Apart from the sinking in the ground ;the longer support length.

Looking at Smittys Work ..they also change the area on which the horse stands in relation to the toe helping a horse that is tender in the navicular area to stand up right with a larger surface area weight distribution .
Is that not a health step ,before wedges(wedgepads)
which is not going to the danger of " IF you relieve on area you ,strain another."
..when working in a case where the hoof Balance itself is not enough to get the animal Happy.

Jaye Perry wrote:
The research is ongoing at the moment, but is there peer reviewed research on the benefit of egg bars for horses exhibiting lameness presumed related to radiographic navicular lesions? You are welcome to quote it if you have it. Your above quote is simply a veterinary observation and not research data.

Research on horses is difficult and lameness research even more so. The study group is being set up at this time.

Most of farriery hangs relevancy on techniques that have only been observed to be beneficial and often the theory of their benefit is simply that, a theory. My observations on the Nolan Hoof Plate have only been mentioned in that context, no differently than the Stewart Clog, the Heart bar, roller motion shoes, or a variety of other modalities that help some horses and do not benefit others.

M. W. Myers, D.V.M.

This is not a rant against you Dr. Meyers but against everyone that fails to understand that a "scientific approach" is not necessarily just that. There is a vast gap between what math and physics scientists call scientific and what vets are ready to settle for. It's almost embarrassing how some equine related research is called scientific. As I mentioned before a lot of equine researchers would improve the quality of their research when the would take into account field testing we do on a daily basis.

The egg bar issue as an example. When we would conduct all kinds of tests trying to find out how the egg bar would benefit a navicular problem vets are likely to round up several known "navicular cases" and try the concept. They would compare it with a couple of other horses, known for soundness and probably a mix of some sort. In the research report a couple of theories would be thrown in and tada here's your science!

I know a math professor that knows nothing about horses. But he is fascinated by my work with them. When discussing this kind of research his first question was "what's a navicular horse?" Well, all of you researchers out there? Would you please answer this man?

This is the whole issue. Why for peats sake is this science deal not reversed? We have experience in field that an egg bar works. Even if the so called scientists can prove they can not find out why, we benefit from this idea on a daily basis. The question should be how can we find out why it works? Who ever came up with "anecdotal evidence" being of no value? It obviously shows something worked in a particular case and maybe even worked for a long time on that same horse. That's good enough. For scientists to call it scientific you need to be able to duplicate it I'm told. But how is anyone to duplicate anything if they don't know what to duplicate in the first place? To duplicate something you would need to have full control over all variables. In horses you can forget about that. There is no way you can map all variables involved in locomotion. In Clayton and Back's research "Equine Locomotion" they did try but acknowledged that horses are very capable in evasive actions where locomotion is concerned. They would have to. Their very existence depended on it in the time they were not some dressage queens pet, but dinner to predators. And even if researchers would try and find out why an egg bar works. Will they be able to copy all kinds of footing some of the horses we shoe work in? Will they be able to find out whether an improvement is not just a horse being agitated? (I've seen a stud with a broken leg holler at mares....) Or would they know when a set back is not just a back issue caused by the small circle needed for testing? There is simply no way all variables can be controlled. Reverse the issue. Ask us what works. Then theorise on why it could work and test that. Not the other way around.

The research into why our findings in field work is in my opinion way more interesting than research trying to convince us why it couldn't have worked. We know it works! The success we have using egg bars in all those cases is all the proof we need. And after a while we end up in the same situation we recently found ourselves in reading the research by Meike van Heel where she found out that easing of break over helps a horse to break over more easily! Do you really think anyone was surprised by that outcome? Do you really think anyone would have changed the way they shod horses when they know by daily experience it works? Whatever any researcher might say?



Ronald Aalders

p.s. might I suggest the reading of Equine Locomotion by Hillary Clayton and Willem Back to all really interested in this subject?

Ronald Aalders in gray, stuff deleted

This is not a rant against you Dr. Meyers but against everyone that fails to understand that a "scientific approach" is not necessarily just that. There is a vast gap between what math and physics scientists call scientific and what vets are ready to settle for.

I don't think there's much gap between math and physics, but there's a helluva gap in our understanding of the dynamics of equine movement.

It's almost embarrassing how some equine related research is called scientific. As I mentioned before a lot of equine researchers would improve the quality of their research when the would take into account field testing we do on a daily basis.

Lack of controls negates the value of most "field testing." The Feral Follies, in which a feral foot in an abrasive environment was presumed to be the ideal model for the foot of domestic horses in varied environments is a great example of a classic logical fallacy in which the premise presumes the conclusion to be demonstrated.

The egg bar issue as an example. When we would conduct all kinds of tests trying to find out how the egg bar would benefit a navicular problem vets are likely to round up several known "navicular cases" and try the concept. They would compare it with a couple of other horses, known for soundness and probably a mix of some sort. In the research report a couple of theories would be thrown in and tada here's your science!

Nope, that's not how it works. If you want to test the efficacy of an egg bar in the treatment/palliation of palmar hoof pain, you'd first have to have an accurate diagnosis of the specific cause before any meaningful tests could possibly be conducted. i.e., A set under egg with polymeric palmar support might palliate the symptoms of a bruised N bursa - but it won't do much for a fractured N bone; thus, without an accurate diagnosis, an observer might think eggs were the best thing since sliced bread or as useless as male mammary glands, depending on the pathology - and therein lies the inherent flaw of so-called, "anecdotal evidence."

I know a math professor that knows nothing about horses. But he is fascinated by my work with them. When discussing this kind of research his first question was "what's a navicular horse?" Well, all of you researchers out there? Would you please answer this man?

That's easy. There's NO SUCH THING as a "navicular horse"! Lots of horses present with palmar hoof pain, but the pathologies exacerbating the pain response are many and varied and respond to many different mechanical treatments. "Navicular" has become a meaningless catch-all term, so ambiguous it's damn near useless.

This is the whole issue. Why for peats sake is this science deal not reversed? We have experience in field that an egg bar works.

I beg to differ. Many of us have seen an egg bar work in SOME instances with horses presenting with palmar hoof pain - but the same egg applied in the same manner can be useless, even detrimental, in others.

Even if the so called scientists can prove they can not find out why, we benefit from this idea on a daily basis.

Without an accurate diagnosis, we don't really know if the horse responded favorably to the egg bar, tincture of time, or the phase of the moon.

The question should be how can we find out why it works? Who ever came up with "anecdotal evidence" being of no value?

Lack of controls negates the value of so-called, "anecdotal evidence."

It obviously shows something worked in a particular case and maybe even worked for a long time on that same horse. That's good enough.

Nossir, the fact something worked for one horse presenting with palmar hoof pain DOES NOT imply the same treatment will work for another horse presenting in the same manner because, without an accurate diagnosis, one cannot know the precise cause of the pain.

For scientists to call it scientific you need to be able to duplicate it I'm told. But how is anyone to duplicate anything if they don't know what to duplicate in the first place?

Exactly. Treating all palmar hoof pain in the same manner is a crápshoot at best.

To duplicate something you would need to have full control over all variables. In horses you can forget about that.

Not necessarily. An accurate diagnosis of the cause of palmar hoof pain is often possible.

There is no way you can map all variables involved in locomotion.

It's not necessary to map all the variables, just the cause of the aberration of gait.

[...]

The research into why our findings in field work is in my opinion way more interesting than research trying to convince us why it couldn't have worked. We know it works! The success we have using egg bars in all those cases is all the proof we need.

Unfortunately, we don't know an egg bar works in every instance: sometimes it doesn't make any improvement, sometimes it makes the presentation worse. Without an accurate diagnosis, one can't select the right tool for the job.

And after a while we end up in the same situation we recently found ourselves in reading the research by Meike van Heel where she found out that easing of break over helps a horse to break over more easily! Do you really think anyone was surprised by that outcome? Do you really think anyone would have changed the way they shod horses when they know by daily experience it works? Whatever any researcher might say?

In essence, you're preaching to the choir, but I believe you need to stress that an accurate diagnosis is key to the successful mechanical treatment/palliation of any pathology affecting the hoof.

mwmyersdvm wrote:
I know/known that , Doctor.

That's the thing about horses; some things work and some don't w/o a DEFINITE diagnosis. Throwing rocks is easy; keeping a horse sound seasons in and seasons out for years is hard:cool:

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
I know, thing is in a nutshell there is no way all variables can be duplicated. Also what is the test? The effect of the shoe has on the horse or the effect of the shoe on particular footing? But this just shows how hard it is to conduct science in an horsey environment. I appreciate that.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
I don't know about you Tom, but I'm not shoeing that other horse. I'm shoeing the one hopefully my shoeing has a positive effect on. If it doesn't I'll try everything in my power to make sure my shoeing has a positive effect on that one horse. Because thát is the horse I'm shoeing and have taken responsibilty for. Which summarises the difference in view towards research. I'm not convinced all days spend in the sun having others trot horses with markers on them in front of researchers has ever helped us shoers a whole lot. And even in the few instances research might have been beneficial to us shoers, those great Researchers in the Sky fail to inform Us about it. Exceptions noted obviously. Point I'm trying to make is that research often is conducted to honor researchers and maybe even that praised science. But what is should be about is how to inform us shoers on what to do and why. That last and most important step only a few take.

Look at this board. Of all people in the research field how many prefer to write articles in magazines we don't have time to read in wording we can't follow in stead of writing in plain English on this here board? (Or, heaven forbid, other boards like this one ) Now that would help expand knowledge! If any concept was proven, a solution to white line disease discovered, a way to make a horse go faster or whatever, would that first be shared with the only people who would actually use and implement that knowledge? The very same present here on this board in a neat, collective and receptive environment? NO it would be shared with others that don't know how to pick up a foot either. Chances are we would not even be informed unless some of us find out more or less by accident reading the internet or listening to vets about new developments. Thankfully those people do what the researcher should have done in the fist place, share that knowledge.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
I prefer preaching to the choir, I tried explaining stuff to people uninterested in what I had to say. Now that's a drag! As we say in Holland "like pulling on a dead horse".

Your remarks are well thought through as usual Tom, I appreciate that. Kinda helps getting this board on a next level. We as shoers are the first line of defence in keeping horses usuable. Researchers should provide us with knowledge and tools needed for that job. Like I said a responsibility too little of them take.


Ronald Aalders

You are on the money, Ron!

Jaye Perry wrote:
Yes, I will agree, but you brought up that using Nolan Hoof Plates without research backup was a problem, (you threw the first rock . I use many modalities without research backup and get good results, clogs and hoof plates alike. I do realize that inappropriate hype was applied to initial marketing of the plate, but when I tried a few cases where it appeared appropriate it really did a great job. I just don't get good long term benefits from egg bars on my cases which may simply mean they are just different from yours. I remove a number of egg bars from horses having problems with them, diagnose them correctly and then apply a more appropriate system and get positive results.

M. W. Myers, D.V.M.

Tom and Ron,

Great discussion and I can actually with both of you. We simply are not going to get all of the research data needed to decide what to apply in a given circumstance even when we get the 'correct circumstance, (i.e. correct diagnosis). So we will continue to rely on our collective experiences and often apply the 'best guess, to get the job done. Certainly research will continue and will be slow due to funding problems and the actual time needed to peform each study. Everyone just keep on thinkin', trimmin, and shoein'

M. W. Myers, D.V.M.

I have had good luck with this shoe, it's made by KB. I realize that this particular picture the shoe is actually lacking support but this is what the Vet recomended, I now have this horse in a 1

cowboyshoer22 wrote:
i have had success with eggbars. i have also had success with leaving the horse barefoot. it just depends what problem the horse actually has. alot of times im told a horse is navicular and it ends up just being mainly a balance issue. on the other hand i shoe a western pleasure quarter horse whose navicular bones look like swiss cheese. i use a bar shoe with a wedge pad and it keeps him sound enough to keep showing.

The egg bar shoe pinches the digital arteries off further while making the navicular situation worse. The decreased circulation is why it appears to work. But numbing a foot further does not promote healing, it does the opposite.

URw8n4s8n wrote:
So decreasing blood flow has an effect on the central nerven system cool then all we have to do is stop the blood flow to the lower limb and then all and every lamness will go way!!Man I am going to make so much money now i will pay for your picture ...

Try and think again and the tell us why Eggbars work ...

Ray_Knightley wrote:
Stop feeding the trolls Ray!:cool:

Jaye is that your new apprentice you were telling me about