i have read all the posts in regards to these casts with much
interest.

i was the one that asked how these compared to the Perfect Hoof Wear
system sold by K.C. Lapiere.

before anyone says it: i do have photos up: they are all over the
web on multible boards including the cushing board. album titled
chief.

my guy has multible issues. i took shoes off year and half ago. i
have given "barefoot" MORE than a fair shake. this is not about
the "owner not being able" to handle barefoot.

this is about knowing that it is time to try other options, whether
it be casts, the PHW, or shoes. before any diehard barefooters chime
in: the horse DOES have a good, balanced trim.

in regards to the horse Drummer: i do not know the horse, never laid
eyes on it, and do not presume to speak for the owner. however, i
have got to believe that seeing that horse have noticeable
improvement in comfort level is all the endorsement that owner
needs. i would willingly sell my soul to get my horse consistant,
long term comfort.

i, or more correctly, my trimmer, applied the PHW to my horse. the
horse was very sore before these were put on. he was much worse
afterwards: sore enough to warrant having the vet do emergency
removal the very next day. no easy feat: the horse had to be
sedated to remove these.

i have NOT yet read the equicast site in any detail, so i am sure i
am premature with my questions.

in regards to the equicasts: what about abscesses? do you have to
wait until you think all abscesses are done? do these prevent or
allow abscesses to drain?

what about thrush? i did see a comment buried in all these posts
about not applying these to "wet" areas in regards to thrush. don't
quote me, i'm not quoting anyone else.

and in regards to thrush: i believe i did see that Dr. Kellon made
reference to IR not playing a role, or causing thrush: i will once
again, repectfully disagree in regards to MY horse: given that he is
IR, and stays chronically thrushy.... only change is diet to support
the IR, and thrush is finally getting better. diet? or IR? in MY
case, the two go hand in hand, there is no denying the connection
between the three. to take this one step further: when the horse
was fed straight sweet feed and unsoaked hay years ago: the thrush,
while present, was NOT the issue it is now.

so HOW do these differ from the PHW? like i said, tried those, took
them off 24hours later. why should i be tempted to try the equicasts?

and if i am going to put shoes on under the casts, nailed on or not,
why not just go with shoes and pad period?

and if these casts DO offer "JUST pallitave" comfort, WHO CARES???
and if that "little boy" was able to ride his horse that summer, WHO
CARES??? and why is it anyone elses concern/business what that owner
did with their horse: YOU ain't paying the bills. maybe no one else
has the courage to say it, but i will:

i am now paying 600.00 + PER MONTH on feed and board ONLY. that does
NOT include suppliments, boots, pads, vet wrap, topical treatments
for thrush, costs of any other soaking items: whether it be TTO,
ACV, epsom salts, "petes goo" etc etc etc. that does NOT include the
cost of routine vet care or routine farrier/trimmer care. that does
not include the cost of upcoming xrays.

the bank is tapped. the emotional well has run dry. this would be
a lot easier to pay, on a horse i can actually ride.

again, barefooters: do NOT chime in to say that its all about the
trim and lifestyle: been there, done that personally, AND through a
friend in similar situation.

in case the tone of this is mis-interpreted let me clear it up.

it's been a LONG two years.

i understand the differences and implications of using a shoe with
the equicasts. i understand the difference between nailing or gluing
the shoe on or not.

but if i am going to go to the time, trouble and expense of finding,
hiring and paying a farrier to bring me a shoe for this, WHY bother
with the equicasts at all? why not just shoe/pad the horse and be
done with it?

whether its right or wrong in regards to ethics, morals, or personal
beliefs, i think i will have an easier time paying 600.00 + per month
on a horse i can actually ride. i know my husband would as well.

and if anyone wants to comment on that, then by all means: PUT YOUR
MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. cough up for board, feed, trim expenses.
if you trim, then come show me IN PERSON how your trim differs from
what i get and do it REGULARLY and DONT charge me 1500.00 dollars to
do it.
Abby, not trying to be a b$%#@ here, but if these equicasts are gods
greatest gift, then i extend you the same invitation: put your
money, your time, talent etc to good use, and come work on my horse
WITHOUT charging me thousands of dollars.

he will look good on your resume: a case study with
photos/documentation preceding shoe removal, complete with xrays.
this would be the case study to end all case studies: owner trimmed,
two proffesional trimmers, and a third that would not touch him.

so, i dare each and every one of you: if you trim, offer up your
services at an AFFORDABLE price and PROVE your trim/method

however, do NOT suggest i send my horse to you and promise he will
be cured and sound in a couple weeks.

val, tired and skeptical.

Hi Val

I've followed your story on a couple of lists and know you are frustrated. I'll let Abby speak to most of your questions but just a thought or two:

About Drummer - the thing that has me most intrigues is that he continues to be comfortable. IOW, it's not just a situation where the horse is comfortable for a little while then sinks back down to a worse condition. If he is comfortable and continues to move that just makes common sense to me. I bet Lorna would be happy to speak with you about her experience.

I can't can't compare LaPierre casts to the Equicasts. You would need to speak with Abby directly, but it sounds as if you and your trimmer have the knowledge to work with these for perhaps far less than $1000's.

Nancy C
EC Hoof Co-Moderator

> so, i dare each and every one of you: if you trim, offer up your
> services at an AFFORDABLE price and PROVE your trim/method


I just saw this and had to chime in because this always bothers me when people think we charge too much, etc.  I trim, I have 14 horses of my own.  Before I started trimming....I had to fork out the money to care for my horses feet....I was never satisfied with any farrier I tried so I learned to do it myself.  Now that I trim....I can look back and see how the farrier felt when he came to trim my horses.  I didn't realize what it was like when my mule leaned on him, I'd laugh when my horses would yank their feet out from between their legs, I'd drag my horses out of a muddy pasture and let them clean them off and get mud all over their tools, etc. - and when they'd leave I'd say to myself...."He just made $350 in 3 hours!!!!"   But...he drove about 35 miles here in truck that probably got 10 miles to the gallon at $3 per gallon, he has to buy tools (rasps, knifes, shoes, nails, etc.) regularly,  he had to put up with my misbehaved horses because I treated them like big pets and didn't train them how to stand well......so you see where I'm going with this???

All I can say to those who think we charge too much is ..... GO DO IT YOURSELF FOR AWHILE and you will change your mind very quickly!!!!



~Paula



**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

valdavoli wrote:

i, or more correctly, my trimmer, applied the PHW to my horse. the horse was very sore before these were put on.

I will tell you if I haven't already said it in this thread (but if I have it surely bears repeating) that if a hoof does not already have good function bare, then hoof casts should not be applied without a shoe inside. Once hoof function has been established, the cast can be applied to the bare foot. Based on the pictures of Chief's feet I would never recommend that he should wear hoof casts without a shoe inside (this applies to any brand, I love Dave Richards dearly but fully respect anyone else's right to market their own brand of product). Did you do a consult with KC regarding this case before applying the casts?

he was much worse afterwards: sore enough to warrant having the vet do emergency removal the very next day. no easy feat: the horse had to be sedated to remove these.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

in regards to the equicasts: what about abscesses? do you have to wait until you think all abscesses are done? do these prevent or allow abscesses to drain?

I have found that the improved function in the foot seems to help force abscesses out. The casts and the J/AAKG combo are a match made in heaven in my opinion.

what about thrush? i did see a comment buried in all these posts about not applying these to "wet" areas in regards to thrush.

If I were casting a thrushy foot, I would remove thrushy material, soak with white lighnting, and smear some water-resistant thrush treatment such as Dry Cow or silver sulfadiazine cream over the thrusy area before casting. I would not hesitate to cast a foot with thrush as long as I gave it a good treatment before starting.

so HOW do these differ from the PHW?

I answered this already. My response was that the LaPierre product is a different fabric. The Equicast is a 100% polyester fabric with fiberglass resin. I do not know what method you used to apply them, but it seems that you did not use shoes. The Equicast method is pretty well described, and can be used with any cast material. Again, I would not cast Chief's feet without shoes - he's not a good candidate.

and if i am going to put shoes on under the casts, nailed on or not, why not just go with shoes and pad period?

Because shoes and pad do not support the hoof wall, the laminae, the solar function, and the hemodynamic & lymphatic system in the hoof.

i understand the differences and implications of using a shoe with the equicasts. i understand the difference between nailing or gluing the shoe on or not.

I'm not sure you do, as the questions you're asking suggest that you haven't completely 'got your head wrapped around' the way the casts actually help the foot.

Abby, not trying to be a b$%#@ here, but if these equicasts are gods greatest gift, then i extend you the same invitation: put your money, your time, talent etc to good use, and come work on my horse WITHOUT charging me thousands of dollars.

I'm not putting my money to use on your horse. My money goes to my horses. My time, obviously, goes to help very, very many horses to the extent that I'm able, in between being a mom and selling horseshoe nails.

I'm not going to discuss the details of how I work or how I charge on list. If you want to talk about that, you can contact me privately, I have a website for that purpose. I understand that this has been a long haul for you, but honestly I don't think you need to badger ME personally, on list, about what other people have charged you.

so, i dare each and every one of you: if you trim, offer up your services at an AFFORDABLE price and PROVE your trim/method

Not quite sure what you want here, Val. Do you want trimmers to respond to your post with a fees list? That's kind of creepy. It's also kind of sad that you are daring people to respond. I'm not sure I would want to hire someone who responded to a post of this nature. Perhaps contacting professionals privately to request fees information and a list of references would lead you to better results.

-Abby



--
**************************
Abby Bloxsom
www.advantedgeconsulting.com

--- In ECHoof@..., repete134@... wrote:

so, i dare each and every one of you: if you trim, offer up your
services at an AFFORDABLE price and PROVE your trim/method

I just saw this and had to chime in because this always bothers me

when

people think we charge too much, etc.

I can look back and see how the farrier felt when he came

to trim my horses. I didn't realize what it was like when my mule

leaned on

him, I'd laugh when my horses would yank their feet out from

between their

legs, I'd drag my horses out of a muddy pasture and let them clean

them off and

get mud all over their tools, etc. - and when they'd leave I'd say

to

myself...."He just made $350 in 3 hours!!!!" But...he drove about

35 miles here in

truck that probably got 10 miles to the gallon at $3 per gallon, he

has to buy

tools (rasps, knifes, shoes, nails, etc.) regularly, he had to put

up with my

misbehaved horses because I treated them like big pets and didn't

train them

how to stand well......so you see where I'm going with this???

All I can say to those who think we charge too much is ..... GO DO

IT

YOURSELF FOR AWHILE and you will change your mind very quickly!!!!



~Paula

um Paula?
my horse was always ready and clean for the farrier? if he had
been in mud, i even washed the feet. horse was never misbehaved
unless in pain. laugh when he pulls his legs away? uh, no. that is
how people get hurt??? horse is trained better than that. so is the
owner. if not in pain, the horse is a farrier/trimmers dream
client. horse knows what is expected, and knows to act accordingly.
and as for doing it myself??? i HAVE and i CAN. trimmed him for
over a year. i don't want to trim.
i also don't mind paying the person doing the work?? the
farrier/trimmer is ALWAYS paid at the time of the work, usually in
CASH, and many times with a tip thrown in because it IS hard work and
i DO know it because i HAVE done it. if you work for me long enough,
you get a christmas bonus, and i remember your birthday etc.
the cost of supplies and fuel should be figured into the charges,
but fairly. as stated, if it was simply a matter of not wanting to
pay, i WOULD trim myself.
when i talk about insane charges, read my post again. i said
FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS. i have been quoted THIRTY SIX HUNDRED
DOLLARS and ANY NUMBER IN BETWEEN.
when my guy was shod, i willingly paid 175.00 EVERY 4 WEEKS. note
the difference in the dollar amounts please.
and before you add the physical discomforts farriers/trimmers
endure, let me remind you, that person CHOSE that occupation. no one
held a gun to their head and said you MUST do this. they could have
chosen to be a banker, lawyer, nanny, cashier, whatever. if you
choose a tough job, don't cry cause your back hurts.
when i waited tables, i did not complain cause my feet, back and
arms hurt.

val

umm Val,

I'm not crying one bit about what I do.  I cry when people complain about what someone charges without taking into consideration what all goes into their price.  You don't HAVE to use a high-priced person.  If you know how to trim but choose not to, then I don't understand why you're "daring" someone to come trim for you at an affordable rate.  Sounds contradictory, to me.  If you know how, but choose not to trim your own horses.....I don't see where you have room to complain. 

Maybe your horses are a farrier's dream....I thought mine were dream horses, too....until I started doing it myself.  Every horse owner is biased about their horses.  But alot of horses aren't well behaved in the eyes of the person trying to trim their feet.

You're right...I didn't read the whole string so I didn't see the thousands of dollars you were talking about and don't know what that price quote entailed...but I have quoted someone $1000 to drive to their place 6 hours away and teach them how to trim.....that is what I would have to make to make it worth it for me to do.....otherwise, I can stay home and play with my horses, save the wear and tear on my car, and not "give" my knowledge away - that I paid much more than $1000 for!!

The prices you were quoted must have been what the person felt it was worth for whatever you were wanting to hire them for.   If you didn't want to pay it, that was your choice.  No need to be disgruntled about that.
 

~Paula



**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

AMEN!!!  Spoken as an owner who has to do the "in between" trims -

Carol and Blue in Maine




At 11:15 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:

Abby: this is in no way a personal attack, do not take it that way.
you need to understand that i am at a turning point, and am trying to
explore all options whether it be bare, shoes, or casts. you just
happen to be the person who has experience with this product, so you
get the questions.


--- In ECHoof@..., Abby Bloxsom <dearab@...> wrote:

I will tell you if I haven't already said it in this thread (but if

I

have it surely bears repeating) that if a hoof does not already

have

good function bare, then hoof casts should not be applied without a

shoe

inside.

i am just reading through the equicast site briefly.
where on the site does it caution this? and if it is there, why is
it reccommended for horses transitioning, and foundering horses,
without this caution being more visible?
before this angers you, i DO understand that you are NOT
responsible for their website content.

nowhere does it mention abscesses or thrush. again, if you are
lucky, with these on, an abscess will exit the bulb or hairline.
what about if the abscess tries to exit the sole or the bar?
what i get from their site is a sales pitch, much like any other
business selling their product. where are the cautions? is it in the
fine print on package label that i don't get to see until i buy it?
if i came across this site, i would think this was the greatest, the
same way i was excited about the PHW. they do not say anywhere only
use these with "these" feet, or if your foot is like "this" then you
need to do "this" first?
they also say this is ideal for a laminitic or foundering horse:
again, no caution about using a shoe there.
however, they also use the definitions of laminitis and founder
wrong. laminits and founder are two separate things. sure, laminits
can lead to founder, but not all laminitic horses will founder.
laminitis is the actual inflamation of the lamini? founder is the
actual end result, or the separation?
isn't the recognised course of action, removal of a shoe during
founder? not applying a shoe, and binding the hoof tightly? or am i
wrong in thinking that more professionals recognize the value of
removing shoes at the time of founder?


Once hoof function has been established, the cast can be

applied to the bare foot. Based on the pictures of Chief's feet I

would

never recommend that he should wear hoof casts without a shoe

inside

(this applies to any brand, I love Dave Richards dearly but fully
respect anyone else's right to market their own brand of product).

Did

you do a consult with KC regarding this case before applying the

casts?


the consults raised concerns over applying their product to an
abscessing foot, a foot that may abscess from founder, and a foot
with thrush, WLD etc. treat it, clear it, don't cover it.

he was much worse
afterwards: sore enough to warrant having the vet do emergency
removal the very next day. no easy feat: the horse had to be
sedated to remove these.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

well, it WOULD have surprised me if i'd used equicasts, given the
sales pitch from the equicast website and the lack of caution.

I have found that the improved function in the foot seems to help

force

abscesses out. The casts and the J/AAKG combo are a match made in
heaven in my opinion.

improved function and movement, equaling returning health, is what
helps the abscesses, with or without equicasts. however, if the
equicasts "hold" everything together (for lack of better term), and
prevents much of the flexing and natural "give" of a foot, it would
stand to reason that the equicasts will "hold" the abscess in place
longer? like a shoe? maybe that the abscesses come through in spite
of the equicasts, not because of them? or do they squeeze the
abscess out?

so HOW do these differ from the PHW?

I answered this already. My response was that the LaPierre product

is a

different fabric. The Equicast is a 100% polyester fabric with
fiberglass resin.

no, i was not talking about the material composition. i was talking
about the actual "system" and theory behind the product. and in this
regards there is none. only as it applies to using a shoe or not.
side note: careful with fiberglass, inhale enough, and it will do
damage to your lungs.

I do not know what method you used to apply them, but

it seems that you did not use shoes.

no, did not use shoes. the product i used was not promoted as "use
with shoes".

The Equicast method is pretty well

described, and can be used with any cast material. Again, I would

not

cast Chief's feet without shoes - he's not a good candidate.

and if i am going to put shoes on under the casts, nailed on or

not,

why not just go with shoes and pad period?

Because shoes and pad do not support the hoof wall, the laminae,

the

solar function, and the hemodynamic & lymphatic system in the hoof.

shoes, with or without the equicasts, do load the wall. that is just
a matter of physics or common sense. regardless of how you support
the sole or bony column, if you stand a horse on a shoe, the wall is
loaded. this can not be avoided, or even argued, regardless of how
it's worded or presented. you can't have one without the other.

given that i have used the other product, and i have used
fiberglass on cars, boats and novelties, i do not see that these
products support the foot, as much as they encase the foot and hold
it immoveable and imperious to outside influences. or: encase the
foot in the proper material, and the horse can walk through fire so
to speak. i see how this can prevent outside forces from causing
further separation, but i still can not see how this prevents the
separation caused by downward forces leading to a sinker?
if the foot is completely bare, and the bony column sinks, it can
only sink as low as the ground. if you have a shoe in place, cast or
not, the bony column can still sink only as far as the ground, only
now the foot is farther away from the ground by the shoe, therefore
it can sink "further"? in which case, (as asked by someone else)
what prevents damage to the sole corium from the pressure of the cast
on sole, and downward pressure of sinking? the only thing preventing
pressure through the sole (and ground) is the shoe? just because the
tightness of the cast "holds" the foot in a certain manner while in
place, at some point in time, the cast has to be removed. is ongoing
damage to stressed/streched lamini just covered when the cast is
reset? what happens if you do have a sinker inside this cast, but you
don't know it because the cast and shoe hold everything together
giving the appearance of a healthy foot, and then you attempt to go
without a shoe, or go completely bare? can you xray and not see the
damage due to the cast holding the foot together? any farrier can
use his rasp etc, to hide the extent of rotation seen with xray, at
least in my particular case.

i understand the differences and implications of using a shoe

with

the equicasts. i understand the difference between nailing or

gluing

the shoe on or not.

I'm not sure you do, as the questions you're asking suggest that

you

haven't completely 'got your head wrapped around' the way the casts
actually help the foot.

no. my questions are because i do not have my head wrapped
completely around how a SHOE with a cast, can help the foot. and i
would have even more concerns with a shoe NOT being nailed on, once
the foot has had a couple weeks to grow out from the previous trim.
if i can phrase this so it makes sense:
on day one, you trim, get your shoe in position and wrap it on.
everything fits nice and well.
go to week two, or week three, or longer if your professional can't
get there on schedule. the foot grows this entire time. as with any
other shoe, the shoe inside the wrap grows "away" from the foot with
normal foot growth, which is why you need a reset. still with me?
you said in a previous post (and i am paraphrasing here), that when
the foot is ready for a reset, the wrap does not fit as snug at the
back of the foot as it did on day one. this implies "wiggle room"
due to the growing foot.
what keeps the shoe from shifting in this "wiggle room"? or what
keeps the foot from shifting on the shoe? is it due the the tight
binding nature of the wrap that is still rather snug on the rest of
the foot? since being so involved with my guys feet, i know the
importance of 1/8 of an inch, or even 1/16, whether it is sole
thickness or a sinker gaining height. i believe i read in these
posts, something about using a slightly larger shoe? does this create
more wiggle room? if you have crontraction, so that the heel grows
down and not wider, doesn't this still leave wiggle room, but on a
larger shoe?
so if you have the foot loaded on a shoe, and if the shoe shifts a
hair later in the trim cycle, what does this do to the wall? does it
distort growth in that area temporarily? does the shifted shoe (or
foot) cause pressure points on any sole area it may now be in contact
with?
how does this help decontraction? if the foot is still bound
tightly, there is no room for widening of the heel in regards to
decontraction?

and if this product is applied to the wall and sole: when the hoof
grows down from the coronet, this "support" is further down as well?
if you have weak lamini connections already, are you not now
stressing these new connections? as in, the new tight connection
is "up here" but the support is "down there", and using
a "suspension" theory (with the lamini), with the equicast and shoe
being further away from new tight growth BY the growth of the foot,
how exactly does this system prevent the bony column from sinking?
would this not also be a concern with a foundered foot, when heel
growth and toe growth are so unco-ordinated? (for lack of a better
word.)

i am also still trying to get how this supports the circulation
system. my best analogy is using support hose for varicose veins?
but with binding this tightly, plus adding the shoe, does this not
instead, decrease the blood flow? there is no denying that shoes
interfere with circulation.
the clip on the shoe should hold the front of the shoe in place,
and therefore hopefully the back of the shoe as well, but this would
logically have the same affect on the foot as nailing a shoe on? it
will "crimp" the new growth, if the foot can not widen with growth?
(the "bell shape") unless you use a "half shoe" which leaves the back
of the foot unrestricted, but then don't you run the risk of growing
a "narrow" toe with a "fatter" back half of the foot? (i know, not
the best choice of words).
if the blood flow is decreased, doesn't this hamper/prolong
healing? and if this does decrease the blood flow, then if/when
these are ultimately removed, will the horse then have the same
discomfort of returning blood flow as taking shoes off completely?

Abby, not trying to be a b$%#@ here, but if these equicasts are

gods

greatest gift, then i extend you the same invitation: put your
money, your time, talent etc to good use, and come work on my

horse

WITHOUT charging me thousands of dollars.

I'm not putting my money to use on your horse. My money goes to my
horses. My time, obviously, goes to help very, very many horses to

the

extent that I'm able, in between being a mom and selling horseshoe

nails.

I'm not going to discuss the details of how I work or how I charge

on

list. If you want to talk about that, you can contact me

privately, I

have a website for that purpose. I understand that this has been a

long

haul for you, but honestly I don't think you need to badger ME
personally, on list, about what other people have charged you.

but you do discuss the details of how you work on this list. your
presence here, along with your defense of this product, is, by its
very nature, discussing details of your work. this then invites
questions or debate.
i did not intend to badger you personally, and i apologize if i
came across in that manner. however the title of my thread should
have been a clear clue as to the mood of my post.

so, i dare each and every one of you: if you trim, offer up

your

services at an AFFORDABLE price and PROVE your trim/method

Not quite sure what you want here, Val. Do you want trimmers to

respond

to your post with a fees list? That's kind of creepy. It's also

kind

of sad that you are daring people to respond. I'm not sure I would

want

to hire someone who responded to a post of this nature. Perhaps
contacting professionals privately to request fees information and

a

list of references would lead you to better results.

-Abby

creepy maybe. but maybe it should be taken as a wake up call.
every trimmer and farrier i have talked to in person, on line, or on
the phone talks a good game. they all have the best way to fix the
horse. they all have promises etc. they also know they have the
owner up against the wall. they have the "power" IF the owner has
the money.
am i saying work for free? no. but maybe as a consumer, we should
be able to say "i'm not paying until i see the results". if i go to
a mechanic, but my car doesnt run when he is finished, i don't pay.
if i hire a gardener, but my plants all die, i don't pay. if i
use "you" as a trimmer, but my horse does not progress as "you" say
it will, why should "you" be paid for goods not delivered?
so what i'm saying is: if you believe strongly enough in your
work "style", prove it. shoes did not work for my guy. barefoot has
proven to be a diffcult journey. now here is another option, that is
more similar to shoes than it is bare. prove it with my horse.
and again, this is not singling out just you Abby: this is for
anyone/everyone that believes their method is best.
as for privacy, there is nothing to hide? the discussion started
here, i am sure others are interested. i am sure there are others in
my position that have the same thoughts and concerns i do. why take
a discussion behind closed doors, if others can benefit?

val

valdavoli wrote:

Abby: this is in no way a personal attack, do not take it that way. you need to understand that i am at a turning point, and am trying to explore all options whether it be bare, shoes, or casts. you just happen to be the person who has experience with this product, so you get the questions.

No sweat - I understand that.

i am just reading through the equicast site briefly. where on the site does it caution this?

I don't know that it does. Dave & I have talked about it though, and we agree that casting bare won't make a compromised foot whole. I'm not sure why that's not addressed on the site, will talk to him about it when I see him next.

nowhere does it mention abscesses or thrush. again, if you are lucky, with these on, an abscess will exit the bulb or hairline. what about if the abscess tries to exit the sole or the bar?

It will come out. There's nothing about the cast that will prevent that from happening if it wants to.

what i get from their site is a sales pitch, much like any other business selling their product. where are the cautions?

The primary caution, which is on all the instructions, is that the cast material should be kept away from the hairline.

is it in the fine print on package label that i don't get to see until i buy it? if i came across this site, i would think this was the greatest, the same way i was excited about the PHW. they do not say anywhere only use these with "these" feet, or if your foot is like "this" then you need to do "this" first?

No, I think you're right, and the "how to" and "what if" aspects of the promotion need work.

however, they also use the definitions of laminitis and founder wrong. laminits and founder are two separate things.

No - there are differences in common usage. Many, many people (farriers included) do not distinguish between the two. As a matter of fact, I don't really use the word founder much at all, since I think laminitis is a clearer term. I try not to use ambiguous terminology when I can avoid it.

isn't the recognised course of action, removal of a shoe during founder? not applying a shoe, and binding the hoof tightly? or am i wrong in thinking that more professionals recognize the value of removing shoes at the time of founder?

Every case is different. And just for the record, we're not binding the hoof tightly at all. The cast is applied barely snugly, without tension, and then cured in a loaded position.

the consults raised concerns over applying their product to an abscessing foot, a foot that may abscess from founder, and a foot with thrush, WLD etc. treat it, clear it, don't cover it.

I only asked because I wasn't sure how KC is recommending the casts be used.

improved function and movement, equaling returning health, is what helps the abscesses, with or without equicasts. however, if the equicasts "hold" everything together (for lack of better term), and prevents much of the flexing and natural "give" of a foot,

It doesn't. It allows the natural "give", but prevents pathological collapse of the capsule. Since your premise is not accurate ...

it would stand to reason that the equicasts will "hold" the abscess in place longer?

... neither is your conclusion.

like a shoe? maybe that the abscesses come through in spite of the equicasts, not because of them?

Um, no, they come through because of improved mechanics.

no, i was not talking about the material composition. i was talking about the actual "system" and theory behind the product. and in this regards there is none. only as it applies to using a shoe or not.

That's actually because KC stole the idea from Dave, & went off & found a supplier. It's all Dave's method, except that since KC is a barefoot guru he doesn't "do the shoe thing".

side note: careful with fiberglass, inhale enough, and it will do damage to your lungs.

Good thought - so maybe a good reason NOT to use a grinder (which is ventilated & so blows stuff all around) for cast removal.

shoes, with or without the equicasts, do load the wall.

You're missing the fact that with the cast packed under the foot you're able to eliminate a large portion of the peripheral loading.

that is just a matter of physics or common sense. regardless of how you support the sole or bony column, if you stand a horse on a shoe, the wall is loaded. this can not be avoided, or even argued, regardless of how it's worded or presented. you can't have one without the other.

To the same extent that a bare foot standing on a hard surface is peripherally loaded. Note that hard, unforgiving footing is very common in the historical evolution of the equine species.

i see how this can prevent outside forces from causing further separation, but i still can not see how this prevents the separation caused by downward forces leading to a sinker? if the foot is completely bare, and the bony column sinks, it can only sink as low as the ground. if you have a shoe in place, cast or not, the bony column can still sink only as far as the ground, only now the foot is farther away from the ground by the shoe, therefore it can sink "further"?

No it can only sink as far as the cast inside the middle of the shoe. Actually, the foot that "sinks as far as the ground" can "sink farther" too, since the dorsal wall can be displaced upward. With a cast on, it can't.

in which case, (as asked by someone else) what prevents damage to the sole corium from the pressure of the cast on sole, and downward pressure of sinking?

The counter-pressure of the cast is probably somewhat different from the counter-pressure of a bare foot in a boot with a soft cushion, but the truth of the matter is that since the laminae are more stable inside the cast the "connections" are able to begin to heal more quickly than in a bare foot.

just because the tightness of the cast "holds" the foot in a certain manner while in place, at some point in time, the cast has to be removed. is ongoing damage to stressed/streched lamini just covered when the cast is reset? what happens if you do have a sinker inside this cast, but you don't know it because the cast and shoe hold everything together giving the appearance of a healthy foot, and then you attempt to go without a shoe, or go completely bare? can you xray and not see the damage due to the cast holding the foot together? any farrier can use his rasp etc, to hide the extent of rotation seen with xray, at least in my particular case.

Maybe I'm tired, and my head is spinning, but I'm going to have to ask you to rephrase all of that. It really just is not clear to me whether you're asking the same questions over & over or not.

If you're asking what I think you are, the inside of the cast, with shoe included, closely mimics the relationship of the sole with the ground, except the cast material, being form-fit to the sole and frog, provides far more support to the sole than a boot cushion does.

Also, please remember that a horse can still sink or rotate bare or in boots if the laminitic event continues unchecked.

if i can phrase this so it makes sense:
on day one, you trim, get your shoe in position and wrap it on. everything fits nice and well.
go to week two, or week three, or longer if your professional can't get there on schedule. the foot grows this entire time. as with any other shoe, the shoe inside the wrap grows "away" from the foot with normal foot growth, which is why you need a reset. still with me?

Agreed.

you said in a previous post (and i am paraphrasing here), that when the foot is ready for a reset, the wrap does not fit as snug at the back of the foot as it did on day one. this implies "wiggle room" due to the growing foot.

Close enough.

what keeps the shoe from shifting in this "wiggle room"? or what keeps the foot from shifting on the shoe?

1) the foot generally wants to keep in the center of the cast, more or less

2) there's glue on the dorsal wall that holds the cast on - without the glue you're likely to lose the cast at this phase

is it due the the tight binding nature of the wrap that is still rather snug on the rest of the foot?

Nope. The casts get markedly "sloppy" the longer they stay on as the foot changes. Different feet change in different ways so that one horse may have a well fitted cast after 6 weeks even though adhesion is lost at the hindfoot, while another will start to have "wiggle room" at 2 or 3 weeks.

since being so involved with my guys feet, i know the importance of 1/8 of an inch, or even 1/16, whether it is sole thickness or a sinker gaining height. i believe i read in these posts, something about using a slightly larger shoe?

Don't ask me to repeat stuff like that - you need to go back and look for the post if you want to know what I was talking about. I'm really finding your questions very repetitive of a lot of the stuff we've already discussed. I am sorry that I don't have hours & hours to repeat the same answers. If you do have novel questions, I'm having trouble sifting through the onslaught to find them.

I'm trying not to be rude, but I'm very tired.

and if this product is applied to the wall and sole: when the hoof grows down from the coronet, this "support" is further down as well?

Think about this for a minute. The hoof grows from the top. What else would it do?

if you have weak lamini connections already, are you not now stressing these new connections? as in, the new tight connection is "up here" but the support is "down there", and using a "suspension" theory (with the lamini), with the equicast and shoe being further away from new tight growth BY the growth of the foot, how exactly does this system prevent the bony column from sinking?

The sole is growing too, right? You're putting a huge amount of energy into coming up with questions, and not a lot of energy into working these things out in your own head.

would this not also be a concern with a foundered foot, when heel growth and toe growth are so unco-ordinated? (for lack of a better word.)

The trim interval is different for every case. Did you miss the 4 or 5 times I said that?

i am also still trying to get how this supports the circulation system. my best analogy is using support hose for varicose veins?

Good analogy.

but with binding this tightly, plus adding the shoe, does this not instead, decrease the blood flow?

IT'S NOT TIGHT!!!!!! How are you missing this point?

there is no denying that shoes interfere with circulation.

I'm actually working on an idea for a study using thermography to evaluate circulatory changes in shod vs bare hooves. Probably be years before I can get to doing it at this rate.

I have not seen the famous Pollitt video (anyone want to lend me a copy?) that has started the whole shoes-impair-circulation furor, but until I do, I'm still not totally on board with "no denying".

the clip on the shoe should hold the front of the shoe in place, and therefore hopefully the back of the shoe as well, but this would logically have the same affect on the foot as nailing a shoe on? it will "crimp" the new growth, if the foot can not widen with growth? (the "bell shape") unless you use a "half shoe" which leaves the back of the foot unrestricted, but then don't you run the risk of growing a "narrow" toe with a "fatter" back half of the foot? (i know, not the best choice of words).

Maybe one day I'll post some before/after pictures of a good shoeing job, and maybe some images of horses' feet that have been improved in function while wearing shoes ... and I can talk a little bit about what I've seen over the years in shoeing for improved function.

Trust me though on this. I've been shoeing for 10 years, trimming for 10 years before that. I've seen a lot of feet, and while I've had a few come & go many, many of them are still in my practice. I've tried a lot of styles & approaches, & messed up my share of feet, which I have then had to rehab myself. The casts are a tool. They are not a trim, they are not a shoe, they are not a lot of things. They are no better nor worse than the brain power of the person who is applying them.

if the blood flow is decreased, doesn't this hamper/prolong healing? and if this does decrease the blood flow, then if/when these are ultimately removed, will the horse then have the same discomfort of returning blood flow as taking shoes off completely?

And if the blood flow is not decreased, then what? Where is your line of logic drawn out there? You are clearly coming at this with a totally backwards viewpoint. When we talk about "negative attitude", this is what we mean.

but you do discuss the details of how you work on this list. your presence here, along with your defense of this product, is, by its very nature, discussing details of your work. this then invites questions or debate.

Absolutely, and I'm happy to discuss the details of my work, to the extent that they can help other list members to learn and understand a healthy attitude toward rehab, healing, hoof health, and science. I'm not here to personally make you feel all better about how much you've spent on people who may or may not have taken you for a ride. It's really none of my business.

i did not intend to badger you personally, and i apologize if i came across in that manner. however the title of my thread should have been a clear clue as to the mood of my post.

I don't think it's appropriate to come dump your "mood" on me. Why does that seem fair to you? How did it become my burden to carry?

creepy maybe. but maybe it should be taken as a wake up call. every trimmer and farrier i have talked to in person, on line, or on the phone talks a good game. they all have the best way to fix the horse. they all have promises etc. they also know they have the owner up against the wall. they have the "power" IF the owner has the money.

Wake up call to whom? When did you contact me? I have never, ever in my professional career, EVER provided a promise of any nature to a client. Never. My work is not about power. It's about horses being comfortable, and I resent the implication that it's not.

I'm not going to post on this list what my trimming charges are because I absolutely refuse to be dragged into a defensive position in this discussion. It's downright inappropriate.

am i saying work for free? no. but maybe as a consumer, we should be able to say "i'm not paying until i see the results". if i go to a mechanic, but my car doesnt run when he is finished, i don't pay. if i hire a gardener, but my plants all die, i don't pay. if i use "you" as a trimmer, but my horse does not progress as "you" say it will, why should "you" be paid for goods not delivered?

Because I am not delivering goods. I am providing a service. When I get under your horse and take the risk of bruises, infections, broken bones, head injury, back injury, or death? I like to be paid for my time. If I ask a fireman to go into a burning building, I think he should be paid whether the house burns down or not. You go to a doctor because you have a cough. He gives you medicine. You still have the cough. Do you go back and ask for your money back?

Listen, there are no guarantees in horses. You can buy a $50,000 horse, bring it home, it jumps the fence and gets hit by a car. You frickin do the best you can with what you have.

so what i'm saying is: if you believe strongly enough in your work "style", prove it.

How can I prove what I believe? I go out every day & do the level best I can for every horse I put my hands on, and that's all I can do. I love my work and I have been blessed to be able to produce some pretty good results.

Yes, I have great confidence in my work, but I am not the owner and I am not there every day. I don't control every detail of the horse's life. A rehab is a puzzle. As I said to a client today, you can't solve a puzzle by committee. You have to solve a puzzle with a team. You need a confident, capable leader who can make responsible decisions based on competent advice from skilled, experienced contributors. You can't blame the contributor if the leader fails.

shoes did not work for my guy.

Correction: My farrier and I were not able to get good results using shoes.

barefoot has proven to be a diffcult journey. now here is another option, that is more similar to shoes than it is bare. prove it with my horse.

What are you asking?

and again, this is not singling out just you Abby: this is for anyone/everyone that believes their method is best.

I don't think my method is best, maybe that's where you're not following me. What I think is that I have been lucky to get good results in my work.

as for privacy, there is nothing to hide? the discussion started here, i am sure others are interested. i am sure there are others in my position that have the same thoughts and concerns i do. why take a discussion behind closed doors, if others can benefit?

I'm suggesting that you seem to be proposing a business relationship. The list guidelines expressly forbid the conduct of business on list. If you wish to establish a business relationship with another list member, you are obligated to do so privately. You are more than welcome to share the progress and outcome of that relationship on list for the benefit of other members.

-Abby


--
**************************
Abby Bloxsom
www.advantedgeconsulting.com

so you

get the questions.

No sweat - I understand that.

THANK YOU.

what about if the abscess tries to exit the sole or the bar?

It will come out. There's nothing about the cast that will prevent

that

from happening if it wants to.

...fair enough.

they do not say anywhere only

use these with "these" feet, or if your foot is like "this" then

you

need to do "this" first?

No, I think you're right, and the "how to" and "what if" aspects of

the

promotion need work.

fair enough again, if the actual selling of this to the "general
public" is a fairly new thing. as in it primarily being available to
farriers, and now that more people have info they are "discovering an
older" product.

No - there are differences in common usage. Many, many people

(farriers

included) do not distinguish between the two.

i am just a word junky, and was being extra bi#$%^ in regards to
this.

isn't the recognised course of action, removal of a shoe during
founder?

Every case is different.

here is where my personal dilemma starts: getting off
the "barefoot bandwagon". brainwashing is much too strong of a word,
but much of what is touted barefoot makes absolute common sense, and
i love common sense.... however, the desire to get, and maintain
comfort for this horse is vital. i am coming to the point that i no
longer care if this is done with shoes or not.

I only asked because I wasn't sure how KC is recommending the casts

be used.

i believe (only from reading the forum) that most users/market is
barefoot. and while they claim to have tested this on hundreds of
horses, the success of this product is only backed up by testimony.

prevents much of the flexing and natural "give" of a foot,

It doesn't. It allows the natural "give", but prevents

pathological

collapse of the capsule. Since your premise is not accurate ...

... neither is your conclusion.

ok. accepted and understood now, which is why i asked :)

That's actually because KC stole the idea from Dave, & went off &

found

a supplier. It's all Dave's method, except that since KC is a

barefoot

guru he doesn't "do the shoe thing".

this IS what i was looking for. :)~ i believe KC makes reference
to working with someone else originally, not being satisfied, hence
pursuing his own product. don't quote me, because i absolutely do
not remember the details of that.

Good thought - so maybe a good reason NOT to use a grinder (which

is

ventilated & so blows stuff all around) for cast removal.

yes, fiberglass has potential to be very nasty. the material
itself can rank right up there with asbestos, the fumes can be
harmful especially with asthmatics or bronchitus sufferers etc.
definitely use caution with grinders etc.

You're missing the fact that with the cast packed under the foot

you're

able to eliminate a large portion of the peripheral loading.

if you stand a horse on a shoe, the wall is

loaded.

To the same extent that a bare foot standing on a hard surface is
peripherally loaded. Note that hard, unforgiving footing is very

common

in the historical evolution of the equine species.

this also goes back to my personal ideaology in regards to
barefoot, and my current attempt to rewire my brain in regards to
the "evil" of shoes vs the "good" of bare.
shoes were "good enough" for him BEFORE all this started... it is
ME that has changed, NOT the horse.....

No it can only sink as far as the cast inside the middle of the

shoe.

Actually, the foot that "sinks as far as the ground" can "sink

farther"

too, since the dorsal wall can be displaced upward. With a cast

on, it

can't.

very good points. very good to be able to question and debate with
you.

damage due to the cast holding the foot together? any farrier

can

use his rasp etc, to hide the extent of rotation seen with xray,

at

least in my particular case.

Maybe I'm tired, and my head is spinning, but I'm going to have to

ask

you to rephrase all of that. It really just is not clear to me

whether

you're asking the same questions over & over or not.

i think i am/was asking same question over (in hindsight).
but more specifically with my horse:

noted changes to hoof wall with xray. farrier rasped wall. next
xray, foot "looked" better, but in reality, the only change was the
abscense of the long toe due to rasping. the CB was exactly the same.

so i guess, is it possible for these casts to give the appearance
of a better foot, when in reality "nothing" has changed? and this
does not detract from the product, this is "simply" a case of "this"
horse responding this way....?

Also, please remember that a horse can still sink or rotate bare or

in

boots if the laminitic event continues unchecked.

absolutely.

what keeps the shoe from shifting in this "wiggle room"? or

what

keeps the foot from shifting on the shoe?

1) the foot generally wants to keep in the center of the cast, more

or less

2) there's glue on the dorsal wall that holds the cast on - without

the

glue you're likely to lose the cast at this phase

ok, makes sense.

Nope. The casts get markedly "sloppy" the longer they stay on as

the

foot changes. Different feet change in different ways so that one

horse

may have a well fitted cast after 6 weeks even though adhesion is

lost

at the hindfoot, while another will start to have "wiggle room" at

2 or

3 weeks.

ok, that rotten, dreaded "it depends" again. i really dislike that
more and more, but what can you do.....?.... sigh.....

how exactly does this system prevent the bony column from

sinking?

The sole is growing too, right? You're putting a huge amount of

energy

into coming up with questions, and not a lot of energy into working
these things out in your own head.

actually, i'm putting the energy into trying to get him more
comfortable, and my questions are the byproduct.

but with binding this tightly, plus adding the shoe,

IT'S NOT TIGHT!!!!!! How are you missing this point?

again, this goes back to being "pro barefoot and anti shoe", and now
coming face to face with the thoughts that one way may not always be
better than the other, and getting past the generally accepted
mantras of the barefoot world.

there is no denying that shoes
interfere with circulation.

I have not seen the famous Pollitt video (anyone want to lend me a
copy?) that has started the whole shoes-impair-circulation furor,

but

until I do, I'm still not totally on board with "no denying".

ok, until you have seen it, you are smart not to jump on board. this
video is easily found on multiple barefoot sights. the results do
speak for themselves.

And if the blood flow is not decreased, then what? Where is your

line of

logic drawn out there? You are clearly coming at this with a

totally

backwards viewpoint. When we talk about "negative attitude", this

is

what we mean.

not totally backwards or negative: just different based on
direction of research over past two years.

again, going back to the "bare vs. shoes": shoes are "evil".
however, when faced with the fact that bare ain't actually doing the
horse any favors, letting go of firm beliefs is hard to do.
given the contraction my horse had, "tight shoes" is very easy to
accept and believe. and just like if i wear tight shoes and my feet
get pinched all to heck, it is easy to picture the same scenario with
a horse.

Absolutely, and I'm happy to discuss the details of my work,

I'm

not here to personally make you feel all better about how much

you've

spent on people who may or may not have taken you for a ride. It's
really none of my business.

fair enough, and it is ultimately buyer beware.
but if anyone has any ideas on how to gently break the cost of the
latest vet visit to hubby, i would be very, very appreciative!!!!!

I don't think it's appropriate to come dump your "mood" on me. Why

does

that seem fair to you? How did it become my burden to carry?

no, not your burden. but by the same reasoning, we should accept
your verdict on a product just because you say so?

Wake up call to whom? When did you contact me?

i never contacted you. make sure everyone else understands that this
is in no way against Abby.

the wake up call would be to the many, many trimmers, farriers etc,
that DO lurk on this board AND all other boards.

I have never, ever in

my professional career, EVER provided a promise of any nature to a
client. Never.

again, sour grapes on my part, but i HAVE gotten this promise by
trimmers, vets and farriers.

My work is not about power. It's about horses being

comfortable, and I resent the implication that it's not.

again, do not take this personally. i am only speaking from my past
experiences which do NOT include you.

I'm not going to post on this list what my trimming charges are

because

i never asked you for your charges?

why should "you" be paid for goods not delivered?

Because I am not delivering goods. I am providing a service. When

I

get under your horse and take the risk of bruises, infections,

broken

bones, head injury, back injury, or death?

again, the career choice was yours. there are inherent risks
implied with all horse activities.

I like to be paid for my

time.

a very common phenominum.

again, this is not about paying for a service. this is instead,
being racked over the coals to get a service done. do YOU understand
that difference?

How can I prove what I believe?

by doing exactly what you are doing: replying to my questions.

now here is another option, that is

more similar to shoes than it is bare. prove it with my horse.

What are you asking?

i am asking you, someone, anyone, to look into the future and
predict what the future holds for my horse if i go this route or that
route. do you have your crystal ball handy? tarot cards, tea
leaves,lucky coin, anything??!!

I don't think my method is best, maybe that's where you're not

following

me. What I think is that I have been lucky to get good results in

my work.

love the irony, but this would be the resonse most likely to get me
to try "your way" of doing things.....

I'm suggesting that you seem to be proposing a business

relationship.

The list guidelines expressly forbid the conduct of business on

list.

If you wish to establish a business relationship with another list
member, you are obligated to do so privately. You are more than

welcome

to share the progress and outcome of that relationship on list for

the

benefit of other members.

-Abby

no. not proposing a business relationship. simply looking for
answers.
a business relationship would imply that there is money involved
and a mutual benefit to both partners. i have already stated quite
plainly that i will not pay, and there would be no benefit for you.

val

---- valdavoli <STOMPERX@...> wrote:

no. not proposing a business relationship. simply looking for
answers.
a business relationship would imply that there is money involved
and a mutual benefit to both partners. i have already stated quite
plainly that i will not pay, and there would be no benefit for you.

And on this basis you are asking for help? I am absolutely stunned.

-Abby



--
---------------------
Abby Bloxsom
www.advantedgeconsulting.com

--- In ECHoof@..., Abby Bloxsom <dearab@...> wrote:

---- valdavoli <STOMPERX@...> wrote:

no. not proposing a business relationship. simply looking for
answers.
a business relationship would imply that there is money involved
and a mutual benefit to both partners. i have already stated quite
plainly that i will not pay, and there would be no benefit for you.

And on this basis you are asking for help? I am absolutely stunned.

-Abby

Val
I'm stunned right along with Abby. I think you have been very
ungrateful & disrespectful of the people on the EC lists who have
tried to help you.
Both Dr. Kellon & Abby have devoted a lot of time to answering your
questions & have unselfishly shared their expertise with you.
EXPERTISE--- that they normally get paid for.

If Abby & Dr. Kellon had devoted all this time to me I'd be at least
offering to pay them for their time.
And furthermore, if I were a moderator on this list I would vote to
ban you for ungratefullness alone.
Claire from AZ
Moderator for Equine Cushing's & EC Photos lists.

Whoa...wait a minute. Before there's any talk of banning anyone from
anywhere, let's everyone take a deep breath and count to ten! It's
easy to get caught up in the intensity of our own issues and
perspectives and, with words on a screen, things tend to seem more
black and white than they really are.

I've read this thread and the related ones pretty thoroughly. It's
easy to confuse responses and to loose track of what questions are
being answered and by whom. (That's, in part, due to the nature of
the Yahoo groups' response software and timing - who gets posted
before whom and where.)

Val's asked some legitimate questions. And, yes, she's often
repeated them with teeth-grinding madness (sorry, Val), but when
someone's trying to understand and sort things out -- especially when
you're **not** an expert and have been provided with and acted on
conflicting information (without the results you'd been lead to
expect) -- confusion and frustration happen. In that case, we often
learn by re-phrasing and repeating.

And I don't **think** that Val intended to seem ungrateful toward
Abby, Dr. Kellon or anyone else. It seemed to me that in response to
Abby's(?) comment she was just trying to emphasize that she hadn't
attempted to conduct a (potentially improper?) business relationship
with anyone on the board. And, it appears to me that everyone's
frustration is showing!

But, Val's questions have provided a **great** opportunity for
sharing information about a system, tool, concept, whatever, that may
be potentially useful to some of our horses. And for that, for ALL
your time, expertise, ideas, blood, sweat and tears ;-), I, for one,
am grateful.

Please, I'm not a moderator here or on any other horse-related board,
but let's take a break and then all play nice ;-)

Jeanette
Colorado

--- In ECHoof@..., "Jax The Wonder Cat"
<jaxthewondercat@...> wrote:

Then I found my current farrier who is good but isn't real into names,
he just does a nice balanced trim and doesn't really call it anything!

Amen!

Any of you struggling to get barefoot hoof care might check out a few
breeding farms in your area. Many broodmares, and of course foals, are
kept bare and the professionals working these farms are usually very
good at barefoot trims and have been doing them long before the trims
got names. Any halfway decent, experienced hoof care professional knows
that you roll the hoof edges to prevent chipping when taking a horse
out of shoes. They knew this before it was called a mustang roll.

Many moons ago, before I really got wrapped up in feet, we had a
broodmare with a clubby foot. Hard to keep it controlled and keep her
sound. We sent her to a farm where they spent three months trying to
get her in foal and failed (that's another story) but she came back
with her feet perfectly matched and sounder than she had ever been!

Eleanor

valdavoli wrote:

I only asked because I wasn't sure how KC is recommending the casts

be used.
i believe (only from reading the forum) that most users/market is barefoot. and while they claim to have tested this on hundreds of horses, the success of this product is only backed up by testimony.

With all due respect for your concerns, and in defense of the guys selling casts, there really is precious little besides anecdotal evidence to support the use of casts. If there were a ton of science available, and the site were filled up with theory, people would be saying "yeah but does it WORK?"

i think i am/was asking same question over (in hindsight).
but more specifically with my horse:
noted changes to hoof wall with xray. farrier rasped wall. next xray, foot "looked" better, but in reality, the only change was the abscense of the long toe due to rasping. the CB was exactly the same.
so i guess, is it possible for these casts to give the appearance of a better foot, when in reality "nothing" has changed?

Nothing can change the structure of the inside of the foot. You can help restore the function in the foot so that it can heal itself, but you can't change the structure. It still has to grow.

ok, that rotten, dreaded "it depends" again. i really dislike that more and more, but what can you do.....?.... sigh.....

LOL - that's what makes my work hard. It always depends.

how exactly does this system prevent the bony column from

sinking?

The sole is growing too, right? You're putting a huge amount of

energy

into coming up with questions, and not a lot of energy into working these things out in your own head.

actually, i'm putting the energy into trying to get him more comfortable, and my questions are the byproduct.

The point I was trying to make is that you're asking one-sided questions. Before you hit "send", look at the questions you have asked. Then try to phrase a converse question. Ask the "why not?" questions.

I have not seen the famous Pollitt video (anyone want to lend me a copy?) that has started the whole shoes-impair-circulation furor,

but

until I do, I'm still not totally on board with "no denying".

ok, until you have seen it, you are smart not to jump on board. this video is easily found on multiple barefoot sights. the results do speak for themselves.

Results never speak for themselves. Results must always be interpreted, and the fever with which the barefoot crowd cling to Pollitt's video makes me wonder how his study was designed. I know from my thermal imaging experience that there are many things we can do to alter the temperature patterns on a horse's foot. I have been unable to find any published studies relating to this famous video (and Pollitt is a pretty prolific researcher!), so I'm interested that he seems not to have been able to draw clear conclusions from it. Again, if anyone can toss me a link to the study, I'd love to see it. Sorry, but unfortunately the video itself is $60. Not that desperate to see it.

And if the blood flow is not decreased, then what? Where is your

line of

logic drawn out there? You are clearly coming at this with a

totally

backwards viewpoint. When we talk about "negative attitude", this

is

what we mean.

not totally backwards or negative: just different based on direction of research over past two years.

That's my point. You're assuming something about the process before you ask the questions. To get the most out of this whole "objectivity" concept, you need to question your own assumptions.

however, when faced with the fact that bare ain't actually doing the horse any favors, letting go of firm beliefs is hard to do.
given the contraction my horse had, "tight shoes" is very easy to accept and believe. and just like if i wear tight shoes and my feet get pinched all to heck, it is easy to picture the same scenario with a horse.

Right. And if you have "tight shoes" on your feet, I'm assuming you would not just take the shoes off and go run around barefoot. You would get shoes that fit.

But let's go on a little bit here. In most cases I see, "tight shoes" is not the reason that horses contract and grow deformed feet. The reason is just plain bad hoof mechanics. The horse that Ute posted the picture of over the weekend is a perfect example. If a farrier truly understands the ideal mechanics of a hoof, he can actually produce a more functional foot with shoes still on. When the client wants to keep a horse doing its job then barefoot transition may not be an option. My preference is to keep the horse going (if sound of course) and improve the feet at the same time, as neither alternative is better - keep the horse going on poor feet, or pull the horse from work for a year.

I don't think it's appropriate to come dump your "mood" on me. Why

does

that seem fair to you? How did it become my burden to carry?

no, not your burden. but by the same reasoning, we should accept your verdict on a product just because you say so?

It's not in any way the same reasoning. And no you shouldn't, but what else do you have to go on? I think I've gone out of my way to help list members understand the function of a product that I have messed with some. Beyond that, my goal was really to dispel concerns that the cast would be somehow damaging to feet AND ALSO to remind people that the product is just a tool. You can't save a horse with a tool. You absolutely, positively, have to go after the big picture, and you have to have team members who are willingly, cooperatively, working together to achieve success.

the wake up call would be to the many, many trimmers, farriers etc, that DO lurk on this board AND all other boards.
I have never, ever in

my professional career, EVER provided a promise of any nature to a client. Never.

again, sour grapes on my part, but i HAVE gotten this promise by trimmers, vets and farriers.

Your frustration is more than evident - but you positively need to check your attitude at the door. I'm pretty good at filtering emotions in posts (I've been doing this a long time too) and defusing discussions, but I've had to temper my emotions and delete comments on multiple occasions over the last few days in an effort to keep things civil here. I have been "filtering" like you wouldn't believe, and took the last 24 hours off just to get a grip. I really don't think you intended to cause all that, really, but you did. Inadvertent bad behavior is still bad behavior. Focus. I have, and it's only fair that we all do.

My work is not about power. It's about horses being

comfortable, and I resent the implication that it's not.

again, do not take this personally. i am only speaking from my past experiences which do NOT include you.

That's obvious to me of course, but you still paint with a very broad brush. If you could make an effort to be more specific in your concerns about finding competent, affordable help that would be a benefit to us all.

One thing that I must repeat here for the benefit of all is that halfway measures get halfway results. No farrier or trimmer can "trim the problem away" if the owner is not fully on board with getting clear and accurate diagnosis of underlying medical conditions, treating conditions that are found thoroughly and completely, AND establishing a complete, balanced, healthful diet. I do not know the details of Val's history with Chief, as I haven't read the case history (we didn't start out here talking about Chief, we started by talking about hoof casts ... somehow the thread grew legs), so I am in no position to judge whether she has gone thoroughly through the DDT. I'm only speaking here that if a farrier or trimmer is brought in to do the "T" part, but the "DD" part is not addressed and maintained, the farrier will fail through no fault of their own.

I'm not going to post on this list what my trimming charges are

because i never asked you for your charges?

You did try very hard on multiple occasions to put me in a defensive position with regard to the cost of obtaining "big name" help with trimming.

When
I

get under your horse and take the risk of bruises, infections,

broken

bones, head injury, back injury, or death?

again, the career choice was yours. there are inherent risks implied with all horse activities.

And I have the choice to leave this career at any time. Somehow, despite the constant battering I receive in my daily work, I choose not to, and most of my clients are exceedingly grateful for that.

again, this is not about paying for a service. this is instead, being racked over the coals to get a service done. do YOU understand that difference?

Of course I do, but
1) that's not what this thread was about, and
2) we're very supportive of people who need to vent a little, but prolonged venting is not appropriate for its own sake and it is definitely not appropriate to scold someone for charging too much if you have not asked them how much they charge.

How can I prove what I believe?

by doing exactly what you are doing: replying to my questions.

Actually, I phrased that poorly. What I should have said is "how can I prove a belief?" It was a rhetorical question. A belief can not be proven, and I am under no obligation to attempt to do so.

now here is another option, that is

more similar to shoes than it is bare. prove it with my horse.

What are you asking?

i am asking you, someone, anyone, to look into the future and predict what the future holds for my horse if i go this route or that route. do you have your crystal ball handy? tarot cards, tea leaves,lucky coin, anything??!!

Oh, irony. I get it now. It sure didn't come across that way before, my friend, I must assure you. PLEASE, think, read, filter before posting.

The list guidelines expressly forbid the conduct of business on

list. no. not proposing a business relationship. simply looking for answers.
a business relationship would imply that there is money involved and a mutual benefit to both partners. i have already stated quite plainly that i will not pay, and there would be no benefit for you.

The culture of helpfulness and generosity we have done our best to cultivate on this list makes it very easy for people to take advantage. I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what benefit I have gotten from this exchange, but the support and gratitude of OTHER members that I've received privately is encouraging. I do this to help the horses, but expressions of thanks make it far more rewarding. It's not just mental gymnastics for me. To be raked over the coals for hours and hours, days on end, in defense of someone else's product and for a frankly ungrateful response from you is disappointing to say the least. This is absolutely NOT about money for me. I couldn't care less if you hired me, and at this point I'm not sure it would be worth the headaches. It's just plain & simple about attitude.

I will finally just say that I am pleased that there are so many folks on this list who have learned from what I have contributed in recent days, and will take that information and move in a constructive direction with their horses, gracious and grateful for the education they have gotten for free.

-Abby


--
**************************
Abby Bloxsom
www.advantedgeconsulting.com