Barefoot Question

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

I have a mare who, at age 3, started wearing her feet faster than she grew. She was on full-time turnout, not in training, not even backed. But after consulting my vet and farrier, we decided to go ahead and shoe her. She immediately went from mincing carefully around, to trotting and cantering and galloping and acting like a 3-yr-old should.

Now I have this barefoot person telling me that, if she had a proper barefoot trim, she would not wear as quickly. Isn't that more a function of quality of horn, determined by her genetics and nutrition, combined with the abrasive vs non-abrasive quality of her footing? How in the world could a "barefoot trim" by a "certified barefoot trimmer" cause her to wear more slowly, assuming no change to her environment?

It makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

I have a mare who, at age 3, started wearing her feet faster than she grew. She was on full-time turnout, not in training, not even backed. But after consulting my vet and farrier, we decided to go ahead and shoe her. She immediately went from mincing carefully around, to trotting and cantering and galloping and acting like a 3-yr-old should.

Now I have this barefoot person telling me that, if she had a proper barefoot trim, she would not wear as quickly. Isn't that more a function of quality of horn, determined by her genetics and nutrition, combined with the abrasive vs non-abrasive quality of her footing? How in the world could a "barefoot trim" by a "certified barefoot trimmer" cause her to wear more slowly, assuming no change to her environment?

It makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

[Critters Everywhere]

You unfortunately met one of those people who takes a one-size-fits-all approach to horse care. It's similar to the people that say 'no horse in the world should ever be fed grain' or 'every horse should be ridden in a fat snaffle'...statements may be be true for many horses, but certainly not all horses.

IME, the only differences between a 'certified barefoot trimmer' and a truly good farrier doing a barefoot trim are the price, the size of the ego, and the total unwillingness to consider anything other than their personal doctrine.

Keep doing what makes your mare happy. It may be that some day she'll be fine without shoes...or it may not. Sera during her 2 & 3 year old year really needed front shoes...she also wore off her feet too quickly. She also wore through the metal shoes quickly enough the farrier was never even able to use them as a reset once! Now that she's older & more settled she doesn't seem to wear her feet like she used to & I keep her barefoot.

Good luck!

[Eclectic Horseman]

Barefoot fanatics. It's like a religious cult. A matter of faith and not a matter of science.

Rely on YOUR vet and YOUR farrier for YOUR horse. If you can't get a problem solved, THEN look elsewhere.

[slb]

Critters...very well said http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

While it is true in many cases, a poor trim job does result in a poor quality hoof, from my experience, there are so many factors to consider...as noted - envrionment, nutrition, genetics....that a blanket statement that hoof quality improves in "ALL" horses with a barefoot trim is really stretching it.

The one thing that most barefooters who promote this idea neglect to mention is that they generally just don't change the trim, they also change management, nutrition, and sometimes even alter the environment.

Critters also made a valid point about shoeing. Some horses may need shoes at certain points in their life for various reasons, but it is important not to assume that they will always need them. Keeping in mind that horses are dynamic individuals that have different needs at different times will be of most benefit to your horse.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

Thanks, All. The thing that got me was, this was a vet. Not my vet, and she has never set eyes on my horse. It just came up in conversation at a friend's barn, where she was advocating pulling the shoes and getting a "barefoot trim" on a trippy youngster.

But a vet, nonetheless.

My mare may be able to go barefoot these days. She lives in a far less abrasive environment, turn-outwise, than she did as a 3-yr-old. But the terrain here is a challenge, to say the least. It is very hilly and rocky, and a lot of the trails are cinder-based. I would definitely have to boot her to trail ride and condition. And I plan to do some low-level eventing this year, and the footing will vary from event to event.

So I lean towards if it ain't broke, don't fix it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And, like I said, this vet has never seen my mare and has no idea what I do with her.

[Sherpa]

Is this vet Irish?

[Lookout]

I guess a vet is the final word, until they tell you something you don't want to hear.

A horse really should be able to do nothing but stand in a pasture all day barefoot. A good trim would balance the wear with the growth. I can't imagine what kind of a trim wasn't even allowing this horse to grow enough hoof that it could withstand the wear of standing in a pasture all day. That is less wear on the feet than standing in a stall.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
I guess a vet is the final word, until they tell you something you don't want to hear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when vets disagree, who is the final word? The ones who actually know my horse, or the one who passed within a mile of my barn and made a blanket statement about her, sight unseen?

I've never considered vets to be the final word anyway. They are respected sources of skills and information that I may not have - wonderful, cherished resources. But with my own horses, I am ultimately responsible, and I am the final word. If the "If your horse had a barefoot trim she wouldn't wear as fast," statement had been made by a layperson, I would have rolled my eyes and brushed it off. Since it came from a vet, I thought it was worth at least a little investigation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A horse really should be able to do nothing but stand in a pasture all day barefoot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turnout does not always mean pasture, or standing around. This filly had to walk about a half mile down a fenced hard pack road to get from pasture to barn and back. It was a very, very abrasive surface, and she had access to it 24/7. The group would graze until the bugs got too buggy, then high-tail it down the road to the barn, rest, head back out, repeat. She also had to deal with months of hard, frozen ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A good trim would balance the wear with the growth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? She wears very evenly, no chipping, no cracking, no development of flares - nothing to suggest a lack of balance. Her foot is well-shaped - it just got too short. She has always seen her farrier every 6 weeks. He is well-respected, and not anxious to shoe unless he really feels it is necessary. Once shod, he is happy to try returning to barefoot at any time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't imagine what kind of a trim wasn't even allowing this horse to grow enough hoof that it could withstand the wear of standing in a pasture all day. That is less wear on the feet than standing in a stall. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you assume the trim was at fault? Do you not consider genetics at all?

Her stall had a good 14 inches of clean, soft bedding. Not much wear happening there (not that she spent much time there). Have you seen the feet on horses who are kept stalled and neglected? Lovely long toes, often curling right back to the fetlock, and not just on foundered ponies. A pastured horse has a far better chance of wear.

[Sherpa]

Lookout, I am sure the vet was using common sense to recommend shoes, since most 3 year olds do not just stand around in a pasture all day.

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one thing that most barefooters who promote this idea neglect to mention is that they generally just don't change the trim, they also change management, nutrition, and sometimes even alter the environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

slb-EXACTLY! This is an extremely important point and perhaps more important than the trim itself.

A barefoot horse with a good trim and the "wrong" environment won't fare well...neither will the right environment with the wrong trim!

Actually in one sense it seems barefoot can be a pretty big committment-for me it was easy breezy as mine are out all the time and moving.

Thought I still think a pastured horse should be able to manage somehow without shoes...

The end of the day, we all look at our options and make choices on what we as individuals think is best for our own personal horses.

Yes? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[jherold]

You can sometimes influence the growth rate of the hoof by using hoof supplements. I was able to pull the back shoes on my old horse a couple of months after I started supplementing her diet with a good biotin/methionine etc. She then started growing faster than she wore her feet down.

Genetics plays such a huge role in hooves. If we only bred horses that were sound barefoot, we would end up with all horses being able to go barefoot. Unfortunately, most of us are not happy riding 14h mustangs!

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

LOL! I just spoke to the owner of the barn where the conversation took place, and she thought the "If your horse had a barefoot trim she wouldn't wear as fast" comment was said tongue in cheek. It apparently went right over my head.

So, most likely, I misunderstood, in terms of any blanket statements being made. Mea culpa. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[onehorse]

Yes, we make some changes in enviroment, nutrition, etc. and is barefoot for everyone, no. If you are not in the situation that you can or will make these change, then it isn't for you. The barefoot mentality is that you need to condition a proper foot just like the rest of the horse and very few people are willing to take the time to do that. But, a 3 yr old turned out on anything that isn't really doing much and is ouchie would lead me to believe that there is something wrong that needs to be looked at other then adding shoes and those feet might not be as good as you think. But that is just me.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, a 3 yr old turned out on anything that isn't really doing much and is ouchie would lead me to believe that there is something wrong that needs to be looked at other then adding shoes and those feet might not be as good as you think. But that is just me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, there were 12 horses on the property, most in light work or no work, and the only one capable of going barefoot on that footing was a 9.3 H Shetland. A 14.3 H 9-yr-old Welsh/Arab who had been barefoot, sound, and in moderate work his entire life, wore his feet to nubs after just one week turned out there. And in the 7 years I was there, no horse ever once got a reset. When I say it was abrasive, I really do mean it. The fact that you have not experienced this particular environment does not make it cease to exist.

On the plus side, the footing had good shock-absorbing qualities, good grip, and was never, ever muddy. Aside from the overly rapid foot wear, it was awesome.

As for the filly in question, it is true, she was not the healthiest 3-yr-old. She had many challenges, all stemming from a serious illnes as a late 2-yr-old, and was seen by her vet weekly, on average. Everything was being "looked at," and dealt with, in addition to giving her shoes. This change allowed her to move about more freely immediately, rather than putting her through more months of musculoskeletal stress while "conditioning a proper foot."

Without being able to MOVE, she was unlikely to develop into a healthy, useful adult. Denying her shoes and keeping her mincing carefully around on the shavings paths I spread for her would not have been in her best interests. If I had it to do over, I would shoe her again.

She is now a sound, healthy, useful 7-yr-old, and is relatively low-maintenance.

[Pocket Pony]

I struggled with the barefoot situation for Miles. He's young, healthy, and a *working* horse. I took his shoes off last summer because I had just moved to a new area, had a farrier flake out on me, Miles pulled a shoe, then hurt himself twice in two days. Then he had an abscess. I figured if I could learn how to trim myself, then I wouldn't have to worry about depending on someone else.

I found, through lots of recommendations, a barefoot trimmer in my area and trailered out to him every 3-4 weeks. I also attended two clinics myself, along with coaching from the trimmer, so I could become competent enough to do the feet myself (and I have been). I worked on "conditioning" feet dilligently. I soaked. I didn't soak. I walked him in the pasture, I put boots on him and walked him down the (gravel) road. I rode him with boots on down the trail. But the fact of the matter is that he was still sore. He would walk for me, but I would have to drag him and get after him with a whip, and that was *with* the boots on.

His feet look great. But they are not functional. How long is one supposed to wait? According to the timeline given to me by the barefoot gurus, he has gone through a new hoof cycle. And he's still sore. "Ah yes", I'm told, "it could take up to a couple of years for them to be fully functional". WTF?!

I tried to drink the kool-aid, but it just wasn't going down.

So the shoes go back on in two weeks. Miles is a healthy, sound horse, and as much as I'm sure he'd like to be retired, I think it is healthier and more fun for him to be out working.

How is one supposed to condition the horses' feet and encourage movement, when the horse practically refuses to move? And every step is painful? He's "pasture sound" barefoot, but he only walks around. He doesn't play, he doesn't gallop and buck with his friends, he just minces along to get hay and grass.

The quality of his foot has improved, and for that I'm glad. But I can't stand to see him like this anymore. He's not totally comfortable - my ground is HARD and rocky - and I'd say he's not totally happy, either.

I'd really like to challenge all those people who have barefoot horses on nice irrigated pastures and sand arenas - come to my neck of the woods, where the ground is hard, full of rocks, and let's see how your horses do here. As much as I wanted it to work out, I must admit that I feel defeated. Barefoot is not for every horse, and I don't agree that shoes are inherently evil.

FWIW, I did follow the protocols of out 24/7, feeding grass hay, etc...I don't feed any sweet feeds or pelleted formulas, and have had my hay analyzed and custom minerals blended.

(I do have one other horse who is barefoot, but he's a lame pasture pet...with or without shoes...who never leaves my pasture/dry-lot...he will stay barefoot)

[Lookout]

PP, my horse's pasture sounds like yours. The area is glacial, geologically speaking.

If a horse is lame, sore etc., with shoes, what do you do? Change farriers, the shoe type, shoeing style etc., right?

[Pocket Pony]

Lookout, I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but I guess I would say to explore all your options. Oops, gotta go, Mr. PP needs the computer, I'll be back.

[Voe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now I have this barefoot person telling me that, if she had a proper barefoot trim, she would not wear as quickly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the idea here is that a bad trim can inhibit "hoof mechanism" which reduces circulation, which causes the hoof to grow more slowly. So a proper trim would increase circulation and therefore increase growth rate. I think it's also thought that a hoof with proper circulation would also grow better, stronger horn more resistant to wear. Now, I'm an avid barefooter, but I do agree that due to the conditions of some horses, they're better off shod.

[LMH]

Pocket Pony-your situation interests me everytime you comment on it-you seemed SO devoted to making barefoot work and it didn't http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif...

Is it at ALL possible to get pictures before you put shoes back on? (Or the link if you have already posted them)....I really wanna see these fit just for my own information.

(Not to change your mind-you gotta do what you need-just again, for MY own info---the curiousity is killing me).

[onehorse]

I am sorry that barefoot didn't work for you all, but don't blame the method, as I still believe that there are other problems going on that need to be addresses. There are endurance horses going barefoot over terrian much worse then your pasture at higher speeds, believe me. And you pretty much answered my question, this horse isn't healthy. You can't expect miracles. I know what kind of terrians there are out there and it can be done with any horse out there with the proper care as I have taken one from a grade 4 - 5/5 lameness to sound barefoot and my mares go over pretty much everything, but I will admit, I don't have the time to gett them to the point that they can go soundly over absolutely everything. That is when I pull the boots out. The body is amazing and is able to adapt amazingly well, if given the chance.

[Pocket Pony]

LMH, you can see pictures here. (http://community.webshots.com/album/173145878rmjUil/0)

onehorse, are you addressing me when you write "this horse isn't healthy"? Where did I say that Miles is not healthy? And how did that answer your question, and what was your question? And where did I blame any specific type of barefoot trim? I don't think I mentioned anyone's approach. And what other problems are going on that need to be addressed? My horses are out 24/7 on a mostly dry-lot (so over-grazing is NOT a possibility), I have had their hay analyzed and custom minerals balanced, I have kept up with regular trims (and check their feet daily and do little touch-ups as I see necessary), they have fresh water, and are constantly on the move. Isn't that the "prescription" to support the barefoot horse? So what am I not addressing? I've had x-rays of their feet to determine P3 position, have had the trimmer review x-rays, etc...I'd say I've done it all.

One thing that is tiring is the need to defend myself and my decisions to the barefoot gurus that I've been in contact with. The only ones I need to defend myself to are my horses, and that's that.

Sorry to drag this thread out into my own personal problems, sigh...

[onehorse]

PP, I wasn't referring to you in my post, more towards the originally poster, but I looked at the pics and you are so very close to this horse going sound on everything, but he still needs to develop a bit more of a toe callous and sole. I would like to see about a 1/4" of callous at the toe and around the entire walking surface. Either you or your trimmer has been doing an excellent job! Can you see how much his toe and heels have come back under him from when you first pulled his shoes to now? Can you see how decontracted his heels are? In the shod pics, he was a navicular canditate, now he isn't! He needs a bit more toe callous to become really sound on all surfaces, the amount of toe callous is a direct reflection of how much sole he has, so if the callous is thin, so is the sole, so he is a bit ouchie. If you really want this horse barefoot, I would keep trimming him the way you are and work him on sand to stimulate the sole for some growth there, keep him off rocks until you get a bit more growth or you are just aggravating it, not helping. His outer wall, white line, frog, bars, heels, everything else look beautifully, I would really hate to see you lose everything you have been doing! Man, I would hate to see this horse back in shoes!

[LMH]

PP i think his feet have improved alot-but there might be a good reason he is still sore.

It looks to me like the trim is taking him pretty low at or even into the live sole (hard to tell but kinda looks that way-lots of shiny sole showing).

What helped my horses (and I am not a trimmer so I can only comment on my horses) was not taking the sole down to live sole...leaving a litte dead sole for some protection (kinda like a sock rather that a shoe).

It seems like he is really being taken low in the heel area-I might try leaving a little more there and see if that helps.

The other thing is the frogs-if you lay a rasp on end over the frog, is the frog sticking out enough to cause the rasp to "teeter totter"--I am only talking the front 1/3.

IF the rasp is making contact with the frog in that front 1/3 while he is non weightbearing, it can REALLY sore a horse when he actually bears weight-sloping that frog in the front 1/3 really made a world of difference on my horses.

I would also keep backing up that toe right to the white line to encourage a rounder shape. I back the toes up on my right to the white line every trim.

How often is he trimmed? Do you notice any difference in his comfort towards the end of a trim cycle?

I agree he looks like he has come so far! I understand though that you want him to be comfy and can understand why you might want shoes again.

I just offered my observations in case you decide to wait a little longer and try those changes.

[LMH]

Look at Dec LH-see the pink at the heels? See these also look to me like the trim is a litte aggressive at lowering the heel-it might just be TOO much for where his foot is now.

That frog also looks like it might be causing pressure from ground contact that really cause that soreness.

Just something to lick and chew on.

[LMH]

OK ok last comment http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...

another little tweak could be also leaving just a skooch more wall (like the width of a finger nail)...and adding a mustang roll.

It doesn't appear like the foot is being rolled-unless the finishing roll was put on after the photos...that may not help in the immediate soundness but will help in the wear of the foot.

Sorry to ramble on-I just think you are SO close.

And just to be SURE-I am not trying to convince you and am not trying to be a barefoot guru...I am not being judgmental AT ALL on your decision...http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Pocket Pony]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">keep him off rocks until you get a bit more growth or you are just aggravating it, not helping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
onehorse, herein lies the problem. It is not at all possible to keep him off rocks. My entire pasture is HARD ground, and rocky. The rocks are either granite, quartz, or river rock that seems to "harvest" after the rain. I live in an old mining area and all these hillsides have been blasted in the past and we are left with rocks, rocks, rocks. I have a nice, soft, sandy arena. In order to get there, we have to walk down the gravel driveway, and up a trail that is full of rocks. (And our gravel is large and sharp and pointy)

His feet have come a long way. They were worse when I got him, and my farrier did a good job of bringing his toe back as much as she could in the time I was with her (I moved). His overall foot shape, wall strength, and flat sole have really improved and I'm happy for that. But like I said, these feet aren't really functional.

I was hoping that the barefoot transition period could also be a "bonding" time for us, working together on the ground, grooming, handwalking, etc. But it has had the opposite affect. He doesn't trust me to follow me on lead, because when I ask him to walk with me (like I said, even with boots on), it seems to hurt him. He will follow me around the pasture, and he walks himself around the pasture all day long. But I think he's lost some trust in me and that bothers me very much.

I agree that the trim was a bit aggressive. He always seemed to feel better right before he got trimmed again, then he'd be sore for at least a few days afterwards. Since his last trim a few weeks ago, I've just been doing touch ups myself.

Anyways, I consider this period to have been a tremendous learning experience. I learned a lot about the feet, how they are shaped, how they grow, etc. I also learned to trim, which was a great tool to add to my box!

In the future, I will likely pull his shoes for the winter and let him have some time off when the ground is muddy (although still rocks!). For now, though, the shoes are going back on.

[Sannois]

Well since My horse has gone barefoot it has been over a year and many trims and I must say his thrush is gone his heels are no longer contracted and his frog is healthy. He has a VERY hard sole, and has not had any real problems with hard or rocky ground. I guess I am surprised at how some say there are barefoot Gurus?? If you study the anatomy of the foot and the leg you can see what a vital role the foot plays in soundness and support, The shoe in so many cases restricts the hoof wall from expanding keeps the frog from contacting the ground which is very important. I am no expert, and no Guru has ever told me shoes are bad, I learned about this from my vet and My farrier has been very open and willing to try it. I should say he was already of that school of thought to do natural trims. I also realized I knew so little about the actual workings of the hoof in relationship to the leg. There are several really good Farriers that have videos and books on the subject, One I highly regard has a regular segment on RFDTV Usually at the end of Dennis Reis. I will spell it wrong but it is Gene Ornish I think! Very interesting and very detailed info. Also he does not say horses Need to go barefoot, The hoof that is Trimmed correctly is also fitted with the Natural Balance shoes, So it depends on the animal. My horse has benefitted from no shoes, after years of never being without. If you get a chance watch his program. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Flash44]

I imagine that in New England, the ground is frozen solid and rock hard some days, kind of like it is here in Maryland some days during the winter. Even my horse in shoes hates walking around on frozen rutted ground.

[Eireamon]

I don't always beleive that its a terrain thing either. Some horses simply don't suit barefoot. I have 5 working horses. 2 are shod the rest are bare. The shod ones are shod because they cannot cope being bare.
One of the other bare ones is borderline and is likely to get shod in the future.
All are worked on the same footing and live and eat the same as each other.
3 of the 5 are out of the same mare.
2 are full brother and sister. Of the full brother and sister the brother is coping really well barefoot the sister (who is the one who is likely to get shod in the future) is not doing so well. Her half brother also did not cope with being bare and has now been shod.
So I come to the conclusion that its not about footing and it isn't even about genetics. Its all about the individual horse. Some suit bare some don't simple as that.

Edited to add. I have a very experienced Barefoot trimmer too. On one that has been shod she was in fact was very concerned about him. When I did get him shod she agreed that it was right for him. And this coming from someone who prefers all horses to be bare and has not owned a shod horse in 9 years. The horse would never have been sound bare.

[onehorse]

PP, I would consider duct taping pads on to his feet in addition to or instead of the boots. The pads will conform to his feet and give him the stimulation he needs to develop the sole and callous and the protection from the rocks at this time. And, yes, Eireamon, ever horse can go barefoot, but every horse is an individual and needs to be treated as such, it is the human that won't individualize for the horse. I am not a guru, but a promoter by necessity

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
I am sorry that barefoot didn't work for you all, but don't blame the method, as I still believe that there are other problems going on that need to be addresses. There are endurance horses going barefoot over terrian much worse then your pasture at higher speeds, believe me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have never seen this terrain. And please, will ya quit calling it a pasture? It was hard pack - abrasive as a rasp. Yes, there was pasture too, but they spent a large percentage of their time on the roadways.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And you pretty much answered my question, this horse isn't healthy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was not healthy at 3. Positively glows with health today, thank you. I believe I mentioned this.

And 10 of the other 11 horses there could also not handle barefoot on that terrain, including one who had trail ridden all over the rocky northeast barefoot for 6 years preceding his move there. Did this slip your mind?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can't expect miracles. I know what kind of terrians there are out there and it can be done with any horse out there with the proper care </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would have included changing the terrain she lived on. As I did not own the property, I was not at liberty to pad the hard pack roads.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as I have taken one from a grade 4 - 5/5 lameness to sound barefoot </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One horse. Oh, well then, I'm sure this will work for every horse. Obviously any horse it doesn't work for must be poorly managed and unhealthy. Thank you so much for clearing this up for me. I trust this horse is staying sound in work, covering varied terrain at all gaits?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and my mares go over pretty much everything, but I will admit, I don't have the time to gett them to the point that they can go soundly over absolutely everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know a couple farriers who could make that happen. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is when I pull the boots out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boots have their own drawbacks in terms of long-term soundness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The body is amazing and is able to adapt amazingly well, if given the chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the chance? How long are you willing to leave a horse in pain in order to give him this chance? I would never consider putting this mare through months and months of pain when she can be immediately sound in shoes. What would be the point? I've had shod horses stay completely sound well into their mid to late 20's, and one to his early 30's. The evil shoes did not seem to be a problem.

Why not approach each horse as an individual, and base the decision to shoe or not shoe on genetics, environment, and the rider's goals?

My other mare is barefoot. I bought her based largely on her feet - big savings there not having to shell out for shoes, and being able to trim myself. But if the day comes that shoes will benefit her, I'll suck it up and put them on. She deserves the best care I can give her.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
(snip)And, yes, Eireamon, ever horse can go barefoot, but every horse is an individual and needs to be treated as such, it is the human that won't individualize for the horse. I am not a guru, but a promoter by necessity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Where is this necessity? Again, I've had shod horses who have gone late into their 3rd decade, staying in work with no soundness issues whatsoever. Genetics certainly played a role, along with management. Who can say if they would have lasted as long barefoot? How can you be sure it is preferable to yank the shoes with every horse? You may actually end up shortening the sound lifespan on quite a few.

[Lookout]

PP, my original question to you was, why is it that if barefoot is not working, it's not the trim but barefoot? When a horse is lame with shoes, who says, "oh he can't go shod" he needs to be barefoot? Show of hands? Of course not, one changes the farrier, the shoes, and so on. Having looked at your pictures I would not expect your horse to be sound with this trim. The bars are enormous, in addition they are uneven (one is longer than the other) and I don't know how a horse could ever be sound that way.
The frog is not touching the ground because the bars are so high. There is absolutely no trace of "live" sole apparent; there is a lot of dead sole in there.

[Pocket Pony]

Ah, Lookout, I see. I think the pictures are deceiving, then, because in person, during/after the trims (when I took the pictures - some pictures were a week out, the December ones were immediately), the bars were not enormous, and had been trimmed level to or very slightly above the sole plane (but lower than the wall). And actually, sometimes (in between trims), it seemed to me like the frog was touching the ground *too* much causing soreness. Pictures can be so hard to decipher! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, are you saying that more sole should be trimmed away? See, to my thinking trimming more sole away would cause him to be more sore (x-rays indicated very thin soles). I did work with this trimmer on my thoughts, after observing Miles and working on tweaking the trims in between visits myself. And after the last appointment, I told him I was going to work on it myself for a while.

I live in a very rural area. As it was, I had to haul out to this guy who was 90 minutes away. I tried getting in touch with other trimmers in the area, also (who would also require me to travel). Let's see. One was just as bad as any other farrier I've come across about returning calls (maybe because he used to be a regular farrier!), the other is someone who has studied Strasser and Olivo. I know she's a "Hoof Groom" per Olivo's certifications, I'm not sure about being an SHP, I can't remember. Anyways, I found her to be rude, condescending, and required that clients buy and study the Big Blue Book (is that what it is called?) before she'd even consider working with them. So once again, my choices were very limited. Another woman I liked very much, but wasn't sure about her approach. I did my research, believe me.

I'm working with a farrier whom I like now. He's very open to my questions and to teaching me. He's willing to do barefoot trims if that's what I want, or of course he'll shoe if I want that too (and he does shoe Paddy).

I find the he said-she said arguments in the barefoot community (he's right, she's wrong...NO, she's right, he's wrong) to be very confusing, when all I want for my horses is a balanced trim and soundness.

Anyways, my horses' jobs requires them to work over varied terrain daily - not just at shows or hauling out for a trail ride, every day. Rocks, gravel, sand, rocky sand, soft gravel, soft ground, you name it - actually there is no soft ground, so scratch that one.

I've heard comments that keeping a horse barefoot will increase his longevity and keep him sounder longer. At what price? I mean, if I lose one to two years now, while he's in his prime, or if I lose one to two years later, when he gets to be retired, it is a wash, isn't it? (And I am NOT one to use a horse up)

It is so easy to sit and write that ANY horse can go barefoot, doing any kind of job, over any terrain. Especially if you've had a horse that was easy to transition. But what about sitting there and watching your horse in pain because his feet hurt because he doesn't have shoes? What about watching your horse who doesn't want to play with his friends because his feet hurt because he doesn't have shoes? What about experiencing your horse's unwillingness to trust you and simply take a walk down the road because his feet hurt because he doesn't have shoes? Believe me, I wanted this to work more than anyone. I put in the time, the effort, the money (it isn't necessarily cheaper than shoeing!). I gave him the lifestyle, worked on a feeding program, and let him have all the movement he wants (and I tried to encourage more).

Like I said, at the end of the day, he's the one I have to answer to. And if he's in pain, it isn't worth it to me.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
PP, my original question to you was, why is it that if barefoot is not working, it's not the trim but barefoot? When a horse is lame with shoes, who says, "oh he can't go shod" he needs to be barefoot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not PP, but if my horse is lame, I call a vet, and do whatever diagnostics he feels are necessary in order to determine what the problem is. Once the problem is known, or at least strongly suspected, I follow the vet's instructions for care.

It is actually very common to remove the shoes on a horse who is chronically unsound. A lame horse gets his workload taken away, often allowing rate of growth to keep up with rate of wear. If he returns to work, he'll be shod if his workload causes the rate of wear to exceed the rate of growth, or if the vet determines he needs some sort of therapeutic assistance. We will not keep a horse uncomfortable when we can give him relief.

We prefer barefoot, but we're not going to be foolish about it. Every horse is an individual and must be treated as such.

[chism]

PP - You're not alone.I have a horse exactly like yours. He was miserable for months, would hardly even move, and when he did, every step was painful. He also has very thin soles. I don't have rocky paddocks either. This was a 4 year old OTTB right off the track who should have TONS of energy. I finally gave in and put shoes back on him. Now he canters and bucks in the paddock and behaves like the 4 year old he is. I have a QH who transitioned beautifully from corrective shoeing to a natural barefoot trim. Every horse is an individual and it is certainly NOT a failure on your part if your horse needs shoes.

[ESG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
I am sorry that barefoot didn't work for you all, but don't blame the method, as I still believe that there are other problems going on that need to be addresses.

<span class="ev_code_PURPLE">That's a pretty interesting statement that you make, since I suspect you don't live where Mountain Laurel does, nor have personal knowledge of her or her horse. Blanket statements about how something SHOULD work for EVERY horse if the owner just TRIES hard enough do not enlighten or educate; they only show that the utterer is ignorant and perhaps slightly fanatical about that particular subject. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif</span>

There are endurance horses going barefoot over terrian much worse then your pasture at higher speeds, believe me.

<span class="ev_code_PURPLE">And you'll guarantee that? And that their birth environments and physical makeup is exactly like that of Mountain Laurel's filly. Riiiiight..................http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif</span>

And you pretty much answered my question, this horse isn't healthy. You can't expect miracles.

<span class="ev_code_PURPLE">No, to me it sounds like the horse is healthy, but just incapable of going barefoot. The two are not the same. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif</span>

I know what kind of terrians there are out there and it can be done with any horse out there with the proper care as I have taken one from a grade 4 - 5/5 lameness to sound barefoot and my mares go over pretty much everything, but I will admit, I don't have the time to gett them to the point that they can go soundly over absolutely everything.

<span class="ev_code_PURPLE">Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly; you state that it can be done with any horse, but only if the owner has the requisite time to spend, which you obviously don't, since you said your mares can't go happily and soundly barefoot over everything. Even though you read PocketPony's description of how she's spent months and months following every protocol the barefoot proponents suggested and is still nursing a lame horse? Are you saying that it's okay for everyone else to have to do it, but it's okay that you don't have the time, yet you can criticize someone else for having the time, following protocol and still not being successful? Uh huh.......................http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif</span>

That is when I pull the boots out. The body is amazing and is able to adapt amazingly well, if given the chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_PURPLE">I'm confused - how can the body adapt when the boots are on? And what if, as in PocketPony's case, the boots don't help? Methinks your argument has lots and lots of holes in it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif</span>

[onehorse]

Guys, guys, guys, you are missing it, completely. And I am not sure how to explain it, but there are barefoot horses all over this country! ON EVERY TERRIAN IMAGINABLE! LOL, even on Mountains! The foot will adapt to the terrian, if giving the proper amount of time to do so! PP's horse is so very close to it now, but Miles had a lot of work to do to get the proper structures in his feet so that they could function properly, so that he could develop the sole he needs to protect himself! Anyone can look at those pics and see the changes in his foot. Unfortunately, we have tons and tons of lousy farriers out there that don't know how to trim a horse properly, so we have distorted, disfunctional, problem feet to start with that are covered up with shoes so the horse "goes sound". And then someone goes "Let's pull his shoes, he should be fine." Well, yeah, he will be and better for it, but it could take a year, 2 yrs, or more depending on how messed up his feet are in the first place to get him to the point that he is sound in his enviroment. This is PP's issue! Apparently, no one told her that his feet weren't that great to start with and it would take him longer to get to where she wanted him to be, because of that! She didn’t do anything wrong, actually she did everything right, but he needed time to get his toe pulled back, to get his heels more upright, to develop a white line, a toe callous and a sole, so that his foot can support him like it should. I have seen xrays of horses that have toe callouses that put steel shoes to shame. They show up harder then bone on the xrays, so, yes, every horse, ON EVERY TERRAIN, can go barefoot, but it is the human that has to want it and has to know what they are doing and how to accomplish it. It might mean the horse wears boots or pads for a while until they develop enough structure to not be ouchie. It might mean that you have to put the water trough at one end of the turn out and hay on the other. It might mean that you have to work that horse of different surfaces so that horse can build up white line or frog or sole, but every horse can go barefoot! My horses live on broken slate, hard stuff, need a jack-hammer to get through the stuff when it is compacted, nature’s rasp, probably not far off from Mountains terrian. On dry years, I have to soak their feet or wait for a rain to trim them, the rasp won't even touch them and they go sound everywhere. Wet years, we might have to use boots a bit more, might have to lock them into a dry lot for a bit. Yes, I will admit, I don’t have jagged rock like some of our mountain trails in the area on my property, so if I wanted to ride on them regularly over that kind of terrain, I would have to condition my horses feet to that environment, which isn't much different that what you would do for the rest of the horse. That is when ya pull out the boots and use them for a month until the horse builds up the structure for the terrain, like when you just walk your horse instead of galloping him because he doesn't have the fitness for it, yet. Then the boots come off and away ya go. And, it has nothing to do with where that horse came from, I have one from Florida, one from Montana, one from who knows where, and one that was born on my back door and they all have beautiful, fully functional feet. LOL, and Mountain, if you knew the horse I was talking about, you would be saying that every horse can go barefoot also after seeing the difference in him. Like I said, don't blame the method, because that isn't it. Lack of knowledge is the problem and shoes are the band-aid.

[Pocket Pony]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, I will admit, I don’t have jagged rock like some of our mountain trails in the area on my property, so if I wanted to ride on them regularly over that kind of terrain, I would have to condition my horses feet to that environment, which isn't much different that what you would do for the rest of the horse. That is when ya pull out the boots and use them for a month until the horse builds up the structure for the terrain </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

onehorse, you just wrote that a horse has to be conditioned to the environment...how does putting boots on the horse condition the feet to that environment? Doesn't that prevent his feet from conditioning to the environment? I mean, if you want your horse to walk on rocks, you have to walk him on rocks, not put boots on so that it is easier for him...right?

chism and ESG, thanks for the support. Mountain Laurel, it sounds like you and I have similar terrains and experiences.

Also, the comments from various responders on this board illustrate to me the conflicts in the barefoot trimming community. One person says he doesn't have enough sole. The other person says he has too much. One person says he has too much frog/ground contact. The other person says he doesn't have enough. One person says the heels should be more upright, another will subscribe to the 30 degree angle. It boggles my mind! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

onehorse, I'm curious - where are you located? Do you do your own trimming? Whose protocol do you follow?

[LMH]

PP in all fairness not all farriers agree on how a horse should be trimmed and shod. So it isn't so unusual that trimmers would disagree as well.

I think what you will find is a split down the middle-those following Strasser and Olivio are going to say too much sole, anyone else will say the opposite.

So in decided trim styles, one first has to decide whether to accept what Strasser and Olivio do vs. what the rest of the world does. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse: Guys, guys, guys, you are missing it, completely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or perhaps you are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I am not sure how to explain it, but there are barefoot horses all over this country! ON EVERY TERRIAN IMAGINABLE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some can, some can't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LOL, even on Mountains! The foot will adapt to the terrian, if giving the proper amount of time to do so! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you would have left my 3-yr-old mincing carefully around rather than allowing her to move freely? You would have sacrificed her over-all physical development in order to better develop her feet? Why in the world would this have been in any way better for her?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PP's horse is so very close to it now, but Miles had a lot of work to do to get the proper structures in his feet so that they could function properly, so that he could develop the sole he needs to protect himself! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think PP did her due diligence, and can speak from her own experience. She had the intelligence and compassion to look at HER horse, and HER environment, and to do what was best for him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyone can look at those pics and see the changes in his foot. Unfortunately, we have tons and tons of lousy farriers out there that don't know how to trim a horse properly, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we have many exceptional, well-rounded farriers, well-versed in trimming for bare feet as well as trimming for shoeing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so we have distorted, disfunctional, problem feet to start with that are covered up with shoes so the horse "goes sound". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A distorted, dysfunctional foot is not going to be sound just because someone slaps a shoe on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And then someone goes "Let's pull his shoes, he should be fine." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's more like, "Let's give this guy some time off. Meanwhile, we'll pull his shoes, make sure he has a balanced trim, radius the toe to allow an easy breakover, and we'll turn him out in the softest, most supportive footing available to us. Let's see how he does over time. We'll continue to work with his vet, quite possibly multiple vets, as well as his farrier, massage therapist and chiropractor. Once he’s traveling sound, let’s start him up with very light work on soft footing, and see how he holds up. Let's see if we can get him useful and happy."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, yeah, he will be and better for it, but it could take a year, 2 yrs, or more depending on how messed up his feet are in the first place to get him to the point that he is sound in his enviroment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why in the world would I take my sound mare, and make her less sound, limiting her usefulness to me as well as her quality of life, for up to two years or more, just so that she may be able to go barefoot at some point in the future?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is PP's issue! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, she does seem to be far too concerned with her horse’s health, comfort and quality of life. She really does need to cripple him for another year or so. (sigh)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Apparently, no one told her that his feet weren't that great to start with and it would take him longer to get to where she wanted him to be, because of that! She didn’t do anything wrong, actually she did everything right, but he needed time to get his toe pulled back, to get his heels more upright, to develop a white line, a toe callous and a sole, so that his foot can support him like it should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you have not experimented on every horse, you cannot know to what extent every horse can adapt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have seen xrays of horses that have toe callouses that put steel shoes to shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rads of one horse cannot be used to guarantee the response of another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They show up harder then bone on the xrays, so, yes, every horse, ON EVERY TERRAIN, can go barefoot, but it is the human that has to want it and has to know what they are doing and how to accomplish it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven’t given me a single reason why I should want it. You certainly haven’t given me reason to want it enough to put my horse through months, perhaps years, of discomfort, perhaps pain, and certainly limited use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It might mean the horse wears boots or pads for a while until they develop enough structure to not be ouchie. It might mean that you have to put the water trough at one end of the turn out and hay on the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’ve seen horses colic because they are too uncomfortable to make that trip as often as necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It might mean that you have to work that horse of different surfaces so that horse can build up white line or frog or sole, but every horse can go barefoot! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. Every horse can go barefoot. But not every horse can go barefoot in every environment while being comfortable and useful and reaching full over-all physical potential.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My horses live on broken slate, hard stuff, need a jack-hammer to get through the stuff when it is compacted, nature’s rasp, probably not far off from Mountains terrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close, but I am not surprised that you make the assumption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On dry years, I have to soak their feet or wait for a rain to trim them, the rasp won't even touch them and they go sound everywhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you said not everywhere. And a strong, experienced arm behind a good rasp will most likely touch them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wet years, we might have to use boots a bit more, might have to lock them into a dry lot for a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer they get to go out and play over the maximum amount of acreage available - better for the whole horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, I will admit, I don’t have jagged rock like some of our mountain trails in the area on my property, so if I wanted to ride on them regularly over that kind of terrain, I would have to condition my horses feet to that environment, which isn't much different that what you would do for the rest of the horse. That is when ya pull out the boots and use them for a month until the horse builds up the structure for the terrain, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’ll defer to PP’s question on this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">like when you just walk your horse instead of galloping him because he doesn't have the fitness for it, yet. Then the boots come off and away ya go. And, it has nothing to do with where that horse came from, I have one from Florida, one from Montana, one from who knows where, and one that was born on my back door and they all have beautiful, fully functional feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, or perhaps our definitions of beautiful and fully functional differ. I mean, how many miles do you cover in a ride? How many days per week? Over what terrain? Any jumping? How much? How high? How much paved road do you regularly ride? How much cinder (old railroad beds)? Do you compete?

And we do have jagged rock on the trails – lots of it. Even so, only one of my mares needs shoes. The other swims in a better gene pool, foot-wise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LOL, and Mountain, if you knew the horse I was talking about, you would be saying that every horse can go barefoot also after seeing the difference in him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I am not so foolish, or so blinded, or so fanatical, to think that one example applies to all horses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like I said, don't blame the method, because that isn't it. Lack of knowledge is the problem and shoes are the band-aid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’ve read barefoot books, worked alongside the barefoot trimmers, and have seen successes and failures. I will continue to treat each horse as an individual, thank you. And the owner’s goals for the horse will be considered, along with the horse’s quality of life and over-all physical development.

[LMH]

I wonder if it has ever occurred to anyone besides me http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif after reading and participating in the barefoot vs. shod thread that it will never change.

There will be those that feel barefoot is best at all costs.
There will be those that cringe at the thought of barefoot.
There will be those all along the scale in between.

It is one things to offer advice to someone that is asking (what is wrong with this trim? My horse is still sore-suggestions on what I can do? How do I fix underrun heels? etc) but there ain't gonna be no born again barefooters as a result of ANY of these threads. OR born Again Shodders.

Seems to me the teams have been chosen.

Just a small observation---and deviation from Emuland.

[Pocket Pony]

Yes, LMH, to an extent I agree with you. But there are those of us who DO think that barefoot would be the best way to go, if only our horses could be sound and function at their jobs 100% in that type of trim. And there are also those out there who are on the fence or who are considering either going barefoot or putting shoes on a young horse for the first time. I do think these discussions are relevant. I don't expect to change the minds of those who are solid barefoot believers.

How is life in Emuland? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[daisy]

To me it's more about the footing, use of the horse and environment that decides barefoot or shod.

My TB mare is healthy, has great feet, and always went barefoot. Never had shoes on until she was seven.

She was fine barefoot when she was home. I don't ride in the winter. When I do start up, I ride somewhere around 30 to 40 min. a day, usually about six days a week. Depending on what else is going on maybe less ride time. My arena has some sand but also regular dirt. The turnouts are grass with dirt areas, no sand.

My daughter took the mare for a couple of years to have for showing. The place had a sand arena, also the pathways everywhere on the place were sand. The horse was being ridden all year long, showed, jumped and got a lot more intense use than what I do. She started to wear her feet down faster than they were growing, and started to get sore, so she got shoes. She wore shoes for the couple of years and was great.

Now the mare is back home with me again. She's barefoot again. We showed a little last summer, barefoot, and she was fine. All my horses are barefoot. I love having them barefoot but it isn't the only way. Sometimes the horse needs shoes.

[onehorse]

onehorse, you just wrote that a horse has to be conditioned to the environment...how does putting boots on the horse condition the feet to that environment? Doesn't that prevent his feet from conditioning to the environment? I mean, if you want your horse to walk on rocks, you have to walk him on rocks, not put boots on so that it is easier for him...right?

Does it? Or does give him that cushion he needs to be able to get over that hump from tender to not? Do you go galloping a layup the first ride back? I don't. First ride, we usually walk, usually use two saddle pads because that horse's back isn't use to having a saddle on it, usually use a girth fuzzy because he isn't use to a girth, usually take it real easy, walk around for 20 minutes and call it good. How do boots work? Same way, it is the double saddle pad and girth fuzzy. Do you remember as a kid being able to walk on the stones in your driveway in the summertime? Do you remember what it was like in the spring after being in all winter? Pretty ouchy, yes? How were you able to get from the spring ouchies to summer where you were jogging across the stones? Did you tend to stick to the edges of the drive at first, pick up a couple of stones here and there? Did you ever find the spot in the drive where most of the stones where gone? Did you ever wear your socks to get across the drive? That conditioning and how to use boots. The horse will still get the stimulation that he needs in boots, since most of them are some kind of rubber/plastic material and fairly forgiving, if everything else is set up properly.

onehorse, I'm curious - where are you located? Do you do your own trimming? Whose protocol do you follow?

I am located in central PA, right along the Appalachian mtns. and I do trim my own horses in addition to 2 clients. I have read just about everything that I have been able to get my hands on, internet and otherwise, and have taken 2 trimming clinics with KC LaPierre and of everyone I have seen, I like his method best.

[LMH]

onehorse what exactly IS the difference between the actual trim KC teaches and the one Jaime teaches (or Pete for that matter).

I know KC presents it all different-but at the end of it all-is there much difference?

[Sannois]

Yup LMH I totally agree! Kinda like NH! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But if you read my post you know the successes I have had with Truman since proper trimming and going barefoot! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But Even Gene O and others dont say EVERY horse can go barefoot. But they can be trimmed in a natural balanced way and shod with Natural Balance shoes! My farrier has said he has several horses that are just so thin soled that they have to have shoe, and sometimes pads! They see hard ground and they go lame! His wifes horse comes to mind! But I do think if at all possible they do best the way god made them! I dont go around telling all the people in the barn however TAKE OFF HIS SHOES! LOL http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[ytr45]

My question about a barefoot horse being sore is:

* Some say its because the bars are protruding too much

* Some say its because the frog is protruding too much

* Some say its because the sole needs to be toughened up with a substance like keratex

* Some say its NONE of the above, that its the coffin bone pushing on the corium, and that no amount of hoof toughener will help (this is what the Old Mac website says, for example)

Geez I hate when everythings is clear as mud.... and on that note.....why don't barefoot horses who are sore test positive with hoof-testers???? That seems to support the coffin-bone-pushing-on-the-corium theory...!?!

[ytr45]

Another question for Pocket Pony and Others:

What about the Old-Mac boot therapeutic insoles (called "dual density", "frog relief" , and "sole relief")?

These inserts take all the pressure off the frog, sole, etc, so wouldn't they make any barefoot horse sound? With the old-mac boots + the inserts, wouldn't this be as good as a shoe + Pads?

[Pocket Pony]

I only ever used the Boa boots, no inserts.

And, yes, they may offer good protection like shoes + pads, but they are not as versatile, IMHO. You can't ride in boots in sand (or at least I wouldn't do it), so if I wanted to use them, I'd put them on to walk down the driveway and into the arena, then take them off, then put them on again, etc...now this is ok for just working at home, I suppose. But what about going to shows? Ok, I need my boots here. Nope, gotta take them off now. Wait! I'm in the middle of an XC course and have to cross a path with gravel or rocks - damn! Don't have those boots...

[Pocket Pony]

Oh yea, ytr - I agree about the sore horses not testing with hoof testers. I had the vet out to do x-rays and test Miles's feet and she could get no response. But he was gimping around like nobody's business... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Karma]

since we are adding questions, does anyone know of a boot bigger then the old macs? they wont fit my guy, the foot size is pretty close inthe largest size, but the straps are way to short. I tried and my trimmer tried no luck. My trimmer is now suggesting an epoxy material that can be applied around the bottom edge of the wall (where a shoe would be to add protection) if I go showing (I event) or trail riding. Any ideas on either of these??

[Lookout]

PP, my horse's soles looked like yours, for a year, and he was sore and tender. Not until I started trimming them did he get sound, almost right away. And my footing is at least as rocky and hard as yours sounds.

[Lookout]

yes, exactly the point (which you miss). Lame barefoot? He needs shoes. Lame with shoes? Can't be the shoes, he needs time off barefoot (which enables him to become sound), then the shoes go back on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel
It is actually very common to remove the shoes on a horse who is chronically unsound. A lame horse gets his workload taken away, often allowing rate of growth to keep up with rate of wear. If he returns to work, he'll be shod if his workload causes the rate of wear to exceed the rate of growth, or if the vet determines he needs some sort of therapeutic assistance. We will not keep a horse uncomfortable when we can give him relief.

We prefer barefoot, but we're not going to be foolish about it. Every horse is an individual and must be treated as such. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[wendy]

Karma, the old mac website says you can buy strap extenders if you need them.


I must admit the more I read about hooves and shoeing the more confused I get. I naively used to believe that metal shoes were invented solely to prevent the horse from wearing his feet down faster than he grew them. Since most of our horses don't actually spend that much time running around on abrasive surfaces, you would expect that most horses don't actually need shoes. Certainly most of the unshod and half-shod horses around seem to need regular trimming, suggesting they don't wear their hooves down all that much. Then you hear that horses hooves are just too tender to directly contact the ground and therefore they need shoes. I struggle with that idea. My dogs don't have thick hard hooves, and they happily run around on all sorts of surfaces with no problems. As a child, I often went barefoot, and had no problems running around on all sorts of surfaces, and no, I don't have thick hard hooves either. Of course now that I'm considered to be an adult I must wear shoes, and I can't go without them. I'm forced to conclude that most horses only need shoes because they have been shod. I'm not about to take the shoes off my horse, because then he'll need a couple of years to recover. But why start the cycle again with young horses? how many young horses are shod as they go into training "just because"?

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
yes, exactly the point (which you miss). Lame barefoot? He needs shoes. Lame with shoes? Can't be the shoes, he needs time off barefoot (which enables him to become sound), then the shoes go back on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's try again. I'll use small words.

The shoes go back on if, and only if, the horse is unable to do his job without them.

Many of us need to actually use our horses. They have jobs. They are not just pets. If the horse cannot do his job without having the rate of wear exceed the rate of growth, he will be given protection. To do otherwise is not in the horse's best interests, and certainly not in the best interests of those paying his bills.

Same with a 3-yr-old, born on the property, going over the same acreage every day of her life, not being asked to do any forced exercise at all, who reaches a point where her feet wear faster than she can grow them. You need to consider the needs of the whole horse, taking into account the detrimental effect that inactivity and stiff, overly careful movement will have on her physical development.

You still have not given any incentive to remove the shoes on a sound horse. Do you claim it will increase his sound lifespan? Can you back this up? My horses tend to remain sound well into old age as it is. Can you guarantee that removing shoes will not shorten the sound lifespan rather than increasing it?

Of course not. And meanwhile I loose months or years of use of an otherwise sound horse. And the horse suffers needlessly. Raw deal all around.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wendy:
I naively used to believe that metal shoes were invented solely to prevent the horse from wearing his feet down faster than he grew them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one use, and probably the most common.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since most of our horses don't actually spend that much time running around on abrasive surfaces, you would expect that most horses don't actually need shoes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the individual. We have not selectively bred for good feet. We have, in many cases, actually selected for poor feet. Picture a 1200 lb QH standing on 00's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Certainly most of the unshod and half-shod horses around seem to need regular trimming, suggesting they don't wear their hooves down all that much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those horses may be fine barefoot. Were they mine, I'd certainly give it a try.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then you hear that horses hooves are just too tender to directly contact the ground and therefore they need shoes. I struggle with that idea. My dogs don't have thick hard hooves, and they happily run around on all sorts of surfaces with no problems. As a child, I often went barefoot, and had no problems running around on all sorts of surfaces, and no, I don't have thick hard hooves either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you used all your senses to determine where to place your feet, and placement was determined by you, and not by a monkey on your back. If you came down on a sharp stone, you immediately unweighted that foot and came down more heavily on the other. You saw, before you stepped, the sort of footing you were about to make contact with, and you adjusted your stride accordingly.

You were not doing prolonged forced exercise over varied surfaces, while expected to maintain the same rhythm, and the same length of stride, and to come down with the same force on each foot, regardless of changes in the footing. You were not doing forced exercise on surfaces designed to wear your feet to rawness. If your feet got tender, you stopped and did something else.

Remember walking on pavement in the summer sun? How long could you jog a circle on that? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's one thing to go down a gravel walkway once or twice and step gratefully onto the grass, but could you have run back and forth on gravel continuously for 20 minutes? Would it have helped, or hurt, your long-term soundness to develop thick calluses on your soles? Most foot researchers claim barefoot for humans is not better. We tend to break down sooner left unshod.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course now that I'm considered to be an adult I must wear shoes, and I can't go without them. I'm forced to conclude that most horses only need shoes because they have been shod. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually still go barefoot most of the time. But there are situations where I need shoes in order to do what I need to do.

I'm sure there are horses who did not need their first shoes. My question is, how has it hurt them to be shod, assuming they were shod well? I'll repeat, once again, that my horses stay sound into old age, some shod, some not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not about to take the shoes off my horse, because then he'll need a couple of years to recover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He may not. You may have one who adapts quickly. You may not even have much down time if you use boots, and have fairly soft turnout.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But why start the cycle again with young horses? how many young horses are shod as they go into training "just because"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This happens with many horses. Mine have to demonstrate an actual need for protection before they get shoes. But they must also perform, and perform well, on whatever surface is offered. That's their job.

I compete. I don't want to condition on one surface, only to find the competition is held on another, and my horse can't handle it. Boots are not always allowed, and often impractical. I can't condition for all surfaces without access to all surfaces.

The decision has to be made on an individal basis.

[Lookout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel Farm:
Let's try again. I'll use small words.
The shoes go back on if, and only if, the horse is unable to do his job without them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please continue to enjoy having this conversation with yourself, while continuing to ignore the point I've made.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You still have not given any incentive to remove the shoes on a sound horse. Do you claim it will increase his sound lifespan? Can you back this up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to like putting words into other people's mouths. Please show me where I told you anything you should do or made any such claims. Why so defensive?

[Spurt]

I have two show horses that go barefoot most of the time, but they also travel alot and are constantly on new terrains. So they sometimes have shoes depending on the surface and their work level or sometimes they do not. So I see myself as someone on the fence, and I beleive that every horse should be treated individually for their particular needs.
Anyways, what about horses with jobs that need shoes? I train racehorses, they need racing plates with toe grabs otherwise they will not get a hold of the track. When a big colt can't get a hold of the track and they start swimming, they usually make themselves body sore and hurt other parts of their body. So my point is some horses need shoes other don't.

[CHJoker]

Hey Pocket Pony,

Just a question...but have you tried NOT touching the frog and sole for awhile??

I read an update on Pete Rameys website (hoofrehab.com, under articles), and basically it said...don't touch anything on the bottom of the hoof. Don't remove any sole, don't remove any frog (it doesn't cause soreness), and don't trim the bars. Especially if your horse moves around alot, the sole and frog will pack down and form callouses, and this is a good thing. The bars will self trim, and can be the level of the hoof wall on some horses (it seems ones working on sand alot do better with this). Strasserites will have a heart attack, but this concept seems to have worked on the horses Pete Ramey sees, and it has worked on mine!

Just something to consider. My horse is also in a very rocky environment, and he is getting sounder by the minute, by me not doing a thing to his feet, other than rasp them when needed. It seemed he was a bit sore every time he got trimmed,so I stopped trimming anything off the bottom. Less WAS more!

the other thing to consider is how wet it is in the pasture? Is Miles in mud alot? I notice Joker seems more tender than usual if he is standing in mud all day. Dry, firm footing is the best. Could Miles have thrush in his frogs? Deep crevices in the frog are perfect breeding ground for thrush...even low grade can make them quite sensitive...Maybe just treat for thrush for a few weeks?

AT the end of the day... Miles will tell you if he is happy or not. And if you need shoes, no problem (If I really needed them, I would use them!)
But maybe it is worth a try before you give up completely?

Good luck to you!

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why so defensive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not so much defensive as frustrated. I get just as frustrated with Natural Horsemanship people, or anyone, really, who thinks there is one true path, and anyone who chooses another is either unenlightened or cruel. Thank goodness Monty Roberts' fame has finally faded. In his heyday, I had people come in off the street and question my lack of a roundpen, while exchanging knowing glances - "She's one of those. She obviously beats her horses, because Monty says anyone who doesn't follow his way is cruel." Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I also think there are enough lurkers here, gathering information, that it is important to make sure many sides of an issue are represented. Even if it has been discussed ad nauseum before.

I'm not ignoring your point. I simply do not agree with it.

[JB]

Hey PocketPony - you said that Miles was often better (less lame?) right before a trim, then worse right after. Forgive me as I haven't felt like wading back through the previous 3 pages to find this, but did you say that his trim was to trim the walls even with the live sole plane? I did that for a while with my TB. Then I started noticing that he was most sore right after a trim, and got progressively better. I'd trim, he'd be sore, etc. Finally I started leaving about 1/16" of wall above the sole plane, and that seemed to do the trick. He was making the barefoot tranny after 16+ years of being shod, LTLH (I think we talked about him before), and he apparently really needed the extra wall to get his soles off the ground more while he was making the transition. I wish he was still around so I could tell you how he was doing a year later http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Freebird!]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel Farm:
Thank goodness Monty Roberts' fame has finally faded. In his heyday, I had people come in off the street and question my lack of a roundpen, while exchanging knowing glances - "She's one of those. She obviously beats her horses, because Monty says anyone who doesn't follow his way is cruel." Yadda, yadda, yadda.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stepping out on a limb here, but when the heck did he say that? I have seen all the "I hate Monty" and "Monty is a horse abuser" websites, and personally I could care less. I like his his simple way of starting and training horses. It's how I started every single horse I broke and galloped at the racehorse farm I used to work at, and not only were just about all of them sensible to ride, they could also all do at least a training level dressage test, trail ride, and jump a 2 foot course with lead changes. I also like stuff that Linda Tellington Jones does, Clinton Anderson, Jimmy Williams, and even stuff I have come up on my own over the years, as well as teachings from many different trainers. The key is to stay open minded, and realize you can learn something from everyone. And you know, I think the same goes for the barefoot/shoeing debate. Right now all of my horses are barefoot. Do I do this because I think shoes are something thought up by the Devil himself? No, of course not. My old hunter had horrible feet, no matter how he was trimmed, what he was fed, the conditions he lived in, or what was applied to his feet, so he always wore shoes on all 4, and at 20 is still going strong even after 43 races, lots of A and Local shoes, pony club rallies, and eventing shows. (WOW&lt; how was that for a run on sentence? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif) I think its the same with training horses - You do whatever works at keeping your horse sound and happy. Every horse is different, so how can we go around saying that ONE single way would be the BEST way for ALL of them? Different strokes for different folks...right? I'm just not understanding why this is such a huge debate with everyone.... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

[Pocket Pony]

I'm trying to do less with Miles now, in terms of trimming - not going into sole, bars, and frog as much. I was going to have his shoes put back on next Tuesday, but with all this rain, I think I might just wait a bit. I must say, since he's had his shoes off, I've noticed a lot more bruising.

What do all you barefooters have to say about blood in the white line in a bare foot?

[Critters Everywhere]

MLP--

I just want to say I applaud your perserverance & patience! I've never dealt well with fanatics, cultists, & radical extremists of any sort...I'm glad there are people like you who are willing to take the time on public forum to debate them point for point to prevent their obsession from spreading to others who are less informed!

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pocket Pony:
I'm trying to do less with Miles now, in terms of trimming - not going into sole, bars, and frog as much. I was going to have his shoes put back on next Tuesday, but with all this rain, I think I might just wait a bit. I must say, since he's had his shoes off, I've noticed a lot more bruising.

What do all you barefooters have to say about blood in the white line in a bare foot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So PP, to be sure I understand-were you gicing the sole and bars a "pretty good trim" before.

While one will never know, and I am not saying it will fix the horse, leaving those structures a bit will most certainly make the horse less sore.

If anything, since the weather isn't cooperating at least you can see if he shows any improvement.

[Pocket Pony]

Having not had any other types of barefoot trims, LMH, I can't gauge the severity of the trim that had been done by my trimmer. All I can say is that I'm doing less than he did.

[Lookout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
While one will never know, and I am not saying it will fix the horse, leaving those structures a bit will most certainly make the horse less sore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And why is that?

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
While one will never know, and I am not saying it will fix the horse, leaving those structures a bit will most certainly make the horse less sore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And why is that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

because on the pictures that foot looks overtrimmed...because as the foot grew out he improved according to PP.

Lookout-no offense but we will agree to disagree on this one without having a personal debate online. You are a certified Strasser trimmer (the last I looked) and support those principles.

I, on the other hand, do not. My personal experience with such invasive trims was laming my whole farm. Since adhering to the trim taught by Jaime Jackson and Pete Ramey, I have horses that can and do travel on all terrains barefoot.

So let's just leave it be-everyone gets all wound up over the debate between the barefoot trims. The bottom line is those advocating Strasser type trims believe it works. There are many MANY others that find it invasive and painful for the horse.

[onehorse]

LMH,

From what I have seen, they are all about the same overall with little tweeks here and there, though Strauser can be very invasive and not something that I am real comfortable with. I remember sitting in KC's clinic for the first time, I had been trimming my own horses for about 4 months then using what I had learned from a Jaime follower, and listening to him go through his trim, thinking to myself "That's pretty much what I am doing now, good, I am going in the right direction." But for me, he has put all the pieces of the puzzle together and has made a plan for how we are going to get that foot to work at it's best. We are going to analyze where that foot is now, trim that foot for a proper balanced, condition it for where it is now, and make sure that horse has everything that it needs to be able to improve his feet, nutritionally, enviromentally, mentally, etc. It is a package deal, but it isn't just good for the horse's feet, but the entire horse. It's great that you have a new haircut, but it doesn't do squat if you have the whooping cough. He has done a lot of dissections and has "played" with all the structures of the foot to understand their purpose and what they should look like and what tends to happen and what they look like when they aren't right and that made a big difference to me. I know I want my foot to look a certain way, but I also know why and if one thing is out, it can really play havoc. I have a horse shoe collection in my barn that would make most museums jealous. The horse was barefoot for 2 1/2 yrs with a traditional farrier, because we couldn't get him to hold shoes and he was wearing more body putty that 75% of the cars on the road, and he was still lame as a duck. I started trimming him with the mentality that I can't possibly make him any worse then he is and 2yrs later, his sound. Even the farrier commented that he never expected to see this horse look as good as he does, let alone in as short a timeframe.

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pocket Pony:
What do all you barefooters have to say about blood in the white line in a bare foot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it actual blood you're seeing, or just bruising? If it's bruising (which I suspect you're talking about) that is from previous growth, now reaching the ground. It's from the white line having been stretched and damaged. JB had it for MONTHS after he went nekked.

I think you are totally on the right track with doing less.

I went to using a dull-ish knife to flake away at the sole - if something easily flaked off, then it was dead enough to come off. If nothing came off, I don't push it. I don't do anything to the bars except to straighten them out if they need to be, either because they are becoming crooked, or they have gotten long enough to lay over. I don't even do anything to the frog anymore unless there are flaps that could trap dirt/crap, and then I cut them off.

My routine now is to use the dull knife on the sole (and truly, hardly anything comes off), then I rasp. If in rasping I rasp the bars and/or frog, then I do something about them. If I don't, I don't, unless it's just to neaten them up.

Since starting that routine I didn't have a horse who was sore (even slightly) after a trim. I think you're on the right path http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Lookout]

LMH, I was hoping you had something meaningful, and scientific, to say to back up your claims. Especially if you are going to dispense advice to strangers over the internet.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
While one will never know, and I am not saying it will fix the horse, leaving those structures a bit will most certainly make the horse less sore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And why is that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because, those structures are necessary to prevent excess mechanism and in some cases, such as sole thickness, provide beneficial protective qualities to the foot.

In the majority of horses, removing or thinning those structures compormise the integrity of the hoof. Thinning soles so that they give to thumb pressure (as indicated in Strasser's basic trim video) or even in some horses, removing any sole, can cause a problem because at that point in time the horse needs it.

IMO, when a hoof is already lacking integrity, any further invasion of that intetgity is only interfering with what the hoof needs at that time rather than providing benefits.

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
LMH, I was hoping you had something meaningful, and scientific, to say to back up your claims. Especially if you are going to dispense advice to strangers over the internet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, if everyone had to do that, then there would be 3 posts a day at best. Everyone has the right to dispense advice, whether it's based on scientific evidence, personal experience, all of the above or none of it.

[CHJoker]

Yes Lookout, we all know that you are a Strasser trimmer, and the motto seems to be...

How much can we trim away today???

Actually, the only "scientific fact" any of us need is whether or not our horse is SOUND.

So, is your horse sound?? If yes, GREAT. The advice given by myself, LMH, JB, SLB, and others is geared towards someone whose horse is NOT SOUND. We are passing along information that we have noticed along the way. (ie, if you remove too much sole and in some cases bar material on some horses, you can have a very sore horse. Some horses seem to do better with longer heels, or a bit more hoof wall beyond the sole than others.) This is most certainly not a "one size fits all" deal, and I personally choose to listen to my horse. He lets me know if he's not comfortable.

I have heard of toooo many horses made UNSOUND by Strasser's methods. I personally have a horse that is SOUND with a very NON invasive way of trimming.

Strasserites, of all people, should be the last ones complaining about the lack of "meaningful, scientific" evidence to back up claims.

[JB]

CHJoker, I can't stand it anymore, I have to tell you something. Everytime I see your name, and I mean EVERYtime, I see it as "CJHooker" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't know what that says about me, and I don't think I wanna know http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Btw, have I ever told you how much I like your posts? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
LMH, I was hoping you had something meaningful, and scientific, to say to back up your claims. Especially if you are going to dispense advice to strangers over the internet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[marta]

pocket pony,
my mare has been barefoot now for 2 years and 3 months. she is improving constantly but guess what - there is still surface she has difficulty with. not as much as initially but she 'complains'. i think that among the reasons it is taking as this long to transition is the fact that i initially did not use a barefoot trimmer to work on her feet. the guy we used would come and clean up her feet as if he was to slap a shoe back on. and every time i asked him why is she not improving he'd tell me that some horses are just like that... his nonresponsive answers finally got me to do more research and find someone who specializes in barefoot. and this has made a tremendous difference for kipper. but of course the use of original farrier was a set back.
i think that going barefoot is a long term comittment and you really need to be prepared for the wait. i find watching the changes very rewarding. it's like watching your garden come up in the spring except it happens a lot slower.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

JB, it sounds like I trim very much like you do. I mostly stick with the rasp, and leave the underside alone as long as it's taking care of itself and the horse is sound. I used to do more, but I figure if you take a sound horse and make him tender with a trim, and there is no pathology that needs to be addressed with a more aggressive trim, it's time to back off.

I'm wondering how often most barefoot folks trim. The thing I like most about having a horse barefoot is that it isn't necessary to wait 6 weeks before making subtle corrections. That's a big help when dealing with neglect cases. Changes happen more quickly when you can make smaller changes more often.

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel Farm:
I'm wondering how often most barefoot folks trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I trim as often as necessary! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif When I had my TB, who had awful LTLH, I was lightly rasping his heels twice a week or so. And I was keeping his toe flare addressed and rolled about weekly for a while. Then I did a "proper" trim every couple of weeks. With him I needed to do less more often to keep him going in the right direction.

With my WB who has great feet, I need to address flares as often as every few weeks, with a whole foot trim every 4-6 weeks, it just depends on the footing and the time of year. He tends to flare on the outside of his feet, moreso on the back, and always has for his nearly 7 years.

I LOVE not having to wait for a scheduled farrier appt!

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

"Stepping out on a limb here, but when the heck did he say that?"

In person, at a performance at the Topsfield Fairgrounds in Topsfield, MA. I've heard from others that he has said it many times at multiple performances. I have no idea if it is something he has put in writing.

"I like his his simple way of starting and training horses."

In my world, backing a horse is a complete non-event. It just happens when it is time, and no one really notices.

I take exception to him sending the message of getting it done in 20 minutes, regardless of the needs of the horse. And I watched him completely fail to read the horse he was trying to load after that Topsfield performance. He finally gave up, and the horse was quickly, calmly and quietly loaded by a local who had a bit more of a clue than Monty.

And I was appalled at the Shy Boy video. He wasn't reading that horse at all, and was far more violent than he needed to be. I honestly feel he is a very marginal horseman, over all, and really needs to step back and learn to observe, rather than just making a pitch. He is good with marketing, though - very, very good. And he's a great showman, and knows how to work a crowd.

But, like with everyone else, there is always something of value. Take that and leave the rest. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"And you know, I think the same goes for the barefoot/shoeing debate. Right now all of my horses are barefoot. Do I do this because I think shoes are something thought up by the Devil himself? No, of course not. My old hunter had horrible feet, no matter how he was trimmed, what he was fed, the conditions he lived in, or what was applied to his feet, so he always wore shoes on all 4, and at 20 is still going strong even after 43 races, lots of A and Local shoes, pony club rallies, and eventing shows. (WOW&lt; how was that for a run on sentence? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif)"

My experience has been the same. Some of mine have been shod, and some have been barefoot. I see no benefit to taking a sound horse with marginal feet and trying to transition to barefoot, while losing time using the horse, while allowing the horse to lose training, lose condition, gain actual trauma to the unprotected foot, etc.

I had one horse pre-purchased, by a really well known lameness expert (Marty Simonsen, for those who remember him). His comment was that, since the horse had been barefoot his entire life, the Xrays were understandable. Had he been shod and still experienced that amount of wear and tear, he would have had some concerns.

"I'm just not understanding why this is such a huge debate with everyone.... "

Pretend it's about religeon, or maybe politics. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[CHJoker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JB:
CHJoker, I can't stand it anymore, I have to tell you something. Everytime I see your name, and I mean EVERYtime, I see it as "CJHooker" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't know what that says about me, and I don't think I wanna know http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Btw, have I ever told you how much I like your posts? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

CJHooker... sounds like that cop show from the 70's?? 80's??.... TJHooker or something like that, with Heather Locklear...

Thanks...I enjoy your posts too. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Txfarrier11]

I just couldnt resist joining a topic as long as this one. Kinda a "moth to the flame" thing.

I LOVED that show! I even built my son a martial arts baton thet he called his " T.J. Hooker whupass stick"

Where, oh where, are the good television shows today? "Lost" cant compare to a good episode of Starsky and Hutch.

As for the barefoot thing I aint got nothing to add. Y'all are doing just fine without me.

[Bethe Mounce]

Has the farrier world started being so specialized that we now have "barefoot trimmers?" I always assumed, probably rather incorrectly, that any competent farrier would do what is best for the horse based on it's DNA, environment and job.

Bad hooves beget bad hooves....we need to remember that when breeding....it's a question I have asked stallion owners and they are rather perplexed why I ask. No hooves, no horse.

My show horses are barefoot because they have good solid hoof walls (it was a factor when of the 9, 5 of them are homebreds). Of our 9 horses, only one has shoes and if he didn't, he'd be dead.

[marta]

bethe mounce-blasienze
i can only speak from my own experience but yes, the farriers at my barn, including the guy who used to trim kipper, can't do a good barefoot trim, hence i got the barefoot trimmer who has done magic for my mare.

for whatever reason, they don't pay teh same amount of attention to the barefoot horse as they do to a horse that gets 4 shoes.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marta:
bethe mounce-blasienze
i can only speak from my own experience but yes, the farriers at my barn, including the guy who used to trim kipper, can't do a good barefoot trim, hence i got the barefoot trimmer who has done magic for my mare.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Balderdash. A competent farrier can give a horse whatever it needs to do whatever it does most efficiently, whether the horse's needs involve shoes or being left barefoot.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
for whatever reason, they don't pay teh same amount of attention to the barefoot horse as they do to a horse that gets 4 shoes.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with any so-called "barefoot trimmer" is they are unable to adequately address every horse's needs. Some horses need shoes, some don't.

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marta:
bethe mounce-blasienze
i can only speak from my own experience but yes, the farriers at my barn, including the guy who used to trim kipper, can't do a good barefoot trim, hence i got the barefoot trimmer who has done magic for my mare.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Balderdash. A competent farrier can give a horse whatever it needs to do whatever it does most efficiently, whether the horse's needs involve shoes or being left barefoot.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How in the world can you say "balderdash" to someone's personal experience? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif It is what it is, and I have been in exactly the same situation. Yes, a competent farrier should be able to do the same proper trim whether shod or not. But "should be" and reality are often vastly different.

[onehorse]

Agreed with JB, there are tons of competent shoers, but very, very few competent farriers. Barefooters are usually trained in the mechanics of the foot in a much more comprehensive fashion then farriers, since they depend on it for soundness.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
Agreed with JB, there are tons of competent shoers, but very, very few competent farriers.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can think of 20 or 30 competent farriers in Greater Houston.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Barefooters are usually trained in the mechanics of the foot in a much more comprehensive fashion then farriers, since they depend on it for soundness.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As the saying goes, "No foot, no horse", and it matters not one whit whether the foot is shod or not, what matters is whether the horse gets what it needs to do whatever it does most efficiently. Strasser's butchery correspondence courses, a "natural" barefoot video, or an occasional clinic or seminar conducted by the guru of the week are so limited in scope they cannot possibly teach even a rudimentary knowledge of the anatomy, physiology, and biophysics - much less the motor skills - necessary to trim every horse properly. The contention that a "barefoot trimmer" would be better versed than a farrier in matters of the hoof is ludicrous.

If you really think any "barefoot trimmer" who limits himself to trimming is better able to give every horse what it needs on the basis of his inability to shoe a horse, perhaps you might consider rethinking your position in light of reality. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JB:
How in the world can you say "balderdash" to someone's personal experience? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif It is what it is, and I have been in exactly the same situation. Yes, a competent farrier should be able to do the same proper trim whether shod or not. But "should be" and reality are often vastly different.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please read for content: the OP used the plural ("farriers at my barn...") while saying they were incapable of rendering a "good barefoot trim." This is obviously bladerdash because it presumes the abilty of someone admitting extremely limited experience to determine what exactly determines a "good barefoot trim" for every horse. In other words, the OP was swinging too wide a loop when the plural was used.
IME, good farriers are easy to find, just go where the horses are.

[Buffyblue]

I don't understand the difference between what some people refer to as a "barefoot trim" and the trim my farrier does on my horse's bare hind feet. I find it hard to believe that these "barefoot trimmers" know any more about caring for my horse's hooves than my very capable farrier. She needs shoes in front and they can't put a shoe on, so right there they are lacking. She's in full training and shows, and so far is shod in front only and doing fine. If she starts to wear her hinds too quickly, we'll have to go for shoes there too. Meanwhile I'll stick with my CJF, thank you very much. I don't get the need for all the arguments, either. Options are available. Last time I looked, I lived in America, where (supposedly) we have freedom of choice. Right now I choose shoes in front, bare hooves behind. And I choose to stick with a qualified, experienced farrier for both the front end and the back end of my horse!

[marta]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JB:
How in the world can you say "balderdash" to someone's personal experience? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif It is what it is, and I have been in exactly the same situation. Yes, a competent farrier should be able to do the same proper trim whether shod or not. But "should be" and reality are often vastly different.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please read for content: the OP used the plural ("farriers at my barn...") while saying they were incapable of rendering a "good barefoot trim." This is obviously bladerdash because it presumes the abilty of someone admitting extremely limited experience to determine what exactly determines a "good barefoot trim" for every horse. In other words, the OP was swinging too wide a loop when the plural was used.
IME, good farriers are easy to find, just go where the horses are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i just re-read my original post (just in case it wasn't clear) and i think you're misreading it, not buffy. what i said is based on my personal experience which is what i specifically mentioned in my post. and based on what i see them do at my barn, i conclude that none of these guys that i've observed pay even 1/2 as much attention to a barefoot horse as they do to a shod horse.
did i make myself clear now?

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marta:
i just re-read my original post (just in case it wasn't clear) and i think you're misreading it, not buffy. what i said is based on my personal experience which is what i specifically mentioned in my post. and based on what i see them do at my barn, i conclude that none of these guys that i've observed pay even 1/2 as much attention to a barefoot horse as they do to a shod horse.
did i make myself clear now?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes'm you've made yourself abundantly clear: You said your experience is limited to your own horses, then you mentioned that the farriers in your barn, "can't do a good barefoot trim."

I pointed out, quite accurately, that your self-admitted lack of experience was not a reasonable basis for judging any farrier's ability to render a "barefoot trim", good or otherwise. With a bit more experience, you may come to realize that no matter what the latest guru says, each horse is an individual and no one-size-fits-all trimming or shoeing protocol will meet the needs of EVERY horse.

[marta]

i didn't judge any farrier's ability. i specifically stated that in my experience they don't do a good job and from what i've observed it's b/c barefoot trim is not high on their priority list (possibly b/c of the fact that they don't make as much $ for a barefoot trim as they do w/ 4 shoes, pads, etc.)

[JB]

Tom, while you may be the best farrier/trimmer around, can shoe a horse as well as trim him for a barefoot life, and while you may have at least 20-30 "good" farriers in your neck of the woods, you have GOT to wake up and realize that that apparently is not the case for the vast majority of people who post here on feet issues. Marta has repeatedly said this is HER experience with HER horses and the horses at HER barn. I can say exactly the same thing - a farrier who used to be at my old barn trimmed each and every horse the same way, whether they were to be shod or not, and they were ALL done with long toes and underrun heels, in addition to the barefoot horses being trimmed with a flat foot, no rolled wall at all. Does that mean there are no good farriers or "barefoot trimmers"? Of course not, so don't take it to mean that.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marta:
i didn't judge any farrier's ability. i specifically stated that in my experience they don't do a good job and from what i've observed it's b/c barefoot trim is not high on their priority list (possibly b/c of the fact that they don't make as much $ for a barefoot trim as they do w/ 4 shoes, pads, etc.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't understand why everyone insists that shoeing = more $$ than trimming. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I would consider that some farriers do because they are over charging, but the vast majority do not.

Here's an example breakdown:
barefoot trim (with rolled edge) - approx. 20 mins. (no inventory expences, no large truck, no expensive tools...just nippers, rasp, knife) cost owner $25 less cost of doing business (20%) = $20 profit.

Shoeing fronts only no pads - approx. 1 hr. (inventory, large truck, anvil, forage, propane, grinder, other tools) cost owner $75 less cost of doing business (60%) = $40 profit.

Compate $40 (shoeing profit) at 60 mins to $20 (trim profit) at 20 min.

[onehorse]

When he charged me $140 for a set of fronts, he wasn't making no $40 profit. Alums noless, straight out of the box with no forge work or shaping! He didn't last long.

Trimming is a lot more involved both physically and mentally. If you have an imbalance in that foot, it is going to show up in a barefooted horse; there is a flare or the horse starts blowing cracks or something. Shoes can and do hide a lot of that, by not allowing the hoof wall to flex. Physically, you are up and down, rasping, checking, etc, twice as much in an hour, since you have just trimmed 2 horses instead of standing over a forge and shaping a shoe.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JB:
Tom, while you may be the best farrier/trimmer around, can shoe a horse as well as trim him for a barefoot life, and while you may have at least 20-30 "good" farriers in your neck of the woods, you have GOT to wake up and realize that that apparently is not the case for the vast majority of people who post here on feet issues.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you're swinging too wide a loop. What percentage of horse owners would you say the folks posting on this forum represent? Of those, what percentage would you say are capable of recognizing whether a horse did, or did not, get exactly what it needed to do whatever it does as efficiently as possible, whether shod or barefooted? Personally, I don't think most of the denizens of this particular deep could recognize whether or not a horse got what it needed if the answer
jumped up and bit them on the nalgas because there are too many folks
chanting the barefoot mantra without regard for the needs of the individual and its particular niche. Trimming/shoeing is about efficiency, not blind adherence to a one-size-fits-all model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Marta has repeatedly said this is HER experience with HER horses and the horses at HER barn.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you really think all the farriers [n?] trimming the [n?] horses at HER barn are incapable of trimming a horse? Or, could it possibly be that someone who admits HER experience is limited to HER horses is incapable of recognizing whether horses belonging to others have gotten what they need?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I can say exactly the same thing - a farrier who used to be at my old barn trimmed each and every horse the same way, whether they were to be shod or not, and they were ALL done with long toes and underrun heels, in addition to the barefoot horses being trimmed with a flat foot, no rolled wall at all. Does that mean there are no good farriers or "barefoot trimmers"? Of course not, so don't take it to mean that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you didn't say the same thing: Your observation was limited to a single farrier, not several farriers. I took issue with her use of the plural, not her condemnation of a single farrier.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marta:
i didn't judge any farrier's ability. i specifically stated that in my experience they don't do a good job and from what i've observed it's b/c barefoot trim is not high on their priority list (possibly b/c of the fact that they don't make as much $ for a barefoot trim as they do w/ 4 shoes, pads, etc.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, please allow me educate you on the fiscal realities of trimming/shoeing in terms of profit.

All it takes to trim a horse is an apron, rasp, nippers, hoof knife and something to sharpen the knife with - the whole kit can be hauled in an econobox.

On the other hand, a plain vanilla shoeing job requires the aforementioned tools, PLUS a forge, anvil, anvil stand, foot stand, hot tongs, hardie, pritchel, stamp, stem punch, pulloffs, clinch tongs, clinch cutter, clinch block, nail nippers, shoe spreaders, shoeing box - and an inventory of various sizes of keg shoes, bar stock, and nails. A half ton or larger truck or van is required to haul all this stuff.

As a general rule of thumb, it takes about four times as long to shoe a horse as to trim a horse, so a shoeing usually costs roughly four times as much as a trim. If a farrier trims four horses @ $30.00, or shoes one at $120.00, he grosses the same $120.00 - but there's a helluva lot more NET profit in trimming because only minimal tools are necessary, no inventory is required, and a gas or diesel guzzler is not needed to haul everything around.

The before tax net profit for trimming is 85%-95%; for shoeing, it's 40%-50%. In reality, trimming is about twice as profitable as shoeing, so please disabuse yourself from the notion that shoeing is more profitable than trimming.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
Trimming is a lot more involved both physically and mentally.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Balderdash. Shoeing requires all the skills of trimming in order to prepare the foot for a shoe, plus the skills necessary to apply the shoe. Additionally, even a slight imbalance is much more evident in a shod horse than in a barefoot horse because the foot will move toward weight/length when the horse is in motion.

For anyone with the basic skills, there's nothing to trimming a foot: it's so simple that lots of folks can do it without leaving a blood trail.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
When he charged me $140 for a set of fronts, he wasn't making no $40 profit. Alums noless, straight out of the box with no forge work or shaping! He didn't last long. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What no trimming? If this is all he did, then you were well rid of him....in general, any time a farrier charges you for "hanging" shoes, you should be ashammed that you paid them. This person would not be called a farrier in my neck of th woods....here, even the uneducated iron hangers know enough to shape the shoes to the individual.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Trimming is a lot more involved both physically and mentally. If you have an imbalance in that foot, it is going to show up in a barefooted horse; there is a flare or the horse starts blowing cracks or something. Shoes can and do hide a lot of that, by not allowing the hoof wall to flex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
HUH??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Have you ever seen a horse shod? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Every competent shoe job requires a correctly balanced and aligned trim under it. The shoes can't cover that up. The horse will not move correctly, become lame, or at the very least present noticable hoof deformity if not properly trimmed...regardless of if shod or barefoot.

Shoes don't prevent cracks or flares or other things...these are all from excess forces from an unbalanced hoof (generally). If those forces are there, they are there...shoes can't prevent that.

Please indicate in numerical form what the exact difference is between expansion in a shod foot and a barefoot. There seems to be a lot of touting on this subject, but I have yet to get a single person to answer this question. I really don't think that we can make any generalized statments on this subject without understanding what we are talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Physically, you are up and down, rasping, checking, etc, twice as much in an hour, since you have just trimmed 2 horses instead of standing over a forge and shaping a shoe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And then after you have spend that amount of time bending over rasping and checking the trim, then you have to bend iron, bend over with a hot shoe and fit it to the horse...checking that work in the same way that you checked the trim. Then make minor adjustments and bend over and recheck....then finally bend over and hammer, then bend over and set the clinches...

[CHJoker]

Just an observation...

(and I don't know why I jump into the fray, but oh well)

ACTUALLY, on the subject of profit, a trim, for a barefoot trimmer (who has NO inventory, tools, etc) is more profitable up front, no doubt about it. No tools, truck, inventory.

But something to think about... once a farrier DOES have all of the inventory, forge, etc, etc... after that...what nets him more of a profit? Trimming at 40 bucks a head doesn't do much, even if it is "pure profit", not when you have alot of gear in an expensive truck that you are maybe still paying on! And when you consider that you often have to drive around between jobs, etc... although you COULD theoretically do more horses barefoot (less time) maybe you do...maybe you don't.

Please don't tell me that after spending THAT much money on tools and inventory...most farriers wouldn't want to use them. Even if the horse could go barefoot comfortably.

Tom, I am glad to see that you have added "Statistician" to your list of qualifications!! So refreshing to meet a man who truly knows everything there is to know about everything!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[slb]

Once the farrier has all that stuff....he has to keep replacing it. Tools wear out, trucks don't last long with all that weight, inventory (shoes, nails, pads, and crap) all have to be replaced (sometimes weekly), shoeing bodies are often specific to the truck, almost the only constants are repair bills, the anvil and the farrier.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please don't tell me that after spending THAT much money on tools and inventory...most farriers wouldn't want to use them. Even if the horse could go barefoot comfortably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't tell me that anyone thinks that doing more work than necessary is something that farriers do on a regular basis. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[CHJoker]

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Point taken. But those replacement items/ongoing costs DO have to be paid somehow http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, but depending on the individual... I would think that many farriers prefer to shoe. Honestly, if I spent the time and money to become a horse shoer... I would like to shoe horses. Not trim bare feet!

There are horses that really do need shoes...but the other ones who don't sort of "subsidize" those few. It would seem ESPECIALLY unprofitable to have the truck, fancy tools, shoe 2 horses per month, and then have the rest barefoot...

Unless you charge very high prices for barefoot trims, but then, the " stricly barefoot trimmers" could outprice/outprofit you every time. Or you could charge very high prices for the few shod horses you have...but then, you would be outpriced/outprofited by the mostly-shoeing farriers. But that of course is assuming that all farriers are motivated by only money, which is of course not true. But, the ones who are most certainly have considered this.

And for the ones where it is NOT an outright profit issue...I think ego, years of education on how to shoe a horse, and the belief that "real horses wear shoes" and "only pasture potatoes can do with bare feet" may play a part. (See our resident CJF for an example)

As an owner of a warmblood sporthorse, I can assure you my barefoot horse is not a pasture potatoe. He performs ten times better than when he had shoes. But, the shoes were horribly applied, and he had pathologies started because of incompetence. Does that mean that all shoes are bad? Absolutely not. If my horse NEEDED shoes I would put them on.

But, guess what? It turns out he doesn't need them after all. And I am sorry, but it does make me wonder how many horses out there really do. But, in the end, do what you want. It is your horse, and I am sure there is room for all of us to play http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You want shoes?? Get shoes!!! You want barefeet? Do it!

But do be sure to get yourself an education on your horses foot, and how it functions. Because I can blame the farrier who lamed my horse all I want, but the real responsibility lies with me, because I didn't have a clue about my horse's feet.

[LMH]

Shoes "hide" imbalances by not allowing the foot to flex?

Heck I think if a shod foot is imbalanced it makes things WORSE, not hides it...at least an unbalanced barefoot horse has a chance of wearing down the imbalances if the terrain is rough enough.


Other than that (and the comment about barefoot trims taking more work...heck even I, a sorta barefoot advocate http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif, I have to agree making that shoe adds a wee bit of work to the job)....I will let you ladies carry on. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHJoker:
Just an observation...
(and I don't know why I jump into the fray, but oh well)
ACTUALLY, on the subject of profit, a trim, for a barefoot trimmer (who has NO inventory, tools, etc) is more profitable up front, no doubt about it. No tools, truck, inventory.

But something to think about... once a farrier DOES have all of the inventory, forge, etc, etc... after that...what nets him more of a profit?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's always MORE net profit in trimming because inventory has to be replaced as it's consumed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Please don't tell me that after spending THAT much money on tools and inventory...most farriers wouldn't want to use them. Even if the horse could go barefoot comfortably.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whatever gave you such a silly idea? The object of the exercise is to give each horse what it needs, not to expend inventory for less net profit.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Tom, I am glad to see that you have added "Statistician" to your list of qualifications!! So refreshing to meet a man who truly knows everything there is to know about everything!!
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm happy to be able to provide the intellectual means by which you can assuage your overpowering thirst. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Why would anyone find it remarkable that a small businessman would be knowledgeable about his business and know what the most profitable aspects of his business are?

[CHJoker]

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I have no doubt you know your business, Tom http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Probably the answer most farriers will give you about whether or not you should shoe your horse clearly depends on said farrier's opinion of what is "best for your horse"!

I personally make those kind of decisions for myself, after having learned the hard way.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

Huh. The farriers I've had over the years are absolutely THRILLED when I want to let someone go barefoot. They're all so busy and overworked and hurting that any chance to lighten the load is seen as a gift from above.

Maybe that's because I seek out good farriers. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There's been a lot of talk about shoeing or not shoeing based on soundness. Does anyone here make the decision based on performance? If a horse can easily do his job barefoot, and stay sound, would you shoe in order to improve performance? (I'm not talking stacks or SS show shoes. That's another can of worms.)

I had a little event horse with cute movement. He was nothing special, but he was correct and even, relaxed, and accurate. He usually got 6's on his gaits. He went clean XC and show jumping, but wasn't bold or brilliant. He was always sound and had always been barefoot.

Then we put shoes on him, and WOW! Who knew this horse could move like that! He immediately started scoring better in dressage (8's on gaits), and became more of a powerhouse over fences.

I realize it's not the sort of performance that can be measured objectively. But everyone noticed, just the same. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[CHJoker]

Just a couple of questions to clarify..(please don't take this as an attack, it isn't meant to be http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Why did you put shoes on him in the first place? Just wondered why you did that.. was he having some problems barefoot?

IMHO, just because a horse doesn't have shoes doesn't mean the horse is balanced optimally, or has the correct breakover, etc, etc., which most definately does affect performance.

It is easy to say "it was the shoes", but maybe it was a better breakover/balance for the horse, period (better farrier, better trim, different balance?).

That's what makes it so hard to judge, because, really, can you say 100 percent that the horse WAS completely sound before the shoes went on? Are you SURE it was the shoes alone that caused the increased performance?

This describes exactly why I state I am sure that the shoes were not to blame for my horse's lameness...they were a part of the overall problem...In all fairness, are you SURE it was just the fact he had shoes on his hooves that created the increased performance?

I personally feel the fact of shoes or no shoes is secondary to the right balance, breakover, etc for performance... Assuming all things are equal beforehand, of course.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

CHJoker, you asked the questions I expected, and the ones we kicked around at the time.

The horse was shod that summer because he moved to the barn I originally described, where the man-made footing was so abrasive that no one but the Shetland could keep up with growth vs wear. Before that, he lived on a softer footing, which allowed him to keep more of his growth. And he was ridden over rocky trails with no problems. He had been a low, low-level event horse for several years with no issues.

We did try booting him for turnout initially. But he lost a boot twice, and visibly wore that foot in less than a day. And there was a pond in the pasture. I didn’t like keeping his feet in the moist environment provided by a wet boot. Continuing to keep him barefoot would have cost me at least that season of eventing, and this is where I don’t see the point.

He was trimmed well, balanced, good breakover, nicely rolled. He did not react to hoof testers anywhere on the sole or bars or frog. He had clean Xrays. He always had a great attitude, worked happily, was never cranky or resistant – just a good guy. If he was in any discomfort, it didn’t show. He just lacked brilliance.

The vet thought that the change in his way of going was due to a decrease in proprioception. She thought he payed too much attention to his feet, safety-conscious little guy that he was, and moved more boldly when the information he got from his feet was decreased. (He had pads too.)

[onehorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Additionally, even a slight imbalance is much more evident in a shod horse than in a barefoot horse because the foot will move toward weight/length when the horse is in motion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but very few farriers actually correct the imbalance or even are able to recognize that it is there at all. That is why there are so many horses out there with feet that look the way they do. Long toes, under-run heels, no frogs, false sole, no sole, etc, etc, etc.

[onehorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please indicate in numerical form what the exact difference is between expansion in a shod foot and a barefoot. There seems to be a lot of touting on this subject, but I have yet to get a single person to answer this question. I really don't think that we can make any generalized statments on this subject without understanding what we are talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would like to tell that if you strapped a steel plate, or alum for that matter, to you hand, you would have the same amount of flexiblity and use of your hand? Even the absolutely best fitting gloves inhibit your hand some. You don't think a steel shoe will do the same to the horse's foot?

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Additionally, even a slight imbalance is much more evident in a shod horse than in a barefoot horse because the foot will move toward weight/length when the horse is in motion.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but very few farriers actually correct the imbalance or even are able to recognize that it is there at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're kidding, right? Recognizing and addressing the needs of horses is what farriers do. The feat is as common as white on rice and every farrier I know does it routinely.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That is why there are so many horses out there with feet that look the way they do. Long toes, under-run heels, no frogs, false sole, no sole, etc, etc, etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no idea where you're hanging out, or with whom, but either someone has filled your head with nonsense or you ain't around much stock. Hie yourself to any flat or harness track, rodeo arena, "A" hunter/jumper show, or regional dressage test, then get back to me on the number of horses you see with feet as you've described.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please indicate in numerical form what the exact difference is between expansion in a shod foot and a barefoot. There seems to be a lot of touting on this subject, but I have yet to get a single person to answer this question. I really don't think that we can make any generalized statments on this subject without understanding what we are talking about.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You would like to tell that if you strapped a steel plate, or alum for that matter, to you hand, you would have the same amount of flexiblity and use of your hand? Even the absolutely best fitting gloves inhibit your hand some. You don't think a steel shoe will do the same to the horse's foot?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your understanding of equine anatomy is somewhat less than complete. The human structure anatomically analogous to the horse's hoof is the middle fingernail, not the hand. (When I do a clinic for kids, I demonstrate this fact early on by raising the analogous digit, which seems to break the ice. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

No scientific evidence suggests that a correctly applied metal shoe inhibits normal "expansion" of the hoof capsule, retards circulation, increases shock, or has any deleterious effect on the horse. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. On the other hand, metal shoes can be shown to improve objectively quantified performance in certain disciplines and unarguably improve soundness in horses afflicted with certain pathologies.

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have no idea where you're hanging out, or with whom, but either someone has filled your head with nonsense or you ain't around much stock. Hie yourself to any flat or harness track, rodeo arena, "A" hunter/jumper show, or regional dressage test, then get back to me on the number of horses you see with feet as you've described. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh Tom, having spent most of my adult life in the A hunter/ jumper circuit...I would bet a good 80% (and I am being kind) have feet described as long toe, underrun heel and frogs without ground contact.

[lizathenag]

one of the many hightlights of my time with my horse is admiring the wonderful job my farriers (they are a team) have done balancing my horse's feet and fitting the shoe to the hoof.
a work of art. I thank them every time I see them.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have no idea where you're hanging out, or with whom, but either someone has filled your head with nonsense or you ain't around much stock. Hie yourself to any flat or harness track, rodeo arena, "A" hunter/jumper show, or regional dressage test, then get back to me on the number of horses you see with feet as you've described.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh Tom, having spent most of my adult life in the A hunter/ jumper circuit...I would bet a good 80% (and I am being kind) have feet described as long toe, underrun heel and frogs without ground contact.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've had a fairly large helping of "A" H/J shows myself, including one or two as the official farrier. As recently as 10-15 years ago, most winning hunters and jumpers here in Texas were OTT TBs and QHs, some of which - nowhere near 80% - were long and lows thanks to the daddydiditthataway mentality of idiot race platers who mindlessly whacked the heels off everything because it "made their stride longer."
That was then, this is now.

It is my observation that the quality of horses' feet at "A" and "AA" H/J shows in Greater Houston has greatly improved - especially the jumpers - perhaps due to better farrier education, but more likely because dumbloods are now as prevalent as OTT TBs and they haven't had the dubious benefit of having their heels whacked off by some bullring plater or Bowkerite.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please indicate in numerical form what the exact difference is between expansion in a shod foot and a barefoot. There seems to be a lot of touting on this subject, but I have yet to get a single person to answer this question. I really don't think that we can make any generalized statments on this subject without understanding what we are talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would like to tell that if you strapped a steel plate, or alum for that matter, to you hand, you would have the same amount of flexiblity and use of your hand? Even the absolutely best fitting gloves inhibit your hand some. You don't think a steel shoe will do the same to the horse's foot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As Tom already pointed out...you can't compare the soft structures of a human hand to the hard covered hoof of a horse.

Addionally, you are not "strapping" any thing on the hoof...it is held in about 6 places with pliable (as in you can bend them with your fingers) nails. Strapping a steel/alum plate to your hand would only limit flexability as it would reduce flexion of the many joints thoughout the hand...there are no such joints that allow the hoof to bend as the hand does. Additionally, the strap itself would be a limiting factor (if you were looking only at expansion). A handful of nails don't come close to "binding" a hoof like a strap would a human hand....or even a hoof for that matter.

PS....still waiting for the numerical comparisons between expansion in a shod and unshod foot. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[LMH]

As Tom already said??????


How many times am I going to hit the ground today????

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[3GreyMares]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Strasser's butchery correspondence courses, a "natural" barefoot video, or an occasional clinic or seminar conducted by the guru of the week are so limited in scope they cannot possibly teach even a rudimentary knowledge of the anatomy, physiology, and biophysics - much less the motor skills - necessary to trim every horse properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHERE the hell did you come to this conclusion oh Mr.Mighty Ego?

i'm going to jump in with both feet on this one.
I've been enjoying reading about everyone's experiences with an open mind, but this qoute just really p*ssed me off!

The 2 certified SHCS that I've used and learned from are very conservative in their approach if needed. The "correspondence" course you speak of took them close to 2 years to complete priorto going to Canada for 2 weeks to get their certifications. They had to pass grueling written, verbal, and hands-on testing. And I believe they have to re-test every so often to keep their certifications.

Can you say that about Farrier schools? Seems to me you can "hang-your-shingle" after a 6 month course.

Might you be the only the one with a closed mind?

Personally, the whole type of barefoot trim/philosophy has worked very well for me and my small herd of 3.
I'm thankful that I've had very postive experiences with my horses, and seen the Strasser method work on severely pathological horses.
I am always eager to to learn of new techniques and angles(pun intended) on all methods, as is my SHCS.

I apologize for my attack on you Mr.Tom, and I have nothing against your profession, but it's people like you that give people like us a bad reputation when all we are trying to do is find a happy/healthy alternative that works best for "our" horses.

We are NOT all "butchers".

3GM-'nuffsaid

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
As Tom already said??????


How many times am I going to hit the ground today????

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must be haveing a bad day....bear with me here... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[onehorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no idea where you're hanging out, or with whom, but either someone has filled your head with nonsense or you ain't around much stock. Hie yourself to any flat or harness track, rodeo arena, "A" hunter/jumper show, or regional dressage test, then get back to me on the number of horses you see with feet as you've described. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, hey Tom, do you really want to continue with this conversation? I have worked in hunter/jumper barns for 17 yrs! They want that long toe, under-run heel because it encourages the long, sweeping, "daisy cutter" action that they are looking for! I have worked 3 and 8 day STB sales for the last 5 yrs, approximately 3 times a year. We sell anywhere from 500 - 2000 top of the line STBs per sale (including Hamiltonian winners), some of the absolute worst under-run, long toed, clipped on, padded up, duct taped together feet in the industry. It is absolutely sickening to see these yearlings come in with beautiful feet in the back and these horrible long toes in the front and you can tell how long ago the shoes were put on based on the growth patterns of the foot. And they do it for the same reason as the hunter/jumpers, they think it lengthens the stride. TB industry, as bad as the STB, I buy those right off the track or out of meat pens.

[onehorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by onehorse:

quote:
Additionally, even a slight imbalance is much more evident in a shod horse than in a barefoot horse because the foot will move toward weight/length when the horse is in motion.


True, but very few farriers actually correct the imbalance or even are able to recognize that it is there at all.


You're kidding, right? Recognizing and addressing the needs of horses is what farriers do. The feat is as common as white on rice and every farrier I know does it routinely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, tell me why a horse that is working in a sand arena, on the flat and on basic training, needs shoes with pads? I have one that was just that. And, 6 (yes, count them 6) “competent” farriers, including certified journeyman farriers, couldn't figure out what was wrong with him or how to fix it over 8 yrs, and yes, most of them had over a year to work on the horse, with the last one have 2 1/2 - 3 yrs. This horse was an absolute mess when I started working on him. If I knew then what I know now, I am not sure I would have been willing to working on him. We were close to losing him; either he would have done something stupid because of the pain or the foot would have collapsed. He is happily barefoot, now, no more walls left too long, no more dishing, no more buckling, no more cracks, no more sole that I can put my thumb through. This isn't nonesense. Someone didn't fill my head with gunk. This is a lot of research, soul searching, and wanting to do what was best for my horses.

[inspired]

I believe the quality of the work farriers produce is largely regional. I see a lot of LT/LH around here on both shod and barefoot horses of all disciplines. It's considered "normal" around here because good trimming isn't generally seen. Most of the shod horses are "short shod". Regionally speaking, farriers are likely to all aprentice with the same guys, and have similar short-comings.

I have found GOOD farriers, though. The key difference between a GOOD farrier versus a "normal" farrier around here has less to do with naming a technique than it does a genuine desire to learn and self-educate.

Edited to add:
I've seen GOOD farriers produce the same results with shoes that barefoot fans claim is only possible without the steel.

[onehorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PS....still waiting for the numerical comparisons between expansion in a shod and unshod foot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A, number one, I never said expansion, but for you information, the foot will compress and spread up to 1/4" in the heels of an unshod foot at the point of full weight-bearing, which a horseshoe will not allow for. I am trying to think of who did this research, but am pulling a blank, at the moment.

[onehorse]

The human structure anatomically analogous to the horse's hoof is the middle fingernail, not the hand.

Ahhh, explains a lot! How in the world can you compare a horse's foot to something so simple as the index finger? We seem to have forgotten a few key structures of the foot? Namely, all the structures in the heel of the horse and that is what your horse should be walking on in the first place. Which is equivalent to the back 1/2 of your hand, palm being the sole, lateral cartilages being the heels of your hand.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PS....still waiting for the numerical comparisons between expansion in a shod and unshod foot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A, number one, I never said expansion, but for you information, the foot will compress and spread up to 1/4" in the heels of an unshod foot at the point of full weight-bearing, which a horseshoe will not allow for. I am trying to think of who did this research, but am pulling a blank, at the moment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for "the information", but you still haven't demonstrated if there is a significant difference between a shod and unshod hoof. So far, I only have your opinion on it. I am looking for information that indicates that there is a significant difference between the expansion in a shod and unshod hoof. So far, no one that participates in these discussions...either here or on other forums...has been able to support this theory.

In other words...all that anyone has done is porvide circular reasoning...the hoof CAN expand up to X amount barefoot...metal CAN have restrictive qualities, therefore...a metal shoe MUST place significant restiction on the hoof. This is the only reasonsing that I have concluded from all the posts that support shoes = restriction. This isn't even logical as it assumes that the shoe is firmly attached to the structures of the hoof. The shoe is simply a piece of metal for the hoof to stand on.

[JB]

Tom Tom Tom, there you go again, assuming the rest of the world is as farrier-gifted as TX apparently is. Come over thisaway, I'll show you many many handsful of "dumbloods" who also have LTLH (or just as bad, heels so high the coronet band is horizontal). And Paints and QH's and Arabs and TWHs and and and...

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

In this area of New England, most of the horses I see are trimmed and shod well. The exception is TBs coming off of Rockingham and Suffolk. They nearly always have long toes and underrun heels.

JB, you mentioned a heel high enough to have a level coronet band. Is this in all feet? If the horse has a true club foot, confirmed by Xrays, would you still want to bring the heel down?

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel Farm:
JB, you mentioned a heel high enough to have a level coronet band. Is this in all feet? If the horse has a true club foot, confirmed by Xrays, would you still want to bring the heel down? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is all feet in some cases, both front feet most of the time (when this is presented). And I'm not talking about a club(by) foot. Just a normal foot that has way too much heel. Well, USED to be normal...

If these were truely club(by) feet, then there are an awful lot of bilaterally club-footed horses around here. And no, if they were truly club(by), then I wouldn't necessarily want to bring the heel(s) down.

[Mountain Laurel Farm]

How often do you see overly high heels?

It would be an oddity here. I'd probably wonder what pathology was present. And I'd assume, perhaps wrongly, that the farrier was following the instructions of a vet.

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mountain Laurel Farm:
How often do you see overly high heels?

It would be an oddity here. I'd probably wonder what pathology was present. And I'd assume, perhaps wrongly, that the farrier was following the instructions of a vet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly that is the new trend to fix the long/low/underrun.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no idea where you're hanging out, or with whom, but either someone has filled your head with nonsense or you ain't around much stock. Hie yourself to any flat or harness track, rodeo arena, "A" hunter/jumper show, or regional dressage test, then get back to me on the number of horses you see with feet as you've described. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LMAO, hey Tom, do you really want to continue with this conversation?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes'm, I figure you might lose a little of your ignorance and your horses might benefit. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have worked in hunter/jumper barns for 17 yrs! They want that long toe, under-run heel because it encourages the long, sweeping, "daisy cutter" action that they are looking for!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Far be it for me to say you're playing fast and loose with the truth, but hunters and jumpers are two vastly different propositions. Hunters are a rolling halter class with bumps in the road, but jumpers are objectively quantified and none of their connections gives a rat's patootie if they have more knee than a Hackney if they go clean and fast.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have worked 3 and 8 day STB sales for the last 5 yrs, approximately 3 times a year. We sell anywhere from 500 - 2000 top of the line STBs per sale (including Hamiltonian winners), some of the absolute worst under-run, long toed, clipped on, padded up, duct taped together feet in the industry. It is absolutely sickening to see these yearlings come in with beautiful feet in the back and these horrible long toes in the front and you can tell how long ago the shoes were put on based on the growth patterns of the foot. And they do it for the same reason as the hunter/jumpers, they think it lengthens the stride. TB industry, as bad as the STB, I buy those right off the track or out of meat pens.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't want to say you're fibbing, but jughead trainers are among the most knowledgeable horsemen on the planet. Jughead NTRs happen pretty regular, so you won't mind if I point out that your opinion is inconsistent with reality.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PS....still waiting for the numerical comparisons between expansion in a shod and unshod foot.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A, number one, I never said expansion, but for you information, the foot will compress and spread up to 1/4" in the heels of an unshod foot at the point of full weight-bearing, which a horseshoe will not allow for. I am trying to think of who did this research, but am pulling a blank, at the moment.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spread? Your statment is in error, perhaps you've overdosed on barefoot propaganda and the intrinsic mendacity of that nonsense has affected your memory. The reason you're "pulling a blank" is that no such scientific "research" exists. The hoof capsule becomes elongated under load along its long axis, it does not "expand" laterally away from that axis. Ask yourself: Which is more likely to move under load - hoof wall or soft tissue?

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The human structure anatomically analogous to the horse's hoof is the middle fingernail, not the hand.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahhh, explains a lot! How in the world can you compare a horse's foot to something so simple as the index finger?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does this mean my comparative prof was wrong?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
We seem to have forgotten a few key structures of the foot? Namely, all the structures in the heel of the horse and that is what your horse should be walking on in the first place. Which is equivalent to the back 1/2 of your hand, palm being the sole, lateral cartilages being the heels of your hand.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Should your tire of basking in your ignorance, you have only to visit a library or ask any veterinarian.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
The hoof capsule becomes elongated under load along its long axis, it does not "expand" laterally away from that axis. Ask yourself: Which is more likely to move under load - hoof wall or soft tissue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK Tom...you knew that we couldn't agree forever...lets take a walk through why you insist on this theory... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

From my understanding, the currently accepted theory for hoof mehcanism is: upon loading, the front of the hoof deforms rearward, the sides of the hoof also follow this direction....so far in agreement with you...but now we leave that and move into the rest of the movement. As the toe depersses, the hoof wall moves outward starting at the front of the quarter and incresingly expanding outward as it nears the heels....with the most lateral movement being found at the rear of the hoof capsule.

This outward expansion at the rear of the hoof has been measured and agreed upon by the research community. To reasure you that these are not barefoot/trim of the week gurus here is a list: Knezevic, Bayer, Dyhre-Poulsen, Summerley, Thomason, Davies, Dejardin, Barrey, Preuschof (forgive me there may be typos). This information is found in Black and Clayton. These studies were done between 1966 to 1997.

So, my question is, do you disagree with this? If so, who is the author of your theory and what year was it published? Could you expand on it or provide a link to it for further reading?

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
The hoof capsule becomes elongated under load along its long axis, it does not "expand" laterally away from that axis. Ask yourself: Which is more likely to move under load - hoof wall or soft tissue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK Tom...you knew that we couldn't agree forever...lets take a walk through why you insist on this theory... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

From my understanding, the currently accepted theory for hoof mehcanism is: upon loading, the front of the hoof deforms rearward, the sides of the hoof also follow this direction....so far in agreement with you...but now we leave that and move into the rest of the movement. As the toe depersses, the hoof wall moves outward starting at the front of the quarter and incresingly expanding outward as it nears the heels....with the most lateral movement being found at the rear of the hoof capsule.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ask your farrier husband for any aluminum shoes he's nailed on; look carefully at the heels of these shoes: Is the wear at the heel lateral to medial or medial to lateral? Why is that significant? How does that wear impact theories that hypothesize movement of the hoof capsule lateral to the longitudinal axis on loading/ unloading?

Critical thinking is your friend.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Ask your farrier husband for any aluminum shoes he's nailed on; look carefully at the heels of these shoes: Is the wear at the heel lateral to medial or medial to lateral? Why is that significant? How does that wear impact theories that hypothesize movement of the hoof capsule lateral to the longitudinal axis on loading/ unloading? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, I must be having a blonde moment....regardless of med/lat or lat/med...how would this imply front to back "expansion" as opposed to side to side? Right now...just picturing it in my mind...any time there is med/lat wear on a shoe, that would indicate lateral movement. If there was lat/med wear, that would indicate inward movement. To me, this would follow the currently accepted "expansion" theories as noted above.

I seemed to have misplaced my critical thinking cap today and would be in need of further explanation on your part. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[CHJoker]

"This outward expansion at the rear of the hoof has been measured and agreed upon by the research community. To reasure you that these are not barefoot/trim of the week gurus here is a list: Knezevic, Bayer, Dyhre-Poulsen, Summerley, Thomason, Davies, Dejardin, Barrey, Preuschof (forgive me there may be typos). This information is found in Black and Clayton. These studies were done between 1966 to 1997."

Better yet, as I am not at all interested in asking anyone's husband about wear on horse shoes, I would like to know more about Tom's feelings on this particular theory, and why he feels that his theory (no expansion in the rear?) is superior. Please, any research to back that up...

You can't tear everyone else apart for "undocumented research" and then come out with "ask your husband about wear" for an answer to your "the-world-according-to-me" theory.

Critical thinking cap firmly on, of course.

[LMH]

Some please pass a cap to me! I want to hear Tom's reasoning as I don't have a farrier husband to ask http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (thank goodness http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHJoker:
"This outward expansion at the rear of the hoof has been measured and agreed upon by the research community. To reasure you that these are not barefoot/trim of the week gurus here is a list: Knezevic, Bayer, Dyhre-Poulsen, Summerley, Thomason, Davies, Dejardin, Barrey, Preuschof (forgive me there may be typos). This information is found in Black and Clayton. These studies were done between 1966 to 1997."

Better yet, as I am not at all interested in asking anyone's husband about wear on horse shoes, I would like to know more about Tom's feelings on this particular theory, and why he feels that his theory (no expansion in the rear?) is superior. Please, any research to back that up...

You can't tear everyone else apart for "undocumented research" and then come out with "ask your husband about wear" for an answer to your "the-world-according-to-me" theory.

Critical thinking cap firmly on, of course.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank goodness your thinking cap has a chinstrap. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Expansion to the rear" is more precisely termed "elongation". The reason foot surface shoe wear at the heels is significant is this: If the hoof capsule elongates along its midline, then the wear will be from lateral to medial; if the hoof expands lateral to its midline, then the wear will be medial to lateral. After examining thousands of shoes over more than 40 years, it is my observation that the wear is ALWAYS lateral to medial. This observation appears to be consistent with the anatomy of the hoof capsule and the involved biophysics: The hoof capsule is filled with fluids, fluids don't compress, and the hoof capsule's most elastic structures are located at the posterior portion of its midline. Ask yourself, "On loading, will those elastic structures be moved lateral to the midline (expand) or to the posterior (elongate)?"

You will note my use of the term "observation" and the numbers. Other than the involved physics, I haven't made any claims about "studies", "science", "research", or even used "natural" as a proper noun. On the other hand, in an attempt to understand the dynamics, I've formulated a hypothesis (elongation, not expansion), tested the hypothesis by nailing on thousands of aluminum shoes and observing the foot surface wear patterns on those shoes, and have found my hypothesis to be confirmed at every instance. Furthermore, on questioning other farriers and veterinarians, I've found their observations to be consistent with mine (hence the invitation to SLB) and I invite anyone with an interest to test the hypothesis in the same manner - or to devise their own test.

For documentation close to home, check out the used shoe pile at any farrier's shop. The data found in the used shoe pile can be extrapolated to include barefooted horses because, even if claims that metal shoes inhibit "expansion" were valid, ANY evidence of the hoof capsule's movement atop the shoe would indicate even more movement in a barefooted horse, in a similar direction.

Food for thought.

[CHJoker]

Tom, would you mind explaining that one more time, and in laypersons terms?

How exactly are you basing your theories?

Because there are alot of "IF X is true" and "IF Y is true" then XY is true.

The problem is, there are alot of assumptions of truth in there, it seems, and alot of confusion (at least for me).

From what I can decipher... you think that in fact the hoof wall does not expand laterally at the heels, as the noted researchers (with over aprox. 40 years documentation collectively) believe. (which basically says that when the hoof hits the ground, the heel expands the most)

Instead, you say that the hoof wall expands horizontally, ie, "elongates"? But, isn't movement, movement?? No matter what the direction? And, theoretically, couldn't a piece of metal (fixed object) nailed onto a flexing object (hoof) possibly cause a loss of movement? (which of course, is why this was brought up)

Or, are you saying that there is NO expansion/ movement at all of the hoof wall when it hits the ground? Therefore dismissing the notion that metal shoes could cause a loss of "expansion/mechanism of the hoof".

And you are sure of this soley because of wear at the heel of a metal shoe??? This could not be for a myriad of other reasons? (including, with the heavy weight that the heel receives, which (according to researchers) normally would cause the heels to expand, instead causes friction on the metal shoe, in the heel area?? Just an idea http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am not seeing how you are connecting the dots. But perhaps you can explain.

(oh, and I am not a total barefoot proponent!!! I would put shoes on my horse if he needed them. BUT, I can understand why some people would question the use of a very inflexible object (steel shoe) nailed to a very flexible object (hoof). Unless, of course, the hoof does not move AT ALL, and is simply "standing on metal". But, is it really THAT simple?

Of course I have a chin strap on my thinking cap!! Otherwise, what would I do when things got rough?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Lookout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHJoker:
Tom, would you mind explaining that one more time, and in laypersons terms?
How exactly are you basing your theories?
Because there are alot of "IF X is true" and "IF Y is true" then XY is true.
The problem is, there are alot of assumptions of truth in there
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, of course. Only everyone else needs to provide cites to research done by real researchers published on medline. Tom can state his hypotheses, based on assumption after assumption, as fact.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
Well, of course. Only everyone else needs to provide cites to research done by real researchers published on medline. Tom can state his hypotheses, based on assumption after assumption, as fact.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you know what a hypothesis is? Perhaps you might consider visiting Mr. Webster before you cause yourself further embarrassment.

[onehorse]

Tom, tom, tom, tom, tom, tom, tom! Base on what you would like, say what you would like, but the proof is in the puddin'! I have happy, sound horses, that wouldn't be that way if I hadn't started trimming them myself with a properly applied trim. And that was something that my "farriers" couldn't do.

And, yes, hunters like the "long and low", jumpers just don't give, as long as the bugger gets over it clean, but the "jughead" trainers and TB trainers still, by and far, have some of the worst feet in the industry. I surely wouldn't call the duct tape/patch jobs of feet they have progress!

Scary, scary, scary!

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHJoker:
Tom, would you mind explaining that one more time, and in laypersons terms?

How exactly are you basing your theories?

Because there are alot of "IF X is true" and "IF Y is true" then XY is true.

The problem is, there are alot of assumptions of truth in there, it seems, and alot of confusion (at least for me).

From what I can decipher... you think that in fact the hoof wall does not expand laterally at the heels, as the noted researchers (with over aprox. 40 years documentation collectively) believe. (which basically says that when the hoof hits the ground, the heel expands the most).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my observation that the hoof capsule does not expand to the sides, it elongates to the rear. In my personal studies, I've never been able to find any credible evidence supporting the contention that the hoof expands apreciably to the sides, but I've found quite a bit that suggests the hoof elongates. IIRC, when Dr. Bowker wasn't touting whacking off heels, he found something similar.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Instead, you say that the hoof wall expands horizontally, ie, "elongates"? But, isn't movement, movement?? No matter what the direction?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Direction of movement becomes important in terms of biomechanical efficiency - or, when one faction attempts to claims that properly applied shoes can inhibit "expansion".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And, theoretically, couldn't a piece of metal (fixed object) nailed onto a flexing object (hoof) possibly cause a loss of movement? (which of course, is why this was brought up)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A correctly applied shoe is nailed to the most inflexible portion of the hoof capsule, ahead of the bend of the quarter. Wear on the foot surface of a shoe indicates movement is taking place.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Or, are you saying that there is NO expansion/ movement at all of the hoof wall when it hits the ground? Therefore dismissing the notion that metal shoes could cause a loss of "expansion/mechanism of the hoof".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, the incompressibility of fluids dictates some movement in the hoof capsule on impact, but that movement will be along the line of least resistance. Which structure do you think will move first when acted upon by fluids under pressure: The hard wall or the soft bulbs?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And you are sure of this soley because of wear at the heel of a metal shoe??? This could not be for a myriad of other reasons? (including, with the heavy weight that the heel receives, which (according to researchers) normally would cause the heels to expand, instead causes friction on the metal shoe, in the heel area?? Just an idea http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wear on the FOOT surface of a horseshoe is indicative of movement of the horse's heel. If the heel is moving from outside to inside, then the hoof capsule is becoming more narrow (elongating) not becoming wider (expanding) - and, after examining thousands of shoes, it's my observation that the wear is ALWAYS from outside to inside.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am not seeing how you are connecting the dots. But perhaps you can explain.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's my story and I'm sicking to it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[slb]

Tom...I am really not seeing how you can tell that the shoe is wearing lat/med (ouside/inside). Shoes would be "equally" worn...that is if the hoof is moving lat/med first, it is elastic and therefore returns to its original shape which means an equal and opposite movement of med/lat. Therefore, the shoe would show equal wear from both directions. There would be no way to determine if it moved one way or the other first.

The other issue I take with this theory is that if you are only observing this on a shod foot...could you not be supporting the "barefoot forever" club's ideals that a shod hoof cannot expand. Since observations have been made by reasearchers of both shod and unshod feet indicating X amount of movement, and you are indication no movement in a shod foot....then it may be your research that has given the BFC the fule for their beliefs. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Additionally, following the BFC line of thought, if the hoof is shod and the frog (and in the case of Bowker's theories on mechanism) the bars, are not attaining ground contact, then it could be that your observations of shod horses are based on incorrect assumptions of optimal hoof mechanism (that is, the hoof cannot function (expand) optimally without the aid of ground contact of the frog and bars.

[reillyshoe]

from "Effects of hoof shape, body mass and velocity on surface strain in the wall of unshod forefoot of standardbreds trotting on a treadmill" (Thomason 2003)
Until the mechanical interplay is resolved, the results from single experiments cannot be used to predict strains in single hooves from the general equine population. At such a detailed level of biomechanical behaviour, a hoof is not a hoof, is not a hoof (pace Gertrude Stein).

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onehorse:
Tom, tom, tom, tom, tom, tom, tom! Base on what you would like, say what you would like, but the proof is in the puddin'! I have happy, sound horses, that wouldn't be that way if I hadn't started trimming them myself with a properly applied trim. And that was something that my "farriers" couldn't do.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doubtless, your tender ministrations have enabled your beasts to dive deeper and come up drier. But, some horses need shoes, and some don't, so your claims of being to keep your horses sound and happy with a "properly applied trim" is as relevant as distant mouse flatulence.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And, yes, hunters like the "long and low", jumpers just don't give, as long as the bugger gets over it clean,...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are confusing a long and low hoof capsule with daisy cutter action - they are not the same thing and the former does not necessarily induce the latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
but the "jughead" trainers and TB trainers still, by and far, have some of the worst feet in the industry.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trainers' feet are not at issue; at issue are the feet of their horses - which have improved dramatically over the last 10-20 years.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I surely wouldn't call the duct tape/patch jobs of feet they have progress!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the farm, I've seen duct tape used to keep the wall intact after a shoe was cast, but your claim that such procedures are common in racing is not credible. In most parimutuel jurisdictions, the rules of racing require shoes, that steward's permission be acquired before any changes are made in type, and that a plater be present in the saddling paddock who has the responsibility of visually inspecting every horse's feet and replacing any lost shoes.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
Tom...I am really not seeing how you can tell that the shoe is wearing lat/med (ouside/inside). Shoes would be "equally" worn...that is if the hoof is moving lat/med first, it is elastic and therefore returns to its original shape which means an equal and opposite movement of med/lat. Therefore, the shoe would show equal wear from both directions. There would be no way to determine if it moved one way or the other first.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Loading is not "equal and opposite" throughout the support phases of movement, which accounts for the directional indicators on the foot surface of the shoe at each heel. Check out you husband's used shoe pile, especially the aluminum shoes. You may not agree with my hypothesis, but you'll find evidence of directional movement on the foot surface of a bunch of used shoes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The other issue I take with this theory is that if you are only observing this on a shod foot...could you not be supporting the "barefoot forever" club's ideals that a shod hoof cannot expand. Since observations have been made by reasearchers of both shod and unshod feet indicating X amount of movement, and you are indication no movement in a shod foot....then it may be your research that has given the BFC the fule for their beliefs. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please read the fine print. It is NOT my contention that the hoof capsule does not move; rather, that the movement is primarily to the posterior and along the midline, not primarily lateral and perpendicular to the midline.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Additionally, following the BFC line of thought, if the hoof is shod and the frog (and in the case of Bowker's theories on mechanism) the bars, are not attaining ground contact, then it could be that your observations of shod horses are based on incorrect assumptions of optimal hoof mechanism (that is, the hoof cannot function (expand) optimally without the aid of ground contact of the frog and bars.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Assuming open heeled shoes, where is it writ that a shod horse on dirt, sand, or grass does not have frog/bar ground contact? Come to think of it, how many horse tracks of both shod and barefoot horses have you seen that did NOT show evidence of frog contact?

[Lookout]

Precisely. "Shoes (from feet that I have shod) show wear indicating the foot does not expand, therefore feet don't expand."
Interesting, because usually the argument of wear on the shoes is used to prove that feet do expand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
The other issue I take with this theory is that if you are only observing this on a shod foot...could you not be supporting the "barefoot forever" club's ideals that a shod hoof cannot expand. Since observations have been made by reasearchers of both shod and unshod feet indicating X amount of movement, and you are indication no movement in a shod foot....then it may be your research that has given the BFC the fule for their beliefs. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[reillyshoe]

what kind of wearing indicates the foot does not expand? I usually see indication of foot movement on the hoof side of the shoe. Are you assuming there is not enough signs of hoof movement?

[Lookout]

It is Tom's A. Elk theory, which is his, which he has elevated to fact status. You will have to read his earlier posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reillyshoe:
what kind of wearing indicates the foot does not expand? I usually see indication of foot movement on the hoof side of the shoe. Are you assuming there is not enough signs of hoof movement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[reillyshoe]

I Can't find anything on either a chronicle search or on a yahoo search for Tom's A. Elk

[LMH]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lookout:
It is Tom's A. Elk theory, which is his, which he has elevated to fact status. You will have to read his earlier posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reillyshoe:
what kind of wearing indicates the foot does not expand? I usually see indication of foot movement on the hoof side of the shoe. Are you assuming there is not enough signs of hoof movement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does one elevate his own theory to fact status?

[Lookout]

By doing just what he did - claiming it to be so.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
How does one elevate his own theory to fact status? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[reillyshoe]

I wonder if it is published? peer reviewed? or is it just another theory? Not that it makes it bad, or wrong.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reillyshoe:
I wonder if it is published? peer reviewed? or is it just another theory? Not that it makes it bad, or wrong.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A hypothesis is not a theory, it's an attempt to explain a phenomenon.

Fluids do not compress and the hoof capsule is comprised of both hard and elastic structures. On loading, I hypothesize the majority of hydraulic movement will be in the direction of the most elastic structures. Simple as that.

Occam's Razor is alive and well at my shop.

[reillyshoe]

FLuids may not be compressable, but the vessels in which they are cotained are deformable. We still do not how force is dissapated through the foot.
It is never as simple as that!

[LMH]

Occam's Razor? did I totally miss something?

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
Occam's Razor? did I totally miss something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

IMO, it is the flaw to modern scientific research as it lets the researcher bring in "baggage" and ignore the obvious.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reillyshoe:
FLuids may not be compressable, but the vessels in which they are cotained are deformable. We still do not how force is dissapated through the foot.
It is never as simple as that!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We know that all of the elastic structures within the hoof capsule are surrounded by relatively inelastic structures, with the exception of its posterior. We can agree that the posterior portion of the hoof capsule is deformed to some degree by hydraulic pressure under load: Is that deformation primarily lateral to the midline or along the midline?

Ask William of Occam.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LMH:
Occam's Razor? did I totally miss something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

IMO, it is the flaw to modern scientific research as it lets the researcher bring in "baggage" and ignore the obvious.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Say what?

You have it bassakwards. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The application of Occam's Razor would mean the researcher's primary focus is on the obvious, not the esoteric.

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Say what?

You have it bassakwards. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The application of Occam's Razor would mean the researcher's primary focus is on the obvious, not the esoteric. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, IMO, it allows reseachers to skew their end product by looking at what is "obvious" to them...but not necessarily to anyone else...that is things that are the product of their own mental "baggage". A good example would be that in reading hoof research, there is rarely mention of how the hoof is trimmed...sometimes it will say a "good" trim or something similar...what the he!! is that? There is never mention of what is primary weight bearing, angles, lenth of toe, placement of heel. IMO, many of the past researchers most likely determined their data from inappropriately trimmed feet. Since much reserach has been conducted on STBD/TB, there is a possiblity that the hoof form was LT/LH and the reseachers overlooked the "obvious".

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
Say what?

You have it bassakwards. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The application of Occam's Razor would mean the researcher's primary focus is on the obvious, not the esoteric. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, IMO, it allows reseachers to skew their end product by looking at what is "obvious" to them...but not necessarily to anyone else...that is things that are the product of their own mental "baggage". A good example would be that in reading hoof research, there is rarely mention of how the hoof is trimmed...sometimes it will say a "good" trim or something similar...what the he!! is that? There is never mention of what is primary weight bearing, angles, lenth of toe, placement of heel. IMO, many of the past researchers most likely determined their data from inappropriately trimmed feet. Since much reserach has been conducted on STBD/TB, there is a possiblity that the hoof form was LT/LH and the reseachers overlooked the "obvious".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROTFLMAO! When a reasearcher overlooks the obvious, he's most assuredly NOT applying Occam's Razor.

[mbamissaz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
It is my observation that the hoof capsule does not expand to the sides, it elongates to the rear. In my personal studies, I've never been able to find any credible evidence supporting the contention that the hoof expands apreciably to the sides, but I've found quite a bit that suggests the hoof elongates.
That's my story and I'm sicking to it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Disclaimer: I have not read through the entire thread, so forgive me if I am offbase)

Ok, http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif I am pensive about entering this discussion as I feel it has gone a bit over my head, but this comment intrigues me. I have a TB who is rehabbing still from a 2003 severed tendon injury. As a result of the injury, the hoof on the injured leg is small and now somewhat "clubbed". My farrier(a highly respected one I might add) has recommended that my horse stay barefoot until his foot "expands", as shoeing him at this point would be detrimental to ever getting a "normal" foot again as it would inhibit the hoof from "expanding" (I took this to mean a shoe would ensure that his foot stayed clubbed and tiny).

After reading your comment, am I to understand that I've been wasting my time waiting for something that couldn't naturally ever occur?

[slb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
ROTFLMAO! When a reasearcher overlooks the obvious, he's most assuredly NOT applying Occam's Razor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you are saying that the majority of hoof research has not been following Occam's Razor? In fact, most research....including your own hypothesis would have to fall under that. I have been involved in several research projects that were published and peer reviewed and were highly skewed to reflect the primary researcher's POV...based on what was obivous to them.

[Tom Stovall CJF]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
ROTFLMAO! When a researcher overlooks the obvious, he's most assuredly NOT applying Occam's Razor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you are saying that the majority of hoof research has not been following Occam's Razor?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, you said that, not me.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In fact, most research....including your own hypothesis would have to fall under that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am. Any "research" in which a researcher formulates a hypothesis in an attempt to explain a phenomenon, then purposely or inadvertently fails to adequately observe and/or test the hypothesis may be meaningless or relevant only to a particular group that meets the criteria for inclusion. e.g., Data obtained from feral horses relating to biomechanical efficiency is primarily relevant to feral horses; data obtained from horses wearing grabs may be relevant only to horses wearing grabs; data obtained from wear on the foot surface of shoes in farriers' used shoe piles may be relevant only to the horses that wore the shoes, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have been involved in several research projects that were published and peer reviewed and were highly skewed to reflect the primary researcher's POV...based on what was obivous to them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A hypothesis (researcher's POV) is a SWAG, a tentative theory. It's somebody's attempt to explain a phenomenon. In the usual order of business, a researcher tests his hypothesis by observation and experiment. A hypothesis can NEVER be "proved", it can only be confirmed at a particular instance or disproved (which requires revision of the hypothesis). If a hypothesis is confirmed at every instance, it may become a full-blown, rootin' tootin', theory.

Over the last 40 years, on observing thousands of used horseshoes, I've noticed that EVERY visible worm track on the foot surface of EVERY used shoe indicating directional movement has been from from lateral to medial. Based on that observation, coupled with what is known (i.e., that the most flexible structures of the hoof capsule are located in the most posterior portion of the hoof capsule), I've hypothesized that the primary movement of the hoof capsule when loaded is in line with the midline of the foot, not lateral to the midline as is dictated by conventional wisdom.

This simple hypothesis is based on the application of Occam's Razor.

[LMH]

Good Gawd....does all this matter one hills bean worth?

slb nicely answered my question and now there is a debate on this stupid Razor???

[slb]

I agree LMH....I offered an answer and on opinion...and some more opinions. Tom has his opinions...enough said on the subject before we all miss the obvious. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[reillyshoe]

mbamissaz,
maybe Wolf can help you more than Occam.

Wolf's Law states that tissues react to the stresses placed upon it. If a foot gets smaller, it is because less stress is exerted on it. Maybe that is because of the injury, if more weight is being supported by the opposite foot? Perhaps your farrier is of the opinion that removing the shoe will stress the foot more and that will change the shape (assuming the ijury has fully resolved).