Set Backs & Toe bevels

[Forgewizard]

Patty & any one interested;
I did up a diagram to illustrate shoe placement. As you can see I have shown a shoe fit just to the toe and heels, a shoe fit to the toe and offering a minimum of heel growth, a shoe that is fit to the toe and offers full heel growth, a shoe that is set back under the toe and offers full heel growth. In no way are these digrams of ALL the ways a shoe can be fit. But I think they represent the more COMMON ways we see shoes fit.

But really what this is for regarding discussion points is the last diagram showing the greemn lines representing dorsal rasping (so that the toe wall meets the leading shoe edge - in order to present an aesthetically pleasing hoof) and just setting the shoe back while beveiling the toe wall down ( the way I have done on a lot of my hooves shown) - which is illustrated with a red line. - Hope it shows up in the photo.

And PAtty's preferred method of beveling the toe from a set back shoe - UPward from the shoe edge, but still letting the hoof hang over.

In these diagrams (which are all copy and pasted so they are all the same size) you can see that neither method of beveling "invades" any sensitive structure of the hoof.

http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8038393/122362490.jpg

One method leaves the hoof overhanging the shoe. Which Patty, by the way, I USED to do when I first started setting back shoes. But I got so many comments form horseowners; "Hey!" Your shoe has slipped backwards!" Even after I TOLD them and SHOWED them that I had set back the shoe, and given them the reasons for doing so; that I decided beveling from the top was easier on THEIR thinking process - and certainly caused no harm to the horses - so I keep doing it.

SOME horses get to the point where I don't have to set the shoe back quite so far, so the bevel isn't as strong.

The few "long footed" horses I do -certainly DON'T get bevelled at all becasue they get fit full at the toe:

http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8032417/122363590.jpg

[Rick Burten]

Kim,

The first problem I see is that you have depicted the placement of the NB shoe incorrectly. In your drawings, you have the breakover location way farther back than it normally is. In fact, the top series of pictures are much better examples(at least to my eye and understanding), except for the last schematic where breakover location is too far under p3, of NB shoe placement for breakover relative to the distal leading edge of p3

Also, in your last drawing of the hoof, you show dorsal wall rasping, but why would you rasp this hoof at all? And, based on the photos of some of the horses where you have dubbed that toe off, I can only offer that in my experience, the slight bevel from below that is done with NB, is far less invasive/destructive of horn than what I see in your examples. Again, I think the questions should be
1. How much damage(if any) does each style inflict
2. What, if any, are the consequences of either or both protocols?

Also, would you comment please on why you feel the heel fit in the second schematic is not really sufficient and how it will detract from the ability of the heel to properly grow. I agree that the shoe fit at the heels in the first schematic is going to be more condusive or initiative to getting or keeping the heels underrun and perhaps crushed.

Now, I understand your reasons/reasoning for toe dubbing, but that alone is not enough reason for me to routinely make that a part of my practice/protocol. If nothing else, it looks amateurish and sloppy and if I were to routinely do that around here, I would soon be looking for a new line of work or working on the pelts and pukes I left behind many years ago.

Looking at the photos you posted of the longer footed horse, I would like to comment that I think the heels are too long and the heel fit too short, especially since the shoe is fit full at the toe and does not appear to have much breakover location built into it . My preference and practice is to trim the heels back(even on a long footed horse), fit the shoe so that the breakover location is where I consider it to be correct, and fit the heels such that they end at a point at the bottom of a line dropped from the bulbs to the ground, and in some instances, a bit longer than that. These horses will , in most every instance, get at least one wedge pad and a leather flat pad , and will probably have a toe clip ammended to the shoe. Also, with that package, I most generally add a frog piece to the ground surface of the bottom pad in the stack, and depending on the condition of the foot, etc, either use impression material or Hawthorne's and Oakum, or in some cases, a combination of the two, as my under-pad packing.

I think that every situation is unique, and we need to be cautious of getting set in our thinking so that we only do things one way. We've seen examples of heavy dorsal wall rasping and quite frankly, I was in agreement with what was done. We've seen examples of minimal dorsal wall rasping, and I've been in agreement with what was done. Conversely, I have seen examples of each where I was diametrically opposed to what had been done. The term LIM(Less Is More) has , from time to time, been bandied about in our discussions and I think that philosophy is generally a good one. What I see, too often in your examples, is more rather than less. Since it works for you, that's great. If we didn't each have our own style, who the H*ll would I argue with? :eek: :D

[tbloomer]

If we didn't each have our own style, who the H*ll would I argue with? :eek: :D

This is not an argument.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.

No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't.

Happy Holidays Rick!

Tom Bloomer, CF

[Forgewizard]

HI rick,
Yes, I can comment. Why wouldn't I?? ;)

The diagrams as I have drawn them represent the basic difference in what I see from say a St. Croix Eventer and a Natural balance shoe as far as toe breakover length. I am speaking of the Original NB shoe - not their "lite" version. WHich may offer something more akin to the St/ Croix. But as I am happy - well actually my horses are happy with the St. Croix - I don't see a need to change shoe brands.

So to get back to the illustrations;
This comparison may help:

http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8032417/122388724.jpg

Looking at the comparison while I may not choose to use a NB shoe for any long term shoeing. It MAY offer a decent "transition" shoe for a horse with a severely run forward hoof that is also flattened. Once the hoof starts to come back under the limb I could switch back to a St. Croix.

But as I mentioned before - if I've had success using JUST the St. Croix shoes (eventers, EZ's and Ultra lites) Why do I need to change?

If the goal is to return a run out hoof to a more compact and supportive structure then doing it as quickly as possible is more beneficial than eeking it out in small increments, right?

If we are attempting to restore a better alignment of hoof to pastern axis we can acheive this rahter quickly when moving the angles UP. However if needing to go in the other direction (which I have RARELY encountered) then we need to do THAT slowly.

While the width of these shoes is comparable, the difference then lies in the mass at the toe and the length of the heel branches.

As to the question Rick asked:
1. How much damage(if any) does each style inflict 2. What, if any, are the consequences of either or both protocols?


Wouldn't the answer come straight from the horse? IF there is damage then the horse would suffer. The hoof would suffer. Lameness would ensue, as well as a deterioration in the hoof capsule, right?

As to what each of us perceives as a so called professional or amateurist job - again that is going to differ. Personally I feel that a dorsally rasped wall(from the hairline down) indicates someone that can't shape the shoe according to the hoof. As well as someone that doesn't give a hoot about the integrity of the hoof wall.

Being a person willing to swim upstream from the mainstream I don't subscribe to the "make the hoof look pretty" for the client. I strongly feel that a healthy hoof becomes a pretty hoof! Whittling away the majority of the upper wall only weakens the hoof and leads to huge problems at the ground surface of the hoof as it grows out.

The consequences I have observed from strongly bevelling the toes of a set back shod hoof are that the horse immediately moves better! Discontinuing any dorsal rasping done by previous farriers allows the hoof wall to become much stronger and the cracks at the lower end of teh wall disappear. MAny of these horses are reported to have had those cracks for years!

While a strongly bevelled toe may not look like what many would perceive as normal or professional - I cannot argue with what works!

Which goes back to my underlying current here- maybe we should revamp what is accepted as "good looking footwork"!?

If the hoof doesn't benefit from having wall in a certain place then get rid of that wall. Seems blatantly simple to me.

Rick also asked:
Also, would you comment please on why you feel the heel fit in the second schematic is not really sufficient and how it will detract from the ability of the heel to properly grow.

I'd call that an O.K. shod heel because I preferr (if possible) to offer a bit longer heel support. This heel lenght in this diagram would be decent for a horse moving in soft ground and would result in a lot less stepped off shoes. But on harder ground it may not offer enough support or growth room to prevent the heels from overgrowing the shoe. Also the shoe is fit sull at the toe. If the hoof is in decent alignment - that wouldn't be a problem, but it would continue to aggravate a horse with a hoof that is NOT in alignment. That's why I marked it "OK".

Your comments about the "long footed" hoof I showed, I can agree with for the most part. While I WOULD have like to offer MORE length of heel - that horse's environment wouldn't allow it. His turnouts were of "Sugar sand", his stalls had those holey rubber mats in them. His owner allowed him more OUT than IN time and he got ridden by the Owner's husband - who is NOT a horseman - has NO seat or hands and they just "bee-bop" down trails here in Florida covered with muck and Pine tree roots.

You can see that while his heels are long - his entire hoof has overall depth - not just a long toe. The heels are NOT curling under or collapsing. What you can't see is that I did grind a rolled toe into the shoe for him. In his case - I did NOT exfoliate the sole so that the retained sole would help support the extra length of wall.

For the long footed horses that are better maintained, I have done a similar protocol to yours- a leather pad against the hoof, a frog support pad against the ground, hoof packed and longer heels.

This just happens to be a long hoof I have a photo of.

I don't see this as an argument Rick - not yet anyway! Just a decent discussion of the different ways we perceive hoofwork!
Kim

PS:
The reason I added a green line to the last diagrams was to illustrate theamount of INVASIVE wall removal done IF the hooves were dorsally rasped. It was certainly NOT a suggestion TO dorsally rasp those hooves.

[Rick Burten]

HI rick,
Yes, I can comment. Why wouldn't I?? ;)

I think we were disunited by our common language here. I knew you could(as in 'are able to') comment, I was just phrasing my response as a request, rather than just a statement. I was hoping to not ruffle any feathers :o

The diagrams as I have drawn them represent the basic difference in what I see from say a St. Croix Eventer and a Natural balance shoe as far as toe breakover length. I am speaking of the Original NB shoe - not their "lite" version. WHich may offer something more akin to the St/ Croix. But as I am happy - well actually my horses are happy with the St. Croix - I don't see a need to change shoe brands.
The St. Croix appears to be a size smaller. The wider web on the NB shoes allows for some additional protection of both the sole and the distal edge of p3. And, you will find that when correctly applied, the NB shoes will allow the placement of the breakover to be further back than you can get with an Eventer or lite rim, etc. Also, because of the way the NB shoes are fullered and punched, you run much less of a risk of quicking or close nailing a horse than you do with a St. Croix(or other brand) shoe. Once you appropriately broaden the toe of a St. Croix, etal, those toe nails and sometimes the second nail become, if not just dangerous, useless. Then supposing that you cannot use the toe nails, you either have to punch additional nail holes or, if you use the provided heel nails, you are going to be nailing too far back on the hoof.

I have not had any problems with stretched toes not being able to be correctly attended to with the NB shoes correctly applied. In fact, quite the opposite.

I do agree with you that in the case of the steel NB shoe, initially it is a bit heavier in the toe area. This effect, while minimal, quickly dissapears as the shoe wears, and because the shoe has been correctly placed in the first place, has never shown to be of any consequence, at least in my practice and that of some of my friends and collegues who use NB shoes not exclusively, but when and where it is deemed necessary.

As I said, you can perhaps set a St. Croix Eventer back where it correctly coincides with the location of breakover, but in so doing you will have to either punch new nail holes(and their placement will be limited because the fullering is going to dictate where on the web width you punch), use any remaining existing 'safe' nail holes(which may cause you to incorrectly locate your nails in the hoof), and unless you really deep seat the web of the shoe at the toe, you will run a very large risk of damaging the sole corium and p3 itself.

Once the hoof starts to come back under the limb I could switch back to a St. Croix.
As has been noted several times, those of us who use NB shoes also use other brands, as appropriate.

But as I mentioned before - if I've had success using JUST the St. Croix shoes (eventers, EZ's and Ultra lites) Why do I need to change?
You don't! If what you are using works for you, then no more really need be said.

If the goal is to return a run out hoof to a more compact and supportive structure then doing it as quickly as possible is more beneficial than eeking it out in small increments, right?[
All things being equal, yes.

{quote=forgewizard]If we are attempting to restore a better alignment of hoof to pastern axis we can acheive this rahter quickly when moving the angles UP. However if needing to go in the other direction (which I have RARELY encountered) then we need to do THAT slowly.[/quote]

Basically we agree here. That said, you must be blessed in not having to deal with very much up-down syndrome, club feet, clubby feet,(both front and hind) etc., if you don't have to deal with bringing HPAs down.

While the width of these shoes is comparable, the difference then lies in the mass at the toe and the length of the heel branches.
There are more differences than that.

As to the question Rick asked:

Wouldn't the answer come straight from the horse? IF there is damage then the horse would suffer. The hoof would suffer. Lameness would ensue, as well as a deterioration in the hoof capsule, right?
It may well be coming from the horse but initially, so subtly, that it is not observed or heard. I'm not so sure that deterioration of the hoof caspsule would be very evident. It would depend on the degree of the invasive action.

As to what each of us perceives as a so called professional or amateurist job - again that is going to differ. Personally I feel that a dorsally rasped wall(from the hairline down) indicates someone that can't shape the shoe according to the hoof. As well as someone that doesn't give a hoot about the integrity of the hoof wall.

Generally speaking, no one here that I can recall, is advocating rasping the wall from the hairline down. The caveat being, that I do beleive there are specific instances when that procedure may be indicated or necessary.

{quote=forgewizard]Being a person willing to swim upstream from the mainstream I don't subscribe to the "make the hoof look pretty" for the client. I strongly feel that a healthy hoof becomes a pretty hoof! Whittling away the majority of the upper wall only weakens the hoof and leads to huge problems at the ground surface of the hoof as it grows out.[/quote]
I don't recall anyone advocating rasping the entire wall as a routine part of a trimming and shoeing protocol. And I don't disagree that overzealous and inappropriate rasping of the dorsal wall can indeed lead to big problems later on.


While a strongly bevelled toe may not look like what many would perceive as normal or professional - I cannot argue with what works!
Kim, what you are doing, to me at least, is not beveling the toe. It is dumping/dubbing the toe . And that is a far different thing.

If the hoof doesn't benefit from having wall in a certain place then get rid of that wall. Seems blatantly simple to me.
For me, its not so black and white. Asthetics aside, there are several factors to consider.

Your comments about the "long footed" hoof I showed, I can agree with for the most part. While I WOULD have like to offer MORE length of heel - that horse's environment wouldn't allow it. His turnouts were of "Sugar sand", his stalls had those holey rubber mats in them. His owner allowed him more OUT than IN time and he got ridden by the Owner's husband - who is NOT a horseman - has NO seat or hands and they just "bee-bop" down trails here in Florida covered with muck and Pine tree roots.
So why does he need a long foot? And, it seems to me that your primary concern is to shoe that horse the way it needs to be correctly shod. How the owners practice or don't practice equine management, is their problem. Just as long as you let them know the ground rules for keeping shoes on a long footed horse, and how much it is going to cost if you have to come back to replace shoes that through no fault on your part, are cast off.

You can see that while his heels are long - his entire hoof has overall depth - not just a long toe. The heels are NOT curling under or collapsing. What you can't see is that I did grind a rolled toe into the shoe for him. In his case - I did NOT exfoliate the sole so that the retained sole would help support the extra length of wall.
Those heels may not be curling under or collapsing, but they are running forward and in time are going to make him sore. Even though you have set the heels back a bit further, with that length of hoof the shoes are going to leverage those heels forwards and upwards. His saving grace thus far has been the soft ground where he lives.

PS:
The reason I added a green line to the last diagrams was to illustrate theamount of INVASIVE wall removal done IF the hooves were dorsally rasped. It was certainly NOT a suggestion TO dorsally rasp those hooves.

Understood. The problem is that you used an example with no distortion to try and make your point. It would have been better IMNTBCHO, if you had used a morphed-out foot, either from founder, hi-low syndrome, or other pathology, to try and make your point.

[Forgewizard]

Rick,
here are shots showing comparisons of "toe bevels and setbacks" on a foundered(recovering) POA.
http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8203912/122458754.jpg

http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8203912/122458800.jpg

If new hoof growth follows old hoof growth, thengetting rid of theextra long toe overhang ought to eliminate the long toe input from the hoof, hadn't it? IF the heels become better supported then the whole hoof restructures, right? This particular hoof is remodeling VERY nicely and rather quickly, I might add;my first visit to work on her was August 30th.

At her vet's insistance she was shod with "Open toed bar shoes", frog support pad and EDSS soft material. 4 Weeks later this package was reset.
4 Weeks after that I put her in Epona shoes. I reset the Epona shoes again. Her hooves have begun to develop a concavity and when I reset her the last time - she was able to walk the length of the barn's concrete aisleway barefoot! Still ouchy on turns - but landing flat and no head bob on the straight! My next visit I want to put her in a size smaller shoe and start tightening up her walls from that splattered shape she adopted when foundered and not sod supportively. You can see how the new growth coming in is much more uniform and tight. Hopefully that will continue and her hooves will become more normal in shape.

Kim

[Rick Burten]

Do you have current radiographs of the feet that you can post?

Absent that, what is your estimation of the spatial orientation and location of p3 within the hoof capsule right now? Would you add that to your marked up photo?

Thanks.

[Forgewizard]

Rick,
No I do not have radiographs to post of that hoof. The vet showed me them when I first visited the horse. But as far as I know, no new ones have been taken.

At the time they contacted me the vet was seriously trying to talk the owner in to a tendonotamy.

The vet has recently seen the horse and is happy with her much improved movement. ( She's galloping and bucking freely in her paddock now).

I'll try to talk the owner in to getting follow up rads - but its probably one of those things that if the horse isn't in obvious distress - they feel the rads are an unnecessary expense. But it won't hurt to inquire.

Yes, I AM curious to see the internal changes and how they compare to the external changes.

http://pic17.picturetrail.com/VOL855/2893929/8203912/122480684.jpg

[Rick Burten]

Did Minihaha come from the Land of Gitchigumi?

Thanks for the mark-ups. Is there still a lot of white line stretching going on? I ask because you indicate that there is a laminar wedge and I am curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

In your mark-ups, you show the extensor process(and therefore, defacto, the entire coffin bone) sitting higher in the hoof capsule in the left photo than in the right. While I don't think the spatial orientation of p3 in either photo is quite as steep as you indicate, the mark-ups on the right would indicate to me that because of the toe dubbing, the hoof capsule has been weakened enough to allow the bony column to sink.

To me, both of those photos show a more broken back HPA than you indicate.

If I am correct, then p3 is spatially oriented much more towards a 0 degree palmer angle, which, with the amount of toe you have dubbed, puts the distal leading edge of p3 very close to the wall, which has now been weakened .

But hey, its working for you and the horse and that is, in the end, all that really matters. I really am glad that this horse is doing so well.

[Forgewizard]

Rick,

Yeah - Minihaha probably hails from Lake Gichigumi near the great grey-green greasy lim-po-po river! ;)

I tried to keep each diagram in the same place on each photo. I used the nail holes in the hoof as markers. The photo on the right is not at exactly the same angle as the left photo. You can see more of the front of the hoof. I'm working on a camera rest that allows me to take photos in exactly the same place each time. Until then I suffer from being all too human.

AS for the lamellar wedge - check out the dorsal view photos above - you can clearly see the remaining stretched white line in the lower right hand photo.

So removing that glob of toe hadn't ough to weaken the hoof at all. Hasn't seemed to anyway. They are tickled that she is toodling around and they aren't having to give her bute anymore!

While I didn't take a shot of the solar view before shoeing Mini - I am still seeing a bit of P3 impression even though the hoof is developing concavity. That impression leads me to beleive that P3 is still tilted downward a tad. - Which is slightly more than a "scooch", but not as much as a teensy bit! :rolleyes:
Kim

[Rick Burten]

Which is slightly more than a "scooch",
Kim

I am guessing that you are trying to say "Scoche" which is Japanese for "just a little bit". The best approximation of how to pronounce that word is "Sko(hard 'O') she or shhh. Either is acceptable and in common use(well at least in Japan and my house it is)

[Dave Purves]

Once traveling to the wilds of Goergia, I found the vernacular to be a relative of the Japanese, however, instead of pronouncing skOsh, they pronounce it Skunch, much like crunch. After a few trips to this oasis, I've found the language easier to understand, and have even brought a few of those words back to the "world" with me.

Dave

[calshoer]

Sorry I just got in here after a couple daysand it is too late try to to read EVERYTHING that has gone on here to comment on all of it.
That is an awful a lot of stuff for one thread. it shoukd be split up into individual topics.
So I will just say a coulple of things.
First the only drawing in the beginning of the thread that looks like a properly applied NB shoe is the top one second from left titled the "better shoeing" >the breakover of the shoe nsd the heel of the shoe are about where the yshould be for proper Nbshoeing. The fact there is no distortion in the toe of the foot makes it a foot where there would be no toe overhanging the NB shoe. tremeber NBshoes are NOT SET at a point measured BACK from the toe! Rather, they are set relative to the coffin bone tip. The example Kim uses as "Pattys bevel" is NOTHING close to a correct NB shoe placement ,it is way too far back.AND dressing the hoofwall off that much would create a grosly weakened wall as P3 dropped due to the removal of the band of support around it,and potentially sore a horse. AND NBoprotocol dictates tha tthe hoofwall is NEVER to be dressed fro mthe hairline down. Only the flares from the lower 1/3 or so are to be dressed off. So your drawing is grossy inaccurate. I suiggest you actually study NB principles in greater depth before you try to discuss it further.
The breakover point of an NB shoe should be approx 1/4" ahead of the tip of the coffin bone in an average size foot.
Next, the aluminum and steel NB shoes have a slightly different recommended placement if measured from the apex of the trimmed frog, because the of the wider toe width of the aluminum.
No matter what style of shoe is used for applying the NB principles, the shoe placement depends on where the bevel in the shoe is. The place the bevel begins should be set over the sole callous, which again is relative to the coffin bone. In a St Croix that would be at the crease.
Therefore the STcroix shown is a full size (or two) smaller ,so no way in hades would it fit the same feet as the NB shoes shown.
And lastly, when a NB shoe is correctly applied to a foot trimmed accurately to *NB protocol*, (not Kim's trim protocol ) they do NOT overgrow the heels. There is usually plenty of heel on the shoe when the correct shoe is chosen, so growth is not a problem. Part of NB protocol is that if the buttress remains covered for the whole shoeing period that is usually plenty of shoe.
A horse does not naturally need any more "support" from the heels of a shoe sticking out past the back of the foot. Nature gave most horses plenty of caudal support,as long as their heels are kept from running under. Only those few really low weak pasterned ones who would be coyote food left on their own,(or those perhaps recovering from some tendon injury), need more out the back than their own foot gives them .
So Kim, since we will never agree about certain shoeing PRINCIPLES, there is no point discussing why NB shoes don't work for what YOU do.
Because I agree...they won't work for what YOU do.
But they work awsome for applying NB protocols . :D
Patty

[calshoer]

One more thing..
Kim if you want to really locate p3 angle within the hoof capsule on that foundered horse without Xrays, here is a pretty accurate way that I was taught. .
I have used this and then compared to "after" shoeing rads... it works.

*Gently* locate the tip of p3 by using your hooftesters starting at the outer border of the center of the toe ,working GENTLY back toward the frog apex. The horse WILL you where the boen edge is by his reaction when you get close.
Draw a line across the sole at that place, continuing the line up the sides of the foot a bit.

Then when you view the foot from thre side you can easily see where the end of tyhe bone is. It will correspond with a line visualized down at the angle of the little bit of steeper hoofwall just below the coronary band.

Looking at your pictures, I believe the coffin bones in your foundered feet are steeper than your imaginary mark up shows, and I would have placed the breakover further back.
It is good practice to ask that the owner and vet take a simple lateral "after shoeing " Xray on foundered feet to help insure the B.O has been placed optimally to P3. After you get enough of those it will dial in your eye better and you will find that you can more accurately get it there without needing the films.
Patty

[Forgewizard]

Thought some folks would be interested in an update of Minihaha- the foundered POA I stated with August 30* 2005 here are pix or he near fore. Which she seems to be happy tooling bound barefoot! She was actually ridden across he pasture too!

So for her what worked was 2 settings or "open Toe Bar Shoes" followed by 3 settings of Epona shoes, the 1st2 settings with sole support material from EDSS once, and another from Epona. These shoes plus some aggressive trimming, hoof supplements, & monitored management.


http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniNFDrsDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniNFDrsDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniNFHlsDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniNFHlsDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniNFSlrDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniNFSlrDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniNFDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniNFDn042106.JPG/view/)

Next post shows her other hoof:

[Forgewizard]

And here is her off fore hoof.

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniOFDrsDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniOFDrsDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniOFHlsDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniOFHlsDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniOFLatDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniOFLatDn042106.JPG/view/)

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/MiniOFSlrDn042106.JPG (http://s2.supload.com/free/MiniOFSlrDn042106.JPG/view/)

Granted she still has away to go before her hooves are totally grown past the distortion. But she is now walking almost heel-toe consistently and was sound at the walk on the concrete!

Regards,
Kim

[Phil Armitage]

Hey Kim looking good! Great work.