different trim (same data, different trim).

Comparative can also imply group A and B with same nutrition, management, and terrain, but different trims.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In terms of biomechanical efficiency, unless observations relative to performance are objective in nature, they have little value in terms of data.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There is more to life than your tunnel-vision view of competition. Not all things have to be compared at a competative level to be "true". They may also be compared at a level that makes a horse sound, healthy or otherwise different/better than it was previously.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I proposed a simple test that would compare barefooted and shod biomechanical efficiency in flat racers. Beyond splitting the groups in half at the beginning of the test, if you can think of a better way to determine the biomechanical efficiency within this particular class of horses, please share it. No radiographs, no pictures of feet, no theory, no subjectivity, and no opinions need apply: load 'em in the gates and push the button. Swap sides, do it again, compare the data. Simple, effective, objective.

Jan. 22, 2005, 04:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
For example, a simple test of barefooted vs. plated biomechanical efficiency in flat racers would be to train [n] barefooted horses for 90 days, then work them out of the gates and record the times. Plate them, train them for another 90 days, then work them out of the gates again, under the same track conditions, and with the same riders. The difference between the times of the first work and the second work would suggest that the fastest group was most biomechanically efficient. Obviously, the larger the sample, [n], the more significant the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to do that sort of comparison, you'd better have another group that you train and run shod first, then remove the shoes and train/run barefoot second. Obviously 90 more days of training is going to have an effect on their run results. Wouldn't want to skew the results towards shoeing is better now would we http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I figured the barefooted folks would whine interminably if a bunch of horses were only allowed three months to over the "evils" of shoeing, but you're absolutely right: to be plumb fair, you'd have to split the groups: leave half barefoooted, plate the other half give 'em 90 days, work 'em, then pull the plates off one bunch, plate the other bunch, give 'em 90 more days, work 'em again, then see which ones worked the fastest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Tom, since this seems to be your experiment, I assumed you'd be doing the trimming, and of course we all know that you could take the shod horses to barefoot without making them sore at all http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And once again, you seem to think that we "barefooted folk" think that shoeing is evil, when the vast majority of us non-Strasserites have never said so, and have tried to go out of our way to make that point known http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

Tom Stovall CJF

Jan. 22, 2005, 06:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JB:
"I figured the barefooted folks would whine interminably if a bunch of horses were only allowed three months to over the "evils" of shoeing, but you're absolutely right: to be plumb fair, you'd have to split the groups: leave half barefoooted, plate the other half give 'em 90 days, work 'em, then pull the plates off one bunch, plate the other bunch, give 'em 90 more days, work 'em again, then see which ones worked the fastest."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Well Tom, since this seems to be your experiment, I assumed you'd be doing the trimming, and of course we all know that you could take the shod horses to barefoot without making them sore at all http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
[QUOTE]
I fear the barefoot camp would cry foul if I did all the trimming - anybody the barefoot bunch could agree on to do all the trimming would be fine with me. On the other hand, I could probably handle the plating without crippling too many.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And once again, you seem to think that we "barefooted folk" think that shoeing is evil, when the vast majority of us non-Strasserites have never said so, and have tried to go out of our way to make that point known http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have y'all considered wearing numbers? It's difficult to tell the barefoot players apart without a program. Forget the strasserites: At one end of the barefoot spectrum, one finds zealots who claim they've never even seen a horse correctly trimmed by a farrier; while at the other end, folks will happily admit that some horses need shoeing and some don't.