what s wrong with the nail holes and shoe shapes

I stand corrected. How should I phrase the idea that the test group provided a well controlled basis to observe changes due to variations in nail placement?

I read where he found "clinches beginning to rise" after 28 days.

I do not disagree with that. My point is there is enough room for variation to allow cause for skepticism and I feel more testing is needed before we can draw definitive conclusions sufficient to cause change in shoeing practices.

However my primary cause for skepticism is the fact that even with the use nails forward "ROE" many people, including myself, do not have problems with distortion, raised clinches, and localized delamination.

Edit to clarify: *Do not have *regular* issues with the above mentioned problems. I don't think anyone is exempt from those problems entirely.

I'm not arguing for argument's sake. It just seems to me that having 80 horses going well, then making one single change to all 80, then documenting the same changes to all the horses shows something.

As I had queried previously, I'd like to know how the nail locations were moved. I'd also like to see photos of how the shod feet looked after shoeing before the start of the experiment and compare them to photos of the shoeing at the start of the experiment.

And that's at minimum. There's simply not enough data provided to be conclusive.

Just for clarification. I don't oppose the idea, if further research proves a reason to change nail placement I'm all for it. At present, however, the data does not correlate with my own experiences.

As I understand the toe nail holes were left empty before the test, then every else being the same the nails were all moved forward one hole, and changes recorded.
This whole idea, I think, comes into the category of : an interesting discussion, maybe another tool in the box.

Or a nother nail in the box

thats a long time? ERR No fair Bill your baiting me back in