Yes, possible. I wish I could find that study again to see if there was mention about the dams having a preference.
[QUOTE=LMH;5754595]
I really don’t care if you believe it or not-I didn’t think up the idea…actually others on this thread have agreed about the ‘wonders’ of correct stimulus.
For a more detailed explanation, you should attend one of KC’s courses-he nailed this one.
In any case-thank you for your thoughts…in the meantime I wait.[/QUOTE]
OH, GAWD! (smacks forehead) not another “KC” person… (roll-eyes)
this explains everything :lol:
Only on COTH can one read about the wisdom of exercising the horse and leaving underrun heels. Wonders never cease.
and only on COTH could one argue with an unemployed lawyer turned ‘trimmer’ Said lawyer doesn’t earn her living doing good work under horses day in and day out like many of you do, she doesn’t have the experience under horses that many of you do.
She’s going to attack the evidence she doesn’t wish to accept as ‘good’ evidence because she is trained to do so. Arguing with a lawyer is like mud wrestling with a pig: after a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it.
Any minute now some know-it-all is going to come on and say it is all a matter of training.
katarine you have no idea what I do day in and day out-are implying that I am an unemployed attorney, an untrained trimmer and further implyingthat i am somehow incapable of learning?
If so how do you know this?
And threw in the pig comment as a cherry on top.
You are such a lady indeed.
yes I am trained to argue-but that training also includes and necessitates precision. That training also includes the ability to research and asses the value of information presented.
And in the end, what does it matter? I am looking for information for my own personal reasons-you don’t even know what that reason is and it does not matter.
Good evidence are photos shown in a manner not to distort. Period.
Your lack of acceptance of this shows you lack of experience in learning to observe photos and the distortions that are present.
Do you have anything to add other than your unimpressive commentary? Or should I order a new bowl of wheaties for you as well?
My Wheaties are fine, thanks. Yours seem to have taken a turn for the worse, though. And this isn’t a debutante ball, so there’s no requirement I be a lady, a trimmer, a lawyer, or an Indian Chief.
My post was merely an observation from the peanut gallery. If one was new to the forums, they might not know you aren’t a trimmer by trade and a lawyer by training. Sharing a few salient points with the group on the thread would perhaps educate them regarding your…intent.
IMO, Jumpin_Horses photos show a wonderful example of underrun heels being corrected. I think that’s a bang up job. So happy for that horse to feel good again on those feet.
Gwen-I would like your thoughts on this one…
After a lengthy conversation with a friend, I think we may be onto a bigger piece of the puzzle…
I don’t think anyone will argue that the tubules come out of the hairline perpendicular to it, correct?
This issue is the ‘curving’ of the back of the foot causes the heels to ‘run forward’ or not-the hairline dictates the direction of the heel growth…still with me?
I think the hairline is what we see BUT I am pretty sure it is the internal structures (digital cushion) that directs the hairline.
I think (again based on this conversation) that a horse with chronically underrun heels may have actually ‘slipped forward’ so the coffin bone is no longer supported by the digital cushion-once it has slipped (i.e. sank) you can’t put it back.
Thus only managed.
Thoughts?
This would also explain why rotation is less hopeless than sinking-in rotation the coffin bone is still where it should be in relationship to the digital cushion.
It can ‘derotate’-when a horse ‘sinks’ (not in the sinks out the bottom but sits low in the capsule), the foot has slipped forward and simply can’t be put back to its correct relationship with the digital cushion.
This is why there is no cure for sinkers.
Once it has slipped, there is no fixing it, no correcting underrun heels.
If it has not slipped, you can put the heels where you want-but the foot was still healthy-all the parts were still in the right place.
When a horse is club footed or grows tall heels, his coffin bone/digital cushion relationship is still ‘correct’-so he does not have underrun heels. The digital cushion may be weak, so the frog will be weak. If the DC is strong, the frog will be full.
With underrun heels, and the 'slip factor, combined with a weak digital cushion, you are pretty much dead in the water-these are the horses that Eponas with impression material seem so magical…because you are giving it the digital cushion that it has slipped off of.
Thoughts?
marta since you have Epona experience, would love your thoughts as well.
OK Gwen again-go back and look at the photos Jumping showed…
notice the fullness in the back of the foot is the same in the before and afters -the afters show no additional ‘fluff’
This means the digital cushion did not improve in health, which means everything that flows with that did not either.
Another factor you HAVE to consider when looking at these photos is how much weight the hoof is bearing.
With a weak digital cushion, unloaded I bet it won’t look as squished as when it is loaded-so a foot can look ‘improved’ if the after shot is loading less weight than before…
This triggers a few more thoughts on factors that influence the ‘trueness of photos’-was the horse stalled or walking around? A horse can fluff up when not in work stronger than it can handle and will squish down when over worked.
I saw this in milo all the time and never connected it until all of this.
How can you tell from a photo how good a horse feels? 
[QUOTE=Ju
If I remember, this was like 4-6 months later
[IMG]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g305/BearFooteFarm/lenny/8_side_AT.jpg)
[IMG]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g305/BearFooteFarm/lenny/8_oblique_AT.jpg)[/QUOTE]
None are so blind as those who will not see.
[QUOTE=Ju
If I remember, this was like 4-6 months later
[IMG]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g305/BearFooteFarm/lenny/8_side_AT.jpg)
[IMG]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g305/BearFooteFarm/lenny/8_oblique_AT.jpg)[/QUOTE]
None are so blind as those who will not see.
You have made your point and I have made mine-no matter how many times you repeat it, it will not change the fact that the photos are taken at different angles and that distorts the conclusion.
So how can you tell the horse is sound from the photos?
and since you believe you actually have hoof knowledge, what are your thoughts on the relationship to the digital cushion?
Perhaps this will be of some value to the discussion" http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to:
Friday, July 29, 2011
Research: Clayton and Bowker’s “Effects of Barefoot Trimming on Hoof Morphology” Focuses on Incremental Heel Recovery
1 Like
Thanks Rick-the interesting thing that jumped out was all horses were arabians…a breed commonly known as having more naturally steep feet.
The other interesting factor was the horses were ridden 5 days a week in a sand arena (sounds like stimulus and environment had a part of it?)
The other interesting fact was a total of 16 months was a part of the equation.
I would be interested in more details and photos of course :lol:
But in one breath it is the trim alone and in another it is a trim plus 5 days of work and pasture housed.
Not exactly the trim alone? I would also love to see the changes (if any) in the fluff in the DC.
I will have to read it again in detail but provides interesting thought.
I wonder what would happen if the study was done on TBs?
[QUOTE=LMH;5754878]
You have made your point and I have made mine-no matter how many times you repeat it, it will not change the fact that the photos are taken at different angles and that distorts the conclusion.
So how can you tell the horse is sound from the photos?
and since you believe you actually have hoof knowledge, what are your thoughts on the relationship to the digital cushion?[/QUOTE]
I take the poster at his/her word. Are you calling the poster a liar? Based on what? Is Jumpin_Horses lying? If so, the burden of proof is on you.
Cushion that, boo boo.
And I quote the data from people who really do know hooves from a hole in their head:
[I]
The problem: horses with mildly underrun heels. The goal: palmar/plantar migration of the heel area of the hoof, increase in heel angle and support length, and an increase in solar angle of the coffin bone.
The hypothesis: it’s possible.In the end, the heel angle increased an average of almost nine degrees. The difference between toe and heel angle decreased from 13.8 to 7.2 degrees during the one-year maintenance period.
It just takes a lot of time, that’s all.[/I]
[QUOTE=LMH;5754833]
OK Gwen again-go back and look at the photos Jumping showed…
notice the fullness in the back of the foot is the same in the before and afters -the afters show no additional ‘fluff’
This means the digital cushion did not improve in health, which means everything that flows with that did not either.
Another factor you HAVE to consider when looking at these photos is how much weight the hoof is bearing.
With a weak digital cushion, unloaded I bet it won’t look as squished as when it is loaded-so a foot can look ‘improved’ if the after shot is loading less weight than before…
This triggers a few more thoughts on factors that influence the ‘trueness of photos’-was the horse stalled or walking around? A horse can fluff up when not in work stronger than it can handle and will squish down when over worked.
I saw this in milo all the time and never connected it until all of this.[/QUOTE]
I noticed, too, that the shape of the heel bulbs did not change which, in my understanding, tells me they are still more fatty tissue than fibrocartilagenous as healthy dc’s are. (per Robert Bowker on morph of the dc with exercise and good healthy … dc that is healthy is fibrocartilagenous while unhealthy is more fatty. I’ve noticed this on dissections, as well.)
Something to add to the thinking – and this is something that goes completely against all the ‘rump roast’ teachings over the years/centuries … but much thinking and theorizing on my behalf (and some other noted hoofcare specialists) over the years has summarized as follows:
First, the hoof capsule grows around the foot. The foot, specifically the P3 is supported and ‘slung’, if you will, by the supporting ligaments, tendons etc. The laminae are NOT supportive or suspensory tissues but connective. Their job is to CONNECT the hoof capsule to the foot. When the mechanics of the laminae fail then the hoof capsule is displaced and is no longer held w/full connectivity in place … the bones remain intact since they are still supported and ‘slung’ within the capsule by the supporting and suspensory tissues. The sole is a “stop” for the downward motion of the bony column as well as a protector of the bottom of the foot. The heels, specifically the back 2/3rds of the hoof are the shock absorbers and energy dissipators – the frog and digital cushion both being comprised of 50% water. This is why a ‘heel-first’ landing of the hooves is so important.
I have a hard time believing that the entire bony column supported all the way from the shoulder at parts, will become ‘morphed’ or slide forward but, instead, it seems more feasible to me that the capsule, due to mechanical failure, will not only ‘slip’ or displace but, because of that ‘slippage’, will no longer receive the proper stimulation for healthy growth. Therefore the capsule, itself, is compromised in its growth and yes, can become stunted, shall we say, due to the terminal insults within the corium surrounding the P3 and all but the actual foot, with all its suspensory and supportives, stay in place. (P2, P1, Cannon etc.)
I guess that’s something to chew on for awhile. grin
And how in the heck is the foot loading less weight than before, since the horse is standing with its foot under its leg?? Oy…
I’m out…
:lol: are you kidding me? You have never seen a horse with both front feet on the ground and leaning his weight more on one leg than the other??? :lol:
Sorry, I’m gonna have to call you on that assertion. You are going to have to produce the math to support it - I bet you can’t. :lol:
