CHAPTER VI.

FITTING AND APPLICATION OF SHOES.

Having selected shoes suitable for the feet and adapted to the special work of the horse, having also prepared the foot for shoeing, we arrive at another important part of the farriers' art--fitting the shoe. No matter what form of shoe be used or how the foot be prepared for it, unless the two are properly fitted the horse does not obtain all the advantages of good shoeing, and may be positively injured. The owner of horses seldom knows anything about the fitting of shoes, and therefore fails to appreciate how some of his directions concerning feet and shoes are quite impracticable.

I have in a previous chapter attempted to show how a foot should be prepared for shoeing, and what bearing surface should be left for the shoe. I have also described what I consider the best forms of shoe. The object at all times should be to follow nature as closely as possible, but it often happens that we may, with benefit, depart from the exact indications given and still fulfil all essential requirements. If we examine the unshod foot which has been worn down to proper proportions we find the bearing surface is not level--it is worn more at the toe and heels than elsewhere. If we examine the ground surface of an old shoe the same thing is noticed--the surface is not level, the toe and heel show most wear. The question then arises, should we make the artificial bearing surface of the foot on the same plan and adjust the shoe to it, as in Fig. 48, or should we make the surface level and apply a level shoe as in Fig. 49? I believe that the ideal arrangement would be to follow the line suggested by a worn foot or a worn shoe, but it is difficult to carry out, and greater exactness of fit is more readily obtained by two level surfaces. The ground surface of a shoe may, if necessary, be altered to suit the outline of wear, whilst the level foot-surface is preserved, as in Fig. 50.

Whatever form the farrier adopts, a shoe should rest equally throughout, and the contact of foot and shoe should be exact over the whole bearing surface. Assuming then that a properly prepared foot presents a level surface, the fitting of shoes becomes simple so long as the smith possesses manual dexterity and follows the indications of common sense.

There are two conditions to be fulfilled, (1) to fit the shoe to the plain surface of the foot, (2) to fit the shoe to the circumference of the wall. Most amateurs judge shoeing by the way a shoe follows the outline of the hoof, but the practical man knows that it is equally difficult and important to fit the surface.

=Outline fitting.= A shoe is first compared with the foot, it is then heated, and the heels cut off or turned down to the proper length. Each limb of the shoe is fitted to follow the outline of the wall, and it is necessary to warn the novice that the inside and outside borders of a foot are not alike. The outside is rounder and fuller, and the shoe should be shaped to follow exactly the direction of the wall. The outer border of a shoe should always be as prominent as the outer border of the hoof; it should never be within it. The inner border must not protrude beyond the wall lest the opposite leg be struck. A well fitted shoe must be fitted full to the foot. What is called "close" fitting, _i.e._, bringing the shoe rather within the circumference of the wall, is injurious, as it loses the best and strongest bearing of the wall, and permits the farrier to give an appearance of neatness by rasping away any horn which protrudes beyond the shoe. On a well-shaped foot the shoe should follow the outer line of the hoof from toe to heel, but where the heels of a foot are turned inwards there is an advantage in fitting the shoe wider at the heels, as by so doing the base of the foot is not constricted and a wider resting surface is afforded to the limb. When a shoe is fitted wide at the heels it is essential that the foot-surface of the shoe should be level at the heels. If it be inclined, as it often is in seated shoes, a very grave defect in the fitting results, for the heels have no level bearing-surface.

A shoe fitted too wide is liable to be trodden off by the opposite foot, or it may cause the horse to hit the opposite fetlock joint.

Provided the nail holes are properly placed, when the outside border of the shoe is fitted nicely to the circumference of the hoof, they are brought to their right position. When nail holes are placed too near, or too far, from the outer border of the shoe--_i.e._, when they are too "fine" or too "coarse"--it may be necessary to correct their position by fitting the shoe "closer" or "fuller," as the case may be. When a farrier fits shoes made by another man he may overlook this, as we are all slaves to habit. The man who in his daily practice combines "close" fitting with "fine" nailing has to alter his routine when fitting a shoe with coarse nail holes.

The length of a shoe at the heels is a matter of more importance than is generally recognised. As a rule hunters are all shod too short, while most cart horses are shod too long. The objections to a long front shoe are that it is liable to be trodden off by the hind shoe, and that it may injure the elbow when the horse lies down. A long hind shoe is free from both these disadvantages, and as it usually has a calkin is the best form to adopt.

In fitting the heels of front shoes, in all but galloping horses, the iron should generally extend slightly behind the extremity of the horn. (Fig. 48). Horses used for galloping should have the end of the shoe just within the termination of the horn, and should finish with an oblique extremity. (Fig. 49). There is nothing gained by greater shortening, if the iron be fitted exactly to the horn. Why shoes are often pulled off, when only just the length of the hoof, is because they are not fitted close enough, and very often because they are wilfully and ignorantly designed to leave a space between hoof and iron. This so-called "eased" heel is an unmitigated evil.

=Surface-fitting.= It is simple to direct that the bearing-surface of a shoe should be exactly adapted to the bearing-surface of a foot. It is not so simple to carry out. When the horn on the lower surface of a foot is thin any uneven pressure--_i.e._, pressure applied directly to one spot--soon causes injury, pain, and lameness. When a good thick layer of horn exists, uneven pressures are less injurious, because the horn distributes them over a wide surface. Good workmanship is displayed by leaving no uneven pressure, and by so fitting a shoe that it shall do no harm. With a narrow shoe--one only the width of the wall--no uneven pressure can be applied to the sensitive foot, but such a shoe is seldom used as it is too light to afford sufficient wear. A wide shoe with a flat foot surface is easily fitted on all concave feet--_i.e._, on all hind and most fore feet. To make use of the whole bearing-surface a shoe must rest evenly from toe to heel--the flat surface of the shoe must take a level bearing on the whole flat bearing-surface of the foot.

There are two places where injury from uneven pressure is most likely to happen--at the toe and at the heels.

In preparing a foot the wall at the toe may, from want of care, be reduced a little below the level of the sole, or in making a shoe the inside border at the toe may be left higher than the outside. In each case uneven pressure is placed on the sole just where the back border of the shoe rests. In fitting a hot shoe, wherever the hoof is unduly marked warning is given that pressure at that point must be prevented by altering the surface either of the shoe or the foot. On a strong foot, the knife may be used to remove a little horn; on a weak foot the alteration must be on the shoe.

At the the heel uneven pressure is most frequent on the angle of sole between the wall and bar, where it causes the so-called "corn"--a condition in the horse having no analogy to the affliction similarly named in the human subject. It is simply a bruise of the sensitive parts under the horn.

A bruised heel--a corn--is most likely to arise from the use of a shoe too short, especially if fitted too close. It may arise from a properly-fitted shoe retained too long on the foot and shifted from its proper bearing on the wall to an improper bearing on the sole. A bruised heel may also result from the use of a well-made shoe if the preparation of the hoof has been faulty. Rule-of-thumb directions to "reduce the heels to a level by the use of the rasp, but on no account cut away any sole" may result in injury. In a strong foot with an overgrown sole it is easy to get a level surface and to fit on to it a level shoe, but the horn of the sole does not remain level. As it grows and flakes off the portion between the bar and wall is raised. If the weather be wet it swells, and then, bound down by the shoe, it acts simply as a stone might and bruises the sensitive parts within by its uneven pressure. It is always safe and it is never injurious to remove so much of the surface of this portion of sole with the drawing-knife as will ensure no uneven pressure on it by the shoe.

The more exactly the shoe fits the foot-surface the more easily it is retained in position by the nails, and the less likelihood there is of any part of it pressing distinctly on a limited portion of horn. Exact fitting allows all bearings and pressures to be distributed equally over the surface of the hoof, and thus permits the shoe most nearly to resemble a mere continuation of the hoof in iron--an arrangement to prevent wear, but not to interfere with natural functions. There is one departure from level fitting which requires special notice since it is made, not by accident or negligence, but by design. It consists in taking the bearing of an inch or an inch and a half of the extremity of a shoe off the foot. (Fig. 50). It has been called "easing the heels," and the space permits a knife-blade, sometimes even a pencil, to be placed between the shoe and the foot. It is one of the very worst practices that theory has forced into horse-shoeing. Men who do it say "the heels won't stand pressure." I reply they will stand all proper pressure, and a good deal more than the quarters. But the practice does not relieve the heels of pressure. If you examine a shoe fitted in this way, after it has done a month's service, you will find it sometimes polished bright, sometimes with a deep groove worn into it. You may also test its bearing by raising the foot from the ground and inserting between shoe and hoof a flat bit of wood, then on releasing the foot and raising the opposite one, you will find that the bearing is such that the bit of wood cannot be removed. The "eased heel" does not relieve the heels of pressure but, instead of constant normal bearing, it permits a downward movement of the back of the foot at each step--which is unnatural, and which cannot occur in an unshod foot on a level surface. The "eased heel" does more than this. It wastes a large extent of good bearing-surface, and it concentrates pressure at one point--where the shoe and foot meet--at the quarters. It loses good bearing-surface where it is important to have it, and unevenly throws extra weight on the quarters which are the weakest parts of the wall. An "eased heel" has not one single advantage, but it has every disadvantage which misplaced ingenuity could contrive.

For flat feet a wide shoe with a flat foot-surface is unsafe as there is liability to uneven pressure on the sole. For such feet the safer form of foot-surface is one presenting a level narrow bearing-surface round its outer border, from which an inclined or bevelled surface continues the shoe inwards. (Fig. 51) This form of shoe can be fitted to nearly any kind of foot. To escape injury to a flat sole "seating out" shoes is necessary, but the operation should always leave a level bearing-surface for the wall. When a shoe is seated from one side to the other so as to produce a saucer shaped surface harm is done to the foot. Such a shoe presents no level bearing-surface, and the weight of the horse pressing the wall on an inclined plane causes the foot to be pinched or compressed in a manner which soon causes lameness. (Fig. 52). A few years ago these shoes were too common, and to make them still more injurious, the foot was pared out from the centre to the circumference like a saucer, and the two spoiled articles were fitted together. Their surfaces of contact were two narrow ridges which even the most expert workman could not fit without injury to the horse.

In Fig. 52 a shoe with an inclined surface is applied to a foot with a bearing-surface as wide as the wall but the only contact is at the edges. The horn at the edge will yield, and the hoof be pressed inwards as the weight of the animal forces the foot into the saucer-shaped shoe. When the bearing-surface of the foot, instead of being as wide as the wall, is only a ridge, the horn yields more rapidly, the clinches rise and the shoe becomes loose.

In Fig. 53 is shown a section of another shoe with an inclined instead of a level surface, but the slope is from within outwards. The effect of this is exactly the opposite of the previous shoe. The wall is forced outwards, and if it does not as a whole yield to the pressure the portion in contact is broken. When this form of bearing-surface is adopted at the heels of a shoe the two sides of the hoof are violently forced apart, and it has even been recommended as a means of expanding the foot; but forcible expansion is both unnecessary and dangerous.

Always regarding the shoe as an extension of the natural hoof in a harder and more durable material, it is evident that the most stability will be attained by the use of as wide a bearing-surface of foot and shoe as is compatible with ease and safety to the horse.

In Fig. 54 is shown a section of a narrow shoe which takes a bearing over the whole extent of its foot-surface.

In Fig. 55 is shown a shoe with as wide a bearing-surface as in Fig. 54, but which loses half its bearing because the foot-surface is too narrow to utilise it.

In Fig. 56 we have a model bearing-surface on the foot, nearly twice the width of the wall, and we have a shoe with a flat foot-surface capable of using the whole bearing. Such is the fitting of all hind shoes, and it might well be adopted with advantage in all fore shoes on good feet.

=Clips= are thin projections drawn up from the outer border of shoes for the purpose of giving greater security to their position on a foot. On heavy cart horses the clips are sometimes of great size and encourage the idea that the smith looks upon them as designed to assist the nails to retain the shoe on the foot. They should have no such purpose, their use being merely to prevent the shoe shifting to one side. A clip should not be narrow and high, it should be low and wide so that its bearing is taken against the lower edge of the wall. A high clip is a most serious danger when shoes get loose and are trodden on by the horse. The usual position for a clip is at the toe, but there are occasions when two clips--one at each side of the toe--are used. On some shoes a clip is placed at the outer quarter to prevent the shoe being displaced inwards; this is more often required on hind shoes. A clip at the toe affords some assistance in fitting a shoe exactly, and it also affords steadiness to the shoe during the driving of the first nails. In America clips are not used, and when American machine-made shoes were first introduced into London they were fitted without clips. I am bound to confess that these shoes did not shift on the feet to any noticeable extent, but they are now all fitted with clips so I suppose the workmen found they were an advantage. The greatest evil resulting from clips is seen in slovenly fitting, when the farrier with his knife carves out a great hole in the wall in which to imbed the clip. As a clip is flat it cannot be fitted to the rounded face of the wall, but all that is necessary is to reduce the round to a flat surface with the rasp, so that the clip may rest on it, care being taken that at the extreme edge the horn is not left so prominent as to be unduly pressed upon when the clip is driven close to the wall. It is easy to lame a horse by violently hammering up the clip, especially when the horn behind it has been so much cut away as to leave only a thin protecting layer. A clip should only be hammered up sufficiently to leave it firmly applied to the wall. A bad workman in making his clip may spoil the foot-surface of a shoe by causing a bridge on the bearing surface of the iron at the toe, and this, on thin or flat feet, may cause lameness.

A very unsightly appearance and very defective work results from the fireman leaving his clip at right angles to the line of the shoe. It should be inclined backwards at about the same slope as the portion of wall against which it is to rest. The two diagrams (Fig. 57) illustrate what is meant.

=Hot and Cold Fitting.= When an engineer or a carpenter has two surfaces to fit together with great exactness he employs some colouring material to show where they do come in contact and where they do not. When a farrier fits a shoe to a horse's foot he tests its adaptation by applying it at a dull red heat to the horn. This proceeding shows with precision the bearing surfaces, as the horn is charred in proportion to the contact. If the shoe be found not to fit exactly, it is taken back to the anvil and altered. It is then again for a few seconds applied to the horn and the surface of contact examined. This proceeding is repeated until sufficient exactness is arrived at and then the shoe is cooled ready for nailing on. As horn is a bad conductor of heat this process of "hot-fitting" does no harm to the sensitive structures within the hoof unless it be carried to an extreme. When the horn is very thin the heat of a shoe retained too long in contact with it does serious mischief, and the injury known as a burnt sole has often resulted from careless work. If a shoe, whilst being altered to fit a foot, were cooled each time it was laid on the hoof, it would have to be re-heated before the necessary alterations could be made and this would cause great waste of time. The abuse of hot-fitting may do harm without any direct burning of the sole. An ill-fitting hot shoe may be held on the hoof until it beds itself into the horn and thus a complete correspondence between the surface of the foot and the surface of the shoe be effected. Such a proceeding is well described as "fitting the foot to the shoe" and is not only destructive to the horn but damaging to the foot by permitting an uneven shoe to look as though it were properly fitting. When hot-fitting is used and not abused--when it is adopted merely to indicate how and where the shoe fits, and not to make it appear to fit--I consider it has many advantages over cold-fitting. With some feet and some shoes it is quite possible to produce a good fit without heating the shoe. When a shoe requires much alteration to bring it into exact correspondence with the foot, even the most expert farrier cannot do justice to his work with cold iron--he gets as near to a fit as he can and when the hoof is strong little harm is done. The best work is that which includes the greatest exactness of fit, and uneven pressure or loose shoes result from inferior work. A badly fitted shoe requires more nails to retain it in place, and experience has shown that hot-fitted shoes give a smaller average of loose or lost shoes than those cold-fitted. The slight charring of the end of the horn fibres which results from proper hot-fitting has never been found to do injury, and it apparently has some advantages. One is that the surface of the hoof less readily absorbs moisture than when not charred. Another is that the horn is softened for a time and expanded, allowing nails to be easily driven, and then contracting and retaining them more firmly. The objection to hot-fitting applies only to its abuse. The advantages are greater exactness of fit, greater security that the shoe will be firmly retained on the foot, and greater facility in the operation of shoeing. Perhaps I ought to add that when cold-fitting is inevitable machine-made shoes are the best, because they are more regular in form, and more often level on the foot-surface than hand-made shoes. Army studs on active service, and studs used in coal mines comprise, perhaps, the only animals upon which cold-fitting is unavoidable.

=Tips= are short shoes protecting only the foremost half of the foot. Upon grass or soft roads tips are quite sufficient to prevent undue wear of the hoof. Even upon hard roads tips will protect the hoof in dry weather, but in wet seasons the horn becomes softened, and then that part coming in contact with hard road-surfaces wears rapidly and lameness may follow. Tips require more care in use than shoes because they protect from wear only the toe, and when retained on the foot too long a time cause the hoof to become very disproportionately long at the toe. In fitting a tip care must be taken to afford the horse a level surface to bear on. The unprotected horn at the back of the foot must take a bearing on the ground level with the ground-surface of the tip. If there is sufficient horn on the foot this can be easily effected by only removing the overgrown wall to just the length the tip extends and leaving the horn behind untouched. Where there is not sufficient superfluous horn this method cannot be used, and we apply a tip gradually thinned off towards its hinder extremities. If a little horn can be removed obliquely from the front half of the foot by a few strokes of the rasp this "thinned" tip is more easily fitted so as to get a level surface on the ground. When a horse has worn this form for a month it is generally possible to bring a tip, of even thickness throughout, into the same line of bearing as the horn at the heels.

Tips do not give a good foot-hold on grass, but they afford greater security of tread on hard smooth roads and on ice than long shoes. The great advantages of tips are two-fold--they are light, and they permit the greatest freedom of movement and action in the posterior part of the foot. In some cases of chronic foot lameness the use of tips and regular work will effect soundness when every other method of treatment has failed.

=The Charlier System= is a method of shoeing which a few years ago took a very prominent hold on the fancy of horse-owners. Like every other system it has advantages and disadvantages--it has prejudiced enemies and indiscreet friends. The principle or theory upon which it is based may be thus stated. The lower border of the wall is, it is said, the chief sustaining structure of the hoof, and as all that is required of a shoe is to prevent undue wear, therefore, remove a small strip of the lower border of the wall and substitute for it a similar sized strip of iron, and we shall protect from wear at the same time that we leave entirely to nature every other part of the hoof--sole, frog, and bars. This seems eminently simple and logical, but it is easy to show that it is more plausible than true. First, I would point out that the wall _only_ is not the natural sustaining structure of the hoof. The wall _and the sole at its connection with the wall is_. Next I deny that the Charlier system does "leave entirely to nature every other part of the hoof." In cutting away the wall from the sole to affix the shoe, the natural function of the sole is seriously interfered with, and the bearing on the wall which ought to be partially distributed over the arch of the sole is limited to the wall. It is claimed that when the foot has had time to grow the sole will be found on a level with the shoe, and thus directly sharing in the weight-sustaining function. I have examined many feet shod by Charlier specialists, and have never yet seen the sole of a hind foot level with the shoe three days after the shoeing. Only once have I seen the sole of the fore foot level with the shoe after a week's wear. I am often apologetically told, "Well, it is not quite in wear, but it is not an eight of an inch below the surface of the shoe." Quite so, it is _nearly_ in wear, but if not actually in wear what becomes of the principle? The sole is not directly in wear and bearing is confined to the wall. As to the frog, the Charlier affords no greater use to it than any other shoe of a similar thickness, unless instead of being placed on sound firm horn it be dangerously let down into the hoof so that its edge approaches very closely to the sensitive foot. It is sometimes difficult to arrive at the truth as to the significance of the phrase "embedding or letting down" the shoe of the Charlier system. At one time we are assured that "the shoe is not sunk, the sole is permitted to grow up." When this is so, very little positive objection to the system can be taken, because the shoe then rests at the same level on firm horn as does any other narrow shoe; but then the frog takes no better bearing than in other systems and the superfluous growth of horn on the sole is of no value. When the shoe is really "let down" of course the frog does receive increased pressure--it is forced to share with the wall the primary function of sustaining weight instead of, as in nature, taking only a secondary share of such action. It does this at the expense of a shoe placed so close to the "quick" that if the upper and inner border of iron be not bevelled off, immediate lameness results. When the Charlier shoe was first introduced it was applied the full length of the foot, but it was found that when thinned by wear the heels spread and led to injury of the opposite leg or to its being trodden off. Now the Charlier is only applied like a tip round the front portion of the surface of the foot, and it therefore partakes of some of the advantages I have credited to tips. It is a very light shoe and only requires small nails to fix it securely, but as the shoe is only the width of the wall the nails have to be driven solely in the wall, and their position is open to the objection applying to all too fine nailing. The disadvantages of the Charlier are its being "let down" too near the quick, its limited bearing, and its fine nail holes; the advantages are the lightness and the freedom given to the back of the foot, both of which are attainable with a narrow tip not let down. One very apparent effect resulting from the use of the Charlier system is the alteration in the action of the horse. All knee action is lost, and some horses go decidedly tender whilst others acquire a low shooting stride, which is certainly not in accordance with our notions of good free locomotion.