Cytek Facts
Wayne Aussie
I stumbled onto this board and have been hysterically laughing at much
of the misinformed and uneducated comments in regard to Cytek. Petra,
you are a dear, lol, you have no idea what you are talking about but
you have made me laugh with many of your comments, thank you.
Can I put some things into perspective for many of the people on this
board who I am sure are wondering what this is all about and who and
what is telling the truth.
Firstly I am in Australia, we have over here found the Cytek shoeing
system to be fantastic with all horses. The improved performance,
soundness, symmetry and hoof quality that we are getting is said by
many farriers to have been totally unachieveable with traditional
methods of shoeing. The fact that we are able to improve heel
contraction, collapsing, concaved dorsal walls with out rasping them
thin, stop horses tripping, stumbling and brushing, stop over reaching
or forging, improved muscle definition, softness and movement, the
list goes on and on.
In Australia we have had winners in all disciplines, top level
eventing, dressage, endurance , show jumping etc. We had the National
Heavyweight distance horse of the year , Cytek shod horse for the past
18 months with over 1300klms over a very hard and dry country as well
as 2 state championships over 160 klm, Prix St George state champion
the list of winners goes on and on!
I feel though you cannot necessarily judge a shoeing system by winners
alone. I have shod many horses using the Cytek shoeing system that
were deemed lame and unridable, a couple of weeks or less using Cytek
and they are back, not only being ridden but in competition. The vets
in and around Melbourne are now starting to recommend Cytek shoes to
many horses as are the massage therapists, instructors etc.
Cytek is not a miracle, it is a well researched and developed 'shoeing
system' that gives the horse what he requires in regard to correct
balance and loading of the hoof. We have certainly found out in the
past 2 years in Australia just how much better the horse can be when
he is given what he requires, something you cannot do with traditional
methods of farriery.
As far as training is concerned, I can tell you that in the UK and
Europe, only traditional farriers can use the Cytek shoeing system,
once they have gone through Cytek training. Because Cytek is so
completely different to the traditional methods we use now this is a
must. The reason we do not understand why someone who wants to be a
Cytek only farrier, is required to do a 4 year apprenticeship as a
blacksmithing farrier, is that we feel the requirement of shaping
shoes is a fallacy. As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to
shape and make shoes this seems a waste of time to us. If Cytek did
conduct training, the apprentice would learn much more on the anatomy,
foot function, locomotion and bio mechanics of the horse. The addition
of intensive farriery skills and experience would make them the most
advanced and professional farriers in the world.
It is funny, the Uk farriers act as though they are so great, I have
travelled much of the world and I can assure you that horses in all of
the world have the same problems. This is caused by incorrect methods
of farriery, not just bad farriery, and I see no difference in shoeing
throughout the world. I can assure you the UK farriers are only on par
to what I have seen anywhere else, no better/no worse.
The WCF has gone to great lengths to supress the truth about Cytek.
There is a fear running through them for a couple of reasons.
Firstly the top end of the WCF are making a fortune out of running
farriery in the UK and they do not want this to change, a great littl
money maker.
Secondly, there has already been talk of litigation among horse
owners. They are asking the question all Cytek people are,
'if we now know that the traditional methods of shoeing cause many of
the hoof distortions and pathologies that our horses are getting and
there is something out there that is improving them and of benefit to
our horses, then why in gods name are they refusing to look at it!!!
If this is the case, 'can we sue them for negligence?'
They are not wanting to sue the individual farrier(as he is doing what
he is taught), they are wanting to sue the WCF for sticking their head
in the sand and trying to keep the Cytek shoeing system as quiet as
they can. I know for fact that there have been threats to take certain
Cytek farriers authority to shoe away from them for promoting a
product and they are watching them very closely. This is the reason
that many UK farriers although they strongly agree with the system,
they are scared to use it for fear of reprisal from the WCF!!
Let me ask you this, if traditional farriery is so correct why do all
horses feet go in the same direction and why have we got so many
remedial shoes in the forges. Why do all remedial shoes involve
improved breakover or more support? I feel we would be better off
shoeing our young horses in remedial shoes from day one, better than
traditional shoes anyway. Fact is we now have what the horse requires,
the Cytek shoeing system. This is not just a horse shoe as many people
are led to believe, this is a shoeing system which incorporates
correct preparation along with correct application. Unlike traditional
farriery which is governed by interprettion, and all farriers are
different, so who is correct?
Cytek is now in many countries around the world and I know for fact
that they have trained about 80 more farriers in the last 2 weeks.
Cytek is growing fast as the farrier realises what it does and how
well it performs. Countries like USA, Canada, Australia, UAE, Spain
and some parts of Europe are all reaping the rewards of the Cytek
shoeing system, but best of all, the horse is reaping the rewards and
that is why we shoe horses, isn't it?
Esther Young
news:cd755dcd.03012...@posting.google.com...
> Hi all
<snippages>
I do love a good conspiracy theory. :-))
I can assure you that the forge I use is a training forge and they have
plenty of theory and anatomy lessons - they have two qualified training
farriers and they have also kept their qualified ex-apprentices on their
books (although one of the ex-apprentices, Dorien, has just moved home to
Derbyshire to start his own forge - if anyone is after a good farrier in
Derbyshire, give him a go - he's a lovely bloke and a first rate farrier). I
have been very impressed with the quality and the knowledge of their
trainees.
I will agree with you that the standard of training across the farriery
industry is varied but that is not to say that *all* conventional farriery
is flawed. My farriers would be the first to recommend that a horse go
barefoot or try a different type of shoe if they felt it was what was
needed. Their forge is an aladin's cave of shoes, pads and boots of
different shapes, sizes and materials. They have thoroughly researched the
pros and cons of everything they stock.
I do get a bit naffed off with constant farrier bashing. I am aware that
there are appalling farriers out there and that the FRC complaints procedure
could do with having more bite, but that does not mean that they are all
bad. I have been very lucky in that I have been able to find an excellent
farrier whenever I have moved - sometimes they have taken a bit of finding
but they are out there.
Esther
ps Please can someone tell me what the difference is between a Cytek shoe
and a Natural Balance shoe? The natural balance cast shoe seems to be
identical to the Cytek shoe.
Petra Rüttiger
Hi Wayne,
>I stumbled onto this board
You have? Stumbling is not good. Adjust the breakover point of your feet ;-)
> and have been hysterically laughing at much
>of the misinformed and uneducated comments in regard to Cytek.
As you are a Cytek Farrier maybe you could be so kind and address the issues
which, in your opinion, have been "misinformed" or "uneducated" ?
> Petra,
>you are a dear, lol, you have no idea what you are talking about but
>you have made me laugh with many of your comments, thank you.
You're welcome, and I am glad to have spread a little amusement across the
waters, but I have to say that as a customer I would be rather weary of any
professional who dismisses a customer's concerns in the way you do above.
And I would be grateful if you could let me know exactly WHICH bits of my
posts on the subject matter have been wrong, and provide the correct
information instead?
| snip advertising feature |
>As far as training is concerned, I can tell you that in the UK and
>Europe, only traditional farriers can use the Cytek shoeing system,
>once they have gone through Cytek training.
This is correct.
> Because Cytek is so
>completely different to the traditional methods we use now this is a
>must.
Could you tell me please: If Cytek is so completely different why does it
only take a few days training to "convert" a traditional farrier to Cytek ?
If it WAS so completely different would it not take months or years to learn
?
How come it takes a couple of days training to qualify a traditional farrier
as a CYTEK farrier, yet 6 months full time (Plus 30 000 Dollars of course)
to train a person with no shoeing experience to the same standard ? Would
that fact alone not prove that even CYTEK accepts that most of what they
need a CYTEK farrier to know is already known to a tradiotionally qualified
farrier?
>As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to
>shape and make shoes
Have you gone through the farrier training system in the UK or have you
looked at the syllabus of it ? Because in the UK and Germany at least the
above is not the case. Far more time during the training is spent on
asessing conformation, anatomy, foot function, health and illness of the
hoof, bio-mechanics etc than shaping and nailing on metal.
And once again. Please answer the question above: If CYTEK consider
traditional farriers to not know anything about these things, and if CYTEK
is so fundamentally different, WHY does it only take two days to teach a
traditional farrier everything he needs to know to become a CYTEK farrier?
>The WCF has gone to great lengths to supress the truth about Cytek.
They have? How would they have been able to do that?
>Firstly the top end of the WCF are making a fortune out of running
>farriery in the UK and they do not want this to change, a great littl
>money maker.
Which of course Cytek isn't... Not a money maker ??? So how come prospective
CYTEK farriers are told that they will increase their income by switching to
CYTEK?
>Cytek is now in many countries around the world
So are Chickenpocks and Jehovas Witnesses. So ?
>but best of all, the horse is reaping the rewards and
>that is why we shoe horses, isn't it?
I sure hope so.
My farrier actually told me that the best thing I could do for my horse at
the moment is to let him go barefoot over the winter, and then look at the
situation again in the spring.
I really look forward to you providing some FACTS and some answers, not just
general "CYTEK is great - Traditional Farriers are all idiots - And anyone
who does not agree is a moron" propaganda.
I am very willing to learn, but please try and discuss things on a factually
based level, rather than just insulting anone who has had differing
experiences.
I HAVE seen plenty of horses that were shod with the CYTEK system, and the
reason why the owners changed back was because for *THEIR* horses it simply
did not work. It is perfectly possible, as Susan Swann said, that this was
because in the early days the system wasn't as refined as it may be now.
However, I heard the same things said then as I do now. The farriers in
question DID at the time promise the owners that they would see dramatic
improvement, that the shoes would stay on far longer, that all ills of the
horse's legs and feet would miraculously vanish.
Only these things did not happen then. When the promises have remaned
exactly the same, who says the results are now dramatically different?
Petra
Tom Stovall
>I stumbled onto this board and have been hysterically laughing at much
>of the misinformed and uneducated comments in regard to Cytek...
As a public service, I'll be happy to provide the informed and educated
rebuttal of an experienced farrier, qualified by reciprocity to work in
the UK. Read on.
[...]
>Firstly I am in Australia, we have over here found the Cytek shoeing
>system to be fantastic with all horses...
Who exactly is, "we?" It appears you are attempting to use the first
person plural in an attempt to add weight to your words.
>The improved performance, soundness, symmetry and hoof quality that we
>are getting is said by many farriers to have been totally unachieveable
>with traditional methods of shoeing...
You've posted the same anecdotal fluff that's found on the Cytek
website. Will you have any scientific data to substantiate your claims
or is your diatribe merely to consist of fluff with no stuff from Down
Under?
>The fact that we are able to improve...
Fact? Improve? Your claims are not facts, they are conjecture.
>In Australia we have had winners in all disciplines, top level
>eventing, dressage, endurance , show jumping etc...
Talk is cheap. How many Group or Graded stakes winners would you say
have been shod with Cytek shoes? How many winners of any sort - on the
flat, over jumps, or in harness? Racing is an excellent crucible in
which to test shoeing protocols as the results are objectively
quantified and verification is usually easily accomplished.
[...]
>I feel though you cannot necessarily judge a shoeing system by winners
>alone...
You've provided claims, not "winners"; however, if you feel whatever
minuscule number of Cytek shod horses that have managed to win something
is significant, how significant is the indisputable fact that the vast
majority of horses engaged in athletic activities throughout the world
are shod in the traditional manner?
>I have shod many horses using the Cytek shoeing system that were deemed
>lame and unridable, a couple of weeks or less using Cytek and they are
>back, not only being ridden but in competition...
Kindly cite the pathology(ies) that caused the many horses you claim to
be "lame and unridable" until they were miraculously cured by your
heroic intervention with the Cytek "system." As a farrier who spent six
years on call for the largest equine practice on the Gulf Coast, I am
most skeptical of your claim.
>The vets in and around Melbourne are now starting to recommend Cytek
>shoes to many horses as are the massage therapists, instructors etc...
Claims of general veterinary endorsement are meaningless without
quantification, claims of endorsement by massage therapists and
instructors are merely meaningless.
>Cytek is not a miracle, it is a well researched and developed 'shoeing
>system' that gives the horse what he requires in regard to correct
>balance and loading of the hoof...
Nonsense. Despite your claims of its being "well researched," the Cytek
"system" has NEVER been scientifically tested; instead, it relies on the
anecdotes of the faithful to sell an untested protocol to a gullible
public. If you feel this statement is in error, please cite any double
blind study published for peer review in any scientific journal that
supports Cytek's claims.
>We have certainly found out in the past 2 years in Australia just how
>much better the horse can be when he is given what he requires,
>something you cannot do with traditional methods of farriery...
Giving a horse what it needs to do whatever it does as efficiently as
possible is the goal of traditional farriery. Since Cytek has never
been scientifically tested, your claims of superiority are not supported
by science, a fact that relegates all such claims to the muckpile of Big
Lie propaganda.
>As far as training is concerned, I can tell you that in the UK and
>Europe, only traditional farriers can use the Cytek shoeing system,
>once they have gone through Cytek training. Because Cytek is so
>completely different to the traditional methods we use now this is a
>must...
You can always find somebody willing to jump on the bandwagon if there's
money to be made.
>The reason we do not understand why someone who wants to be a
>Cytek only farrier, is required to do a 4 year apprenticeship as a
>blacksmithing farrier, is that we feel the requirement of shaping
>shoes is a fallacy...
While your feelings are obvious, they are inconsistent with reality.
>As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to shape and make shoes
>this seems a waste of time to us...
Traditional farriery is about determining the needs of the horse and
addressing those needs. Those needs cannot be successfully addressed
with a single "system" or shoe.
>If Cytek did conduct training, the apprentice would learn much more on
>the anatomy, foot function, locomotion and bio mechanics of the horse.
>The addition of intensive farriery skills and experience would make
>them the most advanced and professional farriers in the world...
The claims of the Cytek "system" will merely engender laughter from most
knowledgeable farriers. Your argument presumes Cytek has something of
value to offer qualified farriers, an assumption not in evidence.
>It is funny, the Uk farriers act as though they are so great, I have
>travelled much of the world and I can assure you that horses in all of
>the world have the same problems. This is caused by incorrect methods
>of farriery, not just bad farriery, and I see no difference in shoeing
>throughout the world. I can assure you the UK farriers are only on par
>to what I have seen anywhere else, no better/no worse...
Sour grapes? Your statement again attempts to substitute your
unsubstantiated conjecture for fact. Despite your assurance, while
horses all over the world engaged in the similar activities in similar
environments may have similar problems, they do not all have the same
problems.
>The WCF has gone to great lengths to supress the truth about Cytek.
>There is a fear running through them for a couple of reasons.
>Firstly the top end of the WCF are making a fortune out of running
>farriery in the UK and they do not want this to change, a great little
>money maker...
Cytek has only to publish the results of the scientific tests confirming
its claims of superiority to traditional farriery in order be considered
a legitimate resource by the farrier community.
>Secondly, there has already been talk of litigation among horse
>owners. They are asking the question all Cytek people are, 'if we now
>know that the traditional methods of shoeing cause many of the hoof
>distortions and pathologies that our horses are getting and there is
>something out there that is improving them and of benefit to our
>horses, then why in gods name are they refusing to look at it!!!
>If this is the case, 'can we sue them for negligence?'
Whoever "we" is, "we" knows nothing of the sort. "We" is merely
parroting the propaganda of a company with something to sell that has
failed to submit their product to scientific testing. Cytek's reliance
on anecdotes and testimonials, instead of scientific testing, is
eloquent testimony to the efficacy of their "system."
>They are not wanting to sue the individual farrier(as he is doing what
>he is taught), they are wanting to sue the WCF for sticking their head
>in the sand and trying to keep the Cytek shoeing system as quiet as
>they can. I know for fact that there have been threats to take certain
>Cytek farriers authority to shoe away from them for promoting a
>product and they are watching them very closely. This is the reason
>that many UK farriers although they strongly agree with the system,
>they are scared to use it for fear of reprisal from the WCF!!
Is it a conspiracy? Then again, it just might be that that Cytek's lack
of demonstrated efficacy might have a bit to do with its lack of
acceptance amongst the WCF. Unless frivolity is encouraged in the UK
judicial system, any litigation involving Cytek will have a short life.
>Let me ask you this, if traditional farriery is so correct why do all
>horses feet go in the same direction and why have we got so many
>remedial shoes in the forges...
Most likely because many horses are bred for certain type - a
suitability of form to efficient function - not feet. Put another way,
the breeder who mates a G-1 winning mare and stallion is not trying to
breed good feet, he's trying to get a runner.
>Why do all remedial shoes involve improved breakover or more >support?...
More knowledge of your subject would vastly improve your argument: All
remedial shoes do NOT involve "improved turnover or support." (e.g.,
Most shoes intended to alter the flight path of the foot relative to the
horse's midline send the foot in a specific direction, they offer
neither "improved breakover" nor "support.")
>I feel we would be better off shoeing our young horses in remedial
>shoes from day one, better than traditional shoes anyway...
I feel all horses are better off barefooted until they demonstrate a
need for shoes.
>Fact is, we...
Again, you are attempting to substitute your unsupported conjecture for
fact while incorrectly using the term "we." Did this ploy stand you in
good stead on the playground?
>now have what the horse requires, the Cytek shoeing system. This is not >just a horse shoe as many people are led to believe, this is a shoeing
>system which incorporates correct preparation along with correct
>application...
Not so. In reality, Cytek is an untested protocol.
>Unlike traditional farriery which is governed by interprettion, and all
>farriers are different, so who is correct?...
All horses are different, as are their needs, a fact most inconvenient
for the purveyors of an untested, one-size-fits-all, protocol.
>Cytek is now in many countries around the world and I know for fact
>that they have trained about 80 more farriers in the last 2 weeks...
As the American circus impresario, Phineas T. Barnum once said, "There's
a sucker born every minute." Those 80 bear testimony to Phineas'
assessment of human intellectual frailty.
>Cytek is growing fast as the farrier realises what it does and how
>well it performs. Countries like USA, Canada, Australia, UAE, Spain
>and some parts of Europe are all reaping the rewards of the Cytek
>shoeing system, but best of all, the horse is reaping the rewards and
>that is why we shoe horses, isn't it?...
I don't know who "we" is, but I endeavor to trim and/or shoe each
individual horse in such a way that it can operate most efficiently at
whatever it does while maintaining soundness.
Unfortunately for your argument - and those horses exposed to the fruits
of that argument - giving each individual horse what is needs is a goal
impossible to attain while using any so-called "system" that shoehorns
every individual into a single category and does not conform to the
basic tenets of traditional farriery.
--
Tom Stovall, CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://www.katyforge.com
Melanie
>As a public service, I'll be happy to provide the informed and educated
>rebuttal of an experienced farrier, qualified by reciprocity to work in
>the UK. Read on.
<SNIP huge mine of information>
Everytime anyone asks for facts, case studies or even a 'what is the difference
between a NB, 4point and a Cytek shoe' there's a deafening silence ... I wonder
if there's going to be anything new this time.
I used to be quite interested in Cytek as a form of remedial farriery (Susan
will back me up on this, so I'm not an automatic-dismisser) but the more
evangelical Cytek get, the more 'opposition' are slagged off in order to make
themselves look better (does that ever work?), the more facts are fudged,
emotive hearsay is trotted out and disbelievers are vilified ... the less
credence I can give it. Sorry but there 'tis.
Melanie
Petra Rüttiger
Melanie schrieb
> Everytime anyone asks for facts, case studies or even a 'what is the
difference
> between a NB, 4point and a Cytek shoe' there's a deafening silence ...
Absolutely. All you get when you ask for information is that it's better and
the only way, and that if you don't believe in just because they say so you
are a laughing matter, a moron, and clueless.
>I wonder
> if there's going to be anything new this time.
I would welcome it if there was. But I would not hold my breath.
> I used to be quite interested in Cytek as a form of remedial farriery
(Susan
> will back me up on this, so I'm not an automatic-dismisser)
Same here.
> but the more
> evangelical Cytek get, the more 'opposition' are slagged off in order to
make
> themselves look better (does that ever work?), the more facts are fudged,
> emotive hearsay is trotted out and disbelievers are vilified ... the less
> credence I can give it.
My feelings exactly.
Petra
Susan Swann
We have spoken on the forum before.
>I stumbled onto this board and have been hysterically laughing at much
>of the misinformed and uneducated comments in regard to Cytek.
I have tried to explain, but I am not good at explaining techies stuff,
I get mixed up.
I then get tangled up with replies that tie me up in knots.
> but best of all, the horse is reaping the rewards and
>that is why we shoe horses, isn't it?
That is all I have said all along.
My horse reaped the rewards as so many I have seen, heard about, and
spoken to owners of. All of these are in the last 3-4 years of Cytek.
As you said they all came from Conventional shoeing, it must have let
them down nothing else was a common factor and it was a shoe applied
that changed it all. No drugs, operations, or even expensive remedial
shoes.
Speaking to our yard owner tonight, she sits there feeling guilty, why,
because she still has her 2 daughters horses on conventional farriery.
Seeing the difference of just Cytek shoes applied to her horse, makes
her now believe convention let her horse down and it is letting the
other 2 down every day they are on them.
But wants to just give it a little longer in case the bubble bursts. I
know it wont, I feel that confident, but she has to feel confident in
making a decision and it has to be her choice.
The Cytek farrier has never given her a hard sell, that some speak of.
All said look into it, ask about it, investigate it. But that they truly
believed it was the answer. But she had to feel it was right to do, when
she was ready to change. I expect it wont be long before she changes the
others.
The horses all speak for themselves.
My farrier takes less money off me as well. The shoes cost less and we
all see them less.
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
But in all of your arguments.
My horse and the a many I have seen and continue to see have spoken
themselves.
All the bio, ecetera words... can not change what they are sound.
Not lame. Or slipping, tripping, losing shoes continually, many other
things we put up with as owners because we are told that is what to
expect of our Dobbin!
Then moving more free then before, strides improving each day they came
out the stable. Was that all imagination?
Nothing else changed, except their shoeing. It was not because the horse
had not been looked into, they all had, vets examining, scanning,
x-raying, all coming back with not good news. Farriers suggesting
remedial applications, that were tried and failed. Plus vast amounts of
money spent, some not through insurance companies to pick up the tab
either.
So were we wrong to try Cytek. No I can not say at all I was.
Nether do the ones I know and speak of.
If you and many other farriers had there way, Those horses would not
have had a life, or at best a drug filled one judging each day was it
quality or not. That opportunity would have been taken from us before it
began.
Perhaps I am evangelical, or just a sad Cytek horse owner but I have a
horse now, who wont face remedial farriery ever through convention. That
I do firmly believe.
beverley.lockwood
your horse would benefit? if it doesn't work for whatever reason then by all
means, go back to traditional shoeing, what the hell, you've tried it. But
for me to be told I've been brainwashed, that I'm married to a Cytek
farrier, a clueless individual etc just because I'm interest in Cytek
shoeing, at least I'm not sodding ignorant! How do people get to try
something new (it's not that new) without trying it or hearing from other
people? I've spoken (yes, on the phone) to quite a few people now who have
horses using Cytek and say they would never ever go back to traditional
shoeing having seen the improvements first hand. I've also had a huge
response from people emailing me with their support, not wishing to put
their name on this site because they would be verbally abused!! Now do I
assume they are talking a load of twoddle considering they have first hand
experience?
Bev (awaiting a barrage of abuse (again))
Wayne Aussie
See, you are asking me all of these questions now, this shows you do
not understand what you have been knocking. Why do you not attend a
Cytek Public Seminar and all of your answers will be given.
Why give any Cytek horse owner a hard time when you are totally
unaware of the facts?
How do you expect these horse owners to be fully conversant with all
of the ins and outs, all they really are aware of is the basics and
the fact their horses are moving better and are happier. On here if
they are unsure about something or make a mistake you make a big issue
out of it. Take your questions to a Cytek Public Seminar and discuss
them with the Cytek Training Farrier, or is it just easier to give the
Cytek horse owners a hard time?
Fact is that in the early days of Cytek, training was not enforced and
many farriers tried to apply the shoes as a traditional shoe, the
reason for so many problems. Fact is that many people 'because of
attitudes like yours' moved back to traditional farriery because of
peer pressure. Peoples attitudes in the early days caused much issue
with horse owners trying to give their horses what they felt was best.
Pathetic isn't it. You yourself have shown your lack of knowledge
about the Cytek system, yet you have been negative and constantly made
negative comment toward it and the owners who say it is great.
But maybe now you that have have openly admitted your lack of
knowledge on the product you will cease to knock it until you have
more information on it.
I noticed you took some of the results I sent off the board, so it is
ok for you to say you know of 20 horses that have gone off Cytek
because it did not suit them (although you have no idea why they
actually went off them)but it is not ok for me to say we are having
Cytek shod winners in all disciplines in Australia etc. The usual on
these boards I suppose.
Did you read what Simon Curtis says about his own profession, I feel
that is conclusive enough.
How can you compare the WCF and Cytek as far as making money? Cytek
manufacture a product, the WCF are meant to be an organisation that
oversees and governs the farriery industry in the UK for the benefit
of all, a little different I feel. Seems to be the benefit of all as
long as you don't mention Cytek!
I know there is a major horse magazine about to do a spread on Cytek,
I think it is 'Our Horse' so that may shed some light on the subject
for you.
But I strongly feel as you have only questions and no answers you
should be gathering some information before making allegations and
giving mis informed information about something that all throughout
the world is improving horses in both performance and soundness!
The difference between N/B and Cytek is one is a shoe that is designed
to be put on using blacksmithing methods and the other is not. As well
as the fact that Cytek works!!
So I hope you all go and learn something about the Cytek shoeing
system,
Wayne
"Petra R ttiger" <p_rut...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<b15nhq$108dhv$1...@ID-178188.news.dfncis.de>...
Carol Lambe
a case of one potion not solving all ills, and the 'medical profession' not
able to agree how best to kill the patient. Can we not just agree that every
horse is different, that some things seem to work better than others for
some people and horses, and that everyone is entitled to a little respect
about here?
Roz Holmes
> unaware of the facts?
Speak for yourself there I think!!
I can't help thinking that if Cytek really is a useful way of shoeing in
some cases (which it does seem to be, but I'll believe it when I see it with
my own eyes), that all this 'well it's sooooo great
because.....well.....erm.....because it's SOOOO great!!' crap is somewhat
backfiring on your advertising campaign!!!
Roz.
Wayne Aussie
the fact the Cytek shoein system is correct for the horse? Can you
show me any substantiated research or evidence that shows traditional
farriery to be correct for the horse? I know for a fact that you
can't. Fact is, there is none! Fact is we know that traditional
farriery is incorrect for the horse and forces his foot in the
opposite direction than what nature intended! Fact is that traditional
methods cause horses to endure problems associated with incorrect
balance, incorrect loading, lack of support and incorrect and
fluctuating point of breakover!!
It is not Cytek shod horses that have to endure long toes, distorted
hoof capsules, contracted and collapsed heels, weak and crumbling
walls, thin soles, atrophied dysfunctional frogs, seedy toe,
mechanical laminitis, tendon and ligament problems, lack of muscle
development through lack of range of motion, tripping and stumbling,
over reach and forging many muscle related and structure related
problems caused by incorrect phase of stride. Then we turn to the real
problems such as increased concussion problems and many pathologies
such as pedal osteitis and navicular syndrome or third posterior
lameness, ring bone, side bone the list is nearly endless.
We know that the tip of the pedal bone is where the horses point of
breakover should be, Cytek, N/B and even most traditional farriers
agree to this. The barefoot endurance riders are also proving this
point as this is exactly where their horses are wearing their toes
away to.
I have seen xrays of my Cytek shod horses to check these facts for
myself and also seen barefoot endurance riders xrays which show the
exact same. FACT!!!
Why is it that I regularly cut toe off the front of a traditionally
shod hoof well behind the white line, some times up to an inch or
more, without any soreness or bleeding? If this in the traditional
methods is the point of breakover why is it so far forward and why
over time does the dorsal wall concave exacebating the point of
breakover even further. Why do we as traditional farriers rasp the
dorsal wall thin, right back to the laminae, therefore compromising
the conical strength of the hoof. If there is no increase in point of
breakover with the rotation forward of the dorsal wall, why do we
constantly see heels left longer and walls rasped away more to try an
give the horse his correct HPA. As the heels are left longer we reduce
the interaction of the ground and the frog therefore compromising
important foot function. With the protection to the front wall by the
toe and clip of the shoe, what is the cost to the horse over the 6
weeks his feet grow longer and his point of breakover is changed and
his caudal area of support is moved further forward etc. It is a fact
that as the dorsal wall rotates forward the heels follow in that
direction, collapsing and contracting. It is also a fact that the horn
tubules then grow at the angle of the hoof, not vertical, therefore
the foot starts to grow in a direction well forward of where it
should.
Tom, the racing game, you really believe the racing game is the best
way to look at shoeing, what a joke!!! We are using 3 and 4 year old
horses to justify our shoeing now are we, you must be kidding!!! Tell
me about these horses when they are 5 and 6 year old. Long toes, weak
walls, heels growing parallel to the ground, all out in paddocks or at
the doggers as they have a huge range of hoof pathologies and
injuries. Sorry I do not judge anything on the fact that a horse has
won or lost, only on his well being for the time he is alive. But I
can see why you have no concerns to Cytek as you seem more concerned
with money than the welfare of the horse, the reason I would agree
that the development of a shoeing system like Cytek has not come
earlier. Obviously we have different ideas about what horses require,
maybe you should stick to the traditional farriery.
But Cytek are about to bring out an aluminium race plate. As you would
probably know but would also neglect to mention that racing in a steel
shoe is against regulations due to weight. I can tell you that there
are quite a few race horse trainers in Australia who have their horses
training and trialling on Cytek shoes and on race day they use an
aluminium shoe and shape it to the cytek mould and we have had quite a
few winners using this system. The fact is that the Cytek shoeing
system has only been out of the UK for 18mths so of course it will
take some time for farriers and horse owners to understand and convert
to using Cytek.
I shoe for the best horse vet in Victoria, he has all 12 of his
eventers in Cytek shoes and he competes 4 star. I shoe for several of
the top endurance riders, one of them won the National H/W distance
horse of the year and they say the balance of their horses as well as
the recovery is amazing. The list is only small at the moment on the
world scale but I can assure you as time goes by it will differ in a
big snowballing way. I put several other results on the board which
where quickly taken off as they were deemed advertising, why would
that be, they were facts!
I know for a fact that Cytek just trained 80 more farriers in the last
week or so, and as for my own business and many others in Australia we
are at the point of knocking back work. For every horse that I shoe in
Cytek I would say I get 3 calls from friends of the client asking for
the same.
Fact is that Cytek gives the horse the correct balance, loading and
support required based on the boney structure of the hoof.
The 3 ways the traditional farrier is judged in the world these days
is;
- if they are on time
- if they do a neat job
- how long the shoes stay on for
as most horse owners and I would also say most farriers do not
understand what the horse requires how can they judge on it. I have
heard some amazing things told by farriers to keep the clients happy.
I have also been told many things by clients about their farrier
saying they can no longer help the horse. Funny, I have with Cytek and
not only improved it but have improved it to a level way beyond
anything ever before.
I look at this objectively based on what I have seen in my clients
horses, that is how I come to my conclusions. I have studied this to a
great degree and tried and tested on my horses prior to putting it on
my clients.
Answer me this question,
How many of you people knocking the shoeing system have tried it or
gone to a Cytek seminar and brought up your concerns with them????
So why don't you????
Ignorance is easy, you just sit back and do nothing!
Wayne
Susan Swann <susanc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<aH8kA2D4...@neil.swann>...
> Tom
> But in all of your arguments.
>
> My horse and the a many I have seen and continue to see have spoken
> themselves.
>
> All the bio, ecetera words... can not change what they are sound.
>
> Not lame. Or slipping, tripping, losing shoes continually, many other
> things we put up with as owners because we are told that is what
Susan Swann <susanc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<aH8kA2D4...@neil.swann>...
Alexis Haines
>for me to be told I've been brainwashed, that I'm married to a Cytek
>farrier, a clueless individual etc just because I'm interest in Cytek
>shoeing, at least I'm not sodding ignorant!
You came on here stating as fact that it took 3
and a half years in addition to the UK farrier training to become a
Cytek farrier and that we should all complain to the FRC about this when
the truth is somewhat different.
So yes at that point you were ignorant of the facts.
Alexis
Melanie
> just because I'm interest in Cytek shoeing
No, it was because your original post was to request people to complain to the
governing board of farriers because Cytek farriers had to qualify before
learning Cytek. At that time you had no experience of Cytek yourself, had never
seen a Cytek shoe, seemed rather vague about what Cytek actually was and stated
that they had to train for 3.5 years, whereas it actually transpires it's more
like 3.5 days.
> at least I'm not sodding ignorant!
So a few evangelical handclaps and you're going to subject your horse to
something that you're still not really all that sure about, that hasn't had any
real tests (including longterm effects) and still no facts are being given
about. It's your horse, you do what you like.
>not wishing to put
>their name on this site because they would be verbally abused!!
Verbally abused if they could post stating why they chose Cytek, what their
horses problems were, why their vet recommended it, etc? I doubt that very
much; most people on here are actually interested in learning. I think few
people on here would say that Cytek has no use as a remedial form of farriery
for some horses - I personally know of one horse that was on the verge of being
put down due to on and off (more on than off too!) lameness but who is now sound
and happy with Cytek shoeing. However, I also know of horses who've been lamed
by it - so it's not a one-size-fits-all cure.
Melanie
Jill
>
> See, you are asking me all of these questions now, this shows you do
> not understand what you have been knocking. >
> system,
>
really interesting answer Wayne
I am simply a lurker; have no horses of my own at present but I have been
around them for 32 years
You have given not one answer there to any of the questions raised
What an opportunity to show those folk up, who were knocking your product
Some simple peer reviewed scientific studies - some detail about how the
system works - anything
and you might well have convinced others that the system has merit
But there was absolutely nothing there at all
It seems that anyone who professes to know the technical side of this
product is unable to explain in simple words why it works - what the theory
is behind it - and in what circumstances it should be considered
Very strange indeed
--
Jill Bowis
http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk
http://www.domesticducks.co.uk http://www.poultry-books.co.uk
http://www.kintaline.co.uk/cottage
Petra Rüttiger
>>> NB has not been around as long as Cytek,
>
>>This is NOT true. This is absolutely NOT true.
>OK I will take it up with Cytek if they gave me incorrect info I do
>apologise and I will seek a correction.
How about doing your OWN research for a change, you will probably find more
facts that way, and less propaganda.
In 1986 a chap in the US, called Gene Ovnicek, did some research on the way
feral horses wore their feet, and the results of this research were the
basis for the Natural Balance Shoeing system.
I think I first started reading up on it around 91 or 92. Cytek arrived in
the UK in 97, at which point NB has been much discussed for years.
Petra
Petra Rüttiger
question...
So I repeat it again.....
> > And once again. Please answer the question above: If CYTEK consider
> > traditional farriers to not know anything about these things, and if
CYTEK
> > is so fundamentally different, WHY does it only take two days to teach a
> > traditional farrier everything he needs to know to become a CYTEK
>> farrier?
Answer the question, Damn it!
Petra
Petra Rüttiger
beverley.lockwood wrote:
> I think this is superb news.
?? What is superb news ?
>Isn't it worth trying this system if you feel
> your horse would benefit?
Absolutely. No question. If you and your vet believe it would benefit your
horse then by all means go ahead and try it. THAT was not at issue here.
What WAS the issue, as has been pointed out time and time again, is your
claim that it taks 3.5 years on top of the normal farriery training to
qualify as a Cytek farrier. On THIS "misinformation" you based your original
public call to arms and asked that we all write to complain about it. Do you
actually remember that you wrote this????
Plus, would you like to enlighten us as to what you were told regarding that
matter? Surely you must have asked ?
> if it doesn't work for whatever reason then by all
> means, go back to traditional shoeing, what the hell, you've tried it.
Indeed. And as I said above, THAT was not the issue.
> But
> for me to be told I've been brainwashed, that I'm married to a Cytek
> farrier, a clueless individual etc just because I'm interest in Cytek
> shoeing, at least I'm not sodding ignorant!
HELLO ? YOU posted a request that we all go and write to complain, based on,
let's call it by it's real name, either an out and out lie, or out and out
misinformation. THAT was the issue.
Being "ignorant" by it's definition means not knowing something. What you
wrote about you did NOT know about....
> How do people get to try
> something new (it's not that new) without trying it or hearing from other
> people?
But your post was an appeal for mass complaints to be sent to the
Registration body, based on either a lie or total and utter misinformation
(May I remind you, YOU stated that it takes 3.5 years for a traditional
farrier to be allowed to call himself a CYTEK farrier) . And THAT was what
people were pointing out to you.
> Bev (awaiting a barrage of abuse (again))
If you consider it abusive when your misinformation is pointed out to you
then so be it. Would you like me to dig out your original post so you
remember what you actually wrote or do you remember it anyway?
And what IS the answer to the question "What were you told regarding the 3.5
years you complained about initially?" ....
Petra
Petra Rüttiger
>See, you are asking me all of these questions now,
See, you're not answering them.....
>this shows you do
>not understand what you have been knocking.
I am not knocking. I am questioning.
> Why do you not attend a
>Cytek Public Seminar and all of your answers will be given.
I have. They were not. It was rather interesting though, especially when
there was the
spectacle of vets and farriers nearly coming to blows afterwards in the bar.
>Why give any Cytek horse owner a hard time when you are totally
>unaware of the facts?
No-one is giving the owners, who are having their horses shod with Cytek, a
hard time.
We are asking questions which are not answered, and we are pointing out
misinformation.
>How do you expect these horse owners to be fully conversant with all
>of the ins and outs, all they really are aware of is the basics and
>the fact their horses are moving better and are happier.
That is FINE, and not what anyone has an issue with. If you re-read the
whole thread you will see
that the issue was with misinformation ...
> Take your questions to a Cytek Public Seminar and discuss
>them with the Cytek Training Farrier,
Well, I would but I haven't come across a Cytek seminar since the one years
ago.
And you ARE a Cytek Trained Farrier and I AM asking you questions. Only you
don't answer them.
> or is it just easier to give the
>Cytek horse owners a hard time?
For the umpteenth time. I am not giving people a hard time because they
have, after proper
research, decided to use Cytek on their horses. NO problem at all. The hard
time is given
in response to false information beeing put about, such as happened here.
>Fact is that in the early days of Cytek, training was not enforced and
>many farriers tried to apply the shoes as a traditional shoe, the
>reason for so many problems.
Hmmm. That may be a reason. However, the horses I have known were shod by
the people
who started Cytek in the UK.
> Fact is that many people 'because of
>attitudes like yours' moved back to traditional farriery because of
>peer pressure.
I can't talk for everyone but the horses I have personally known were moved
back because Cytek shoes did not suit them.
> Peoples attitudes in the early days caused much issue
> with horse owners trying to give their horses what they felt was best.
Were you in the UK? It certainly was not the case in the early days with the
horses I have known. I was very interested and watched and discussed Cytek
with the Cytek farriers. I followed the progress of the horses which were
shod with Cytek closely (as in seeing them almost every day in some cases,
every week in the others). I discussed it with the owners and the vets. They
changed back because it did not work the way they wanted.
>Pathetic isn't it.
What is pathetic? It is pathetic to have an open mind and watch and try and
learn, and question?
> yet you have been negative and constantly made
>negative comment toward it and the owners who say it is great.
I have been negative about the misinformation put out.
And I have asked questions. You have not answered them.....
>But maybe now you that have have openly admitted your lack of
>knowledge on the product you will cease to knock it until you have
>more information on it.
I have not knocked "The System" I have knocked the wrong statements put
about.
>I noticed you took some of the results I sent off the board,
I have taken what off where ?????
>so it is
>ok for you to say you know of 20 horses that have gone off Cytek
>because it did not suit them (although you have no idea why they
>actually went off them)
I have EVERY idea why it did not suit them. I was there. I have SEEN it.
Were you and have you?
>but it is not ok for me to say we are having
>Cytek shod winners in all disciplines in Australia etc.
It is absolutely OK for you to say that you are achieving good reults. I am
very glad that it helped Susan's horse so much. I do not have an issue with
the fact that CYTEK does appear to suit some horses very well.
I DO have an issue with misinformation.
>I know there is a major horse magazine about to do a spread on Cytek,
>I think it is 'Our Horse'
It's Your Horse and yes, it may. We'll see.
>so that may shed some light on the subject
>for you.
Shame you are not willing to do so.
>But I strongly feel as you have only questions and no answers you
>should be gathering some information before making allegations and
>giving mis informed information
Where have I given mis informed information? Kindly point this out or
retract the statement above.
> about something that all throughout
>the world is improving horses in both performance and soundness!
"All throughout the world" ????
>Who is it that is after scientific research and evidence to support
>he fact the Cytek shoein system is correct for the horse?
Vets, farriers and owners for example ?
> I put several other results on the board which
>where quickly taken off as they were deemed advertising,
Where ? NOTHING is taken "off the board" here. This is a newsgroup, usenet,
and nothing is taken off.
>Answer me this question,
>How many of you people knocking the shoeing system have tried it or
>gone to a Cytek seminar and brought up your concerns with them????
See above....
Petra
beverley.lockwood
Petra Rüttiger
beverley.lockwood wrote:
> http://www.saddle-up.org.uk/Archive/Cytek-shoeing-1.htm
Right. And ???
Which part of the question "What exactly WAS the answer to the question
regarding 3.5 years training being necessary for a traditional farrier to
become a Cytek Farrier ?" are you having trouble understanding?
Petra
Alexis Haines
>
>http://www.saddle-up.org.uk/Archive/Cytek-shoeing-1.htm
>
Anyone can do that
http://www.horseshoes.com/fhlpown/bb2/messages/7828.htm
Alexis
beverley.lockwood
returning the answer to your question.
I was told by the UK Cytek Trainer that to become a Cytek farrier, a person
has to have completed 4 to 4.5 years of traditional farriery first and then
take a further 3.5yrs Cytek training to become a Cytek farrier. This was
told to me over the phone.
With Wayne's response of "The reason we do not understand why someone who
wants to be a
Cytek only farrier, is required to do a 4 year apprenticeship as a
blacksmithing farrier, is that we feel the requirement of shaping
shoes is a fallacy. As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to
shape and make shoes this seems a waste of time to us."
This is the question I was referring to, why make a person go through 4
years of traditional farriery, only to have to take further training as a
Cytek farrier (3.5yrs as stated to me by the Trainer) to become a Cytek
farrier? When, as Wayne has responded, 85% of this 4 year training is
learning to shape and make shoes which is irrelevant where the Cytek shoe is
concerned.
Did I answer your question Petra?
"Petra Rüttiger" <p_rut...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:b18e86$vtoi7$1...@ID-178188.news.dfncis.de...
beverley.lockwood
a horse that had problems on and off, previously to Cytek, to many people
that have their horses currently shod with Cytek (and have done so for many
months now) which have improved their horses no end? These people are
through verbal and email conversations and who have stuck with Cytek.
This person also states in their thread that the Cytek shoeing could have
worked if they had stuck with it. But again, Cytek does not work for every
horse and those who have not gained, go back to traditional. I cannot put my
horse on normal shoes as the toe goes long and the heel collapses, she's
been on eggbars for 6 months now. But only because I insist the farrier puts
them on, despite this they still shoe her long and do not cut the toe back
enough (in egg bars). My vet insisted (on Friday just gone) that farriers
shoe her every 4 weeks and take the toe as far back as poss to improve
breakover, roll the toe etc, even to the point of bleeding. He did also say
that Cytek is a 'fad', but is this due to great experience of this shoeing
method and of knowing it doesn't work or is he just going along with the
general opinion of everyone else in the equestrian industry?
My horse is having her hoof resected this afternoon, a resection that would
not be happening if the pressure on her fore(toe) was not there, if she'd
been shod in a way of 'short toe, rolled toe, shorter breakover' the
pressure would not have caused her hoof to split (this is dead centre of the
toe and up the hoof wall). The last farrier who'd put on her eggbars,
despite asking for a rolled toe and to take the toe back as far as poss,
turned round to me and said "I didn't roll the toe because the shoe that
came off her previously was not rolled and I could take her shoe back
further, but I could see the white line and felt I didn't need to". Fine!
Shoe my horse long and collapse her heels, that's exactly what I want you to
do!
<Alexis.haines (Alexis Haines)> wrote in message
news:b18eii$15...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
Petra Rüttiger
beverley.lockwood wrote:
> I was told by the UK Cytek Trainer that to become a Cytek farrier, a
person
> has to have completed 4 to 4.5 years of traditional farriery first and
then
> take a further 3.5yrs Cytek training to become a Cytek farrier. This was
> told to me over the phone.
This is also entirely incorrect. It takes a few days, as stated on the CYTEK
site.
As you had an appointment with the CYTEK farrier yesterday I assumed (maybe
wrongly) that you addressed the question to him directly, and I was very
interested in what the answer was.
> With Wayne's response of "
>As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to
> shape and make shoes this seems a waste of time to us."
Which is, when applied to the UK, also incorrect. It may be the case in
Australia. It is not the case in the UK.
Also, that is not at issue. What was the answer of the CYTEK farrier who
attended your horse yesterday (you DID say he was coming Tuesday? If I
remember this wrongly then I apologize) to the question why he told you it
takes 3.5 years for a traditional farrier to become a CYTEK farrier when it
does, in fact, take a few days.
> This is the question I was referring to, why make a person go through 4
> years of traditional farriery, only to have to take further training as a
> Cytek farrier (3.5yrs as stated to me by the Trainer)
I seem to be having real trouble making you understand my question.
It does NOT take 3.5 years to qualify as a CYTEK farrier, according to CYTEK
themselves. Has the CYTEK farrier been to see your horse? Have you asked him
why he said 3.5 years when 3.5 days is more correct, and what was the
answer?
>When, as Wayne has responded, 85% of this 4 year training is
> learning to shape and make shoes
"According to Wayne" .... It is not correct in the UK so ....
>which is irrelevant where the Cytek shoe is
> concerned.
If CYTEK was really so fundamentally different then why does it ONLY take
3.5 days for a traditional farrier to become a CYTEK Farrier ? Does that not
indicate to you that even CYTEK think that a traditional farrier already
knows most of what they believe is needed, and only needs 3 or so further
days to be a CYTEK farrier?
> Did I answer your question Petra?
No. See above. Or I shall repeat them again:
1) You had an appointment with a CYTEK farrier
2) Did he attend your horse ?
3) Did you ask him about the discrepancy between the information on which
you originally based your "Please all complain" post. Namely that it takes
3.5 years for a tradiational farrier to become a CYTEK farrier when in truth
it takes days?.
4) What was the answer?
Petra
beverley.lockwood
by the information on the web. I cannot agree with the web information
because I have been told something different, verbally. Maybe they should
update their website, so we don't get wrong info or I call them again for
them to give me the correct information if indeed I was told incorrectly?
Amber is due for a hoof resection this afternoon, will be setting off in an
hour, my vet organised this Friday gone and consequently, Cytek have been
put on hold as the vet has requested his remedial farrier work with him.
Will be taking photos of the work they do etc and will have chat with
remedial farrier about Cytek and take some of this gumpf (printed threads)
to the vet so he can have a read......
Will let you know their thoughts on the matter.
Bev
Sue Gouldbourne
photos posted under it ;-((
It almost reduced me to tears, & very little does that!!
Seriously, the story & photos are horrific. My Arab suffered a bout of
Laminitis this summer & my farrier sorted him out with heart bar shoes,
advised me how to keep him sound, & today his feet look superb & he is
100% sound, happy & in work.
I wish I could send him out to look at this poor mare!
Sue & Khattim
Claire & Wellington
"Carol Lambe" <cla...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:SyFZ9.6071$V6....@news.indigo.ie...
Well said, Carol. It is all getting too 'rude', as in impolite to another
human being. Just because a person doesn't agree with another person's
view, however much they feel they are right, there is no need to resort to
the 'you're stupid', 'you must be.....' stuff. Or maybe I should just
keep lurking through it and let the people who want to, join in.
Clearly all systems feel they have been researched and developed, and it is
up to the individual to make their choice. In the ideal world that would
need to be a perfectly informed choice - but who lives there?
Claire & Wellington
Petra Rüttiger
beverley.lockwood wrote:
> Petra, I am going by the information told to me on the phone, you are
going
> by the information on the web.
I am going by the information put on the web by Cytek themselves.....
> I cannot agree with the web information
What, you can not agree with what CYTEK say themselves? How most peculiar...
> because I have been told something different, verbally.
Then ask yourself how there can be CYTEK farriers who have only started with
CYTEK a few weeks or months ago? Wayne, who is a Cytek Farrier, only started
2 years ago. According to your misinformation he could not be a CYTEK
farrier for another 1.5 years from now.....
> Maybe they should
> update their website, so we don't get wrong info or I call them again for
> them to give me the correct information if indeed I was told incorrectly?
Hmmm... Indeed. As YOU put out the call for us all to complain about it may
I suggest you get the correct info promptly ? As you appear not to trust the
official CYTEK information...
> Amber is due for a hoof resection this afternoon, will be setting off in
an
> hour, my vet organised this Friday gone and consequently, Cytek have been
> put on hold as the vet has requested his remedial farrier work with him.
Good luck to Amber. Hope it goes well. Report back what they did !
> Will be taking photos of the work they do etc and will have chat with
> remedial farrier about Cytek and take some of this gumpf (printed threads)
> to the vet so he can have a read......
I repeat that I believe it is great for some horses, and also that it stands
or falls with the farrier who is doing the shoeing. I also remember Warwick
Bloomfield as a very good farrier from years ago, and believe that a good
farrier is the be all and end all, not the system as such !!
> Will let you know their thoughts on the matter.
Please do, and GOOD LUCK WITH AMBER !!!!!!
Petra
Avril Smith
avril
Melanie
>I've just read the thread that Alexis pointed us to & looked at the
>photos posted under it ;-((
>It almost reduced me to tears, & very little does that!!
Weren't they terrible ....
Wayne, do you know the Wayne Turner mentioned in
http://www.horseshoes.com/fhlpown/bb2/messages/7838.htm ?
Melanie
Laura
it was all about.
He pointed out that he had shod five horses and done one trim this morning,
and all the horses had slightly different shoes and needed slightly
different footshapes. Cytek is just another way of shoeing, so how can it
suit all horses? Some horses yes it would do well for, but if he was shoeing
that kind of horse, he would do its toes short, and its heels wide and he
wouldnt call it Cytek, he would call it what the horse needed. No brand
name, just good shoeing. Its not the answer to all the worlds foot problems,
if it works then great, but it will not work for all horses, in the same way
he couldnt have done the same work and put the same shoes on the six he saw
this morning.
He says a decent farrier who cares and is diligent will be able to sort out
most problems given time and an understanding owner (ie you cant cure a
problem in one shoeing, some might even take years. If a horse changes
owners and farriers and so on, the original farriers game plan for the foot
wont be seen through so it will take longer)
Laura
> if she'd
> been shod in a way of 'short toe, rolled toe, shorter breakover'
you dont have to be a Cytek farrier to do this, you have to be a good
thoughtful farrier, working with an owner and maybe the vet to get the right
results over a long period of time.
And six months is no time at all to be expecting results. The hoof wont have
grown top to bottom new by then.
My friends horse had most of his foot cut away in an operation about five
years ago, and the foot is still a slightly different shape, but its coming
right. (Although he's in his 30's - unlikely to be completely right ever)
Wayne Aussie
methods of farriery. Cytek has a very specific foot preparation and
shoe application that is used. I see no problems in the traditional
farrier picking this up in a one or two day course. The problem comes
when they do 150 horses the traditional way and then a Cytek job which
tends to become 50/50 between traditional and Cytek and that does not
work!
The reason for more advanced training is to ensure this does not
happen for the benefit of all horses.
Wayne
"Petra R ttiger" <p_rut...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<b189c8$108nrl$1...@ID-178188.news.dfncis.de>...
Wayne Aussie
Cytek is about giving all horses the correct point of balance and
loading relative to the boney structure inside the hoof. The point we
now know should be the point of breakover, and all horses in this area
should be the same. It is the same as humans, we all have a point of
breakover at the ball of our foot, relative to our bone structure.
Although we all have different sizes we are the same.
Cytek is all about balance and loading of the hoof based on what we
have learnt from feral horses. I am interested in learning what
traditional farriery is based on and where is the research?
Wayne
"Carol Lambe" <cla...@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<SyFZ9.6071$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...
Wayne Aussie
damage and distortion that it causes. One reason to try almost
anything else! I have been in many countries around the world and can
assure all that what I have seen is the same everywhere. Hoof capsules
that are collapsing and ontracting around the boney column until it is
constricted of blood and virtually breaks down from the inside causing
a myriad of problems.
Cytek is not a remedial shoe, it gives all horse the correct balance
and loading they require, it is correct shoeing. This shows you
understand very little about Cytek. I can tell you that if any horse
was lamed by Cytek it is through incorrect application. I can also
give you hundreds upon hundreds of horses that I know of that have
been lamed and destroyed by traditional shoeing!
Wayne
i-posted-on-uk...@melanie.me.uk (Melanie) wrote in message news:<3e37900a....@10.0.0.3>...
Wayne Aussie
who are you asking??
The difference is that Cytek is not designed to be applied using
traditional methods of blacksmith farriery, the others are.
And of course as I am finding out daily, Cytek works, the others dont
:-)
Wayne
i-posted-on-uk...@melanie.me.uk (Melanie) wrote in message news:<3e36c6ba....@10.0.0.3>...
> Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote:
>
> >As a public service, I'll be happy to provide the informed and educated
> >rebuttal of an experienced farrier, qualified by reciprocity to work in
> >the UK. Read on.
>
> <SNIP huge mine of information>
>
> Everytime anyone asks for facts, case studies or even a 'what is the difference
> between a NB, 4point and a Cytek shoe' there's a deafening silence ... I wonder
> if there's going to be anything new this time.
>
> I used to be quite interested in Cytek as a form of remedial farriery (Susan
> will back me up on this, so I'm not an automatic-dismisser) but the more
> evangelical Cytek get, the more 'opposition' are slagged off in order to make
> themselves look better (does that ever work?), the more facts are fudged,
> emotive hearsay is trotted out and disbelievers are vilified ... the less
> credence I can give it. Sorry but there 'tis.
>
> Melanie
Wayne Aussie
"Petra R ttiger" <p_rut...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<b16tje$vo1fd$1...@ID-178188.news.dfncis.de>...
> Melanie schrieb
>
> > Everytime anyone asks for facts, case studies or even a 'what is the
> difference
> > between a NB, 4point and a Cytek shoe' there's a deafening silence ...
>
> Absolutely. All you get when you ask for information is that it's better and
> the only way, and that if you don't believe in just because they say so you
> are a laughing matter, a moron, and clueless.
>
> >I wonder
> > if there's going to be anything new this time.
>
> I would welcome it if there was. But I would not hold my breath.
>
> > I used to be quite interested in Cytek as a form of remedial farriery
> (Susan
> > will back me up on this, so I'm not an automatic-dismisser)
>
> Same here.
>
> > but the more
> > evangelical Cytek get, the more 'opposition' are slagged off in order to
> make
> > themselves look better (does that ever work?), the more facts are fudged,
> > emotive hearsay is trotted out and disbelievers are vilified ... the less
> > credence I can give it.
>
> My feelings exactly.
>
> Petra
Alexis Haines
>Cytek is not a remedial shoe, it gives all horse the correct balance
>and loading they require, it is correct shoeing. This shows you
>understand very little about Cytek. I can tell you that if any horse
>was lamed by Cytek it is through incorrect application. I can also
>give you hundreds upon hundreds of horses that I know of that have
>been lamed and destroyed by traditional shoeing!
But wouldn't that again be the incorrect application that lames
these horses?
Alexis
Alexis Haines
>The difference is that Cytek is not designed to be applied using
>traditional methods of blacksmith farriery, the others are.
By this do you mean the shoe is not heated?
Do you shape the shoe cold or is there no shaping at all?
If you don't alter the shoe to the individual foot how
do you achieve a good fit?
Alexis
Alexis Haines
I have staretd a thread on the difference between
NB, Cytek and four point to get away from any Cytek 'bashing'.
I've also asked for claficication in this thread on how
the Cytek shoe is fitted to the foot.
Alexis
Alexis Haines
>
>So ask your questions!
Another question
Is Cytek based on the work done by Gene Ovnicek?
Alexis
Petra Rüttiger
Wayne Aussie <cyte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Cytek moves in the opposite direction than does the traditional
> methods of farriery. Cytek has a very specific foot preparation and
> shoe application that is used. I see no problems in the traditional
> farrier picking this up in a one or two day course.
So in other words you agree that a traditional farrier has learnt enough in
his training to pick up the "completely different" Cytek in a "one or two
day course"...
Rather contradicts what you have been going on about earlier, wouldn't you
say?
Petra
Wayne Aussie
all I can say to you is that horses do not lie and you are way behind
the times. Show me where traditional farriery has the research that
you are wanting to see from Cytek. Where is the telling facts that
this is what the horse requires?
Even Simon Curtis states in his book that we as traditional farriers
force the hoof in the opposite direction than nature intended it to.
Then we wonder why they have problems, i am not sure why as it is us
that causes the problems!
You give me the answer that we can only expect bad feet because of bad
breeding! This is a stock answer that every traditional farrier gives,
to not take responsibility for what he is doing to horses feet. I am
sure that you will tell all of your clients this, and as you said,
'there is a sucker born every minute!'
It makes sense, that traditional farriery would dominate the world
market at the moment. As traditional rim shoeing has been around sine
the late 1800's with very little change and Cytek has been around for
about 6 years. So this is not news to anyone and totally expected.
Lol, same fluff as on the web site. I am speaking of my clients
horses, not fluff and as I have said, horses don't lie!
Cytek not tested, by who are you speaking of? I have tested it and my
250 horses in Australia have tested it and they have told me that they
would much prefer it. I have seen the research and testing that was
done by Cytek in the UK. I have been there twice and spent about 3
weeks in total discussing and learning about the system.
Do you mean tested by closed minded people who are linked with the WCF
like Chris Colles? The person who wanted to put Cytek on one side of
the horse and traditionally shoe the other!! Wow, now that would
determine a lot and would be really beneficial to the horse wouldn't
it? No wonder Cytek told him to jam it!!
Cytek are more than happy to test their product against the
traditional methods, but tell me who would do it? As the WCF has so
much to lose I know Cytek are concerned they will doctor results. So
you approach Cytek with a fair dinkum group of researchers and fair
testing and you will get your opportunity, I will guarantee it. Just
for everyone else, bring along all of the scientific research that you
have to prove that traditional farriery is what the horse requires, so
everyone can see it does not exist!
Cyteks claims are not supported by science you say, they are well and
truly supported by the horses and that is most important. Why wont the
WCF invite the Cytek people to do some fair dinkum testing? Cytek have
done the testing, they do not need to conduct more testing.
Knowledgeable farriers, now that is funny! How do you determine a
knowledgeable farrier? Why would, if they are so knowledgeable, they
laugh at watching a horse improve using a shoeing system that is of
benefit to him. How can these 'knowledgeable farriers' laugh at
something they know nothing about? Can't be too knowledgeable then can
they! If they were so knowledgeable, why have they not improved the
traditional shoeing system so we don't get so many lame horses caused
by hoof distortions and damage. Do dentists, doctors, optometrists use
the same practices they did 100's of years ago? They have improved as
they learnt more, traditional farriery seems to be 'monkey see monkey
do' and has been for over 100 years. Knowledgeable seems to you to
mean who knows the most of nothing as we still cannot find out, until
Cytek came along, why horses feet moved in the detrimental way they
do. These knowlegeable farriers who can't work this out have come up
with the solution, we just blame the horse, he can't speak to defend
himself!!! What a joke, knowledgeable.
As far as the laughing I can tell you that every one of my clients
cannot believe we did it the way we have for so long, they now realise
what it is that is funny. Nothing, as they see horses being lamed and
crippled and destroyed because of farrier and horse owner ignorance.
Your ignorance and uneducated view of Cytek is obvious if you feel it
is a one- size-fits-all.
Cytek have the product that will take farriery into the future and it
is rapidly moving around the world. If the WCF want some information
or to do some testing they should set it up so that it is done by a
legitimate and independant research organisation. I know that Cytek
have done the research and are not concerned as they are getting the
results and it is only a matter of time before the world of farriery
starts to change.
So Tom, keep up those blacksmithing skills as making gates is
apparently a good profession.
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E36BD4D...@wt.net>...
> Wayne Aussie (cyte...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> >I stumbled onto this board and have been hysterically laughing at much
> >of the misinformed and uneducated comments in regard to Cytek...
>
> As a public service, I'll be happy to provide the informed and educated
> rebuttal of an experienced farrier, qualified by reciprocity to work in
> the UK. Read on.
>
> [...]
>
> >Firstly I am in Australia, we have over here found the Cytek shoeing
> >system to be fantastic with all horses...
>
> Who exactly is, "we?" It appears you are attempting to use the first
> person plural in an attempt to add weight to your words.
>
> >The improved performance, soundness, symmetry and hoof quality that we
> >are getting is said by many farriers to have been totally unachieveable
> >with traditional methods of shoeing...
>
> You've posted the same anecdotal fluff that's found on the Cytek
> website. Will you have any scientific data to substantiate your claims
> or is your diatribe merely to consist of fluff with no stuff from Down
> Under?
>
> >The fact that we are able to improve...
>
> Fact? Improve? Your claims are not facts, they are conjecture.
>
> >In Australia we have had winners in all disciplines, top level
> >eventing, dressage, endurance , show jumping etc...
>
> Talk is cheap. How many Group or Graded stakes winners would you say
> have been shod with Cytek shoes? How many winners of any sort - on the
> flat, over jumps, or in harness? Racing is an excellent crucible in
> which to test shoeing protocols as the results are objectively
> quantified and verification is usually easily accomplished.
>
> [...]
>
> >I feel though you cannot necessarily judge a shoeing system by winners
> >alone...
>
> You've provided claims, not "winners"; however, if you feel whatever
> minuscule number of Cytek shod horses that have managed to win something
> is significant, how significant is the indisputable fact that the vast
> majority of horses engaged in athletic activities throughout the world
> are shod in the traditional manner?
>
> >I have shod many horses using the Cytek shoeing system that were deemed
> >lame and unridable, a couple of weeks or less using Cytek and they are
> >back, not only being ridden but in competition...
>
> Kindly cite the pathology(ies) that caused the many horses you claim to
> be "lame and unridable" until they were miraculously cured by your
> heroic intervention with the Cytek "system." As a farrier who spent six
> years on call for the largest equine practice on the Gulf Coast, I am
> most skeptical of your claim.
>
> >The vets in and around Melbourne are now starting to recommend Cytek
> >shoes to many horses as are the massage therapists, instructors etc...
>
> Claims of general veterinary endorsement are meaningless without
> quantification, claims of endorsement by massage therapists and
> instructors are merely meaningless.
>
> >Cytek is not a miracle, it is a well researched and developed 'shoeing
> >system' that gives the horse what he requires in regard to correct
> >balance and loading of the hoof...
>
> Nonsense. Despite your claims of its being "well researched," the Cytek
> "system" has NEVER been scientifically tested; instead, it relies on the
> anecdotes of the faithful to sell an untested protocol to a gullible
> public. If you feel this statement is in error, please cite any double
> blind study published for peer review in any scientific journal that
> supports Cytek's claims.
>
> >We have certainly found out in the past 2 years in Australia just how
> >much better the horse can be when he is given what he requires,
> >something you cannot do with traditional methods of farriery...
>
> Giving a horse what it needs to do whatever it does as efficiently as
> possible is the goal of traditional farriery. Since Cytek has never
> been scientifically tested, your claims of superiority are not supported
> by science, a fact that relegates all such claims to the muckpile of Big
> Lie propaganda.
>
> >As far as training is concerned, I can tell you that in the UK and
> >Europe, only traditional farriers can use the Cytek shoeing system,
> >once they have gone through Cytek training. Because Cytek is so
> >completely different to the traditional methods we use now this is a
> >must...
>
> You can always find somebody willing to jump on the bandwagon if there's
> money to be made.
>
> >The reason we do not understand why someone who wants to be a
> >Cytek only farrier, is required to do a 4 year apprenticeship as a
> >blacksmithing farrier, is that we feel the requirement of shaping
> >shoes is a fallacy...
>
> While your feelings are obvious, they are inconsistent with reality.
>
> >As about 85% of the apprenticeship is learning to shape and make shoes
> >this seems a waste of time to us...
>
> Traditional farriery is about determining the needs of the horse and
> addressing those needs. Those needs cannot be successfully addressed
> with a single "system" or shoe.
>
> >If Cytek did conduct training, the apprentice would learn much more on
> >the anatomy, foot function, locomotion and bio mechanics of the horse.
> >The addition of intensive farriery skills and experience would make
> >them the most advanced and professional farriers in the world...
>
> The claims of the Cytek "system" will merely engender laughter from most
> knowledgeable farriers. Your argument presumes Cytek has something of
> value to offer qualified farriers, an assumption not in evidence.
>
> >It is funny, the Uk farriers act as though they are so great, I have
> >travelled much of the world and I can assure you that horses in all of
> >the world have the same problems. This is caused by incorrect methods
> >of farriery, not just bad farriery, and I see no difference in shoeing
> >throughout the world. I can assure you the UK farriers are only on par
> >to what I have seen anywhere else, no better/no worse...
>
> Sour grapes? Your statement again attempts to substitute your
> unsubstantiated conjecture for fact. Despite your assurance, while
> horses all over the world engaged in the similar activities in similar
> environments may have similar problems, they do not all have the same
> problems.
>
> >The WCF has gone to great lengths to supress the truth about Cytek.
> >There is a fear running through them for a couple of reasons.
> >Firstly the top end of the WCF are making a fortune out of running
> >farriery in the UK and they do not want this to change, a great little
> >money maker...
>
> Cytek has only to publish the results of the scientific tests confirming
> its claims of superiority to traditional farriery in order be considered
> a legitimate resource by the farrier community.
>
> >Secondly, there has already been talk of litigation among horse
> >owners. They are asking the question all Cytek people are, 'if we now
> >know that the traditional methods of shoeing cause many of the hoof
> >distortions and pathologies that our horses are getting and there is
> >something out there that is improving them and of benefit to our
> >horses, then why in gods name are they refusing to look at it!!!
> >If this is the case, 'can we sue them for negligence?'
>
> Whoever "we" is, "we" knows nothing of the sort. "We" is merely
> parroting the propaganda of a company with something to sell that has
> failed to submit their product to scientific testing. Cytek's reliance
> on anecdotes and testimonials, instead of scientific testing, is
> eloquent testimony to the efficacy of their "system."
>
> >They are not wanting to sue the individual farrier(as he is doing what
> >he is taught), they are wanting to sue the WCF for sticking their head
> >in the sand and trying to keep the Cytek shoeing system as quiet as
> >they can. I know for fact that there have been threats to take certain
> >Cytek farriers authority to shoe away from them for promoting a
> >product and they are watching them very closely. This is the reason
> >that many UK farriers although they strongly agree with the system,
> >they are scared to use it for fear of reprisal from the WCF!!
>
> Is it a conspiracy? Then again, it just might be that that Cytek's lack
> of demonstrated efficacy might have a bit to do with its lack of
> acceptance amongst the WCF. Unless frivolity is encouraged in the UK
> judicial system, any litigation involving Cytek will have a short life.
>
> >Let me ask you this, if traditional farriery is so correct why do all
> >horses feet go in the same direction and why have we got so many
> >remedial shoes in the forges...
>
> Most likely because many horses are bred for certain type - a
> suitability of form to efficient function - not feet. Put another way,
> the breeder who mates a G-1 winning mare and stallion is not trying to
> breed good feet, he's trying to get a runner.
>
> >Why do all remedial shoes involve improved breakover or more >support?...
>
> More knowledge of your subject would vastly improve your argument: All
> remedial shoes do NOT involve "improved turnover or support." (e.g.,
> Most shoes intended to alter the flight path of the foot relative to the
> horse's midline send the foot in a specific direction, they offer
> neither "improved breakover" nor "support.")
>
> >I feel we would be better off shoeing our young horses in remedial
> >shoes from day one, better than traditional shoes anyway...
>
> I feel all horses are better off barefooted until they demonstrate a
> need for shoes.
>
> >Fact is, we...
>
> Again, you are attempting to substitute your unsupported conjecture for
> fact while incorrectly using the term "we." Did this ploy stand you in
> good stead on the playground?
>
> >now have what the horse requires, the Cytek shoeing system. This is not >just a horse shoe as many people are led to believe, this is a shoeing
> >system which incorporates correct preparation along with correct
> >application...
>
> Not so. In reality, Cytek is an untested protocol.
>
> >Unlike traditional farriery which is governed by interprettion, and all
> >farriers are different, so who is correct?...
>
> All horses are different, as are their needs, a fact most inconvenient
> for the purveyors of an untested, one-size-fits-all, protocol.
>
> >Cytek is now in many countries around the world and I know for fact
> >that they have trained about 80 more farriers in the last 2 weeks...
>
> As the American circus impresario, Phineas T. Barnum once said, "There's
> a sucker born every minute." Those 80 bear testimony to Phineas'
> assessment of human intellectual frailty.
>
> >Cytek is growing fast as the farrier realises what it does and how
> >well it performs. Countries like USA, Canada, Australia, UAE, Spain
> >and some parts of Europe are all reaping the rewards of the Cytek
> >shoeing system, but best of all, the horse is reaping the rewards and
> >that is why we shoe horses, isn't it?...
>
> I don't know who "we" is, but I endeavor to trim and/or shoe each
> individual horse in such a way that it can operate most efficiently at
> whatever it does while maintaining soundness.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument - and those horses exposed to the fruits
> of that argument - giving each individual horse what is needs is a goal
> impossible to attain while using any so-called "system" that shoehorns
> every individual into a single category and does not conform to the
> basic tenets of traditional farriery.
Melanie
>Well we are very sure about traditional farriery these days and the
>damage and distortion that it causes.
Amazing we've got so many extremely elderly (by the standards of many countries)
pones nipping around quite healthily and happily after years of being shod by
'traditional' farriers then.
>This shows you
>understand very little about Cytek.
Probably - but my knowledge regarding Cytek hasn't been increased one iota by
your posts as you simply won't give any facts or clear explanations about Cytek.
The most reasonable, most factual conversations I've had about Cytek has been
with my own blacksmith and vet. You, who are a Cytek farrier, either can't or
won't assist in increasing my understanding of it and I'm starting to find that
somewhat frustrating.
Melanie
Esther Young
Wayne Aussie <cyte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd755dcd.03012...@posting.google.com...
> Why give any Cytek horse owner a hard time when you are totally
> unaware of the facts?
Excuse me, where have I given a Cytek owner a hard time? Insulting people is
not the way to get new clients.
> I noticed you took some of the results I sent off the board,
????????
I give up.
You don't happen to know someone who sells magnets do you? We haven't heard
from him for a while.
Esther
Tom Stovall
> Who is it that is after scientific research and evidence to support
> the fact the Cytek shoein system is correct for the horse?
To my knowledge, no studies confirming the efficacy of the Cytek
"system" exist.
>Can you show me any substantiated research or evidence that shows
>traditional farriery to be correct for the horse? I know for a fact >that you can't. Fact is, there is none!...
You have again confused your commercial conjecture with fact. Please
see Stashak, "Adams Lameness in Horses"; or, Rooney, "The Lame Horse.
Far from there being "none", in these veterinary texts, found in the
classrooms of most veterinary colleges in the United States, you will
find literally thousands of annotations referencing scientific studies
concerning various aspects of traditional farriery.
>Fact is we know that traditional farriery is incorrect for the horse...
No, "we" know nothing of the sort. On the other hand, anyone with an
interest can readily see that Cytek has failed to test the efficacy of
its so-called "system" and is attempting to substitute propaganda for
scientific research.
>and forces his foot in the opposite direction than what nature
>intended! Fact is that traditional methods cause horses to endure
>problems associated with incorrect balance, incorrect loading, lack of
>support and incorrect and fluctuating point of breakover!!...
Your imagination is running rampant! Please cite any scientific study,
published for peer review in any scientific journal, which confirms your
condemnation of traditional farriery.
>It is not Cytek shod horses that have to endure...
I see logic is not your long suit. Logically, before you can claim any
horse "has to endure" a litany of ills on the basis of traditional
farriery, you must first demonstrate that traditional farriery was the
cause. QED: you cannot; thus, your argument collapses.
>We know that the tip of the pedal bone is where the horses point of
>breakover should be, Cytek, N/B and even most traditional farriers
>agree to this.
Nossir, "we" know nothing of the sort. To my knowledge, it has not been
demonstrated that the most efficient breakpoint for the foot is at the
tip of the third phalanx; in fact, without the protection afforded that
structure, primarily by three layers of wall and two layers of sole,
the bone would be exposed. In effect, you are advocating the removal of
the wall at the very place it has evolved to be the most thick and
dense.
>The barefoot endurance riders are also proving this point as this is
>exactly where their horses are wearing their toes away to...
Whatever gave you the silly idea that extreme wear is a Good Thing? Did
it ever occur to the brilliant scientists at Cytek that the structures
that wear away under abrasive conditions are protective in function?
Or, that removing this protection might compromise the structural
integrity of the hoof capsule? Evidently not. Have you considered the
idiocy attendant to rasping the rubber off your tires because that's the
way they'll eventually wear? That's exactly what you're advocating!
>I have seen xrays of my Cytek shod horses to check these facts for
>myself and also seen barefoot endurance riders xrays which show the
>exact same. FACT!!!
While your claims are amusing, the inability of others to duplicate them
renders them questionable at best.
>Why is it that I regularly cut toe off the front of a traditionally
>shod hoof well behind the white line, some times up to an inch or
>more, without any soreness or bleeding? If this in the traditional
>methods is the point of breakover why is it so far forward and why
>over time does the dorsal wall concave exacebating the point of
>breakover even further...
You have NEVER cut that much wall of a horse correctly shod in the
traditional manner unless the horse was long, long overdue. If you
insist you have, you are a liar!
>Why do we as traditional farriers rasp the dorsal wall thin, right back
>to the laminae, therefore compromising the conical strength of the
>hoof...
As I advised in my last missive, you would do well to learn a little
something about farriery before attempting to pontificate thereon.
The rasping of the dorsal wall from the hairline to the white line is
not a part of traditional farriery; neither have the pathologies you
describe been demonstrated to be linked to traditional farriery. In
point of fact, ALL of the conditions you describe are indicative of
extremely poor husbandry and/or a farrier's lack of expertise.
[blather deleted]
>Tom, the racing game, you really believe the racing game is the best
>way to look at shoeing, what a joke!!!...
What part was beyond your comprehension? If one seeks a model of
biomechanical efficiency, the objective quantification of races allows
anyone with an interest to determine what works and what doesn't.
>We are using 3 and 4 year old horses to justify our shoeing now are we,
>you must be kidding!!!...
In most racing jurisdictions here in the States, flat races are written
for ages 2 to 11, inclusive.
>Tell me about these horses when they are 5 and 6 year old...
What would you like to know? For the most part, entire horses and mares
that can run have been retired to the breeding shed by that age, so that
leaves mostly hard-knocking geldings that can hold the money together.
>Long toes, weak walls, heels growing parallel to the ground, all out in
>paddocks or at the doggers as they have a huge range of hoof
>pathologies and injuries...
You appear to have overdosed on Cytek propaganda. In my experience, if
a horse lasts into their fifth or sixth year at the races, some plater
is managing to do something right in terms of allowing the horse to
maintain maximum biomechanical efficiency.
>Sorry I do not judge anything on the fact that a horse has won or lost,
>only on his well being for the time he is alive...
Does this mean you are no longer associated with Cytek's untested
protocols?
>But I can see why you have no concerns to Cytek as you seem more
>concerned with money than the welfare of the horse...
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I'm not advocating using Cytek's
anti-scientific, untested, "system" on the basis of a well orchestrated
propaganda campaign, you are.
>the reason I would agree that the development of a shoeing system like
>Cytek has not come earlier...
The usual order of business is to determine the existence of a
phenomenon, develop a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon, experiment
to test the hypothesis, then publish the results in a discipline-
specific journal for peer review. Apparently Cytek has little time for
the scientific method and has simply decided that a campaign of
propagandic disinformation and misinformation would be the most
effective way to persuade folks to use their "system."
>Obviously we have different ideas about what horses require, maybe you
>should stick to the traditional farriery...
You have "ideas," I have knowledge. There's a difference.
>But Cytek are about to bring out an aluminium race plate. As you would
>probably know but would also neglect to mention that racing in a steel
>shoe is against regulations due to weight...
Racing in a steel shoe is not against the rules of racing in any
jurisdiction in the United States; in fact, aluminum race plates are not
made in racing cross sections in the sizes required by large-footed
horses because they deform under load. Titanium is used on some of
these horses, others run in steel.
>I can tell you that there are quite a few race horse trainers in
>Australia who have their horses training and trialling on Cytek shoes
>and on race day they use an aluminium shoe and shape it to the cytek
>mould and we have had quite a few winners using this system...
You can tell me that until the world looks level, but I'll still think
your nose is growing. Race trainers are not mental giants and most of
them are still running in the 19th Century, but even the dullest of the
dullards aren't dull enough to blindly follow the untested Cytek model.
>The fact is that the Cytek shoeing system has only been out of the UK
>for 18mths so of course it will take some time for farriers and horse
>owners to understand and convert to using Cytek...
Don't hold your breath. Cytek may find some converts, the "system"
might even prove beneficial to a few horses it accidentally fits - but
serendipity is an extremely poor substitute for scientific testing.
>I shoe for the best horse vet in Victoria, he has all 12 of his
>eventers in Cytek shoes and he competes 4 star. I shoe for several of
>the top endurance riders, one of them won the National H/W distance
>horse of the year and they say the balance of their horses as well as
>the recovery is amazing. The list is only small at the moment on the
>world scale but I can assure you as time goes by it will differ in a
>big snowballing way...
Without comment on your questionable veracity, have you added
clairvoyance to your list of self-aggrandizing talents?
>I put several other results on the board which where quickly taken off
>as they were deemed advertising, why would that be, they were facts!...
Given your obvious confusion between fact and fancy, I doubt you'd know
a fact if it latched on to your posterior and shook like a wet dog.
>I know for a fact that Cytek just trained 80 more farriers in the last
>week or so, and as for my own business and many others in Australia we
>are at the point of knocking back work. For every horse that I shoe in
>Cytek I would say I get 3 calls from friends of the client asking for
>the same...
I read with interest the ponziesque succession of Cytek "certification"
on their website. The scheme has quite a bit in common with the
franchises sold by Hiltrud Strasser, a commonality that does not bode
well for Cytek if they ever get 'round to testing their "system."
>Fact is that Cytek gives the horse the correct balance, loading and
>support required based on the boney structure of the hoof.
Your mindless parroting of the Cytek mantra is an extremely poor
substitute for scientific testing; however, it does give cause to make
anyone with an interest wonder why Cytek finds it necessary to rely on
propaganda instead of science.
>The 3 ways the traditional farrier is judged in the world these days
>is;
>- if they are on time
>- if they do a neat job
>- how long the shoes stay on for
WRONG! The ONLY way any farrier is judged by a knowledgeable client is
whether of not the horse got what it needed to do whatever it does as
efficiently as possible while maintaining soundness. The correct
determination of a horse's needs and attending to those needs, not the
lemminglike adherence to an untested "system," is the sole criterion by
which any trim or shoeing can be judged.
>as most horse owners and I would also say most farriers do not
>understand what the horse requires how can they judge on it. I have
>heard some amazing things told by farriers to keep the clients happy.
>I have also been told many things by clients about their farrier
>saying they can no longer help the horse...
Did the horse owners get together and elect you spokesmen? You wouldn't
be attempting to substitute fantasy for reality in an attempt to sell
your master's products, would you?
>Funny, I have with Cytek and not only improved it but have improved it
>to a level way beyond anything ever before...
Funny, Cytek has been strangely reticent when asked to publish the
results of the tests used to confirm their theories. I wonder why they
are relying on anecdotes instead of science?
>I look at this objectively based on what I have seen in my clients
>horses, that is how I come to my conclusions. I have studied this to a
>great degree and tried and tested on my horses prior to putting it on
>my clients...
You appear to be advocating Cytek on the basis of your own inability to
meet the needs of your own and your clients' horses through traditional
farriery. Perhaps you should consider a remedial course in basic
farriery instead of touting an untested protocol on the apparent basis
of your personal lack of expertise.
>Answer me this question, How many of you people knocking the shoeing
>system have tried it or gone to a Cytek seminar and brought up your
>concerns with them????...
One is not required to attend a Cytek seance to know the "system" is
untested; neither is one with an even rudimentary knowledge of the
anatomy, physiology, and the associated biomechanical relationships
required to give credence to Cytek's propaganda. Put another way, the
emperor is still nekkid.
>So why don't you????
I prefer to rely on science instead of propaganda, a stance that does
not bode well for Cytek if others choose to assume the same posture.
>Ignorance is easy, you just sit back and do nothing!...
On your last statement, we can agree: Ignorance is a lack of knowledge
and the failure to question Cytek's claims would be the act of an
ignorant person. Cytek's claims may or may not be factual, but until
their claims are confirmed through scientific testing and publication
for peer review, their claims can only be considered the wishful
thinking of an outfit attempting to substitute propaganda for science in
an attempt to sell folks on an untested protocol.
Tom Stovall, CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith
sto...@wt.net
http://www.katyforge.com
Jens Günther
> Cytek is about giving all horses the correct point of balance and
> now know should be the point of breakover, and all horses in this area
> should be the same. It is the same as humans, we all have a point of
> breakover at the ball of our foot, relative to our bone structure.
> Although we all have different sizes we are the same.
Wayne,
if you take the comparison with humans only slightly beyond the
'breakover' you'll get a good example for 'one size doesn't fit
all'.
Most people, while running, strike with the outside of their heel
first, then roll their foot inwards to strike off over the ball.
This movement is called pronation.
However, many people over-pronate, some under-pronate
(supination) and some (like me) run 'normally'. Overpronating
runners need a shoe that has a pronation support on the inside
(like a slightly stronger suspension) to reduce overpronation and
supination needs some other correction. The amount of correction
needed and therefore the exact type of support differs a lot
in each group.
Wearing a shoe that does not suit your individual orthopedic
situation *will* cause problems to the point of seriously injured
knees and the like.
The shoe's shape has to fit your foot as well or it will result
in pressure points or loose fit.
And then there are, of course, those runners that strike with
their ball using the ankle as suspension. They have needs
different from 'heel strikers'.
No serious (amateur) athlet would say '$TRAINERS_MANUFACTURER are
the one and only true ones and all the others are crap', because
they know that there is only one One-and-only one: The one that
fits your feet. That's the reason why it's a Good Thing that
there are so many different manufacturers out there who produce
so many different types of shoes (AFAIK the forging of trainers
hasn't gone beyond the (burned down) lab stage;-)
I think that sentiment is applicable to horse shoeing as well.
Cheers,
Jens (being suprised how similar it is to fit a shoe to a runner
or to a horse, after getting a decent pair of trainers recently)
beverley.lockwood
> traditional manner unless the horse was long, long overdue. If you
> insist you have, you are a liar!
Sorry Tom, but my traditional farrier did, we thought she had BBHPA, had
x-rays taken etc and found her pedal bone to be ok. The hoof wall though had
continually spread forwards and sideways and the farrier lopped a good inch
or so off, I nearly threw-up at the time but it helped to getting her hoof
into some form of shape! Sadly this was after 2.5 years of farriers letting
her hooves spread in all directions, despite being shod every 5 weeks.
My question to Tom is in conjunction with my horse in that - can you tell me
as to why all the horses at my yard (despite the boxy hooved cobs) have all
got low heels and long toes?? This is a yard of 30 horses with varying
farriers? Is it the norm to shoe this way traditionally? To me, they all
look appalling, I'm amazed they can trot in those flippers they have.
Bev
beverley.lockwood
'slagging off' of the system for the past 5 years. I still require more
information and visual evidence and he has offered me to spend a couple of
days with him and to speak to all his clients (whoever I like) about Cytek
and what improvements (if any) etc have occurred and to get 'genuine'
feedback from horseowners, rather than to take his word for it.
So there we go, I will be watching very carefully as to how it is done and
to listen to all the horseowners. Will give feedback on my return (date is
set some time in Feb).
Bev
Roz Holmes
Eh?
Totally lost me there!
There is not a lot well designed about my feet, I had to go to London to
find some running shoes that actually fit me & even these rub slightly at
the heel <sigh>.
Roz.
Roz Holmes
<Alexis.haines (Alexis Haines)> wrote in message
> If you don't alter the shoe to the individual foot how
> do you achieve a good fit?
Well, I think we all know the answer to that one, as surely, there is only
one other way?!
Roz.
Susan Swann
>most problems given time and an understanding owner (ie you cant cure a
>problem in one shoeing, some might even take years. If a horse changes
>owners and farriers and so on, the original farriers game plan for the foot
>wont be seen through so it will take longer)
If that had only been true of mine, the horses I have known, past &
present.
All different farriers, different parts of the country.
They had their chance, they all said, nothing more can be done
and blamed the horse. One even said not bad enough to do anything about
yet. The last farrier of Jack even told me he had Good feet.
I was shocked at the vet, who said well to be expected of low heels,
long toes, very poor hoof, typical TB.
Now that is where I have been.
In my shoes what would you say after what I have now seen & experienced.
>
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
<beverley...@whsmithnet.co.uk> writes
Tom,
I have also put questions the same as that, why in our yard with 5
different farriers did I see long toes, low heels, bruised feet, cracked
feet, shoes being lost after a few weeks, in all sorts of weather. Horse
seemed to be ok, then lame after farrier visited, and farrier blamed the
horses bad feet.
Big feet like saucers.
All traditionally shod.
Now 2 of changed, for different reasons.
We now have 2 better moving horses then ever before, the bruised soles
will be truly tested in the hard dry weather.
The only difference Cytek.
Also Tom why do you not answer my post.
Is that because I dont pick out feet either?
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
<rosalind...@ntlworld.com.invalid> writes
No they do not alter the foot, they have different size shoes.
Remember I see it often myself.
Very little is removed, unlike after a conventional farrier visits. Not
many bits for the dog to eat up, very little trimmed, very little
rasped.
No they might not look as tidy, or as neat, or as smart.
Depends on what you want, nice looking that you think fits or a little
unconventional that is correct in balance.
I dont have pictures on a web site, but if you want to see some I have
them to send to you private.
--
Susan Swann
Thomas Bloomer
> off your tires because that's the way they'll eventually wear?
Where have I heard this before? Oh yea, Craig Trinka . . . another of those
"traditional" farrier types. I've been having a discussion about this same
subject with some poor misguided sole over on rec.equestrian. I was hoping
you, Mr. Stovall, would jump in to that thread, but I see that you are
occupied with this one :-)
Mr. Stovall, we haven't met, but I'm a big fan of your writing - that which
I have seen published on the web. Thank you for so eloquently making the
facts so crystal clear . . . and entertaining!
--
Tom Bloomer
Farrier
Hartly, DE USA
Susan Swann
<rosalind...@ntlworld.com.invalid> writes
>
>> unaware of the facts?
>
>
>I can't help thinking that if Cytek really is a useful way of shoeing in
>some cases (which it does seem to be, but I'll believe it when I see it with
>my own eyes),
Roz,
sorry to butt in, but I have many times said about Cytek, I wish I could
get into the history of the group, because I did take a lot of flak that
honestly upset me, I could show the posts, I cant. My horse "Jack" at
that time, improved as soon as the shoes were applied. He continued and
never in my care was that horse lame. Never a bruised foot, no matter
what terrain we went over.
I took pictures, unfortunately the files has been lost. Which upsets me
as it also contained all the pictures I had of him as well.
I have always been willing for anyone to see my horse, Flynn is not an
example to see for an overnight success as he never was shod
conventional. But I will say this, everyone who has seen him, has always
said what lovely movements he has, how balanced they found him for a
young horse. I cant say if Cytek helped or not. But at least I wont have
to back track, I believe.
But I do have pictures of Spot, his feet, before and after, also what I
have is a picture of his choppy stride (which I did ask about on here,
for advice to help him lengthen) and one taken day 2 after Cytek fitted.
We honestly did not expect this change to come about. It was not the
reason his owner decide to go to Cytek. The picture day 2 was proof of
what we saw ourselves. That is everyone in the yard and the instructor.
He has since just continued to improve.
Archie the yard owners horse is another case, he had a history of
problems, again that has improved over 99% but again the movement and
change in his attitude has been the real surprise to his owner and
everyone who knows this horse. But also the shape that everyone comments
on. This horse just gets better every day.
You would be very very welcome to come and see for yourself.
Everyone could come and see.
> that all this 'well it's sooooo great
>because.....well.....erm.....because it's SOOOO great!!' crap is somewhat
>backfiring on your advertising campaign!!!
I know its sad to have us happy owners shouting, but in all honesty, if
you had been in my shoes, sorry excuse the pun, not intended. Do you not
think you would have not wanted to shout about the success.
it is not for any personal gain, in fact I take loads of C*** , but I
am still here just hoping it may help another.
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
<p_rut...@gmx.de> writes
>Susan wrote:
>
>>>> NB has not been around as long as Cytek,
>
>In 1986 a chap in the US, called Gene Ovnicek, did some research on the way
>feral horses wore their feet,
Which is the basis of the Cytek System.
>and the results of this research were the
>basis for the Natural Balance Shoeing system.
Cytek have gone further
>
>I think I first started reading up on it around 91 or 92. Cytek arrived in
>the UK in 97, at which point NB has been much discussed for years.
I do apologise Petra, but with go slow computer and this took over, I
forgot to ask, Yes you have a very interesting document, which I also
used details from before and have read through.
This was not in the Uk though.,
Sorry I meant marketed in the UK.
But again I might be wrong.
--
Susan
Susan Swann
<beverley...@whsmithnet.co.uk> writes
>http://www.saddle-up.org.uk/Archive/Cytek-shoeing-1.htm
That girl is still with Cytek today as well, well she was a a few weeks
ago.
I do believe her instructor is Anna Ross who I used in my explanation,
She was the rider Chiltern Rider featured on in their Cytek feature.
Claire you would have seen her horses foot pictures at that demo.
It was the really bad feet.
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
writes
>In article <3e37a...@einstien.icl.net>, "beverley.lockwood"
><beverley...@whsmithnet.co.uk> says:
>>
>>http://www.saddle-up.org.uk/Archive/Cytek-shoeing-1.htm
>>
>
>Anyone can do that
>
>http://www.horseshoes.com/fhlpown/bb2/messages/7828.htm
I imagine if Cytek could talk with this person they would want to help.
Not saying it does not happen, as Wayne said, if a guy fits a lot of
traditional shoes, then fits 1 set of Cytek it can be the fit and
application is not totally correct through not work to Cytek.
It might be many reasons we dont have the guy here to ask, we dont have
anything else. Shame as at the end of the day he has an unhappy horse.
Was it right before?
--
Susan Swann
Petra Rüttiger
beverley.lockwood schrieb
> Having spoken to the UK Cytek farrier again,
Did you ask him about the matter of 3.5 years training, which is what caused
this whole debate in the first place?
> I still require more
> information and visual evidence and he has offered me to spend a couple of
> days with him
That's a very good offer and I hope you find it interesting.
How is your mare now the resection was done?
Petra
Thomas Bloomer
that I have been "abusing . . ."
and she said, "Dear dear old Tom [Bloomer]
You have automatically assumed I have a horse and that it has problems. "
Obviously this is a different "beverley.lockwood", because she has a horse .
. .
--
Tom Bloomer
Farrier
Hartly, DE USA
<beverley...@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e381...@news1.vip.uk.com...
Petra Rüttiger
Susan Swann schrieb
> I imagine if Cytek could talk with this person they would want to help.
> Not saying it does not happen, as Wayne said, if a guy fits a lot of
> traditional shoes, then fits 1 set of Cytek it can be the fit and
> application is not totally correct through not work to Cytek.
But wasn't it Wayne who DID fit those shoes? Check the rest of the
messages....
Petra
Wayne Aussie
research was conducted in Australia beore moving to several other
countries around the world. The same results were found in snow
conditions as they were in the hard conditions of Australia.
Wayne
Alexis.haines (Alexis Haines) wrote in message news:<b18sp7$19...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
Wayne Aussie
the pedal bone inside the hoof does not change shape it is the hoof
capsule that distorts. The traditional farrier then shapes the shoe to
this and the distortion continues.
The shape of the pedal bone is similar horses to horse in length to
width. If the wall of the hoof is only to support and protect the bone
in the hoof why should it ever change from the shape of the pedal
bone?
We have also found as has Ovinecek that the front wall is not a
primary weight bearing area of the foot. As traditional farriery loads
this area it causes the entire hoof to rotate forward in relation to
where it should be. This causes the horse all sorts of problems such
as contracted and collapsed heels and incorrect point of brek over.
Cytek shoes to the shape of the pedal bone and allows the hoof to grow
down without distortion.
And this works a treat I have seen it on hundreds of horses.
Wayne
Alexis.haines (Alexis Haines) wrote in message news:<b18sib$19...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
Wayne Aussie
you are a joke my friend.
Just sit back and watch the world of farriery pass you by.
And I would have well over 400 photos of horses feet showing me
cutting well behind the white line, up to and over 1 inch and this was
between 4 and 8 weeks in traditional shoeing.
I love the assumption that I am a liar, WOW, you are now telling me
what I do and don't know, this is great stuff! You truly have talent
Tom.
You see, to someone who has seen the results of Cytek for 2 years and
has changed well over 400 horses from traditional to Cytek, I know
what I am talking about.
Have you been to any information seminars or training days with the
Cytek people?
I know the answer to that without you answering, it is no.
I have seen both sides of farriery, you have not, it is like you are
yelling 'it can't be true' from the other side of the fence as you are
not speaking with any understanding or knowledge. You are going with
only what you beleive and hope is true, because it was taught to you
30 years ago and it was taught to them 60 years ago and so on. You
have learnt things from over 100 years ago and treat them like gospel,
we have not moved forward since the start of the rim shoe in the late
1800's.
As I have said, why wont the WCF offer Cytek a fair and independant
research group and stand by its findings. The reason is that they are
scared to do that.
What if what Cytek are saying is right? Where does that put the WCF
and all of their gate makers? Up the creek without a paddle!!!
This is the reason ladies and gentlemen that the WCF have tried to
supress Cytek from moving forward, but now that it is around many
countries in the world they are finding they cannot control what is
happening and are just yelling and screaming louder and louder trying
to convince you and themselves that it doesn't work.
The one person they cannot convince is the horses, and they are the
ones telling us it is correct!!
A dead argument in my book Tom as you have your head well and truly
stuck in the mud!
And those books that you quoted, they do not substantiate any findings
that traditional farriery is correct for what the horse requires.
And just for you, this is Simon Curtis comments about the traditional
methods of farriery from one of his books.
Simon Curtis FWCF is one of the leading traditional farriers,
examiners
and lecturers in the world. He has trained and lectured around the
world on
hoof balance, care and farriery. In his book he states;
Purely by placing a traditional shoe onto the balanced foot of a
horse, we unbalance it. The breakover point is moved away from the tip
of the pedal bone and thereafter the relationship of the heel as the
caudal point of support is altered.In the natural environment, the
horse wears the foot evenly while rolling the toe. When the
traditional farrier attaches a traditional shoe, the wear pattern of
the foot is reversed. The toe is then protected and allowed to grow
long and the heels wear away by expansion against the shoe. The hoof
grows down at the angle of the horn tubules, not vertically as it
should. The shoe is therefore dragged forward in relation to the limb
from the day it is fitted.
The perfect shoeing is out of balance within a few days.
And Simon is one of your so called and self confessed best traditional
farriers. Even he states that what you all do forces the hoof in the
opposite direction than what is required!
With your attitude I understand why the UK are so far behind most of
the world!
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E3806A8...@wt.net>...
Tom Stovall
>all I can say to you is that horses do not lie and you are way behind
>the times...
Spare me your senseless excuses and obfuscatory nonsense. In reality,
you are apparently incapable of offering any evidence of scientific
testing in support of Cytek's claims of efficacy.
>Show me where traditional farriery has the research that you are
>wanting to see from Cytek...
Asked and answered: Annotations referencing the efficacy of traditional
farriery are existent by the thousand!
>You give me the answer that we can only expect bad feet because of bad
>breeding!...
Correction, I stated, quite correctly, that breeders breed for type, not
feet.
>This is a stock answer that every traditional farrier gives, to not
>take responsibility for what he is doing to horses feet...
Ask yourself: Who is responsible for neonatal horn? (This question
presupposes you know what neonatal horn is, a thing not in evidence.)
>I am sure that you will tell all of your clients this, and as you said,
>'there is a sucker born every minute!'
Truth is self evident. Should you encounter the odd moment of lucidity,
simply ask any race or sport horse breeder to enumerate the
characteristics they hope to have in a foal.
>It makes sense, that traditional farriery would dominate the world
>market at the moment. As traditional rim shoeing has been around sine
>the late 1800's with very little change and Cytek has been around for
>about 6 years. So this is not news to anyone and totally expected.
Traditional farriery dominates the world market because its basic tenets
have been tested over the millennia.
>Lol, same fluff as on the web site. I am speaking of my clients horses,
>not fluff and as I have said, horses don't lie!...
People lie.
>Cytek not tested, by who are you speaking of? I have tested it and my
>250 horses in Australia have tested it and they have told me that they
>would much prefer it. I have seen the research and testing that was
>done by Cytek in the UK. I have been there twice and spent about 3
>weeks in total discussing and learning about the system...
Have someone explain to you the protocols involved in the scientific
method as pertains to the testing of a hypothesis. You will learn some
new words, among them: "double-blind," "publication," and "peer
review." With your new found knowledge firmly in mind, you will perhaps
begin to understand the utter folly of attempting to offer
unsubstantiated anecdotal fluff as a substitute for scientific
conformation of your claims.
[deletia]
>Cytek are more than happy to test their product against the
>traditional methods, but tell me who would do it? As the WCF has so
>much to lose I know Cytek are concerned they will doctor results. So
>you approach Cytek with a fair dinkum group of researchers and fair
>testing and you will get your opportunity, I will guarantee it.
Your personal "guarantee" notwithstanding, it appears Cytek has had six
years in which to submit their "system" to scientific testing an has
failed to do so, a failure that can only be construed as willful. What
are they afraid of?
>Just for everyone else, bring along all of the scientific research that
>you have to prove that traditional farriery is what the horse requires,
>so everyone can see it does not exist!...
Perhaps you might consider re-reading my missives, this time for
comprehension. Anyone with an interest can peruse any college
veterinary text and find any number of citations regarding the role of
traditional farriery in both normal horses and in the treatment of
various pathologies. As the old American bromide goes, "Read 'em and
weep."
>Cyteks claims are not supported by science you say, they are well and
>truly supported by the horses and that is most important. Why wont the
>WCF invite the Cytek people to do some fair dinkum testing? Cytek have
>done the testing, they do not need to conduct more testing...
No so! Cytek has NOT tested their product, Cytek has made grandiose
claims of efficacy, but not a single shred of scientific evidence
supports those claims.
>Knowledgeable farriers, now that is funny. How do you determine a
>knowledgeable farrier?...
A knowledgeable farrier is capable of consistently determining and
providing what the horse needs to do whatever it does most efficiently
while maintaining soundness.
>Why would, if they are so knowledgeable, they laugh at watching a horse
>improve using a shoeing system that is of benefit to him...
There exists no evidence of any "improvement" to any horse, merely your
unsubstantiated claims.
[more deletia]
>If they were so knowledgeable, why have they not improved the
>traditional shoeing system so we don't get so many lame horses caused
>by hoof distortions and damage...
Are you purposely playing the fool? Pathologies associated with horses
in use are most often exacerbated by use; the harder the use, the more
the likelihood of use-associated pathology. (e.g., concussion related
pathologies such as ringbone, navicular syndrome, pedal osteitis,
metacarpal periostitis, dysfunctional PIJ and DIJ, etc. occur in both
shod and barefoot horses, the common factor is use.)
>Do dentists, doctors, optometrists use the same practices they did
>100's of years ago? They have improved as they learnt more, traditional
>farriery seems to be 'monkey see monkey do' and has been for over 100
>years...
The anatomy of Equus caballus and Equus asinus hasn't changed in the
last 10,000 years; the behavior of levers haven't changed since noted by
Archimedes; much of the work of Lungwitz and Dollar is as viable today
as it was when it was written more than 100 years ago - technologies
change, physical laws don't.
>Knowledgeable seems to you to mean who knows the most of nothing as we
>still cannot find out, until Cytek came along, why horses feet moved in
>the detrimental way they do.
Whatever gave you such a silly idea? If you have substantiation for
your indictment, trot it out. Not hearsay. Not conjecture. Not the
fantasies of a Cytek proselyte - substantiation!
>These knowlegeable farriers who can't work this out have come up
>with the solution, we just blame the horse, he can't speak to defend
>himself!!! What a joke, knowledgeable...
Were you less ignorant and more knowledgeable, you might be able to
comprehend reality; then again, maybe not. Breeders of performance
horses don't breed for feet, they breed for performance.
>As far as the laughing I can tell you that every one of my clients
>cannot believe we did it the way we have for so long, they now realise
>what it is that is funny. Nothing, as they see horses being lamed and
>crippled and destroyed because of farrier and horse owner ignorance.
What you say is as meaningless as distant frog flatulence without
scientific substantiation.
>Your ignorance and uneducated view of Cytek is obvious if you feel it
>is a one-size-fits-all...
I'm admittedly ignorant of many things, but farriery is not one of them.
Despite your claims to the contrary, Cytek is most assuredly a
one-size-fits-all protocol that does not address the many conformational
differences in horses.
>Cytek have the product that will take farriery into the future and it
>is rapidly moving around the world. If the WCF want some information
>or to do some testing they should set it up so that it is done by a
>legitimate and independant research organisation...
It is the responsibility of the claimant, not the skeptic, to confirm
any claim. As advertised, Cytek has had ample time in which to test
their "system" but have chosen propaganda over science.
>I know that Cytek have done the research and are not concerned as they
>are getting the results and it is only a matter of time before the
>world of farriery starts to change.
You know nothing of the sort. If Cytek had scientific conformation of
their claims, they would publish it in a heartbeat and immediately
silence their critics; instead, they have chosen to aggrandize their
untested protocols by denigrating traditional farriery. A most telling
choice.
>So Tom, keep up those blacksmithing skills as making gates is
>apparently a good profession...
In my practice, farriery and blacksmithing are not mutually exclusive, a
factor I have in common with many British farriers - and apparently do
not have in common with at least one fellow claiming to be a farrier in
OZ.
--
Tom Stovall
>>You have NEVER cut that much wall of a horse correctly shod in the
>>traditional manner unless the horse was long, long overdue. If you
>>insist you have, you are a liar!
>Sorry Tom, but my traditional farrier did, we thought she had BBHPA, >had x-rays taken etc and found her pedal bone to be ok. The hoof wall
>though had continually spread forwards and sideways and the farrier
>lopped a good inch or so off, I nearly threw-up at the time but it
>helped to getting her hoof into some form of shape! Sadly this was
>after 2.5 years of farriers letting her hooves spread in all
>directions, despite being shod every 5 weeks...
Gentle lady, may I be so bold as to suggest you read exactly what I
wrote? Nobody on the planet ever cut an inch of horn off a light horse
that had been shod/trimmed CORRECTLY and on a TIMELY basis. Not once,
not ever!
Do the math. Horses' feet grow from 1/8" to 3/8" every 30 days, which
means that even if an owner were so lacking in basic husbandry as to
allow a horse to go three months without being trimmed or shod, the most
new hoof that would likely be present on a normal horse that had been
correctly trimmed would be about 3/4".
>My question to Tom is in conjunction with my horse in that - can you >tell me as to why all the horses at my yard (despite the boxy hooved
>cobs) have all got low heels and long toes?? This is a yard of 30
>horses with varying farriers? Is it the norm to shoe this way
>traditionally? To me, they all look appalling, I'm amazed they can trot
>in those flippers they have...
Without seeing the horses' feet, any answer I might offer would be
as conjectural as the "facts" a certain Cytek proselyte from Down Under
attempts to substitute for scientific research. I don't know. Ask your
vet, he's much closer than I.
Roz Holmes
"Susan Swann" <susanc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ETbj1$AqjEO...@neil.swann...
> You would be very very welcome to come and see for yourself.
Hello Susan, yeah I would definitely like to take you up on that offer
someday!
> I know its sad to have us happy owners shouting, but in all honesty, if
> you had been in my shoes, sorry excuse the pun, not intended. Do you not
> think you would have not wanted to shout about the success.
I totally agree with you, I know I would be doing the same (i don't think
anyone on this group is dissing you Susan in this thread) - but it seems
certain other pro-cytek people seem to have done a good job at putting quite
a lot of people off, myself included.
I'm not saying it doesn't work - it quite clearly *does* work from what you
have said, but from some of the things said on this group, questions left on
answered, general lack of facts, which should, really, be common knowledge
not stuff necessary for people to find out from cytek experts etc....well I
would certainly undergo ALOT of research into the matter before I touched it
with a barge pole TBH!!
Roz.
Roz Holmes
> No they do not alter the foot, they have different size shoes.
But surely, being able to adjust to the millimetre would be much better
rather than have standard sizes. In the same way that having half sizes &
width fittings in human shoes is so much better than standard sizing?
Without doing this, the shoe is either not optimally fitted, or the foot is
altered to fit the shoe.
> Very little is removed,
Hmmmm, well my mare at home's feet grow like mental! I cannot see that
suiting her, simply from the way her feet grow (quickly downwards, with very
little outwards growth) I cannot see how you could avoid not cutting lots
back unless she was completely barefoot & it wore away naturally.
> I dont have pictures on a web site, but if you want to see some I have
> them to send to you private.
That would be good Susan. Take off '.invalid' off my email addy.
Roz.
Wayne Aussie
I have considered the idiocy of what you have just stated!
Are we talking about cars or horses. I can understand Tom why you
would be having much trouble with your profession. Are you a
blacksmith or a mechanic?
If the tyre was protected from wear and grew into a square or
inefficient and incorrect shape (traditional farriery), then yes we
would indeed cut it back to what the car required. But as the car tyre
does not have a point of breakover it is a stupid comment. Wow, you
lost some credibility there mate!
Would you put on longer shoes because you have long toe nails? Or
would you cut the toe nails back to where they should be and allow
yourself the correct point of breakover relative to the bone structure
of your foot?
Horses are the same as humans in that they have a specific point of
breakover relative to the tip of the pedal bone. Every time that is
messed with it creates problems to the horse. From muscle and
structural problems to gait and hoof problems.
In the feral environment horses wear away hoof as they move about and
it replaces itself relative to wear. It has been noted and documented
by many that the toe rolls as it breaks over and keeps the point of
breakover at the tip of the pedal bone. I was re educating a horse not
long ago that I took out into the bush, this horse was barefoot and
had been for a couple of years, we probably did 15klms on dirt tracks
and by the time we got back she had squared off her toes and they were
rolled. What is this telling us??
In the domestic scene we restrict our horses movement and allow the
hoof to grow long, something that does not happen in the feral
environment. Therefore areas that are incorrectly loaded and
incorrectly protected cause hoof distortion.
Are you so naive as to not realise that the toe of the horse will only
wear back so far and that it is the soreness through the sole as it
wears away that is what we are protecting. A horse will only, if given
the opportuntiy, roll his toe and wear it away back to his natural
point of breakover.
Why is most wear on a traditional shoe in the toe? Because it should
not be there, and if it wasn't he would be wearing his toe back to
what he required!
Again, we seem to constantly be telling the horse what he requires
instead of asking and listening to what the horse is telling us.
So as far as putting together car tyres and horses hooves there is no
comparison at all! And you can continue to yell louder and louder
trying to convince yourself that Cytek is not a positive form of
shoeing, one that works with the horse rather than against it, as does
traditional farriery.
Wayne
PS: And Thomas, I would not be bragging to any that you worship a man
so wrong, so mislead and so closed minded.
"Thomas Bloomer" <bloomer(AT)snip.net> wrote in message news:<3e38...@snipnews.snip.net>...
Wayne Aussie
Tom will probably not want to answer that. The fact is, it is
traditional methods of farreiry that cause the problems. Incorrect
balance and loading of the hoof capsule. As I have said and shown,
even the great Simon Curtis states that what we do with traditional
farriery forces the hoof in the opposite direction of what nature
intended. This is the case so why are we amazed at what happens to our
horses in regard to lack of performance and soundness.
Although I am sure he will tell you that it is the breeding or the
management of the horse and the fact if it were his clients horses it
would not occur therefore it is only bad farriery, the list goes on. I
bet I would see in his clients horses the same hoof distortion as in
contracted heels, collapsed heels long toes, medial lateral flaring,
atrophied and dysfunctional frogs, long and weak heels, walls rasped
thin etc as I have every where else.
I have been in many countries and I see the same shapes of feet with
long toes, collapsed and contracted heels and all of the other
problems associated with traditional methods of farriery.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not putting the blame on Tom, or any
other traditional farrier, only what they have been taught!
As I say, the problem is that if Cytek are correct, (and through my
experience it is showing they are), what will the impact be on
organisations like the WCF. I can assure you that the WCF and many
other organisations including the MFA and F&BSA through concern for
their own well being are keeping a careful and weary eye on what is
happening with Cytek. In the UK the WCF have supressed the truth about
Cytek for several years, and constantly threatened the Cytek group
with possible retribution, but now that it is out of the UK and going
well around the world it is of major concern to them.
So as you can see Beverley, with what you have read and the photos I
have sent you, it is the traditional farrier that is unsure of what
the facts are, not Cytek.
As I constantly say to my clients, if you and your horse are happy
with what you are doing, why be concerned with what someone says who
has no idea about what Cytek is and does. You can tell that Tom does
not understand anything regarding Cytek, so why worry, I am not.
If anyone wants to see good feet, please log onto the Cytek Australian
web site at www.cytekhorse.com.au where you will see one of my own
horses. She has had Cytek on for 2 years nearly and you do not see
feet like that anywhere. And by the way, on day one of shoeing her
with Cytek, she had about 3/4 of an inch of hoof cut off her feet
after 5 weeks in her traditional shoes.
Wayne
"beverley.lockwood" <beverley...@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3e381...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
Wayne Aussie
is closer, I am in Aussie and I can tell her why it has happened.
I am not talking about cutting off wall growth, I am talking about
cutting off excess hoof in front of the tip of the pedal bone. Due to
incorrect loading of the hoof the dorsal wall rotates forward
(mechanical laminitis)away from the pedal bone. As the wall concaves
the horn grows in that direction, this in turn gives the horse a
breakover point well ahead of where it should be. This happens over a
period of time, not just the 6 - 8 weeks between shoeing.
Also as the front wall rotates forward (mechanical laminitis)the heels
follow in that direction which causes collapsed heels and contracted
heels. The farrier then leaves heel to stand the foot up and rasps the
front wall back to make the HPA look correct. As the heels are allowed
to grow longer they are weaker and collapse more, the front wall loses
its conical strength making it more susceptible to cracking and seedy
toe, the frog loses interaction with the ground and foot function is
compromised. It is a downward slide in both soundness and performance
from here!!
This is why it is of no use discussing things with you, you do not
understand anything about Cytek. I have sent Beverly some photos and
she will I am sure tell you about how much hoof I have cut from these
horses and this is after I trimmed any excessive wall growth.
Do yourself and your clients horses a favour and attend a Cytek
training day, bring up your issues with them and at least learn about
Cytek so you can knock it with knowledge not guess work!
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E3894B5...@wt.net>...
Melanie
>Having spoken to the UK Cytek farrier again, he had informed me of people's
>'slagging off' of the system for the past 5 years.
But Beverley, nobody's slagged Cytek off. Read the posts and actually read
what's been written. People have asked questions, have admittedly started to
get a mite irked when Cytek 'experts' have refused post after post to answer
them and have just spouted more 'Hear Ye the Word!'. Many if not most here are
of the opinion that Cytek certainly can help in some circumstances (Susan
Swann's not the only regular contributor who uses Cytek AFAIK and nobody sits
there having a go at her or anyone else - if they've researched it and it's what
their vet thinks is best for their horse, then where's the problem?!) but don't
accept that it's The Sacred Shoe and Only Way that Cytek seem intent on ramming
down our throats.
Then go and have a good look at the 'pro-Cytek' (for want of a better term)
posts - there's an awful lot of slagging off going on there, isn't there? Just
from reading this NG it's crystal clear who's slagging off whom ... Lots and
lots of very nasty, virulent, often misinformed stuff about traditional farriery
there isn't there?
Now, call me fussy, but when I'm looking for any kind of professional to do any
kind of a job, slagging off the opposition puts me right off. It is totally
unprofessional. Personally I classify it in with the 'trying to make someone
look smaller so that you look bigger' thang and that doesn't cut any ice with me
either.
>I still require more
>information and visual evidence and he has offered me to spend a couple of
>days with him and to speak to all his clients (whoever I like) about Cytek
>and what improvements (if any) etc have occurred and to get 'genuine'
>feedback from horseowners, rather than to take his word for it.
Great - hope you enjoy it! And yes, please do give feedback as we ARE
interested in FACTS about Cytek!
How's your mare after her resection?
Melanie
MOLLYMIMBLE
<snip>
>This is why it is of no use discussing things with you, you do not
>understand anything about Cytek. I have sent Beverly some photos and
>she will I am sure tell you about how much hoof I have cut from these
>horses and this is after I trimmed any excessive wall growth.
Okay Wayne - I have read through this and the other threads on Cytek. I've
never had a problem with traditional shoeing in the past. I do however have a
problem with the new farrier that I have been using since moving to a different
area. Now in the process of finding another farrier - so please send me the
same info and pictures that you are sending to Bev. I'd like to have the
information please from a proffessional who uses this method, so I can discuss
with my vet and decide if this method of shoeing would be suitable for the
horse in question. I'd be grateful if this information did not include the
denegration of other methods, just pictures and clear information of how it
works, put together for a trained veterinary surgeon to read.
Please note - I also personally know the 7yo FEI horse that Petra has already
mentioned that became unsound through use of the Cytek system. For this reason
I would like to discuss the suitability of this method, for my horse in
particular, with someone impartial who has my horses best interests at heart,
rather than A) yourself - you are obviously hoping to sell this system to all
horse owners or B) with a farrier who may or may not be.
I feel this is a fair and honest request, esp in light of the seeming lack of
response to questions already asked by other posters. I am slightly
uncomfortable with this, as I'd like to understand fully how my horse
would/could benefit before allowing anyone to dramatically change the feet.
The OP has evidently been one the receiving end of at least some misinformation
from the chap she spoke to one the phone. Again - this makes me wary.
TIA
Linda
S Macran
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Susan Swann wrote:
> Is that because I dont pick out feet either?
Can I ask why you don't pick out feet? What about when horse has been
standing in box all day?
Does that also mean that you never pick them up to check them for stones
etc etc....
Sue
S Macran
On 30 Jan 2003, MOLLYMIMBLE wrote:
> Wayne wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> >This is why it is of no use discussing things with you, you do not
> >understand anything about Cytek. I have sent Beverly some photos and
> >she will I am sure tell you about how much hoof I have cut from these
> >horses and this is after I trimmed any excessive wall growth.
>
> Okay Wayne - I have read through this and the other threads on Cytek. I've
> never had a problem with traditional shoeing in the past. I do however have a
> problem with the new farrier that I have been using since moving to a different
> area. Now in the process of finding another farrier - so please send me the
> same info and pictures that you are sending to Bev. I'd like to have the
> information please from a proffessional who uses this method, so I can discuss
> with my vet and decide if this method of shoeing would be suitable for the
> horse in question. I'd be grateful if this information did not include the
> denegration of other methods, just pictures and clear information of how it
> works, put together for a trained veterinary surgeon to read.
That would be very interesting to have Linda.
I have no problems with Alice's feet - she's had years of being shod with
racing plates etc and her feet are good. But my friend is currently
very frustrated with her
horses feet (we have the same farrier). He has the long toe collpased,
heels profile. He's in egg bar shoes at the moment and they are helping,
but she's continuously asking our farrier to cut
his toes back, he's being shod every four weeks, it's costing her a
fortune and she's getting fed up. I just wonder whether some
horses just don't fit conventional farriery so well. On the other hand
the horse has no lameness or hoof problems at all and never has - so may
she's worrting over nothing, must admit his feet look funny but they
always have.
Personally I don't know too much about the ins and outs of farriery - I
leave it up to my farrier - but talking to him he seems to think that all
horses hould be shod in eggsbars because they all need the extra at the
heels, but not all owners want that.
Finally have looked at cytek site - can't believe some of the before and
after pictures. The feet of the supposeed 22yr olf event horse! How
in hell did that horse go eventing! Absolutely no way! maybe it
evented when it was 7.
Sue
Tom Stovall
>Yes Tom, flog her off, you got out of that one nicely. Ask the vet, he
>is closer, I am in Aussie and I can tell her why it has happened...
How wonderful it must be to be so talented that you can accurately
determine the cause of a condition that has several possible causes from
half a world away! I don't know how they do things in OZ, but in my
part of the world, veterinarians diagnose and prescribe treatment for
various pathological conditions - and they usually find it necessary to
examine their patients before making a diagnosis.
>I am not talking about cutting off wall growth, I am talking about
>cutting off excess hoof in front of the tip of the pedal bone. Due to
>incorrect loading of the hoof the dorsal wall rotates forward
>(mechanical laminitis)away from the pedal bone. As the wall concaves
>the horn grows in that direction, this in turn gives the horse a
>breakover point well ahead of where it should be. This happens over a
>period of time, not just the 6 - 8 weeks between shoeing...
You've described a run out hoof capsule, a pathological condition, not a
normal condition. A less disingenuous individual - perhaps one not
trying so desperately to sell folks on the Cytek "system" - might have
noted that a run out hoof capsule can be presented by barefoot horses in
some environments, horses both barefooted and shod trimmed/shod
inexpertly, horses not trimmed/shod on a timely basis, horses with
congenital deformities, horses with certain stable vices, and horses
used hard on unyielding surfaces. The usual treatment is to trim or
shoe the horse correctly, thus stopping the seemingly self-perpetuating
condition and trimming/shoeing such a horse correctly does not
necessitate use of the Cytek's "system," it merely requires the ability
of a competent farrier.
>Also as the front wall rotates forward (mechanical laminitis)the heels
>follow in that direction which causes collapsed heels and contracted
>heels. The farrier then leaves heel to stand the foot up and rasps the
>front wall back to make the HPA look correct. As the heels are allowed
>to grow longer they are weaker and collapse more, the front wall loses
>its conical strength making it more susceptible to cracking and seedy
>toe, the frog loses interaction with the ground and foot function is
>compromised. It is a downward slide in both soundness and performance
>from here!!...
In your effort to sell folks on the Cytek "system", you are denigrating
traditional farriery for practices that are NOT intrinsic to the craft,
a ploy that will cause any reasonable person to question your motives.
If you believe Cytek to be equal or superior to traditional farriery,
simply post the scientific studies that confirm your claims. Failing
that, your slanted, nonsensical, quasi-scientific, blather is just
meaningless propaganda. Perchance, are you a politician?
>This is why it is of no use discussing things with you, you do not
>understand anything about Cytek...
Wrong! Your difficulty in discussing Cytek with me lies in the fact
that I understand full well the implications of Cytek's attempting to
sell folks on a "system" that involves untested protocols.
>I have sent Beverly some photos and she will I am sure tell you about
>how much hoof I have cut from these horses and this is after I trimmed
>any excessive wall growth...
Without independent verification, photos are meaningless: Where are the
studies confirming Cytek's claims published for peer review?
>Do yourself and your clients horses a favour and attend a Cytek
>training day, bring up your issues with them and at least learn about
>Cytek so you can knock it with knowledge not guess work!...
No guess work necessary, I KNOW that Cytek has failed to submit their
"system" to scientific testing. Until Cytek tests its "system," I
believe it would be unethical for me to use my customer's horses as
guinea pigs for an untested protocol of questionable efficacy.
Tom Stovall
>Tom, Tom, Tom,
>you are a joke my friend.
Allow me to correct two of your misconceptions: Any joke is on those
gullible enough to accept Cytek's claims without benefit of clergy and I
am not your friend.
>Just sit back and watch the world of farriery pass you by.
Some folks are wont to embrace every cockamamie theory that comes down
the pike; others require the testing of those theories. I'll take my
chances.
>And I would have well over 400 photos of horses feet showing me
>cutting well behind the white line, up to and over 1 inch and this was
>between 4 and 8 weeks in traditional shoeing...
Sure you do. And, pigs can fly. To reiterate: Given four to eight
weeks growth, neither you, nor anyone else on the planet, has ever held
your nippers parallel to the ground surface of the foot and cut an inch
of dorsal wall off a horse that had been correctly shod or trimmed
without causing a serious leak. If you're not holding your nippers
parallel to the ground surface of the wall, you're debriding, not
trimming. There's a difference.
>I love the assumption that I am a liar, WOW, you are now telling me
>what I do and don't know, this is great stuff! You truly have talent
>Tom...
No particular talent necessary, just a functioning bullshit detector.
>You see, to someone who has seen the results of Cytek for 2 years and
>has changed well over 400 horses from traditional to Cytek, I know
>what I am talking about...
Given Cytek's lack of scientific testing, you could not possibly know
anything definitive about the efficacy of the Cytek "system."
>Have you been to any information seminars or training days with the
>Cytek people? I know the answer to that without you answering, it is
>no...
Why would any reasonable person involve themselves with a company that
apparently fears to submit their protocols to scientific testing?
>I have seen both sides of farriery, you have not, it is like you are
>yelling 'it can't be true' from the other side of the fence as you are
>not speaking with any understanding or knowledge. You are going with
>only what you beleive and hope is true, because it was taught to you
>30 years ago and it was taught to them 60 years ago and so on. You
>have learnt things from over 100 years ago and treat them like gospel,
>we have not moved forward since the start of the rim shoe in the late
>1800's...
You seem to be saying that one should suspend credulity when presented
with new/different protocols, a most ludicrous contention. As you
learned in a previous post, physical laws don't change, technologies do.
>As I have said, why wont the WCF offer Cytek a fair and independant
>research group and stand by its findings. The reason is that they are
>scared to do that...
Your premise presumes something not in evidence. It is incumbent on
Cytek to provide conformation of their claims, not on the WCF to
disprove their claims. Cytek can claim the moon is made of green
cheese, but their claims are meaningless without scientific
demonstration.
>What if what Cytek are saying is right? Where does that put the WCF
>and all of their gate makers? Up the creek without a paddle!!!...
With similar logic one might ask, "What if the moon is made of green
cheese?"
>This is the reason ladies and gentlemen that the WCF have tried to
>supress Cytek from moving forward, but now that it is around many
>countries in the world they are finding they cannot control what is
>happening and are just yelling and screaming louder and louder trying
>to convince you and themselves that it doesn't work...
For some incomprehensible reason, you seem to be avoiding the salient
issue: Why has Cytek failed to submit their "system" to scientific
testing, publication, and peer review?
>The one person they cannot convince is the horses, and they are the
>ones telling us it is correct!!
Despite your claims of communication with horses, the only means by
which one can demonstrate the efficacy of a protocol is by testing in
conformation with the scientific method.
>A dead argument in my book Tom as you have your head well and truly
>stuck in the mud!...
Alas, I fear your book is filled with meaningless Cytek propaganda -
perhaps you might shed your ignorance if you read from a different book.
>And those books that you quoted, they do not substantiate any findings
>that traditional farriery is correct for what the horse requires...
The most casual perusal of Stashak's, "Adams Lameness in Horses"; or,
Rooney's, "The Lame Horse" will put a lie to your statement. Both
textbooks outline the use of traditional farriery in normal horses and
those with challenged conformation - as well as those with various
pathological conditions. You might appear much less the fool if you
read the cited references.
>And just for you, this is Simon Curtis comments about the traditional
>methods of farriery from one of his books...
[deletia]
Why would Mr. Curtis' untested theories carry any more weight than
Cytek's untested theories? Untested is untested, no matter the origin.
>With your attitude I understand why the UK are so far behind most of
>the world!...
I'm not in the UK, I'm in the USA - and I don't know that the UK is
behind, ahead, or even who is keeping score. Neither do you. It's
interesting to note that the USA has no compulsory testing of farriers:
with the exception of some parimutuel racing jurisdictions, anyone can
hang out their shingle and call themselves a farrier. Yet, despite the
laissez faire state of farriery here in which our clients vote with
their checkbooks and any farrier is only as good as his last shoeing,
Cytek has failed to gain a share of the market. Perhaps Cytek's failure
has to do with the fact that while we have no compulsory testing of
farriers, all of our states can enforce laws governing the humane
treatment of livestock.
--
Susan Swann
>
>But surely, being able to adjust to the millimetre would be much better
>rather than have standard sizes. In the same way that having half sizes &
>width fittings in human shoes is so much better than standard sizing?
>Without doing this, the shoe is either not optimally fitted, or the foot is
>altered to fit the shoe.
This shoe is placed to the foot. No Clips to interfere with any hoof
growth.
No they do not alter the shoe at all. To many not as tidy either.
Cosmetics are not important to me, I am personally only interested in my
horses welfare and movement.
That is the basis of conventional shoeing, shoeing to the foot, as the
foot alters , you shoe to the foot,
example of how it may go:
shoe to the foot, foot losing support, shoe is placed at the toe, which
is becoming longer, already you are losing support at the correct place
of balance to the horse, shoe to the foot again, now becoming slightly
longer in the toe, but the training says they must shoe to this foot, so
it is done.
then before you know where you are you have a longer toe, the support
has gone from under the foot in correct placement, the heels are no
longer having any support, they become unused, they contract, the heels
disappear, the frogs are no longer in contact and being in contact they
disappear. The support of the so very important pedal bone is gone.
This was a simple version of how one recent horses feet went, Cytek was
put on.
He then walked out better. He showed longer stride when ridden the next
day. Nothing was different except the shoes.
Not rocket science to see. The horse spoke for himself.
No Cytek salesman. No nerd like myself. Just simply him.
This is a simple version, I do not have any medical terms, or any body
part terms.
You can pick fault on my simple explanation, but as an owner how else
could I judge other then this.
>> Very little is removed,
>
>Hmmmm, well my mare at home's feet grow like mental! I cannot see that
>suiting her, simply from the way her feet grow (quickly downwards, with very
>little outwards growth) I cannot see how you could avoid not cutting lots
>back unless she was completely barefoot & it wore away naturally.
Another thing of Cytek is the growth will slow down as no irritation of
clips to possibly encourage a false growth. What they look for is good
quality growth. You still get the differential from seasons, but not as
much.
Again I speak as I find. Less growth, less removed obviously, hoofs have
become healthier. No supplements doing it.
Cytek say this is all down to healthier blood supply to the foot and of
course to the hoof growth. Again I cant speak of any science answers,
but in reality everything they told me, has worked out. We all know that
good blood supply is the greatest healer of any condition. It must be as
no magic did it.
>
>> I dont have pictures on a web site, but if you want to see some I have
>> them to send to you private.
>
>That would be good Susan. Take off '.invalid' off my email addy.
After this has been sent I will Later. Better go and get some dinner.
Please dont attack my answers. Not that I imagine you will, but it is
only experience I speak of. The theory of Cytek System is very real as
it is there in black & white to for me to see.
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
<p_rut...@gmx.de> writes
>
I didn't say it was Wayne. Please read
>>if a guy fits a lot of
>> traditional shoes, then fits 1 set of Cytek it can be the fit and
>> application is not totally correct through not work to Cytek.
>
I dont know who fitted them. I did not go all through it. Should I have?
I gather not nice pictures. And I dont treat it casually.
But and It is an important But I have seen equally nasty pictures and
worse, all that came from years of Conventional shoeing trying and
failing. Who failed all of those.
We arnt speaking of 20 horses that you mention from past Cytek. ( Who
Cytek have learned the lesson of)
most of Cytek clients come through word of mouth because they have a
horse issue. The system as we mostly know it, failed to come up with
answers. They have sought it as a remedial shoeing system. Then as
owners are seeing for ourselves, many of us do not then see this as
remedial.
Were we all sucked in, at a great event! No.
Most because we heard from another who had good results, talked about
it, another owner came along who had a problem, and asked questions.
Or visited a demo, because they knew their horse was not right, or
recognised problems there horse showed and heard Cytek had been success
in dealing with this, in another horse.
I have never been good at explaining, it causes much amusement my
emotional responses I believe.
But Petra please dont keep snipping and picking at a small part,
especially when it was not as you said or gave others impression of.
I replied to your other snip of my post in the week, again the come back
at me was not as I posted. But so far it would appear nothing is
interesting enough to look and acknowledge back your error.
I know you acknowledge the results I have had with my own. But what
about the others I have said about. The stride, was this all imagination
or not worth taking into account. You dont say back about those. Imagine
how excited we all were.
Boring as it may be, it was such an achievement. Simply got.
Plus Mary came on here to say about her 7 horses all competing in many
differing disciplines, in Cytek shoes, all different in breeding and
type.
The one that was sold and put into conventional shoes and shortly after
went lame, vet said Navigular, she said not it is not. Had the horse
back, it was put back into Cytek and sound.
Now she hardly got a response, why? Nothing to say really I suppose. But
only saying how she had experienced it, It worked.
Now again it must be this bad conventional farrier that everyone keeps
telling us we had in the past. But we have had so many of them around
the country. Now who trained them?
--
Susan
Petra Rüttiger
Susan Swann wrote:
> >> I imagine if Cytek could talk with this person they would want to help.
> >> Not saying it does not happen, as Wayne said, if a guy fits a lot of
> >> traditional shoes, then fits 1 set of Cytek it can be the fit and
> >> application is not totally correct through not work to Cytek.
> >
> >But wasn't it Wayne who DID fit those shoes? Check the rest of the
>
> I didn't say it was Wayne.
HELLO ??? Of course YOU did not say it was Wayne... Wayne has not yet said
it was Wayne either.
> I dont know who fitted them. I did not go all through it. Should I have?
Yes. You should.
> I gather not nice pictures.
No. Not nice pictures at all. And nor is the write up.
> But Petra please dont keep snipping and picking at a small part,
> especially when it was not as you said or gave others impression of.
Pardon ? What exactly are you trying to say, I can not make head nor tail of
the above sentence. Let me try to explain to you what was said.
You mentioned how that poor horse was probably shod by someone who, as Wayne
said, did not do Cytek properly or only part time. I pointed out that there
was at least a very strong possibilty that it was actually Wayne himself who
had shod the horse. Do you understand my comment now?
> I replied to your other snip of my post in the week, again the come back
> at me was not as I posted.
What snp, what comeback please?
> But so far it would appear nothing is
> interesting enough to look and acknowledge back your error.
WHAT ERROR ?
Please point out what was at error then, and if so I will recify it.
> Now again it must be this bad conventional farrier that everyone keeps
> telling us we had in the past. But we have had so many of them around
> the country.
Sorry, I have always managed to have good conventional farriers, as well as
picking horses with decent feet to start with. None of mine ever had any of
the problems you talk about. Maybe we keep horses at different places, with
different care being applied and being acceptable to the owners. Bad
farriery and horrid feet such as you describe would not ever have been
acceptable anywhere where I would put a horse of mine.
I have seen very good, good, middling and apalling conventional farriers
work. I have seen good and bad etc Cytek work. That just means that there
are good and bad farriers out there.
Which is all I have been saying all along.
Petra
Petra Rüttiger
Susan Swann schrieb
> That is the basis of conventional shoeing, shoeing to the foot, as the
> foot alters , you shoe to the foot,
You must truly have had apallingly bad farriers in the past. The idea of
traditional farriery is not to shoe to the foot whatever the foot may be
doing. That is why a farrier trims the feet, to get the right angles, the
right loading of the structures, etc.
> example of how it may go:
> shoe to the foot, foot losing support, shoe is placed at the toe, which
> is becoming longer, already you are losing support at the correct place
> of balance to the horse, shoe to the foot again, now becoming slightly
> longer in the toe, but the training says they must shoe to this foot, so
> it is done.
NO farrier training advokates a long toe and a collapsed heel. That is just
nonsense. A BAD farrier may let the foot get too long and the heel
collapapse, but that is NOT how it should be done. I have never had a horse
with long toes and collapsed heels ever.
Please try not to compare apples and pears, and use bad farriery as the
norm.
Petra
Susan Swann
>it was Wayne either.
>
>said, did not do Cytek properly or only part time. I pointed out that there
>was at least a very strong possibilty that it was actually Wayne himself who
>had shod the horse. Do you understand my comment now?
>
of it.
>
>> But Petra please dont keep snipping and picking at a small part,
>> especially when it was not as you said or gave others impression of.
>
>Pardon ? What exactly are you trying to say, I can not make head nor tail of
>the above sentence. Let me try to explain to you what was said.
You have a habit of snipping only what you wish to use in an a reply.
Often not enough is snipped to show the whole sentence it came from or
the full context. Then it looks a totally different argument.
> I replied to your other snip of my post in the week, again the come back
> at me was not as I posted.
What snp, what comeback please?
> But so far it would appear nothing is
> interesting enough to look and acknowledge back your error.
WHAT ERROR ?
Please point out what was at error then, and if so I will recify it.
Well here is the reply:
>> Yes I have, knowing you would get flak, as I did many moons ago and
>> still now.
>
>Susan, the flak was not bcause of the Cytek idea as such, the flak was
>because at the time of writing her public appeal that we all go and make
>written complaints about the farrier licencing system Beverly was in
>posession of a lot of misinformation
But still true that Cytek on this group always gets flak
But yes the info was not all correct. A bit of me there, emotion took
over I feel.
> and had, by her own admission, not yet
>seen any Cytek shoes, or any horses shod that way, plus what she told us to
>complain about wasn't true anyway. THAT was the issue !
I knew what Beverly meant, yes not clear and all correct. But she just
felt she could get other owners to help as she believes this is right,
But dont go off on one till I have finished please.
I was that way in the beginning, before I had Jack shod, it made sense
to me, I had seen the shoes though. I had seen a difference to a couple
of horses. But Petra I took flak, It upset me a great deal at how much
flak I did take.
I appreciate this was the issue of most replies, but the way some are
written speak volumes of attitude in the reply. I am just as emotional
plus forget some words. It hurts and difficult to take.
>> The difference I Have used the System, and Have seen the improvements.
>> Not just heard about it.
>I am glad you get on with it. But it does NOT suit every horse and every
>foot. That I have also seen, and not just heard about.
We will always differ on this. But then again boring if all of us agreed
on everything. But one day Petra I might see a change of opinion.
You are lucky Barefoot works for yours. Ideal world they all would be.
>
>> I have heard reports of horses not achieving these results, BUT
>> personally out of over 20 horses I know of, none report that.
>
>Well, I have personally known more than 20 horses which had been tried on
>Cytek in the early days. I only know of two which are still on it.
Petra I keep saying early days is not now. Yes and Cytek made mistakes,
I saw your further reply if it was one of mine I would feel different or
not treat it so casually, I cant answer to how I would feel now. I think
Warwick's own horse was the 1st, he was written off by insurance company
and life was due to be over. He is still well and truly going great
guns.
Gosh so many errors have been made in all worlds as well as horses,
lessons learned through it. You cant live in the past and refuse to
accept change for the future surely. I am not saying all the future
changes are for the good, But many are. I believe this method is good
now.
>> I am in other groups and 1 girl changed back because the Cytek guy was
>> unreliable and rude, which happens in conventional farriery as I have
>> also seen.
>
>Absolutely. FIRST take a GOOD farrier. THEN judge the work, be it Cytek or
>any other system.
That is the reason Cytek wish to train their own. Some bad conventional
farriers want to jump on bandwagon. Who knows why? because they cant
keep their own business growing. But anyway they are not good enough for
Cytek or anyone in reality. Lucky for me I have a choice of at least 5 I
can call on if pushed, one is Warwick if all else fails, as I know how
busy he is. But as a group they will pull out the stops to get your
horse looked after.
Mark who had the accident is back tomorrow on our yard, near a year
after the tragic events. Look at the stops Cytek pulled out for him, the
horses on his client base and the clients.
Am I just lucky to have such a choice. It should be that way for all of
us, but ideal world means we get good and bad in all skills. I want only
the best.
>
> > I would like to add, not because of me I do not wave the flag at the
>> yard, although I would love to do so.
>
>You DO wave the flag.
Petra, please read the whole sentence it came from. I did not wave the
Flag at the yard! And honestly hand on heart I did not. They made their
own opinions after the problems both owners had. 1 more then the other
unfortunately for her horse at the time. If you talked to them, they
would back this up. They sought me for info. I was shocked the 1st time
yard owner asked me about it. Good God Jenny, you are asking me about
Cytek! Was my reply.
> (And why not if you are convinced of something which
>has helped your horse... Just don't say you do not wave theflag when you
>bombard the equestrian magazines with letters about it and try to convert
>farriers into becoming Cytek farriers. I would say that is waving the flag
>with evangelical zeal :-) Nothing wrong with it, just stand by it.
BUT yes away from the yard I do, and I wont lie, no point, I am not an
untruthful person, I am proud to say what I have seen. I do stand by
that, in fact you are not the first to say I am evangelical, I think
more sad I am an Anorak.
I was booking a seminar, but Cytek in their wisdom , which it is, felt
with a lack of infrastructure to cover the interest I had, it could have
let down, the horse, client and Cytek. So I should not be here spouting
off really. I had so much interest, owners, vets, magazine editor and
some farriers. The farriers have been put in touch with Cytek. But it
was a shame not to have it all the same.
So I do stand by my belief.
>> (Note this Cytek farrier still applies conventional shoes, but
>> sought Cytek as he felt it does not address farriery issues enough)
>
>Well, that's the ideal world I would say. A farrier who adds Cytek shoes to
>his options to be used as and when appropriate. Not as a "one fits all"
>solution to every issue....
That I would love more to do. It adds another string to their bow of
skills to offer. So they dont lose out their existing clients, but add
more!.
Neil who has been covering for Mark is very sold on it though. But as he
says if you want conventional shoes, well he might as well have your
pennies as another farrier. Plus he does know the horse.
Oh and he is reliable, friendly, nothing is too much trouble. Just how I
like them!" Worth weight in gold.
>
>> I know Cytek made mistakes in its early days, as Ford, Vauxhall and many
>> car manufactures have .Many companies make mistakes, like us all. It
>> has possibly been at an expensive cost to some.
>
>Susan, if it was YOUR horse which was crippled, would you be so casual about
>it then?
I did address this earlier .I dont see it as casual, you know me better
then that.
But also remember all the horses I am seeing and have seen that
convention let down badly! Crippled and some to be shot. Farriers & vets
had no other answers. Through not knowing about Cytek or worse refusing
to acknowledge the good it can do, many horses were not allowed the
opportunity.
Now Petra that is sad.It goes on and will continue till more take in
what else can be offered, but only through correct Info, I do accept
that is most important.
By learning of other opportunities we gain more knowledge to make a more
informed choice. Less knowledge limits that chance.
Being on these groups has given me such an opportunity. Without the
computer my knowledge would be so much less. My skill would be less. The
support I have been given and passed to others has been increased.
>> BUT life moves on, we
>> learn and move on.
>
>That's OK then. The horses which were hurt by it aren't your concern, after
>all....
Now I hope that was not meant the way it sounded as I do care, hence my
reason to keep the tap dripping. Life will have is casualties, I had a
horse that was one of them! . If Cytek had not continued he would not
have been helped. So see it in a more positive light.
I have made errors of judgement, so have you, you cant be blamed all the
rest of your life because of it
>> NB has not been around as long as Cytek,
>
>This is NOT true. This is absolutely NOT true.
OK I will take it up with Cytek if they gave me incorrect info I do
apologise and I will seek a correction.
>Cytek arrived in the UK in
>1997.
Yes I believe that is so.
> The first time I saw a Cytek farrier shoe horses that way I had
>already read up on and investigated Natural Balance Shoeing and I remember
>very clearly that the first thing I asked was whether this WAS a form of
>Natural Balance or Four Point as the shoes looked at first glance similar.
I will check it, and as I said, if my error I will be first to say I am
sorry.
Now if you have seen and investigated you surely must know they are not
the same for many reasons.
But I agree similar in appearance. The first time I saw a NB shoe, I
thought it was a Cytek Shoe! But strange though, could not work it out.
Then found out why.
>>and the farriers do not have
>> to do any training to fit the shoes.
>
>A GOOD farrier will get info before applying ANY system or idea, and Four
>Point AND NB is covered in Farrier Training.
But the point is they do not have to. They can just buy them, fit them
within their own interpretation. That is why some might have tried it
and not got a good result. Like a bad Cytek guy. But at least you can go
to Cytek and if they check and find wrong it will be corrected for
future. They only want the shoes fitted as the training, by good
farriers, who care and are reliable.
> As it only takes a couple of
>days training (and a fistful of cash
Most training cost money, nothing wrong with that, all qualifications
are bought if you think of the investment given. But Cytek still oversee
who is good enough, and what level as well they have the opportunity to
gain more knowledge. Even horse behaviour handling. Makes life much
better for the horse and the farrier to have a horse stand quietly
because he wants to.
>) to become a Cytek Farrier I don't
>think there is much difference in the Training as such.
The word here is "Think"
your own idea of what you "Think" the training is
>
>A BAD farrier will make a mess of any type of shoe he nails on. A GOOD one
>will go and research and learn before using anything.
WE do hope so, but how does that farrier know he is bad or good, unless
someone tells him so.
Who judges him once out in the field. Owners can only go by what they
see and trust, most trust their farrier. I did, I was told such utter
rubbish by him, but at the time I believed what he said.
I was only 1 of his clients. He is still a registered farrier, but who
one day did not show up, for me and many other clients. He can be out
there still who knows.
>
>As I have said TIME AND TIME again ... I do NOT have a problem with Cytek
>for those horses it works for. Each to their own.
Yes and correct info is the only way.. To make an informed choice.
>
>I DO have a problem with mis-information being spread around
Yes so do I.
> and I DO have a
>problem with anything which is promoted as the one and only way to anything.
Well we will differ. I agree there. As far as Cytek is concerned.
Hopefully no hard feelings:-)
But then again, I am now into researching treeless saddles! Now that is
another box to get on I bet.
--
Susan, who has read this through, and hopes all mistakes have been
corrected
before posting.
>
>Sorry, I have always managed to have good conventional farriers, as well as
>picking horses with decent feet to start with.
Well does that mean all the ones I know must have started with bad feet.
Flynn has good feet, he had crap trims and a real lack of them. Yes I
agree there. But he still can not deal with barefoot. Did try.
> None of mine ever had any of
>the problems you talk about. Maybe we keep horses at different places, with
>different care being applied and being acceptable to the owners.
But Petra that means an awful lot of us had wrong care applied.
We could only work with what we know and believe, yes?
We believed what the farrier said, our horses feet were good when they
clearly weren't.
They were bad when what was wrong was the shoeing.
We believed the vet when he said nothing more can be done, when it could
and was.
> Bad
>farriery and horrid feet such as you describe would not ever have been
>acceptable anywhere where I would put a horse of mine.
But see above now how do you know different.
How many say on here they dont have a problem.
Jenny said she had a farrier who was good, he was not bad he works with
what he knows, she thought her horses feet were good, but he was lazy,
or he was ill, loads of vet bills, plus a very frequent farrier visit,
then eggbars fitted.
How do we all judge what is good, till we see a real difference.
I cant remember how much I believed Cytek would change Jack, but I
honestly did not really believe he would be like that, straight away.
>
>I have seen very good, good, middling and apalling conventional farriers
>work. I have seen good and bad etc Cytek work.
I know there has been bad Cytek work. I do not dispute that.
But now it seems I am only seeing good Cytek and many coming to Cytek
from Convention.
That speaks volumes.
> That just means that there
>are good and bad farriers out there.
Of course and sadly there always will be as in any walk of life.
>
>Which is all I have been saying all along.
I was hurt a lot the flak I took from my original days of Cytek posts on
here.
It was a bad word to use.
But Cytek are still adding more and more horses to the system.
If all have a better future that is the only important bit.
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
>not stuff necessary for people to find out from cytek experts etc....well I
>would certainly undergo ALOT of research into the matter before I touched it
>with a barge pole TBH!!
Ok simple question.
How much research did you ever do into conventional shoeing? How many of
us have honestly.
How much research did you do into how good your farrier was?
In all honesty I have never done that till I looked into changing.
I always took someone's word for it, the farrier was good. Why?
Well they told me so. It was he was reasonable, he usually turned up. He
was not nasty to my horse. I have sacked one for the way he handled my
horse. I would never put up with an unreliable one.
But till Cytek, I have never had one walk my horse about, see how he
moved before or after. Even as a new client to his books.
He arrived started on my horse, was paid new date made and gone, very
quickly.
>
I have had all my questions answered todate, but then again tomorrow I
might think of another.
I ask Cytek then?
Funny I never really questioned farriers before. I never really
understood the foot.
If nothing else I have gained that knowledge.
regards Science, testing, blind testing,
it means diddly squat to me the owner. My horses was the test, as any
horse would have to be. he passed with honours
Will send you pictures. Perhaps weekend Roz.
Got slightly carried away.
Mind you, you ought to visit the ukfarier board, now do they argue,
about the FRC and the whole cab boodle.
If they cant agree, what chance do we have?
Apparently very unhappy about the apprenticeship programme for the
future farriers the failures were so high! Scary talk of lack of
support, lack of training..
OH yes they hate Cytek!:-)))
--
Susan Swann
Susan Swann
<Pine.SOL.3.95L.103013...@mailer.york.ac.uk>, S Macran
<sm...@york.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Susan Swann wrote:
>> Is that because I dont pick out feet either?
>
>Can I ask why you don't pick out feet?
Earth is good,
Stable poo & urine is bad.
Simple
Earth also helps in the support to the foot under the wider shoe.
It helps act against the frog and increase the circulation. better
circulation increases foot and hoof. Less chance of foot infections as
well.
Please do not pick me up on this answer, this is only simple
explanation.
> What about when horse has been
>standing in box all day?
If my horse goes in there with soil, it stays there, it acts as barrier
against the stable muck. I do peal off straw that stuck to his soiled
filled feet. as it makes a mess in the yard
BUT if my horse was box rested or confined to stable with weather bad as
an example, his feet would be picked out as no soil would remain. I
would return to that whilst in stable rest.
The horse turned away, or wild, or native unshod does not have a foot
picked out.
The soles of a my horses on Cytek shoes have all grown thicker soles,
and there is not a lot of room in there. Not as deep as you see in a
conventional foot.
>Does that also mean that you never pick them up to check them for stones
>etc etc....
I check them. But that is all.. If I found a stone that stood in the
foot deeper then the base of the shoe, I would remove that. Never have
so far though.
I also pick his feet up, as still a training issue for his visit from
the farrier or a vet. He still has to accept this action
But question.
Do you follow your horse all day and continually pick them out in case
of stones.
Do you keep stopping on a hack and check for stones?
Funny of all the questions we get asked as Cytek owners once anyone
knows this is not done anymore, they All ask about stones.
It was my first question to Cytek, as it went against everything I had
ever been taught.
But then again, now I am seriously looking at treeless saddles!
They go against all I have ever been taught to know about a saddle.
Hope this helps you.
--
Susan
Susan Swann
<p_rut...@gmx.de> writes
>
>Susan Swann schrieb
>
>> That is the basis of conventional shoeing, shoeing to the foot, as the
>> foot alters , you shoe to the foot,
He said you have to shape the shoe to the foot the way it was going?
>
>You must truly have had apallingly bad farriers in the past. The idea of
>traditional farriery is not to shoe to the foot whatever the foot may be
>doing. That is why a farrier trims the feet, to get the right angles, the
>right loading of the structures, etc.
What?
They arrive, they pick up the foot, take off the shoe, heat it, check it
against the foot, after some trim, change the shoe, till it matches the
foot, bangs it on.
Takes his money, goes.
Simple.
As I said to earlier post, I have never had my horse walked around, or
seen another walked around.
It was mark from Cytek who was the first to do this, and felt his back,
through. Also recommends Arnica! Cant be bad!
>
>> example of how it may go:
>> shoe to the foot, foot losing support, shoe is placed at the toe, which
>> is becoming longer, already you are losing support at the correct place
>> of balance to the horse, shoe to the foot again, now becoming slightly
>> longer in the toe, but the training says they must shoe to this foot, so
>> it is done.
>
>NO farrier training advokates a long toe and a collapsed heel. That is just
>nonsense. A BAD farrier may let the foot get too long and the heel
>collapapse, but that is NOT how it should be done. I have never had a horse
>with long toes and collapsed heels ever.
>
>Please try not to compare apples and pears, and use bad farriery as the
Petra come to our yard please. We have one now after each shoeing cant
hardly walk, stands with his feet splayed outwards.
Young horse. Farrier said when this was mentioned how he is always sore
now, Oh How should I know. He is always stiff out of the stable.
Now perhaps you understand.
--
Susan Swann
Wayne Aussie
that horse still events although it is in a lower level now. It did
win the 3 day in Melbourne when it was 12 and that is our second
biggest event over here along with Sydney and behind Adelaide.
All horses feet move in the same direction with traditional farriery
as his, just not to the same extent.
That is just showing that even with feet that bad Cytek can in a short
time improve them.
Wayne
S Macran <sm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.95L.103013...@mailer.york.ac.uk>...
Wayne Aussie
what you don't seem to understand is that Cytek is open to any
scrutiny from anyone. Fact is that the WCF do not want to know about
it as they are scared of it.
It is not up to us to open our research to anyone, all is revealed at
Cytek training. Cytek know what they have is working and is correct,
that is why they are so confident in their product.
So you are going to continue to tell us that protecting the toe of the
horse with a toe clip and allowing it to grow long is of no
consequence to the horse, what a load of crap!
The horse was designed to regulate their own hoof growth by movement,
so not only are we restricting their movement but we are protecting
the area of the hoof that is meant to wear away.
Next thing you will be telling me about the studies done on the wild
New Forrest ponies and Carmague horses, lol!
Give it up mate, you are behind the times already!!
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E392AC6...@wt.net>...
Petra Rüttiger
Susan Swann wrote:
> What?
> They arrive, they pick up the foot, take off the shoe, heat it, check it
> against the foot, after some trim, change the shoe, till it matches the
> foot, bangs it on.
> Takes his money, goes.
That is a really bad farrier then. But why would that same farrier be a more
caring person after 2 days of training? Surely if a farrier is bad to start
with then he won't be any better after chaning to or adding Cytek? And if
the good farriers become good Cytek farriers then they were good farriers
before (take Warwick Bloomfield who would NEVER have behaved as you describe
above, even before he changed to Cytek. I know, I have seen him shoe horses
and I have seen the fett.)
> As I said to earlier post, I have never had my horse walked around, or
> seen another walked around.
That is sad. My last farrier up in Berkshire would not even look at Oliver,
who did have some soundness issues before I took him on loan, before he had
not seen him RIDDEN, moved in hand and loose, in walk and trot, from all
angles.
He made drawings of his feet in his file and discussed the issues and
problems with me and my instructor. He took angles and measures the feet. He
came back the next day and made shoes for Oliver from stock, NOT to just fit
them on what was there, but to work together with the trimming to keep
Oliver sound. The whole year I had Oliver on loan he was always sound...
That was a GOOD farrier.
> Petra come to our yard please. We have one now after each shoeing cant
> hardly walk, stands with his feet splayed outwards.
> Young horse. Farrier said when this was mentioned how he is always sore
> now, Oh How should I know. He is always stiff out of the stable.
Sounds like a truly apallingly bad farrier. If that farrier were to decide
to switch to Cytek do you really think he would be a more caring more
concerned individual?
Petra
AlexCPhillips
Wrote
>
>> That is the basis of conventional shoeing, shoeing to the foot, as the
>> foot alters , you shoe to the foot,
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the basis of conventional shoeing was to
shoe to support the bony column, which is a lot more complex than just making
the shoe fit the foot. So if the horse has long toe/ low heel he may need to be
shod with more support at the heel, with the shoe extending back to the point
where the heel would be if the hoof/pastern axis were correct. If the
hoof/pastern axis is incorrect and the shoe is simply fitted to the shape of
the foot,without additional heel support, then the heels are going to collapse
more.
Wayne Aussie
Why would Mr. Curtis' untested theories carry any more weight than
Cytek's untested theories? Untested is untested, no matter the
origin.
Mr Curtis is a traditional farrier and is as anti Cytek as you can
get, so why would he make these claims against his own profession?
And as far as what he says, any idiot that has been involved with
horses for 2 minutes knows that at the end of 6 weeks shoeing the toe
is long and the shoe has moved forward in relation to where it was 6
weeks ago etc. Are you going to deny that fact to?
So please if you can,
- tell us all what your collective knowledge of the Cytek shoeing
system is?
- tell us which parts of Simon Curtis comments do you disagree with?
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E392AC6...@wt.net>...
Wayne Aussie
I am not pushing you to use Cytek in any shape of form. What I am
doing is through my 20+ years of experience with horses in many
countries, telling people what I have seen. I have seen in the last 2
years, the most advanced shoeing system in my opinion in the world,
achieving the most amazing results. Results unachieveable with
traditional farriery.
I am also telling people the problems we have with the traditional
methods of shoeing that we have had for over 100 years.
It is up to the individual to put what ever shoes on their horses they
like but they should do so understanding the negatives of the most
used form of farriery in the world. The traditional farrier wont tell
them as they make a living out of it, they will be making gates if
they did, so they continue to shoe distorted hooves and leave heels
and rasp away walls to make the job look neat and then tell the owner
it the problems are top do with breeding or laziness etc.
How wonderful it must be to be so talented that you can accurately
determine the cause of a condition that has several possible causes
from half a world away! I don't know how they do things in OZ, but in
my
part of the world, veterinarians diagnose and prescribe treatment for
various pathological conditions - and they usually find it necessary
to
examine their patients before making a diagnosis.
You've described a run out hoof capsule, a pathological condition, not
a
normal condition. A less disingenuous individual - perhaps one not
trying so desperately to sell folks on the Cytek "system" - might have
noted that a run out hoof capsule can be presented by barefoot horses
in
some environments, horses both barefooted and shod trimmed/shod
inexpertly, horses not trimmed/shod on a timely basis, horses with
congenital deformities, horses with certain stable vices, and horses
used hard on unyielding surfaces. The usual treatment is to trim or
shoe the horse correctly, thus stopping the seemingly
self-perpetuating
condition and trimming/shoeing such a horse correctly does not
necessitate use of the Cytek's "system," it merely requires the
ability
of a competent farrier.
I do this because I see this with every traditionally shod horse over
about 3 years old. Long toe syndrome is a pathology in nearly all
cases caused by traditional farriery or trimming and along with it
comes contracted and collapsed heels. Sure it can also be caused by
mis management but the horses we were talking of were in a livery and
regularly shod.
Well there can't be too many good farriers out there can there as I
have said it is everywhere, how did I know that you would turn it into
bad farriery, lol, so now it is either bad breeding or bad
farriery??!! I think I said somewhere earlier that you would blame
either bad farriery or the horse and here it comes right on cue!
I agree that it is seen in barefoot horses and traditionally shod
horses, the reason is that the toe is allowed to grow long creating
excessive forces in this region stretching the laminae and concaving
the hoof wall. This is all to do with incorrect loading of the hoof.
If the horse was wild and could move as he was designed it would not
be an issue as he would regulate with every step his excess growth.
Fact is we fence horses in and restrict their movement and then
protect the one main part of the hoof that is required by the horse to
wear away, and then we wonder why we have problems?
Tell me why the toe of all horse shoes is the point of most wear?
Tell me if this was not made of steel what would have happened to the
hoof?
Tell me why it is that the toe hoof will only wear back to a certain
point, this point being at the tip of the pedal bone?
Also as the front wall rotates forward (mechanical laminitis)the heels
follow in that direction which causes collapsed heels and contracted
heels. The farrier then leaves heel to stand the foot up and rasps the
front wall back to make the HPA look correct. As the heels are allowed
to grow longer they become weaker and collapse more, the front wall
loses
its conical strength from the rasping thin making it more susceptible
to cracking, the frog loses interaction with the ground and foot
function is
compromised.
Please tell me what part of this you disagree with?
I have had horses a long time and watched farriers in many countries
and this has been done every single time. I am sure that if anyone
else is reading this and they take notice of ehat their farrier does
they will agree with what I have written
So Tom,
just sit back and do nothing, it is easy!
Wayne
Tom Stovall <sto...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3E3913DD...@wt.net>...
Tom Stovall
>Tom,
>
>what you don't seem to understand is that Cytek is open to any
>scrutiny from anyone...
You appear to be in the midst of a comprehension crisis: Cytek could
not possibly be open to scrutiny because it has NEVER been tested and
the results of those tests published for peer review.
>Fact is that the WCF do not want to know about it as they are scared of
>it...
What's to fear? Perhaps you mistake their contempt for fear.
>It is not up to us to open our research to anyone, all is revealed at
>Cytek training.
Until "all is revealed" for peer review in a scientific journal, any
so-called "training" will consist of meaningless self-aggrandizement.
>Cytek know what they have is working and is correct, that is why they
>are so confident in their product...
Cytek says it's so, so it must be so? Are you daft?
>So you are going to continue to tell us that protecting the toe of the
>horse with a toe clip and allowing it to grow long is of no
>consequence to the horse, what a load of crap!
I find it somewhat irksome when some proselytic asshole like yourself
has the utter temerity to make something up and attribute it to me. I
said no such thing: You are a bloody liar - not mistaken, not
misinformed, not bumfuzzled - just an ordinary, contemptible, run-of-
the-mill liar, transparently attempting to further his own agenda by
means of mendacity.
>The horse was designed to regulate their own hoof growth by movement,
>so not only are we restricting their movement but we are protecting
>the area of the hoof that is meant to wear away.
One hates to labor the obvious, but the manner in which horses at
liberty wear their feet is only casually related to the ideal
conformation of the hoof capsule of horses in USE. Horses under saddle,
led, or driven engage in forced exercise and sometimes carry weight -
factors that require an efficient hoof capsule, not a hoof capsule
modified to resemble the hoof capsule of a feral horse in an abrasive
environment. The idiocy attendant to mutilating the hoof capsule of a
domestic horse in use to resemble that of a feral horse at liberty in an
abrasive environment should be apparent to anyone, but the concept seems
to have escaped both yourself and the folks in charge of Cytek
propaganda. If you can find someone at Cytek who actually knows
something about a horse, ask them about presence of fluids in the hoof
capsule, the incompressibility of those fluids, the relationship of the
volumetric capacity of the hoof capsule to shock dispersal, and the
respective roles of bone, suspensory apparatus, and fluids within the
hoof capsule - and how both the size and conformation of the hoof
capsule affect those interrelated factors. In reality, one cannot use
the foot of a feral horse in an abrasive environment as a model for
domestic horses in use in varied environments because such a feral foot
is not as efficient in the dispersal of stress or in the transference of
energy from muscle to motion.
>Next thing you will be telling me about the studies done on the wild
>New Forrest ponies and Carmague horses, lol!...
Nossir, I'll merely point out that you said that, not me. Have you
considered consulting a health care professional about your obvious
inability to separate fact from fantasy?
Roz Holmes
> Earth is good,
> Stable poo & urine is bad.
Hello Susan,
Yeah, that's what I used to do at home. When they come in for the night I
don't pick out their feet, so the mud acts as a barrier from the soiled
bedding. BUT, they are always picked out in the morning, as soil too,
contains bacteria. Similarly before & after work their feet are picked out.
It only takes one sharp stone to work its way into the sole & then you've
got big trouble.
Just because it doesn't happen in the wild, doesn't make it wrong. The wild
is a cruel place. The likelihood is that if we set all our horse's free into
the wilderness, they would all die because horses are not selectively bred
for survivability any more, but for their aptitude to human purposes. I
agree, that a horse is a horse. But you have to remember that they are not
wild horses.
Melanie
>How much research did you ever do into conventional shoeing? How many of
>us have honestly.
I did quite a bit including going on a farriery course which was very good -
showed lots of different aspects of farriery including having a few horses who
were in for remedial shoeing. The problems were discussed as were the best way
to help; then the horses were shod. Dead interesting it was!
>regards Science, testing, blind testing,
>it means diddly squat to me the owner. My horses was the test, as any
>horse would have to be. he passed with honours
That's fair enough, he's your horse. Testing, etc doesn't mean doodly squat to
me as an owner though. I would want to know long term effects as well. Each to
their own ....
>OH yes they hate Cytek!:-)))
Not half as much as Cytek seem to hate them ... ;)
Melanie
Esther Young
> Ok simple question.
>
> How much research did you ever do into conventional shoeing? How many of
> us have honestly.
I had one bad experience with a butcher of a farrier when I first got my
mare. After that I did *lots* of research and made sure I wasn't going to
make the same mistake again.
There are several things I have come across in my time with horses that I
would swear by, or that I would try first in certain situations (for example
Flair - I'm even in their advertising!, or keeping horses living out). But I
wouldn't ever say that they were the 'only' way or the 'right' way. The most
important thing with horses is to keep an open mind and keep asking the
questions - none of us ever know all the answers. There is not 'one true
way'.
> How much research did you do into how good your farrier was?
Lots. And I still do ask questions.
> But till Cytek, I have never had one walk my horse about, see how he
> moved before or after. Even as a new client to his books.
All the good farriers I have had have done this. And if I am at all
concerned about the way Harry has been moving they will spend even longer
with him, and they will recommend x-rays if necessary. With good farriery
Harry does not have long toes nor collapsed or contracted heels. With good
farriery even my chonic laminitic has passable feet - now she does get
slipper feet very quickly if you ignore her feet because of her previous
rotation..
> Funny I never really questioned farriers before. I never really
> understood the foot.
> If nothing else I have gained that knowledge.
Which is good - like I say, everyone should always ask the questions.
Esther
use...@isbd.co.uk
>
> then before you know where you are you have a longer toe, the support
> has gone from under the foot in correct placement, the heels are no
> longer having any support, they become unused, they contract, the heels
> disappear, the frogs are no longer in contact and being in contact they
> disappear. The support of the so very important pedal bone is gone.
I don't follow this bit, if the heels 'disappear' surely there is then
*more* contact on the frog.
--
Chris Green (cgr...@x-1.net)
Claire & Wellington
"Petra Rüttiger" <p_rut...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:b1cba3$11q55o$1...@ID-178188.news.dfncis.de...
> > As I said to earlier post, I have never had my horse walked around, or
> > seen another walked around.
>
> That is sad. My last farrier up in Berkshire would not even look at
Oliver,
> who did have some soundness issues before I took him on loan, before he
had
> not seen him RIDDEN, moved in hand and loose, in walk and trot, from all
> angles.
I think as we have all been saying, there are good and bad in all. My
farrier certainly watched Wellie walk and trot the first time he worked with
him, and at times since then. He takes particular notice if for example I
say that the osteopath has been, asks what has changed etc.
But it is the same with saddlers - the one used commonly at the yard was
very well recommended and known locally, but only ever put the saddle on the
horse when he came. The lady I have now always inspects the underside of the
saddle, inspects Wellie's back, watches me do walk trot and canter on each
rein, then re-inspects saddle and horse.
Claire & Wellington