Re: RC: Re: Barefoot, reply to Bob Morris

[Abigail Aiyagari <abby1@itsa.ucsf.edu>]

Well, that is good shoeing in action--much shoeing is not done this way.
Even so, the expansion occurs throughout the whole hoof, even though it is
greater in the heel area, so ideally the quarters should be moving as
well.  I'm not saying that shoes don't allow the hoof to move AT ALL, just
that the movement is greatly reduced.  Less reduced with a good shoeing
job such as you describe, more reduced with a poor shoeing job where the
shoe is fit to the non-weightbearing (contracted) hoof.

Abby


 > 
> Excuse me?  That is why most of us don't put a nail in behind the quarters!  We spread our shoes so that they are wider than the unweighted hoof from the quarters back, and every set I've ever pulled off in the last 25 or so years from any horse that's been used much has been worn shiny on the heels from the constant motion of the hoof expanding and contracting across it.  Can't remember where, as it's been ages ago, but I remember seeing slow motion films of this phenomenon, used to teach farriers why not to put nails in the back of the hoof.  Those of our Arabs with smaller feet only wear six nails--three on each side--for this very reason, unless there is some overriding pathological problem requiring the support.  If they wear a #1 or better, we can often put in the fourth one without a problem.  One of the problems we see associated with not shoeing "wide" in endurance horses is that due to the expansion of the hoof when it strikes the ground, the horses will get corns !
fr!
> om the heels of the shoes.  They
>  expand right off the sides if that "fudge factor" isn't there.  Pretty obvious in those horses that the expansion is occurring--they just aren't shod correctly to be able to have support when the maximum weight is on the hoof and the maximum expansion is taking place.
> 
> Heidi
>