Okay, so I need to leave more toe next time. I'm confused about the "heel quarters" though. And the blue lines..
Sorry, missed that reply. Don't know why you're confused about my crystal clear posts!
The blue liines indicate where I think is perhaps a tad long *in relation to* the toe area. *BUT* what I've (so clearly
) said, is I don't think that's really necessary or desirable to trim it shorter in this case. Clear as mud??
Speaking of mud tho, I would however, trim the overhangs & any daggy bits off the frog & central sulcus, as indicated by blue lines.
I think as your horse's walls are nice & tight/healthy looking, you don't need to bevel/back the toe region or front of quarters so much. What it appears is needed is a maintenance trim, whereas it appears you've done more of a 'corrective' type trim on the front half of the foot.
Depending on the terrain your horse lives & works on, you may want to keep walls to pretty much level with the sole(hard, abrasive surfaces), or you may leave them a bit longer - say up to 1/8" in yielding footing. I do think it's beneficial to keep the walls at the quarters at/close to level with the outer sole, *generally* regardless of how high or otherwise the rest, and was pointing out that while you've strongly 'scooped' & bevelled the front of the quarters, you haven't quite continued this back to the back of the quarters(heel quarters).
I think over the last 7 years what I've noticed is a mustang roll get bigger and bigger when all that's needed is a rounding of the edge. If the edges chip, you just round the edges a bit more.
Yes, I think it's because everyone wants a 'recipe' type approach but there's no 'one size fits'. The vast majority of horses I see, including online(so I assume the majority everyone else sees too), start off with at least some flaring/stretching at toes &/or quarters, which I believe is best 'treated' with strong bevelling(degree depending on...). So people see that sort of thing & apply it generally, whereas it's not needed with a healthy, tight foot, such as OP's. Also it depends on terrain - hard, rough surfaces can require a shorter wall & little bit more of a 'roll' for eg. Such as your typical internet pic of mustang feet... but not even all wild/feral horses live in this environment & have(or should have IMO) feet that look exactly like that.
I've also noticed that the "relief" of the quarters used to be barely a credit card space, is now more like scalping.
Hehe, makes me think of a horse I did yesterday - a clydie with the biggest 'scoops' ever to his hinds! Again, this depends on the horse in question IMO & as with other measurements & angles, there is no 'one size' recipe. Some horses 'want' virtually no 'arch' whereas some have quite prominent arches, particularly on hind feet. It can also change with state of the hooves & seasons/environments. I think trimming the walls at the ground surface to be equal height in relation to the (live)sole plane is the best way to judge that. BUT heels may be another thing again.
but not at the extreme where it changes the whole weight displacement of the hoof and comes darn close to that 4 pillar thing that can really do damage. Our horses are alot bigger than mustangs and carry riders. Think about why a hoof wall is needed for our horses and carrying all that extra weight.
Yes, there are a lot of conditions to consider. While I do think carrying a rider is one of them, I don't think it's a big one, compared to living & working terrain, state of the feet, etc. For eg. if the horse was on hard, flat ground all the time, the '4 pillar thing' and peripheral loading can be very relevant(this can also include hoof boots!). However, most horses live & work on more varied & yielding terrain, where the entire base of the foot is 'loaded', to some degree, regardless '4 point' or otherwise trimming.
The traditional view is that the hoof wall should bear virtually the entire load and the horse should effectively 'hang' by it's laminae. This is in opposition to the 'natural' view that the entire base of the hoof should share the load & support the horse. The latter is what I believe is very obvious(won't go into why here). On hard, flat surfaces, horses carrying more weight, hooves who's walls/laminae are already stretched/ compromised, for eg, this needs to be considered, as putting more load/stress on the walls & laminae & keeping the soles from a supporting role is detrimental. *Obviously if the soles/frogs aren't up to it(for eg if the walls are compromised, you can bet the base of the foot is too), they may well need artificial support/protection also.
I've also seen alot of heels taken back where "they should be" to the expense of giving a hoof a negative palmer angle (angle too low). I'd rather go for the healthy angle and let the heels move themself.
SO IMPORTANT!! & why when talking about balancing relevant to the sole plane I see the heels a bit differently. Even if the heels of a particular horse 'should' ideally be shorter, considering h/p angles & the rest, they may be higher due to weak heels, for eg. So if you trim heels down to 'ideal' perameters, you may just cause the horse to become even more toe first in the process. Everything must be considered & I think it's always(almost) best to trim according to what works best for that horse at that time, in a way that will *facilitate* changes if/when they're able/needed, rather than try to force the issue.
I'm sorry if I am hijacking this post, but it just felt like a good place to say ...it's just that these changes over the last few years could use some rethinking.
Not hijacking at all IMO, but entirely relevant & pertinent. IME tho, it seems it's not the just the last few years, but that people tend to do stuff without fully understanding the why's & wherefores behind it. It's always been that way IMO, on whatever subject you want to discuss & one reason why I think owners becoming as well educated as possible, on both theory & practice, is vital. I believe we all(almost all
) do the best we can with the knowledge we have, but we can all afford to learn more & potentially do better