I know it's been a while since "The Clinic at Jaye's Place" but I haven't had time till this morning to find the article to back this up.

We (well Tom Stovall) ran into a hoof that when ballanced to his eye, was off M/L on the x ray. To get the x ray to show m/l ballance the hoof had to be shorter medially than laterally ( to the eye).

As Kim Cassidy saw this she grabbed a metal ruler and measured the depth of the collateral grooves because she wanted "to see if Pete Ramey was right". She was talking about his idea that the collateral grooves are the same distance from the coffin bone ( bottom of groove to coffin bone) on both sides of the frog. Therefore, if both collateral grooves are the same depth then the hoof is in m/l balance. I had to leave the clinic before the testing was complete but I asked Kim the next day how the measurements came out and she said they agreed with the x rays. The medial wall had to be slightly shorter than the lateral wall for the coffin bone to balance m/l.


Here are some articles from Mr. Ramey's website talking about using the collateral grooves.

http://www.hoofrehab.com/seasons.htm
http://www.hoofrehab.com/horses_sole.htm
http://www.hoofrehab.com/coronet.htm


After rereading the last article (especially the last couple of paragraphs) I wonder if Mrs. Perry's horse doesn't "paddle" a little bit with that foot. I didn't get to see the horse move but I wasn't trimming or shoeing it so it didn't matter at the time. Mr. Ramey contends (in the last article I posted ) that ..."The lateral cartilages semi-permanently adjust their rest position to accommodate the most common impact of an individual hoof. A hoof that usually hits the ground slightly crooked because of an angular deformity or body issue will adjust its lateral cartilages accordingly. Also, a perfectly straight-legged horse can make such adjustments due to its most common work."... Which to me says that the coffin bone actually repositions itsself in the hoof capsule over time to land flat m/l no matter how the horse travels.


I said all this to ask these questions... (keep in mind I want to know how you do it, not what you think is proper).

1) How do you determine m/l balance?

2) If you get the foot balanced, then put it down and notice it doesn't "look right" (for example if it looks like one wall is longer than the other, toes in/out slightly) do you change it or do you leave it because you know you balanced it?



David

Equal depth from ground surface of the wall to the exfoliated, waxy (functional )sole at the toe pillars , along with evaluating that same thing at the heels and also looking for equal position of the heel buttresses relative to the back off the frog. (With the first two criteria having more importance in the assessment.)I leave it.Because subtle distortions, hairline shearing, flares etc in the outer capsule are not good evaluation areas for ML balance, IMO. , On the other hand, in my experience the sole plane is much more accurate.

Patty,

Thank you for your reply. I did have one more question that I meant to put in the first post but it slipped my mind so, here's question 3


A) What do you think about this statement and my interpretation?

Mr. Ramey contends (in the last article I posted ) that ..."The lateral cartilages semi-permanently adjust their rest position to accommodate the most common impact of an individual hoof. A hoof that usually hits the ground slightly crooked because of an angular deformity or body issue will adjust its lateral cartilages accordingly. Also, a perfectly straight-legged horse can make such adjustments due to its most common work."... Which to me says that the coffin bone actually repositions itsself in the hoof capsule over time to land flat m/l no matter how the horse travels.


Do you think it's true that the coffin bone repositions itself m/l to compensate for a non level hoof landing?

David

calshoer wrote:
That's almost ver batim what I was taught.

2) If you get the foot balanced, then put it down and notice it doesn't "look right" (for example if it looks like one wall is longer than the other, toes in/out slightly) do you change it or do you leave it because you know you balanced it?


calshoer wrote:

So, what about boney column alignment? I was originally taught that when the foot hits the ground, you should be able to drop a plumb line from the knee to the ground and it should symetrically bisect the hoof. If you trim the foot to the sole plane and have a slight variation ( medial wall is shorter than lateral as in my original example) then your plumb line is not going to symetrically bisect the hoof.

Again, not saying you're wrong just trying to solicit your opinion.

Thanks
David

I'm not Patty, but the shoe can be set slightly medially (in this case) or laterally with appropriate boxing and safeing to get the support under the bony column W/O trying to move the column. I've got a prime example this afternoon. Will try to get pictures of the foot and the x-rays.

Jack Evers wrote:
I, for one, am very happy we've cleared that up!!

Baron

Jack Evers wrote:
No one said only Patty could post, I appreciate your input as well and I look forward to the photos. Someone else mentioned this same thing recently, lining the shoe up to support the leg instead of just the hoof, on another thread. I'll try to find it. When you off set the shoe like this will you use filler to build out the hoof wall any? I'm speaking specifically to offsetting it medially, using the filler to keep the other foot from stepping on it and pulling the shoe.

Thanks
David

David' In my experience,I dont think a unlevel landing causes that to happen because the landing is so momentary. However I feel that an unlevel LOADING over time sure will cause the bone to shift within the unbalanced capsule, resulting in sheared heels and/or coronary bands.

Which gets back to explaining the reason for my answer to your second question about what I would do with higher hoofwall appearance on one side of the foot even though I had balanced the foot to its sole.

The bone,IME, will try to get level medial laterally under load, and if it is not set level over time, as it get level something will have to yield to the shifting bone and the thing that most easily moves is the hoof wall.

Simple answer. Not all horses are built with perfectly aligned bone columns, and they are usually just fine the way they got built. I dont have to fix it if the foot is not bisected by a plumb line, because in all but the extreme cases of limb deformity, I dont consider it broke.

Good thread David, I have wondered alot of this myself.

Patty do you think balancing to the sole plane will stand true everytime?
I was wandering about horses that have some axial displacment. I have a couple that never seem just right to me.

Thanks, Chad

Im not sure what you mean about "stand true" , but if you mean is P3 balanced medial laterally to the ground, I have found on any that I Have had the chance to get X Rays on after a shoeing that the answer is yes , with the exception of serious pathologies such as a founder that sunk more on one side than the other.
Now that does not mean I will actually shoe every single horse with P3 level to the ground medial laterally, because treating an occasional special case may require setting it unlevel for some reason, at least for a little while.(such a colateral ligament injury, or a severe carpus varus knee) I Might run into one out of a couple hundred that need the foot set unlevel for some reason like that . But I sure want to know that I have the bone it flat ML to begin with as the base for the shoeing package and the sole has proven very accurate. Also Mike Savoldi's work with it (Uniform Sole Thickness) verified it's accuracy, on many more feet than I will ever have a chance to get X Rayed.

calshoer wrote:
Say WHAT?

calshoer wrote:
This is so good to know, although I'm not sure what "it" is. I will be working with Mike Savoldi in less than 18 days so I will make sure to bring up your ideas and see what he thinks of you and your theories.

irishcas wrote:
Just can't leave the personal baggage out of it, can you? You couldn't just say, "...and when I see him, I'll ask him what his opinion is of the EDSS protocol, as well as trimming to the live sole plain." That would've kept it above board and professional.

Baron Tayler

Cyber Farrier wrote:
Nothing personal in my response. "Your theories" per say indicates me trying to understand numerous ways of approaching trimming feet to medial and lateral balance.

Or I could have said, " In a few days i will be seeing, talking and discussing UST with Mike Savoldi. With many trimming approaches which approach verifies your, Mike Salvoldi's findings? Would you use one approach over another? Which one?

Does UST sustain parameters in trimming, even in the bigger footed horses; In some approaches, from what I have read, cannot sustain principled parameters?

And Baron, all of us learn from one or many teachers. Once we are in the "field" under a horse it is our interpretation of what we have learned that we apply to the horses feet. So when I am talking to an individual and not the original creator of a system or theory, I am speaking to that individual.

I don't see you going over to chastise The Boys for slamming Doupard's Glue Shoe or Talisman's OBE system and that has been pretty intense.

Have a lovely day, monsooning here so I'm stuck at home, choices surf the net or clean my house

irishcas wrote:
Those two words were fine. It was the personal "you" that proceeded them, that you've ignored, that was the focus of my comments.

Excellent! That would've been nice.

Yeah! Good stuff.

No disagreement there.

That's because there's not been anything to chastise. I haven't seen any posts there where the people involved have been questioned or personally denigrated. (The way the OBE stuff was presented invited that response, and although at times it came close to the line, all in all it was fairly tame.) The discussion has been intense, but it's been focused on the subject matter, not the individuals presenting their views.

Baron Tayler