PDA

View Full Version : Pete has a new article on his site



Pages : [1] 2

irishcas
Nov. 30, 2006, 10:26 AM
Hi All:

Pete Ramey has put up a new article on his site which I think is really interesting (yup I know, I'm biased). Here is the link http://www.hoofrehab.com/coronet.htm

Now Tree, I'd really like it if you would read it and then if we could have a discussion about trimming the sole techniques that you do.

There is a series of 4 photos near the end of the article and I would really like to discuss them with you in regards to your trimming (following internal structures, etc)

Of course this is a feral hoof so the sole is much thicker than we normally see, which really should make some things more obvious for us :)

Look forward to your thoughts and anyone elses as well.

Regards,

irishcas
Nov. 30, 2006, 10:59 AM
That is about right Two Simple but remember these are Feral Feet, imagine how much more it is to the domestic thinner soled hoof.

Regards,

marta
Nov. 30, 2006, 11:16 AM
made me think of kip's crooked front right leg and how the crookedness of the limb affects what's happening in the hoof...

CookiePony
Nov. 30, 2006, 04:33 PM
Wow. Those pictures are ...vivid. Especially the last 4 re sole depth. Also I had no idea that coronets could move so much.

caballus
Nov. 30, 2006, 05:13 PM
Thanks for the heads up, Kim. Good stuff.

--Gwen (caballus)

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 12:42 PM
Now Tree, I'd really like it if you would read it and then if we could have a discussion about trimming the sole techniques that you do.

To be honest, reading the title of this thread wasn't enough to peak my curiosity. So I wouldn't have read this personal invite to read the article. It was because you went to the other thread and posted that I did go and read the article.

I'd be curious about what the Farriers would have to say about this article too...oh and others who trim, of course.


There is a series of 4 photos near the end of the article and I would really like to discuss them with you in regards to your trimming (following internal structures, etc)

Of course this is a feral hoof so the sole is much thicker than we normally see, which really should make some things more obvious for us :)

Look forward to your thoughts and anyone elses as well.

Regards,

I find it interesting that someone who says they stay away from "always and never" strays into those very areas anyway. This would apply to specific measurements given to use and assuming they are all that accurate.

And I did keep in mind that the examples used were taken from a wild horse (or horses) and reflect the hoof form that they develope according to the conditions they existed under shortly before death. The feral hoof provided by Cheryl Henderson showed a noteworth change in the hoof wall just below the coronary band. Of course we don't know what brought it about.

In the photo showing the coffin bone (marked in blue) and the lateral cartilage (marked in green), I'm surprised that the cartilage attachment involves the extensor process. I would've liked to have seen a photo clearly showing this...with the skin covering the entire cartilage removed. The thickness of sole is consistent with harsh terrain wild horse hooves.

The photos showing where Pete is pressing on the exposed coronet causes me to wonder what the differences of motion would be if this were compared to attempting to do the same with the hoof capsule still in place. A great many soft structures flex more when exposed.

Now on to the last series of photos...again we're looking at a hoof taken from a wild horse so the sole is very thick along with other structures...noted in the rear of the foot. As to where the red lines have been drawn, I have NEVER seen anyone trim the heels so low as to include the bulbs. That first illustration seems to suggest this. This is not a very good example, IMO of hitting blood in that area. I think a less healthier hoof should have been used instead. I don't know of any experienced or trained trimmers or farriers trimming to that extreme.

In the 2nd example, if someone were to trim in that manner, the hairline would be ground parallel. Hitting blood in the toe in that manner would mean severely over shortening the wall to either side of the toe center. Again, I don't know of anyone who trims in that manner.

And the last example would likely be committed by someone who went well beyond where they should while bringing the outer walls down to the levels of the sole...and then some. Again, I don't know of anyone who trims in this manner. There would no longer be any heel horn to support the horse. The bulbs would be actively weighted.

These illustrations are not very useful, IMO. They don't really illustrate what happens when blood is hit.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 3, 2006, 01:16 PM
Pete's learning hoof anatomy? 'Bout time.

caballus
Dec. 3, 2006, 01:39 PM
Pete's learning hoof anatomy? 'Bout time.
That was a petty comment! :(

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 02:03 PM
Responding to this post over here rather than in the impossible club foot thread.


Hey Tree:

Back to the issues at hand :) I posted that Pete had a new article on his site and it does seem to pertain to your trimming style. Have you had a chance to read it and would you mind commenting on it and what you think about the photos compared to your trimming style.

The only things that seemed to pertain to my style of trimming were the mention of thinning sole in the regions of the heels. But that was being very general vs specific.

When he started off the article with toe lengths and heel heights, those are not consistent with my style of trimming or my studies of the Strasser methods either. The only time I've read toe lengths of 3" to 3.5" was within Jaime Jackson's books and that had more to do with his findings when measuring freshly mustered wild horses taken from harsh terrains.


Are you purposely ignoring it? I know you said you have hard time reading his articles but this one is short and sweet with lots and lots of pix

I am really looking forward to your comments.

Regards,

It was still somewhat difficult to read the article and a relief to see pics but there could've been more pics used to illustrate the things Pete was going for. The views given were better at illustrating a lateral view of intact hooves and limited views of partially dissected ones and limited views of one(?), having the entire hoof capsule removed.

My difficulties stem from reading more theories which don't necessarily agree with those that I go along with.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 3, 2006, 04:11 PM
That was a petty comment! :(

If he demonstrated a knowledge of anatomy, you could say that. Since he has repeatedly demonstrated an ignorance of anatomy, I don't think so. It's pretty irresponsible to "teach" others something you yourself don't know, as well as criticize others' work based on your own ignorance. It's a good thing he's starting to learn.

Forgewizard
Dec. 3, 2006, 04:42 PM
Aagh!:mad:

why? Why? Why?:confused:

I'll post pix of his pix to explain further. But a very glaring mis informative folderol statement he claims about coronet band movement and his demo pix :

Um - where is the hoof? Gone! And so is any stabilization to the coronet band. Now, that being properly noted; the coronet band generates the hoof wall. The hoof wall grows downward from the coronet band. When the hoof wall gets to the ground (or doesn't) only then will the coronet band become "deformed"!

To use his phraseology: "Wrap your brain around that!"

Regards,
Kim H.

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 05:16 PM
Um - where is the hoof? Gone! And so is any stabilization to the coronet band. "Wrap your brain around that!"

Regards,
Kim H.

Precisely...no hoof capsule so the demo only shows what happens if there is no hoof capsule. What living horse (without enough happy drugs) is going to be a living example of this? :eek:

Tree

Forgewizard
Dec. 3, 2006, 06:07 PM
tree says:
Precisely...no hoof capsule so the demo only shows what happens if there is no hoof capsule. What living horse (without enough happy drugs) is going to be a living example of this?



What's your point Tree? :confused:

I maintain that Ramey's coronet deflection demo is insignificant, irrelevant and totally has no bearing on how to trim a hoof. If I rip off my fingernail (hoof) I too can manipulate the cuticle (coronet) - so what? If the cuticle gets damaged from trauma or nutritional defects the resultant horn will grow in deformed.

Regards,
Kim H.

Lookout
Dec. 3, 2006, 07:27 PM
How petty of you Kim.
Take the bearing wall or column away - the floor caves in. Surprise! :eek: I am reminded of why I can never get through these "articles".

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 07:58 PM
What's your point Tree? :confused:

I maintain that Ramey's coronet deflection demo is insignificant, irrelevant and totally has no bearing on how to trim a hoof.
Regards,
Kim H.

My point was that the photo only shows what it shows...no more, no less.

I agree that it has no bearing on how to trim a hoof.

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 3, 2006, 08:25 PM
Tree:

Don't you think that you and the Strasserites are trimming like the last row of pictures, photo #2?

The only difference is that this horse would withstand the removal of sole/bar (at first) better than most domestics that you and Strasserites trim?

This is exactly what you do to the bottom of the feet isn't it?
If not please explain the difference.

I can't believe you people, including Forge why are getting hung up on the flexiblity of the coronet band. Talk about fogging the issues.

There are many messages to be taken from this article. I recommend it be read more than once as I "get" something new each time I do. Two things that really stick out for me are
1. Don't thin the sole.
2. Balance of the foot is not static and is not done on concrete. Many depends in there.

To the sole thinning this really sticks out.
Pete wrote:

In none of these cases is it even remotely correct to thin the sole to achieve "proper" wall lengths. That would just add insult to injury. The wall length (at heel or toe) should be the very last thing we judge or act upon, but so often people attack it first at the expense of the sole. Why? There are hundreds of different books that teach us to do so!

Regarding balance Pete wrote:

A hoof that usually hits the ground slightly crooked because of an angular deformity or body issue will adjust its lateral cartilages accordingly. Also, a perfectly straight-legged horse can make such adjustments due to its most common work. For instance at the trot, a horse should impact the ground with its hind limbs 'underneath himself' (like a tightrope walker). Horses that usually work at the trot (endurance horses, trotters...) will develop lateral cartilages that are in a lower position on the inside (or from the trimmer's perspective; the hoof will appear longer on the inside) so that both heels hit the ground simultaneously during this movement. This is a good thing and should be allowed and embraced by the trimmer.

This is why horses should not have all feet balanced by set measurements!

I see some B***Hing about how I don't balance the feet in my photos. Well DUH, they are balanced for each foot at that moment in time. Over time the balance that the horse wants emerges and I listen to that. We professionals should all do that and then there would be a lot more happy horses - shod and barefoot.

Okay don't want to go on too long so I can eliminate all the cutting and pasting. Will discuss more in another post

Regards,

Thomas_1
Dec. 3, 2006, 08:33 PM
I can't believe you people, including Forge why are getting hung up on the flexiblity of the coronet band. Talk about fogging the issues. ,

Now I've not posted so far as I wasn't at all interested in the article. But I've got to say if there's horse **** about flexibility at the coronet band its difficult to get past there and have any credence or interest in the rest of the stuff there.


Over time the balance that the horse wants emerges and I listen to that. Got to say this sort of sentimental vagueness totally turns me off - indeed makes me absolutely snort with laughter.

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 08:58 PM
Tree:

Don't you think that you and the Strasserites are trimming like the last row of pictures, photo #2?

You mean down to where the red line was drawn? No. With regards to the position of the coffin bone relative to the ground surface, we do aim for a ground parallel coffin bone. And if we were trimming hooves like those, we would definitely not be trimming a hoof that short. :eek: Hell, according to where that line crosses a bulb, the heel height would be zero. Strasser doesn't have a 0 in her heel height range. For healthy hooves, the heel height range is 3-4cm's measured NOT from the hairline but from where the lateral cartilage turns and goes down into the hoof.


The only difference is that this horse would withstand the removal of sole/bar (at first) better than most domestics that you and Strasserites trim?

You'd be assuming that it needed trimming in the first place. Without seeing how well the hoof was functioning to begin with, I cannot speculate about trimming it or what sort of trim it needed.


This is exactly what you do to the bottom of the feet isn't it?
If not please explain the difference.

If you are still referring to how the red line was positioned in the last photo, no, that is not exactly as I do the bottom of the feet. Those last series of photos don't even show a sole view. I can't exactly explain without something to compare to. However, I could offer a sole thickness amount of .25". The hoof model used was a wild horse and not a domestic but you'd already pointed this out before. It's hoof shape was created by natural wear and not a man-made trim. I respect it as an example of an abrasive terrain naturally worn hoof form.


I can't believe you people, including Forge why are getting hung up on the flexiblity of the coronet band. Talk about fogging the issues.

Well uh I believe it was Pete's point to show how flexible the coronet band was in his example. Speaking for myself, I would fully expect the coronet band to be more flexible without the hoof capsule in place.


There are many messages to be taken from this article. I recommend it be read more than once as I "get" something new each time I do. Two things that really stick out for me are
1. Don't thin the sole.

2. Balance of the foot is not static and is not done on concrete. Many depends in there.

No comment about why Pete says not to thin the sole but let's get down to this deal of balancing a hoof. In his example, which was rather odd, IMO, he was talking about taking a balanced hoof and then subjecting it to uneven footing and then asking where the balance was under those circumstances. Well, I believe balance is taught as it pertains to the horse's structures. The hoof capsule is designed to be flexible enough to handle the uneven footing and still prevent injury to the rest of the structures, hooves included.


To the sole thinning this really sticks out.
Pete wrote:


Regarding balance Pete wrote:


This is why horses should not have all feet balanced by set measurements!

And yet he then gives measurements concerning the bars and says that while each situation is different, every horse needs adquately thick and densely callused sole. However, this is a contradiction if you're now going to ignore the variety of situations. An example would be comparing the hooves of horses living on harsh terrains with those who are living on soft footing. There'll be differences in the hoof capsules due to the footing conditions. But all should have thick soles with callouses? Dissections of each would not show this to be true because hooves adapt according to the conditions.

To me, sole callous forms when the walls aren't doing their job. Even the wild horses hooves from abrasive footing have the sole nearest the WL actively weightbearing along with the inner most wall. From that area the outer walls are abraided and passive (rolled) and the sole is concave forming the bowl.


I see some B***Hing about how I don't balance the feet in my photos.

It probably depends upon the person's perspective. If the hoof doesn't appear balanced to the limb, it would be off. But at any rate, without photos to show which feet you're talking about, I'm giving a general reply as to why anyone would say something about what they're seeing.


Tree

irishcas
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:05 PM
Thomas you are such a sad sack.

Horses and their ability to communicate to us is such a gift and to think you have never opened it doesn't make me snort, it makes me sorry for you and your horses. Constantly throwing out that it is twaddle and sentimental doesn't make it less, just means you are MISSING the boat.

If it turns you off, then please turn yourself off.

Thomas_1
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:16 PM
As I train horses using natural horsemanship techniques - i.e. working with them with empathy and understanding of how they interact and what they do naturally in their own environment etc, I think you are perhaps putting me in a wrong category.

However I've never yet heard a foot tell me how it needs trimming so its balanced.

irishcas
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:29 PM
You'd be assuming that it needed trimming in the first place. Without seeing how well the hoof was functioning to begin with, I cannot speculate about trimming it or what sort of trim it needed.

Tree somewhere in this post you stated

I worry about domesticated horse hoof form which would enable them to be ok on all terrains as it generally means limited mechanism...aka rigid feet which limit their ability to feel the footing beneath them.


Okay the hoof shown is feral with an even thicker sole than most domestics so aren't you also worried about how thick it is? Why can you not speculate since you stated you are worried about mechanism in rigid domestic feet?

I know it seems I'm being picky but I believe this is a useful discussion, if you don't I'll let it go.

Regards,

Lookout
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:36 PM
However I've never yet heard a foot tell me how it needs trimming so its balanced.
Obviously it only speaks to certain people; it has to be trimmed by certain people to start talking. And just ignore the parts of the "article" that don't make sense.

irishcas
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:40 PM
Thomas Wrote:

However I've never yet heard a foot tell me how it needs trimming so its balanced.

Ahh that is what seperates the professionals from the home trimmer.

Thomas,
Everything has a voice if you can just listen.

Also I should apologize yet again to you.. sigh. I haven't learned to control myself quite yet. You seem to bring out the worst in me. I should have not called you a sad sack.

Some day I will learn to not attack when pressed and then I won't be saying sorry all the time.

So I say again, I'm sorry for being rude, it was unnecessary and completely unclickeresque.

Regards,

Tree
Dec. 3, 2006, 09:47 PM
Tree somewhere in this post you stated "I worry about domesticated horse hoof form which would enable them to be ok on all terrains as it generally means limited mechanism...aka rigid feet which limit their ability to feel the footing beneath them."

Okay the hoof shown is feral with an even thicker sole than most domestics so aren't you also worried about how thick it is? Why can you not speculate since you stated you are worried about mechanism in rigid domestic feet?

I know it seems I'm being picky but I believe this is a useful discussion, if you don't I'll let it go.

Regards,

I said I worry about domesticated horse hoof form, yes. I cannot assume that an overly thickened sole found in a domestic horse's feet is going to be exactly the same as this wild horse's hoof with regards to density or compaction of those soles along with the bar condidtions too. Wild horses aren't as likely to suffer from excess bar horn buildup thanks to the natural wearing of them from birth.

Sure, you may be picky because you don't quite understand my concerns.

Also, I would want to see how a wild horse's hooves function in that form vs assume that they were absolutely rigid. The differences could be explored if someone were to dissect a domestic hoof which appeared to be the same as this wild horse model.

Tree

Pippigirl
Dec. 4, 2006, 12:57 AM
Don't you think that you and the Strasserites are trimming like the last row of pictures, photo #2?

no....


The only difference is that this horse would withstand the removal of sole/bar (at first) better than most domestics that you and Strasserites trim?

No. Not really.


.

I can't believe you people, including Forge why are getting hung up on the flexiblity of the coronet band. Talk about fogging the issues.

Um...you did ask for comments. If it's not a good illustration that serves a point then it deserves to be critized.

blrm
Dec. 4, 2006, 01:15 AM
To me, sole callous forms when the walls aren't doing their job. Even the wild horses hooves from abrasive footing have the sole nearest the WL actively weightbearing along with the inner most wall. From that area the outer walls are abraided and passive (rolled) and the sole is concave forming the bowl.

Tree

So why is it that we insist that the hoof wall carry the weight of the horse when by your observation the wild horse hooves are telling us that they want the weight shared by the whole bottom of the foot.
The SHP trimmed hooves that I have seen look very similar to the first pic except they are more apt to be at 50deg as opposed to the 55 deg in the pic.And since the coffin bone is at a 45deg would that not leave you with 5 deg of flexion to end up with a ground parallel coffin bone under load?
Are the differences with a Strasser style trim not more apt to be seen on the sole view as opposed to a side view?

BumbleBee
Dec. 4, 2006, 02:20 AM
I think a less healthier hoof should have been used instead.

Totally agree. While I like Ramey's teaching style in general I find if anything these last 4 illistrations might make people think this super thick sole is the norm and let them feel comfortable pushing the limits. Oh how I hope not.

matryoshka
Dec. 4, 2006, 02:39 AM
Heres what I got out of the article:

He's warning us away from trimming to specific measurements from the coronet down. He seems to be getting away from Jaime Jackson's stuff? Haven't read Strasser, so I don't know whether she tells people to go for any specific measurements, other than angles.
He's simply pointing out that the coronet band is a flexible, not rigid structure. It would be impossible to show this with the hoof still attached. He's showing that if we remove wall or leave excess wall from a portion of the bearing surface, the coronet will flex either upward or downward in response. Maybe I'm reading my own interpretation to this, but it is no different from what I've heard farriers say: eg, "jammed" coronets.
Don't carve out the sole, period. Unfortunately, he doesn't differentiate between exfoliating sole and sole the hoof needs. I guess we need to read his other articles to get that.
The balance discussion threw me a bit. I think he is saying we should balance to the internal structures, namely the lateral cartileges, rather than relying on the coronet band. And, if I understand what he wrote, the only guide to the bottom of the lateral cartilege is the sole, so don't cut any away.
I suppose he's also saying that the lateral cartileges make up for limb deformities to a certain extent. He's also saying that they may adapt to the use of the particular horse and we should not try to force the hoof into what we considered a balanced shape.
The pics at the bottom show some pretty drastic cuts. I haven't seen anybody trim this way, but either Pete has seen it, or he believes that it is done.
Oh, and know the horse's job and how it may affect his feet. Watch him move. But maybe I'm confusing what was written in the article and what I was taught by an AFA CF. That's what I read into the article, anyway.Do I agree with everything he said? Not necessarily. It certainly provides food for thought, as does everything I've read about trimming and farrier work.

As for his warnings about trimming to certain specs, Pete mentions nobody specifically. Irishcas is the one who brought it to Tree's attention with regard to trimming to blood. He's not pointing fingers, just printing information. Or, if he is pointing fingers, I can't tell who he's pointing to! Proponents of different trimming styles have been picking at each other for a while now. Sometimes it is a good learning experience for the rest of us reading the argument, sometimes not. I do wish we could stick to facts rather than taking personal shots at each other.

Misplaced Loyalty?
We trimmers seem to get so caught up in a particular style that we have loyalty not only to the style but to the people teaching it. That really doesn't make much sense to me. The horse should be our first priority, not the teacher or the particular method. I've tried some things taught in various methods, and when it works, I keep using it for that type of hoof. When it doesn't work, I discard it for the time being, but keep it in the back of my mind for a situation in which it may be applicable.

I'll give an example of a time I used a trim I thought I'd never do. I went to a Paul Chapman clinic this summer. His theories were interesting, but he teaches trimming the wall way back so the horse is standing on the sole. He says the entire sole is meant to bear weight. This is contradictory to what I'd learned so far, but rather than argue, I listened to his presentation and watched him trim. He said that horses tell us how we are doing, not in words, but by how they stand and their demeanor after the trim.

A friend of mine also attended, and she had learned my trimming style. She trimmed a horse who looked comfortable when she finished. He had been standing a bit rocked back on his hinds before the trim. I suspect it was because his toes were long in relation to his heels, but it is just a guess. He could also have been a bit laminitic (he moved okay, but he at rest, he'd rock back a bit). Paul came over after my friend finished and trimmed the walls and heels down further, and the horse looked less comfortable. I told this to Paul, and he looked surprised and disbelieving. No sweat. I've got no investment in being right, but I sure wanted to learn whether his trim was good for the horse. I came away thinking I'd never do that to a horse. The only time it would be remotely justified is when there is major separation at the white line and I could be sure the horse would be on soft surfaces while the walls grew back. And even then, I didn't know if I'd do it.

So, MayS has that canker horse, Spongey (go to http://www.mayleen.com/horse/spongey.htm for pics). His canker had been surgically removed twice. He also had severely deformed hooves when she first got him. At this point, the hand-made bar shoes that he wore post surgery no longer fit, because his sheared heels had healed and his foot was reshaping rapidly. I've read a lot about canker and also watched it removed twice. I noticed that when it is small, the outside is tough, and the inside has a good blood supply, more so than the surrounding frog. I wanted to encourage a good blood supply to the frog while trying to restrict the blood supply to the canker. So, I did the trim taught by Paul Chapman. Spongey is stalled on mats, bedded in shavings, and only turned out on dry pasture. He never took a lame step (was sound even with severe canker). He was also treated with White Lightening. This time, the canker went away, and now his feet appear almost normal, exept that his pasturn rotation still affect the feet. Since the canker is gone (we hope it doesn't come back), I'm trimming him the way I usually do rather than having him bear so much weight on the sole and frog.

Moral of the Story
This is a very long way of saying that whether or not you agree with everything Pete is saying in this article, there may be information here that can be useful in the future. You don't have to agree with all of his conclusions to get something of value from the article, even if it is a "I'll never do that." I have found a number of the things Pete teaches to be effective. Some of his teachings haven't been so useful. Same goes with other methods. I am loyal to what works for the horses I trim (whether they "tell" me, or I "read" their body language and comfort level), regardless of who teaches it. I'll eventually get around to reading what Strasser has to say. I want to learn more from other people first, since her methods seem to be so controversial.

Common Ground?
We all read these things through our own filters. I'm somewhat Pete-friendly, Lookout is obviously not. Can we find any common ground here, or are we talking different languages? Does anything he says in this article agree with what his detractors have learned, or is this article filled only with errors and misinformation? (Sorry Irishcas, you've already let us know what you like about the article--I'm interested in finding out if there is anything others, however grudgingly, agree with here.)

matryoshka
Dec. 4, 2006, 02:42 AM
Totally agree. While I like Ramey's teaching style in general I find if anything these last 4 illistrations might make people think this super thick sole is the norm and let them feel comfortable pushing the limits. Oh how I hope not.

Good point. I also like your tag line! I'm a huge time-waster!! :yes:

Forgewizard
Dec. 4, 2006, 05:23 AM
Finally got through! Here are edits of Pete's pix to explain what is misleading.

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/4ca3.jpg?phkYNdFBcOp6Ij6A

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/5da5.jpg?phkYNdFBrjB3Oppg

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/b3b5.jpg?phkYNdFBBc75aQI9


http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/1e87.jpg?phkYNdFBHsRitDZD

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/6c5d.jpg?phkYNdFBiDvbI019


Regards,
Kim H.

blrm
Dec. 4, 2006, 08:39 AM
[B] Do I agree with everything he said? Not necessarily. It certainly provides food for thought, as does everything I've read about trimming and farrier work.


Good post. Can we expect a book in, say 4 or 5 years after a little more hands on.I look forward to it. :D:D

LMH
Dec. 4, 2006, 09:13 AM
Finally got through! Here are edits of Pete's pix to explain what is misleading.


http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/4ca3.jpg?phkU_cFBhV2oIj6A

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/5da5.jpg?phkU_cFBt5jdOppg

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/b3b5.jpg?phkU_cFBWAlpaQI9

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/1e87.jpg?phkU_cFBwUm3tDZD

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/6c5d.jpg?phkU_cFB9HM3I019

Regards,
Kim H.


For someone reason I am getting errors on your links?

BumbleBee
Dec. 4, 2006, 08:14 PM
For someone reason I am getting errors on your links?


Yup no luck here either.

matryoshka
Dec. 4, 2006, 09:37 PM
Same here--the links don't work for me. Looking forward to seeing the drawings, though.

And no, I have no intention of ever writing a book! :lol: :lol: I wouldn't mind editing one for a good farrier, though, and I promise to just check the writing for grammar and clarity, not try to rewrite it so it says what I want. :D

Forgewizard
Dec. 4, 2006, 09:59 PM
I changed the permissions to "pulic". Should work. I can see them.:yes: Let me know if they don't. COuld be they work for me because they are MY pix?IF they don't show up, I'll post them elsewhere.

Regards,
Kim H.

Lookout
Dec. 4, 2006, 10:03 PM
He's simply pointing out that the coronet band is a flexible, not rigid structure. It would be impossible to show this with the hoof still attached.
No, it isn't. All you would hav to do is trim the wall, as in your "jammed" coronet description.


The balance discussion threw me a bit. I think he is saying we should balance to the internal structures, namely the lateral cartileges, rather than relying on the coronet band. And, if I understand what he wrote, the only guide to the bottom of the lateral cartilege is the sole, so don't cut any away.
The lateral cartilage is (or should be) flexible too, so it doesn't provide any reliable reference point. It is relative to the rest of the foot's balance, whether that be correct or not. It can be distorted as in sheared heels and "ossified" into place. This is no guideline to trim to unless you want to perpetuate a pathology. OTOH the coronet is a reflection of the location and balance of the coffin bone and a good thing to be level.

LMH
Dec. 4, 2006, 10:18 PM
FW's comments on the last photo....

"trim line of sane farrier" :lol:

That was priceless.

*tipping my hat to you*

For SOME reason that just hit me so funny...:D

Lookout
Dec. 4, 2006, 10:56 PM
So why is it that we insist that the hoof wall carry the weight of the horse when by your observation the wild horse hooves are telling us that they want the weight shared by the whole bottom of the foot.
The SHP trimmed hooves that I have seen look very similar to the first pic except they are more apt to be at 50deg as opposed to the 55 deg in the pic.And since the coffin bone is at a 45deg would that not leave you with 5 deg of flexion to end up with a ground parallel coffin bone under load?
Are the differences with a Strasser style trim not more apt to be seen on the sole view as opposed to a side view?
The weight is meant to be borne by the walls, and the back (heels & part of the frog) and front (toe). The amount of weightbearing by this part of the foot increases and decreases as the foot moves through its stride.

Appassionato
Dec. 4, 2006, 11:09 PM
So why is it that we insist that the hoof wall carry the weight of the horse when by your observation the wild horse hooves are telling us that they want the weight shared by the whole bottom of the foot.
The SHP trimmed hooves that I have seen look very similar to the first pic except they are more apt to be at 50deg as opposed to the 55 deg in the pic.And since the coffin bone is at a 45deg would that not leave you with 5 deg of flexion to end up with a ground parallel coffin bone under load?
Are the differences with a Strasser style trim not more apt to be seen on the sole view as opposed to a side view?

That brings up a great point for those of us learning. What degree angles are appropriate for a horse? The P3 to the ground? I ask because my guy was not at 0, and two vets have said what he had was normal (3 and 4 degrees, I believe).

Lookout
Dec. 4, 2006, 11:25 PM
Finally got through! Here are edits of Pete's pix to explain what is misleading.

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/4ca3.jpg?phkYNdFBcOp6Ij6A
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/4NYmGbdP82ed/__sr_/5da5.jpg?phkYNdFBrjB3Oppg
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/b3b5.jpg?phkYNdFBBc75aQI9
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/1e87.jpg?phkYNdFBHsRitDZD
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/DRLvOYkABnt3/__sr_/6c5d.jpg?phkYNdFBiDvbI019
Regards,
Kim H.

So, after five years of "teaching" and trimming, he is starting to investigate and learn some anatomy?

:confused: Wouldn't it have made more sense to do a dissection or peel away the tissues to show the real parts, rather than incorrectly superimposing them? If that's where he thinks a lateral cartilage is no wonder he thinks you can use them to balance the foot from the sole. (just as an example)And what's that white stuff, the sole? The sole is curved. :eek: I guess at this level of knowledge, the DO NOT TOUCH trim is sensible.

I even have my doubts that he was ever actually a farrier as claimed before he started barefoot trimming, other than tacking shoes onto his own hack string. Or, perhaps more correctly, that he understood farriery techniques. The "farrier trimmed" picture of how the foot is trimmed of its much-needed sole, is in fact, not much needed by a shod foot and there are specific reasons for a farrier removing it. Yes, a shod trim is different than a barefoot trim.

caballus
Dec. 5, 2006, 01:44 AM
Hmmmm, is anyone here familiar with Lyle Bergeleen's "The Hairline Tells it All"? I'm not sure that Pete isn't saying something very similar to what Bergy teaches. I use the hairline on every hoof to tell me where there is undue pressure in the hoof. If I see a hairline that is shoved upward (waved) then I know that there is pressure in the hoof somewhere (usually unlevel wall) that is causing that pressure. IMMEDIATELY after correcting the levelness and removing that excess wall (or bar or whatever) one can SEE the hairline relax as the horse weights the hoof again. After walking a bit the hairline, if the pressure was correctly addressed, will have NO waves or dips or other variations from being the straight, smooth line its intended to be in a correctly balanced and leveled hoof. So, even when working with a live coronet/hairline it is very impressionable to pressures.

If you've not ever perused through "The Hairline Tells it All" I would recommend it for an informative read. While I don't personally agree with all of Bergy's trimming I do use the hairline and teach my students how to observe it and use it for another way to assess the balance and levelness of the hoof. The hairline has been "right" 100% of the time. Yes, I do mean 100%. :)

blrm
Dec. 5, 2006, 08:35 AM
Caballus that brings up an interesting thought.In what directions do the laminae have maximal strength to carry weight.Would the maximum amount of load they would bear not be perpendicular to the face of the coffin bone.Therefore the laminae are designed to be doing the most work and be most effective at the point of breakover and not while the horse is standing with its foot flat on the ground (therefore giving the hoof wall the flexibility to distort the hairline the way you suggest).Does that not mean that the greatest forces that the laminae are designed to deal with are tractional forces during acceleration and movement and not just the force of gravity while standing still? Sorry if this is out of place,bit of a light bulb moment. :):)

Appassionato
Dec. 5, 2006, 10:07 AM
Caballus that brings up an interesting thought.In what directions do the laminae have maximal strength to carry weight.Would the maximum amount of load they would bear not be perpendicular to the face of the coffin bone.Therefore the laminae are designed to be doing the most work and be most effective at the point of breakover and not while the horse is standing with its foot flat on the ground (therefore giving the hoof wall the flexibility to distort the hairline the way you suggest).Does that not mean that the greatest forces that the laminae are designed to deal with are tractional forces during acceleration and movement and not just the force of gravity while standing still? Sorry if this is out of place,bit of a light bulb moment. :):)

Actually, I was trying to calculate the maximum force the laminae could withstand in another thread. The problem we ran into was getting the area of the laminae.

As far as the free fall diagrams that would be used to illustrate what you are describing, I would imagine that 1) the footing makes a difference. Whether or not the toe can dig through when taking off. Probably best to calculate on a very hard surface? 2) for the laminae along the quarters, I think since it isn't at a perpendicular to the earth, the force of gravity and the force normal would be at an angle to those laminae at all times.

Great thoughts were answering you've brought up!

caballus
Dec. 5, 2006, 10:13 AM
Well, maybe that's part of why movement is so important to the health and rehabilitation of hooves. I'm not so sure that the laminae is meant to carry weight as much as they are to keep the horn attached to the foot, right? At which point, because they don't "hold weight" well they'd have to be strongest at the point of breakover as this, I would think, would be the point of greatest leverage upon the hoofwall connectivity. Imagine walking on fingernails ... as the full weight of our body pressures and levers the fingernail away from the nailbed the nail is needed to be the strongest at the point of that greatest leverage. That's why the wall of the hooves are not meant to totally bear weight all by themselves because if they are weightbearing by themselves then they are long enough to be "pried away" from the "nail bed" ... i.e. flaring just as our fingernails would be pried away. Now I would imagine that if there were only primary laminae that the pressures received would be enough to really tear them up but the secondary laminae, the horizontal connectors between the primary laminae, do a good job of holding things together - as in the "velcro" description that Marjorie Smith uses. Make sense?

Su Valley
Dec. 5, 2006, 11:50 AM
So, has anyone here actually attended one of Pete's clinics? Or had a conversation with him in person?

Just curious.

irishcas
Dec. 5, 2006, 01:49 PM
I have attended his clinics and they are fabulous and I talk to him in person all the time.

What he is saying is to far in advance for Forge, Lookout and Tree. Well Tree's hoof theories are fully deranged so I shouldn't lump the other two in with her.

Forge your diagrams are extremely hard to follow and don't make sense.

This is a WILD hoof are you all implying that the sole is unnatural? That is what we should strive for in our domestics but chances are we won't achieve it.

Stop nitpicking and look at the whole picture. Carving(I did not say trimming btw) sole and bar material is wrong and damaging to the horses. Having too thick of a sole is not possible.

But I guess you need something to write and complain about :)

I also heard that even Strasser has started to change her trimming and is saying. This is just underground stuff at this point but I assume eventually it will come out.

The beauty of it all is this is just everyone's opinions and we are free to express it to whomever we like. We will all support what we believe is right, I for one see the same things that Pete does so of course I'm in support of his public opinion. Is he my Guru or Hoof Trimming God - Absolutely NOT. He is just putting out there what a lot of us think. Thank goodness that people like Pete Ramey and Paige Poss are offering their free time to help owners and horses.

I also believe Pete is just putting into words Dr. Bowkers research, so this isn't just his "opinion".

Lookout, if knowing anatomy helps you trim like you do than guess what "It ain't helping"

Auventera Two
Dec. 5, 2006, 03:11 PM
However I've never yet heard a foot tell me how it needs trimming so its balanced.

Do you trim feet Thomas? Shoe?

Auventera Two
Dec. 5, 2006, 03:33 PM
Hmmmm, is anyone here familiar with Lyle Bergeleen's "The Hairline Tells it All"? I'm not sure that Pete isn't saying something very similar to what Bergy teaches. I use the hairline on every hoof to tell me where there is undue pressure in the hoof. If I see a hairline that is shoved upward (waved) then I know that there is pressure in the hoof somewhere (usually unlevel wall) that is causing that pressure. IMMEDIATELY after correcting the levelness and removing that excess wall (or bar or whatever) one can SEE the hairline relax as the horse weights the hoof again. After walking a bit the hairline, if the pressure was correctly addressed, will have NO waves or dips or other variations from being the straight, smooth line its intended to be in a correctly balanced and leveled hoof. So, even when working with a live coronet/hairline it is very impressionable to pressures.

Ok - bear with the dummy here as I try to figure this out.......

According to this theory -

Imagine the entire hoof wall is overgrown - say 1/2 inch too long. Walls are bearing weright, splitting flaring, whatever.

Wouldn't the ENTIRE hairline then be pressed upwards? And isn't that exactly what Pete Ramey is trying to say in this article? That the coronet is dynamic, and not static? If you just look at the hoof before it's trimmed and determine that it is say 4" toe to cornet, then you trim the hoof, and the coronet actually comes DOWN in response to the pressure being removed from the walls, then that screws up your measurement. Right? Or wrong... :o

Trust me - I don't understand this any more than I understand why people run around on nude beaches - but try to help me out here! :sadsmile:

Appassionato
Dec. 5, 2006, 04:44 PM
Ok - bear with the dummy here as I try to figure this out.......

According to this theory -

Imagine the entire hoof wall is overgrown - say 1/2 inch too long. Walls are bearing weright, splitting flaring, whatever.

Wouldn't the ENTIRE hairline then be pressed upwards? And isn't that exactly what Pete Ramey is trying to say in this article? That the coronet is dynamic, and not static? If you just look at the hoof before it's trimmed and determine that it is say 4" toe to cornet, then you trim the hoof, and the coronet actually comes DOWN in response to the pressure being removed from the walls, then that screws up your measurement. Right? Or wrong... :o

Trust me - I don't understand this any more than I understand why people run around on nude beaches - but try to help me out here! :sadsmile:

Could have done without the visual of nude beaches :lol:, but here is another question from another dummy!

If the walls are overgrown, as TS mentioned...and the walls are not the only support mechanism (supposed to be distributed across entire dorsal side of hoof)...wouldn't laminitis occur?

caballus
Dec. 5, 2006, 07:49 PM
Ok - bear with the dummy here as I try to figure this out.......

According to this theory -

Imagine the entire hoof wall is overgrown - say 1/2 inch too long. Walls are bearing weright, splitting flaring, whatever.

Wouldn't the ENTIRE hairline then be pressed upwards? And isn't that exactly what Pete Ramey is trying to say in this article? That the coronet is dynamic, and not static? If you just look at the hoof before it's trimmed and determine that it is say 4" toe to cornet, then you trim the hoof, and the coronet actually comes DOWN in response to the pressure being removed from the walls, then that screws up your measurement. Right? Or wrong... :o

Trust me - I don't understand this any more than I understand why people run around on nude beaches - but try to help me out here! :sadsmile:

Think of the angle of the leverage ... with toes too long, they end up flaring, chipping and cracking because they cannot bear the weight load so end up being splayed out rather than jammed up. With a portion of close trimmed wall (so the wall is trimmed level with the sole callous) the wall is not splaying away from the hoof but the area of pressure (and it could be just as small as a thumbtack head) will press upward into the hoof and cause a 'wave' in the hairline. Or, a small area on sole or even a lump of weight bearing bar. They will press upward as the integrity of the attachment between the wall and the sole is not jeopardized so the lamina is holding fast. It's incredibly strong ... just imagine it holding all together with 10,000 pounds of pressure when a horse lands after going over just a 2' jump! So, it depends on the length of the excessive wall and how the weight in leveraging.

Ah! Here's an analogy ... cut an orange in half. Place cut side down and press down. The skin stays intact. BUT if you were to core out the 1/2 of the orange (take all the "fruit" out of it leaving just the skin) and then press down, the skin splits and tears and is a mess. The skin is not strong enough to withstand the pressure but if connected fully with the fruit then can better withstand the pressure applied. Make sense?

Not only do the walls crack and split and flare but the laminae becomes stretched, torn and weakened which further weakens the entire hoof as the stretched, torn and weakened laminae can no longer "hold its weight", so to speak.


If the walls are overgrown, as TS mentioned...and the walls are not the only support mechanism (supposed to be distributed across entire dorsal side of hoof)...wouldn't laminitis occur?

If the walls are overgrown then they cannot share the support with the sole callous. The sole AND the walls are meant to bear the weight load of the horse. So, I'm not really understanding your question? Sorry! :(

Daydream Believer
Dec. 5, 2006, 08:42 PM
So, has anyone here actually attended one of Pete's clinics? Or had a conversation with him in person?

Just curious.

Not yet but I am hosting Pete Ramey here at my farm in Suffolk, Virginia, on Sept 1 & 2. Last I looked, we were not up on their website yet...but we were late additions to his 2007 clinic schedule.

I can't wait and am so excited to have him here in person. I have learned so much just from his book that I can imagine what having him for a two day clinic will do for my skills.

LMH
Dec. 5, 2006, 08:46 PM
Yes-I hosted a clinic for Pete and prior to that had to him my farm to trim and start teaching me to trim.

This was a few years back and Pete has changed alot of what he does since that time.

His clinics are wonderful-he is a gifted speaker and keeps you interested.

His wife is very charming.

He will stay until the bitter end to make sure every question is answered.

caballus
Dec. 5, 2006, 08:47 PM
Be ready to cram as much information as you can into your head during the 2 day clinic! It's almost overwhelming. You'll enjoy, tho. Yes, I've been to Pete's clinics and I am friends w/him as well. He was gracious enough to add www.barefoottrim.com to his "Cream of the Crop" links when he had them even though I was not AANHCP affiliated. There were a few sites that he got grief about because of that including Dr. Bowker's and Dr. Pollitt's. Now I guess its a moot point, tho *grin*.

Pete is the first to say he still has alot to learn and he is humble about what he does know and share. He's not at all arrogant or egotistical. He's honest and forthright and is quick to say when he's wrong. Attributes that all professionals should have, methinks.

Daydream Believer
Dec. 5, 2006, 09:30 PM
Like I said...I'm so excited! I am still learning and growing as a trimmer...and a discussion like this one is a little over my head...but what he says makes sense to me. I have done well following his techniques so far and can't wait to improve my skills even more.

He and his wife sound like the nicest people too. I'd love to do one on one training but that may come later after this clinic if I still feel the need for it.

blrm
Dec. 5, 2006, 09:48 PM
Make sense?

Perfect sense!!:)

TS; to help with your question look at your fingernails. Assuming you are not a nail biter. :) Take a finger and point at the edge of your desk,fingernail up.Now push your nail against the desk and watch the cuticle.See how the cuticle is pushed back and then comes back when you release.Think of the relationship between the bones in your finger(coffin bone) to the nail (hoof wall) when that movement is taking place.But the nail still remains the same length.Isn't it that flexibility and movement of the cuticle(coronet) that PR is pointing out.
Appassionato ; In Two Simple's scenario would mechanical founder not be the problem that you might expect if that horse was used to being on a soft surface and you then worked it on a hard surface ?

matryoshka
Dec. 5, 2006, 10:15 PM
First, to Lookout--he can't show a coronet band changing from relieving excess hoof wall on a cadaver foot, since the horse can't stand on it to make any difference. I think you are taking that example too literally. It seems like you really have something against Pete and only want to criticize him. Therefore, I've gotta take your comments with a grain of salt. Without the sarcasm and pessimism about him, you'd be more persuasive. I'd love to see you do a point-by-point comparison of your trim to what he's saying in this article. It would give you a chance to showcase your knowledge and the superiority of your trim. :yes: I'm assuming you agree with nothing on it. How long have you been trimming?

I have to admit that I was wondering about the idea of whole coronet band being displaced upward, except in the case of sinking founder. Some of the horses MayS has bought from the sale have had 2 inches of excess wall, and the foot didn't look sunken above the coronet. So I guess if the laminae are functioning, the coffin bone will still be suspended. One of the measurements Esco Buff uses to determine the amount of sinking from founder is where the coffin bone is in relation to the coronet. If Pete wants to make this point, he needs to show us marked x-rays of long walls (or a shod hoof, if shoes create this kind of problem) compared to a barefoot horse he trims. Cadaver feet can only show us so much--we need to see live horses and how they respond to the trimming techniques.

On the recent horse with canker that MayS got (Eeyore), his walls were about 2 inches too long at the heels, and when he walked, I could see the walls at the heel flexing and moving with every step. On both fronts, he's got most of the frogs and the bars eaten away with canker (on another horse with a similar-looking canker, the canker went up to the digital cushion). This horse would bend his foot just before landing to put his weight on the toe first, then the heel. So it would seem that Caballus' example of a halved orange is appropriate.

When I trimmed Eeyore, it was hard to tell how short to trim his walls, since there was almost no frog and no seat of corn. His soles are missing up to about an inch behind the apex of the frog :eek: . I had to guess. But he was much more comfortable after the trim than before, so I think I got it right. I trim him every 2 weeks right now, since his feet aren't wearing normally between being in the stall whenever the pasture is wet (have had a lot of rain in the area lately). Also, he still wants to put his toe down first, which will affect the wear as well.

Irishcas and Caballus, since you talk to Pete, do you think he'd x-ray some of the horses he trims before and after--especially the ones with really messed up feet? That would show us how he improves the alignment of the pastern bones. I can see the external changes he makes, but it would help to know how it affects the internal structures, and I'm not good at figuring out bone placement from photos. I'm figuring that others would like to see this as well.

Appassionato
Dec. 5, 2006, 11:55 PM
Appassionato ; In Two Simple's scenario would mechanical founder not be the problem that you might expect if that horse was used to being on a soft surface and you then worked it on a hard surface ?

I'm getting awfullly tired of losing posts. :mad: I bet the mods are equally tired of reports about the server or whatever going nuts too. :lol:

Anyway, yes blrm, that's where I was going. I have a mechanical founder that is in a aluminum Triumph shoes which offer sole relief, flat, and no clips and with pour in pads (apex and rearward only):
http://www.tallahesse.com/SubCategory2.asp?intSubCatNo=11&intCatNo=1&strSubCatName=Kerckhaert%20Triumph%20Shoe
And I'm curious about the sole needing to carry as much load as the walls, if I understand correctly. Would that mean regular flat shod horses are in constant danger of mechanical founder? Especially in light of EDSS and NB shoes, I can't help but to wonder about this information. Not arguing, I'm trying to learn.

Tree
Dec. 6, 2006, 12:31 AM
Forgewizard,

Tried the links and they popped up error messages. What does one have to do to see the pics?

Tree

Tree
Dec. 6, 2006, 12:43 AM
So why is it that we insist that the hoof wall carry the weight of the horse when by your observation the wild horse hooves are telling us that they want the weight shared by the whole bottom of the foot.

Are you sure "I" said this? Excuse me but I was not online at all yesterday and only just got on tonight so that is why I am just now responding.

Which wild horses are saying they want the entire bottom of their feet to share the weight? The ones from abrasive footing have concavity so portions of their feet are passive. This includes portions of the outer walls too.


The SHP trimmed hooves that I have seen look very similar to the first pic except they are more apt to be at 50deg as opposed to the 55 deg in the pic.

I'm not a SHP so they would have to speak for themselves.

As far as the angles are concerned, abrasive terrain hooves will have steeper angled toes than the coffin bone within. If you see a good cross section of a wild hoof you should see where the wall is less thick down at the bottom of the foot due to wear and thicker higher on up from there.


And since the coffin bone is at a 45deg would that not leave you with 5 deg of flexion to end up with a ground parallel coffin bone under load?

The 45 degree coffin bone is ground parallel with an abraided toe wall that would measure 50 or 55 due to the wear to the lower portions of the outer toe wall. Again, you'd have to see a cross sectioned abraided wild hoof and note the deviations in the thickness of the lower toe wall compared to areas on up above those worn areas.


Are the differences with a Strasser style trim not more apt to be seen on the sole view as opposed to a side view?

I think all views have to be seen so that as many differences as possible can be found when comparing trim styles. It's no different, IMO, when viewing naturally worn hooves taken from wild horses from all sorts of regions where footing can vary...so does the overal hoof shape.

Tree

Forgewizard
Dec. 6, 2006, 01:20 AM
Tree,
Try these:


http://www.putfile.com/feetfirstfarrier/images/58769

Regrds,
Kim

Tree
Dec. 6, 2006, 02:06 AM
What he is saying is to far in advance for Forge, Lookout and Tree. Well Tree's hoof theories are fully deranged so I shouldn't lump the other two in with her.

I need to correct you here Kim. I express my hoof opinion rather than theories. I refrain from making personal comments about you as there is no need to 'go there'. I wish you could exercise the same amount of restraint.

And to quote you, as it expresses what I'm thinking at the moment, "But I guess you need something to write and complain about :)"


The beauty of it all is this is just everyone's opinions and we are free to express it to whomever we like. We will all support what we believe is right...

Always! Let's keep it on a professional level though.

Tree

Tree
Dec. 6, 2006, 02:07 AM
Tree,
Try these:


http://www.putfile.com/feetfirstfarrier/images/58769

Regrds,
Kim

Thanks, that worked.

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 6, 2006, 02:17 AM
Tree,

I did not call you deranged, I spoke of your ideas and theories on hoofcare. I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with being professional when I say your theories are crazy.

Anyone who is proud of having 1 out of 8 horses bleed is not driving on 4 wheels.

I don't personally know you so can't discuss your sanity or insanity :) Just discussing what you share on the boards here.

Feel free to say what you want about my trimming styles.

Regards,

caballus
Dec. 6, 2006, 08:51 AM
And I'm curious about the sole needing to carry as much load as the walls, if I understand correctly. Would that mean regular flat shod horses are in constant danger of mechanical founder? Especially in light of EDSS and NB shoes, I can't help but to wonder about this information. Not arguing, I'm trying to learn.

I have to apologize ... I said "sole" needs to carry the burden with the walls and by that I meant the sole callous - think white line. I'm sorry if I confused you. The walls and the white line area aka sole callous. See the following illustration: http://www.barefoottrim.com/physiology/partsofhoof.htm
The sole callous, wall and sole are labeled clearly on my illustration there. From the breakover point of the sole callous, working inward towards the frog apex, is properly labeled the "sole". I was not speaking of that area. That area should have some concavity to it where the actual sole may or may not touch the ground during loading. A proper heelfirst landing and breakover of the hoof may help keep the sole proper from actually bearing weight but the white line and the walls should always bear the weighting load together. Not just the walls. Hope that clears confusion?

Appassionato
Dec. 6, 2006, 09:21 AM
I have to apologize ... I said "sole" needs to carry the burden with the walls and by that I meant the sole callous - think white line. I'm sorry if I confused you. The walls and the white line area aka sole callous. See the following illustration: http://www.barefoottrim.com/physiology/partsofhoof.htm
The sole callous, wall and sole are labeled clearly on my illustration there. From the breakover point of the sole callous, working inward towards the frog apex, is properly labeled the "sole". I was not speaking of that area. That area should have some concavity to it where the actual sole may or may not touch the ground during loading. A proper heelfirst landing and breakover of the hoof may help keep the sole proper from actually bearing weight but the white line and the walls should always bear the weighting load together. Not just the walls. Hope that clears confusion?

No apology necessary! As you know, I've been through a heck of a year with founder and I promised myself and Bo to learn about hooves. :winkgrin:

That does make a lot of sense. My guy has the pour in equipak from the apex back. Well, my concerns as a "stupid horse owner" was that considering my horse had NO concavity (bulging soles), how the heck was he to be comfortable? But by golly he was! Then I read about the effects of mud and it's action in the sole area, sort of like pour-ins. Then I read about walls and thin walls, and since my guy has thin walls by nature and THEN bring on the founder damage and white line disease AND THEN through in the former idiot farrier...part of me can't figure out how my horse survived and was it a good decision on my part, the other says be thankful and learn ya big dummy! :lol: Not trying to switch the thread to be about MY horse, I just happen to be most familiar with his hooves and trying my darndest to NEVER have anything like this happen again. To anyone.

Thanks caballus!

Tree
Dec. 6, 2006, 10:19 AM
Tree,

I did not call you deranged, I spoke of your ideas and theories on hoofcare. I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with being professional when I say your theories are crazy.

Well, I disagree with this. You are really not in any position to comment about my ideas any more than I am to make comments about your's. We simply don't see eye to eye and I'm ok with that much. I can respect that we each have the right to choose without resorting to saying things like "your theories are crazy". It's a useless comment at best. I think it's just another way of trying to enfluence others as to who they should be listening to.

I speak as someone who routinely puts these so-called "crazy theories" to work and can honestly say that the results aren't crazy. The horses aren't crazy either nor are the owners. So please, please focus on the differences vs the useless commentary.


Anyone who is proud of having 1 out of 8 horses bleed is not driving on 4 wheels.

Again, this is simply useless. I stated a fact. How that comes across as being "proud" I don't know.


I don't personally know you so can't discuss your sanity or insanity :) Just discussing what you share on the boards here.

Feel free to say what you want about my trimming styles.

Regards,

It certainly doesn't stop you from making more and more false assumptions though. ;) I share my opinions and we're all free to do this. I don't take them to a personal level constantly. I don't care to comment about your trimming style. I know what "I" think about them and to air it here would just be pointless. It's obvious I don't trim like you do and that's enough to suit me. People can make up their own minds about trimming styles.

I don't mind you discussing what I say. Let's leave out the personal stuff and my opinions ARE personally arrived at. I don't own any theories. I got them from others who have been dealing with hooves far longer than myself.

Tree

matryoshka
Dec. 6, 2006, 06:54 PM
Thanks Forge, that worked. Maybe it's just me, but I really couldn't see the bruising at the heel, except in the palmar view with the hoof and sole removed--is it the same hoof in all the pics? I had also thought that maybe the hoof had curled when it dried, which is why the heels looked like that. The internal view doesn't really match the lines in the external view. That was an assumption on my part, based on 2D pics and watching hoof shavings curl up when they dry out. I sure appreciate your illustrations and the way you make your points. It is much easier to see what bothers you about the article and gives me more food for thought.

Another question, the curve you show on the coronet is only on the top of the band, not the bottom where the hoof grew. If the hoof had pushed the coronet out of shape, would it not have been throughout the entire thickness? I would think any coronet distortion would have popped back into shape when the hoof was removed, since he is able to flex it with his fingers. (KC shows that it isn't elastic like a rubber band when removed entirely from the hoof. It doesn't stretch out and back--it's circumference seems to stay the same. Don't know what that has to do with this discussion, but I found it interesting. :D )

I agree with keeping these discussions about the theories, not the people. We can all learn from discussions about these (and other) articles. I'm excited about the opportunity to hear what others think, so I'm hoping we can all be civil and learn from each other. We may never want to apply somebody on this forum's technique, but it sure helps to know what people are doing and find to be successful. While I don't trim like Tree (or you), I believe you both when you tell us the horse responds well and the feet improve. I'm not there to see for myself, so I take your word for it. Who knows--I could end up applying something either of you have found successful when I'm stumped about exactly what to do.

Cab, your illustration looks a lot like my OTTB's feet. It only took me 2 years to get there with him! And just try finding boots recommended for long-distance for such round hooves!! It is difficult! I trim 2 Nakotas that actually have feet wider than they are long (measured from the butress). That is the shape of their soles. Interesting feet. Paul Chapman told me this is not possible, but I wasn't about to drive him to the farm to see for himself. He is familiar with brumbies--Nakotas are US and different from the American Mustangs. He also thinks the horse's weight should be fully carried by the soles. Yikes!

Forgewizard
Dec. 6, 2006, 11:38 PM
Matyroshka,

The bruising at the seat of corn area can be seen int the photo side the yellow circle. See the leaching of the blood downward into the sole?

Yes while hoof trimmings do curl quite a bit. A limb set aside for dissection is usually frozen. Yup in a regular freezer. AS the dissection ensues the tissues are quite pliable and normal in resiliencey.

Even if this limb had been "freeze dried" the hoof doesn't curl like the trimmings do. A freeze dried limb will suffer some shrinkage of the frog tissues, but because the entire limb and hoof are dried as one unit they don't distort.

This curled hoof was a result most likely because for whatever reason this horse was not loading his heels correctly, nor abrading them correctly. This allowed them to grow long and forward, causing the horse to then land toe first.

Or its possible that this horse was suffering from an upper limb lameness issue and had started traveling around on his toe. He obviously wasn't doing MUCH traveling because the hoof is NOT that worn down.

But for whatever reason, ths hoof is NOT a good example of a healthy hoof and hadn't ought to be promoted as such.


It does however offer many other good views of issues.
Regards,
Kim H.

matryoshka
Dec. 6, 2006, 11:54 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Forge. I didn't like the look of the hoof, but I had put it down to curling during the drying process. One does wonder why he'd use a problem hoof as an example of sole thickness, especially because (as you pointed out) it could show retained sole. Would there normally be a line differentiating false sole and healthy sole? Have you ever seen a sagital disection of a hoof with a false sole? If so, could you share pics?

I've only come across a retained sole twice (and bars overgrown all the way to the walls a couple of times), and it was maybe 1/2-3/4 inch thick in both cases. I had to remove a good bit of it to make the horse comfortable, but I didn't try to get down to live sole. In the first case, I concaved it a bit around the frog apex to get an idea of the depth, and worked from there until the horse was comfortable. I didn't even go as deep as the dirt line for fear of exposing too much sole. I've read that farriers often recommend waiting to pry it out until it is ready, which I did in the second case, since the horse wasn't sore. It is really surprising to find the number of ways horse's feet can be messed up!

Finding the right way to help the horse is why it is important to keep researching, reading, and participating in these discussions.

Forgewizard
Dec. 7, 2006, 12:28 AM
YEs, there would be a demarkation line to see IF Pete had biseced this sole in the actual sole area!
He did NOT do this, he seperated the wall from the sole which left behind the outgrown wall laminae.

If he had done this then cut through the bearing surface of the sole we'd see the layers f live sole, working sole and dead or nonexfoliated sole.


If you are viewint the bottom of the hoof he should have cut a vertical slice from the toe corner straight back to the heel buttress.
That way we'd see the thickness of the sole at the toe corner, the concavity of the sole near the quarters and any thickness regained near the buttress.

He also should have done a verticle cut across the toe area of the sole.

The horse's sole is much like a saucer - curved front to back and side to side - so how exactly does one get a "plane" from a totally curved surface?

One can get uniform thickness throughout this curved area, but do we WANT a single thickness? Would't we want more thickness in those areas designed to endure the most wear and tear? Like the toe region and the heel region?

The hoof is designed to flex and this flexion occurs vertically as well as horizontally. Creating more thickness in the areas deigned to flex will impede them from doing their job. But there has got to be give SOMEwhere in the limb as it gets loaded. If it doesn't happen where it should, it WILL happen where it shouldn't and THAT is when problems occur.

HOpe this helps,
Regards,
Kim H.

MAtroyshka,
One thing to remember about sagittal sections. The limb gets bisected down the middle. WHen the hoof gets cut trough the middle like that, the only part of the sole that is shown is the small area of the toe region directly in front of the frog. When trimming a hoof and determining the exact ( or darn near exact) location of the leading edge of P3 the frog point can be trimmed down to its insertion level at the sole. This also tends to be an area that is quite cupped especially on the hind hooves. SO this area of the sole can be quite thin too, unless the entire hoof is grossly overgrown. These sagittal sections will cut trough the center of the hoof and limband so what we wee is the frog thickness and position under the coffin bone. We don't see much of the sole thickness at all. check out www.horsescience.com for some coolviews of sagittal sections.

I do have a sole that was peeled off ofa dissected hoof. I'll see if I can get pix of it. INteresting that the peeled soleretained its shape even after drying. This sole too shows the outgrown wall laminae at its edges which gives the illusion of a much thicker sole than it is. This dessection was done on a horse that was put down after breaking it's shoulder. The only way to really uage the thickness of this sole would be via calipers or micrometer. Which gives me an idea for something to do....

blrm
Dec. 7, 2006, 01:30 AM
I have to apologize ... I said "sole" needs to carry the burden with the walls and by that I meant the sole callous - think white line. I'm sorry if I confused you. The walls and the white line area aka sole callous.

White line = sole callous.:confused: :confused:
Is the sole callous not a build up of sole material on the sole and usually found just inside the whiteline and pretty close to being under the rim of the coffin bone?
Appassionato; I don't know the answer to the question about the triumphs unless it comes from having the right guy doing a good job of putting the hoof in its proper form .For the regular shoes that I have seen put on, the shoe bears weight from the hoof wall,the white line and where I would expect to find sole callous.

I just find it interesting that the abrasive terrain horses apparently have their hoof walls worn high enough that they don't bear weight and they seem to get along alright.The soft terrain horses will have longer hoof walls but the sand and soft terrain will still apply pressure to the sole as weight is put on it.The sole may be passive in that it does not flex much, but how can you say that it does not bear weight?Ah yes the concave shape of the foot keeps it from bearing weight.But what about stones and loose sand?It won't bear the same load as the outer areas of the hoof on an ongoing basis but it still needs the ability to carry the weight in the case of irregularities in the terrain or you have a lame horse.And in the wild that could be deadly. :)
As I write this I see our barefoot horses walking around on frozen mud ,that I don't like to walk on in my insulated rubber boots, because it hurts my feet.What they'll do to see that the grass doesn't get too long. :D

caballus
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:06 AM
White line = sole callous.:confused: :confused:
Is the sole callous not a build up of sole material on the sole and usually found just inside the whiteline and pretty close to being under the rim of the coffin bone?

Look at my illustration that I posted. You'll see the grey colored area that encompasses the water line, white line etc. Sole callous is the calloused hoof that looks like a 'natural' horsehoe around the hoof. That is the part of the hoof, combined with the walls, that is designed to carry the weight of the horse.

blrm
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:24 AM
Look at my illustration that I posted. You'll see the grey colored area that encompasses the water line, white line etc. Sole callous is the calloused hoof that looks like a 'natural' horsehoe around the hoof. That is the part of the hoof, combined with the walls, that is designed to carry the weight of the horse.

I saw it.But this is the first, out of many diagrams and pics that I have looked at, that labels what you have as sole callous.Just kind of took me by surprise.:)

edited to add;This site shows the location of the sole callous that I have seen most often. http://www.naturalhorsetrim.com/Section_13_full.htm
In fact in our horses it seems closer to the whiteline and thicker than seen in the diagram on this page.We agree on what parts that do the job but not what to call them. :D

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:49 AM
edited to add;This site shows the location of the sole callous that I have seen most often. http://www.naturalhorsetrim.com/Section_13_full.htm :)
In fact in our horses it seems closer to the whiteline and thicker than seen in the diagram on this page.

If the horse has more toe wall height, making the sole passive, you'll see even less calloused toe sole because the wall is taking on the more active weightbearing role. Horses having less toe height will have more calloused toe sole area, according to my findings.

Tree

caballus
Dec. 7, 2006, 09:07 AM
This photo shows the callous going around the entire hoof pretty clearly:
http://www.barefoottrim.com/physiology/moretrim17.jpg

This one shows the beginnings of a good callous:
http://www.barefoottrim.com/physiology/moretrim9.jpg

This also shows a good start to a solid callous forming:
http://www.barefoottrim.com/HPIM2336.JPG

See how that area encompassing the wall and a good inch or so towards the middle of the hoof is raised and solid? This is where most see white line separations and flaring etc. This area should be nice and solid and calloused. The photos I posted are works in progress. The one in the hoof cradle is the best and just under a year prior to this shot this hoof was a perforated founder.

Hope these help a bit.

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 09:11 AM
Callouses or what's left after rasping the bottoms of the foot? In each photo, Caballus, the hooves have been rasped. So when the wall is taken down level with the sole and then some so the sole is rasped as well, is that truly a callous or simply what takes place when sole material as been rasped down along with the walls?

Do you have any examples showing sole callouses on non-trimmed feet?

Tree

caballus
Dec. 7, 2006, 09:27 AM
The hooves were LIGHTLY rasped to either see what I had to work with or to tweak-level the wall. In all instances there are good callouses and good concavity whereupon the light rasping did not jeopardize the integrity of the callous nor the soundness of the horse. When first trimming (set up initial trim) I will slightly rasp around to level the wall and sometimes flatten the callous area a bit to help start a strong, solid callous. But, of course, that depends on the hoof and how much I have to work with. I'll see if I can dig up some 'non-trimming' photos. Most of what I have are records of clients during trims. In the meantime you can check out this photo of Pete's that shows a solid sole callous:

http://www.hoofrehab.com/images/natural%20hoof%20care10.gif One can clearly see the raised callous around the wall.

I found this one in my files before trim shot:

http://www.barefoottrim.com/HPIM2102.JPG You can clearly see the sole callous area there.

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 10:03 AM
The hooves were LIGHTLY rasped to either see what I had to work with or to tweak-level the wall. *portion deleted* When first trimming (set up initial trim) I will slightly rasp around to level the wall and sometimes flatten the callous area a bit to help start a strong, solid callous. I found this one in my files before trim shot:

http://www.barefoottrim.com/HPIM2102.JPG You can clearly see the sole callous area there.

Without seeing "before" pics of the trimmed feet, I'll have to take your word for it that only light rasping had been done. But since you also mention rasping sole during a set up trim, that may be what was shown as the soles were rasped looking.

Either way, the last photo in this post clearly showed a ridge of sole near the WL which is thicker. This foot does clearly show a "before" trim form.

What I viewed in the Pete site slide show link didn't always clearly show sole callousing but I saw some mustang rolled walls (big rolls), feet due for a trim and feet showing some nice natural wear.

Here are some photos showing some sole conditions.

This one shows what the sole is like when the walls are active and sole is passive. This foot was due for a trim and on a 6 week schedule. The white arrows were to show a "trim line" on the frog.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/barefoottree/Cnv1128.jpg

This photo shows when sole is active because the walls are not (in toe region).
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/barefoottree/Cnv1299.jpg

This photo shows the same thing only it may not be as easy to tell the difference in sole because of the pigment.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/barefoottree/Cnv1301.jpg

In this photo the active sole takes up a much smaller area than the other two feet before. These last 3 belong to the same horse, btw, and after a trim.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/barefoottree/Cnv1303.jpg


Tree

Auventera Two
Dec. 7, 2006, 10:45 AM
Everything I've ever read, and according to my farrier, the walls should NEVER be active like you've shown Tree. That causes unnecessary torque on the white line and more separation. Instead the sole is to bear the weight, along with the wall. On Saturday I got to see about 20 horses my farrier has been trimming for over a year and not one of them had a single bit of flare anywhere and he swears by making the sole weightbearing as well. Just like Caballus said - in sort of a ring just inside the white line.

I do not like the looks of the feet you've posted at all. The soles look to be agressively trimmed. I would not be happy if those were my horses. I think what you do to the soles is about 1/2 a step short of butchering.

blrm
Dec. 7, 2006, 10:46 AM
T

I found this one in my files before trim shot:

http://www.barefoottrim.com/HPIM2102.JPG You can clearly see the sole callous area there.

Agreed you can clearly see it.But to me it is part of the sole, within the arch of the white line and wall.All three combine to give you a go anywhere foot and maybe that structural combination should have recognition with a special name.But to call that combination of WL ,HW and calloused sole "sole callous" to me is confusing, but maybe I am just being trivial here. :)
Anyone else with an opinion? Just what is the sole callous and where is it located. To me it is the calloused area of sole next to the white line that tends to lie under the outer rim of the coffin bone.Maybe I'm wrong......again. :D

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 10:54 AM
Anyone else with an opinion? Just what is the sole callous and where is it located. To me it is the calloused area of sole next to the white line that tends to lie under the outer rim of the coffin bone.Maybe I'm wrong......again. :D

The coffin bone's edge isn't located where the WL and sole meet unless you go back and look at that last photo in Pete's article and trim to where that red line was drawn...which, btw, is a pretty extreme amount even in my opinion. In the case of that illustration, you're pretty close to hitting corium in a great many areas and if you continued on through the corium, you'd then hit the coffin bone's distal most edges....crunch.

As far as sole callous goes, IMO, it isn't excess sole which would just simply exfoliate but active sole that has been toughened up because it is making direct contact with the ground surface and I mean pressing down hard on footing vs dirt rising up to be packed up against it. I included 3 photos showing this type of sole...the sort that is actively weightbearing in lew of the toe wall taking on that role.

Tree

caballus
Dec. 7, 2006, 07:12 PM
Agreed you can clearly see it.But to me it is part of the sole, within the arch of the white line and wall.All three combine to give you a go anywhere foot and maybe that structural combination should have recognition with a special name.But to call that combination of WL ,HW and calloused sole "sole callous" to me is confusing, but maybe I am just being trivial here. :)

The WL, HW and the "calloused sole" does have a special name ... "Sole Callous" :D

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 07:17 PM
It may be easiest to lump everything together and call it callous but, it depends. ;) :)

Tree

karenstandefer
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:09 PM
The WL, HW and the "calloused sole" does have a special name ... "Sole Callous" :D

I think it was Gene Ovnicek that originally coined the phrase "Sole Callus". Here is a link to one of his pages that very clearly identifies where it is and what it is: http://www.hopeforsoundness.com/natbalance/nbshoe.html

Karen

caballus
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:38 PM
Well, certainly not where I depicted it and I know farriers call the area I showed as the sole callous/callus ... that's where I learned the term, I think. Can't remember. Now my question/concern is ... why would someone trim out the area as shown on Gene's page. I agree with much of his work but this I do NOT agree. One wants a thick, strong calloused area, not a trimmed, weak, live area as shown in Gene's illustrations. I don't understand that.

His illustration rather contradicts his explanation, "When the foot is properly exfoliated, you should notice the slightly raised area of the sole next to the wall. (Fig. 3 & 4) That raised area is the sole callus and should blend in gradually to the wall with no ledge. Once you become familiar with the sole callus, you can clearly see the position for breakover on the sole. To help you find the breakover position on the sole, lightly move your thumbs forward from the frog apex to the medial and lateral toe quarters. (Fig. 5) A slight depression will be felt on the sole. At the cranial aspect of that depression is the inner edge of the sole callus. A line drawn across the toe at the inner edge of the sole ridge (callus) is where breakover should be."

His written description is the same as my illustration but in his photo that area is not raised but, instead, getting carved out. :( so not sure what that is all about!

matryoshka
Dec. 7, 2006, 08:39 PM
blrm, I see what you are saying about the labeling on Cab's drawing--differentiating the sole calous by color and its own name makes it seem (at first) as though it is a distinct from the sole rather than being part of it. But I knew what she meant, so I only did a couple of double takes.

It is interesting how visuals make sense to some of us and not others. Maybe it is because we categorize and visualize these things through our own understanding of the world, so even though we are describing the same thing, we'll "see" it differently. Hence, the proliferation of internet arguments. We've should all take a moment and laugh at ourselves (I hate to be the only one laughing at me--prefer company for enjoying my silliness). :lol: :lol:

Thanks to everybody who is posting pictures and explanations. You are all helping to clarify the questions raised by the article! As somebody who is still learning, I really appreciate all of you taking the time to explain the theories.

Tree
Dec. 7, 2006, 09:16 PM
Thanks to everybody who is posting pictures and explanations. You are all helping to clarify the questions raised by the article! As somebody who is still learning, I really appreciate all of you taking the time to explain the theories.

No problem.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 7, 2006, 09:59 PM
First, to Lookout--he can't show a coronet band changing from relieving excess hoof wall on a cadaver foot, since the horse can't stand on it to make any difference. I think you are taking that example too literally. It seems like you really have something against Pete and only want to criticize him. Therefore, I've gotta take your comments with a grain of salt. Without the sarcasm and pessimism about him, you'd be more persuasive. I'd love to see you do a point-by-point comparison of your trim to what he's saying in this article. It would give you a chance to showcase your knowledge and the superiority of your trim. :yes: I'm assuming you agree with nothing on it. How long have you been trimming?

It's an unnecessary exercise to do this on a cadaver - all you have to do is trim a live horse to see the point.

You're right, though, many people seem to prefer style over substance, as the rave reviews of his clinic will attest - they talk about what a great speaker he is, but not much about what he's said.

We're not comparing trims here, but don't you think that one that is based on an understanding of anatomy would be intrinsically superior? Not sure what my length of trimming experience has to do with anything (it doesn't take very long to learn anatomy, usually), but from what I can piece together from what Pete claims, I have been trimminga little longer than he has been trimming.

Two Simple - there is no torque on lamellae. Torque is a rotational force. And as my fifth year professor loved to say (albeit ungrammatically) choose your models scholarly.

PS, sole callous is sole, no reason to make it more complicated than it is.

Forgewizard
Dec. 7, 2006, 11:53 PM
The term sole "callous" I think gets bandied out rather glibly.

Anyone trimming horses hooves and learning anatomy and the physiology of the horse will know that the hoof is just modified skin, right?

We have a similar structure to the horse; our fingernails and their hooves are all made of keratin, just in different matrices.


When speaking about callouse maybe we ought to look closesly at the reason they are there? A callous in the definition of the term comes about because of abnormal concentrated persistent pressure against the skin, too much pressure and this callous turns into a corn.

Anyone that mucks stalls barehanded will quickly develop callouses. Some go through a blister stage because theydid too much too soon on tender skin. SOme will do just enough with enough rest in between so that the demands made on the skin cause it to toughen and form thicken layers called callouses.

Muck the same stalls with gloves and the calouses will reduce in thickness, but still remain.

Get sick or hire someone else to muck the stalls and the callouses disappear!

Soak those calloused hands in water repeatedly and the calloused tissue will peel off, leaving very tender skn underneath.
The horse's sole is absolutely NO different than this!

So that behooves us(pun intended) to ascertain whether a callous is a good thing or a bad thing. Does the presence of a solar callous mean the horse is encountering too much concentrated consistent pressure in one area?

Take a horse with a built up solar callous and put him in a wet paddock, and guess what? that entire sole will exfoliate leaving behind a gloriously white (sometimes black or variegated) easily flexible, uniformly thick(?) sole! ANd guess what else? There will be a well defined ridge of hoof wall extending below the sole now!

Now this same horse will be very tender when walking across the gravel or even tree roots; just like our hands woud be tender returningto work after the callouses got soaked off!

When this sole gets exfoliated what gets left behind is what I call WORKING sole. Some folks have an issue with my nomencature because it varies from their terminology. I say so what? I still have huge issues with "Natural Horseshoes"! ANd I am a farrier!

Antway, this WORKING sole is the sole directly under the lay of exfoliating sole, I maintian that this layer while it can feel pressures it isn't ennervated and filled with blood vessels like LIVE sole.

SO in my mind I work with three basic layers of sole: exfoliating, working and live.

The environment of the horse will determine whether the exfoliating sole stays or goes. Usually in wet environment the sole cleans out quite readily, and unfortunately the general softness of the saturatd hoof means it could atually USE more solar retention.

Horses in dry environments tend to retain their soles TOO much. This leads to a sole bound hoof and when parts of the sole flake out and other parts don't, it is exactly like taping a rock to the bottom of your foot then walking on it!

Rememberat the beginning when I was talking abut fingernails? If you apply consistent concentrated pressure to your fingernail the nail won't get any thicker will it? no, because the thivkness of the nail is geneticaly determined at the cuticle. The skin UNDER the nail may get a bit thicker if it gets scarred, but otherwise it stays the same. Same with a horse. Thir wall thicknesses and sole thicknesses are predetermined by genetics.

The solar area gets thicker ONLY if the sole gets retained.

Hope this helps
Regards,
Kim

blrm
Dec. 8, 2006, 01:59 AM
blrm, I see what you are saying about the labeling on Cab's drawing--differentiating the sole calous by color and its own name makes it seem (at first) as though it is a distinct from the sole rather than being part of it. But I knew what she meant, so I only did a couple of double takes.


So if someone tells you they have trimmed the sole callous on a foot you would think of Caballus's definition and think that they had trimmed the calloused area of the sole, hoof wall, and the white line from the point of breakover back to the heel buttress??
I know why the sole callous is labeled differently from the sole but I would not label the white line and hoof wall as sole callous.I do understand the point that she is making but the terminology also makes it confusing for those learning.:)

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 09:51 AM
So if someone tells you they have trimmed the sole callous on a foot you would think of Caballus's definition and think that they had trimmed the calloused area of the sole, hoof wall, and the white line from the point of breakover back to the heel buttress??
I know why the sole callous is labeled differently from the sole but I would not label the white line and hoof wall as sole callous.I do understand the point that she is making but the terminology also makes it confusing for those learning.:)


I hope no one defines sole callous as the sole, hoofwall and the white line from the point of breakover BACK TO THE HEEL BUTTRESS!!! From the breakover back is the 'sole'. Look at my illustration again. The 1/2" to 1" strip around the hoof closest to the wall is on what the horse should be bearing weight and should be nice and calloused thus "sole callous". The "sole" should NOT bear weight. It is not intended to do so. It mirrors the shape of the coffin bone and should be concave. The amt. of concavity will be determined by the horse's individualistics - it's genetics, environment, feed, exercise, movement, etc. as well as the trim.

I have to honestly say that in hundreds of people I have taught this is the first time anyone has had issue with understanding this part. The weight is supposed to be born by the walls AND the white line area. (Wall, water line, white line and a bit beyond) .. Here's an example of a hoof (not mine) that clearly shows the weight bearing portion of the hoof.

http://www.thepenzancehorse.com/beautifulhoof.jpg

and here's a set up trim that I marked to show the area for you:

http://www.barefoottrim.com/solecdefined.jpg (the area marked by the red dots)

Does that better illustrate and explain?

irishcas
Dec. 8, 2006, 09:59 AM
Gwen:

That is a GORGEOUS foot, where does that foot live? It looks very familiar.

I also want to add that I see what Gwen is talking about when a the foot has the proper breakover. It's the sharing of weightbearing and breakover at the point where everything is strong, like a miter joint with a bevel :)

In feet with too long of a toe, I see a callous form under the tip of P3. As I bring breakover back over time that callous disappers (stops being so prominent) and merges with the WL, inner/outer hoofwall just like Gwen is describing.

I know when a foot is truly balanced when I see that happen. It's pretty cool actually.

Regards,

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:03 AM
Thank you, Forgewizard, for that explanation of sole callous. Although, the callouses on my fingers haven't been reduced by wearing gloves. I suspect this is so because the gloves offer little protection in the way of padding so my callouses are still very thick where my knives press against them.

Tree

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:05 AM
Yeah, Kim ... ain't it GORGEOUS!!! I cannot remember where I swiped the photo ... but I do know the hoof belongs to a horse that just completed a 50 or 100 mi endurance completely barefoot. This is his "self-trimmed" hoof! *grin* Be still my heart!!!

LMH
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:17 AM
Gwen:

That is a GORGEOUS foot, where does that foot live? It looks very familiar.

I also want to add that I see what Gwen is talking about when a the foot has the proper breakover. It's the sharing of weightbearing and breakover at the point where everything is strong, like a miter joint with a bevel :)

In feet with too long of a toe, I see a callous form under the tip of P3. As I bring breakover back over time that callous disappers (stops being so prominent) and merges with the WL, inner/outer hoofwall just like Gwen is describing.

I know when a foot is truly balanced when I see that happen. It's pretty cool actually.

Regards,

yup yup yup to everything you said.

karenstandefer
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:28 AM
Well, certainly not where I depicted it and I know farriers call the area I showed as the sole callous/callus ... that's where I learned the term, I think. Can't remember. Now my question/concern is ... why would someone trim out the area as shown on Gene's page. I agree with much of his work but this I do NOT agree. One wants a thick, strong calloused area, not a trimmed, weak, live area as shown in Gene's illustrations. I don't understand that.

His illustration rather contradicts his explanation, "When the foot is properly exfoliated, you should notice the slightly raised area of the sole next to the wall. (Fig. 3 & 4) That raised area is the sole callus and should blend in gradually to the wall with no ledge. Once you become familiar with the sole callus, you can clearly see the position for breakover on the sole. To help you find the breakover position on the sole, lightly move your thumbs forward from the frog apex to the medial and lateral toe quarters. (Fig. 5) A slight depression will be felt on the sole. At the cranial aspect of that depression is the inner edge of the sole callus. A line drawn across the toe at the inner edge of the sole ridge (callus) is where breakover should be."

His written description is the same as my illustration but in his photo that area is not raised but, instead, getting carved out. :( so not sure what that is all about!


Gene doesn't trim this area. He did that for exhibition/education only. It's a sacred are along with the toe pillars.

Karen

karenstandefer
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:32 AM
The term sole "callous" I think gets bandied out rather glibly.

Anyone trimming horses hooves and learning anatomy and the physiology of the horse will know that the hoof is just modified skin, right?

We have a similar structure to the horse; our fingernails and their hooves are all made of keratin, just in different matrices.


When speaking about callouse maybe we ought to look closesly at the reason they are there? A callous in the definition of the term comes about because of abnormal concentrated persistent pressure against the skin, too much pressure and this callous turns into a corn.

Anyone that mucks stalls barehanded will quickly develop callouses. Some go through a blister stage because theydid too much too soon on tender skin. SOme will do just enough with enough rest in between so that the demands made on the skin cause it to toughen and form thicken layers called callouses.

Muck the same stalls with gloves and the calouses will reduce in thickness, but still remain.

Get sick or hire someone else to muck the stalls and the callouses disappear!

Soak those calloused hands in water repeatedly and the calloused tissue will peel off, leaving very tender skn underneath.
The horse's sole is absolutely NO different than this!

So that behooves us(pun intended) to ascertain whether a callous is a good thing or a bad thing. Does the presence of a solar callous mean the horse is encountering too much concentrated consistent pressure in one area?

Take a horse with a built up solar callous and put him in a wet paddock, and guess what? that entire sole will exfoliate leaving behind a gloriously white (sometimes black or variegated) easily flexible, uniformly thick(?) sole! ANd guess what else? There will be a well defined ridge of hoof wall extending below the sole now!

Now this same horse will be very tender when walking across the gravel or even tree roots; just like our hands woud be tender returningto work after the callouses got soaked off!

When this sole gets exfoliated what gets left behind is what I call WORKING sole. Some folks have an issue with my nomencature because it varies from their terminology. I say so what? I still have huge issues with "Natural Horseshoes"! ANd I am a farrier!

Antway, this WORKING sole is the sole directly under the lay of exfoliating sole, I maintian that this layer while it can feel pressures it isn't ennervated and filled with blood vessels like LIVE sole.

SO in my mind I work with three basic layers of sole: exfoliating, working and live.

The environment of the horse will determine whether the exfoliating sole stays or goes. Usually in wet environment the sole cleans out quite readily, and unfortunately the general softness of the saturatd hoof means it could atually USE more solar retention.

Horses in dry environments tend to retain their soles TOO much. This leads to a sole bound hoof and when parts of the sole flake out and other parts don't, it is exactly like taping a rock to the bottom of your foot then walking on it!

Rememberat the beginning when I was talking abut fingernails? If you apply consistent concentrated pressure to your fingernail the nail won't get any thicker will it? no, because the thivkness of the nail is geneticaly determined at the cuticle. The skin UNDER the nail may get a bit thicker if it gets scarred, but otherwise it stays the same. Same with a horse. Thir wall thicknesses and sole thicknesses are predetermined by genetics.

The solar area gets thicker ONLY if the sole gets retained.

Hope this helps
Regards,
Kim

The sole callus is not thicker. It's denser material. There is a difference. And, I do think that Gene/Bowker are on to something in identifying it. It's an area specifically directly under the coffin bone of denser (not thicker) sole material. Not sure that callus is a good name for it becuase I don't think that is the way it is formed.

Karen

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:45 AM
Karen, the area that Gene specifies as "denser" material is the "pillars" .. not directly under the coffin bone but on either corner of the toe callous/breakover. Almost in the same way as 4-pt trimming is defined.

As for sole callousing what happens is that every tubule has a predetermined length to it. (about 1/2 - 3/4" thick). Once the tubule grows down from the corium to that predetermined length on ground then the ground end begins to curl upwards with pressure. That little curl up then becomes condensed and thus, forms the callous of the sole. With proper management and conditioning, that callous will exfoliate unnecessary material upon movement/function of the hoof. It would stand to reason given this dynamic that the callous would also be more dense than other tissue in the hoof simply from the compacting of the tubules upon weight bearing.

Rick Burten
Dec. 8, 2006, 11:16 AM
- there is no torque on lamellae. Torque is a rotational force. And as my fifth year professor loved to say (albeit ungrammatically) choose your models scholarly.
Not quite accurate. If, for any of several reasons, leverage is applied to the leading edge of the toe, that creates a torque producing situation that does indeed impact the laminae.

PS, sole callous is sole, no reason to make it more complicated than it is.
That's like saying that " 'air is air' or 'water is water', no reason to make it more complicated that that".

Rick

Lookout
Dec. 8, 2006, 11:55 AM
When speaking about callouse maybe we ought to look closesly at the reason they are there? A callous in the definition of the term comes about because of abnormal concentrated persistent pressure against the skin, too much pressure and this callous turns into a corn.

So that behooves us(pun intended) to ascertain whether a callous is a good thing or a bad thing. Does the presence of a solar callous mean the horse is encountering too much concentrated consistent pressure in one area?
I agree, the sole develops callous as necessary, and the thick callous that's pointed to as evidence that the sole is meant to be weightbearing is a response to preventing the walls from doing their weightbearing job.
It is easy to affect how much sole callous there is from trim to trim, by altering how much wall is rasped.

blrm- I would like to see those pictures of wild horses with their walls worn away. The ones I have seen have only abraded toe wall, and only the outer wall, not the inner wall.


Antway, this WORKING sole is the sole directly under the lay of exfoliating sole, I maintian that this layer while it can feel pressures it isn't ennervated and filled with blood vessels like LIVE sole.
Kim
No part of the sole has any blood vessels or nerve endings. That's why "live" sole is such a misleading term.

And back to the original point of this thread, I think it's very disingenuous if not deceptive to incorrectly show the anatomy, then criticize another method of trimming based on one's own misperceptions of anatomy.

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 12:14 PM
I agree, the sole develops callous as necessary, and the thick callous that's pointed to as evidence that the sole is meant to be weightbearing is a response to preventing the walls from doing their weightbearing job.


Nooooo, I disagree. The walls are NOT meant to be "solely" weightbearing ... they are designed to share the weight bearing with the white line area (sole callous in a healthy hoof) ...

From Adams' Lameness in Horses, "The slightly concave sole should not bear weight on its ground surface EXCEPT (caps & italics mine) near its junction with the white line.

blrm
Dec. 8, 2006, 02:23 PM
I hope no one defines sole callous as the sole, hoofwall and the white line from the point of breakover BACK TO THE HEEL BUTTRESS!!! From the breakover back is the 'sole'. Look at my illustration again. ?
If you read my comment again you will see that I said calloused area
of the sole NOT just sole.I believe that is per your diagram.
Nice pics by the way.
What blows me away about all this is that you keep referring to the callous of the sole as callous of the sole and call something else sole callous.I assume that the callous of the sole in your diagram is the area between the white line and the sole (that you have color coded to be sole callous).Would that be correct.
BTW I strive to trim our horses to look the same as your pics so I have no questions about the hoof form only the terminology. :D:D

Auventera Two
Dec. 8, 2006, 02:57 PM
Nooooo, I disagree. The walls are NOT meant to be "solely" weightbearing ... they are designed to share the weight bearing with the white line area (sole callous in a healthy hoof) ...

From Adams' Lameness in Horses, "The slightly concave sole should not bear weight on its ground surface EXCEPT (caps & italics mine) near its junction with the white line.

Isn't this what the wild hoof examples show? I thought it was.

It makes sense to me that you only want the sole touching the ground around the edge - near the white line. If you get anymore of the sole bearing weight, you are likely to have weight bearing on the sole under the coffin bone, and my understanding is that that's a bad thing (pressure.)

I cannot personally imagine thinking that the walls should bear weight alone. That makes no sense to me at all because the continued force and weight of 1,000+ pounds of animal pressing down on the walls alone would stress the laminae, or so you would think. I think all parts of the foot work together. Frog, sole, bars, and wall. I don't think there's one part that does all the work and the others do nothing.

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 02:57 PM
I read what you wrote but got confused because you said,

So if someone tells you they have trimmed the sole callous on a foot you would think of Caballus's definition and think that they had trimmed the calloused area of the sole, hoof wall, and the white line from the point of breakover back to the heel buttress??

No, one should NOT trim the "sole" proper ... from the breakover back to the heel buttress unless the sole is indicating it NEEDS help exfoliating ... in other words there are flaps of old sole or bumps of old sole that are loose and easy to remove. Now I know that Tree will disagree with that and that's fine ... we just have to agree to disagree. That's why it *IS* important to differentiate between "sole callous" and "sole". The "sole" is as I've marked on my illustration. That sole is the essential protection for the CB. The breakover and the sole callous help to protect the tip of the CB from undue pressure and trauma. But you see, there are different types of pressures on those two different areas. The greatest pressure on the SOLE is the CB pressing downward during loading of the foot. The greatest pressure on the sole callous would be the quick pressure that is applied during the breakover. Along the ridge of the CB is the Circumflex Artery .. that also needs protection from a good, strong calloused "sole callous" during breakover. Is this making sense? There are different functions to each area of the hoof each receiving different types of pressures and leverages and torque. So they will not only respond differently in terms of their growth and callousing but will also function differently in terms of stretch, no stretch, expansion, etc. *sigh* I can't think of any other way to write this. :( Suffice to say that we do need a way to differentiate the two areas of the hoof; sole and sole callous. That's why I color coded to make the explanation more simple! ACKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 06:37 PM
Isn't this what the wild hoof examples show? I thought it was.

Yes but you also have to remember where those models came from...horses living on very abrasive terrain. If you were to study the hooves of wild horses that lived on very soft footing, the hoof form would be different.


It makes sense to me that you only want the sole touching the ground around the edge - near the white line. If you get anymore of the sole bearing weight, you are likely to have weight bearing on the sole under the coffin bone, and my understanding is that that's a bad thing (pressure.)

It would depend on the type of footing the horse spends more of its time on. Soft footing allows full soles because the ground can give beneath the sole and not wear it off. So it depends.


I cannot personally imagine thinking that the walls should bear weight alone. That makes no sense to me at all because the continued force and weight of 1,000+ pounds of animal pressing down on the walls alone would stress the laminae, or so you would think. I think all parts of the foot work together. Frog, sole, bars, and wall. I don't think there's one part that does all the work and the others do nothing.

I can but because I understand that outer walls and bars are harder horn than soles. What I can't make any sense of is when there are trimming techniques which would make the walls passive and the soles active. Go figure that one! ;) The walls were meant to bear weight and protect the soles as sole material would wear more quickly otherwise, on abrasive footing. The laminae are strong unless over stressed and walls being actively weighted don't stress laminae but imbalances sure do. The laminae were built to take natural stresses of locomotion. Yes, the hoof works as a unit along with all of the horse's structures. But the hooves are also the foundations and if they're not right, undo stress will take place. Some conditions can last for a long time without any failures but others cannot. It just depends. The outer horn is made up of spiral tubules and they have a function too so the laminae isn't bothered by concussion unless the overal hoof form is dysfunctional.

Tree

LMH
Dec. 8, 2006, 07:18 PM
If you want some great photos of wild horses are different terrain go here:

http://tribeequus.com/

Specifically these show horses on soft terrain:

http://tribeequus.com/easternusa.html

dartmoor ponites:

http://tribeequus.com/dartmoor.html

and donks!

http://tribeequus.com/burros.html

You can see in the easternusa photos, the horses have FLARES and long toes and underrun heels-these horses are from the Cumberland Island GA

On the donks it is interesting that they are regularly fed alfalfa cubes and carrots from the locals-not ONE sign of laminitis.

So...indeed I agree with Tree on this point:eek: different terrain makes different feet

SO which 'wild hoof model' would then be correct for domestic horses??

Maybe the answer is the wild hoof model is NOT a correct model after all?

Now that should get some pondering.

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 07:48 PM
SO which 'wild hoof model' would then be correct for domestic horses??

Guess that depends on the individual horse, doesn't it? *grin*

Meant to say, too, (now editing this post) Thank you for posting those URL's. I was just having a discussion with someone else and wanted photos to post showing the different hooves from different areas. I've seen worse hooves, too, on coastal ponies ... flares, chips, cracks ... you'd think they'd be utterly unable to walk but they're sound as a dollar! (sand dollar? Ooooo, bad, bad! Sorry!)

When I trim I always do trim not only to the individual horse but the individual hoof, the environment and the season, too. With all the rain we've had around here making sludge out of pastures I'm not rolling the walls as much as I do in the dry season cause I feel the hooves need a bit more traction on the soft stuff. Just like I don't roll the rear hooves as much as I do the fronts and I also leave the rears a bit long so they have good "digging in" power and traction. I do bevel the walls and sometimes rocker the toes but that all depends on the individual. (hoof and horse). The discipline of the horse also comes into play when trimming. A game pony needs traction as does a jumper whereas a trail pony going over rocky trails will not need such a rolled wall. The cutters, reiners and barrel horses that I ride and trim are left with sharp edges ... I bevel the walls and then don't roll the walls at all so the edges are pretty sharp. But because the walls are not weight bearing then don't chip and split as they grow in. They stay nice.

So, yeah, it all depends. The wild horse model from the arid dessert doesn't look at all like the coastal ponies. Nor would they look the same as the Brumbie's or the Moors ..

Good topic ... thanks for bringing this up.

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 08:49 PM
SO which 'wild hoof model' would then be correct for domestic horses??

Maybe the answer is the wild hoof model is NOT a correct model after all?

Now that should get some pondering.

Yes, I've "pondered" this subject for a while now and I think that the best lesson the wild horse hooves provide would be the coffin bone orientation relative to the ground surface. To me this is a ground parallel coffin bone. The outward conditions of the hoof capsules can vary and yet the coffin bones can be at or close to ground parallel.

I can respect the outward conditions of the hooves as it pertains to the type of terrain the horses live on. Hooves adapt to the environmental conditions. Even the horses of the abrasive terrain will develope hoof forms like those of the soft terrains if they end up living in those conditions long enough...like how freshly mustered wild horse hooves begin to change while they're in captivity (holding pens). If kept up long enough, they're feet can look like those of neglected backyard domesticated horses living under similar conditions.

I think there are things to learn from both abrasive terrain hoof form and soft terrain hoof form in the wild horse herds. I don't think those lessons include mustang rolls or high heels or allowing soft terrain hooves to be self-trimming. It has more to do with bone alignment and coffin bone orientation and what sort of hoof form is common according to the types of footing. I don't see any need to trim a soft terrain domestic horse's feet according to an abrasive terrain wild hoof form. If the domesticated horse lived on hard footing, it would experience a form of self-trimming if it moved around enough. Soft terrains require a different sort of hoof form. We don't have to allow the hooves to become as tattered though because we can trim them to avoid the extremes found in soft terrain wild horse hooves. However, even neglected soft terrain domestic horses hooves will self trim but it isn't pretty.

I also think foals subject to soft terrain from birth are more likely to develope hoof issues sooner vs later. The ones I'm familiar with either grew platter-like hooves or clubbed. There was no clear pattern but the platter footed ones seemed to develope less concavity in their feet. The clubby ones tended to have more narrow hooves from the early affects of contraction. Better hoofcare could prevent some of these issues from becoming extreme and allow for healthier hoof forms as these horses mature.

At any rate, the abrasive wild horse hoof form is just ONE type but not the ONLY hoof form. I do think it is the nicest looking when compared to soft terrain hoof form.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:11 PM
Noooo, the walls are not designed to "share" the weightbearing with the white line area. In this context, because the white line is attached to the wall, this works as one structural 'unit'. Plus, I never said "solely", and earlier in this thread described all the bits that played a part in weightbearing. This may seem like a picayune distinction but obviously there is more confusion rather than less resulting from subsequent explanations. And the white line and sole (calloused or not) are two distinct anatomical parts. The white line is "vertical" and the sole is "horizontal" and they are attached to each by being next to each other but are not a 'unit' in the above fashion. The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof. Truly, it is a support system and it seems like the confusion is arising from thinking of it as 'weightbearing'.


Originally Posted by caballus http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=2049157#post2049157)
Nooooo, I disagree. The walls are NOT meant to be "solely" weightbearing ... they are designed to share the weight bearing with the white line area (sole callous in a healthy hoof) ...

Lookout
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:19 PM
If
SO which 'wild hoof model' would then be correct for domestic horses??
Maybe the answer is the wild hoof model is NOT a correct model after all?
Now that should get some pondering.

Another question which I don't understand why it causes so much consternation. The horse evolved (;) ) on dry steppes and its foot evolved to meet the needs of living in this environment. Lots of movement, on dry abrasive terrain. So the foot that evolved to suit those requirements is the one that is "correct", - for the species equus caballus. Trimming is supposed to mimic the 'ideal' hoof form that evolved, that doesn't get taken care of by nature because the habitat has been altered by humans. Just because we change their environment doesn't mean their biological needs are any different than when they evolved, this takes millenia to change. Those horses living in coastal areas, etc., IMO look really poor - their conformations etc., show that they are not adapted to the new environment.

irishcas
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:40 PM
I also think foals subject to soft terrain from birth are more likely to develope hoof issues sooner vs later. snip.. The clubby ones tended to have more narrow hooves from the early affects of contraction. Better hoofcare could prevent some of these issues from becoming extreme and allow for healthier hoof forms as these horses mature.

Tree I hear what you are saying and agree with most of your post. But.... I have my horses at a barn where there are 8 others owned by the same older couple. They are NOT horse people yet they bred a Belgian and she foaled a colt last Feb. I am explaining all this for a reason.

The colt has been "off" since the end of July. I first noticed he was lame at the trot in July. Vet and others mentioned it was probably growing pains. Then in Sept lameness exhibited at the walk, I'm talking head bobbing lame. Vet came and examined colt and thought it was either his LF or RH foot and vet commented on how shoes would probably help the 7 month old :(

Finally in November colt was taken to local clinic for diagnosis, x-rays revealed no OCD and he was castrated at the same time. November colt was showing muscle wastage and foot was beginning to become clubby.

Colt is turned out 24/7 in Southern NY, fairly rocky ground, wet alot this late summer. Now fast forward to Dec 8th. Colt is still wicked lame on LF, and now has an obvious club foot. Clinic vet could find no reason for lameness wants colt brought back for a look by a New Bolton Vet. Currently colt is dealing with complications from the castration so can't see the orthopedic surgeon. Colt also tested HIGH for Lymes, titer came back over 700, but nothing can be treated right now until the castration complications resolve.

Anyway, the rambling reason for this post is that it isn't all about Hoofcare. I know Tree that you were careful to say most/some I'm just pointing out that the factors are many for Club footed horses. Of course you may have an issue with my trimming so that could "technically" be a cause but I don't think so.

Colt gets a rasp run over his feet every 2 weeks.

We have to be really careful so that we learn as much as possible.


Club feet are more about body issues than hoof issues. If the issue is the hoof, it's an easy fix.

Regards,

caballus
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:44 PM
Noooo, the walls are not designed to "share" the weightbearing with the white line area. In this context, because the white line is attached to the wall, this works as one structural 'unit'. This may seem like a picayune distinction but obviously there is more confusion rather than less resulting from subsequent explanations. The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof. Truly, it is a support system and it seems like the confusion is arising from thinking of it as 'weightbearing'.

If the walls and the white line are not weight bearing then what part of the hoof is? What you've written does not make sense. Did I not refer to Adams' description. I believe he speaks of "bearing weight". When the hoof lands on the ground and the weight of the horse is forced downward that force is born, in part, by the hoof - specifically, the walls and the whiteline around the hoof capsule as well as the sole. Internally the foot (bone) forces down onto the sole and is also supported by the DDFT, Extensor Tendon and the Collateral ligaments as well as the "sling" between the lateral cartilages in a healthy hoof that develops under the back portion of the P3.
The wall and the white line are two separate stratums that yes, do act together as a "unit" but are comprised of different materials/cells/makeup. Three layers of stratum make up the hoof wall in its entirety: stratum externum (includes the periople), stratum medium and the stratum internum. The major portion of the wall is made up from stratum medium. The junction of the sole and the hoof wall is the stratum internum (white line) and separates the insensitive and sensitive lamina. Between the stratum internum and the CB is the sensitive lamina which holds the blood supply and covers the lateral cartilages, senstive bar material and the CB. The lamina interlocks so yes, it can be said that the CB is "suspended" but the entire skeletal system is not "suspended" by this lamina. The DDFT, tendons, the ligaments and the cartilages all work together also in "suspending" and supporting the CB within the hoof capsule. The DC and frog also come into play in their role of shock absorbtion and energy dissipation. So, in essence, it all works together! I think we can agree on that.

Now, speaking of which, I'll throw in another perspective of thought on this subject. Pete Ramey suggests that because the bone of the lower limb are firmly held together by cartilages, tendons, ligaments, etc that during a founder episode it is not the bone that rotates but, actually, the hoof capsule, itself, that is displaced due to the damaged connectivity to the bone. When one views an xray of a foundered hoof it can be seen that the bones, themselves, are still lined up in good alignment. If the bone is what "rotates" then the alignment of the joints between P3 and P2 would be displaced. This is not the case. What is evident, however, is the displacement of the hoof capsule, itself ... from the P3. So, does the "bone" rotate and drop through the sole in the case of perforation or does the hoof capsule becomes displaced due to the lack of connectivity of the damaged lamina? Interesting concept, eh? Some more food for thought and discussion.

matryoshka
Dec. 8, 2006, 10:46 PM
Interesting discussion. I always wondered about the "one size fits all" approach of the canned trims out there. It especially got me thinking because of the Paul Chapman clinic, since he comes from Australia and has a different terrain and rainfall. In my area, we have clay soil that holds moisture, gets slick and muddy during rainy times, and dries hard as a rock with little grit within days, or freezed into humps in the winter. I didn't see his trim as being very appropriate for our climate. But that was my opinion after only two years of trimming. I wonder if I'll think differently in a few more years?

Forge, I appreciate your description of the sole calous. I've been wondering about it. I noticed that with the wet weather we have been having, my flat footed horses all have more concavity. I keep thinking that I'm getting somewhere with the trims, and then it dries out, and they go flat again. Has anybody else experienced this, or have an explanation? Perhaps it is the formation and subsequent loss of a sole calous when the wet ground softens it enough to exfoliate.

Lookout, if you come back into the North East, Maryland area again to trim, would you mind having an observer? I'd like to see how you trim so I can better understand your point of view. There aren't any trimmers in the area that I can learn from except farriers, and I've already seen a lot of them at work.

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 11:07 PM
Club feet are more about body issues than hoof issues. If the issue is the hoof, it's an easy fix.

Regards,

Would you happen to have pics showing what this foot looked like during that time period...July on to Sept?

Yes, you tend to leave the bars alone and let them 'fix' themselves so it is possible the horse has bar issues. I'm only stating this as someone who has found that leaving the bars to themselves hasn't been a solution at all when bar issues exist. ;)

Tree

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 11:16 PM
Pete Ramey suggests that because the bone of the lower limb are firmly held together by cartilages, tendons, ligaments, etc that during a founder episode it is not the bone that rotates but, actually, the hoof capsule, itself, that is displaced due to the damaged connectivity to the bone. When one views an xray of a foundered hoof it can be seen that the bones, themselves, are still lined up in good alignment.

He may suggest it but it tain't necessarily true. ;) When I get down to the last sentence of this portion of your post, I have to disagree that the bone alignments are good. The P3 tends to drop tip down which is not a good alignment as per the remodeling of the tip which then occurs if it remains in this position long enough. The P3 relation to the P2 and P1 cannot be proper as long as the P3 is tipped down. And as the P3 continues to remodel, the P2 can then assume a line which is independent of the P3 and P1.


If the bone is what "rotates" then the alignment of the joints between P3 and P2 would be displaced. This is not the case. What is evident, however, is the displacement of the hoof capsule, itself ... from the P3. So, does the "bone" rotate and drop through the sole in the case of perforation or does the hoof capsule becomes displaced due to the lack of connectivity of the damaged lamina? Interesting concept, eh? Some more food for thought and discussion.

Any photos to illustrate this? The bottom line is the coffin bone connection with the toe wall is lost when rotation with separation occurs. There is such a thing as rotation without separation as it applies to a club foot. The coffin bone is not separated from the hoof capsule but is rotated with regards to the alignment with the P2 and P1.

Tree

Tree
Dec. 8, 2006, 11:21 PM
I've been wondering about it. I noticed that with the wet weather we have been having, my flat footed horses all have more concavity. I keep thinking that I'm getting somewhere with the trims, and then it dries out, and they go flat again. Has anybody else experienced this, or have an explanation? Perhaps it is the formation and subsequent loss of a sole calous when the wet ground softens it enough to exfoliate.

It could be a matter of the dried sole being too difficult to trim and/or thought to be non-exfoliating sole and left alone on purpose. So the flatness is actually excess sole filling in the concavity which is underneath it. Once this sole becomes moist, it is easier to remove and the existing concavity once hidden is now revealed. The process repeats itself during the dry conditions when the exfoliating sole goes hard again. Yes, I've experienced this before when people wouldn't soak hooves during the very dry spells and I didn't feel like crippling myself trying to remove the excess dead sole. I knew it would come loose once the hooves were moist again...like after a rainy spell.

Tree

Forgewizard
Dec. 9, 2006, 12:09 AM
AACCK,
So many posts not enough time to read them all! But those tribequus links to the Cumberland island horses while they do show a typical soft terrain hoof the authors explanation fo the hoof form necessarry for travel over dunes blah blah blah is horrendous!

Those hooves get like that for one simple reason - the ground is not hard enough to abrade the tough hoof wall!

What form of hoof is best? Well if you look at the fact that horses historically originated on the northern steppe plains, then that would indicate a hoof form from a hard terrain as being what the horse was designed for.


The reason horse's hooves adopt various configurations is directly related to their invironment and their impact (literally) upon it!

Those soft terrain horses had "domed volar surfaces" because the soles have been exfoliated and abreaded away from the moist sandy surfaces, yet this same sandy surface isn't resistant enough to wear off the toe!

Here is a diagram I did a while back that will help illustrate what happens to the hoof in sandy soils:
http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8038393/114862496.jpg

caballus
Dec. 9, 2006, 09:55 AM
Got some slides and xrays together to show normal, acute laminitis and chronic laminitis. Noted some observations. Only the CHRONIC laminitic showed any deviation in the P2/P3 joint. The rest exhibited as 'normal'. Notice the blue lines I marked. Laminitic ones all fall straight from P2 but end at the TIP of the CB. Normals show the line falling straight but ending BEHIND the CB tip. Interesting. Remarks anyone? Discussion? Is there some validity to Pete's 'theory' of rotation?

http://www.barefoottrim.com/laminitisstudy.html

matryoshka
Dec. 9, 2006, 11:20 AM
It could be a matter of the dried sole being too difficult to trim and/or thought to be non-exfoliating sole and left alone on purpose. So the flatness is actually excess sole filling in the concavity which is underneath it. Once this sole becomes moist, it is easier to remove and the existing concavity once hidden is now revealed. The process repeats itself during the dry conditions when the exfoliating sole goes hard again. Yes, I've experienced this before when people wouldn't soak hooves during the very dry spells and I didn't feel like crippling myself trying to remove the excess dead sole. I knew it would come loose once the hooves were moist again...like after a rainy spell.

Tree

I would agree with this if I wasn't persistent about looking for the dirt line. The depth of the sole at the frog stays the same, so it would seem that the vault itself flattens, or perhaps there is calusing away from the frog that says and I'm thinking it is "working" sole (I like that term, because it does nicely describe the function and difference between exfoliating sole and sole that needs to stay there).

But it is something I will look for the next trim cycle, now that the ground is frozen rather than wet. Thanks Tree.

Rick Burten
Dec. 9, 2006, 12:29 PM
Got some slides and xrays together to show normal, acute laminitis and chronic laminitis. Noted some observations. Only the CHRONIC laminitic showed any deviation in the P2/P3 joint. The rest exhibited as 'normal'. Notice the blue lines I marked. Laminitic ones all fall straight from P2 but end at the TIP of the CB. Normals show the line falling straight but ending BEHIND the CB tip. Interesting. Remarks anyone? Discussion?
First, Photos A & B are chronic founders, one with penetration, one about to penetrate. That moves them beyond the stage of 'laminitis' and changes the equation measurably. Next, your rads of 'normal' feet, show me anything but feet that are normal. HPA misalignments are present, the location of the line drawn is subjective, the joint spaces are not, in all instances, in equilibrium, etc.

Rick

Rick Burten
Dec. 9, 2006, 12:52 PM
Noooo, the walls are not designed to "share" the weightbearing with the white line area. In this context, because the white line is attached to the wall, this works as one structural 'unit'.
So in a suspension bridge, the main cables are attached to the towers and
from them extend cables that attach to the frame of the roadbed and the road bed attaches to the framework but these too are different units, right? But don't they too act as one structural unit?

. And the white line and sole (calloused or not) are two distinct anatomical parts.
As are the coffin bone, laminae, and hoof capsule.

The white line is "vertical" and the sole is "horizontal" and they are attached to each by being next to each other but are not a 'unit' in the above fashion.
And the sole grows vertically and the white line, horizontally.

The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof. Truly, it is a support system and it seems like the confusion is arising from thinking of it as 'weightbearing'.
How so? Even in its action as a suspension system, it is weight bearing/carrying.

Just because we change their environment doesn't mean their biological needs are any different than when they evolved,
Sure it does. Otherwise, they wouldn't continue to adapt, let alone evolve.

No part of the sole has any blood vessels or nerve endings. That's why "live" sole is such a misleading term.
Your kidding, right? If this were the case, then why do some horses exhibit pain when ambulating on rocky or other sole impinging terrain? Why do soles sometimes bleed when cut? What do you call the layer of sole directly beneath the sole corium?

Rick

Appassionato
Dec. 9, 2006, 01:42 PM
How so? Even in its action as a suspension system, it is weight bearing/carrying.

I have to agree with this in the matters of physics. g never changes. Even in moments of flight the horse has g acting upon it in that there is weight in the hoof during suspension. A minimal number of vectors change when in motion.

Lookout
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:00 PM
If the walls and the white line are not weight bearing then what part of the hoof is?
The walls and white line are 'weightbearing' as well as other parts of the hoof, which I described several pages ago in this thread. I think the term weightbearing is misleading though because it implies a "load" sitting on top of something (not moving) and doesn't account for the suspension aspect of the laminae or the dynamic nature of this weightbearing. I think that is causing some of the confusion.

The idea of the hoof capsule rotating is one of the more preposterous things to be proposed by Ramey,and ever since I heard that made it hard for me to take anything else he said seriously. Interesting, now that the discussion has turned to laminitis and founder that no one has noticed the damaged laminae at the toe of this cadaver that was photographed which looks like it resulted from high heels and perhaps laminitis/founder was the reason it became a cadaver.

Matryoshka, I always welcome observers while I trim but ultimately it is up to the owner and/or barn owner.

Lookout
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:04 PM
I The greatest pressure on the SOLE is the CB pressing downward during loading of the foot.
I would like to see some documentation or support of this statement, because, if this were truly the case, the blood vessels and nerves on the bottom of the coffin bone would constantly be crushed by this pressure.

Lookout
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:17 PM
Got some slides and xrays together to show normal, acute laminitis and chronic laminitis. Noted some observations. Only the CHRONIC laminitic showed any deviation in the P2/P3 joint. The rest exhibited as 'normal'. Notice the blue lines I marked. Laminitic ones all fall straight from P2 but end at the TIP of the CB. Normals show the line falling straight but ending BEHIND the CB tip. Interesting. Remarks anyone? Discussion? Is there some validity to Pete's 'theory' of rotation?

http://www.barefoottrim.com/laminitisstudy.html

First of all, none of these cases are "acute" or laminitic, they are all severe, chronic founders. And the "slight" deviation you note is not slight, but the one that has 'no' deviation is slight. Are you trying to measure deviation by drawing a line through P2 that has no reference to anything? That's not how you measure deviation. I guess I can see how someone doing that would conclude there was no deviation and that the hoof capsule 'rotated'. And finally, are you seriously trying to determine joint deviation on a limb that is not weightbearing? I wish there were a vet here to weight in with their observations.

LMH
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:38 PM
Ok now I feel really inexperienced...in the link Caballus gave us, I am not seeing normal feet...while joint space might appear 'even', looking at the coffin bone location with respect to the dorsal wall, the CB seems to have moved quite a bit!

What am I missing?:confused:

blrm
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:40 PM
I would like to see some documentation or support of this statement, because, if this were truly the case, the blood vessels and nerves on the bottom of the coffin bone would constantly be crushed by this pressure.

If we expect that the fibers and vessels of the laminar corium are strong enough to attach the laminae to the coffin bone to suppoedly carry the weight of the horse, why would it not be possible to have enough strength in vessels in the solar corium to withstand the weight of the horse without damage?


BTW Caballus if you check out Pete Ramey's essay on breakover from 02/15/05 he also agrees with the sole callous being found inside the white line. :)

Lookout
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:49 PM
Ok now I feel really inexperienced...in the link Caballus gave us, I am not seeing normal feet...while joint space might appear 'even', looking at the coffin bone location with respect to the dorsal wall, the CB seems to have moved quite a bit!
What am I missing?:confused:
According to PR, the hoof capsule "rotated away" from the bone, not the other way around.

Lookout
Dec. 9, 2006, 07:51 PM
If we expect that the fibers and vessels of the laminar corium are strong enough to attach the laminae to the coffin bone to suppoedly carry the weight of the horse, why would it not be possible to have enough strength in vessels in the solar corium to withstand the weight of the horse without damage?

The vessels in the solar corium are different than laminae, and neither are meant to be compressed.

LMH
Dec. 9, 2006, 08:16 PM
Hoof capsule rotating...yes he has been teaching that...that always had me :confused:

But either way-what has me confused on these xrays it appears from the comments that these feet are not considered THAT bad-and to *my* eye I am seeing some pretty heavy duty rotation?

Why can't someone just come up with something EVERYONE can agree on and just teach that.

If there is one more school or method on trimming that shows up I am going to drop over.:no:

irishcas
Dec. 9, 2006, 11:40 PM
Would you happen to have pics showing what this foot looked like during that time period...July on to Sept?

Yes, you tend to leave the bars alone and let them 'fix' themselves so it is possible the horse has bar issues. I'm only stating this as someone who has found that leaving the bars to themselves hasn't been a solution at all when bar issues exist. ;)

Tree

You've got to be kidding right, bar issues (rolling eyes). Yes I do have photos of his feet from when he was born and probably some from June. I'll take photos tomorrow of them if I have time, if not next week.

Vet blocked the hoof and he was still lame. Clinic vet blocked Left Shoulder Joint, horse went sound. Don't think it is bars causing pain.

Will let you know when I have good photos.

Regards

BumbleBee
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:12 AM
You've got to be kidding right, bar issues (rolling eyes).

You dismiss this notion a bit to easily. Trust me Tree is not the only one who KNOWS that bar matter can cause lameness. The fact that you dismiss it with such a mocking tone only makes you look ignorant.

As for the capsule rotation theory... while for the most part I like P.R. this strikes me as a what was he smoking moment.

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:03 AM
I would like to see some documentation or support of this statement, because, if this were truly the case, the blood vessels and nerves on the bottom of the coffin bone would constantly be crushed by this pressure.

Well, where do you say the amt of greatest pressure occur, then, other than in the heel/DC area?

Forgewizard
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:04 AM
COme on folks, those that have done dissections review, and those that haven't yet check this out:

The solar corium developes sole tissue from tiny papillae similar to the laminae, but different! How's that for wishy washy?:winkgrin:

Let me explain:

First we gotta learn about little finger like projections or rather tap root like projections called papillae. The papillae are responsible for manufacturng hoof wall and sole material!

The wall papillae at the coronet are long and get the hoof wall growing in long spiraling tubules bound together with more keratin matrix between each tubule.

Then laminae attach the bone's corium to the hoof wall.

The sole papillae are much shorter and not as tightly compacted as the coronet papillae.

Curiuosly enough there are NO LAMINAE between the solar corium and the sole!

Hmmm say WHAT? The LAMINAE are present only as attachments from the bony corium to the hoof wall arond the buttress and along the bars! This in iself idicates how the laminae are depended upon for a tremendous amount of support to the horse.

The solar papllillae manufacture sole material and this is layered downwrd towards the ground as new sole is made.

The hoof is a marvel of engineerng and is a wondrous demonstration of hydraulics in action!

For a simple explanation: Saturate a sponge with water put it in a small container. Press on the sponge with your hand. The water is forced out of the sponge into the container right? Lift your hand up and the water is resorbed into the sponge. Now if this sponge was enclose inside the container and there were tubes exiting the container, when the containers got squeezed together the tubes would fill with water. This is the circulation system AND part of the shock dampening system in your horse's hoof.

If you keep constant pressure on the sponge it never resorbs water and will eventually dry out. If you drop something (like an egg)onto the saturated sponge it doesn't bounce off or break, like it would if the sponge was dry. The fluid dampens the shock of impact.

Another image of the pressure and fluid system is easily seen in your own fingernails: Press on your thumbnail - see it turn white? Now let off the pressure - see the quick turn pink again? Apply pressure in various areas of your nail and note the changes. Cool huh? Your orse's hoof does the same thing!

When you see that horse standing - he really isn't EVER standing still. He is always shifting his weight from hoof to hoof to allow this pressure and releif circulation. Watch him you'll see it. If you need a visual. Put a white sticky dot on his rib age behind his elbow and video him. Stand him on concrete on a rubber mat on dirt and on grass and then compare his movements.

SInce the solar corium is DIRECTLY under the sole tissue it stands to reason that constant pressure against this very thin veneer will result in a very lame horse with a very disfunctional hoof. Hence the wall is designed to bear the brunt of the impact. MOst peope forget that the wall continues around the hoof and becomes the buttresses and bars.

The buttresses themselves are formidable structures of strength what with them being triangular in shape and constructed on all sides from the tough hoof wall.

So the hoof wall essentially keeps the sole from being compressed excessively since the sole is situated well within the sturdy toe and buttresses.

This construction is why I question the validity of "sole callous being a "good" thing. Has it been proved that the sole corium papillae are more concentrated in the "sole callous" area? THERE ARE more papillae at the toe region of the coronet as compared to the quarters, hence the wall at the quarters is thinner.

KNowing that callouses build, shed, and rebuild doesn't prove to me that they OUGHT to be there.

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:18 AM
Ok now I feel really inexperienced...in the link Caballus gave us, I am not seeing normal feet...while joint space might appear 'even', looking at the coffin bone location with respect to the dorsal wall, the CB seems to have moved quite a bit!

What am I missing?:confused:

I don't think you're missing anything at all. I think that's part of what Pete's theory is .. if there is no deviation in the space between the joints then the *bone* doesn't actually rotate but the hoof CAPSULE, instead, through losing its connectivity, is displaced. That's what I wanted to put out there for disucssion.

a note to everyone -- I labeled these "specimens" as they were labeled from the CD I have from Horse Science. I did not give the labels myself. So please don't shoot the messenger.

The remarks I made were simply my observations. Yeah, to me, they are (were) very sick hoofers and all would be considered "Founder" in my estimation and not "Laminitic". (except for the "Normal" xrays) Whether chronic or not how could one tell from these photos alone? If the founder had just occured or had been going on for some time?

Look at the blue lines in the foundered hooves ... they start in the center of the distal end of P2 and continue down and end at the TIP of the P3 whereas in the "normal" hooves the line begins in the middle of the P2 and end in back of the tip of the P3 (think of where the apex of the frog would be) That was the purpose of the blue lines. Where there is no change in the space in the joint between the P2 and P3 shown except for the one labeled "Chronic" perhaps there's a bit of both theories going on with the bone rotating AND the hoof capsule being displaced? Just thought food. I also understand that these are cadavears and not weight bearing. Again, don't shoot the messenger .... I only put these up to add to a discussion. Anyone else have any other photos or illustrations to share that would enlighten any of this?

Tree
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:48 AM
Got some slides and xrays together to show normal, acute laminitis and chronic laminitis. Noted some observations. Only the CHRONIC laminitic showed any deviation in the P2/P3 joint. The rest exhibited as 'normal'. Notice the blue lines I marked. Laminitic ones all fall straight from P2 but end at the TIP of the CB. Normals show the line falling straight but ending BEHIND the CB tip. Interesting. Remarks anyone? Discussion? Is there some validity to Pete's 'theory' of rotation?

http://www.barefoottrim.com/laminitisstudy.html

The cadaver examples aren't the sort to clearly show bone alignment because they aren't weighted nor are they alive.

While the blue lines are marked by you, the coffin bone orientations within the hoof capsules were not always the same nor were the HPA's.

I am not of the opinion that your examples support PR's ideas.

Tree

Tree
Dec. 10, 2006, 10:03 AM
You've got to be kidding right, bar issues (rolling eyes).

If I were, I'd have included little winky faces or laughing ones or would have included, "just kidding" somewhere in my post.

Since none of those things appeared in my post, it's safe to assume I wasn't kidding. I'll also add, the horses or ponies having bar issues don't feel like joking about it either. Those things just plain HURT.

I'll look forward to seeing the pics you have of this horse's feet...or foot.

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 10, 2006, 10:43 AM
Will get photos but Tree, did you see the part where I said the Vet injected lidocain or something like it, into the actual shoulder joint and the colt went 100% sound, walk trot and canter.

That does appear to rule out bars right or do you think somehow the bars are still involved?

Regards,

Tree
Dec. 10, 2006, 10:58 AM
Will get photos but Tree, did you see the part where I said the Vet injected lidocain or something like it, into the actual shoulder joint and the colt went 100% sound, walk trot and canter.

That does appear to rule out bars right or do you think somehow the bars are still involved?

Regards,

Yes, that was part of your post. Just because I selected a smaller portion of the post doesn't mean I didn't read it.

When I read where the Vet injected this and that and it seemed that the shoulder injection was the only one causing the horse to appear sound, I immediately had the thought that maybe it affected nerves that could transmit a pain signal from the hoof to the brain. Or, the club foot isn't allowing the horse to feel heel pain...much like wedging up navicular hooves allows those lame horses to appear sound. The horse could very well be experiencing shoulder soreness because of the unnatural foot form (too steep).

At any rate, the hoof is still in an unnatural form (clubbed) and I wouldn't assume there aren't any bar issues or issues with that foot in general. It's in an unnatural shape causing the bone alignments to be off which creates a snowball affect from there on up.

However, I'm not the one responsible for this horse's hoof care, you are. If you are satisfied that there can be no hoof issues, that's your call. We don't tend to agree so it should come as no surprise to you that I still think there can be bar issues in a clubbed foot and particuarly one you are trimming since you admit to leaving bars alone. Ok?

Tree

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 11:05 AM
This construction is why I question the validity of "sole callous being a "good" thing. Has it been proved that the sole corium papillae are more concentrated in the "sole callous" area?

I believe Gene Onvicek talks about the denser region of the toe "pillars" as he calls them. Whether or not they are truly of different quality/type than the sole, I don't know. Raises a good question.


THERE ARE more papillae at the toe region of the coronet as compared to the quarters, hence the wall at the quarters is thinner.

Hmmm, and maybe that has something to do with why the quarters are "arched"? in mirror to the distal shape of the P3. The quarters allow the hoof to expand fully. When they are left weight bearing then the hoof is restricted from its full expansion. (and when left weight bearing they tend to separate, flare and crack thus exhibiting the need to be floated from weight bearing.)

KNowing that callouses build, shed, and rebuild doesn't prove to me that they OUGHT to be there.[/QUOTE]

Callouses build, shed, and rebuild on our own feet as needed for our own environment. Why would the equine hoof be any different? Its more of a marvel than our own "pedal" devices! *grin* ... suffice to say they remodel and adapt perfectly to their environment as needed.

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:04 PM
Well, where do you say the amt of greatest pressure occur, then, other than in the heel/DC area?

So, that's your explanation of how the blood vessels of the sole can be compressed?

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:10 PM
No, that was a question to you.

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:12 PM
Whether chronic or not how could one tell from these photos alone? If the founder had just occured or had been going on for some time?
There are books available on this subject that you can read and learn the answer from.


Look at the blue lines in the foundered hooves ... they start in the center of the distal end of P2 and continue down and end at the TIP of the P3
So you're saying you two-dimensionally eyeballed the 'center' of a three dimensional object with a line that is thicker than the displacement you're looking for, which is measured in mm's?


whereas in the "normal" hooves the line begins in the middle of the P2 and end in back of the tip of the P3 (think of where the apex of the frog would be) That was the purpose of the blue lines. Where there is no change in the space in the joint between the P2 and P3 shown except for the one labeled "Chronic" perhaps there's a bit of both theories going on with the bone rotating AND the hoof capsule being displaced?
If this were an accurate way of determining these measurements, if anything, this would show the bone rotating since the tip of P3 changes in relation to P2 according to your blue lines.


Just thought food. I also understand that these are cadavears and not weight bearing. Again, don't shoot the messenger .... I only put these up to add to a discussion.
By choosing them to illustrate your point, you take responsibility for the content unless you post a disclaimer. Ever do a presentation in a corporate environment?

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:21 PM
No, that was a question to you.

So you're avoiding answering my question by asking one?

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:55 PM
I would like to see some documentation or support of this statement, because, if this were truly the case, the blood vessels and nerves on the bottom of the coffin bone would constantly be crushed by this pressure.


OK ... here's is my "answer" to you concerning this. The bony column is "suspended" by the tendons, ligaments, etc. "In the standing poistion, essentially in extension, the fetlock and digit are supported by the suspensory apparatus of the fetlock, the digital flexor and extensor tendsons, and the collateral ligaments of the joints." (Adams' p. 22) The sole is the protective "unit", if you will, for the solar corium which includes the blood vessels. The hoof capsule is connected to the P3 by the lamina. Therefore your statement, "The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof." is incorrect. The brunt of the force of contact with the ground is actually born by the heels that expand along with the quarters and, to a lesser degree, the toe in order to allow a lessening of the force to the concave sole. The bars help to support the expansion so the sole does not expand too much. The force is also minimized by the frog and the DC during loading of the hoof. So the entire structure works as a "unit" each with individual responsibilities. I will say, again, that when a horse steps down onto the ground the sole takes the major brunt of the force from the inside as the bony structure's force strikes down into the sole. The support system, however, prevents damages to the nerves and circulatory system within the foot as described above while the lamina is the connection between the foot and the hoof. In response to your statement that weightbearing denotes "Weightbearing" is not just a static form as you stated, "implies a "load" sitting on top of something (not moving) ..." - one bears weight during movement, also. Weightbearing simply means to "bear weight". .. static or moving.

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 12:55 PM
So you're avoiding answering my question by asking one? And, no, not avoiding ... but asking and expecting an answer from you?

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 01:03 PM
There are books available on this subject that you can read and learn the answer from.

So you're saying you two-dimensionally eyeballed the 'center' of a three dimensional object with a line that is thicker than the displacement you're looking for, which is measured in mm's?

If this were an accurate way of determining these measurements, if anything, this would show the bone rotating since the tip of P3 changes in relation to P2 according to your blue lines.

By choosing them to illustrate your point, you take responsibility for the content unless you post a disclaimer. Ever do a presentation in a corporate environment?

Yeah, in fact I've done many presentations in a corporate environment, thank you. Your attitude of superiority is getting rather boring, Lookout. But I'll continue to reply courteously, never the less.

Again, I did not say whether or not my notations were accurate way of any determination or not ... they are merely observations. I did not put this up for "argument" in terms of right or wrong; I put it up for discussion. If you're rebutting Pete's theory then write a rebuttal focused on that instead of my observations which are, notably, just observations and neither right nor wrong nor indicative of anything solid. I have not stated that I either agree with nor disagree with Pete's theory. However, I do find it intriguing and wanted to discuss with others. Maybe my observations have nothing to do with it; maybe they do. Opinions and observations or perceptions are not right or wrong; they just 'are' according to the viewer.


If this were an accurate way of determining these measurements, if anything, this would show the bone rotating since the tip of P3 changes in relation to P2 according to your blue lines.
Well, if this were to be so then why is there no change in the joint alignment aka the "space" between the distal end of the P2 and the dorsal end of the P3? I would think if there were rotation then there would be a change in that space ... more space on one side than the other? Again, not stating as fact, but merely questioning and observing?

Tree
Dec. 10, 2006, 01:07 PM
The hoof capsule is connected to the P3 by the lamina. Therefore your statement, "The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof." is incorrect.


Maybe it's according to just how literal you wish to be while looking at this.

The coffin bones are the foundation of the overal skeleton or simply put, the coffin bones are the most distal bone in the limbs. So, keeping this in mind, the laminae may have direct contact with the coffin bone but the entire structure, from there on up, IS basically dependent on the laminae remaining healthy.

Tree

BumbleBee
Dec. 10, 2006, 01:36 PM
The horse could very well be experiencing shoulder soreness because of the unnatural foot form (too steep).




That was my thought also. Sometime removing even secondary pain will make a horse feel so much better it actually does appear sound. That doesn't rule out the hoof as the cause. If a horse carries it self funny long enough to compensate for pain elsewhereby it will cause secondary shoulder pain.

One example is a friends mare who wonked up her stiffles while shee waited for an abcess in her heells to blow.

caballus
Dec. 10, 2006, 02:08 PM
Maybe it's according to just how literal you wish to be while looking at this.

The coffin bones are the foundation of the overal skeleton or simply put, the coffin bones are the most distal bone in the limbs. So, keeping this in mind, the laminae may have direct contact with the coffin bone but the entire structure, from there on up, IS basically dependent on the laminae remaining healthy.

Tree

Well, in terms of using the words "suspended" vs. "supported" or "based" all make a difference in the way one might understand the workings of the entire system. Lookout was nitting on my use of the word "weightbearing" so thought I'd be a bit more specific so, perhaps, there wouldn't be too much room for a difference in perceptions. I used the word "weightbearing" in the relative terms of motion whereas Lookout perceived it as a stationary term. I also subsequently termed it weightbearing from the inside forces vs. the "outside" forces ... meaning the weight force coming down 'into' the sole from the inside skeleton as being a major force. (which is why there is such an extensive suspension system, perhaps?) On the other hand, just to confuse even more .... Stashek (Adams') says, "There should be no primary contact between the ground and the sole, as it is not a weight-bearing structure." That would be force from the outside of the hoof; not from internal pressure. So there really is a reason to be as literal as one can because of the difference of "perceptions" in how the written word is understood.

irishcas
Dec. 10, 2006, 02:37 PM
That was my thought also. Sometime removing even secondary pain will make a horse feel so much better it actually does appear sound. That doesn't rule out the hoof as the cause. If a horse carries it self funny long enough to compensate for pain elsewhereby it will cause secondary shoulder pain.

One example is a friends mare who wonked up her stiffles while shee waited for an abcess in her heells to blow.

Okay so the horses hoof was blocked twice and he was lame. The Joint was blocked in the shoulder and he became sound. What nerves run into the synovial fluid filled space of the shoulder joint?

You guys are so wrong. The horse doesn't even have bars to speak of and since I don't believe in IMPACTED bars he doesn't have those either.

I am the crazy one for having these same tired old conversations.

I give up.

Tree
Dec. 10, 2006, 03:09 PM
Okay so the horses hoof was blocked twice and he was lame. The Joint was blocked in the shoulder and he became sound. What nerves run into the synovial fluid filled space of the shoulder joint?

One question just leads to another. :) What is it about nerves in the hooves that tell a horse they have hoof pain? The nerves follow a pathway which transmit signals to the brain, right?


You guys are so wrong.

I feel certain you believe this to be so. ;)


The horse doesn't even have bars to speak of and since I don't believe in IMPACTED bars he doesn't have those either.

Oh? If you're not trimming them, is it because the horse has none (to speak of) or what? Either way, it remains to be seen when you post the photos to show if there "no bars to speak" of or if there ARE bars to SEE. I mean, if you don't wish to speak of bars that are there, that is something totally different. ;) :D :lol: (just kidding)


I am the crazy one for having these same tired old conversations.

I give up.

No comment about your sanity.

As far as you giving up, if it means you'll stop trying to make us think like you do, ok! :) It's about damn time. ;) :lol: (No kidding this time, just LOL with relief!)

Tree

Forgewizard
Dec. 10, 2006, 04:06 PM
My old stuff in greyCaballus in BlueMy new stuff in black


I believe Gene Onvicek talks about the denser region of the toe "pillars" as he calls them. Whether or not they are truly of different quality/type than the sole, I don't know. Raises a good question.[COLOR="blue"]

IF I interpret Gene's presentations correctly these "toe pillars" are areas based on the UN trimmed "Wild horse" hoof, right? Which is exactly what I am questioning, just because these built up areas are there on an untrimmed hoof, doesn't necessarily mean they OUGHT to be there. Could be they are there just because they haven't been able to exfoliate. Outgrown wall is just build up of NON exfoliated (worn off) hoof wall, right? We (farriers and trimmers) routinely eliminate by rasping or nippering this overgrown wall in order to restore the hoof to a more normal depth. If the outgrown wall is left and allowed to continue to grow, the hoof and horse eventually suffer. The wall breaks off and unbalances the hoof, or turns der and bruises the hoof, or doesn't break off but instead splits and allows debris and organisms to invade and destroy the inner wall.

Hmmm, and maybe that has something to do with why the quarters are "arched"? in mirror to the distal shape of the P3. The quarters allow the hoof to expand fully. When they are left weight bearing then the hoof is restricted from its full expansion. (and when left weight bearing they tend to separate, flare and crack thus exhibiting the need to be floated from weight bearing.)

The hoof wall mimics the coffin bone until it has been allowed to overgrow and become unbalanced. ONce overgrown the distortions start to influence the bones and horse. When the hoof is well balanced and the horse is moving well, the quarters will often remain level to the ground surface with no ill effects to the hoof or bony column. The solar area of the quarters arches, but the hoof wall can easily be left flat to the ground without any loss of hoof expansion. On bare hooves the quarters arch at the wall ground surface sometimes due to the breaking off of this flexible wall area,, but that doesn't mean the hoof needs to be trimmed with prefashioned broken out quarters, does it? Iyou break a corner off your fingernaildoyou then just continue to trim the nail with a chopped off corner? No, but you may evaluate WHY the nail broke off that way and trim them a bit shorter, or round them more to prevent breakage, or maybe revise your use of the fingers or even evaluate your diet to strengthen them, but I doubt that the nail growing in now gets trimmed to mimic the broken nail.

KNowing that callouses build, shed, and rebuild doesn't prove to me that they OUGHT to be there.

Callouses build, shed, and rebuild on our own feet as needed for our own environment. Why would the equine hoof be any different? Its more of a marvel than our own "pedal" devices! *grin* ... suffice to say they remodel and adapt perfectly to their environment as needed.[/QUOTE]

See, you just agreed with what I was saying that the callouses develop as a response to pressures and demands placed upon he foot ( the horses or ours).

Does that equate to the callouses are SUPPOSED to be there? I think not. And I think this for the same reasons as stated above regarding the broken finger nail.

Now granted, I would rather work with hands or feet a bit toughened to the job at hand, but the "natural" state of being is an UNcalloused surface. For us we can opt to don gloves or shoes if we don't want thickened calloused hands and feet.

This is not just a conceit issue either - thickened callouses on the hands and feet will often crack and allow fungus and bacteria to invade the skin. These invasions can create long term health issues. Sound familiar?

But the horse doesn't have the option of tending to his own needs and the kept horse has even less control over what his hooves encounter. Hence the need or shoes, boots and proper management.

BumbleBee
Dec. 10, 2006, 05:42 PM
...since I don't believe in IMPACTED bars he doesn't have those either...

:lol::lol::lol: Your belief in something doesn't really effect whether or not it exists.

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:01 PM
OK ... here's is my "answer" to you concerning this. The bony column is "suspended" by the tendons, ligaments, etc. "In the standing poistion, essentially in extension, the fetlock and digit are supported by the suspensory apparatus of the fetlock, the digital flexor and extensor tendsons, and the collateral ligaments of the joints." (Adams' p. 22)
Thank you for your "answer". I agree with this, and it does not preclude the skeleton being suspended by the laminae.


The sole is the protective "unit", if you will, for the solar corium which includes the blood vessels. The hoof capsule is connected to the P3 by the lamina. Therefore your statement, "The horse's skeleton is suspended by the laminae and the laminae are attached to the hoof." is incorrect.
Therefore, why? If the hoof capsule is connected to P3 by laminae, and thus suspended, and the boney column is attached to P3, and the rest of the skeleton is attached to the boney column, then it is all suspended from the laminae.
Yes, the sole is the protective "unit", but that doesn't imply any structural or weightbearing ability or property.




The brunt of the force of contact with the ground is actually born by the heels that expand along with the quarters and, to a lesser degree, the toe in order to allow a lessening of the force to the concave sole. The bars help to support the expansion so the sole does not expand too much. The force is also minimized by the frog and the DC during loading of the hoof. So the entire structure works as a "unit" each with individual responsibilities.
This part is correct and describes the weightbearing of the foot well (what is your source?), but it is in direct contradiction with this:


I will say, again, that when a horse steps down onto the ground the sole takes the major brunt of the force from the inside as the bony structure's force strikes down into the sole.



The support system, however, prevents damages to the nerves and circulatory system within the foot as described above while the lamina is the connection between the foot and the hoof.
All I can infer from this is that, the sole doesn't actually take the brunt, the "support system" (?) does. Either the sole takes the brunt, or it doesn't.

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:08 PM
Yeah, in fact I've done many presentations in a corporate environment, thank you.
So then you know if you choose an illustration to make your point, you are presenting it as being correct.



Again, I did not say whether or not my notations were accurate way of any determination or not ... they are merely observations. I did not put this up for "argument" in terms of right or wrong; I put it up for discussion. If you're rebutting Pete's theory then write a rebuttal focused on that instead of my observations which are, notably, just observations and neither right nor wrong nor indicative of anything solid. I have not stated that I either agree with nor disagree with Pete's theory.
I already wrote my rebuttal, did you miss it? The problem is your methods of measurement are faulty.


Well, if this were to be so then why is there no change in the joint alignment aka the "space" between the distal end of the P2 and the dorsal end of the P3?
There is. Problem is, you can't get any accurate measurements from non-weightbearing cadaver legs.

Lookout
Dec. 10, 2006, 09:12 PM
Lookout was nitting on my use of the word "weightbearing" so thought I'd be a bit more specific so, perhaps, there wouldn't be too much room for a difference in perceptions.
Actually many people used the term and my comment was a general observation that I thought it was leading to confusion. Why take everything so personally?


On the other hand, just to confuse even more .... Stashek (Adams') says, "There should be no primary contact between the ground and the sole, as it is not a weight-bearing structure." That would be force from the outside of the hoof; not from internal pressure. So there really is a reason to be as literal as one can because of the difference of "perceptions" in how the written word is understood.
That's not confusing in the least, it makes complete sense and is supported by other writers such as Rooney and Butler. Interesting how your sources, after the fact, are not supporting your original statement. The distinction between "inside" and "outside" forces is unnecessary because of the equation of equal and opposite reactions.

caballus
Dec. 11, 2006, 01:09 AM
Thank you for your "answer". I agree with this, and it does not preclude the skeleton being suspended by the laminae.

Therefore, why? If the hoof capsule is connected to P3 by laminae, and thus suspended, and the boney column is attached to P3, and the rest of the skeleton is attached to the boney column, then it is all suspended from the laminae.
Yes, the sole is the protective "unit", but that doesn't imply any structural or weightbearing ability or property.

OK, I give up. It is obvious that we are not going to see eye to eye on this. I don't know if you and I have a difference in the perception of the meaning of the words or not but whatever, I'm not going to go round and round and round with it. I do, however, want to be sure I am clear in understanding what you are saying.



This part is correct and describes the weightbearing of the foot well (what is your source?), but it is in direct contradiction with this: "I will say, again, that when a horse steps down onto the ground the sole takes the major brunt of the force from the inside as the bony structure's force strikes down into the sole. "

This is what I teach. My sources are many. OK, again. When the horse steps down he bears his weight onto what, then? Where inside the hoof capsule does the bony column press down? Does it not press into the sole? The inside part of the sole? No? Yes? The center of weight bearing in the healthy hoof is where? When the hooves are balanced and leveled and the horse is centered - where is that center of weight bearing within the hoof? At the tip of the P3? In the middle of the P3? Not on the P3 at all? What is distal of the P3 that receives pressure from the bearing of the horse's weight? Are you saying that the sole receives NO pressure inside from weight bearing at all? So that when the horse steps down, the bony column is forced down and there is no pressure on the sole at all? That is what I am inferring from your arguments. Am I correct in that? Am I also understanding correctly that you believe the lamina is the supportive weight bearing feature of the hoof? If the entire skeletal system is "suspended" by the lamina, as you say, then one can only deduct that it is the portion of the foot that receives the most pressure and is the primary weight bearing tissue of the hoof. Is that correct?

blrm
Dec. 11, 2006, 09:18 AM
OK, I give up. It is obvious that we are not going to see eye to eye on this. I don't know if you and I have a difference in the perception of the meaning of the words or not but whatever, I'm not going to go round and round and round with it. I do, however, want to be sure I am clear in understanding what you are saying.


Why does it matter what anyone is saying unless they have the test data to back it up? Does anyone have links to test work done with load sensors measuring the load on the different areas on the bottom of foot during real motion in real conditions ?
I don't understand how you can have a surface on the bottom of a foot and think that it is not supposed to bear weight:confused: I just can't seem to grasp how those wild horses( that are moving across terrain that will abraid their hoof walls to the extent that the pics show) can always put their foot down on a spot that is flat so their sole does not bear weight. Or in LMH's photos there were the horses that were leaving their hoof prints in the fine stone terrain.They must have had some phenomenal concavity if those soles were not bearing a bit of weight.And why do I find all these hockey pucks of mud laying around the paddocks from where the mud has packed into the feet on our horses and then come out somewhere along the line during hoof flexing?Was that packed mud not transferring any weight to the bottom of the foot as opposed to the hoof wall.The kids go for a ride down a gravel road and when you look at the bottom of those feet when they return they are white because of the freshly abraided sole.But the soles don't bear any weight ???I don't see anyone who has suggested that it should bear all the weight of the horse but to say that it should not be considered weightbearing I find a bit confusing.

If anyone has some links actual technical data on loads in the foot instead of opinions I would be interested in seeing it. :D:D

Auventera Two
Dec. 11, 2006, 10:00 AM
Hmmm, and maybe that has something to do with why the quarters are "arched"? in mirror to the distal shape of the P3. The quarters allow the hoof to expand fully. When they are left weight bearing then the hoof is restricted from its full expansion. (and when left weight bearing they tend to separate, flare and crack thus exhibiting the need to be floated from weight bearing.)

My farrier and I had a discussion about this because he always floats quarters. He too thinks its important for hoof expansion and when quarters are left in 100% contact with the ground, they tend to flare and break out. (that's what he said anyway.) So I just wanted to maybe give some more support to this comment.



Callouses build, shed, and rebuild on our own feet as needed for our own environment. Why would the equine hoof be any different? Its more of a marvel than our own "pedal" devices! *grin* ... suffice to say they remodel and adapt perfectly to their environment as needed.

This whole callouse argument seems to be building from a semantics problem. Maybe the word callouse isn't appropriate. The word "callouse" denotes something that shouldn't be there. Something that occurred due to stress, friction, tension, pain, irritation, etc. and that will go away when those forces are removed.

I think the weight bearing area of the sole, adjacent to the white line is tough and thick for a purpose. The wild horse models consistently show that that area of the sole bears weight and is adequately tough, thick, and dense in order to do that. So why do certain people have to think that's a "problem," or that it's "wrong?"

The pads on a dog's feet are tough, thick and dense, but we don't say that's a problem. The hooves of goats, cattle, and deer are adequately thick, dense, rough, and weight bearing but we don't way that's a "callouse" due to abnormal friction. In fact it's just normal! That's the way the hooves are designed. So why are people so hooked up on demanding that the thickened sole of a horse is abnormal? The sole SHOULD be thick and dense to protect the underlying tissues and bone.

There's just no way to conclude that the walls should bear 100% of the weight when this is just not shown - over and over again. On a properly trimmed hoof, if you set that hoof down on an even coat of barn lime or chalk and lift it up, you can clearly see that a thin area of sole, just inside the WL bears weight.

Lookout
Dec. 11, 2006, 01:24 PM
This is what I teach. My sources are many. OK, again. When the horse steps down he bears his weight onto what, then?

YOU have already answered this. This is what you said:
auote: The brunt of the force of contact with the ground is actually born by the heels that expand along with the quarters and, to a lesser degree, the toe in order to allow a lessening of the force to the concave sole. The bars help to support the expansion so the sole does not expand too much. The force is also minimized by the frog and the DC during loading of the hoof. So the entire structure works as a "unit" each with individual responsibilities. end quote

However, if you then contradict it by saying the opposite, that the sole is the primary weightbearing structure, then it leads me to believe that you don't understand what you just said.


So that when the horse steps down, the bony column is forced down and there is no pressure on the sole at all?
Am I also understanding correctly that you believe the lamina is the supportive weight bearing feature of the hoof? If the entire skeletal system is "suspended" by the lamina, as you say, then one can only deduct that it is the portion of the foot that receives the most pressure and is the primary weight bearing tissue of the hoof. Is that correct?
The laminae do support the weight coming down onto the foot. They extend all the way around the perimeter and around by the heels and into the hoof next to the bars. They are extremely strong for a reason and why it is catastrophic when they fail. If the boney column were coming down onto the sole you would have what is called a stone bruise and in fact that is what happens when the foot is not functioning as you explained. Your 'explanation' of how the sole can be compressed without crushing the blood vessels went on to explain how the weight is actually transferred to the other parts of the foot but yet you're still saying the sole is the primary weightbearing structure - even though the sources you've quoted say otherwise.

Lookout
Dec. 11, 2006, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by caballus http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=2053012#post2053012)
Hmmm, and maybe that has something to do with why the quarters are "arched"? in mirror to the distal shape of the P3. The quarters allow the hoof to expand fully. When they are left weight bearing then the hoof is restricted from its full expansion. (and when left weight bearing they tend to separate, flare and crack thus exhibiting the need to be floated from weight bearing.)

My farrier and I had a discussion about this because he always floats quarters. He too thinks its important for hoof expansion and when quarters are left in 100% contact with the ground, they tend to flare and break out. (that's what he said anyway.) So I just wanted to maybe give some more support to this comment.

The quarters expand because the weight is coming down on the walls and not the sole. So yes, the quarters need to be pre-trimmed to stop breaking, or they break themselves out (as they would if the horse were left alone and self-trimming). If the weight was coming down on the sole, there would be no force breaking out the quarters.
If the weight is solidly coming down on the sole, there is no "expansion" happening. All the weight just lands on the sole, with nothing pushing the hoof out to expand. This is the problem with the weight-bearing sole model. The foot is a solid object at the end of the leg to be shaped from the outside leaving lots of material for 'protection' but inhibiting physiological function. It does not support any expansion, but the frog is still believed to be the "pumping mechansim". It is contradictory and not supported in the literature, as caballus has shown.


This whole callouse argument seems to be building from a semantics problem. Maybe the word callouse isn't appropriate. The word "callouse" denotes something that shouldn't be there. Something that occurred due to stress, friction, tension, pain, irritation, etc. and that will go away when those forces are removed.

I think the weight bearing area of the sole, adjacent to the white line is tough and thick for a purpose. The wild horse models consistently show that that area of the sole bears weight and is adequately tough, thick, and dense in order to do that.

There's just no way to conclude that the walls should bear 100% of the weight when this is just not shown - over and over again.
It's been shown that when you abrade the walls, the callous builds up, when you don't, the callous shrinks. Whether it "should" be there or not is another issue.
Where are you wild horse model references, so that everyone can see what you are referring to?
I don't think anyone has said walls bear 100% of the weight.

caballus
Dec. 11, 2006, 02:30 PM
YOU have already answered this. This is what you said: yadi, yadi, yadi deletia

I said, you said, we all said. Words are getting twisted with individual perceptions of the posts.

What I never said was that the sole is the primary weightbearing structure. What I said was the WALLS SHARE THE LOAD WITH THE SOLE CALLOUS and I pointedly illustrated to what I was referring with the "Parts of the Hoof" illustration. Whereas YOU did say,
Originally Posted by Lookout
I agree, the sole develops callous as necessary, and the thick callous that's pointed to as evidence that the sole is meant to be weightbearing is a response to preventing the walls from doing their weightbearing job.
in Post #101.

So which is it, Lookout .. the sole, the walls or what are, in your opinion, supposed to be weightbearing?

Let's go back to simple ... I maintain the walls are designed to share the weightbearing with the *sole callous*. I also maintain that the *SOLE* is NOT supposed to be weightbearing with ground contact on the *outside* but it DOES receive major impact from the INSIDE as the horse loads the hoof and the bony column is forced downwards into the foot. At the same time the concussion and force is minimized by the supportive tissues and functioning of the hoof and foot. Simple, simple.

I've stated my position. Can you clarify yours? And then we'll (or, at least I will) be done with this particular segment of this topic.

I'm also curious as to your background with hoofcare. Would you care to share? Thx.

Tree
Dec. 11, 2006, 02:53 PM
I think this has already been said but whatthehell, I'll say it again.

Calloused sole exists when the walls are not taking the more active weightbearing role. This would depend either on the natural wear pattern of self-trimming hooves according to terrains or how the hooves are being trimmed/setup.

I find calloused sole existing when the soles are taking on a more active role in weightbearing and observe this taking place in the toe regions and posted pics showing this way back on whatever page it was in this thread.

I see no calloused sole in hooves with more prominent walls which are higher than the sole plane.

So in my experiences, it depends on the footing conditions. The wild horse hoof model taken from abrasive terrain herds shows more wear to the walls and but still a portion of wall which is higher than the sole plane. The outer most edges of sole, next to the WL, come closest to being active. However, in some of the examples shown in this thread, it was rasped feet which showed more active sole surface area and to me, this isn't a realistic form of sole callous. That's just my opinion though. I think the naturally worn hooves of abrasive terrain wild horses show the better examples vs human trimmed examples.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 11, 2006, 03:37 PM
IWhereas YOU did say, in Post #101.

So which is it, Lookout .. the sole, the walls or what are, in your opinion, supposed to be weightbearing?
How many more times are you going to ask me this question? I answered it way back on p.2 post #39. And you illogically conclude that because someones states that rasping walls away prevents them from being weightbearing (because they no longer exist), means that they are the only weightbearing structures. Furthermore, I agree with your clarification of weightbearing distribution on the foot, which sounds like it was copied from somewhere and not understood because you proceeded to contradict it.


Let's go back to simple ... I maintain the walls are designed to share the weightbearing with the *sole callous*. I also maintain that the *SOLE* is NOT supposed to be weightbearing with ground contact on the *outside* but it DOES receive major impact from the INSIDE as the horse loads the hoof and the bony column is forced downwards into the foot. At the same time the concussion and force is minimized by the supportive tissues and functioning of the hoof and foot. Simple, simple.

AGAIN - - the distinction between 'inside' and 'outside' forces is meaningless because of one of the fundamental equations of physics, i.e an equal and opposite reaction for every action.

Auventera Two
Dec. 11, 2006, 05:00 PM
Let's go back to simple ... I maintain the walls are designed to share the weightbearing with the *sole callous*. I also maintain that the *SOLE* is NOT supposed to be weightbearing with ground contact on the *outside* but it DOES receive major impact from the INSIDE as the horse loads the hoof and the bony column is forced downwards into the foot. At the same time the concussion and force is minimized by the supportive tissues and functioning of the hoof and foot. Simple, simple.

I've stated my position. Can you clarify yours? And then we'll (or, at least I will) be done with this particular segment of this topic.

I'm also curious as to your background with hoofcare. Would you care to share? Thx.

Are you talking to me??? :confused: Because I agree with YOU!

caballus
Dec. 11, 2006, 05:55 PM
Are you talking to me??? :confused: Because I agree with YOU!

No, Two Simple. :) My apologies. I should have addressed Lookout directly instead of just posting a generic note.

Lookout
Dec. 11, 2006, 06:50 PM
Making the walls 100% weight bearing goes completely against everything everybody teaches - even regular farriers! When you say 100% of the horse's weight presses straight down on the walls alone,
Again- who is saying that?


that just makes zero sense to me. I cannot believe that a structure so strong and tough as the sole has no active role in supporting the weight of the horse. That makes no sense at all, and it isn't supported by a single other farrier or trimmer that I am aware of.
Just how "strong and tough" is the sole? The walls have more papillae more closely spaced together (denser) than the sole does, so that alone would make the walls more "strong and tough". How do you determine what's 'strong and tough'?

caballus
Dec. 11, 2006, 08:11 PM
Just happned across a post by Patty Stiller about sole callous and thought I'd post it for everyone's reading:

http://www.horseshoes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8494&postcount=38

Very interesting and a contradiction to the theory that the sole callous is an abnormal response to trauma or excessive concussion/wear/etc.

blrm
Dec. 11, 2006, 08:42 PM
Just happned across a post by Patty Stiller about sole callous and thought I'd post it for everyone's reading:


Thank you very much for sharing that find. :):)

caballus
Dec. 11, 2006, 09:08 PM
also just ran across the following pages from KBR site:

http://www.ecis.com/~hplove/clo/heum9801.html

Very interesting! Especially in light of this topic of discussion of weight bearing because this study found that the walls of the feral horses studied bore NO WEIGHT on the walls at all ... Pg. 1:

"Points of Contact
Ovnicek applied ink to flat pieces of wood and rubbed them across the soles of wild horse feet to determine where the feet were making contact with the ground. What he consistently found was a hoof structure which made ground contact at four distinctive points; both bars and at the corners of the toe. In some feet there were some "white zone" structures which formed up a rim of sorts inside the toe, arching between the anterior (front) points, which also made some incidental contact. These structures were where the toe should be in cases where toes were a little long and were being eliminated.
The hoof wall made No Contact with the ground and was not, in that context, a direct weight bearing structure. The sole and four points made contact and bore the weight, typically along the bars and in "the white zone" (laminae / sole junction).

Thus the sole and corners of the toe were heavily calloused and in direct contact with the ground. In addition, the anterior portion of the frog was also in direct contact with the ground. In 50% of the horses, the frog extended about 1/4" below the heels (made ground contact first). "

If you go to the page and read further you'll find much more very interesting info gathered from this study.

Tree
Dec. 11, 2006, 09:15 PM
But my question is - why do you think its a problem that the sole gets denser in respond to load? If the horse is sound and moves properly and is happy, who cares?? It would seem to me that that's the way its SUPPOSED to function.

Where did I ever say it was a problem? I just said that when the walls aren't doing their job, the sole takes on an active role. When I see this it has to do with elongated hooves with dished toes so that when the toes are rasped back for a proper breakover, it tends to mean there is no toe wall left because they were so stretched (deformed). Another type of hoof which leaves toe walls passive and toe sole active would be foundered feet having very deformed toe walls.

So, I don't think it's a problem when sole becomes active in lew of abscentee toe wall. And yes, unless the horse is on footing those active soles can't handle, they are fairly sound.

What I do have an issue with are methods which make ALL of the WALLS passive leaving only excess soles which are rasped flat and bar horn on the same level as the rasped walls. This is a technique used by a particular group to treat foundered horses. It isn't the way hooves are supposed to function at all. When Dr. Pollitt showed what happens to blood flow in a hoof trimmed in a similar manner (walls passive and soles active), the sole received NO BLOOD at all! He described this as a DEVASTATING AFFECT. No kidding!


Making the walls 100% weight bearing goes completely against everything everybody teaches - even regular farriers! The laminae is connected to the wall which is connected to P3. So if the walls are constantly bearing 1,100 pounds of weight (or more) alone with absolutely no support or help of anything else, doesn't it make sense that that laminae would be weakened or that it would tear?

Oh? Maybe you have a very different impression of this than I do. When farriers prepare hooves for shoes the sole is made passive to the shoe and walls active. The farrier may grind the shoe so that none of it makes contact with the sole. I don't know if this applies to all types of pasture trims. But the walls and bars are made of horn that is harder than sole and wall/bar horn grows at a much faster rate than sole so it stands to reason that wall horn was meant to take more punishment than the soles, IMO. And as shod hooves grow out, the walls are on a higher plane than the soles. The same can be true of bare hooves under the right conditions. In my area, I love to see horses growing a "natural shoe". It's the term I use to describe wall horn which has grown and hardened to be above the sole by atleast a half CM, more or less. They tend to have access to concrete flooring too. Now then, are these horse's hooves deformed according to how you think their feet should be?

I'm not forgetting that the entire hoof capsule works as a complete unit. Ok? The coffin bones are suspended within the hoof capsules by the laminae. The walls do their part to protect the inner structures if the hoof form allows for optimal function vs dysfunction when the hoof form is incorrect.


When the weight bearing is partially on the sole, the foot is being supported from UNDERNEATH versus getting no support and pushing the entire horse downward.

If the sole doesn't move in harmony with the inner structures, sole corium can become pinched in between the coffin bone and inner sole. So I do not agree with the idea that soles offer support to the boney structures. The sole offers protection if it is allowed to do its job.


Analogy:

It's a hot summer day and you're holding a big heavy glass of ice water. The glass is sweating. If you just hold the glass in your fist, the glass could easily slip through your hand. But stretch your pinkie finger down and under the bottom of the glass to provide support from the bottom. The glass is more well supported and much less likely to be dropped.

When you say 100% of the horse's weight presses straight down on the walls alone, that just makes zero sense to me. I cannot believe that a structure so strong and tough as the sole has no active role in supporting the weight of the horse. That makes no sense at all, and it isn't supported by a single other farrier or trimmer that I am aware of.

Well, it's a nice analogy but not really appropriate for someone who doesn't see the sole as a supporting structure in an optimally functional foot. Again, the sole corium can become pinched if the sole does not work in harmony with the inner structures. But getting back to your example, if I were to add poly-grip denture adhesive to my hand and then grip the glass, I would not lose my grip on that glass of tastey ice water! :D However, I don't have to resort to this at all when I can use TWO hands instead. :lol:

I can see why what I say doesn't make sense to you. However, if you just consider the poly-grip idea, it might make SOME sense as to why coffin bones don't slip down and punch a hole through a horse's sole or cause more bruising than what sometimes can happen when soles become too full and interfere with the action of the coffin bone.

Apparently, I don't know any of the farriers you know of. My former farrier was always very careful not to let the shoes make any sole contact. He had a grinder on his truck and would work the inner edges of the shoes before nailing them on. I'd be referring to the inner edges which would be nearer the underside of the hooves.

You and I have two very different takes on hoof form and function. ;)

Tree

Appassionato
Dec. 11, 2006, 10:01 PM
My former farrier was always very careful not to let the shoes make any sole contact. He had a grinder on his truck and would work the inner edges of the shoes before nailing them on. I'd be referring to the inner edges which would be nearer the underside of the hooves.

I know my case is involved, but I am especially interested in hearing feedback from others on this as well since the same was done on my guy. I believe they even attacked the pads with a grinder, but I honestly don't remember.

Tree
Dec. 11, 2006, 10:21 PM
I know my case is involved, but I am especially interested in hearing feedback from others on this as well since the same was done on my guy. I believe they even attacked the pads with a grinder, but I honestly don't remember.

Sounds like another thing you can discuss with your Farrier...getting more details about the use of the grinder and why. Also, ask if he thinks soles should make contact with shoes.

Tree

grinanride
Dec. 12, 2006, 08:05 AM
Interesting but pretty meaningless - the hooves were stamped on the board, like a rubber stamp, non weighted, really tells us nothing about where anything bears weight.
TE


"Points of Contact
Ovnicek applied ink to flat pieces of wood and rubbed them across the soles of wild horse feet to determine where the feet were making contact with the ground. What he consistently found was a hoof structure which made ground contact at four distinctive points; both bars and at the corners of the toe. In some feet there were some "white zone" structures which formed up a rim of sorts inside the toe, arching between the anterior (front) points, which also made some incidental contact. These structures were where the toe should be in cases where toes were a little long and were being eliminated.
The hoof wall made No Contact with the ground and was not, in that context, a direct weight bearing structure. The sole and four points made contact and bore the weight, typically along the bars and in "the white zone" (laminae / sole junction).

Thus the sole and corners of the toe were heavily calloused and in direct contact with the ground. In addition, the anterior portion of the frog was also in direct contact with the ground. In 50% of the horses, the frog extended about 1/4" below the heels (made ground contact first). "

If you go to the page and read further you'll find much more very interesting info gathered from this study.[/QUOTE]

Auventera Two
Dec. 12, 2006, 11:05 AM
Tree -

I am not going to continue debating with you. Your ideas are consistently very different from the majority here and elsewhere so it just does me no good at all to debate with you.

In looking at some of your trim photos though, I completely fail to see how you have made the walls completely active and the soles complete passive. All the pictures I've seen of all your trimmed feet are flat as a pancake and looks like the horse would be walking directly on the soles. Do you have photos you can post which illustrates active walls and passive soles?

Lookout
Dec. 12, 2006, 07:27 PM
Tree -
I am not going to continue debating with you. Your ideas are consistently very different from the majority here and elsewhere so it just does me no good at all to debate with you.

Yes, better you debate those you agree with.

Lookout
Dec. 12, 2006, 07:30 PM
From what I understand this study was the origin of the four point trim, replicating those 'four distinctive points' of ground contact, which is pretty much discredited today. As he says in the article, the horses were being 'processed' which means they were confined and not moving and wearing their feet normally, and as he also says the sole adapts to changes in the environment extremely quickly.

Interesting but pretty meaningless - the hooves were stamped on the board, like a rubber stamp, non weighted, really tells us nothing about where anything bears weight.
TE
"Points of Contact
Ovnicek applied ink to flat pieces of wood and rubbed them across the soles of wild horse feet to determine where the feet were making contact with the ground. What he consistently found was a hoof structure which made ground contact at four distinctive points; both bars and at the corners of the toe. In some feet there were some "white zone" structures which formed up a rim of sorts inside the toe, arching between the anterior (front) points, which also made some incidental contact. These structures were where the toe should be in cases where toes were a little long and were being eliminated.
The hoof wall made No Contact with the ground and was not, in that context, a direct weight bearing structure. The sole and four points made contact and bore the weight, typically along the bars and in "the white zone" (laminae / sole junction).

Thus the sole and corners of the toe were heavily calloused and in direct contact with the ground. In addition, the anterior portion of the frog was also in direct contact with the ground. In 50% of the horses, the frog extended about 1/4" below the heels (made ground contact first). "

If you go to the page and read further you'll find much more very interesting info gathered from this study.[/quote]

Tree
Dec. 13, 2006, 10:16 AM
Tree -

I am not going to continue debating with you. Your ideas are consistently very different from the majority here and elsewhere so it just does me no good at all to debate with you.

I'd be curious what the farriers over in horseshoes.com would think about the idea that soles should be weightbearing....with shoes on the feet. ;) If you think 'debates' are 'fun' with me, well...I think you need to get into a 'discussion' on horseshoes.com then. :eek:

Besides, there is no debate possible with those having the very same notions and ideas that you have. I believe a debate requires there to be two different views of the same subject. So is it debates you have a problem with or just me? :rolleyes: :) ;)


In looking at some of your trim photos though, I completely fail to see how you have made the walls completely active and the soles complete passive. All the pictures I've seen of all your trimmed feet are flat as a pancake and looks like the horse would be walking directly on the soles. Do you have photos you can post which illustrates active walls and passive soles?

I'm glad you mentioned this. What I do is a 4-point trim and once there is enough force on the hoof, to get it to flex, those passive portions of wall become active. I deal with a variety of hoof conditions so some of the feet are rather flat and some are very vaulted (concave) and then there are all the variations in between. However, you seem to contradict yourself in the first two sentences of this paragraph. You see some of my trim photos and can't understand how the walls can become copmletely active and yet in all of the pictures you've seen of my trims the hoof look like pancakes.

I posted some examples showing when toe sole is active because there is no toe wall to do that job. Not all of the surfaces of those feet were on the same plane as the toe soles. It is sometimes difficult to determine depths while looking at a one-dimensional image. In the lateral views of the arab's LF you COULD certainly see the passive quarter wall. He was just standing there on 4 feet. Had the owner held up the opposite front foot that quarter scoop would have disappeared with the added weight flexing the hoof capsule more.

To be better able to show active walls there would need to be more force coming down to bear on the hoof itself. The only way I could do this would be the snap a photo of the foot with the horse standing on all 4 feet and then snap a photo of the same hoof after the opposite hoof is picked up.

And with hooves having less concavity/toe height to work with, the quarter scoop is not as visible unless it had to be quite involved to match an obvious hairline/wall deviation. I won't be trimming any horses today having enough toe height to clearly show a quarter wall scoop so I will remember to get photos showing this when I next see this arab (Dec. 26th). Ok, or does it matter now that you know 100% active wall depends on the amount of force coming to bear on the hooves I trim and/or according to the conditions the feet have?

Tree

Auventera Two
Dec. 13, 2006, 10:39 AM
I think just about everybody on this board has established the fact that the trim you do is very bizarre. Trimming to blood so often and thinking it's normal - - - - so as I've said. Clearly your views are so "out there" that it does no good to even discuss it. You live in your part of the world and I live in mine. You do your thing, and I do mine. And good lucks with that.

BumbleBee
Dec. 13, 2006, 12:56 PM
I think just about everybody on this board has established the fact that the trim you do is very bizarre. Trimming to blood so often and thinking it's normal - - - - so as I've said. Clearly your views are so "out there" that it does no good to even discuss it. You live in your part of the world and I live in mine. You do your thing, and I do mine. And good lucks with that.

Are you sure your not Caballus? Your last 2 posts have made me do a double take to recheck the author.

Tree you have a PM coming.

Auventera Two
Dec. 13, 2006, 01:03 PM
LOL! Nope - not Caballus :lol:

Tree
Dec. 13, 2006, 04:26 PM
I think just about everybody on this board has established the fact that the trim you do is very bizarre. Trimming to blood so often and thinking it's normal - - - - so as I've said. Clearly your views are so "out there" that it does no good to even discuss it. You live in your part of the world and I live in mine. You do your thing, and I do mine. And good lucks with that.

This thread wasn't about 'my' trim. It was about what people thought about Pete's latest article or, to be more exact, comments about the photos in his article. So I let my thoughts be known and as the thread broadened out, I continued to put in my 2 cents worth along with some photos.

Yes, I'll continue to do my thing, just like everyone else. However, some folks do like to discuss what it is that I do. The ones who seem to have issues discussing what I do are those who feel threatened or something. I'm not sure why that is when I am not trying to change anyone's mind. There do seem to be a great many who are trying to change mine though. Yes, that is a useless endeavor, I must agree. The horses are a better source to judge what it is that I do when trimming their hooves than those with their preconceived notions and biases and what have you. ;)

Tree

eruss
Dec. 13, 2006, 04:43 PM
Sounds like another thing you can discuss with your Farrier...getting more details about the use of the grinder and why. Also, ask if he thinks soles should make contact with shoes.

Tree

I very rarely remove sole contact. If I do its when the sole is too thin, then I would hammer or grind sole relief into my shoe.

Tree
Dec. 13, 2006, 07:30 PM
I very rarely remove sole contact. If I do its when the sole is too thin, then I would hammer or grind sole relief into my shoe.


Questions then. By the time you see the horse again and pull the shoes to trim before shoeing them again, is there wall higher than the sole plane by then? If so, how much time had passed since the previous visit? If not, was the sole, which was level with the walls, dead and ready to exfoliate? Do you then trim the walls down level to the non-exfoliating sole or not?

Tree

eruss
Dec. 13, 2006, 07:59 PM
Questions then. By the time you see the horse again and pull the shoes to trim before shoeing them again, is there wall higher than the sole plane by then? If so, how much time had passed since the previous visit? If not, was the sole, which was level with the walls, dead and ready to exfoliate? Do you then trim the walls down level to the non-exfoliating sole or not?

Tree

The portion of sole which is protected by the shoe is usually close to the same height as the wall. It depends on how long the shoeing goes. Eventually the wall will grow much higher. Usually a 4 - 6 week shoeing cycle. Its ready to exfoliate. The only reason its still there is because the shoe was protecting it and holding it there. The walls are then trimmed close to the level of the live sole. I leave enough to burn. And many times in my area I don't even clean the dirt of the sole. Just a little wire brushing.

Appassionato
Dec. 13, 2006, 08:36 PM
I very rarely remove sole contact. If I do its when the sole is too thin, then I would hammer or grind sole relief into my shoe.

That rings a very familiar tone to me. My own horse has very thin soles. Thank you!

Tree
Dec. 13, 2006, 08:38 PM
The portion of sole which is protected by the shoe is usually close to the same height as the wall. It depends on how long the shoeing goes. Eventually the wall will grow much higher. Usually a 4 - 6 week shoeing cycle. Its ready to exfoliate. The only reason its still there is because the shoe was protecting it and holding it there. The walls are then trimmed close to the level of the live sole. I leave enough to burn. And many times in my area I don't even clean the dirt of the sole. Just a little wire brushing.

Thanks. That is consistent with what I've seen happen and done. Unless the shod horses I begin to trim had their shoes removed prior to me seeing them I end up pulling the shoes and find sole that is ready to exfoliate beneath the shoes too. I don't tend to lower the toe walls though as it is needed for height or to "burn". I'm assuming your use of "burn" meant leaving it behind to be used in some way. Since I'm working on hooves which will be bare, I have to leave enough wall behind to allow for wear or other purposes if making corrections.

My farrier used to wire brush soles if they didn't require more than that.

Thanks again.

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 13, 2006, 09:50 PM
The ones who seem to have issues discussing what I do are those who feel threatened or something. I'm not sure why that is when I am not trying to change anyone's mind.

Oh for Pete's sake (no pun intended) I am so not threatened by what you do. What I am is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY Outraged by the cruelty that you inflict on a creature who is not allowed to yell STOP at you. Your trim which is a Strasser Trim I think, although Todd says it isn't, is completely loathsome to those of us who honor the foot and the horse.

How dare you accuse people of being threatened. You are so out of line

You can not discuss something with a fanatic as fanatics have an excuse for everything.


The horses are a better source to judge what it is that I do when trimming their hooves than those with their preconceived notions and biases and what have you. ;)

Oh please, you writing this means nothing. Every single picture you have shared of the horses you trim shows a miserable horse. I'm so saddened that there are horse owners who think what you inflict on horses is acceptable.

Don't bother providing one of your glib answers as they mean NOTHING to me.

I'm writing to those who read these threads and might be confused into thinking you might have a clue into proper hoofcare management.

Ugh

Forgewizard
Dec. 14, 2006, 12:08 AM
Well, finally got my internet connection at the house fixed and don't have to sit at Denny's to get online! :lol:

Regarding the "Sole Callous" issue and how "wild horses" in arid rocky environments ( which I will admit seems to be what history tells us suits them quite well) - although there are a LOT of equids on the grassy savannahs of Africa, and the Steppes of MOngolia, and the pampas (grasslands) of argentina, and the coastal marshes of France and the deserts of Arabia and.... and.... and.... - which only proves that these animals are highly adaptable and can flourish in many environments. Each however will present with variations in hoof form.

Sooooo, as I said before, this lump of built up sole on the wild horses is no real proof that that is GOOD hoof form!

Just because the sole is thick and NON exfoliated on the wild arrid hoof - doesn't mean it needs to be there on every horse's hoof!

Look at the stances of many of those wild horses standing. - Camped under fore and hinds, every last one of them resting at least one hind leg. - During an evaluation of a domestic horse, I personally would look for caudal heel pain issues.

Here is a better analogy than the slippery glass of water:
And one that takes into account the fact that the tissue we are speaking of is at its basic core just skin:

Pigs. Pigs have no sweat glands in their body skin. The skin on their backs that is exposed the most to the elements of wind, rain, and merciless sun will develop thick, crusty flakes. These will build up to become almost 3/8 inch thick in some places!

Underneath these crusts remains fresh, soft normal skin.

When it rains or the pig gets a chance to wallow these crusts will get rubbed off , exposing the soft new skin underneath. This new skin is not any thicker nor any thinner than normal, it just SEEMS to be because the crusty old skin is gone. The newly exposed skin will be tender to touch and sensitive to the sun until it regains its thickened crust.

Does that mean all pigs are supposed to have crusty skin? No! No more than all humans are supposed to have hardened calloused hands because some farmer milking cows in the desert has such hardened calloused hands!

Take a wild horse from an arrid range and put him in the marches and that lump of built up hard sole will slough off, his walls will bend and crack and the hoof form will flatten out.

Put that same horse on the grass pampas and his soles will harden, build up and the toes will grow long and split and crack. Take him and park him on the sandy dunes and its likely that his hooves will grow wider, flatter and the soles will aften get abraded completely away, or build up and then pop out in a huge lump.

The sole callous is just NOT IMO an actual structure that is MEANT to be there - it just HAPPENS to be there.

You have to remember too, that on those arrid hoof forms so often shown, with the huge thickend soles, that while the ground surface level of the wall (near the thickened sole) may be abraded away - the wall is STILL outgrown and WILL be bearing a considerable portion of the weight. Now, the key is to discover whether that thickened lump of sole presents bruised soles, corns and pain issues for the "wild horse" in an arrid environment.

Yeah, sure many will say - but they CAN'T be lame - look at them gallop! Yep, and I've seen broken legged horses gallop too. - Its a survival thing.

IF you leave a horse's sole to build up into a thickened lump, the hoof loses a LOT of functionality and the horse suffers from it. The key is to mechanically exfioliate what needs to go - because the horse hasn't been able to get into the proper environment or movement to do it himself.

Remove the dead, exfoliating sole, don't take away from the woking sole and never invade the live sole. Pretty simple. The exfoliating sole will peel off in flakes or chunks or a chalky mess depepnding on how much moisture is in the tissue, and how long he's been trompling around on it, as well as how healthy it is.

BornToRide
Dec. 14, 2006, 01:06 AM
Pete's learning hoof anatomy? 'Bout time.
Wow....and you are what kind of expert????

Tree
Dec. 14, 2006, 10:48 AM
Oh for Pete's sake (no pun intended) I am so not threatened by what you do. What I am is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY Outraged by the cruelty that you inflict on a creature who is not allowed to yell STOP at you. Your trim which is a Strasser Trim I think, although Todd says it isn't, is completely loathsome to those of us who honor the foot and the horse.

How dare you accuse people of being threatened. You are so out of line

You can not discuss something with a fanatic as fanatics have an excuse for everything.


So "or something" would apply to you then? ;)

What I find disturbing is that you are able to come to such dramatic conclusions based on pics vs seeing the horse(s) in person. That's a little too "out there" for me to accept. And to assume also that a horse can't say "stop" is another "out there" statement. The horses I trim aren't on any mind altering drugs so they are aware of what is going on.

Oh I know you're outraged. I can tell by reading those explosive attacking posts you aim at me. The trouble is, most of it pertains to what you IMAGINE taking place after seeing pics. What you lack is the responses given by the horses.

So, let's put rage where it is of more use vs where it doesn't really apply.

There's fanatisism and then there is self-assuredness. I believe fanatics tend to become emotional much more quickly than those who are sure about what it is they do or believe in. I am very sure about what it is that I do and believe in. I don't have to go all emotional when posting to people I don't happen to agree with.

I agree that it is difficult to discuss something with a fanatic. They just go all emotional at the least little thing vs sticking to info that would better support their side. Yeah, that's not the sort to be able to have nice calm conversations or discussions with. ;)


Oh please, you writing this means nothing. Every single picture you have shared of the horses you trim shows a miserable horse. I'm so saddened that there are horse owners who think what you inflict on horses is acceptable.

So you keep saying. The horses don't agree with you, sorry.


Don't bother providing one of your glib answers as they mean NOTHING to me.

I'm writing to those who read these threads and might be confused into thinking you might have a clue into proper hoofcare management.

Ugh

Then don't bother taking quotes by me and not expecting a response in return. Geez!

As far as others becoming confused, I allow them much more common sense than you seem to. Your antics speak volumes and I put pics up which show some examples of what I do. I let people make up their own minds vs wasting my time bad mouthing others whom I don't happen to agree with. If people are going to allow others to make their decisions, then I hope they'll take full responsibility for allowing themselves to be enfluenced by others. I think for myself. I will read what others have to say and sort through it all. I know who I am and what I do.

Tree

Auventera Two
Dec. 14, 2006, 12:20 PM
Tree -

I can certainly appreciate irishcas's feelings. I find your hoof photos really disturbing. I personally feel there are ways to achieve good results without bleeding a horse. As an owner who has learned to trim, I know that I have taken extra special precaution to observe moderation and tact in every trimming. I trim a little, trim a little more, and finally a little more until the job is done without going too deep or causing blood.

I have a pic of yours with blood flowing down the bars on each side of a frog. You think this is normal. I'm sorry girl, but it's NOT normal. In all my life of owning horses, I've never had a farrier draw blood on a horse. And we've owned a lot of horses ranging from scraggly rescues to show stock and breeding stock. You made a comment that you "only" drew blood on 1 in 8 horses. I don't think this is acceptable.

My friend's farrier drew blood on her mare's sole, up near the toe, and the mare was lame on that foot for a week. So I just completely fail to see how you can draw blood so often on horses but claim that they march off sound as a nickle. I just cannot comprehend that. Do you ever draw blood on the sole? Or only on the frog and bars? Maybe that's it? Maybe horses are more tolerant to agressive trimming on bars and frogs but cannot handle it on the soles? I don't know.

I think you've done a great job of being professional, answering questions, and meeting criticism with square shoulders. I don't ever wish to attack you personally, but rather, I "do" certainly question, and want to understand, what you do to horses feet and why. And besides, getting pissed and attacking people only gets me banned by Erin, so I try to zip it a little more often now! :lol: LMAO!

Anyway - I think you do contribute positively to this forum, and I think a lot of us ask a lot of questions of what you do, because its not a trim that we would ever employ in the normal day to day.

irishcas
Dec. 14, 2006, 12:32 PM
Your antics speak volumes and I put pics up which show some examples of what I do. I let people make up their own minds vs wasting my time bad mouthing others whom I don't happen to agree with.

There are no antics involved Tree, I am not afraid or ashamed to keep my mouth shut when I see cruelty being practiced on those who can not defend themselves.

If I see someone hitting an animal/child/weaker person I stick up for them. There is nothing wrong about that. I don't need to see the horses in person to judge by your photos that you harm horses.

I am not the only one who feels this way nor am I the only one to speak up.

I am addressing the fact that you said people are somehow threatened by what you do. I repeat I am not threatened it is the horses who are and they can't stick up for themselves. Of course I'm "or something" and I stated in my previous post what that something is. I also repeat I am not a part of the few, but of the many. You should not be allowed to trim if you find 1 in 8 horses bleeding no big deal. You said it not us.

Larbear
Dec. 14, 2006, 12:54 PM
Hi All:

Pete Ramey has put up a new article on his site which I think is really interesting (yup I know, I'm biased). Here is the link http://www.hoofrehab.com/coronet.htm

Now Tree, I'd really like it if you would read it and then if we could have a discussion about trimming the sole techniques that you do.

There is a series of 4 photos near the end of the article and I would really like to discuss them with you in regards to your trimming (following internal structures, etc)

Of course this is a feral hoof so the sole is much thicker than we normally see, which really should make some things more obvious for us :)

Look forward to your thoughts and anyone elses as well.

Regards,

This thread seems to have drifted somewhat..makes me question the orignal intentions of this post. Personally, I appreciate learning and studying the different trims, I don't exclude one just because someone tells me it's bad. I would rather look into it and decide for myself.

Tree
Dec. 14, 2006, 01:06 PM
Tree -

I can certainly appreciate irishcas's feelings. I find your hoof photos really disturbing.

Do you have to look at them? I mean, I provide links so in order to SEE them one must decide to click on them to do so. So if people are so disturbed by something or are afraid they will be, do they have to click and look or can they decide not to click and look? In other words, no one is forced to look at anything or read anything they don't want to. Right?


I have a pic of yours with blood flowing down the bars on each side of a frog. You think this is normal.

I don't believe I've said that hitting blood is normal. I am not overly concerned about hitting blood though. And out of curiosity, may I ask why you have pics of things which disturb you?


My friend's farrier drew blood on her mare's sole, up near the toe, and the mare was lame on that foot for a week. So I just completely fail to see how you can draw blood so often on horses but claim that they march off sound as a nickle. I just cannot comprehend that.

Not knowing the amount of blood the farrier caused, I cannot compare what I have encountered to what you're talking about with regards to hitting blood in the sole. So I'll just say that when I've purposely trimmed and waited for PIN PRICKS OF BLOOD to appear, it was while trimming to the max amount possible while making a correction to a hoof with an imbalance issue. This would include the mini that I posted pics of over in horseshoes last year. I don't know if those posts are still over there but you can look. It would be in the Farriers helping Farriers forum under general discussions, if I'm not mistaken.

But as far as the blood that was hit in that bay Arab's foot, yes, whether or not you can be convinced or comprehend this (is of no concern to me or to him), he walked off sound as a dollar (which is more than a nickle). And this is because the area that bled was PASSIVE in a very vaulted sole (loads of concavity...more than the normal amounts of concavity). Unless and until you actually SEE in PERSON the horses I trim, you can continue to believe as you like. No wonder you would rather think as Kim does. :rolleyes:


Do you ever draw blood on the sole? Or only on the frog and bars? Maybe that's it? Maybe horses are more tolerant to agressive trimming on bars and frogs but cannot handle it on the soles? I don't know.

If I hit blood in sole, I already gave an example above and will add that while trimming bar off of sole there have been times when I've hit blood because the bar had inhibited sole growth til there was none to find underneath the excess bar material. This has ocurred in some very pathological hooves. If I hit blood in the bars, it means I'm trying to trim them as thin as possible where they originate from. Again, this is while dealing with some pathological hooves. And the horses really LIKE IT if those bars have been causing them enough pain to compensate for them. When I've hit blood in frogs it has been due to necrosis and or an accidental gouge with the knife. I have NEVER purposely trimmed to hit blood in frogs.


I think you've done a great job of being professional, answering questions, and meeting criticism with square shoulders. I don't ever wish to attack you personally, but rather, I "do" certainly question, and want to understand, what you do to horses feet and why. And besides, getting pissed and attacking people only gets me banned by Erin, so I try to zip it a little more often now! :lol: LMAO!

Thank you. I would like for you to understand why I do what I do but if you can't, well, it won't be the end of the world. :) It's clear, to me, that there are things I do that you don't wish to understand because you find them totally unacceptable. I have no problems with that. Yes, unacceptable behavior on groups will get you into trouble. I have found the same to be true. ;) It doesn't mean I don't get pissed off. I do. I just know it doesn't do the least bit of good to blow off in forums unless there is a specific forum FOR those sorts of things. :D


Anyway - I think you do contribute positively to this forum, and I think a lot of us ask a lot of questions of what you do, because its not a trim that we would ever employ in the normal day to day.

I hope that people can also keep in mind that when I post pics of specific hooves, the trims are according to THOSE hooves and not an example of what I do to each and every hoof. I've posted pics which showed no actual blood before and yet someone will see a bruise and call that "hitting blood". I have even read articles before that referred to pigmented sole as bruising. Well, I just keep in mind that blood is blood and bruises are bruises and pigmented sole is pigmented sole. I can't account for everything others think and don't need to.

And thanks again.

Tree

Tree
Dec. 14, 2006, 01:23 PM
There are no antics involved Tree, I am not afraid or ashamed to keep my mouth shut when I see cruelty being practiced on those who can not defend themselves.

Maintaining a professional's decorum is the issue I was referring to. And I think you severely underestimate the capabilities of equines when it comes to defending themselves from perceived dangers or people who would cause them pain. The equines I trim have only a halter and lead at the most attached to their body. If more restraints are required, their lead may be attached to something solid, they might be cross-tied (so the owner can watch what I'm doing), or a leg may need to be tied up (for those wild and wooly critters who don't get handled enough...like the donkeys the trader finds in the back woods). :eek:


If I see someone hitting an animal/child/weaker person I stick up for them. There is nothing wrong about that. I don't need to see the horses in person to judge by your photos that you harm horses.

Seeing something in person is one thing. Making assumptions with little more than photos is another, IMO. While you don't think you need to see horses in person to make such judgements, don't get upset by those who know more about the pics than you do...like dealing with the real things vs images...if they don't go along with your misconceptions.


I am addressing the fact that you said people are somehow threatened by what you do.

I repeat I am not threatened it is the horses who are and they can't stick up for themselves. Of course I'm "or something" and I stated in my previous post what that something is. I also repeat I am not a part of the few, but of the many. You should not be allowed to trim if you find 1 in 8 horses bleeding no big deal. You said it not us.


It was an idea that I tossed out into space as to why some folks reacted so terribly. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then I wasn't talking about you.

The horses aren't threatened or why would they allow me near them? So let's stick to the real things vs the imaginary. Ok?

If you had things your way, I wouldn't be allowed to trim, period. If your critics had their way, you wouldn't be allowed to trim, period. Gee, who is right? According to the horses, we're both trimming hooves and repeatedly so!

The 1 in 8 pertained to A day out of this year.

Tree

BumbleBee
Dec. 14, 2006, 07:50 PM
This thread seems to have drifted somewhat..makes me question the orignal intentions of this post. Personally, I appreciate learning and studying the different trims, I don't exclude one just because someone tells me it's bad. I would rather look into it and decide for myself.

Agree with every word.

Tree
Dec. 14, 2006, 08:46 PM
I had ignored this thread originally. Then the OP makes a post in the impossible club foot(?) thread to get my attention about THIS thread. Well, I certainly wasn't forced to get involved in this thread but it seems I was just asked to come here to rehash stuff that has been discussed time and time again...like blood. :rolleyes:

Yeah, this thread was supposed to be all about PR's article. It seems to be the OP's own doings that this has turned into something sounding more like what was going on in the impossible club foot(?) thread.

Well, what ever! :D

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 14, 2006, 08:53 PM
Wow....and you are what kind of expert????

Oh, a little offended Born to Ride? That someone else's knowledge might be questioned?

The kind of 'expert' who can compare an actual leg to his drawing and know they don't jive. Enough of an expert to have an actual education in anatomy and to see that he makes egregious mistakes and know he hasn't seen the inside of a foot or leg till now. After all, he has no formal education, and it shows.

More of an expert than someone who insisted their horse couldn't go barefoot for over a year, then took her horse's shoes off and two weeks later considers herself enough of an expert to give everyone else advice on their horse's feet.

I don't know what you consider an 'expert' - but go ahead, throw down your gauntlet.

irishcas
Dec. 14, 2006, 09:02 PM
There is so far a total of 11 pages on this thread, I did not create all the posts on this thread. Actually have not posted a tremendous amount.

I think Pete's article was written with Tree's/Strasser methods in mind. I brought it to your attention Anne to hear what you thought.

The thread then went on it's merry way.

I will continue to question your trimming methods Anne, blood or not.

Tree
Dec. 14, 2006, 09:40 PM
I think Pete's article was written with Tree's/Strasser methods in mind.

Maybe you should write and ask him about this vs just thinking things about it.
I can't imagine him having ME in mind as I'm not all that famous...am I? ;)

Oh and speaking of writing to someone, did you ever hear anything from Strasser?


I will continue to question your trimming methods Anne, blood or not.

Please do, Kim. Forgive me if I don't do the same.

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 14, 2006, 10:21 PM
Tree:

I talk to Pete frequently, so I'll stand by the statement I made.

Yes I did hear from them, do you want the answer posted on this public list?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, question what I do. Of course I don't perform an invasive trim, I honor the foot and allow the horses to heal over time. We are polar opposites and will never agree. None of my trims proudly display bleeding, pin pricked bloody feet, or invasive, overly trimmed feet.

It doesn't take a rocket science to see that what you ROUTINELY display(bloody or not) via photos is harmful to the horse.

Lookout
Dec. 14, 2006, 11:35 PM
This thread seems to have drifted somewhat..makes me question the orignal intentions of this post. Personally, I appreciate learning and studying the different trims, I don't exclude one just because someone tells me it's bad. I would rather look into it and decide for myself.

I think the agenda was pretty transparent.

Tree
Dec. 15, 2006, 09:33 AM
Tree:

I talk to Pete frequently, so I'll stand by the statement I made.

I think that Pete was aiming at quite a few gurus or methods made known by some gurus. Note, guru in the plural sense.

Strasser doesn't give specific toe lengths. Jackson did and Pete did too. The 3 to 3.5" toe length measure can be found in Jackson's books. The heel height ranges that Strasser notes (in healthy hooves) is an approximate 3 to 4cm. Pete said, "...from near zero to 2 or more inches." So there is nothing about Strasser to suggest zero for a heel height and 4cm's is less than 2". And Pete's only concern about the coronary band is that it is flexible, particularly when the hoof capsule is removed. No mention of Strasser's 30 degree hairline nor toe angle ranges that she gives.

So, I didn't get the impression that he was aiming at her at all. I got the impression that he was just so excited about the flexibility of the exposed coronary band.

And then by the time he got around to the illustrations and the red lines and so forth, I couldn't tell you who's methods he was making an example of. It certainly wasn't depicting what "I" do when I hit blood. He would've had to have been showing a solar view of that cadaver and running a red line across the bar regions or outer edge of toe sole nearest the WL.

I'm so glad you could enlighten me as to what this article was truly about. ;)

Just kidding!!! :D


Yes I did hear from them, do you want the answer posted on this public list?

Them? Do you mean Strasser herself or the organization? And, your plans (intentions), were to post the response on COTH. Did 'they' not give you permission to do so? I'd requested a copy of your email to them and the response once you'd received it. I did want to know what you had said and their response if it was about me specifically.

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 15, 2006, 12:10 PM
Strasser doesn't give specific toe lengths. Jackson did and Pete did too. The 3 to 3.5" toe length measure can be found in Jackson's books. The heel height ranges that Strasser notes (in healthy hooves) is an approximate 3 to 4cm. Pete said, "...from near zero to 2 or more inches."
Is this a measurement? How much is near zero to two or more inches? Four inches? Eleven? IOW, it can be anything?

slb
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:01 PM
[quote=Lookout;2064407]The kind of 'expert' who can compare an actual leg to his drawing and know they don't jive.
Really....and yet you accepted the inaccurate drawings in Strasser's publications as "fact"?


Enough of an expert to have an actual education in anatomy and to see that he makes egregious mistakes and know he hasn't seen the inside of a foot or leg till now.
What education in anatomy....a skewed SHP education? One that shuns conventional anatomy and makes up words to compensate for lack of connection to reality?


After all, he has no formal education, and it shows.
If formal education is your measure of a person, then you should look around you! Formal education doesn't ensure anyone's knowledge or skill.

Pippigirl
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:15 PM
I think just about everybody on this board has established the fact that the trim you do is very bizarre. Trimming to blood so often and thinking it's normal - - - - so as I've said. Clearly your views are so "out there" that it does no good to even discuss it. You live in your part of the world and I live in mine. You do your thing, and I do mine. And good lucks with that.

Hrm...not wise to generalize and speak for others....

Tree
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:22 PM
Is this a measurement? How much is near zero to two or more inches? Four inches? Eleven? IOW, it can be anything?

Apprently so. So how can he find any fault with measurements if he goes on to provide measurements pertaining to the depth of the collateral grooves. And then he goes on to say he's found info to support the idea that having 1.5" of collateral groove height is needed to provide adequate sole thickness.

Rather than try to demonstrate how others hit blood I think he'd have done better to provide examples to clearly show what it was that he was talking about concerning these collateral groove depths and the sole thickness. I mean, he wanted to provide info meant to help people sort through things.

Tree

Pippigirl
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:31 PM
Now this I find interesting...in Irishcas's very first post she writes:

Hi All:

Pete Ramey has put up a new article on his site which I think is really interesting (yup I know, I'm biased). Here is the link http://www.hoofrehab.com/coronet. htm

Now Tree, I'd really like it if you would read it and then if we could have a discussion about trimming the sole techniques that you do.

Look forward to your thoughts and anyone elses as well.

Regards,

You (Irishcas) even go to another topic just to get Tree's attention...to get the "discussion" started...and yet on page 11 (I think) Irishcas finally writes:

"Oh please, you writing this means nothing. Every single picture you have shared of the horses you trim shows a miserable horse. I'm so saddened that there are horse owners who think what you inflict on horses is acceptable.

Don't bother providing one of your glib answers as they mean NOTHING to me.

I'm writing to those who read these threads and might be confused into thinking you might have a clue into proper hoofcare management.

Ugh"

Is this the *REAL* reason for starting this? Not really promoting the Ramey article and wishing for a mature discussion, but more of a personal attack.
Irishcas admitted that she was biased towards Ramey, would like a discussion, yet can't tolerate the criticism of the article **OR** other people's opinion.

Lookout
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:41 PM
[quote]
Really....and yet you accepted the inaccurate drawings in Strasser's publications as "fact"?
What education in anatomy....a skewed SHP education? One that shuns conventional anatomy and makes up words to compensate for lack of connection to reality?
If formal education is your measure of a person, then you should look around you! Formal education doesn't ensure anyone's knowledge or skill.
I don't think you know what I accepted or did not accept as fact.
I don't think there's any such thing as "conventional" anatomy. If you open up a horse's foot - whatever is there, is there. Conventional, or otherwise.
And, while true that formal education doesn't ensure anything, lack of it does - i.e. lack of it. When you start from behind the eight ball, it shows. And it comes through in unsupported pronouncements. Like, the collateral groove extending to the apex of the frog. Sure, you can make up for it with experience with lots of compensatory work, but he hasn't.

Tree
Dec. 15, 2006, 02:50 PM
Pippigirl,

Welcome to the world of Kim Cassidy. :D It makes very little sense to me so I just chalk it up to Kim being Kim.

Tree

Chestnut Mare
Dec. 15, 2006, 04:19 PM
If you guys want to bicker, I mean "discuss" various theories, have at it, but lay off the personal attacks or the thread will just be closed along with any others that approach the same level of "discussion".

Remember, the mods imposed a ban on Oldenburg discussions for many a month in SHB, and it just made our life easier. We can and will happily do the same for feet, shod or unshod. We might just consider it a Christmas Gift to Ourselves.

Forgewizard
Dec. 16, 2006, 10:53 AM
Thanks ChestnutMare for bringing the thread BACK to discussion mode. Anytime people get together to discuss differing views, it can be hard to not get personal, since it is persoanl views being discussed. But GOOD discussions go ABOVE the personal sides and talk about the SUBJECT. and on that note I'll repost my last post in hopes of ACTUAL discussion and observations:



Well, finally got my internet connection at the house fixed and don't have to sit at Denny's to get online! :lol:

Regarding the "Sole Callous" issue and how "wild horses" in arid rocky environments ( which I will admit seems to be what history tells us suits them quite well) - although there are a LOT of equids on the grassy savannahs of Africa, and the Steppes of MOngolia, and the pampas (grasslands) of argentina, and the coastal marshes of France and the deserts of Arabia and.... and.... and.... - which only proves that these animals are highly adaptable and can flourish in many environments. Each however will present with variations in hoof form.

Sooooo, as I said before, this lump of built up sole on the wild horses is no real proof that that is GOOD hoof form!

Just because the sole is thick and NON exfoliated on the wild arrid hoof - doesn't mean it needs to be there on every horse's hoof!

Look at the stances of many of those wild horses standing. - Camped under fore and hinds, every last one of them resting at least one hind leg. - During an evaluation of a domestic horse, I personally would look for caudal heel pain issues.

Here is a better analogy than the slippery glass of water:
And one that takes into account the fact that the tissue we are speaking of is at its basic core just skin:

Pigs. Pigs have no sweat glands in their body skin. The skin on their backs that is exposed the most to the elements of wind, rain, and merciless sun will develop thick, crusty flakes. These will build up to become almost 3/8 inch thick in some places!

Underneath these crusts remains fresh, soft normal skin.

When it rains or the pig gets a chance to wallow these crusts will get rubbed off , exposing the soft new skin underneath. This new skin is not any thicker nor any thinner than normal, it just SEEMS to be because the crusty old skin is gone. The newly exposed skin will be tender to touch and sensitive to the sun until it regains its thickened crust.

Does that mean all pigs are supposed to have crusty skin? No! No more than all humans are supposed to have hardened calloused hands because some farmer milking cows in the desert has such hardened calloused hands!

Take a wild horse from an arrid range and put him in the marches and that lump of built up hard sole will slough off, his walls will bend and crack and the hoof form will flatten out.

Put that same horse on the grass pampas and his soles will harden, build up and the toes will grow long and split and crack. Take him and park him on the sandy dunes and its likely that his hooves will grow wider, flatter and the soles will aften get abraded completely away, or build up and then pop out in a huge lump.

The sole callous is just NOT IMO an actual structure that is MEANT to be there - it just HAPPENS to be there.

You have to remember too, that on those arrid hoof forms so often shown, with the huge thickend soles, that while the ground surface level of the wall (near the thickened sole) may be abraded away - the wall is STILL outgrown and WILL be bearing a considerable portion of the weight. Now, the key is to discover whether that thickened lump of sole presents bruised soles, corns and pain issues for the "wild horse" in an arrid environment.

Yeah, sure many will say - but they CAN'T be lame - look at them gallop! Yep, and I've seen broken legged horses gallop too. - Its a survival thing.

IF you leave a horse's sole to build up into a thickened lump, the hoof loses a LOT of functionality and the horse suffers from it. The key is to mechanically exfioliate what needs to go - because the horse hasn't been able to get into the proper environment or movement to do it himself.

Remove the dead, exfoliating sole, don't take away from the woking sole and never invade the live sole. Pretty simple. The exfoliating sole will peel off in flakes or chunks or a chalky mess depepnding on how much moisture is in the tissue, and how long he's been trompling around on it, as well as how healthy it is.

caballus
Dec. 16, 2006, 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by Forgewizard
Regarding the "Sole Callous" issue and how "wild horses" in arid rocky environments ( which I will admit seems to be what history tells us suits them quite well) - although there are a LOT of equids on the grassy savannahs of Africa, and the Steppes of MOngolia, and the pampas (grasslands) of argentina, and the coastal marshes of France and the deserts of Arabia and.... and.... and.... - which only proves that these animals are highly adaptable and can flourish in many environments. Each however will present with variations in hoof form.

Sooooo, as I said before, this lump of built up sole on the wild horses is no real proof that that is GOOD hoof form!

Guess it all depends, huh? *GRIN*


Just because the sole is thick and NON exfoliated on the wild arrid hoof - doesn't mean it needs to be there on every horse's hoof!

Look at the stances of many of those wild horses standing. - Camped under fore and hinds, every last one of them resting at least one hind leg. - During an evaluation of a domestic horse, I personally would look for caudal heel pain issues. Most horses will rest with one hind cocked. That, in itself, means nothing. Camped under or camped over will hint at issues in the hooves, of course. But had to mention the hind foot cocking ... as it is very normal and healthy.


Here is a better analogy than the slippery glass of water:
And one that takes into account the fact that the tissue we are speaking of is at its basic core just skin:

Pigs. Pigs have no sweat glands in their body skin. The skin on their backs that is exposed the most to the elements of wind, rain, and merciless sun will develop thick, crusty flakes. These will build up to become almost 3/8 inch thick in some places!

Underneath these crusts remains fresh, soft normal skin.

When it rains or the pig gets a chance to wallow these crusts will get rubbed off , exposing the soft new skin underneath. This new skin is not any thicker nor any thinner than normal, it just SEEMS to be because the crusty old skin is gone. The newly exposed skin will be tender to touch and sensitive to the sun until it regains its thickened crust.

Does that mean all pigs are supposed to have crusty skin? No! No more than all humans are supposed to have hardened calloused hands because some farmer milking cows in the desert has such hardened calloused hands!{/quote]Well, as you and I and others have said it depends on the environment totally.

Take a wild horse from an arrid range and put him in the marches and that lump of built up hard sole will slough off, his walls will bend and crack and the hoof form will flatten out.

Put that same horse on the grass pampas and his soles will harden, build up and the toes will grow long and split and crack. Take him and park him on the sandy dunes and its likely that his hooves will grow wider, flatter and the soles will aften get abraded completely away, or build up and then pop out in a huge lump.

The sole callous is just NOT IMO an actual structure that is MEANT to be there - it just HAPPENS to be there. Happens to be there AS IS NEEDED.


You have to remember too, that on those arrid hoof forms so often shown, with the huge thickend soles, that while the ground surface level of the wall (near the thickened sole) may be abraded away - the wall is STILL outgrown and WILL be bearing a considerable portion of the weight. Now, the key is to discover whether that thickened lump of sole presents bruised soles, corns and pain issues for the "wild horse" in an arrid environment.

Yeah, sure many will say - but they CAN'T be lame - look at them gallop! Yep, and I've seen broken legged horses gallop too. - Its a survival thing. Yeah, its a survival thing but the horses are not in the height of survival mode 100% of the time. In other words they are not at the point of adrenalin coverups. While their primary instinct is "to survive" aka flight or fight, when grazing the horse are not in that adrenalin survival mode and therefore would exhibit any lameness issues at that time.


IF you leave a horse's sole to build up into a thickened lump, the hoof loses a LOT of functionality and the horse suffers from it. The key is to mechanically exfioliate what needs to go - because the horse hasn't been able to get into the proper environment or movement to do it himself.So, how is one to determine just what sole is needed and which is not? I adhere to the 'leave it if its stuck' or remove/exfoliate if it can be removed easily. If not, the hoof, if in proper form and function, will take care of it itself as nature designed according to its own environment.


Remove the dead, exfoliating sole, don't take away from the woking sole and never invade the live sole. Pretty simple. The exfoliating sole will peel off in flakes or chunks or a chalky mess depepnding on how much moisture is in the tissue, and how long he's been trompling around on it, as well as how healthy it is. Guess we sorta said the same thing. It's a difficult call for many who are just learning. Takes alot of hooves and trimming to get to know, more or less instinctively, what needs to go and what needs to stay.

--Gwen

irishcas
Dec. 16, 2006, 11:19 AM
Forge:

I agree with most of what you say, it is logical. One of my big complaints with trimming guidelines that are sent in stone, is that they are set in stone. What works in NY does not necessarily work in Nevada.

I think there are core principals to follow but telling someone to trim to exact measurements just doesn't work.

As for sole callous, I believe it's there and needed at certain times by a variety of horses.

You pointed out that the pigs wallow and scratch off that crusty skin. They do it themselves, humans are not out there picking it off for them because they think it causes skin pain. I see horses have cracked hard soles during dry weather, then it rains for a few days and they shed sole.

But it wasn't done by someone. Of course I'm talking about horses with adequate turnout and movement.

Now for horses that spend a tremendous amount of time in a stall, we have to help them sometimes. It all just depends but I think each horse needs to be trimmed and evaluated as to their comfort level.

I use a wire brush these days when cleaning the sole so I don't kill my rasps as quickly and that is all the exfoliating I do.

I, as stated may times do not believe in trimming sole. I see most farriers around here trim it before applying a shoe, I'm wondering if that is even necessary but hey to each his own.

I think anything that is touching the ground during movement builds up denser material. It just makes sense :) So can that be termed callous material? I don't see why not.

Anyway, I'm going to ride it's chilly but sunny here and it's perfect weather for having fun on horseback.

Talk to you later.

Forgewizard
Dec. 16, 2006, 11:47 AM
Thanks Gwen for keeping the discussion OPEN!

This is exactly the crux of my observations:


Quote:
Here is a better analogy than the slippery glass of water:
And one that takes into account the fact that the tissue we are speaking of is at its basic core just skin:

Pigs. Pigs have no sweat glands in their body skin. The skin on their backs that is exposed the most to the elements of wind, rain, and merciless sun will develop thick, crusty flakes. These will build up to become almost 3/8 inch thick in some places!

Underneath these crusts remains fresh, soft normal skin.

When it rains or the pig gets a chance to wallow these crusts will get rubbed off , exposing the soft new skin underneath. This new skin is not any thicker nor any thinner than normal, it just SEEMS to be because the crusty old skin is gone. The newly exposed skin will be tender to touch and sensitive to the sun until it regains its thickened crust.

Does that mean all pigs are supposed to have crusty skin? No! No more than all humans are supposed to have hardened calloused hands because some farmer milking cows in the desert has such hardened calloused hands!{/quote]Well, as you and I and others have said it depends on the environment totally.

Take a wild horse from an arrid range and put him in the marches and that lump of built up hard sole will slough off, his walls will bend and crack and the hoof form will flatten out.

Put that same horse on the grass pampas and his soles will harden, build up and the toes will grow long and split and crack. Take him and park him on the sandy dunes and its likely that his hooves will grow wider, flatter and the soles will aften get abraded completely away, or build up and then pop out in a huge lump.

The sole callous is just NOT IMO an actual structure that is MEANT to be there - it just HAPPENS to be there.

Happens to be there AS IS NEEDED

"AS NEEDED" Which goes back to the "it Depends" which really isn't a cop out as much as it is a fact.

The whole point behind so many of the Barefoot only folks and a LOT of what is behind Pete's presentation is that because these "wild horses" have such and such hoof form - then that means ALL horses are supposed to have the same form. Which just AIN'T so! Shouldn't be so, nor couldn't be so.

I'll grant you that a horse resting its hind hoof is a normal thing to do. But in that photo (and I wish I could put my hands on it - it was I believe posted somewhere in this thread or at least on this board) showed a group of "wild horses" all standing and evryone of them has standing camped under and resting a hind hoof! IN a group of several horses it is NOT likely that everyone will adopt an identical stance. So I'd say that in that photo at least everyone of them was experiencing similar hoof issues - which would make sense if they were all in the same band, and traveling at the same speeds and over same terrain.

Just because a horse isn't hopping three legged lame doesn't mean he is sound, I KNOW you know that. Once a person learns to read a horse, there are far fewer trully sound horses out there than there are off horses.

Which of course brings me back to the original post again - that hoof Pete used to diagram what he claims is good sole thickness is misleading because :
1. he doesn't show the actual thickness of the sole.

and

2. That is NOT what I would consider a healthy hoof.

Was the horse "sound" on it or just enduring what he had to because he had no other choice?

I guess in another form of analogy you could talk about teeth (human for the sake of discussion - but horse too if you wish). Look how many people endure and get along with poor teeth - many because they have no choice to get proper dentistry. Look how many horses keep going with poor teeth because they have no choice. Many stay fairly fit and fleshed out too, but they'll adopt other manners of chewing or behaviors to get the better grass or to retain what they can get. So since the dentition doesn't get proper care - does that mean ALL humans or horses need to adopt smilar teeth form?

See what I am saying? Do YOU think its necessary to have extremely callloused toughened hands like that dairy farmer in the desert?

Do you think that a doctor would need YOUR calloused, toughened hands to perform the surgeries he does? No, because his hand form depends upon what is being demanded of them.

Are those calloused thoughened dairy farmer's hands healthy? Well, probably not - if you go from the stand point of germs, cuts, abrasions etc as compared to a doctor's hands. But they CAN do the job required of them -w rok hard in a tough environement. Take that dairy farmer out of that job and put him in the Dr.'s job and guess what? He gets more money! :lol: Besides that -his hand form changes!

Horse's hooves do too.

Which is why I want to find out if there really is scientific proof that the solar papillae in the so called "sole callous" region actually are more densely packed and grow more sole, or if this "sole callous" is just a response to the environement.

So far any of the cutaway views of hoove's I can find show very thin soles, as do radiographs unless the sole is grossly overgrown.

Going by what flakes off for trimming is O.K. as long as the hoof is at proper moisture levels. Hooves that are dry will NOT flake like hooves that are moist - so we are right back at the "it depends" again aren't we? :winkgrin:

caballus
Dec. 16, 2006, 01:35 PM
Hmmmmm, here's viewpoint ... read through Michael Savoldi's article on Uniform Sole Thickness: http://www.barefoottrim.com/physiology/Michael_Savoldi_uniform_sole_thickness.pdf

This, too, is an interesting and thought provoking read.

--Gwen

Tree
Dec. 16, 2006, 08:23 PM
I find sole callous in the areas of sole where there is no active wall. I find what appears to be sole callous where excess exfoliating sole has become hard and dried out. When I trim away this type of sole there are no papillae to find in the live sole beneath the excess stuff.

This isn't a scientific study but personal observation.

Tree

tbtrailrider
Dec. 16, 2006, 08:55 PM
The sole callous is just NOT IMO an actual structure that is MEANT to be there - it just HAPPENS to be there.



Hey Kim, FWIW, when the farrier trimmed that callous off my horses feet, it was quite bruised under it. So I agree with the above statement. It was an unnatural thing in my horses case.

Appassionato
Dec. 16, 2006, 09:00 PM
Hey Kim, FWIW, when the farrier trimmed that callous off my horses feet, it was quite bruised under it. So I agree with the above statement. It was an unnatural thing in my horses case.

Did you get pics??? I ask because I'd like to look and compare my guy's bruises...always trying to learn! ;)

Is your horse doing better? I assume this was recent? Sorry, I've been slamed in finals and I'm not "with it" lately.

tbtrailrider
Dec. 16, 2006, 10:47 PM
Did you get pics??? I ask because I'd like to look and compare my guy's bruises...always trying to learn! ;)

Is your horse doing better? I assume this was recent? Sorry, I've been slamed in finals and I'm not "with it" lately.

No, I did not get pics...it was wednesday. I was like NOOOOO, don't cut it off, but it was too late. it was bruised only under that weird ridge,which makes me glad he sliced it off.I backed up his toes when I got home,so to try and avoid him making it again, and if he did, it would be closer to the white line.

Forgewizard
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:04 AM
TbTrailrider,

Interesting case your horse is I'm sure. Hope all continues on the upswing with him!

Its scarey when the sole gets pulled off in a hunk and there is a bruise visible underneath.

Did you feel the sole? Is it quite hard?

Remember too that usually by the time we see a bruise in the sole it can be as long as three months ago that the injury to cause the bruise happened!

What would be interesting for you since you are monitoring his hooves so closely is to take photos of his hooves say every second or third day from the same position. You'd get a decent time lapse view and pictorial evidence of any sole callous as it develops!

Forgewizard
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:24 AM
I find sole callous in the areas of sole where there is no active wall. I find what appears to be sole callous where excess exfoliating sole has become hard and dried out. When I trim away this type of sole there are no papillae to find in the live sole beneath the excess stuff.

This isn't a scientific study but personal observation.

Tree


Tree,
considering that papillae are what manufacture the sole material; how is it that you would even be trimming to where you might see these structures? Or are you speaking of dissected hooves?

Lookout
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:02 AM
I was like NOOOOO, don't cut it off, but it was too late. it was bruised only under that weird ridge,which makes me glad he sliced it off.I backed up his toes when I got home,so to try and avoid him making it again, and if he did, it would be closer to the white line.
I am wondering what information you are using to determine that backing up the toe will prevent a sole callous from forming, as that would thin the wall at the toe.

blrm
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:07 AM
I think anything that is touching the ground during movement builds up denser material. It just makes sense :) So can that be termed callous material? I don't see why not.


Are you suggesting that the hoofwall and whiteline, callous in the same way the sole does, or in any way for that matter?

Forgewizard in your example of the farmer and the doctor, do the callouses not allow the farmer to do his job more comfortably.From the farmers standpoint would he not tell you that he is glad that those callouses are there for his situation even though as a doctor he would not need them.Meaning that for the farmer they are a good adaptive feature.
I guess the question would be is the callous caused by poor hoof form or is it a part of good hoof form since it can appear as needed?
Does a hoof with with a build up of dead sole develop sole callous or does it need a proper hoof form and live sole in close proximity to get started.Asking because I can't recall seeing what I would call sole callous on overgrown hooves. :)

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:13 AM
TbTrailrider,

Interesting case your horse is I'm sure. Hope all continues on the upswing with him!

Its scarey when the sole gets pulled off in a hunk and there is a bruise visible underneath.

Did you feel the sole? Is it quite hard?

I just hope its not too late...I read something about the digital cushion not being able to repair itself after a long time with poor hoof form like his. The farrier's explanation was some horses never can go barefoot, that my horse has thin soles and he may be one that just keeps sloughing off sole, and never building it. I believe its more that it is stretched thin due to the LTLH thing. I believe the callous was hurting him, that and the untrimmed frog, I love the way his frog looks now, all clean and shiny :lol:
I was not able to push in his sole, but the big strong farrier was..."See , he said, he has a thin sole." he said. Horse was ouchy even in Old Macs last time out, head up, shaking his head,pinning his ears, and he tried to run off with me. (After the trim)


Remember too that usually by the time we see a bruise in the sole it can be as long as three months ago that the injury to cause the bruise happened!

I learn something new every day :D


What would be interesting for you since you are monitoring his hooves so closely is to take photos of his hooves say every second or third day from the same position. You'd get a decent time lapse view and pictorial evidence of any sole callous as it develops!


Would you believe I still have not gotten batteries? That is a good idea, and something I should do, as it looks to be coming back already. I like this guy, but in all kindness, he is older and perhaps not in to all the new pads and stuff, I will use him over the winter to monitor what I am doing, he says I am doing a good job, but I think a more, shall we say "anal" farrier might be in order? I have a friend who wants us to move to Fla, you could get a new client!:lol: :D :lol: :D
(you know that was in good spirits, right? ):D :D

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:25 AM
I am wondering what information you are using to determine that backing up the toe will prevent a sole callous from forming, as that would thin the wall at the toe.
:confused: :confused: Have you seen my horses foot? the weird callous he had?
Backing up the toe should bring the breakover forward,encouraging a heel first landing. I think he developed the callous where he did because he was stabbing that foot down in a toe first landing. Forge, am I on track?
And when I speak of backing up the toe, I am not talking about anything stronger than a good strong mustang roll.

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:33 AM
Are you suggesting that the hoofwall and whiteline, callous in the same way the sole does, or in any way for that matter?

Forgewizard in your example of the farmer and the doctor, do the callouses not allow the farmer to do his job more comfortably.From the farmers standpoint would he not tell you that he is glad that those callouses are there for his situation even though as a doctor he would not need them.Meaning that for the farmer they are a good adaptive feature.
I guess the question would be is the callous caused by poor hoof form or is it a part of good hoof form since it can appear as needed?
Does a hoof with with a build up of dead sole develop sole callous or does it need a proper hoof form and live sole in close proximity to get started.Asking because I can't recall seeing what I would call sole callous on overgrown hooves. :)

here ya go....they arent overgrown, but they are a tad underrun with long toes...

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/banjosmamma/album?.dir=441are2&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/banjosmamma/my_photos%3furlhint=actn,del%253as,1%253af,0

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 10:38 AM
Tree,
considering that papillae are what manufacture the sole material; how is it that you would even be trimming to where you might see these structures? Or are you speaking of dissected hooves?

While doing corrective trim work, I have exposed the ends of papillae before. This is what forms the pin pricks of blood. This also indicates the sole will be quite thin there. I've also dissected hooves and have seen the exposed papillae which cover the underside of the coffin bone (corium) and sensative frog (corium) and line the coronary band (corium).

But getting back to my post you used: "Originally Posted by Tree
I find sole callous in the areas of sole where there is no active wall. I find what appears to be sole callous where excess exfoliating sole has become hard and dried out. When I trim away this type of sole there are no papillae to find in the live sole beneath the excess stuff.

This isn't a scientific study but personal observation."

This just goes back to the topic of thickened areas of sole and why they are there to be found and what purpose, if any, do they serve and the question of whether or not they're meant to be there. Tbtrailrider was worried about hitting blood if a thick area of sole was removed. The area beneath was bruised. That portion of sole corium was being pinched and this caused blood to leak from them into the sole they were producing.

I had this part of your post in mind when I made mine that you are questioning.

Originally posted by Forgewizard:
"Which is why I want to find out if there really is scientific proof that the solar papillae in the so called "sole callous" region actually are more densely packed and grow more sole, or if this "sole callous" is just a response to the environement."

It won't surprise me if the numbers of papilae remain the same for thin sole or calloused sole. I am inclined to believe that the soles are just reacting to the environmental conditions if we're talking about productive growth at all. Circumstances where sole growth ceases would indicate a loss of blood supply and that would affect the papillae.

Tree

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 10:42 AM
:confused: :confused: Have you seen my horses foot? the weird callous he had?
Backing up the toe should bring the breakover forward,encouraging a heel first landing. I think he developed the callous where he did because he was stabbing that foot down in a toe first landing. Forge, am I on track?
And when I speak of backing up the toe, I am not talking about anything stronger than a good strong mustang roll.

"Backing up" and "bring the breakover forward" contradict each other. Did you mean to say that backing up the toe would shorten the time it would take for the hoof to breakover?

I don't quite understand the logic behind the idea that backing up the toe will cause heel first landings. If a horse isn't comfortable in his toe then maybe that is what is going on...the toe would have to hurt more than the heels so the horse would begin to land heel first and leave the most painful area to last to make ground contact.

I would expect a sole callous to form where toe wall has been backed up into the WL because the sole will be more active than the missing toe wall.

Tree

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 10:52 AM
"Backing up" and "bring the breakover forward" contradict each other. Did you mean to say that backing up the toe would shorten the time it would take for the hoof to breakover?

I don't quite understand the logic behind the idea that backing up the toe will cause heel first landings. If a horse isn't comfortable in his toe then maybe that is what is going on...the toe would have to hurt more than the heels so the horse would begin to land heel first and leave the most painful area to last to make ground contact.

I would expect a sole callous to form where toe wall has been backed up into the WL because the sole will be more active than the missing toe wall.

Tree

Do you really not understand what I mean? I thought you were a trimmer.I must be dyslexic..because I have read many times that shortening the toe will increase breakover. Did you look at his pics?

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 11:02 AM
Do you really not understand what I mean? I thought you were a trimmer.

I'd asked what you meant when I posted: "Backing up" and "bring the breakover forward" contradict each other. Did you mean to say that backing up the toe would shorten the time it would take for the hoof to breakover?

So, what did you mean?

To me, bringing the breakover forward means elongating the toe and causing the foot to take longer before it breaks over. Backing up a toe reduces the time it would take for a foot to breakover.

I'm not sure what sort of trimmer you thought I was but when I don't understand something that has been said, I ask questions. The polite thing to do is answer questions. Ok?

Tree

irishcas
Dec. 17, 2006, 11:12 AM
TB:

Backing up the toe, puts breakover in the "correct" position. I don't think I'd say that backing the toe up, increases breakover :) It kind of doesn't make sense, although I think I know what you mean :D

Regards,

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 11:20 AM
I must be dyslexic..because I have read many times that shortening the toe will increase breakover. Did you look at his pics?

You're now talking about shortening the toe vs backing. I've looked at the pics...there were just 2 in the hoof album. I saw a lot of toe wall in the pic showing both fores from the front. I was going by what you'd posted and was trying to understand what you'd meant by it.

Tree

Forgewizard
Dec. 17, 2006, 11:37 AM
blrm posts: Forgewizard in your example of the farmer and the doctor, do the callouses not allow the farmer to do his job more comfortably.From the farmers standpoint would he not tell you that he is glad that those callouses are there for his situation even though as a doctor he would not need them.Meaning that for the farmer they are a good adaptive feature.

Right, the callouses adapted because of external prezssures and abrasions, and yes for thos uses they are needed, however applications of "mechanical devices" such gloves in this case - prevent or very much reduce the callouses and the farmer's hands will be more "normal" while the skin may still be somewhat thicker than say the doctor's or a clerical worker, the cloves will prevent a lot of the cracking and splitting that goes with the heavy callousing. These cracks and splits also harbor bacteria and fungi, so the hands literally become healthier.

I guess the question would be is the callous caused by poor hoof form or is it a part of good hoof form since it can appear as needed?

See,, now we get into what would be considered "good hoof from" :) I'd be inclined to think that good hoof form would be a hoof that has NOT developed a "sole callous" because the wall, the environment and the usage are allowing the hoof to function without developing alternative self protective means. Which is basicaly how I view those "wild horse" hooves with tremendous sole build up. - The build up is there because the use of the hoof and the environementdoesn't allow good hoof form. Let's face it the sole is NOT made of the same dense material the wall is and when the sole callouses slough off the wall gets left behind to do the job it was intended.

I see more horses aggravated with too MUCH sole pressure than I ever have with pressure upon the wall.

I'll see bruising under a hardened lump of sole that when the lump gets removed, the horse lcks, chews, stops pointing the hoof and sighs with relief! Keep that sole cleaned out and the lump doesn't return, nor does the bruise.

Does a hoof with with a build up of dead sole develop sole callous or does it need a proper hoof form and live sole in close proximity to get started.

Hmmm,That's kind of what I am wondering - is this sole callous a result of compression of non exfoliated sole or an increased growth of specific areas that results in denser sole material? UNtil I can see some scientific research, I'd go along with a compression of non exfoliated sole because when these calloused hooves get moisture ( lots of it) the "callous" flakes off and there is no discernible difference from the freshly exposed sole underneath than from what is growing around the rest of the sole.

Asking because I can't recall seeing what I would call sole callous on overgrown hooves

Not certain what your definiton of "overgrown hooves" is. Again this may be a difference in that "good hoof form" definition. Many of the pix shown by people who subsrcibe to the "wild horse" hoof form to me show a hoof long overdue for a good trim or a hoof deformed from getting beat up day after day.

I've seen sole callous on all kinds of hooves - but mostly on hooves whose walls are compromised- like foundered hooves, or hooves where a large chunk of wall is missing, or hooves that haven't been trimmed in a long time. In the case of some foundered hooves, this callous tends to remain because I, for one, don't lay open a compromised hoof intentionally. I WILL however flat that lump of callous, or bevel it, or shape it to resemble a more normal solar concavity IF there is enough to do so, in order that the hoof can begin to function more normally. So that brings us back to the sole callous beign there because IMO the hoof is for some reason or another unable to function correctly so it develops alternative protection - and this can easily go from protection to aggravation.

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 11:56 AM
You're now talking about shortening the toe vs backing. I've looked at the pics...there were just 2 in the hoof album. I saw a lot of toe wall in the pic showing both fores from the front. I was going by what you'd posted and was trying to understand what you'd meant by it.

Tree
wrong choice of words on my part...do you know what i mean ? i should have said shorten the toe to put breakover in the right place....do i make sense now?:D :D :D :D :D :D

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 12:13 PM
wrong choice of words on my part...do you know what i mean ? i should have said shorten the toe to put breakover in the right place....do i make sense now?:D :D :D :D :D :D

I was trying to get what you'd meant all along and it appears that I still am trying to understand what you're talking about.

Now I'm going to have to ask what you mean about shortening the toe. Do you mean taking toe off the bottom or from the leading outer edges? These are two very different techniques resulting in two different things when it comes to trimming hooves.

I'm sure I would have no problems figuring out what you are talking about if I were standing there while you showed me these things on your horse's feet in person. ;) :D :)

Tree

Lookout
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:18 PM
Lookout posts: Forgewizard in your example of the farmer and the doctor, do the callouses not allow the farmer to do his job more comfortably.From the farmers standpoint would he not tell you that he is glad that those callouses are there for his situation even though as a doctor he would not need them.Meaning that for the farmer they are a good adaptive feature.

I didn't write that.

Lookout
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:20 PM
wrong choice of words on my part...do you know what i mean ? i should have said shorten the toe to put breakover in the right place....do i make sense now?:D :D :D :D :D :D
It still is counterintuitive that removing the toe wall will prevent a callous from building up, in fact it will encourage one.

Can you specify where you've read that shortening the toe increases breakover?

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:25 PM
Now I'm going to have to ask what you mean about shortening the toe. Do you mean taking toe off the bottom or from the leading outer edges? These are two very different techniques resulting in two different things when it comes to trimming hooves.

I'm sure I would have no problems figuring out what you are talking about if I were standing there while you showed me these things on your horse's feet in person. ;) :D :)

Tree


Not from the sole, from the leading edge. I will try to find the explanation my friend gave me :D

Tree
Dec. 17, 2006, 01:41 PM
Not from the sole, from the leading edge. I will try to find the explanation my friend gave me :D

I know that to be "backing" the toe then. Either way, I am more clear about what you were referring to. ;)

Tree

matryoshka
Dec. 17, 2006, 02:21 PM
Yep, I believe she is referring to backing up the toe. Ramey shows how to do this in his book. I've found it really useful for bringing back the breakover without making the horse sore. One often can't get to the ideal breakover right away if the sole is also stretched forward, but it starts the process of allowing the dorsal hoof wall to continue along P3 as it grows down (the flare grows out). If a horse is not flat footed, one could add a rocker (ala Ovnicek) to put the breakover where it needs to be, but then I also back the toe up so that if/when the rocker wears off, there isn't a sudden lengthening of the toe. I might eventually put a really shallow rocker on a flat-footed horse.

I have found this to be very effective. However, I don't top dress the flare the way Ramey does, since this would thin the dorsal wall at the toe. It'll look dubbed initially, but it goes away as it grows out. The owners are usually very pleased when the horses go sound and stop stumbling as often. Generally, the overall movement improves (or so I've been told by my clients' trainers)

How much to back up the toe depends upon the horse. With clients' horses, I'll go to the non-pigmented wall and then add a roll, but with my own guys, I can back it all the way up to the white line with no ill effects. Oh, I have backed it up into the white line when there is a lot of WL stretching, as in the case of a horse that has foundered. This can improve the HPA and unload the dorsal wall to stop the prying of laminae. So far, the flared walls have grown out beautifully.

The horses will develop a callus at the toe, but it doesn't seem to bother them as long as the callus does not protrude further than the surrounding sole and wall along the white line. If the callus is allowed to protrude, it causes soreness. I found this out the hard way on my flat-footed mare.

Once a new hoof capsule grows in with the correct HPA, the toe no longer needs to be backed up. Also, if I'm backing up the toes, chances are that the heel also needs to be brought back, since long toes seem to accompany underrun heels. I've had really good success with this method, and the horses stay sound as the hoof capsule shape improves. Flat footed horses may be a little sore if I get too aggressive, which means I have to take it slower.

This is just my experience from trimming for two years. I only trim about 40-50 horses a month, so take my observations accordingly. I do get a high percentage of neglected hooves, since I trim for MayS's rescue. It is wonderful to see the cracks grow out and hoof shape improve over time. I'm sure all of you have seen this, but for me, the wonderment has not yet grown old.

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 03:31 PM
Yep, I believe she is referring to backing up the toe. Ramey shows how to do this in his book. I've found it really useful for bringing back the breakover without making the horse sore. One often can't get to the ideal breakover right away if the sole is also stretched forward, but it starts the process of allowing the dorsal hoof wall to continue along P3 as it grows down (the flare grows out). If a horse is not flat footed, one could add a rocker (ala Ovnicek) to put the breakover where it needs to be, but then I also back the toe up so that if/when the rocker wears off, there isn't a sudden lengthening of the toe. I might eventually put a really shallow rocker on a flat-footed horse.







yes, that is what i am doing....now take it up with Pete ;) :D

Lookout
Dec. 17, 2006, 05:28 PM
yes, that is what i am doing....now take it up with Pete ;) :D

So how is that bringing the breakover forward and preventing a callous from forming?

LMH
Dec. 17, 2006, 06:00 PM
So how is that bringing the breakover forward and preventing a callous from forming?


Actually in certain circumstances this can happen. If a toe has been brought back too far, the lack of structure at the toe can cause a callous to form.

When the toe is allowed to grow back where it should be, the foot will not need to lay down extra material at the toe to protect it from the structure being removed.

Forgewizard
Dec. 17, 2006, 06:31 PM
I didn't write that.

Sorry lookout! I stand corrected it was BLRM. I'll edit the post too. thanks!

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 06:50 PM
So how is that bringing the breakover forward and preventing a callous from forming?
I have no idea if it will, but he did not have this callous until I let him go 8 weeks without a trim..his feet got quite long, We will see ...which is why I will take pictures starting tomorrow..biught 12 batteries today.

Lookout
Dec. 17, 2006, 07:20 PM
Actually in certain circumstances this can happen. If a toe has been brought back too far, the lack of structure at the toe can cause a callous to form.

When the toe is allowed to grow back where it should be, the foot will not need to lay down extra material at the toe to protect it from the structure being removed.

Correct. HOwever, The poster said she was going to prevent a toe callous by bringing the toe back further (backing it up) with a mustang roll, and bringing the breakover forward.

tbtrailrider
Dec. 17, 2006, 07:48 PM
Correct. HOwever, The poster said she was going to prevent a toe callous by bringing the toe back further (backing it up) with a mustang roll, and bringing the breakover forward.


Geez...I don't know if it will prevent it or not, but I assume it will since it was not there when I kept up on his trim..it appeared when I let his toes get long, and his heels get underrun. I have had people share exp. with similar ridges that went away after shortening the toe ,and the hoof gained concavity.:rolleyes: