How do you do it?

How many of you actually take a marker and draw on a hoof?

Do you use Ducketts Dot?

Natural Balance mapping?

Your own home grown method?

I did look around before I started this thread and I didn't find another thread covering this so hopefully it's not to blatant a rehashing of an old topic.

Thanks
David

Since this discussion has so far gone nowhere, I thought I would throw out the source for my train of thought. Realizing that this may be a biased source, I don't see any blatant marketing of their product so I think it may be worth consideration.

That being said, I would appreciate everyone's opinions of this article and the issue of finding the center of articulation.

http://www.eponashoe.com/Documents/Morphology.pdf

Thanks Again
David

When you understand anatomy very well; it is easy to know where it is; and to picture it in your mind like a 3D holograph.

When I was learning NB I mapped every foot. Then when getting ready for certifications I mapped every foot. After mapping the first 3,000-5,000 feet I found I could for the most part just look at a foot and see the lines without having to draw them.

But if I find I have a question in my mind as to where COA is I pull out my marker.

I tend to map very distorted feet with a marker. I find less distorted feet I mark less often.

I "eye ball" the animal to acess for balance/conformation

I also watch the animal move,

I pick up each hoof and read it and which hooves need to be addressed and put it all together

this may seem a slow process to some, but it is the method I was taught to use, it works for me

it only takes a glance

and yes, I see the animal in 3-D, and put "hands on " if neccessary in regards to lameness/leg/hoof issues

as always,

c jay

I like the Widest part of the foot, I try to have 50/50 anterior/postieriorof Coa, I use all of the methods to find it, but the widest -part of the hoof , usually is the widest part of the foot, and COA, IMO.

I posted a thread on exactly this a couple of years ago. Here it is: http://www.horseshoes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=535

You're welcome


Ronald Aalders

Ron,

Thanks for the link. I have to agree with the folks on the other thread, that is one great looking foot to be laminitic and a very ingenious shoeing package. Just out of curiosity ( since the other thread is almost 5 yrs old) how is that mare doing?

From reading the over the article I posted to start this thread, it seems that the tip of the live frog would be the best indicator but even that is not always perfect. I know when you get to the point of having handled ten thousand feet you probably don't need an external indicator but I'm sure it would still be nice to have a reasonably reliable way to double check your self. What do you folks think?

David

Well, she had two or three more foals, but had a bout of laminitis every now and then too. Never as harsh as before I got to her. So maybe something helped somehow? :cool: She's still alive, but I have not seen her in a while now. She was traded for a reiner...............


Ronald Aalders

DavidinGA wrote:When in doubt, I do. Sometimes.Most of the time.No matter whose protocol(s) you follow, in the end, its always your own home grown method .

Rick

For the novices who lurk here, can you explain in either words or pictures just what it is you see as you look at the foot and apply your anatomy knowledge, in order to find the COA? (something descriptive, or visual such as Ron has done here?

I use the most recent methods of Natural Balance mapping to find the widest part of the foot, which according to a recent ELPO radiographic study on 100 hooves showed it to be quite accurate.

An interesting note ,I have tried Ron's method when I had photographs of feet of both sole and lateral views and it comes out almost the same place across the foot every time. It seems however that it would be a little harder to see it his way on a live, curved 3D foot with your head on the ground trying to see it.I Still do occasionally on new client's feet, feet that have significant distortion, and whenever I am teaching.
However after about 13 years of doing NB, I can see it pretty well just looking at the exfoliated foot.No. The 'dot' is too far forward. Duckett's 'bridge' on the other hand , is closer.Of course....I haven't yet found any mapping as accurate as NB. particularly given I dont have Xrays to measure it all my clients.......

ladyblacksmith wrote:

Well, I always thought that I knew my anatomy but I can tell you if you get a chance to check your shoeing using an X ray machine regularly, you'll find you're off more than once. At least I am.

No matter how well educated you are, if you need to be sure you need an X ray machine. Beats each and every mapping theory


Ronald Aalders

Ron,

I agree that x rays are the way to go but they are not always an option, that's the reason for the title of the thread. Also, I wanted to say thank you again for all the great information you've added to this thread.


Patty,

I have just one question ( and I don't mean to be smart but I know it'll come across that way but ) wouldn't a ruler be as accurate and easier for finding the widest part of the foot? If not, can you explain why? I know it's obvious from my question but I will admit I'm not well versed in the NB system although I am interested in it.

Also, I wanted to say thanks for pointing out that Duckett's dot is not the item actually used to find COA, I did know that but I posted it that way because I hear a lot more people refer to that system as using Duckett's Dot than I hear them saying Duckett's Bridge. So I was just trying to use the more recognizable "common term" for the system.

Thanks Again
David

Ronald Aalders wrote:
It also depends on WHO is holding the X-ray machine; and what vet is reading the x-rays......in as much.