In his article on horseshoeing Mons. Lavalard makes some good points,
and also some that appear to me to be erroneous. He says, in regard
to the frog, "It is evident, then, that the frog helps the hold, but
strange to say, it alone of the three parts has a share in the hold
when the hoof is shod."
We see nothing strange about this where horses travel over hard roads;
the case is otherwise on soft roads or race tracks. It is easy to make
the ground surface of such shape that it will have sufficient hold,
without the action of the frog. In the shod foot, the frog has more
to do with keeping the foot healthy than assisting in the hold. With
horses used for speeding purposes, the frog helps to sustain the sole
of the foot, as when the foot is brought down with great force and the
road soft enough to receive the imprint of the shoe. He further says
that: "Simultaneous with this preservation and regeneration of the
frog, the hold of the horse becomes firmer, and more equally divided
toward the heels, and when starting a load, there is no clamping with
the toe of the hoof, but the foot is brought down flat."
Let us examine this statement and see if the reason why the horse
brings the foot down flat is because the frog is good, and has a good
hold on the ground. The reason appears to _us_ to be because from the
manner of shoeing the horse cannot put his foot in any other way. The
shoes are much thinner behind than in front, and the heels pared low
enough to insure the frogs resting on the ground. Excessive paring
of the heels gives extra length to the shoe, which, being thick at
the toe, props the toe up in such a manner that the horse is _forced_
to let the foot remain flat when starting a load. Nothing is gained
by keeping the foot flat while starting a load, and to prove this,
we ask the reader to observe unshod horses when starting a load. The
frog having free access to the ground, see if the horse does not clamp
the ground with the toe when exhibiting the maximum of strength.
Also examine the imprint of horses' feet (especially the hind ones)
when drawing heavy loads over soft ground, and see if the shoe is
not pressed more firmly into the ground at the toe than at the heel.
This is not because he gets a better use of the frog by so doing, but
because the foot is in a better position for the horse to exert his
strength without injury to the back tendons. As a further test, place
yourself on an incline facing squarely up hill, and see how much power
you can exert; then place your feet exactly opposite in direction, and
note how much power you can then exhibit. What has made the difference?
Simply the relative position of the heels and toes. We do not, like
Mons. Lavalard, wish to force our horses to travel up hill all the
time, which is the case when shod as he describes.
Horseshoers, like other men who follow a special calling, are apt to
think that their theories and practices relating to their special
trade are superior to those of other men. I think it is safe to make
the assertion, without fear of successful refutation, that there is
not more than one horseshoer in ten thousand but what can convince the
average horse owner that he (the smith) knows just about all that is
worth knowing about horseshoeing.
And the same average horse owner is conceited enough to think himself
a better judge of a good job of shoeing than the intelligent animal
that wears the shoes till his feet feel as though they were full of
thistles. A horse's foot is not a thing that can be cut and slashed
into all shapes with impunity, but requires careful as well as
intelligent treatment. It is a great mistake to suppose that every
sound foot should be treated alike. Each foot has its individuality,
which must be _recognized_ and _respected_ if good results are to
follow shoeing. It is a lamentable fact, and one that cannot be
disputed, that most horseshoers have but a faint notion of what is
required to shoe a horse properly, even where no defects exist. If he
gets pay for the work, he gives himself no trouble to improve on his
methods. But with the owner the case is different. The usefulness and
value of the horse are largely affected by the condition of the feet,
and he must learn to know how his horse ought to be shod, and then
see to it that the work is properly executed. We know from personal
experience that this is hard to do. The smith must understand that
you are in earnest about the matter, and that you are bound to have
your orders obeyed. I have found some men very obstinate, and others
always ready to do anything that was an improvement on the old way.
First decide what kind of labor the horse is expected to perform. If he
is expected to go fast, great care and skill will be required to get
everything just as it should be, and don't blame the smith for charging
extra for extra work.
It will often be necessary to make several trials before you find out
just what suits the horse best, and don't fail to let the horse be
judge in the matter, for when he is suited you ought to be.
Place the horse on a smooth, clean floor, and note the set of each
foot, and whether it is in line with the limb above it. Cut away the
wall of the foot until you come to where it joins the sole; except at
the heels and quarter, it may not be quite as low; let the frog and
bars remain intact, but see that the shoe will not bear much on the
bars. Give the sole about its natural concavity of surface up to the
wall, but no further. Place the foot on the floor and see if it is in
line with the limb; if not, remove enough horn to make it so. The slant
of the front part of the fore foot should, as a rule, be the same as
that of the pastern; that of the hind ones a little steeper. Now stand
behind the horse while he is made to walk, and see if when the foot
approaches the floor both sides come down at the same time so that
there is no rocking motion from one side striking first. Disregard the
advice of some writers who recommend to have the sole bare on the iron;
that theory when put into practice doesn't work worth a cent.
In most cases it will not be necessary to remove much, if any, of
the horn from the sole, but there are cases where it will be found
necessary to remove quite an amount, or the sole will become so
inelastic that it will greatly interfere with the action of the
internal organs of the foot. It is evident that nature made the sole
of the foot so that it might be acted upon mechanically to remove its
surplus growth in the same way as the wall, for in the unshod foot it
receives the impact of all sorts of substances, from soft mud to sharp,
flinty rocks; and that, too, without becoming dry and brittle.
The bearing surface should be half an inch wide and made _positively
flat and level_, being without lumps or depressions, and not beveled
either way unless they are hard and inclined to pinch, when it should
be beveled to the outside, so that the weight of the horse when brought
upon its surface will cause the heels to open, thereby causing a more
healthy condition of the frog. The nail holes of the shoe should be
further from the outer edge of the shoe, especially at the toe, than
those usually seen in the market. The bearing surfaces of the foot and
shoe should be as nearly approximated as possible, else the hoof will
be bruised and the shoe soon loosened. The holes being further from
the edge, allows the nails to take a deeper and lower hold than is
usually given them; the direction of the nails is more nearly across
the grain or layers of horn, causing less splitting of its substance,
thereby securing a firmer hold upon the foot. Two large nails are
usually chosen, 5s or 6s being large enough for ordinary shoes. It is
not necessary to hammer down the clinches, if care has been taken to
draw the nails, finishing with light strokes of the hammer. The shoes
will stay just as long, as we can testify by four years' experience,
and the advantages are that the horn is not injured by filing below the
clinches nor by the strokes of the hammer during the operation.
Should the horse step upon the shoe, no horn will be removed with the
shoe, as is usually done when the clinches are left long and then
turned down with the hammer. In such cases, the shoe will be torn off,
no matter how solid the clinches hold, and it is better to come away
without breaking the hoof. We repeat and make emphatic that the bearing
surface of the shoe _must not be concave_, as it is almost sure to
make corns, and induce an inflammatory condition of the foot, and this
inflammatory action is the forerunner of the long list of evils that
are sure to follow, unless means are taken to relieve the parts. And
yet almost every horseshoer in the country gives the bearing surface
of the shoe a bevel to the center. Many smiths will deny this, but
after they have the shoe ready to apply to the foot, take a square and
place the edge across the bearing surface at the heel of the shoe, and
ninety-nine times out of one hundred the outside will be the highest.
The front action of a horse may be greatly modified by the weight of
the shoe, and here is where great caution, close attention, and a
thorough knowledge of the principles involved are required, or one will
be liable to throw his horse out of balance if he is used for speeding;
for slow work it is better to have the shoe somewhat lighter than the
horse might carry than to err in the opposite direction. It is not
intended by me to take up all the points of horseshoeing that might
be dwelt upon with profit, and no one who reads these remarks will be
more ready than I to learn a better method of shoeing than that I now
practice, and I sincerely hope that some reader of this paper will
favor us with more information on this important subject.--P. D. B.,
_in Wallace's Monthly_.
* * * * *
[MILLING WORLD].