Tom Stovall, CJF wrote: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, 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: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.
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: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.
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