Jason Maki wrote:
For the last few years I've been using a lot of light shoes like an SX7 but I'm going the other way now because I think I generally end up with a better foot when I put a bit more steel on them.

KH DF seems like a nice wide web shoe and I am starting to use them more and more on horses 3 and up. So far I like the wider web and it appears to be working. They do not have to be too heavy like a 10mm thickness. I have used 24mmX8mm. 8mm thickness is very close to 5/16th. Mustad MX-50 and MX-55 nails fit these shoes very nice. I still like my SX-7, 8 and SSP, however they can look like spaghetti on a large foot.

Phil,
I find it interesting that you have a long essay of the clinic and you don't mention the fact that we had a benefit clinic for a farrier that raised 5 grand you don't mention a word. I have to work today and will get the pictures put up of the horse Phil and I are shoeing. Your opinion of how the day went is really accurate. You did not get as long winded on the thread that has pictures to tell the story. I must go do some thin walled horses.

Keep the faith

Craig

Craig Trnka wrote:
I did not start the thread Craig and the focus was trimming and shoeing. People were very generous at this clinic for a great cause. The folks the money was raised for are good friends of mine and the situation is very difficult to talk about and hesitant to say too much on a discussion forum about it. It was great to see how caring and generous farriers in the area are.

These folks would love to get a phone call from fellow farriers. I called them up a couple of months ago, not knowing what to say except that I am thinking of them and they are in my prayers. Saturday I got a huge hug from both of them and a big thank you for the phone call. Sometimes it is the little things that can make a persons day.

It was a pleasure seeing you again and you are doing an outstanding job bringing farriers together, agreeing to disagree and get us all thinking. Your skills. knowledge and enthusiasm is impressive. Keep up the good work.

Jason Maki wrote:
Jason,

You need to **** things down for me! The toe clips I've done that didn't have enough mass, let the sole strip out and the foot migrated quite a bit more than if I set a shoe back. So one of the keys is probably maintaining sole thickness. So the wider web in wet / abrasive conditions will protect the sole thickness.

Most people like toe clips better simply because they are easier to fit than a pair of side clips. (Patty)


How do you make that out?

:

calshoer wrote:
We should be shoeing the distal limb; leaving out an aspect will only fail the horse in it's disiplines.

calshoer wrote:

How does NB address this roll in the toe of the bone? I thought the breakover was set about a 1/4" in front of p3. Does the natural barefoot horse address this roll?

Eric Russell wrote:

Yes it does Eric. Dependant upon HOW abrasive the footing is.
Georgia island horses feet are different than Wyoming high desert horses.
Even th Pluckerman Moutain ponies in New Jersey have different rolls to the horn of the toe.

Jaye Perry wrote:
So the barefoot horses have a roll a 1/4" in front of p3, plus an additional roll for the "roll in the bone"?

I might not be all that familiar with NB. I thought if you drew a line down the front of p3 at the end of the foot breakover would be. did that change now that there's a roll in the bone?

Craig Trnka wrote:
Don't worry I will.

Dependant on 'How abrasive the footing is'~~~What people get bent out of shape about is the futile single feral model from 3 different micro environments in one region in one state in the whole country that came from the arid, abrasive environment in Wyoming. Check out the Maryland island horses, Georgia island horses:cool:



One has to add for laminae and horn; and the algorithm to determine specific break point for "A specific" horse:p

It is. Same place as the roll in the outer hoof capsule across the sole would be. Blunter than the toe is shapedat its outer edge.Yes ,as lng as the foot has a chance to wear at all naturally,the roll across the toe is formed at *about* 1/4" forward of the tip of P3 through the natural wear mechanism including the anatomical fact that the sole callus is morew dense and wear resistant than the outer wall , and therefore stops the toe wear at the the callus.

The reason it comes out about 1/4" forward of P3 is incredibly simple.
It is due to the direction of the growth of the horn tubiles takes from the solar margin ofP3 t the ground. The horn grows at about same angle of the bone , and where the ends of the tubules reach the ground, they are about 1/4" forward of the bone edge, give or take a little depending on the angle of P3 and the thickness of the live horn of the sole.
Bigger feet a little more, small or club feet a little less.
And TOM, if you or anyone else doesn't like the term "sole callus" please do not start another off track dssertation on terminology, just call it whatevertheheckyouwant, like "non exfloliating sole ridge", or "waxy sole hump" or "roundy sole bump thing " or the barefoot favorite, "moonsickle" , or whatever. That thing is the thing that stops the toe wear where it does.
And it is consistantly positioned with the position of the coffin bone . It HAS to be where it is, because it grows from the solar margin of the bone.

AND the two corners of that whateveryouwanttocallit ridge are Ducketts "pillars" . The are usually a little bit wider than the rest of that ridge and consequently even stronger. Naturally worn breakover point consistanty occurs in a fairly straight line across the toe at the front of those pillars. 1/4" forward of the tip of P3, give or take a fraction.

But what about the roll in the bone? Is NB breakover accounting for this roll? If so how?

Eric Russell wrote:
No. Just the distal portion. To accomodate the solar margin, it would mimick the "T" shoe.