Rasping hoof wall & sole

L

LCDB

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 August 2011
Messages
54
Visit site
I have previously had some fantastic help from you guys on all things barefoot which worked for my horse and his feet improved greatly. I sadly sold him but tried barefoot with my other horse, it did her feet a lot of good to have the shoes off for a while but I made the decision to have her shoes back on while still keeping in with all things barefoot (diet exercise etc).

In the mean time I got a new farrier who is good at listening to my hoof worries but does get a little handy with the rasp and knife on the sole and hoof wall. So I asked her if she could not make the hoof look "pretty" and they wanted to know why. So can anyone help me explain why I would want her to leave the sole alone and not rasp too high up the hoof wall, or am I wrong in asking or am I wrong in needing to ask??
 
thanks for the link I shall have a read.
I changed farriers as I lost faith in the last one and now I find it hard to trust any to be honest
 
Because the sole is there for a reason - to protect the internal structures of the foot, and rasping the hoof wall unnecessarily will only thin it and reduce the protection to the pedal bone.

In short, everything there on the hoof is there for a reason - why remove them for no other reason than aesthetics? It will only make the hooves more vulnerable to damage.

I'd also ditto the Ramey article.
 
I'd also ditto the Ramey article.

But I'd also ask the farrier what they were trying to achieve by rasping the hoof wall and sole. (that doesn't mean I think rasping either is ever a good idea)

Their answer will then form a useful platform for discussion?
 
Maybe you should ask your farrier why they are doing what they are doing instead of trying to tell them how to do there job? After all they have had over 4 years training.....
 
Pete Ramey is a farrier. :D He teaches farriers as well as trimmers. He does teach them what he has learned about horses since he stopped shoeing though.
 
Last edited:
A good example is used by Moorman. He takes his knife to the hand of the farrier he is training who is trying to rasp off sole callous and asks if the farrier would like him to remove the callouses on his palms and fingers :D
 
Moggy89 said:
Maybe you should ask your farrier why they are doing what they are doing instead of trying to tell them how to do there job? After all they have had over 4 years training.....
Click to expand...

This only makes sense if it is correct to remove sole callous on a sound horse. And it very rarely is. They are taught to remove callous to give them a plane to fit a shoe to. It is not correct to trim a working barefoot horse the same way, four years training or four centuries. Unfortunately, unless their Master has some on his books, the farriery syllabus does not include learning to trim hardworking barefoot horses.
 
Moggy89 said:
Maybe you should ask your farrier why they are doing what they are doing instead of trying to tell them how to do there job? After all they have had over 4 years training.....
Click to expand...

Because I am naturally curious I have spent a modicum of time investigating the farrier syllabi and this is largely focused on how to make various types of shoe and to know in which situations each might be used.

I did - albeit many years ago - ask a master farrier why they wanted to remove the sole callous and generally thin the sole of my 2yr old pasture ornament. I wasn't satisfied with his answer, especially when he went on to recommend shoes and pads.
 
It does appear to me that farriers and vets are only taught how to 'treat' hooves with shoes, pads and wedges. Is this correct? Any trimming recommended appears to involve a shoe or shoe and wedge etc. What about the rest?

Here's a really interesting post on another thread about sheep but imo relevant to horse hooves as well. http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=11664693#post11664693
Alec Swan said:
Since I stopped the "Routine" trimming of sheep's feet, the incidents of footrot have declined drastically. I run round 300 lambs every year, and from having incidents of rotten feet, in 20-30% of the flock, I now have 2-3 feet to deal with, per year. Eradication is, as you say, near impossible, but by only dealing with the affected, so the incidents decline. It's actually a case of less being more, and no, I can't explain it!
Click to expand...
 
cptrayes said:
This only makes sense if it is correct to remove sole callous on a sound horse. And it very rarely is. They are taught to remove callous to give them a plane to fit a shoe to. It is not correct to trim a working barefoot horse the same way, four years training or four centuries. Unfortunately, unless their Master has some on his books, the farriery syllabus does not include learning to trim hardworking barefoot horses.
Click to expand...

This isnt quite the whole story in my opinion.

The main focus of teaching for apprentices, it seems to me, is all about balance. A great many horses, especially barefoot in wet conditions, will wear one branch of the foot to a greater extent than the other naturally, which if you are applying balancing principles (and barefoot trimmers equally focus on balance) leads to the reduction of the whole foot beyond what is appropriate to protect horses in order to preserve looks and balance.


It has to be remembered that the horn of the hoof is there for two fundamental reasons.

1) Protect the inside structures (from injury or infection)
2) Support the horses weight.

If it cannot do either one of these things, the horse will be uncomfortable or lame.


As far as removing sole callous is concerned, it really depends on a great many factors.

1) The environment the horse is living in
2) The time of year
3) The genetic makeup of the horse concerned and especially of the feet
4) The work the horse is doing
5) The speed at which the feet grow (often influenced by nutrition)

Typically in a dry summer when the feet are a lot harder, they will generate thick callouses, some of which need removing, whereas during muddy times when feet are soft and damp it serves well to be quite conservative about the amount you trim off. But it varies a great deal between different animals, some are more sensitive than others, and it is not possible to get it absolutely correct on every occasion.
 
Graeme Burt farrier said:
This isnt quite the whole story in my opinion.

The main focus of teaching for apprentices, it seems to me, is all about balance. A great many horses, especially barefoot in wet conditions, will wear one branch of the foot to a greater extent than the other naturally, which if you are applying balancing principles (and barefoot trimmers equally focus on balance) leads to the reduction of the whole foot beyond what is appropriate to protect horses in order to preserve looks and balance.


It has to be remembered that the horn of the hoof is there for two fundamental reasons.

1) Protect the inside structures (from injury or infection)
2) Support the horses weight.

If it cannot do either one of these things, the horse will be uncomfortable or lame.


As far as removing sole callous is concerned, it really depends on a great many factors.

1) The environment the horse is living in
2) The time of year
3) The genetic makeup of the horse concerned and especially of the feet
4) The work the horse is doing
5) The speed at which the feet grow (often influenced by nutrition)

Typically in a dry summer when the feet are a lot harder, they will generate thick callouses, some of which need removing, whereas during muddy times when feet are soft and damp it serves well to be quite conservative about the amount you trim off. But it varies a great deal between different animals, some are more sensitive than others, and it is not possible to get it absolutely correct on every occasion.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing though that I have owned, both previously shod horses and never been shod horses, ridden them lots and little... at all times of the year, on a variety of surfaces, fed them well... good forage, hi fibre and balancers full of oil for energy. Genetically they are worlds apart, one fine, the other hunter type, one would literally have nothing trimmed after 13 weeks of shoes being on despite being on a good diet, she was also fairly flat footed when the shoes came off... pretty much all my farrier ever did with her and my boy was/is come, look and say nothing needs doing. Both were/are always sound.

I think often people use genetics and weather as a scapegoat for their ignorance at how to correctly feed and work a horse (not directed at you, but at owners). Too often I see on here, that a horse is flat footed and unable to be without shoes because it is a thoroughbred... bottom line, its work and diet, get those right without the shoes and most horses can go without shoes and are better for it... I know of a yard full of ex racehorses, all of which turned up shod and with crappy feet, all of which have now got a high fibre diet, decent work and are sound and unshod.

Im not particularly against shoeing per say, but I am against this attitude that genetics, weather, etc (especially genetics) mean a horse should be shod, and again, I view environment as the responsibility of the owner, just pig ignorance if they cant provide the correct environment for their horse. If all horses (shod and unshod) were afforded the treatment of a barefoot horse in terms of diet and shod horses were afforded a yearly break from shoes... it farriers would have a lot less 'fixing' to do
 
Queenbee said:
I find it amazing though that I have owned, both previously shod horses and never been shod horses, ridden them lots and little... at all times of the year, on a variety of surfaces, fed them well... good forage, hi fibre and balancers full of oil for energy. Genetically they are worlds apart, one fine, the other hunter type, one would literally have nothing trimmed after 13 weeks of shoes being on despite being on a good diet, she was also fairly flat footed when the shoes came off... pretty much all my farrier ever did with her and my boy was/is come, look and say nothing needs doing. Both were/are always sound.

I think often people use genetics and weather as a scapegoat for their ignorance at how to correctly feed and work a horse (not directed at you, but at owners). Too often I see on here, that a horse is flat footed and unable to be without shoes because it is a thoroughbred... bottom line, its work and diet, get those right without the shoes and most horses can go without shoes and are better for it... I know of a yard full of ex racehorses, all of which turned up shod and with crappy feet, all of which have now got a high fibre diet, decent work and are sound and unshod.

Im not particularly against shoeing per say, but I am against this attitude that genetics, weather, etc (especially genetics) mean a horse should be shod, and again, I view environment as the responsibility of the owner, just pig ignorance if they cant provide the correct environment for their horse. If all horses (shod and unshod) were afforded the treatment of a barefoot horse in terms of diet and shod horses were afforded a yearly break from shoes... it farriers would have a lot less 'fixing' to do
Click to expand...


Genetics does have a great deal to do with it, but I'm not being as simple as saying that all thoroughbreds, for example, have weak and flat feet, and need shoes, and all cobs do not. Every horse is an individual and should be treated as such.

It has to be remembered that the majority of the modern horses evolution of 25 million years or so, from Miohippus to Merychippus, were grassland plains animals evolving on the praries and plains, areas where there are long spells of dry conditions (approx 5 months), winter freezes (approx 2-3 months) and the remaining conditions are temperate, i.e. wet and warm, like Britain is. It is during these temperate months that grasses grow fastest, and horses do not need to move around as much to find food, their feet also have evolved to respond to this cycle, and are naturally destroyed by bacterial action that affects the excess horn; were they not, by the end of the temperate period, their feet would be so long due to lack of wear that they would be unable to outrun predators.
The vast majority of native horses to Britain were much smaller and lighter than those that evolved on the dryer plains, and one of the main reasons was that once you get beyond a certain weight in countries where the climate is wetter for much longer than five months or so, it becomes much more difficult for horn to cope successfully with the weight increase because of the longer periods of bacterial attack constantly weakening them, making horses lame and rendering them unable to work. Britons, from Tudor times right through to and especially the Victorians needed horses to do great amounts of work so would both import bigger horses from abroad and selectively cross breed them with natives, to get breeds that were capable of doing far more than native horses could.

The problem was that in breeding bigger horses, and importing larger horses directly from continental climates to temperate ones, the problem of accelerated hoof destruction that temperate climates bring came sharply into focus, and the genetics of the imported animals became cross-bred into a lot of the breeds of horses we see in Britain today.

Weather also affects the destructive cycle, which is sharply in focus at present. 2012 was the wettest on record, but was preceded by two of the dryest. During the dryer years, the feet grew at a faster rate than the destruction, in general. One only has to look across this board and focus on thread titles like abscess or sore feet to see the havoc 2012 has resulted in. Remember, the feet operate on very long time scales, the longer it is wet, the greater and deeper the moisture absorbtion.

I have studied the natural methods of destruction of the horn for over thirty years now and have pinpointed the drawbacks of shoes, how they can accelerate destruction, and indeed done a great deal of work to successfully negate the problems that shoes can cause.

I am also a supporter of no shoes (my own horse is unshod) but in my experience around 40% of all horses can manage the work they are asked to do without being shod. When front shoes are worn this figure rises to around 65%. All of the others would not cope without, and performance is seriously affected when no shoes are tried on these.
 
Graeme Burt farrier said:
Genetics does have a great deal to do with it, but I'm not being as simple as saying that all thoroughbreds, for example, have weak and flat feet, and need shoes, and all cobs do not. Every horse is an individual and should be treated as such.

It has to be remembered that the majority of the modern horses evolution of 25 million years or so, from Miohippus to Merychippus, were grassland plains animals evolving on the praries and plains, areas where there are long spells of dry conditions (approx 5 months), winter freezes (approx 2-3 months) and the remaining conditions are temperate, i.e. wet and warm, like Britain is. It is during these temperate months that grasses grow fastest, and horses do not need to move around as much to find food, their feet also have evolved to respond to this cycle, and are naturally destroyed by bacterial action that affects the excess horn; were they not, by the end of the temperate period, their feet would be so long due to lack of wear that they would be unable to outrun predators.
The vast majority of native horses to Britain were much smaller and lighter than those that evolved on the dryer plains, and one of the main reasons was that once you get beyond a certain weight in countries where the climate is wetter for much longer than five months or so, it becomes much more difficult for horn to cope successfully with the weight increase because of the longer periods of bacterial attack constantly weakening them, making horses lame and rendering them unable to work. Britons, from Tudor times right through to and especially the Victorians needed horses to do great amounts of work so would both import bigger horses from abroad and selectively cross breed them with natives, to get breeds that were capable of doing far more than native horses could.

The problem was that in breeding bigger horses, and importing larger horses directly from continental climates to temperate ones, the problem of accelerated hoof destruction that temperate climates bring came sharply into focus, and the genetics of the imported animals became cross-bred into a lot of the breeds of horses we see in Britain today.

Weather also affects the destructive cycle, which is sharply in focus at present. 2012 was the wettest on record, but was preceded by two of the dryest. During the dryer years, the feet grew at a faster rate than the destruction, in general. One only has to look across this board and focus on thread titles like abscess or sore feet to see the havoc 2012 has resulted in. Remember, the feet operate on very long time scales, the longer it is wet, the greater and deeper the moisture absorbtion.

I have studied the natural methods of destruction of the horn for over thirty years now and have pinpointed the drawbacks of shoes, how they can accelerate destruction, and indeed done a great deal of work to successfully negate the problems that shoes can cause.

I am also a supporter of no shoes (my own horse is unshod) but in my experience around 40% of all horses can manage the work they are asked to do without being shod. When front shoes are worn this figure rises to around 65%. All of the others would not cope without, and performance is seriously affected when no shoes are tried on these.
Click to expand...


what an interesting and informative answer, thank you.
 
Horses have also evolved to eat a diet high in fibre and low in sugars and starches. We pump them full of high yielding grass and mixes containing various sugars, grains (starches) and drugs. This leads to metabolic disruption and hind gut issues. We also shoe young and back to back so the hooves have little opportunity to develop their hoof structures (digital cushion and lateral cartilages). We also stable them which reduces movement and further reduces opportunity for hoof development. Tbh, in my view, until we address these basic feeding and management issues and get closer to horses needs rather than our convenience, horses haven't got much of a chance of coping.
 
Graeme I see the sense in a lot that you are saying, but I can't understand why you would ever take callous off a horse which is sound. What does it matter how thick the callous is, if the frog is in contact with the floor?

My own experience of horses that wear one side of the foot more than the other is that if you resist the temptation to "help" them for long enough, what they do is grower thicker wall on the more worn side, to slow the rate of wear, and the foot balances itself. Of course to do this, you have to get plenty of work in on abrasive surfaces and not all owners can provide that, in which case you as a hoofcare professional, which I am not, would be forced to trim.

I wonder if you have ever had cause to take a look at rockleyfarm.blogspot.com ? I think you'd find it very interesting. It's a rehab yard with a record of resolving lamenesses in horse after horse that vets and farriers have been unable to help. Many of the horses that go there grow markedly assymetric feet, but are sound. It does appear from those cases, to which I add one that I have done myself (lame for 4 years until barefoot and allowed to shape his own feet) that we attempt to interfere too much with those horses, and cause lamenesses that they are able to sort out very well for themselves if allowed to grow the odd shaped feet that they know that they need.

We have found food, especially iron and manganese overload, to be a big factor in why so many horses can't go without shoes. Wet weather is a real problem and I credit much of my own success with a dry barn which allows both movement and a dry surface overnight.
Genetics plainly play a part. Lack of stimulus/work for people with jobs to do and no light to ride out in for the whole of the winter are a problem for many horses.

Thanks for taking the time to write such long and informative responses. Can we rely on you to pressure the FRC to make it mandatory for apprentices to spend some time working with barefoot horses in serious work? It would be even better if they were also sent to Rockley for a day.
 
Clava said:
Why???

Why will they need removing?
Click to expand...
I second this question.

One major thing I have learned from studying Pete Ramey at al is that the structures on the underneath of the hoof need to be thick and strong, both frog and sole need thick calloused layers for protection, continually chopping them stops this happening and predisposes the horse to bruising and infection.
This is why I was very interested in the sheep observations I copied above.
 
Graeme Burt farrier said:
Genetics does have a great deal to do with it, but I'm not being as simple as saying that all thoroughbreds, for example, have weak and flat feet, and need shoes, and all cobs do not. Every horse is an individual and should be treated as such.

It becomes much more difficult for horn to cope successfully with the weight increase because of the longer periods of bacterial attack constantly weakening them, making horses lame and rendering them unable to work. Britons, from Tudor times right through to and especially the Victorians needed horses to do great amounts of work so would both import bigger horses from abroad and selectively cross breed them with natives, to get breeds that were capable of doing far more than native horses could.

The problem was that in breeding bigger horses, and importing larger horses directly from continental climates to temperate ones, the problem of accelerated hoof destruction that temperate climates bring came sharply into focus, and the genetics of the imported animals became cross-bred into a lot of the breeds of horses we see in Britain today.

Weather also affects the destructive cycle, which is sharply in focus at present. 2012 was the wettest on record, but was preceded by two of the dryest. During the dryer years, the feet grew at a faster rate than the destruction, in general. One only has to look across this board and focus on thread titles like abscess or sore feet to see the havoc 2012 has resulted in. Remember, the feet operate on very long time scales, the longer it is wet, the greater and deeper the moisture absorbtion.

I have studied the natural methods of destruction of the horn for over thirty years now and have pinpointed the drawbacks of shoes, how they can accelerate destruction, and indeed done a great deal of work to successfully negate the problems that shoes can cause.

I am also a supporter of no shoes (my own horse is unshod) but in my experience around 40% of all horses can manage the work they are asked to do without being shod. When front shoes are worn this figure rises to around 65%. All of the others would not cope without, and performance is seriously affected when no shoes are tried on these.
Click to expand...

It is refreshing to hear from a farrier who is open minded.

I note in your last para you refer to your experiences. And that is a really important point - because different practices generate different experience.

My experience is that a horse which is appropriately fed and managed for that individual, and that does not have a metabolic disease such as Cushings, can cope with a very high degree of work without shoes (think international level Endurance). Bearing in mind much of my work is with horses which at the start have a very guarded prognosis or even a PTS over their heads I am not working with horses at their peak - but still with the right diet etc they end up being so much more than was predicted.

Regarding the point about genetics - sure it plays a part, but more in terms of what humans have done to the grazing in this country. Horses are not genetically predisposed to cope with grass that has been bred to be very high in sugar. And their genetics require group living and lots of movement. Something which livery frequently precludes with individual turnout in tiny paddocks.

Size or breed in my practice is not an issue. TB's and warmbloods often arriving with the worst prognosis but turning out to be great barefooters. If their owners can get the management right. And weather isn't an issue either (apart from being really horrible to deal with) as both TBs and WBs are proving they can live out 24/7 (unrugged too) without having their feet or bodies fall apart. The hardest horses to deal with are those with metabolic issues - and they need to be diagnosed and treated not ignored. If you want to argue 'breed' then I'd choose anything which has been selectively bred to be an easy keeper. But again they just need to be kept in accordance, not fed high carb packaged products and grass intended to get cows fat.

Thrush seems to be the biggest problem, partly because many people don't recognise early symptoms and then they may cause more harm than good with overly aggressive topical treatments.

I am aware of more than one horse that had rampant thrush which cleared despite the mud/wet etc and being turned out 24/7 - because the diet was changed. No topical treatments required.
 
What an interesting thread this is! I must say it is good to see a farrier on here putting across another point of view in such detail!
Sadly in my experience most farriers have said to me, " Your horse has crap feet because it is a TB"!!!!!
 
I am amazed at the changes in all four of my horses hooves since cutting out molasses, alfalfa and cereals....they were fed 'low sugar' diets previously but the swap plus addition of a high spec suppliment has really amazed me. Two horses very flat hooves are getting concave, its amazing.
 
Clava said:
Why???

Why will they need removing?
Click to expand...

I didnt mean to imply they would need completely removing, only the excess which can become thick and obstruct natural movement of the hoof if they are excessive. It is important that the structure has support, but like any good thing you can overdo it. There are horses who's feet can become so strong they lose flexibility, especially during long dry spells. Like I say, all are individuals, and with these in particular, inflexibility can lead to lack of function and over contraction.
 
pines of rome said:
What an interesting thread this is! I must say it is good to see a farrier on here putting across another point of view in such detail!
Sadly in my experience most farriers have said to me, " Your horse has crap feet because it is a TB"!!!!!
Click to expand...

I can only answer this with a quote directly from the top page of my website. (Im not allowed to link as it breaks forum rules)

The phrase "Your horse just has bad feet. Theres nothing I can do about it" is the most frustrating and incorrect statement I have heard. "Surely it is part of the farrier's job to do something about bad feet", is my response.
Click to expand...
 
cptrayes said:
Graeme I see the sense in a lot that you are saying, but I can't understand why you would ever take callous off a horse which is sound. What does it matter how thick the callous is, if the frog is in contact with the floor?

My own experience of horses that wear one side of the foot more than the other is that if you resist the temptation to "help" them for long enough, what they do is grower thicker wall on the more worn side, to slow the rate of wear, and the foot balances itself. Of course to do this, you have to get plenty of work in on abrasive surfaces and not all owners can provide that, in which case you as a hoofcare professional, which I am not, would be forced to trim.

I wonder if you have ever had cause to take a look at rockleyfarm.blogspot.com ? I think you'd find it very interesting. It's a rehab yard with a record of resolving lamenesses in horse after horse that vets and farriers have been unable to help. Many of the horses that go there grow markedly assymetric feet, but are sound. It does appear from those cases, to which I add one that I have done myself (lame for 4 years until barefoot and allowed to shape his own feet) that we attempt to interfere too much with those horses, and cause lamenesses that they are able to sort out very well for themselves if allowed to grow the odd shaped feet that they know that they need.

We have found food, especially iron and manganese overload, to be a big factor in why so many horses can't go without shoes. Wet weather is a real problem and I credit much of my own success with a dry barn which allows both movement and a dry surface overnight.
Genetics plainly play a part. Lack of stimulus/work for people with jobs to do and no light to ride out in for the whole of the winter are a problem for many horses.

Thanks for taking the time to write such long and informative responses. Can we rely on you to pressure the FRC to make it mandatory for apprentices to spend some time working with barefoot horses in serious work? It would be even better if they were also sent to Rockley for a day.
Click to expand...


I would agree that there is a fair bit of over-compensation taught within the trade, from my own experience. You will have to excuse me, I dont know about Rockley, purely because I get so little time to myself these days, I am pretty much working 7 days. Indeed, the only reason Im here at all is that my van gave up on Thursday, and being Easter I was somewhat stuffed because the garage cant even look at it till Wednesday, and its likely to take a week or so, so today Ive spent today buying a cheap van to see me through the week and catch up on those that I havent been able to do.

I would hire one but the last time I did that they complained when I took it back, even though I spent time putting in a temporary false floor and cleaning it thoroughly afterwards!

Im a terrible workaholic so get itchy fingers when I cant get on.

To credit the trade, there are changes in attitudes among some of the more experienced, and quite a few are beginning to question the strictness of balance compensation, especially in those animals that have conformation issues. Many of these have assymetric feet, if you look it isnt difficult to see how this happens. As a rough guide only, knees are often a giveaway, in some cases being higher one side than the other, meaning the long bones have developed longer on one side than the other genetically, leading to a horse compensating by wearing one side of a foot to a greater extent. As a result the opposite side of the foot becomes longer and more expanded (length has greater leverage) and the twist becomes amplified.

I find that in such circumstances, compromise is often a far better course of action rather than strict balancing principles. Like I say, all horses are individuals and should be treated as such.
 
Graeme you sound fanstastic in your open mindedness. If you have an hour to browse the Rockley blog I really do think you would find it fascinating. Also Nic Barker, the owner of the rehab centre, would certainly be really happy to chat with you and explain what happens to the horses in her care, most of which go home much sounder when their farrier has tried their best but been unable to resolve their issues.
 
paddy555 said:
I looked up G Burt's website which I found interesting either from a shod or BF pov. so thought others might like to read it.
I cannot see any reason why I cannot post it. Hope it is OK with you Mr Burt.

http://protectiveshoeing.com/index.html
Click to expand...

Have no objection, I didnt post it myself and have not included it in my profile because the forum rules dont allow a commercial website to be listed. Not that I consider it commercial, I dont take bookings through the website, I can barely cope as it is!

Just a note though, the majority of the website was written nearly four years ago now, and some things have changed. I no longer use Gripfill as a protective material, since the site was written newer and better materials are available. The main material I use for protection these days is a material called caprolactone or thermoplastic, anyone who is familiar with Andrew Poynton's Imprint system will know it because it is the very same material Imprint shoes are made from. Its main advantage is safety, as thermoplastic is non toxic and used at a temperature no higher than 65 degrees, and the simple act of cooling makes it go off, there are no solvents to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top