There could have been a case on the lami pony if you took his heels down were would the shoe have been on the foot i think the lads were kind with there remarks
Thanks Kim, yes, it was kind of scary and difficult to do everything at once. It was a lucky outcome, I need to work on individual tasks to improve them before I attempt it again. There is not much point IMHO in trying to put together many tasks none of which you know well.
I have been nailing shoes on horses for some 20 years. But I wouldn't call all of that shoeing, let alone farriery.
I have made some 10 pairs the last couple of years, never put one on a horse before today. I have never seen someone making a handmade live, only from videos. There are no farrier schools here and the standard is very very low. PS: Sorry, not that it makes a difference but I meant 10 shoes, 5 pairs. A couple of them plain stamped and a couple fully fullered. A few could go on a horse but never did.
I agree that they were kind with their remarks and I certainly didn't mean to be unkind with mine, so if it sounded that way to you Christos, I apologise. I also said that the heels on the laminitic pony were still too long, however, I still don't see the benefit of having this much extra shoe sticking out behind the heels: I don't think I have ever made any claims to being any good at this job and I'm here to learn as much as anyone else, so an explanation as to how this extra length benefits the horse would be appreciated.
I can't speak for Christos, but the shoe ended up where I wanted it. So it seems I have my principle wrong...
From what I understand, anything from the middle of the cannon forward is support if needed, and anything behind that line becomes leverage. I've seen results with run forward feet by backing up the toe and adding extra support behind. Of course this includes widening the heels a bit and rolling the toe. I've also shortened one up because of shoe pulling and found the foot to be migrating back forward. But this is extremely limited experience, and could be just the feet are finally getting trimmed and shod.
No need for that, Gary, I see nothing unkind there or anywhere else towards me for that matter. Even if somebody is a bit rough or abrupt in his comments it is perfectly ok with me, I am not that soft, neither do I believe that any aspect of my work is good enough to be safe from rough criticism. Not yet.
As for the length of the heels, if it was a customer's horse and they ended up that long for whatever reason I'd cut them shorter before nailing. The only case I can think of where I fit them as long as possible is with heels that run under/forward, crushed ones. Except for supporting the leg with a longer heel in these cases, I believe it also protects them from pressure in soft ground. Not claiming to be right, just what I do.
It depends. A horse with a navicular problem combined with a suspensory problem may benefit from the extra length instead of a wedge.
Are suspensory injuries common with navicular problems? Seems they are born of opposite pathologies. But I could not be thinking of it in the right way.
The vet says wedge the foot to relieve the strain on the navicular. So after wedging, the suspensory gets overloaded. So now you have to lower the heels to relieve the suspensory - which puts strain back on the DFT and navicular . . . rob Peter to pay Paul - the navacular/suspensory conundrum . . . Uncle Jaye hasn't taught you this yet.
If only I could ride with him on a regular basis, I might know a tad more. I still feel that in a weeks time I learned a ton. So that's why egg bars are the favorite navicular shoe.
Sometimes. Backing up the footprint changes the "EFFECTIVE" hoof angle. Remember a triangle has three sides, not two. Toe length and hoof angle don't mean squat unless you account for the RELATIVE BASE LENGTH. The horse stands on the base length between the breakover point of the toe and the heel butress. You can't move the joint, but you can re-position the footprint by how you fit your shoe.
