That would depend on with whom you were conversing. Unfortunately, farriers are as susceptible to becoming 'hidebound' and wallowing in ignorance as anyone else. ymmv
IMNTBCHO, the AFA is a worthy association. The BWFA is a joke(after all, a farrier once got his dog registered as a certified farrier and even if/when you attain one of their credentials, the only way to keep it is to pay annual dues) And while the intentions of the AAPF may be worthy ones, the premise of the organization is a joke ie: pay them to give you their stamp of approval for you being a farrier who gets some continuing education. Why would anyone pay some nebulous organization to approve of what said individual is already doing? At least the other organizations/associations at least require you to stand, successfully, for testing of your knowledge and skill before they bestow you with an appellation. If having "AF" or "APF"after your name is important to you so you can bullshit your clients, then by all means, pay the money. Otherwise, there are better ways to allocate and use your hard earned money. Linda, I realize the concept escapes you, but every time you trim and/or shoe a horse you are employing a protocol. Want proof? You need look no further than your own specialty where Daddydiditthataway is still the protocol used by not only your contemporaries, but as the name implies, those who came before. And though you may find it painful, 'scientific shoeing' is an oxymoron. There is no question that in the time frame to which you refer, there have been many "proven successes" using a variety of shoeing protocols. Unfortunately, none of them are actually truly scientific. Further, if 'proven success' is your standard of measurement, then NB trimming and shoeing has, as a percentage of the whole, as much proven success as any of the other (dare I say) protocols have had. And for the record, in my own little corner of the sandpile I've had proven success with many forms of 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' farriery protocols, including using heart bar shoes for laminitis/founder, which was, until Burney Chapman 'reinvented' the shoe, a non-traditional use/protocol of /for the heart bar shoe.
I agree with Donnie and Rick.. it isn't fruitful to show a hoof that is long overdue no matter what is nailed to the hoof...Present a freshly shod horse to tear apart if that is what needs to be done...just sayin...
Cody, When you change the break over point as you have done on this horse, did you rock or roll the toe? Might have a big effect on the horse.
Can any of you show me where Cody wrote anything saying the NB shoeing he posted was wrong or sucked in any way? All he posted was pictures of an NB shoeing that he changed to a more traditional style per his choice. There's no bashing or knocking of the before work. Ya'll got your panties in a bunch over something never even said.
Considering the tenor, tone and direction of this thread and Cody's agreement with something Mark J wrote, the implications of Cody's musings seem rather clear.
This one is not over due..lol..rick we all know this is not the protocol but in all fairness ive seen NB folks take a page out if the trimmers hand book and say the protocol was not meet if it goes wrong ..also the above did tell the owner she was well versed in nb and the protocol. .when I question why the heels where ground it was understude that the shap of the shoe was not to be changed ..although I dont think it was meant no shape at all..but I dont know I just went with what I do..
its all well and good showing shit NB jobs but there are also well shod feet with NB. I can show you shit jobs with toe clips, egg bars etc it doesn't matter the type of shoe or trim if the person doing it isn't up to scratch the finished article wont be. That was what was meant by my original post then the americans start the point scoring game.
What are "NB folks" ? Regardless, there are excuses and reasons, and often the ignorati confuse the latter for the former. Further, while some of us recognize that which pictured is not the protocol, many don't/won't and would hold those photos up as a shining example of the failure of the protocol/approach. And that happens whether it is NB, heart bars, quarter crack repair, whatever..... For me, what that really shows is the lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the mechanic. I say she(the mechanic) is a liar , and the photo(s) bear me out with that observation. Further proving the adage that "Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt......" Maybe the mechanic was trying to make a 'hunter heel NB shoe" LOL!! In the photo it looks like the right front is wearing casting tape? Any idea why? Good on you, Travis! did you take any photos of the hooves after you helped them and the horse? I don't have any b/4s, but here's one that I shaped and applied.
That horse was supposably at four weeks, but anyhow my purpose in posting those pictures was just to show some NB photos to the person posting the question. I am not against, or for NB. It makes no difference to me what shoe someone uses. In my area, I see a lot of these shoes that when removed have distortion in the toe quarters and many nail in the same area which I don't particularly prefer myself, I think it makes the hoof weak. I also seem to find some that the dorsal part of the coronary band collapsed downward, maybe because of no support in the toe. I do think that NB is not for every horse, but under the right circumstance maybe it could be another useful alternative. Maybe, maybe not. We all shoe different and see things differently. I did not bash the person for using NB but I put what I wanted on the horse.
I was agreeing with Marc that a good trim, symmetrical shoe and high nailing will solve a lot of problems, or that's what I read into it. Nothing about NB.
Cody, just said it wasn't fruitful ..meaning nothing good will come out of it..I would much rather discuss a freshly shod horse and have discussion. I wasn't bashing you or the system used...it has all been done before and some things work better than another protocol for the "time being"..Tools in the box/rig/custom..
That was the single most informative 'discussion' ever, good on you guys, because just reading the back and forth revealed so much about the subject. I have put on a few natural balance, vet prescribed. Nothing bad seems to be happening. It has been about three shoeings so far. What do you think about Cytek and Natural balance being functionally identical? To me it seems they serve the same exact purpose, to move the break over point back and achieve the fifty fifty protocol? Also, what about setting a shoe back? Aside from the wide web missing doesn't that serve that same purpose? I understand about the NB usefulness and the idea of it being a tool in my tool box for the occasions when it may help. But I guess my biggest question here is, What about the fifty fifty protocol and the break over being moved back? Is that something to be done all the time?
Did you follow the NB trimming and shoeing guidelines? Got any photos? I think they're not the same though the cytek folks originally ripped off the NB shoe and the related guidelines for trimming and shoeing. But, if you prefer nailing boat anchors/door stops /paper weights on the bottom of a horse's hoof, then by all means, use cyshyt shoes. Not exactly. It Depends. <sigh> Perhaps someday you will learn/understand why It Depends is ever in play.
