Farrier's Formula
tbear
thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
Thanks for any info.
Lisa
C.M.Newell
<savet...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
>thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
>trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
IMO, there are cheaper supplements which work just as well.
CMNewell, DVM
*****
Surgeon General of rec.eq Bogbash party
Recipient of the Bogbash anti-Equus favorite vet award
The Chuck of Eq
Grandelori
about a year and a half ago. I love Ferrier's Formula. Both my ferrier and I
have noticed an incedible difference in my mare's feet.
A hint: If you read the fine print on the bottom of the label, it states that
you can cut your ration down to half once you start seeing the results you
want. I went from 4 scoops per day to 2 and her feet still look great.
Lori
Diana
savet...@austin.rr.com says...
> Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
> thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
> trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
It's the only supplement I've fed my horse, so I can't compare
it, but I will say that it did definitely improve her shelly
hooves. They are tougher (no chips or splits) and hold a shoe
better now. It took about 6 months before I saw a change, and a
full year for the changes to be complete. She's a TB, and is fed
Purina's top of the line pellet concentrate, plus hay, plus
grazing every day from 8 to 12 hours barring thunder storms or
ice.
My understanding is that if a horse isn't deficient in whatever
is in the stuff (and it's not just biotin), it won't help. But I
didn't have my mare tested for deficiencies, I just fed it and
watched what happened. I do like the way it comes, i.e. in
pellets, not powder, cause she's fussy and often won't eat
doctored feed. No problem with FF though.
--
Diana Linkous
Ron Miller
(C.M.Newell) wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:41:22 -0600, "tbear"
><savet...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
>>thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
>>trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
> IMO, there are cheaper supplements which work just as well.
Names! We need names! I just started Skippy on this
formula a couple of days ago. I'm figuring that he needs a
little more oomph than usual because: 1.) He's still a
growing boy at 3 years old. 2.) He's doing more work than
before. 3.) His feet seem to get too tender on the 'trail'
(no more trail for a while). 4.) I wasn't wanting to shoe
him just yet, only increase the frequency of his trimmings.
5.) He likes to lick metal bars, and I've seen him nosing
in the dirt, even licking it, but not eating it. But he's
always been a very oral boy.
He really seems to like it, and even pushes the chopped
carrots and apple crunchies out of the way to eat it first.
I'll be interested to see what difference (if I can discern
any at all) that it might make in his performance,
appearance, soundness, and general well-being.
Ron Miller and Skippy!
Will Headdon
She did get some good advice from
Trinity Consultants Equine Nutrition Research & Development
they have a contact site
http//www.equiworld.com/home/trinity
Some good news letters to.
In article <RzRL2.1391$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tbear
<savet...@austin.rr.com> writes
>Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
>thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
>trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
>
>
>Lisa
>
>
--
Will Headdon
Alan Chapman
Will Headdon <wil...@willjer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dont Bother its expensive and my daughter did not find it any use
Do I detect a conflict of interest? I assume you are the Will Headon who is
part of Trinity Consultants.
Let's face it if you have an alternative
product why not say so, and say why it is better. Instead of just rubbishing
the leading product. By doing this you begin to loose credibility, assuming
that you had any to begin with.
But *any* supplement is only of value if dobbin is deficient in something
that is supplied by the supplement.
>She did get some good advice from
>Trinity Consultants Equine Nutrition Research & Development
Of course she would, I mean you wouldn't give your own family bad advice.
Alan.
--
+=========================================+
| Alan Chapman, al...@welsh-cob.cix.co.uk |
| bli...@my-dejanews.com |
| r55...@email.sps.mot.com |
| URL: http://www.cix.co.uk/~welsh-cob/ |
+=========================================+
Jennifer Hazen
> Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well?
As others have posted, Farrier's Formula contains more than just biotin. I
started Tawny on it about six months ago to try and help him grow out the
damage caused by laminitus. At this time he was already sound and working
again but his feet were growing very slowly and his right front toe had
developed a crack (apparently a result from decreased hoof wall strength
where the lamini had stretched). Also, the "arches" of his front feet
collapsed leaving his feet like pancakes.
I do think that Farrier's Formula has helped and his feet are growing at
what I consider to be normal (back to needing trimmed about every 7-8
weeks). However, I also think that a combination of good nutrition, shoeing
and honeycomb pads have helped the situation.
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
PeabodyFox
ingredients... see if you can come up with your own formula... The best thing
is regular excercise, biotin and methionine-d. A good diet will be critical.
Jonathan M Paulin
tbear wrote:
> Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
> thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
> trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
>
I've had my 6 yr old QH on it for two years and has solved my problems. I
only have to give it to her every other day most of the year which saves me
$$$$.
Bonnie and Sissy
Tony & Melanie Hackenberg
old. My farrier reccommended it to improve my horse's hoof wall thickness.
It worked!
I've also used a "cheaper clone" product called "Farrier's Magic" with good
results too.
Penny Acres Farm
have friends who love it but my pocket book is not as deep as theirs.
Ah the good ol' days when my parents were footing the bill for my
horses(sigh). Belinda
--
Remove nospam from return path to reply.
JFergu123
>>Trinity Consultants Equine Nutrition Research & Development
>Do I detect a conflict of interest? I assume you are the Will Headon who is
>part of Trinity Consultants.
I wouldn't worry about this guy. He is a bit irritating, but he didn't even
post his web address correctly.
Alan Chapman
JFergu123 wrote in message
<19990330203822...@ng43.aol.com>...
Well, what else can you expect from a marketing type person.
Alan.
Me Again
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:41:22 -0600, "tbear"
>
> >Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
> >thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
> >trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
>
In my *experience* (6 years as a professional farrier) most of the
cheaper products don't have all the ingredients, particularly the trace
minerals and the vitamins (like Vitamin C) that might also be lacking in
a horse with poor hoofs. If your horse really has poor hoofs, do you
want to try to save a few dollars a month on a cheaper product and then
find out 6 or 12 months later that the cheaper product didn't do the job
that you needed it to do (help grow better hoof)? Where are your
"savings" then?
I have always recommended Farrier's Formula and I have said that if you
choose a replacement product look over the label VERY CAREFULLY to be
sure you understand what you are giving up for your modest savings and
understand what those items are and why FF choose to include them in
their formulation before you make a decision. In each case where
someone (a friend or client) has gone to this trouble they ultimately
choose FF as they didn't consider the cost savings worth the risk and
the cost of *not* having the product do what they NEEDED it to do (help
grow better hoof).
If the more expensive product costs you $200 a year less than FF, but
the FF results in you being able to ride/show/whatever your horse sooner
or more, you usually SAVE in that your other costs are far higher. For
instance, if you pay $400 a month in board, if FF saves you only 2 weeks
of recovery time, or keeps your horse showing when the other product
would result in having to lay your horse up for a month, the FF is more
cost effective when you add up ALL your expenses and the amount it costs
you when your horse is sidelined because of hoof problems.
As with anything equine, YMMV.
jc
CMNewell
>In my *experience* (6 years as a professional farrier) most of the
>cheaper products don't have all the ingredients, particularly the trace
>minerals and the vitamins (like Vitamin C) that might also be lacking in
>a horse with poor hoofs.
Vitamin C is made by bacterial flora in the gut of the horse. Only
primates and guinea pigs require it in the diet.
There are a number of less expensive products out there which include
the big 3--biotin, methionine, and zinc.
Kris Anderson
>
> "C.M.Newell" wrote:
[...]
> > IMO, there are cheaper supplements which work just as well.
>
> In my *experience* (6 years as a professional farrier)
[...]
> I have always recommended Farrier's Formula and I have said that if you
> choose a replacement product look over the label VERY CAREFULLY to be
> sure you understand what you are giving up for your modest savings and
> understand what those items are and why FF choose to include them in
> their formulation before you make a decision.
[...]
> If the more expensive product costs you $200 a year less than FF,...For
> instance, if... if...
Got an awful lot of "ifs" in there, Bud.
Now IF you could show me a couple of well designed double blind studies
that support the contention that hoof supplements work at all--and then
IF you could show me another double blind study that supports your claim
that FF works better than those that are lacking the vitamins and
minerals that *you* claim might be necessary for hoof growth--well then
I might just shell out the extra $$$$ for FF.
But in the meantime I'm not likely to pay a whole lot of attention to
someone who has so little confidence in his/her professional opinion
that he prefers to post anonymously.
Kris
--
Kris Anderson
Williamstown, MA
<kan...@ephs.org>
Jennifer Hazen
> Vitamin C is made by bacterial flora in the gut of the horse. Only
> primates and guinea pigs require it in the diet.
There is a local "holistic/chiropractic" DVM (really) in my area who has had
several clients at the farm I board at. About a year and half ago, he came
in and would give you an assessment of your horse. I was suckered in along
with about six other boarders. He recommended lots of Vitamin C for every
horse he evaluated and gave some rational that I can't remember now. I
really didn't buy into what he was talking about overall - energies not
flowing properly, organs in battle with one another, stale blood - and just
chocked it up to experience (and being out $60).
Jennifer, Mulligatawny & Rafiki (coming 5 year old guinea pig who gets lots
of vitamin C)
C.M.Newell
supplementation of Vitamin C, but I'm suspicious of the "toxin
clearing", karmic rearrangement, etc. explanations (which often seem
to accompany --"you need this special formulation of the vitamin,
which I just happen to sell").
Jennifer Hazen
> Geriatric horses and horses undergoing stress may benefit from
> supplementation of Vitamin C, but I'm suspicious of the "toxin
> clearing", karmic rearrangement, etc. explanations (which often seem
> to accompany --"you need this special formulation of the vitamin,
> which I just happen to sell").
Agreed. I think the final straw in me feeling like this guy was off of
his rocker (IMO) was when he came in and "bled" a horse because his
"blood was stale". Apparently he used regular syringe needles/hubs like
the tiny acupuncture needles and just let the blood flow for a while.
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
Diamond Hill Farm
<savet...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Has anyone ever tried this supplement? Did it work well? I've got a
>thoroughbred with a major hoof crack and my farrier recommended it. I'm
>trying to do a little research because my farrier also sells it.
>
>Thanks for any info.
>
>Lisa
>
>
I have a 23 y.o. TB gelding who is mostly a pasture ornament, but his
is sometimes used for beginner lessons and light trails. He is healthy
and cared for, but has a bit of ringbone and arthritis. He has always
had poor quality hooves and has had white line disease for about 4
years. He has gotten 30 mg. of Biotin everyday in Gen-a-horse for
about 5 years with not significant improvement. I don't know what his
feet would look like today if he had not ever had biotin. I've never
wanted to find out.
Last year, I mentioned his feet to a vet who was in town for a
seminar. He said that if he had such a horse, he would give it 100
mg. of Biotin and see what happened. Yikes. I asked my vet if she knew
anything new on feet and she said to try gelatin. So....
I decided to nuke this horse's feet with the following daily feed:
free choice orchard grass hay and 16 hour turn out on short pasture
2 quarts 10.5% protein sweet feed
1 and a half oz. Fast track (micro nutrients)
60 mg. Biotin in Gen-a-horse
25 mg. Biotin in Farrier's Formula
2 envelopes unflavored gelatin
one quarter cup corn oil to keep the powders from going up his nose.
So far the horse is in great health and appears to have a really nice
coat under all that winter hair. He has held his weight well this
winter.The farrier says that the feet appear to be growing in much
better than before. I'll keep going on this diet until the good growth
has come down at least as far as the nails. Then the question will be:
what if anything do I change? Is it the Biotin? The gelatin? If a hoof
would grow out completely in about a month, this would be easier ( and
the farrier would be dirving a new caddy).
Gretchen
Bill Kambic
> Agreed. I think the final straw in me feeling like this guy was off of
> his rocker (IMO) was when he came in and "bled" a horse because his
> "blood was stale". Apparently he used regular syringe needles/hubs like
> the tiny acupuncture needles and just let the blood flow for a while.
I guess they don't sell leeches in vet supply stores anymore, 'eh?<g>
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
R Bishop
Bill Kambic <wka...@vic.com> wrote:
>Jennifer Hazen wrote:
>
>> Agreed. I think the final straw in me feeling like this guy was off of
>> his rocker (IMO) was when he came in and "bled" a horse because his
>> "blood was stale". Apparently he used regular syringe needles/hubs like
>> the tiny acupuncture needles and just let the blood flow for a while.
>
>I guess they don't sell leeches in vet supply stores anymore, 'eh?<g>
Well, actually, there is a use for leeches in some cases. Seems they do fine
in removing pooled blood in reattached fingers and ears!
>
>Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
>
>
Sue
"Get up. For morning in the cup of day
has stirred the spoon that scared the stars away."
Terry Pratchett
Me Again
>
> On 01 Apr 1999 01:38:08 PST, Me Again <mag...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >In my *experience* (6 years as a professional farrier) most of the
> >cheaper products don't have all the ingredients, particularly the trace
> >minerals and the vitamins (like Vitamin C) that might also be lacking in
> >a horse with poor hoofs.
>
> primates and guinea pigs require it in the diet.
Isn't biotin ALSO made by the bacterial flora in the gut of the horse?
Horses which are difficient in biotin might ALSO be difficient in
Vitiman C, for the same reasons (the same cause, ineffective bacteria in
the gut, often blamed on stress). It's inexpensive to add some
additional Vitamin C to the formulation, and if only 1 horse in 10 is
helped, if that's YOUR horse then that's a big help.
> There are a number of less expensive products out there which include
> the big 3--biotin, methionine, and zinc.
>
Yes, there are. IF that is all your horse requires, then these cheaper
products will meet your needs.
Unfortunately, to find out for sure you either have to pay for expensive
blood work to determine exactly what your horse requires, or you have to
invest a lot of time (6 months to a year) and thus a lot of board or
care money, to find out if the alternate supplement you choose really
worked. Both of those are "expensive" options to just using the best
supplement instead.
IMHO, you should start with and stay with FF for at least 6 months to
see what the BEST supplement will do to improve your horse's hoofs.
After you know what the best results are, you *may* decide to try a less
expensive formulation, and keep a VERY close eye on the new hoof growth
to see if there is any loss of quality. I had several customers who did
this and then went back to the FF when they saw that the new hoof wasn't
coming out as fast as it had been coming out when they were using FF.
Skimping to save a few bucks a month on a cheaper product was often
found to be penny wise (saving a few bucks on the supplement) and pound
foolish (ending up with more expensive farrier bills or having to lay
the horse up with expensive board bills and no horse to ride or show
because of a reoccuring hoof problem).
jc
Bill Kambic
> Well, actually, there is a use for leeches in some cases. Seems they do fine
> in removing pooled blood in reattached fingers and ears!
You're right. But what was described was the same type of procedure that is
alleged to have killed George Washington.
R Bishop
Bill Kambic <wka...@vic.com> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> Well, actually, there is a use for leeches in some cases. Seems they do fine
>> in removing pooled blood in reattached fingers and ears!
>
>You're right. But what was described was the same type of procedure that is
>alleged to have killed George Washington.
Didn't they bleed him? Not just with leeches but with an opened vein....
>
>Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
>
>
Sue
Tivers
>several clients at the farm I board at. About a year and half ago, he came
>in and would give you an assessment of your horse. I was suckered in along
>with about six other boarders. He recommended lots of Vitamin C for every
>horse he evaluated and gave some rational that I can't remember now. I
>really didn't buy into what he was talking about overall - energies not
>flowing properly, organs in battle with one another, stale blood - and just
>chocked it up to experience (and being out $60).
>
>Jennifer, Mulligatawny & Rafiki (coming 5 year old guinea pig who gets lots
>of vitamin C)
>
>
>
They must be passing out DVM diplomas at TTeam concerts.
ti
Tom Ivers
President: Equine Racing Systems, Inc.
http://www.equineracing.com
Jackie
wrote:
>Wouldn't you agree that stress related problems with intestinal flora
>are so short term considering the life cycle of those various bacteria
>that optimum levels are restore quickly enough that no measurable
>difference in hoof growth would occur?
I wouldn't. When research indicates that horses fed a diet with higher
digestible fibre and oil levels become more efficient (in digestion)
then it follows that a large number of grain-fed performance horses
have less than optimal microbial digestion, continually. Horses did
not evolve to digest high levels of starch, and yet many of them are
fed just that. At what cost?
> That isn't to say that I
>don't recommend a supplement, Biozin, for horses with problem feet not
>attributable to environment. Why not help nature along after all. If
>your not familiar with Biozin read the label and compare it to FF some
>time.
Care to give us the analysis and ingredients?
>>IMHO, you should start with and stay with FF for at least 6 months to
>>see what the BEST supplement will do to improve your horse's hoofs.
>
>Excellent advice considering how long it takes to see results from any
>supplement.
Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
Jackie
Me Again
> >IMHO, you should start with and stay with FF for at least 6 months to
> >see what the BEST supplement will do to improve your horse's hoofs.
>
> Excellent advice considering how long it takes to see results from any
> supplement. I was wondering if you have any compliance problems with
> your clients and how you handle it when they get discouraged to soon.
("had", I'm not working as a farrier anymore)
I told them before they started that they need to give it 5-6 months or
they might as well save their money and not try any supplement. I
explained and demonstrated (pointed to growing out defects) how fast the
hoof wall grows. I pointed out that only giving it a few months was
essentially completely wasting their money and if they wanted to throw
away money like that I knew of some good charities that could use a
donation more than their horse could use 2 months of supplements that
would be discontinued before one could determine if they really helped
or not.
I also only sold the 5-6 month supply quantity (I explained the cost
benefits of buying it in bulk, getting a lower per/day cost), which
helped a lot. (This was when you could only get it from vets and
farriers, it wasn't available in the local tack stores.) By 5-6 months,
most people could see the benefit (new growth looking very different
from the old hoof) and would reorder and continue for another 5-6
months. At that point, some of them then tried other, less expensive
products, with mixed results.
At that time, there were fewer other "good" alternatives too. It was
mostly either the excellent but expensive FF, or it was the cheap
"biotin only" supplements. Today there are more "high end" supplements
that mimic FF, but I have yet to see one that contains all the (what I
consider) essential trace items (Vitamin C, zinc, etc.) as well as the
"popular" ingredients like biotin and methionine (sp?), at a price point
lower than FF, lower enough to make the cost savings worthwhile against
the risk that you are going to be missing something that your horse
needs.
Horses are pretty expensive to care for in my area (San Francisco Bay
Area). Board easily tops $400 a month at many stables, basic shoeing
can top $100. Skimping on supplements is really penny wise and pound
foolish in this situation. I'm sure it's very different if you are in
an area where most people keep horses at home, hay is plentiful, grown
locally, and cheap, and the farrier only charges $30.
> >After you know what the best results are, you *may* decide to try a less
> >expensive formulation, and keep a VERY close eye on the new hoof growth
> >to see if there is any loss of quality. I had several customers who did
> >this and then went back to the FF when they saw that the new hoof wasn't
> >coming out as fast as it had been coming out when they were using FF.
> >Skimping to save a few bucks a month on a cheaper product was often
> >found to be penny wise (saving a few bucks on the supplement) and pound
> >foolish (ending up with more expensive farrier bills or having to lay
> >the horse up with expensive board bills and no horse to ride or show
> >because of a reoccuring hoof problem).
> >
> I was wondering just what type of problem(s) your referring to that a
> supplement will cure and good corrective work can't.
Situations such as: growing out a deep crack that is continually
rebreaking due to a coronary band defect (scar); or growing out a new
hoof following a bad bout of laminitis. Even when supporting P3 with a
properly designed and fitted heartbar shoe, there is only so much that
one can do on the bottom of the hoof when there has been such
destruction of the laminae. As I'm sure you know, in these situations
you really need to grow out the new hoof as fast as possible to then
apply your correct farrier skills to the bottom of the hoof to restore
the horse to the best condition possible for long term useful working
life.
jc (former farrier, now a computer geek)
Alan Chapman
>When research indicates that horses fed a diet with higher
>digestible fibre and oil levels become more efficient (in digestion)
My own review of the scientific literature, including some as yet
unpublished material, suggests that it is the digestible fibre, that is the
key to efficiency of digestion. *Fats* are not a natural part of the equine
diet in the quantities, that are fed to supplement the diet.
>then it follows that a large number of grain-fed performance horses
>have less than optimal microbial digestion,
Which would implicate fibre/starch, and have little to do with fats. It
could also be a result of continually changing feeds, such as the
traditional once a week bran mash.
>Horses did
>not evolve to digest high levels of starch,
But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
grasses.
>>>IMHO, you should start with and stay with FF for at least 6 months to
>>>see what the BEST supplement will do to improve your horse's hoofs.
>>
>>Excellent advice considering how long it takes to see results from any
>>supplement.
>
>Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
>seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
Based on what research? The flawed research that was conducted on behalf of,
and paid for by, Life Data Labs?
Alan.
Tom Stovall
[deletia here and there]
[...] When you get down to the nitty gritty of the matter, genetics
decide just how much horn, and what quality it will be given that the
horse is ingesting and manufacturing all the necessary nutritional
components for horn growth. A complete balanced feed along with
probiotics do almost as much good as a supplement for the majority of
horses IMO...
To my knowledge, no independent studies suggest that ANY supplement is
of value to a horse receiving a balanced ration. Thus, unless a horse is
deficient in some constituent of the supplement, it doesn't need a
supplement. That's probably why the advertising for such products
usually consists of anecdotal fluff instead of scientific stuff.
Under optimum conditions, any horse's foot can grow only as fast as it
was programmed to grow when the stallion snorted in the mare's flank.
>[...] I was wondering just what type of problem(s) your referring to >that a supplement will cure and good corrective work can't...
What is "good corrective work" as applied to farriery? If the horse
gets what it needs to do whatever it does as efficiently as possible
within the limits of its conformation, the shoeing was correct; if not,
it was incorrect.
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
"The race is not always to the swift -
but that's how to bet it."
-Damon Runyan
will headdon
trinityco...@compuserve.com
equine nutrition research and development
hrshoerATibmDOTnet (Scott Jenkins) wrote in message
<3713a22a...@news3.ibm.net>...
will headdon
Jackie
<al...@welsh-cob.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>My own review of the scientific literature, including some as yet
>unpublished material, suggests that it is the digestible fibre, that is the
>key to efficiency of digestion. *Fats* are not a natural part of the equine
>diet in the quantities, that are fed to supplement the diet.
Indeed, but it depends what you mean by supplement. They may provide
the energy required if digestible fibre alone cannot - ie the energy
content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
starch in a high performance horse.
>But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
>grasses.
Trickle-fed over 24 hours at a constant level from coarse,
unfertilised grasses perhaps. This remains a moot point.
>>Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
>>seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
>
>Based on what research? The flawed research that was conducted on behalf of,
>and paid for by, Life Data Labs?
No-one does research without someone funding it, and the peer reviewed
papers published by Sue Kempson BSc, PhD the University of Edinburgh
are sound - although they quoted 9 weeks I believe.
Quite apart from that, I have seen and photographed the change in the
structure of the periople at less than eight weeks myself - and
changes in the coat (as often found) were seen within a month.
When the general advice is to feed a hoof supplement for 6-12 months,
a manufacturer would be a mite foolish to proclaim a difference will
be seen in less if it were not so, now wouldn't they? The disappointed
punter would go somewhere else that much sooner!
No, they can say it because it is true, a large number of their
professional customers can testify to it (which is why they recommend
it) and that is why they are the market leader.
If I said the sky was blue I have a feeling you would argue.
Jackie
C.M.Newell
wrote:
>The effects of Biotin has only ever been tested in pigs. Not equines.
>
>
>
Really? there's a paper on biotin supplementation and its effects on
hoof wall qulaity that was done utilizing the SRS Lipps. I think
you'll get the riders rather annoyed if you insist upon referring to
them as swine.
Tom Stovall
re: "What is 'good corrective work' as applied to farriery? If the
horse gets what it needs to do whatever it does as efficiently as
possible within the limits of its conformation, the shoeing was correct;
if not, it was incorrect..."
>Good corrective work as to poor quality shoeing. Don't know about your
>area but we have more than a few cowboy shoers around here who fancy
>their selves good at corrective work...
Horses are either shod correctly or not, there's no such critter as
"corrective."
>I'll give you an example. A shoe cut in half with bolt cutters, not >even cleaned up and applied to a 6 yr old toed out mare to correct >her...
Did she get what she needed? If so, the shoeing was correct; if not, the
shoeing was incorrect. What you are terming, "corrective" is somebody's
attempt to shoe a horse correctly.
>The funny thing is half the problem was the mediolateral balance so one >hoof was turned out more than the other and he only shod one foot like >that and left the other barefoot...
It's probably safe to say she didn't get what she needed.
>That is what I mean by bad corrective work...
That sounds like bad (i.e., incorrect) shoeing.
>You may disagree with my choice of terms but we can both agree that >isn't sound shoeing...
I certainly disagree with your choice of terminology but you are correct
in that whacking a shoe in half with bolt cutters - without benefit of
clergy or taper - was probably not sound shoeing.
On the other hand, anybody that who cut a shoe in half at the toe, nail
it on, and keep it on any length of time is a pretty good hand. I have
hell keeping tip shoes on and I haven't put a tip shoe on anything
without burned-in quarter clips for more than 20 years.
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
"My karate kid kicked your honor student's ass." -bumper sticker
Jackie
wrote:
>>>Wouldn't you agree that stress related problems with intestinal flora
>>>are so short term considering the life cycle of those various bacteria
>>>that optimum levels are restore quickly enough that no measurable
>>>difference in hoof growth would occur?
>>
>>I wouldn't. When research indicates that horses fed a diet with higher
>>digestible fibre and oil levels become more efficient (in digestion)
>>then it follows that a large number of grain-fed performance horses
>>have less than optimal microbial digestion, continually. Horses did
>>not evolve to digest high levels of starch, and yet many of them are
>>fed just that. At what cost?
>>
>Apples and oranges. MeAgain [jc] (you?) said inefficient bacterial
>flora from stress.
It depends what you include in the term 'stress'. Take one totally
unstressed horse and subject it to a short-term mental stress, and
yes, it should recover soon enough. Take a horse continually stressed
by diet, and apply more stress on a regular basis, and no, IMO
'optimum levels' will not be restored.
>. I
>would assume that the higher fiber level requires, and supports, a
>larger colony of various bacteria thus allowing for more efficient
>digestion. Can you confirm or correct that assumption?
That would appear to be correct.
I don't know
>how much oil a wild (close to ideal diet?) gets but most people feed
>it for the fat content. Starch is just a complex sugar which is
>something horses ingest vast quanities of in plants.
Sugar can by quickly digested, starch takes longer. If it is not
broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
laminitis or colic for sure.
> By feeding vast amounts of concentrates I belive people set
>their horses up for colic etc, but feeding a balance of hay/pasture
>and concentrates seems a healthy enough diet for a horse that works.
'Healthy enough' is the point. I am sure that the diet of the average
racehorse is not 'healthy enough' to avoid causing considerable stress
on the digestive system, and the horse is stressed in just about every
other way.
>>Care to give us the analysis and ingredients?
>Biozin Tx level
>-----------------------
>Ingredients:
>Zinc Methionine, Mon-Calcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Salt,
>Magnesium Sulfate, Potassium Sulfate, Manganous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate,
>Ferrous Carbonate, Copper Sulfate, Calcium Iodate, Colbalt Carbonate,
>Sodium Selenate, Vitamin A Supplement, Vitiamin D-3 Supp, Vit b-12
>Supp, Riboflavin Supp, Calcium Pentothenate, Choline Chloride,
>Thiamine Mononitrate, d-Biotin, Folic Acid, Pyridosine Hydrochlorid,
>Menadion Dimethlypyrimidionol Bisulfate, Niacin, L-Lysine, DL
>Methionine, Sulphur, Linseed Meal, Arginine, Cystine, Isoleucine,
>Leucine, Lycine, Arrginie, Threonine, Tryptophan, Valine, Histidine,
>Phenylalanine and Cron Oil.
>
>Guaranteed Analysis:
>Biotin 18mg/oz (serving is one oz)
>DL-Methionine 1800mg/oz
>L-Lysine 1500mg/oz
>Sulfur 1500mg/oz
>Vitamin A 408,000 IU/lb
>Vitamin D3 127,000 iu/lb
>Vitamin E 450 IU/lb
>Selenium ,00004%
Thanks. This is a very different product to FF.
Jackie
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 05:53:47 GMT, hrshoerATibmDOTnet (Scott Jenkins)
>wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't you agree that stress related problems with intestinal flora
>>are so short term considering the life cycle of those various bacteria
>>that optimum levels are restore quickly enough that no measurable
>>difference in hoof growth would occur?
If the stress was short-term (like a horse moving to a different yard) or a
radical (unrecommended) change of feed, then the answer is probably yes. But
what if the horse's organism wasn't given the chance to settle to a 'normal'
state?
>I wouldn't. When research indicates that horses fed a diet with higher
>digestible fibre and oil levels become more efficient (in digestion)
I'm sure the esteemed Tom Ivers has something to say on that topic.
>then it follows that a large number of grain-fed performance horses
>have less than optimal microbial digestion, continually. Horses did
>not evolve to digest high levels of starch, and yet many of them are
>fed just that. At what cost?
At what cost would you propose to feed high levels of fat, which is even
stranger to a horse's organism? Carbohydrates are part of a horses natural
diet. Fat is only contained in traces by the plants he evolved to eat.
>>That isn't to say that I
>>don't recommend a supplement, Biozin, for horses with problem feet not
>>attributable to environment. Why not help nature along after all. If
>>your not familiar with Biozin read the label and compare it to FF some
>>time.
A supplement will only work if the horse is lacking that particular substance.
Biotin is contained in some feedstuffs at low levels, with maize ranging at the
top - so if your horse's diet already contains biotin in sufficient levels,
then adding biotin probably won't help. The same goes for zinc and any other
indigridient.
>>>IMHO, you should start with and stay with FF for at least 6 months to
>>>see what the BEST supplement will do to improve your horse's hoofs.
>>
>>Excellent advice considering how long it takes to see results from any
>>supplement.
>
>Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
>seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
Only if a supplement is right *for that particular horse*. I've seen horses
that were fed Farriers Formula without any effect at all, much to the chagrin
of the horse's owner (and the owner's purse). I know other people who swear by
it. It, and any other supplement, isn't a miracle cure.
Catja
and Billy
Bill Kambic
<in answer to Alan's astute comments>
> Indeed, but it depends what you mean by supplement. They may provide
> the energy required if digestible fibre alone cannot - ie the energy
> content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
> starch in a high performance horse.
If a horse is getting what it needs in its basic ration, them supplementation is
not necessary. If supplementation is necessary, then it is not getting what it
needs. Kind of a QED situation. Of course, we use the word "need" as viewed
from the horse's point of view, not the owners (or the vendor of supplements)
point of view.
> >But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
> >grasses.
>
> Trickle-fed over 24 hours at a constant level from coarse,
> unfertilised grasses perhaps. This remains a moot point.
Moot as regards to what? That horses are designed to eat almost constantly ain't
moot in my book!
> >>Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
> >>seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
> >
> >Based on what research? The flawed research that was conducted on behalf of,
> >and paid for by, Life Data Labs?
>
> No-one does research without someone funding it, and the peer reviewed
> papers published by Sue Kempson BSc, PhD the University of Edinburgh
> are sound - although they quoted 9 weeks I believe.
All research is paid by somebody. In human drug research, it is the developing
company. To keep the companies honest, we have the FDA and its panels of
reviewers. The system actually works pretty well over all, even though we do get
a "thalidomide" from time to time. And you can get a "thalidomide" even thought
everyone used the utmost care in testing and evaluation.
Are these peer reviewed reports available in any publications of general
circulation? If you have them, could you post them? If not, would you be
willing to mail copies to someone with a scanner (including me!<g>) and have that
individual post them?
> Quite apart from that, I have seen and photographed the change in the
> structure of the periople at less than eight weeks myself - and
> changes in the coat (as often found) were seen within a month.
>
> When the general advice is to feed a hoof supplement for 6-12 months,
> a manufacturer would be a mite foolish to proclaim a difference will
> be seen in less if it were not so, now wouldn't they? The disappointed
> punter would go somewhere else that much sooner!
The manufacturer would be wise to point out that while some change will be seen
in a fairly short time, it takes 6 months to a year for a foot to fully grow out
and if you want a whole foot you must go for the whole period.
> No, they can say it because it is true, a large number of their
> professional customers can testify to it (which is why they recommend
> it) and that is why they are the market leader.
Customers testimonials are anecdote. And we all know what anecdote is (and is
not).
> If I said the sky was blue I have a feeling you would argue.
Yup!<g> Last night when I first read this it was 1946EST (0146GMT, or UST if you
prefer) and the sky was a dark charcoal gray, except on the horizon where there
were some clouds; that was stygian black.
Jackie
wrote:
>At what cost would you propose to feed high levels of fat, which is even
>stranger to a horse's organism?
Depends what you call high levels. And, if you look a little deeper
into the metabolic process, you will find that muscles use energy
provided in two main forms - glycogen and lipid energy. That lipid
energy is derived from BOTH fibre digestion and dietary fat. The horse
is no stranger to it.
>Carbohydrates are part of a horses natural
>diet.
In this context, that is a little like saying man evolved to eat
doughnuts. It's always a question of balance.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>> Indeed, but it depends what you mean by supplement. They may provide
>> the energy required if digestible fibre alone cannot - ie the energy
>> content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
>> starch in a high performance horse.
>
>If a horse is getting what it needs in its basic ration, them supplementation is
>not necessary. If supplementation is necessary, then it is not getting what it
>needs.
Quite so. By that criteria I call grain a supplement.
> Of course, we use the word "need" as viewed
>from the horse's point of view, not the owners (or the vendor of supplements)
>point of view.
Indeed - and yet if the owner requires a horse to perform at high
levels, or if a performance horse cannot cope with the levels of
carbohydrate normally used, energy from oil may be 'needed', not
supplementary at all.
>> >But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
>> >grasses.
>>
>> Trickle-fed over 24 hours at a constant level from coarse,
>> unfertilised grasses perhaps. This remains a moot point.
>
>Moot as regards to what? That horses are designed to eat almost constantly ain't
>moot in my book!
The point that remains moot is the feed manufactureres assertion that
it is OK to load a horse with refined sugar (and starch) twice or
thrice a day because there is sugar in grass. Nah, don't buy it!
>Are these peer reviewed reports available in any publications of general
>circulation? If you have them, could you post them? If not, would you be
>willing to mail copies to someone with a scanner (including me!<g>) and have that
>individual post them?
I'm sure Doc Newell could turn them up from source - they would have
been published in Equine Veterinary Journal I would guess, and the
study was done in 1988. The study is on Life Data's website I believe:
www.lifedatalabs.com, oand on the UK suppliers, EquiLife:
www.equilife.co.uk
>The manufacturer would be wise to point out that while some change will be seen
>in a fairly short time, it takes 6 months to a year for a foot to fully grow out
>and if you want a whole foot you must go for the whole period.
Absolutely.
>Customers testimonials are anecdote. And we all know what anecdote is (and is
>not).
Indeed - that is why they have the peer-reviewed published research.
>> If I said the sky was blue I have a feeling you would argue.
>
>Yup!<g>
Not you Bill - you can be quite reasonable at times!<g>
Jackie
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:11:28 +0100, "Alan Chapman"
><al...@welsh-cob.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>My own review of the scientific literature, including some as yet
>>unpublished material, suggests that it is the digestible fibre, that is the
>>key to efficiency of digestion. *Fats* are not a natural part of the equine
>>diet in the quantities, that are fed to supplement the diet.
>
>Indeed, but it depends what you mean by supplement. They may provide
>the energy required if digestible fibre alone cannot -
Carbohydrates are the best energy form either through forage or
concentrates or combinations.
> ie the energy
>content of oil
Oil is a poor choice as vegetable and hydrolized animal fats overload can
cause lactic acid problems, diarrhea, increase blood cholesterol levels
and can be ineffective in large amounts.
>is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
>starch in a high performance horse.
Corn remains the best energy source. Suggesting dependance on starch is
negative is ridiculous since starch makes up about 3/4ths of dry matter in
grasses. And grasses are the most natural forage for horses. Light working
horses need about 20.5 Mcal of DE, about the same for stallions during
breeding season; hard working horses such as distance horses and racers
need a minimum of 32.8Mcal of DE. Maintenance level is 18.8Mcal of DE.
down the spotted trails. . .
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1999 10:58:29 GMT, ca...@aber.ac.uk (CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT)
>wrote:
>
>
>>At what cost would you propose to feed high levels of fat, which is even
>>stranger to a horse's organism?
>
>Depends what you call high levels. And, if you look a little deeper
>into the metabolic process, you will find that muscles use energy
>provided in two main forms - glycogen and lipid energy. That lipid
>energy is derived from BOTH fibre digestion and dietary fat. The horse
>is no stranger to it.
Fats (lipids) do aid in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and are the
source of certain essential fatty acids that the body can't make on its
own. Energy content of fat is more than 9 kilocalories per gram. Carbs and
proteins provide about 4 kilocal per gram.
It has not yet been established the minimal requirement of fats in equine
diet, but it is known horses do well with up to 6% fat in total diet. With
forage and concentrates that 6% is readily obtainable without adding
additional or supplemental fats. It has been suggested that
supplementation of fats to the 12% level (common with today's fads) is
ineffective and can be detrimental. There are some tolerances of
supplemental fats, but so far it has been a guess in the dark. Highest
amounts of fats are found in oats, corn, alfalfa and timothy hay.
Supplemental fat sources are vegetable oil and hydrolized animal fats.
These are the ones that can cause the problems.
Carbohydrates [sugars, starches, cellulose, hemicellulose and glycogen
(form in which energy is stored in liver & muscles)] are the major source
of energy for the horse and are vital for the metabolism of fats. Carbs
make up 3/4ths of dry matter in plants.
Tivers
>broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
>cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
>laminitis or colic for sure.
Your timing if off by a few hours. However, it is true that carbs in the hind
gut can be a problem. That's why several feedings a day of grain are better
than one gigantic feeding at night.
Tivers
>>digestible fibre and oil levels become more efficient (in digestion)
>
>I'm sure the esteemed Tom Ivers has something to say on that topic.
>
Remember that a good part of most grain is fiber. Long stalks of hay fiber are
useful in the hind gut in terms of keeping the bugs alive, but oil certainly
doesn't represent efficiency in digestion or in energy provision. The primary
source for energy in the athleteic horse is carbohydrate. When
carbyhydrate/glycogen/glucose is gone, the animal dies, no matter how much fat
is onboard. When the horse is standing still, or walking, available fat
substrate spares glycogen and glucose. Even then, though, 60% of energy is
provided through carbohydrate--or through protein catabolism if the
carbohydrate has been restricted in favor of oil and fiber in the diet.
I have no problem with the research. What I do have a problem with is the
extrapolation of factoids thereby derived into a kind of all-inclusive
fat/fiber-promoting religion. Especially when overwhelming practical experience
suggests otherwise.
It boils down to this: if your horse is experiencing fatigue during
competition, or if your horse is losing weight during training, move toward
carbohydrate intake--intelligently, of course.
Tivers
>is
>not necessary. If supplementation is necessary, then it is not getting what
>it
>from the horse's point of view, not the owners (or the vendor of supplements)
>point of view.
>
QED if you accept the overly simplistic premise. There is hard science
concerning the supplementation of hundreds of different nutrients. You can
ignore the science or you can learn it and use it.
The horse doesn't have a point of view in this case. We hvae decided to become
the horse's God and determine every aspect of its care and control, while
asking it for function beyond what it would deliver in the wild. Having taken
on that responsibility, we must face the fact that we have altered the "needs"
of the animal and must supply the necessary nutritional, environmental, and
medical support.
Finally, here is a law of economics in the horse industry: if a product does
not provide expected results within the label's parameters, it will die. No
vendor in his right mind would attempt to sell a product that doesn't work.
And a law of human frailty: thinking is the hardest work of all.
Tivers
>into the metabolic process, you will find that muscles use energy
>provided in two main forms - glycogen and lipid energy. That lipid
>energy is derived from BOTH fibre digestion and dietary fat.
And even a little deeper and you'll find that, given an adequate supply of
both, the organism always chooses carbohydrate-derived energy over fat. At a
level of starvation, the organism will choose protein-derived glucose over fat.
That's why the old fad of Quick Weight Loss diets are not recommended any
more--you lost more lean muscle mass than fat.
Tivers
>supplementation is
>>not necessary. If supplementation is necessary, then it is not getting what
>it
>>needs.
>
>
This is what I mean by "nutritional religion". It's not rational thought.
Tivers
>>from the horse's point of view, not the owners (or the vendor of
>supplements)
>>point of view.
>
>levels, or if a performance horse cannot cope with the levels of
>carbohydrate normally used, energy from oil may be 'needed', not
>supplementary at all.
Grain is a supplement and oil is not. Very interesting. In my experience, a
progressively loaded exercise protocol paralleled with a progressively
increased source of carbohydrate, works just fine. Oil and rendered fat
supplementation is fool's gold.
The origin of the fat supplementation fad actually began with studies in human
marathoners and ultra-marathoners. There was a time when Medium Chain
Triglycerides were all the rage--fast-acting fats with more energy per gram.
The latest literature has taken the full swing back to carbohydrates. For long
distance athletes. Sprinters never were into fat.
In horses, the origin of the fat fad began with studies by Potter and Topliff
at Texas A&M. Gary has told me that his studies have been blown all out of
proportion by others. He says that carbs are the primary fuel and insists that
he never talked about a "high fat" diet, but about a fat supplemented diet. And
today he hesitates to supplement fat for more than three weeks--you actually
lose performance when muscles begin to depend on fat. Fat overload and
carbohydrate deficiency is the worst possible fueling situation for athletes of
any species.
Jane H. Kilberg
(Tivers) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>In horses, the origin of the fat fad began with studies by Potter and Topliff
>at Texas A&M. Gary has told me that his studies have been blown all out of
>proportion by others. He says that carbs are the primary fuel and insists that
>he never talked about a "high fat" diet, but about a fat supplemented diet. And
>today he hesitates to supplement fat for more than three weeks--you actually
>lose performance when muscles begin to depend on fat. Fat overload and
>carbohydrate deficiency is the worst possible fueling situation for athletes of
>any species.
So, ya gonna blame Potter for the fat fad diet? LOL
People tend on jump on things without really understanding the long term
effects of supplemental fat, let alone the normal diet. Carbos are the
main energy source of the horse, yesterday, today and tomorrow and always
will be. I just wish people would not mess around with their horses' diets
for a quick fix of things.
Give 'em hell Tivers!
Diana
tiv...@aol.com says...
>
> Finally, here is a law of economics in the horse industry: if a product does
> not provide expected results within the label's parameters, it will die. No
> vendor in his right mind would attempt to sell a product that doesn't work.
Ummm. Ineffective products are sold every day to many people ...
like hoof dressings and oil. They are nice if your horse lives in
a very dry environment, but we all know that hoof health starts
on the inside not the outside. However, lots of people feel
better if they can slop something on their horse's feet every day
or when they ride or once a week..., even if he lives in a swamp
and the farrier screams at them not to use it. And how about most
fly sprays? They work just as long as the horse doesn't sweat...
and of course, fly season means warm weather, and horses being
worked in warm weather sweat. They are used by some people *only*
when they ride. Ditto for the scillions of strange bits and
rigging devices that are bought by ineffective horsemen/women.
And so forth.
It's *perception* of effectiveness that sells, and it's educating
the marketplace that is the problem.
--
Diana Linkous
Tivers
Gary can take it. He's been there and back a couple of times. But it's the
extrapolations of his work, and follow-ons, that set the fat world afire with
overenthusiasm.
Tivers
>like hoof dressings and oil. They are nice if your horse lives in
>a very dry environment, but we all know that hoof health starts
>on the inside not the outside. However, lots of people feel
>better if they can slop something on their horse's feet every day
>or when they ride or once a week..., even if he lives in a swamp
>and the farrier screams at them not to use it. >
And another half million make up their own slop--out of pine tar and venice of
turpentine, etc. Both the homemade and the commercial versions are solving
somebody's problems. As to which problems they're solving, that's up for grabs.
>And how about most
>fly sprays? They work just as long as the horse doesn't sweat...
>and of course, fly season means warm weather, and horses being
>worked in warm weather sweat. They are used by some people *only*
>when they ride. >
Again, you're talking about something that works but is misused. Can't blame
the manufacturer for that.
>Ditto for the scillions of strange bits and
>rigging devices that are bought by ineffective horsemen/women.
>And so forth.
Tack doesn't just appear out of thin air. At one time, every bit in existence
has solved somebody's problem. Otherwise, nobody would manufacture them. As for
using them the right way, that's another problem, not having to do with the
manufacturer.
>
>It's *perception* of effectiveness that sells, and it's educating
>the marketplace that is the problem.
It's sure been a long time since I've seen any ad proclaiming a given bit to do
a given thing. As far as educating the marketplace is concerned, horsedom has
been a realm of the blind leading the blind for centuries.
So, the one-eyed man is King.
Diana
(Scott Jenkins) says...
> The average racehorse has a feeding program that is most likely
> over-seen by a competent equine nutritionists. Your average everyday
> horse isn't performing at that level. Most horses are general
Ummm. The "average" racehorse has a trainer overseeing his
feeding program, and that trainer may or may not keep current on
equine nutrition research. And may or may not use all sorts of
odd concoctions in his feeding program. The race track at the mid
and lower levels tends to be a fairly conservative and even hide-
bound group.
At the upper levels, you'll find more trainers who are open
minded about current research.
--
Diana Linkous
Tivers
>feeding program, and that trainer may or may not keep current on
>equine nutrition research. And may or may not use all sorts of
>odd concoctions in his feeding program. The race track at the mid
>and lower levels tends to be a fairly conservative and even hide-
>bound group.
>
>At the upper levels, you'll find more trainers who are open
>minded about current research.
>
>--
>Diana Linkous
>
Actually, it's about 2% of racehorse trainers that are interested in actually
knowing anything. Another 20% will try anything once. The rest kind of muddle
about, trying to keep things as inexpensive as possible. On the other hand,
more than half of racehorse owners are interested in learning everything they
can.
The most knowledgeable conditioners I've found are endurance and some combined
training/3-day event trainers.
Alan Chapman
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:11:28 +0100, "Alan Chapman"
><al...@welsh-cob.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>My own review of the scientific literature, including some as yet
>>unpublished material, suggests that it is the digestible fibre, that is
the
>>key to efficiency of digestion. *Fats* are not a natural part of the
equine
>>diet in the quantities, that are fed to supplement the diet.
>
>Indeed, but it depends what you mean by supplement.
A supplement is something added to the diet, to make up for nutritional
deficiencies. It does not, IMHO, include things such as grains, but does
include vitamins, minerals, and oils.
>They may provide
>the energy required if digestible fibre alone cannot - ie the energy
>content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
>starch in a high performance horse.
Unfortunately, this is not so. Except for events requiring lots of long
distance work. For most activities fats are a bad source of energy, as it is
in a slow release form, and is also *not* used by the fast twitch muscle
cells. If your horse is taking part in disciplins where speed is a premium,
then you *need* the energy from carbohydrates. Even though oil is 2.5 times
as energy dense as carbs. I believe that (I'm sure TI will confirm/refute
this if necessary) feeding high levels of oil to speed horses has had the
effect of reducing performance.
At low levels (1-2 fl oz/day) it has minimal effect, and only really puts a
shine on the coat.
>>But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
>>grasses.
>
>Trickle-fed over 24 hours at a constant level from coarse,
>unfertilised grasses perhaps. This remains a moot point.
How can the horses *natural* diet remain a moot point?
>>>Actually, the effect of Farrier's on horn growth can often be clearly
>>>seen within 4-6 weeks at the coronary band.
>>
>>Based on what research? The flawed research that was conducted on behalf
of,
>>and paid for by, Life Data Labs?
>
>No-one does research without someone funding it, and the peer reviewed
>papers published by Sue Kempson BSc, PhD the University of Edinburgh
>are sound - although they quoted 9 weeks I believe.
Really? so why were they questioned in the letters section of the publishing
journal? I'm sorry, but having read the aritcles, and other articles on
biotin supplementation, they *are* flawed. Just because something is
published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean that the work is sound.
There are many other instances of flawed work being published. Now I'm not
at this point going to point out the deficiencies in the articles, as I
don't have them to hand, and I can't be bothered to walk up to the library
and photocopy them again.
>Quite apart from that, I have seen and photographed the change in the
>structure of the periople at less than eight weeks myself -
How? Do you posess a electron microscope? I think you mean that you have
photographed a change in the appearance of the periople. However, just
because there was a change in the appearance, is not evidence that it was
caused by the use of a supplement. You can only put it forward as a
possibility, after all as you performed no true scientific study it is only
anecdotal.
>When the general advice is to feed a hoof supplement for 6-12 months,
>a manufacturer would be a mite foolish to proclaim a difference will
>be seen in less if it were not so, now wouldn't they?
Ah, but they don't proclaim that it *will* be seen in less, they say the
difference *may* be seen in less.
>No, they can say it because it is true, a large number of their
>professional customers can testify to it (which is why they recommend
>it) and that is why they are the market leader.
Repeat: ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA.
They are the market leader, purely on the basis of MARKETING, and by using
the (flawed) research paper as a tool to back it up. However, it doesn't
matter whether they are the market leader or not, if the product doesn't
work for you. Also remember, sometimes professionals will recommend
something because they are being PAID to do so, and they may not even use it
themselves.
>If I said the sky was blue I have a feeling you would argue.
As it happens the sky is not blue, the sky, per se, is colourless, it only
appears blue because of refracted and scattered light. In any case, at the
moment it is a uniform light grey, due to thin high cloud.
Alan.
Deborah Stevenson
>Tack doesn't just appear out of thin air. At one time, every bit in existence
>has solved somebody's problem.
...whether it be the manufacturer's problem of making money or the rider's
problem with the horse. For most items, people don't *know* if it solves
the problem when they buy it anyway, so even if you brush aside the very
significant secondary placebo effect, there's a difference between number
sold and number found useful.
I think basically you're expecting an unlikely rationality from the
populace, Tom. Equestrian marketing doesn't separate that widely from any
other kind, and created need/false beliefs in efficacy are possible across
the board--look at the myriad weird suggestions that come out of the
woodwork here whenever a problem comes up.
People are just as likely to convince themselves something works when it
doesn't as they are to stop buying it, IMHO.
Deborah Stevenson (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Worrying about unsightly toenail fungus in Champaign, IL, USA
Tom Stovall
re: "Horses are either shod correctly or not, there's no such critter as
'corrective'..." -TS
>Is that the AFA position or your own?...
I don't presume to speak for the AFA, am not a member, and don't know
their position relative to so-called "corrective" shoeing. I'm a member
of the TPFA. To my knowledge, the TPFA does not use the term
"corrective" as it is misapplied to farriery.
>What would you term fitting a shoe fuller than usual in an effort to >achieve symmetry, other than correctly shod?...
If that's what the horse needs, why would anyone call it anything other
than "correctly shod?"
>I'd of course call it corrective shoeing since I'm trying to correct a >poorly shaped hoof...
You're attempting to shoe the horse correctly, there's no "corrective"
to it. Each time one shoes a horse, the horse either gets what it needs
or it doesn't. Since each horse is an individual, presenting a slightly
(sometimes greatly) differing set of variables, one cannot assume that
simply giving a horse what it needs to do whatever it does most
efficiently - even though the horse varies considerably from the norm -
is "corrective" in nature because one is not "correcting" anything, one
is merely giving the horse what it needs, thereby effecting a job of
farriery that can be termed "correct."
>Just a simple everyday example, but you get my point...
Nossir, I don't.
Somebody brings you a horse that's lame and imbalanced, you balance it
and the lameness associated with imbalance disappears. Did you do
anything "corrective" in nature? Nope. You didn't "correct" anything,
you've simply shod a horse correctly that had been shod incorrectly.
re: Whacking a shoe in half in an attempt to balance the hoof. "Did she
get what she needed? If so, the shoeing was correct; if not, the
shoeing was incorrect. What you are terming, "corrective" is somebody's
attempt to shoe a horse correctly..." -TS
> No she got undue stress.
In which case, she didn't get what she needed; ergo, she was shod
incorrectly.
>In this instance I see it as one and the same, in another case I would
>call bad shoeing bad shoeing. The only horses I've shod that didn't
>need some sort of correction (IMO) were horse I've shod for awhile. So
>in that light all shoeing could be called corrective or none should...
In my experience, following somebody who can shoe is pretty much a no-
brainer as far as giving the horse what it needs, while following
somebody who can't is usually a bona fide bitch. It'd be nice to follow
yourself consistently, but that's not the nature of the beast for those
farriers who service vet clinics, polo strings, race tracks and show
barns.
> But for the convention of discussion it makes it a lot easier to
> catagorize certian facets of shoeing as corrective, at least for me.
You can call it "encapsulated phalangeal crisis management" if that's
what blows your apron up - but, it's just shoeing.
re: "On the other hand, anybody that who cut a shoe in half at the toe,
nail it on, and keep it on any length of time is a pretty good
hand..."-TS
> A good hand, no. How long it would have stayed on I don't know since I
> pulled it off about a day and half after he put it on...
In which case, the shoe was on the foot a day and a half.
>corrected the m/l balance and corrected her hoof angles as best I could >with practically no heels after his over enthusiastic rasping...
You attempted to give the mare what she needed; aka, attempted to shoe
her correctly. Your efforts were "corrective" in that you were
attempting to correct the mistakes of your predecessor, but the end
result was either correct or incorrect, not "corrective."
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton.
Tim Shurtleff
wrote:
>In article <19990404151643...@ng42.aol.com>,
>tiv...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>> Finally, here is a law of economics in the horse industry: if a product does
>> not provide expected results within the label's parameters, it will die. No
>> vendor in his right mind would attempt to sell a product that doesn't work.
>
>Ummm. Ineffective products are sold every day to many people ...
>like hoof dressings and oil. They are nice if your horse lives in
snippage
>
>It's *perception* of effectiveness that sells, and it's educating
>the marketplace that is the problem.
This is kinda like going to the store before you go fishing and seeing
all of the myriads of different colored and shaped fishing lures.
I have concluded that all of the different types have been developed to
catch fisherman, and not fish.
Same with the wall of bits at the tack shop. When I first got into
horses, I asked a tack shop owner once why there were so many variations
on a simple snaffle. His answer, "to sell more bits". It was an
accurate, honest answer.
I went home and got one off of my own bit wall, in my tack room and
resolved to learn to use it better.
No magic bullets!
Tim
LordRebeau
feeding plain old rice bran for better of 50 years in addition to a very simple
diet.. for both horses and cattle.
I follow the oldest and for me the simplest of diets.. free choice mineral
licks..
Crimped oats ( fresh crimped not crimped and allowed to sit for weeks on
end-crimped at the mill for me once a week) tons of good, green grass that
grows on the fields and hills.. sprigged bermuda pastures originally.. now
horse pasture..
I feed one supplement.. Equi-Balance.. which is made for those of us that feed
a plain oats diet..made by Dr. Vandergrift.. I use rice bran.. 4 cups per 8
quarts of feed. ( i feed most of the herd in a herd like situation out of a
huge bucket) with 4 cups of equibalance..
I have two horses getting a hoof supoplement.. the current one I am using is
C-Band.. but I have used almost all of them.. one horse is a rescue with gosh
awful hooves.. old race mare that had been amished and then out in a field for
almost 10 years having foals.. and had her hooves done once a year whether they
needed it or not.. she has put on a lot of weight since arriving.. and the
supplement is helping.. or the good nutrition..
Anyway.. when caring for any animal KISS palies.. keep it simple stupid..
I do have a couple on equine senior.. and supllement alfalfa hay to a few.. but
the 12 that run togther in a herd.. lessons horses, mares in foal that doubles
as lesson horses, retired racehorses, youngsters and very much oldsters.. and
all have beautiful coats, great hooves, good minds, in good weight.. and very
healthy..
People forget that they are grazing animals.. that the need to be able to live
as close to natural as possible.. even when in hard work.. I went off on at
angent somewhere and not sure where I was going with this.. gotta run
nicole
Christine Nicole Navarro
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/7373
Breeding Quality QH's and Ponies
Owner of the Sporthorse List
Jackie
>>>If a horse is getting what it needs in its basic ration, them
>>supplementation is
>>>not necessary. If supplementation is necessary, then it is not getting what
>>it
>>>needs.
>>
>>Quite so. By that criteria I call grain a supplement.
>>
>
>This is what I mean by "nutritional religion". It's not rational thought.
Tell that to Dan Kapper, it was he, I believe, who said (paraphrase)
"The horse only needs grain to supply what his forage fails to
supply". This is perfectly rational, and I agree - horses regularly
die for the lack of forage, they do fine without grain.
Jackie
Jackie
I believe you are tilting at windmills.
>Grain is a supplement and oil is not. Very interesting.
Yet this is a statement I never made.
> In my experience, a
>progressively loaded exercise protocol paralleled with a progressively
>increased source of carbohydrate, works just fine.
But what balance, what carbohydrate, this is way too vague. Racehorses
and childrens ponies alike founder and colic from excesses of starch
and sugar, and you cannot deny this.
>In horses, the origin of the fat fad began with studies by Potter and Topliff
>at Texas A&M.
You see the trouble is I care nothing about 'American fat fads' - I am
talking about the latest British research into the optimum balance of
oil, starch and fibre in the diet of high performance horses.
>. He says that carbs are the primary fuel and insists that
>he never talked about a "high fat" diet
Him and me both.
>today he hesitates to supplement fat for more than three weeks--you actually
>lose performance when muscles begin to depend on fat.
Fat or lipids? Is he talking about glycogen vs lipid, or starch vs
oil, or oil vs other carbohydrates? Too vague.
You are trying to put me into a 'High fat diet vs carbohydrates' box,
and I don't fit into it. If you want a box, put me in a 'Lower starch
by several means, both higher digestible fibre and oil" box.
Jackie
Jackie
>Your timing if off by a few hours.
No, you still fail to differentiate your carbyhydrate source.
> However, it is true that carbs in the hind
>gut can be a problem. That's why several feedings a day of grain are better
>than one gigantic feeding at night.
Starch and sugar in the hindgut is a problem, fibre is not - that is
what it is there for. That is why a constant balance is better even
than two or three loadings.
Jackie
Jackie
>I have no problem with the research. What I do have a problem with is the
>extrapolation of factoids thereby derived into a kind of all-inclusive
>fat/fiber-promoting religion.
Ah, again that is because you do not differentiate between digestible
and indigestible fibre - ie you haven't done the research.
>It boils down to this: if your horse is experiencing fatigue during
>competition, or if your horse is losing weight during training, move toward
>carbohydrate intake--intelligently, of course.
But WHAT carbohydrate??How about adding some indigestible
carbohydrates - some nice straw perhaps - is that what you mean? I
think not.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>>Sugar can by quickly digested, starch takes longer. If it is not
>>broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
>>cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
>>laminitis or colic for sure.
>>
>Were getting a little over my head here. Just what determines how long
>it takes to break down the starches?
Sometimes they do micronise or otherwise cook the starch to break it
down, make it easier/quicker to digest, but the time 'allowed' is
largely a function of the rate of passage. I do not recall the details
of any research on composition of feed and it's effect on rate of
passage, but I'm sure there is some somewhere!
>I was under the
>impression that starch was broken down in the stomach and large
>intestion
No, starch should ideally be digested in the small intestine - the
large intestine is kept most efficient that way. It can be digested in
the large intestine, but the balance of microflora can be adversely
affected by this.
>>'Healthy enough' is the point. I am sure that the diet of the average
>>racehorse is not 'healthy enough' to avoid causing considerable stress
>>on the digestive system, and the horse is stressed in just about every
>>other way.
>>
>The average racehorse has a feeding program that is most likely
>over-seen by a competent equine nutritionists.
You'd be surprised! Many racehorse trainers are highly resistant to
'advice' from any source - tradition is hard to overcome.
> Most horses are general
>recreational horses, and don't require much more than a grass/hay
>diet. Grass/hay isn't stressful of course, but the need for limited
>amounts of concentrates is necessary for many horses due to the work
>they perform. What isn't healthy about that?
It depends on the balance of 'concentrate energy', and the source. If
the source is starch/sugar - well ask yourself what isn't healthy
next time you see a colic or founder.
>Also I've noticed there
>are a few feeds on the market for endurance horses and they are loaded
>with startches, carbs fats etc.
Just because they are on the market doesn't mean they are the least
stressful option!
> Of course even a regional 25mi race
>takes a lot out of a horse so they need it. A horse that isn't worked
>much, but is worked still needs grain concentrates.
Not always, in fact I would say usually not. Most recreational horses
needs can be met by higher quality of forage (assuming mineral balance
etc). It's just that most people don't understand how and the feed
industry is damn sure not going to tell them!
I know horses that have been round Badminton from 24hrs at pasture, or
fed on a pellet suitable for a riding school pony, and horses winning
races on ad-lib hay! There is a lot of narrow mindedness in horse
feeding.
Jackie
Jackie
<r55...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>A supplement is something added to the diet, to make up for nutritional
>deficiencies. It does not, IMHO, include things such as grains,
Ah, so you believe all horses MUST be fed grain to avoid deficiencies
then? I see.
>> - ie the energy
>>content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
>>starch in a high performance horse.
>
>Unfortunately, this is not so.
You have either been misinformed, or you have failed to comprehend the
sentence above.
>>>But they did evolve to digest high levels of sugars, available in leafy
>>>grasses.
>>
>>Trickle-fed over 24 hours at a constant level from coarse,
>>unfertilised grasses perhaps. This remains a moot point.
>
>How can the horses *natural* diet remain a moot point?
The fact that horses naturally trickle feed sugars from grass does
not mean it is OK to load them three times a day with refined sugars.
That is the point that is moot.
>Really? so why were they questioned in the letters section of the publishing
>journal? I'm sorry, but having read the aritcles, and other articles on
>biotin supplementation,
Biotin supplementation? What does that have to do with it - are you
looking at the wrong studies?
>>Quite apart from that, I have seen and photographed the change in the
>>structure of the periople at less than eight weeks myself -
>
>How? Do you posess a electron microscope?
The structure is clearly visible to the naked eye.
>Ah, but they don't proclaim that it *will* be seen in less, they say the
>difference *may* be seen in less.
Which is precisely what I said. You're tilting at a windmill too.
>They are the market leader, purely on the basis of MARKETING,
I assure you the quickest way to kill a bad product is with good
marketing. Think about it.
It is market leader because it is the best product.
>Also remember, sometimes professionals will recommend
>something because they are being PAID to do so,
Professionals are not paid to recommend Farriers' Formula, not in the
UK anyway.
>>If I said the sky was blue I have a feeling you would argue.
>
>As it happens the sky is not blue, the sky, per se, is colourless, it only
>appears blue because of refracted and scattered light.
QED.
Jackie
>
Jackie
The structure was clearly visible to the naked eye.
>Ah, but they don't proclaim that it *will* be seen in less, they say the
>difference *may* be seen in less.
Which is precisely what I said. You're tilting at a windmill too.
>They are the market leader, purely on the basis of MARKETING,
I assure you the quickest way to kill a poor product is with good
Tivers
>
>Tell that to Dan Kapper, it was he, I believe, who said (paraphrase)
>"The horse only needs grain to supply what his forage fails to
>supply". This is perfectly rational, and I agree - horses regularly
>die for the lack of forage, they do fine without grain.
>
>Jackie
>
>
>
His name is Don Kapper. I know him personally. He sells grain products (Buckeye
Feeds) and is one of the originators of "persploded" grains ( a process making
them more bioavailable). Unless he's suddenly gone into the hay business, I'd
say he has an affinity for grain.
Tivers
>oil, or oil vs other carbohydrates? Too vague.
>
>You are trying to put me into a 'High fat diet vs carbohydrates' box,
>and I don't fit into it. If you want a box, put me in a 'Lower starch
>by several means, both higher digestible fibre and oil" box.
>
>Jackie
>
As in your religious arguments, Jackie, you are all weasel and no substance. By
the way, British research on this subject is woefully inadequate, and if you're
basing all your thoughts on it, that is the core of your error. Read more
widely.
Tivers
>Sugar can by quickly digested, starch takes longer. If it is not
>broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
>cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
>laminitis or colic for sure.
Let's assume that you include the Cecum in your definition of "hind
gut"--however, knowing your disrespect for the meaning or words, I wouldn't put
it past you to consider everything past the esophagus to be hind gut if it
suited your purpose.
The stomach of the horse holds 2-4 gallons and provides some protein and feed
disgestion. 75% of liquid ingesta is passed from the stomach in 30 minutes.
Only 25% of dry matter is passed from the stomach in 30 minutes, however, 98%
has passed through within 12 hours. Essentially, little digestion occurs in the
stomach.
Most carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine, an organ 50 to
75 feet in length and 3-4 inches in diameter. 50 to 75% of carbohydrates are
digested here. The transit through the small intestine is relatively rapid--2
to 8 hours. Then the cecum takes over--5 hours. Then on to the colon for a 36
to 48 hour passage.
Clearly, with all your British "research" in hand, you are quite unfamiliar
with the very basics of equine digestion. Thus one can only assume that your
exotic extrapolations from this crippled knowledgebase are pure fantasy. This
is not unexpected, since your previous pontifications have also demonstrated a
proud disregard for fact.
Your strength, Jackie, lies in disinformation and symantic squirming. You would
do better to simply spend some time learning the basics before moving on to the
three-syllable words.
Tom Stovall
re: "I have seen and photographed the change in the structure of the
periople at less than eight weeks myself..." -anon
>AC> How? Do you posess a electron microscope?
>The structure is clearly visible to the naked eye.
The peroplic ring is located immediately proximal to the coronary band
and immediately distal to the hairline. The horn producing cell layer of
the perioplic ring (stratum germinativum [sp?]) from which the periople
emanates, is microscopic. In light horses, the periople forms the
superficial surface of the coronary band, normally about 1/2" to 1"
distal to the peroplic ring, except at the posterior portion of the
hoof, where it blends with the frog. Its size is relatively constant in
the absence of pathology.
The periople has about the same consistency as the insensitive frog and
its primary function is to protect the sensitive coronary band at the
junction of skin and hoof.
As the hoof grows, the thin layer of cells which form the most medial
layers of the periople separate from the periople and form the stratum
externum (aka, stratum tectorium, "hoof varnish"). On separation from
the periople, the stratum externum becomes the most superficial portion
of the hoof wall until it is removed by the horse's environment or a
farrier's rasp.
The reason behind this long-winded anatomy lesson is that I'm having a
bit of difficult in understanding exactly what you claim you saw and
photographed. You did NOT see a change in either the perioplic ring or
the periople because, in the absence of pathology, the size of those
structures is relatively constant.
If you have mistaken the structure immediately distal to the periople as
the periople - a common error with lay folk - then please be aware that
it would be perfectly normal to have noted a difference in the stratum
externum of a living horse at eight weeks. Normal hoof wall growth in
light horses at eight weeks is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/4" to
3/4".
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
Who was that masked androgynous person?
Jackie
>Jackie, this is your original statement:
>
>>Sugar can by quickly digested, starch takes longer. If it is not
>>broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
>>cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
>>laminitis or colic for sure.
>Most carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine, an organ 50 to
>75 feet in length and 3-4 inches in diameter. 50 to 75% of carbohydrates are
>digested here.
Which carbohydrates, you fail to differentiate again.
>The transit through the small intestine is relatively rapid--2
>to 8 hours.
I disagree. Undigested starch has been seen to appear in the caecum
within 45 minutes after a meal, and much of the digesta travels at a
speed of 30cm per minute. At 70 odd feet, that can take it out of the
small intestine in just over an hour.
>Clearly, with all your British "research" in hand, you are quite unfamiliar
>with the very basics of equine digestion.
Strange then that so many of our best performance and racehorses can
benefit so well from such knowledge, and that American feed companies
import the formulations based on it at such great price.
You are merely insulting to cover your own lack of clarity, which does
not surprise me. Or is it that you make your living selling hi-starch
feeds for horses?
Jackie
Jackie
>As in your religious arguments, Jackie, you are all weasel and no substance.
Ah, there is a rational argument.
By
>the way, British research on this subject is woefully inadequate,
I would say it simply weakens your justification for the high starch
diets that kill large numbers of horses annually.
Very annoying I am sure, particularly if you make a living peddling
them.
Jackie
Jackie
>>>This is what I mean by "nutritional religion". It's not rational thought.
>>
>>Tell that to Dan Kapper, it was he, I believe, who said (paraphrase)
>>"The horse only needs grain to supply what his forage fails to
>>supply". This is perfectly rational, and I agree - horses regularly
>>die for the lack of forage, they do fine without grain.
>His name is Don Kapper. I know him personally. He sells grain products (Buckeye
>Feeds) and is one of the originators of "persploded" grains ( a process making
>them more bioavailable). Unless he's suddenly gone into the hay business, I'd
>say he has an affinity for grain.
Exactly, so is he guilty of nutritional religion and irrational
thought too? I'd say not, and yet he still has the balls to admit
grain is not the food of first choice for horse health.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>anonymous, posting as "Jackie" wrote:
>
>re: "I have seen and photographed the change in the structure of the
>periople at less than eight weeks myself..." -anon
>The reason behind this long-winded anatomy lesson is that I'm having a
>bit of difficult in understanding exactly what you claim you saw and
>photographed. You did NOT see a change in either the perioplic ring or
>the periople because, in the absence of pathology, the size of those
>structures is relatively constant.
I was not commenting on the size, but the visible structure. And I am
afraid your impressive anatomy lesson is wasted on me, for it may be a
question of semantics. All I can say is one of the country's leading
veterinary hoof/lower limb/lameness/laminitis specialists identified
the area concerned as the periople, and that is good enough for me.
Jackie
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
>On 5 Apr 1999 17:52:32 GMT, tiv...@aol.com (Tivers) wrote:
>>Most carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine, an organ 50 to
>>75 feet in length and 3-4 inches in diameter. 50 to 75% of carbohydrates are
>>digested here.
>Which carbohydrates, you fail to differentiate again.
Both simple and complex carbohydrates. The ones not broken down (about
25%) change into volatile fatty acids by fermenting bacteria in the
hindgut.
down the spotted trails. . .
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Tom Stovall
re: "I have seen and photographed the change in the structure of the
periople at less than eight weeks myself..." -anon
>TS> The reason behind this long-winded anatomy lesson is that I'm
>TS> having a bit of difficulty in understanding exactly what you claim >TS> you saw and photographed. You did NOT see a change in either the >TS> perioplic ring or the periople because, in the absence of
>TS> pathology, the size of those structures is relatively constant.
>
>I was not commenting on the size, but the visible structure...
Given the certainty of constant size in the absence of pathology, are
you claiming the periople was a different color? Thickness? Consistency?
What?
>And I am afraid your impressive anatomy lesson is wasted on me, for it >may be a question of semantics...
While any technical description is wasted on the willfully ignorant,
this is most assuredly NOT a question of semantics. The location and
function of the perioplic ring, periople and stratum externum are
EXACTLY as I described, a statement which can be immediately verified on
perusal of any modern veterinary or farriery text.
>All I can say is one of the country's leading veterinary hoof/lower
>limb/lameness/laminitis specialists identified the area concerned as
>the periople, and that is good enough for me...
"Good enough" is not a player in the reality of equine anatomy. You are
in demonstrable error and several possibilities exist for your making
such an obvious anatomical mistake. One, is that your "expert" is
woefully ignorant of basic equine anatomy and misidentified the
periople. Another is that he was correct in his identification, but your
comprehension was lacking. Still another is that you were simply lying
through your teeth about photographing "changes" in the periople.
Given your history, I favor the latter two, with the most probable being
the last.
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
En boca cerrada no entran moscas.
Tom Stovall
re: "I don't presume to speak for the AFA, am not a member, and don't
know their position relative to so-called "corrective" shoeing. I'm a
member of the TPFA. To my knowledge, the TPFA does not use the term
"corrective" as it is misapplied to farriery..." -TS
>I saw the CJF and assumed it was AFA, thought that they where the only
>ones who used CJF...
It's an AFA designation and, as far as I know, the AFA is the only one
using CJF. You never have had to belong to the American Farriers
Association to take the Journeyman test. I passed it in '83, the first
time it was offered in Texas, and was a tester for a couple of years
after that, but as a member of the Texas Professional Farriers
Association, not the AFA.
I have quite a few friends in the AFA and go to the convention
occasionally, but I disagree with what I perceive to be the AFA's
emphasis on contesting and a failure to push their testing program. I
think the AFA's testing program is the best there is: anyone entitled to
put CF or CJF after his name took and passed the test. Nobody ever
bought their certificate, nobody was ever grandfathered in, everybody
had to take the tests and never a hint of scandal.
But, so what?
Because of the AFA's failure to aggressively publicize their testing
program, as far as most owners are concerned, the term CJF might as well
be an acronym for an obscure dialect of Swahili.
To be quite honest, if I still made the bulk of my living shoeing
horses, I'd apply for membership in the Farriers Guild because it's an
organization of professional farriers, not an organization dedicated to
farriery.
Tom Stovall CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://web.wt.net/~stovall
"I'm a farrier." "Honest?" "No, the usual kind."
Madeline Rockwell
Tivers <tiv...@aol.com> wrote in message > Hey, Tom. I just read an article
about Robert Bowker and Gene Ovnicek and their
> studies of the frong
Would that be the opposite of the "fright?"
madeline
Jorene Downs
Tivers <tiv...@aol.com> wrote ...
[missing attrib inserted] Diana wrote:
> >It's *perception* of effectiveness that sells, and it's educating
> >the marketplace that is the problem.
>
> It's sure been a long time since I've seen any ad proclaiming a given bit
to do
> a given thing. As far as educating the marketplace is concerned, horsedom
has
> been a realm of the blind leading the blind for centuries.
>
> So, the one-eyed man is King.
Try another example for "*perception* of effectiveness that sells" ... like
magnetic therapy ...
- - - - -
Jorene
just moseyin' down the trail
from the CEOates Ranch in California ... ;)
www.CEOates.com
meet other Rec.eq'ers on the Rogue's Gallery:
www.psnw.com/~jcdowns/RecEq/RecEq.html
Tivers
>diets that kill large numbers of horses annually.
>
>Very annoying I am sure, particularly if you make a living peddling
>them.
>
>Jackie
>
>
I make a living as an exercise physiologist and don't peddle starch diets. My
principal stock in trade is information, not the kind of misinformation
crusaders like yourself find so handy. That's the problem with True
Believing--you have to lie so often to support your erroneous beliefs. It's a
lot more fun to actually know what you're talking about.
Tivers
I wonder if you could "paraphrase" Don again to support your contention that
carbohydrate not digested within 45 minutes is a danger to the horse. Don's a
pretty serious guy, but I'll bet he'd laugh so hard at that one it would bring
tears to his eyes.
Rather than paraphrasing him, why don't you simply quote his actual words?
Something tells me you've misquoted him--but that's just a hunch based on
personality traits you've exhibited here in the past.
Tivers
>afraid your impressive anatomy lesson is wasted on me, for it may be a
>veterinary hoof/lower limb/lameness/laminitis specialists identified
>the area concerned as the periople, and that is good enough for me.
>
>
>
Ah, yes, your favorite retreat--semantics. And the "straw man" expert not here
to defend himself against your extrapolations of what he actually said.
Hey, Tom. I just read an article about Robert Bowker and Gene Ovnicek and their
studies of the frong. Are you familiar with that work. Essentially they're
saying "leave the frog alone, especially those "flaps" that grow out over the
clefts to keep dirt packed there.
Tivers
>>
>>>Sugar can by quickly digested, starch takes longer. If it is not
>>>broken down within about 45 minutes it will flow into the hindgut and
>>>cause 'stress' on the microbial population there, which can lead to
>>>laminitis or colic for sure.
>
>to
>>75 feet in length and 3-4 inches in diameter. 50 to 75% of carbohydrates are
>>digested here.
>
Well, why don't you differentiate for me? What I mean by carbohydrate is: "an
aldehyde or ketone derivative of a polyhydric alcohol, particularly of the
pentahydric and hexahydric alcohols, so named because the hydrogen and oxygen
are usually in the proportion to form water (CH20)n." Starches, sugars,
celluloses and gums. Mono-di-tri-poluy- and heterosaccharides.
Which of these will kill a horse if not digested within 45 minutes?
>
>>The transit through the small intestine is relatively rapid--2
>>to 8 hours.
>
>I disagree. Undigested starch has been seen to appear in the caecum
>within 45 minutes after a meal, and much of the digesta travels at a
>speed of 30cm per minute. At 70 odd feet, that can take it out of the
>small intestine in just over an hour.
Then you disagree with the literature--I applaud your courage. Would you please
off up the cite for that 45 minute miracle? Or did you see it yourself and take
some pictures?
>>Clearly, with all your British "research" in hand, you are quite unfamiliar
>>with the very basics of equine digestion.
>
>Strange then that so many of our best performance and racehorses can
>benefit so well from such knowledge, and that American feed companies
>import the formulations based on it at such great price.>
Hmm, name one feed formulation that has been bought at great price by an
American feed company from a British source. Purchasing company, source identy,
and price will suffice--I can check from there.
>You are merely insulting to cover your own lack of clarity, which does
>not surprise me. Or is it that you make your living selling hi-starch
>feeds for horses?
>
>Jackie
I guess clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I deal in information, not
grain. As a purveyor of information, clarity is my most salient product. It
appears to me that you deal in misinformation and use "symantics" as your dodge
when anyone questions your facts. You are a perfect portrait of
obfuscation--I'm surprised you don't work for a government agency. Or do you?
Jorene Downs
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote ...
> I have quite a few friends in the AFA and go to the convention
> occasionally, but I disagree with what I perceive to be the AFA's
> emphasis on contesting and a failure to push their testing program.
When our farrier was here the other day, he mentioned in passing how he'd be
interested in going for his CJF, but the AFA has an almost non-existent
presence in CA. Dunno how accurate that is, but he is far more impressed
with .. hmmm ... think Mike called it the West Coast Farrier's Assoc. ...
for providing ongoing education, etc.
Francis Burton
Tivers <tiv...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hey, Tom. I just read an article about Robert Bowker and Gene Ovnicek and their
>studies of the frong. Are you familiar with that work. Essentially they're
>saying "leave the frog alone, especially those "flaps" that grow out over the
>clefts to keep dirt packed there.
Sounds interesting - could you give us a citation for this
work? (I can find some articles by RM Bowker, but none by
Ovnicek.)
What about horses which have a chronic thrush problem,
for whatever reason? In that case there might be an
argument to remove any "extra" hoof structure that
favours retention of moisture/ordure. What do you think?
Francis
Tivers
>for whatever reason? In that case there might be an
>argument to remove any "extra" hoof structure that
>favours retention of moisture/ordure. What do you think?
>
>Franci
I've only seen one article in Thoroughbred Times, March 27, so I've not read
any of Bowker's actual publications. And this stuff may not be published yet.
The solution to the thrush problem might be a medicated packing rather than any
ol' dirt the horse wants to pick up in the stall.
Alan Chapman
JJ...@dial.pipex.com (Jackie) wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:41:26 +0100, "Alan Chapman"
><r55...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>
>>A supplement is something added to the diet, to make up for nutritional
>>deficiencies. It does not, IMHO, include things such as grains,
>
>Ah, so you believe all horses MUST be fed grain to avoid deficiencies
>then? I see.
And where have I said that? Nowhere. You assume too much as usual.
>>> - ie the energy
>>>content of oil is sometimes required to reduce the dependance on
>>>starch in a high performance horse.
>>
>>Unfortunately, this is not so.
>You have either been misinformed, or you have failed to comprehend the
>sentence above.
I suggest you read for content. In the high performance horse, oil in
the diet is not beneficial, where speed work is a essential part of the
disipline - it *reduces* performance, not boosts it. The metabolic
pathways to convert oils to energy, are longer and slower than those
that convert carbohydrates and proteins to energy.
>>Really? so why were they questioned in the letters section of the publishing
>>journal? I'm sorry, but having read the aritcles, and other articles on
>>biotin supplementation,
>
>Biotin supplementation? What does that have to do with it - are you
>looking at the wrong studies?
Ever realised what a major part of FF is? Biotin.
Biotin, is manufactured by microbial action in the intestines of the
horse, which is why there are no established levels of supplementation.
*But* Even ignoring the articles on biotin supplementation, the work was
still flawed.
>>>Quite apart from that, I have seen and photographed the change in the
>>>structure of the periople at less than eight weeks myself -
>>
>>How? Do you posess a electron microscope?
>
>The structure is clearly visible to the naked eye.
Nope, the surface appearence is, not the structure.
>>Ah, but they don't proclaim that it *will* be seen in less, they say the
>>difference *may* be seen in less.
>
>Which is precisely what I said. You're tilting at a windmill too.
I suggest you write what you mean then instead of wtriting one thing
then claiming (at a later date) you wrote something else.
You actually wrote:
>When the general advice is to feed a hoof supplement for 6-12 months,
>a manufacturer would be a mite foolish to proclaim a difference will
>be seen in less ...
>
>No, they can say it because it is true,
>Professionals are not paid to recommend Farriers' Formula, not in the
>UK anyway.
Your evidence for this is?
+=========================================+
| Alan Chapman, al...@welsh-cob.cix.co.uk |
| bli...@my-dejanews.com |
| r55...@email.sps.mot.com |
| URL: http://www.cix.co.uk/~welsh-cob/ |
+=========================================+
Jackie
>I make a living as an exercise physiologist and don't peddle starch diets.
Ah, so what precisely is the stuff you peddle then?
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>>>I was under the
>>>impression that starch was broken down in the stomach and large
>>>intestion
>>
>>No, starch should ideally be digested in the small intestine - the
>>large intestine is kept most efficient that way. It can be digested in
>>the large intestine, but the balance of microflora can be adversely
>>affected by this.
>>
>I mis-spoke (typed?) Re answer the question if you would replacing Lrg
>intestine with small.
Sorry, I don't follow - the answer is the same - did I misunderstand
the question?
>Concentrate as I used it originally to mean a balanced feed. Of course
>there is to much of a good thing too as in both cases you bring up,
>but moderate amounts for horses that are worked is a good idea.
Well, it depends on the feed in my book - there are many hard feeds I
would rather replace with higher quality forage, or feeds based more
on digestible fibre.
>Ever seen what an endurance horse goes through? I have a few friends,
>including the farrier I apprenticed under, who endurance riding. I've
>seen what these 25, 50 and 100 mi horses go through and tell you if it
>was a stressful diet they couldn't complete. The key to it is that
>they use all those extras in the feed where a pasture horse would be
>sure to get fat, possibly founder and/or colic.
For sure. Some endurance horse owners make very good use of feed
balance - using digestible fibre and oil for 'slow-burn' energy, they
have to. But there are many performance horses live on a 'knife edge',
with the fibre portion of their diet so low as to be dangerous - and
they don't have to get fat to get sick, as any foundering racehorse
will show you.
>Well I have costal bermuda pasture, which is what grows well around
>here, surviving the summer heat and dry spells and growing late into
>the fall, and with out some amount of concentrates she wouldn't
>maintain her weight. Pasture and hay only horses around here don't
>look so hot.
I am not familiar with bermuda, and yes, it may well require
'supplementation' with a higher quality forage than most of us use - I
do not dispute that.
>Each horse has it's own metabolism and requirements, but IMO as a
>general rule unless you have a top notch grass pasture or feed top
>notch grass hay free choice they are going to need some grain.
Well, that is an assumption - they will need something, more energy,
more protein maybe. Grain is the traditional source, sure, but it may
not be the best, and there are an increasing number of alternatives.
Jackie
Jackie
>>>Most carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine, an organ 50
>>to
>>>75 feet in length and 3-4 inches in diameter. 50 to 75% of carbohydrates are
>>>digested here.
>>
>>Which carbohydrates, you fail to differentiate again..>
>
>Well, why don't you differentiate for me?
Because I want to know if YOU recognise the problem - you seem to deny
it. Are you trying to say that 50-75% of digestible fibre is digested
in the small intestine for instance? That is plain nonsense.
>Then you disagree with the literature--
Not at all, mine all agree, as do all the leading equine nutritionists
who I have worked with recently. Check out D Frape "Equine Feeding and
Nutrition" for a standard reference work.
>>Strange then that so many of our best performance and racehorses can
>>benefit so well from such knowledge, and that American feed companies
>>import the formulations based on it at such great price.>
>
>Hmm, name one feed formulation that has been bought at great price by an
>American feed company from a British source.
Try the Spillers English range from Seminole Feeds, Ocala, Florida.
>I guess clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I deal in information, not
>grain. As a purveyor of information, clarity is my most salient product.
Oh dear.
Jackie
Jackie
>I wonder if you could "paraphrase" Don again to support your contention that
>carbohydrate not digested within 45 minutes is a danger to the horse.
My God are you disputing THAT??!! Or playing a semantics game -
undigested fibre is no problem, undigested starch flowing into the
hindgut is. Have you not heard of a disease called laminitis???
>Rather than paraphrasing him, why don't you simply quote his actual words?
Didn't have them to hand - he did say it more than ten years ago. But
just to please you I'll go find them....
Ooh, here we are, I said in paraphrase:
"The horse only needs grain to supply what his forage fails to
supply".
Don actually said: "Forage is vital...and the grain portion of the
diet has one function - to provide the animal with the nutrients that
are lacking in the forage."
>Something tells me you've misquoted him--
Oh I think I was accurate enough.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>re: "I have seen and photographed the change in the structure of the
>periople at less than eight weeks myself..." -anon
>>I was not commenting on the size, but the visible structure...
>
>Given the certainty of constant size in the absence of pathology, are
>you claiming the periople was a different color? Thickness? Consistency?
>What?
That a more organised structure became clearly visible - I would guess
because of 'well defined tubules' as shown in the scanning electron
micrographs of the Edinburgh study. The 'skin' growing over the hoof
immediately below the coronary band took on a uniform stripey
appearance, like a very fine barcode.
>>And I am afraid your impressive anatomy lesson is wasted on me, for it >may be a question of semantics...
> The location and
>function of the perioplic ring, periople and stratum externum are
>EXACTLY as I described,
They may well be Tom dear, but they may also be differently described
by others. For instance in 'Laminitis and it's Prevention' by Robert A
Eustace BVSc, Cert.E.O., Cert. E.P., MRCVS, figure seven shows a
section through a normal foot to show the coronary papillae in
longitudinal section. I quote "The softer perioplic horn is produced
above the horn from the coronary corium and covers the latter for
about the top inch of the wall".
It is the change in this tissue (whatever you care to call it) that
can be seen, and indeed photographed, at eight weeks. It was not clear
to me from you diatribe which term you apply to which portion - you
appeared not to identify this tissue, and without common visual
reference one cannot be certain what you meant.
Hopefully you now know what I meant.
Jackie
Jackie
Chapman) wrote:
>>>A supplement is something added to the diet, to make up for nutritional
>>>deficiencies. It does not, IMHO, include things such as grains,
>>
>>Ah, so you believe all horses MUST be fed grain to avoid deficiencies
>>then? I see.
>
>And where have I said that? Nowhere.
Indeed not, but you have no category left. If grain is not
supplementary, and is not essential, then what is it?
>I suggest you read for content. In the high performance horse, oil in
>the diet is not beneficial,
Incorrect. EXCESS oil is not beneficial.
For instance, Naked Oats contain 9.7% oil, double that of some normal
oats, which takes their DE to 16MJ/kg. One leading trainer who
switched to them had a hundred race winners in that first season - try
telling him the additional oil was not beneficial!
>Ever realised what a major part of FF is? Biotin.
BULLSHIT! It is 0.003 per cent Biotin!!! Fer crying out loud get one
single fact straight before shooting your mouth off.
Farriers Formula contains 13 minerals, 8 fatty acids and
phospholipids, 10 vitamins and 19 amino acids. It was formulated
precisely because Biotin alone is not enough.
>*But* Even ignoring the articles on biotin supplementation, the work was
>still flawed.
Yea, yea, like anyone believes you know spit about it when you haven't
even read the analysis!!! You're wasting my time again.
Jackie
Alan Chapman
Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 10:04:19 GMT, r55...@email.sps.mot.com (Alan
>Chapman) wrote:
>
>>>>A supplement is something added to the diet, to make up for nutritional
>>>>deficiencies. It does not, IMHO, include things such as grains,
>>>
>>>Ah, so you believe all horses MUST be fed grain to avoid deficiencies
>>>then? I see.
>>
>>And where have I said that? Nowhere.
>
>Indeed not, but you have no category left. If grain is not
>supplementary, and is not essential, then what is it?
It *can* be essential, depending on the work load and the nutritional status
of the forage available. It is a concentrate feed, used *if* required. For
some horses it makes up a significant part of the daily ration, a
supplement, OTOH, generally make up onoly a tiny part of the ration. In any
case what is important, is that dobbin gets what dobbin needs, remebering
that he requires a minimum of 1%bwt in roughage per day. *IF* all his needs
can be met purely from hay or grazing, then so much the better, but if not
then *I* will use grain (usually barley, basically because that is what Tom
grows).
>For instance, Naked Oats contain 9.7% oil, double that of some normal
>oats, which takes their DE to 16MJ/kg. One leading trainer who
>switched to them had a hundred race winners in that first season - try
>telling him the additional oil was not beneficial!
Repeat: ANNECDOTES ARE NOT DATA
It is equally possible that there were also other influences, different
horses on the yard, differing ground conditions, lower quality of competing
horses, etc, etc, etc.
>>Ever realised what a major part of FF is? Biotin.
>
>BULLSHIT! It is 0.003 per cent Biotin!!! Fer crying out loud get one
>single fact straight before shooting your mouth off.
`scuse me, I was using the damn stuff long before it was widely available in
the UK. True incomparison to what else is in there that is quite a low
level, but it is a major part of the *ACTIVE* ingredients, the bulk is just
a filler. You also need to consider estimated the daily levels that are
required in a balanced diet, and formed by microbial action in
the gut, IE, the horses minimum required daily intake. When compared to that
the level of biotin in the supplement *is* a major part of it. The 3 major
components, required in a supplement for hoof horn formation are biotin,
zinc and methionine. Anything else is a bonus, and *not* yet shown to have a
significant effect in the vast majority of cases where there is an
improvement in horn quality after supplementation. And to be precise the
major component of FF is alfalfa meal.
Adding up the "analysis" in 170g (6oz) the `active' ingredients make up
11.006g (6.47%) of the total recommended dose. The rest, for want of a
better term, filler.
>>*But* Even ignoring the articles on biotin supplementation, the work was
>>still flawed.
>
>Yea, yea, like anyone believes you know spit about it when you haven't
>even read the analysis!!! You're wasting my time again.
The analysis has little to do with quality, or lack thereof, of the
*original* research work by Dr Sue Kempson. The `paper' on the Life Data
web page is not the original published paper, but a modified one, and is
still poor.
It's wonderful bits like this:
"The owners were asked to feed their usual diet but to eliminate any bran or
any other food supplement"
This is poor, the *only* way to have show that it was FF that was the cause
of the improvement, would have been to keep the diet *unchanged*, apart from
the addition of FF, during the experimental period. Also during the
experimental period, the horses managment changed, they wre moved out on to
grass, from stabling. This again alters the nutritional intake. Indeed on
reasonable grazing the nutritional intake from the pasture, of the nutrients
in FF is far higher than that provided by the supplement, apart from copper.
And by the way I'd read the analysis of FF long before you'd even dragged
yourself on to usenet.
Alan.
--
Tom Stovall
re: "I have seen and photographed the change in the structure of the
periople at less than eight weeks myself..." -anon
>TS> Given the certainty of constant size in the absence of pathology, >TS> are you claiming the periople was a different color? Thickness? >TS> Consistency? What?
> That a more organised structure became clearly visible - I would guess
> because of 'well defined tubules' as shown in the scanning electron
> micrographs of the Edinburgh study. The 'skin' growing over the hoof
> immediately below the coronary band took on a uniform stripey
> appearance, like a very fine barcode...
The "skin growing over the hoof immediately below the coronary band" is
the stratum externum, NOT the periople. Since the stratum externum
consists of a thin layer of tubules of epithelial cells, it's not too
surprising that they'd appear as "well defined tubules" under
magnification.
In light horses, the periople appears as a convex structure which covers
the coronary band and that area roughly 3/4" to 1" distal to the
hairline, except at the frog.
>TS> The location and function of the perioplic ring, periople and
>TS> stratum externum are EXACTLY as I described,
>They may well be Tom dear...
Kindly place your condescending "dear" immediately proximal to your anal
sphincter, clamp down mightily, and make an effort to maintain it in its
rightful place.
> but they may also be differently described by others. For instance in >'Laminitis and it's Prevention' by Robert A Eustace BVSc, Cert.E.O.,
> Cert. E.P., MRCVS, figure seven shows a section through a normal foot > to show the coronary papillae in longitudinal section. I quote "The
> softer perioplic horn is produced above the horn from the coronary
> corium and covers the latter for about the top inch of the wall".
The coronary corium (the "latter") does NOT extend distally past the
coronary groove of the hoof capsule. The perioplic corium is a
continuation of the skin that lies in the perioplic groove, immediately
proximal to the coronary groove. As you learned in you last anatomy
lesson, the periople is the horny superficial covering of these
structures and is relatively constant in size, shape and texture unless
affected by pathology.
>It is the change in this tissue (whatever you care to call it) that
>can be seen, and indeed photographed, at eight weeks...
If so, what exactly would you think a "change" that is most often
indicative of pathology would indicate?
>It was not clear to me from you diatribe which term you apply to which >portion - you appeared not to identify this tissue, and without common >visual reference one cannot be certain what you meant...
If you lack certainty, it would make you appear less foolish if you
learned a bit about the anatomy of the equine foot before placing your
ignorance on public display.
> Hopefully you now know what I meant.
If you photographed the periople, you've documented a change in a
structure in which change is most often indicative of pathology.
If you photographed changes in the stratum externum (aka, "hoof
growth") you've somehow managed to document a phenomenon known to
Kikkulis the Mittanite, a fellow who walked the earth long before
Xenophon.
Either way, your photos appear are meaningless - unless you wish to
claim you've documented some pathology arising from the feeding of
certain supplements.
Tom Stovall
>Hey, Tom. I just read an article about Robert Bowker and Gene Ovnicek >and their studies of the frong. Are you familiar with that work.
Nossir.
>Essentially they're saying "leave the frog alone, especially those >"flaps" that grow out over the clefts to keep dirt packed there.
I live and practice on the Texas Gulf, an area of mild winters, lots of
rain, and constant high humidity. The "flaps" overlying the lateral
sulcii are the first, and usually only, things I trim when trimming the
frog. If you leave them alone, they hold dirt, fecal material, and
moisture against the frog and make a nice nifty place for the anaerobic
pathogens associated with thrush to grow and proliferate. Down here,
it's not all that uncommon to find maggots in the frogs of neglected
horses, so I tend to do what I can to keep the horse's foot more-or-less
self-cleaning.
I'd be very interested in reading their observation if you'll tell me
where to find it.
Thanks,
Jackie
wrote:
>>>Ever realised what a major part of FF is? Biotin.
>>
>>BULLSHIT! It is 0.003 per cent Biotin!!! Fer crying out loud get one
>>single fact straight before shooting your mouth off.
>True incomparison to what else is in there that is quite a low
>level, but it is a major part of the *ACTIVE* ingredients, the bulk is just
>a filler.
LOL! Bull again!! There is, for instance over a thousand times more
methionine, over three hundred times more glycine........0.003% is
never going to be a 'major part' of anything. Then you forgot the
yeast culture, the lecithin, the gelatin... the 19 amino acids are a
CRUCIALLY active ingredient - the hoof wall, as with all connective
tissue is built on a matrix of collagen protein! You are spouting hot
air again!!
>Adding up the "analysis" in 170g (6oz) the `active' ingredients make up
>11.006g (6.47%) of the total recommended dose.
Sigh. Has anyone ever explained to you the difference between a
statutory declaration of guaranteed analysis and a full analysis of a
product?? No, I didn't think so.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>The "skin growing over the hoof immediately below the coronary band" is
>the stratum externum, NOT the periople.
Apparently not to some people who differentiate between the top inch
of soft tissue covering and the hardened portion of the wall below.
.
>If you lack certainty, it would make you appear less foolish if you
>learned a bit about the anatomy of the equine foot before placing your
>ignorance on public display.
Oh I lack no certainty - I'll take the leading veterinary specialist's
view over yours anyday and he identified the area showing beneficial
change structure as perioplic. You are free to disagree from now til
doomsday, I doubt he'd care either.
Jackie
Mary Rossano
>
> Tom Ivers wrote:
>
> Nossir.
Well, have a look at Bowker's web page. The specific work you want to
learn more about may still be in press, though.
http://www.cvm.msu.edu/RESEARCH/efl/index.htm
The buzz around here at MSU has been that the anatomy textbooks will
have to be rewritten in light of some of his findings...
Mary Rossano