Facebook QR Code for Esco Buff's Professional Farrier Service, LLC



The use of adhesives and acrylics in farriery



Link to Article on "Farriers Can Add Value to their Practice with Adhesive Applications."




Acrylic, urethane and polyurethane are among the options available to enhance a hoof-care business




Farrier Takeaways


• Acrylic and urethane adhesives can offer farriers more shoeing options, the ability to provide better services to clients and an opportunity to increase business profitability.


• Preparation is key to success when using adhesives, as well as an awareness of product shelf life, ideal temperatures for storage and usage, and material quantity.


• Adhesives usage may be above and beyond the typical services a farrier provides, and clients should be charged accordingly.





Acrylic and urethane adhesives can offer farriers more shoeing options, the ability to provide better services to clients and ultimately an opportunity to increase business profitability. Despite these potential benefits, many farriers still shy away from reactive adhesives due to confusion about which product to use and when.


Webster, N.Y., farrier Esco Buff discussed the different adhesive options available to farriers and examples of their appropriate usage, as well as how he charges clients for adhesive applications during a How-To Hoof-Care Product Knowledge Clinic, sponsored by Vettec, at the 2020 International Hoof-Care Summit in Cincinnati, Ohio.


“Acrylics and urethanes are both products that are very helpful in our industry,” he says. “Both have their time and place. Both are effective. You just have to know the differences.”




Understanding Reactive Adhesives


Adhesives, which are any substance that can stick fast to a surface or object, are generally divided into two categories: non-reactive and reactive. Non-reactive adhesives cure by evaporation — contact cement is one example. Reactive adhesives cure chemically. Those typically used in the farrier industry, Buff says, are two-part reactive adhesives such as epoxy, acrylic, polyurethane and urethane that start curing when two parts are mixed together at different rates of time.


“Each category of adhesives has its purpose in a farrier’s business,” Buff says, though he personally finds that he can provide more options when using urethane adhesives. Some of the uses Buff has found for urethane adhesives include:


• Filling in the void between the shoe and hoof.

• Stabilizing certain hoof cracks.

• As a temporary shoe on a bare-footed horse for sole relief, protection or

therapeutic reasons.

• Attaching foal extensions.

• Toe extension.

• Building a hoof.


Buff also has found uses for urethane in therapeutic shoe packages. Using Vettec’s urethane adhesive SuperFast he has been able to:

• Treat sinker and laminitis cases by providing positive pressure to the frog in a bar shoe (Figure 1).

• Create “W” heart-bar shoes (Figure 2) for a laminitic horse to lift the toe of the shoe

off of the sole.

• Make branch rim pads to elevate the shoe off of the sole of the foot vertically and relieve any toe sole pressure (Figure 3).

• Stabilize a distal phalanx fracture in conjunction with a continuous cuff straight bar shoe.


“The most common complaint about reactive adhesive effectiveness from farriers is they do not stay on long or pre-maturely detach,” Buff says. But with proper preparation, he says farriers can expect average acrylic and urethane adhesive retention of 6 weeks — minimum.




Preparation


Preparation before applying any adhesive is vital, Buff says. He advises against using any chemicals because the residue — even denatured alcohol to clean up the foot — will stay on the foot and may cause a barrier to the adhesion. Simply rasp the foot with the rough side of the rasp.


“Rasp up the entire hoof wall, wherever the adhesive is going to go,” Buff says. “That’s all you need to do. Clean it off with a rag or a wire brush so there’s no dust on it. Make sure the bottom of the hoof is clean. I put a blue board a lot of times on the bottom of the foot so when I put the foot down to rest, it’s not getting dirty.”


Shoes also need to be cleaned, Buff says. He recommends taking it to the grinder to roughen it up. This will create more bonding surface as well as eliminate any oxidation on the shoe including chemicals, fingerprints and oils. For this reason, it’s important to wear gloves and not to handle the shoe with your bare hands after you’ve finished rasping, because the finger oils could interfere with the glue. If the owner wants to apply fly spray, Buff says, tell them to do it before you start rasping otherwise the foot will need to be rasped again.


After the prep work is complete, you can either directly glue the shoe to the bottom of the foot, or nail it on and indirect glue on the sides of the foot, depending upon the method being used. Adhesives can be used with steel, aluminum and plastics. Buff recommends the horse go to a stall for 24 hours after using adhesives to give the product time to cure. They can take 24 hours to cure. “I want that fully set up before the horse goes out in the water and mud,” Buff says.




Impacts on Effectiveness


Learning how to correctly apply reactive adhesives in order to provide the maximum effectiveness of the product, along with proper preparation, will lessen the chances of adhesive failure, Buff says. But it’s also important for farriers to be aware of other factors that can impact a product’s effectiveness.


1. Make sure the product has not expired. Vettec products have a minimum shelf life of 12 months after they are made. To check and see whether the product is within the year timeframe, look for the batch code (four figures with a letter) based on the Julian calendar that appear on the back side of the label. The first number represents the year the product was made (8 for 2018 and 9 for 2019) while the numbers that follow represent the timeframe out of 365 days during which the cartridge was filled. For example, a code with the numbers 8200 would represent July 19, 2018 because July 19 is the 200th day out of 365 in 2018. Acrylics have a shelf life of 6 months. Consider the temperature. Different products are affected by temperature differently. Adhesives can tolerate the cold naturally and are less effective in the heat.


2. Acrylics need to be refrigerated in order to effectively work, Buff says. Once the product is pulled out, the UV process could begin. Buff keeps urethane adhesives in his rig during the winter months, but will put it on his defroster for a minute and run the truck for 1 or 2 minutes to warm it up. “You don’t want it too hot either,” he says, “because when it comes out of the tube, it will just run off the foot. You have to find that happy medium.”


3. Use enough material. Regardless of the type of shoe or product, Buff recommends farriers use spacers to ensure there is a consistent thickness and adequate enough material between the hoof and the shoe.




Charge Accordingly


Adhesives can be costly, so farriers need to factors that cost into what they charge clients. “If you charge accordingly, adding urethane adhesives to your farrier business can increase your income,” Buff says. “Typically I charge $30 to $50 per foot for adhesive applications.”


Buff’s charges for applying reactive adhesives are generally as follows:

• Acrylics — $30 per 2 ounces (medicine dose cup).

• Urethanes — $2 for tip and $30 per 2 ounces.


Buff reminds that the cost to the farrier is high, with acrylics starting at $8 per ounce and tubes running from $30 to $75, depending on quantity. Urethane can cost $20 to $35 for 5 to 7 ounces.


“The cost of gloves, tip, cups, plastic wrap and tongue depressors goes into the cost I charge,” he says. “The dispensing gun goes under equipment purchases in my yearly budget. You need to charge for those additional things because it’s above and beyond what you need to do.”





Bacterial involvement with early detachmebt of adhesive/acrylic hoof repair materials.
by buff e, gravlee f, patterson j



BACTERIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH EARLY DETACHMENT OF ADHESIVE/ACRYLIC HOOF REPAIR MATERIALS

Buff E, Gravlee F, Patterson J



Take Home Message


Many equine professionals and horse owners have become frustrated with adhesive and acrylic hoof repair materials due to there premature loosening and/or lose on the hoof. Bacteria involvement is a main factor with the premature loosening and/or loss of adhesive/acrylic hoof wall repair materials when correctly applied.



Introduction


Several causes have been suggested for the premature loosening and/or loss of adhesive/acrylic hoof wall repair materials (Vettec, Inc, 2004. Sigafoos, R, 1995. Turner, T, 1996. O’Grady, S, 2001). Some causes that have been implicated are: improper hoof preparation, cooler air temperatures effecting the adhesion of the adhesive/acrylic hoof wall repair material, too rigid of an adhesive/acrylic, poor product, water from bathing and the environment getting behind and forcing the adhesives/acrylics to loosen and normal hoof wall expansion causing the adhesives/acrylics to “pop” off. Human dentistry research has already identified adhesion problems with denture bonds and acrylics, due to bacteria (Baulad K, Taylor RI, Verran J and McCord, 2004. Aputiunov SD, Ibragimov TI, Tsarew VN, Lebedenko Iiu, Savkina NI, Trefilov AG, Arutiunov AS and Klimashin Iul, 2002). Equine research in this area appears to fairly non-existent or not easily found. Through the author’s own personal experiences with and understanding of adhesive/acrylic hoof wall repair materials when product directions are followed correctly, bacteria involvement was believed to have more to do with the loosening/loss process than any of the other possible suggested causes.


A Study done on medicated acrylics (Turner, T, 1996), showed that impregnating acrylic hoof wall repair material with antibiotics would allow the leaching out of the antibiotic and reduce hoof infections. The study also indicated that incorporating antibiotics in the acrylics slowed down the acrylic cure time and if not allowed to cure properly, resulted in premature loosening of the repair. Antibiotic leaching and environment leaching through acrylics is due to the nature of acrylics being porous. However, adhesives don’t allow leaching through the material and medicating them would be futile (Gravlee, F, 2003-05. Dugan, F, 2004-06).
There were three primary objectives of this study. The first, was to test and see what bacteria, if any, were present before any hoof work was done, after the hoof was prepared for the hoof wall repair material, and two weeks later after the adhesive was removed. The second, was to test at the end of a two week trial period, how well the adhesive adhered after several different hoof preparations procedures and applications were followed and applied. The third, was to establish what type of correlation exists between the adhesive adhesion score and the type and quantity of bacteria involved. The rationale of this study was to research and test if bacteria involvement had any correlation with the premature loosening and/or loss of the adhesive hoof wall repair material.



Materials and Methods


Three horses from the Rochester, New York area were selected for this research. The weather varied from sunny and dry to rainy, 55 to 85 degrees F. The owners were instructed not to make any changes in feeding, environment, exercise and/or care of their horse. The owners were also instructed not to apply any hoof dressings, sealers, or other hoof products on their horse’s feet for the duration of the study. The first horse was an adult Hanoverian stalled 24 hours and is only hand walked for 20 minutes each day. The second horse was an adult Quarter Horse on full 24 hour pasture turn-out with a run-in shed available. The third horse was an adult Dutch Warmblood stalled for 12 hours, pastured for 7 hours, and worked/groomed for 3 hours a day. All three horses were shod in flat, wide web shoes on both front feet and had the exact same experiment procedures followed on each hoof. The adhesive hoof wall repair material used was Adhere® by Vettec, Inc.a and was applied over a 5 x 5 cm hoof area, in the exact same manner of application for each horse. Several hoof preparation products were applied for testing. The preparation products used were: nothing, denatured alcohol (as per adhesive directions), Chlorhexadine Antiseptic Surgical Scrub b, and an Antimicrobial Test Formulation c. Three cultures were collected for each sample. The first, taken before any work was done to the hooves. The second, taken after the preparation work was done, but before the adhesive was applied. The adhesive was then applied and left untouched for two weeks. At the end of two weeks, all of the adhesives were removed. Evaluation of the adhesive adhesion was noted and the third culture was collected. Foot work and adhesive application was performed by Buff. Cultures were collected by Patterson. Evaluation of adhesiveness was done by Buff and Patterson.


The following experiment procedure was followed:


Sample One - Left Front, Lateral Hoof Wall (adhesive test)

1 - take culture

2 - sand hoof wall with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof wall with denatured alcohol (per adhesive directions)

4 - take culture

5 - apply adhesive repair material a6 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture


Sample Two - Left Front, Dorsal Hoof Wall (control test)

1 - take culture2 - after two weeks take culture
Sample Three - Left Front, Medial Hoof Wall (scrub test)1 - take culture

2 - sand hoof wall with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture

5 - apply adhesive repair material a

6 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture


Sample Four - Right Front, Lateral Hoof Wall (sanding, scrub and antimicrobial test formulation)

1 - take culture

2 - sand hoof with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture

5 - apply the antimicrobial test formulation c

6 - apply adhesive repair material a

7 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture


Sample Five - Right Front, Dorsal Hoof Wall (sanding, no applications test)

1 - take culture

2 - sand hoof with a sanding sponge

3 - apply adhesive hoof wall material a

4 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture


Sample Six - Right Front, Medial Hoof Wall (wire brush, scrub and antimicrobial test formulation)

1 - take culture

2 - wire brush hoof wall to remove debris

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture

5 - apply the antimicrobial test formulation c

6 - apply adhesive repair material a

7 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture


Culture Procedures were collected as follows:

Samples were collected aseptically using sterile swabs. Samples were sterilely inoculated into Phioglytolatte broth and incubated for 24 hours which would encourage growth. After 24 hours, all samples noted to be cloudy were inoculated onto a sheep blood agar medium. After another 24 hours, growth would be noted from the plates, Gram’s stained, and looked under a microscope to determine bacteria type.


Adhesive adhesion was evaluated as follows:

- adhesive was not attached = lost

- adhesive was loosely attached = three quarters loosely/ one quarter attached

- adhesive was moderately attached = half loosely/half attached

- adhesive was substantially attached = one quarter loosely/ three quarters attached

- adhesive was totally attached = 100% attached



Results


All six pre-cleaning application samples were noted to be cloudy and had equal values and growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria. Bacteria and adhesive adhesion results are noted in bold type below.


Sample One - Left Front, Lateral Hoof Wall (adhesive test)

1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)

2 - sand hoof wall with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof wall with denatured alcohol (per adhesive directions)

4 - take culture (all cultures showed equal values of two colonies - Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria and large white colonies of Non-Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria, gamma)

5 - apply adhesive repair material a

6 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a and take culture (adhesive was moderately attached in two samples and loosely attached in one sample) (all cultures showed equal values of two colonies - Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria and large white colonies of Non-Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria, gamma)


Sample Two - Left Front, Dorsal Hoof Wall (control test)

1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)

2 - after two weeks take culture (all cultures showed equal values of growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)


Sample Three - Left Front, Medial Hoof Wall (scrub test)

1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)

2 - sand hoof wall with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture (all cultures showed equal values of pure colonies of Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria)

5 - apply adhesive repair material a

6 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a and take culture (adhesive was substantially attached in one sample and moderately attached in two samples) (all cultures showed equal values of pure colonies of Alpha Hemolytic Strep Bacteria)


Sample Four - Right Front, Lateral Hoof Wall (sanding, scrub and hoof prep test)

1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)

2 - sand hoof with a sanding sponge

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture (all cultures showed equal values of pure colonies of Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria)

5 - apply the antimicrobial test formulation c

6 - apply adhesive repair material a

7 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a and take culture (adhesive was totally attached in all three samples) (two cultures showed no growth of any bacteria and one culture showed equal values of pure colonies of Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria)


Sample Five - Left Front, Dorsal Hoof Wall (sanding, no application test)

1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)

2 - sand hoof with a sanding sponge

3 - apply adhesive hoof wall material a

4 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture (adhesive was moderately attached in one sample and loosely attached in two samples) (all cultures showed equal values of growth of Beta Hemolytic Staph. Bacteria)


Sample Six - Right Front, Medial Hoof Wall (wire brush, scrub and hoof prep test)
1 - take culture (all cultures showed growth of Beta Hemolytic Staff Bacteria)

2 - wire brush the hoof wall

3 - clean hoof for 15 seconds with a Chlorhexadine antiseptic surgical scrub b

4 - take culture (all cultures showed equal values of growth of Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria)

5 - apply the antimicrobial test formulation c

6 - apply adhesive repair material a

7 - after two weeks, remove adhesive repair material a, evaluate adhesion of the adhesive and take culture (adhesive was totally attached in two samples and substantially attached in two samples) (two cultures showed no growth of bacteria and one sample (substantially attached) showed growth of Alpha Hemolytic Strep. Bacteria)


Test results showed no difference in the adhesive hoof wall repair material adhesion or bacteria involvement due to the horse’s difference in environment, turn out, age, breed, exercise program or feed program.



Discussion


This study confirmed that effective adhesive adhesion was associated with the reduction of certain bacteria on the hoof wall and under the adhesive. The study also showed that differences in the horse’s environment, turn out, age, breed, exercise program or feed program had no effect on adhesive adhesion and bacteria involvement results. Further studies will have to be done to isolate the exact aerobic and/ anaerobic bacteria involved in this process. Significantly increased adhesion was seen when the hoof was prepared for the adhesive/acrylic material with the antiseptic scrub and antimicrobial test formulation then with any of the other types of preparation methods in this study.


Due to being unable to find any similar studies on previous equine adhesive research, the author was unable to make comparisons from these study results. It is of interest that secondary case studies done by similar procedures with adhesive glue-on shoes by the author, also showed increased shoe retention when the antimicrobial test formulation c was applied before gluing on the shoes.



References/Foot Notes


Aputiunov SD, Ibragimov TI, Tsarew VN, Lebedenko Iiu, Savkina NI, Trefilov AG, Arutiunov AS, Klimashin Iul. Microbiological validation of the choice of basic plastic for removable dentures. Stomatologiia (Mosk), 200281(3):4-8

Baulad K, Taylor RI, Verran J, McCord. Colonization and penetration of denture soft lining materials by Candida albicans. Den Mater, 2004 Feb 20(2):167-75.

Butler, PhD, CJF, FWCF, Doug. LaPorte, CO. (personal communication). 2004. Dealer News. Life Data® Labs, Inc, PO Box 349, Cherokee, AL. April 2003.

Dugan, Frank. Oxnard, CA. (personal communication). 2004-06.

Gravlee, DVM, MS, CNS, Frank. Cherokee, AL. (personal communication). 2003-05

Kempson, SA. The environment and the equine hoof horn. Lecture 2004. Dept. Of Pre-Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Summerhall, Edinburgh.

Kempson SA and Robb R. Use of a topical disinfectant as part of a hoof care programme for horses with disease of the hoof capsule. Veterinary Record 2004 154, 647-652.

Sellnow, L. Hoof Cracks. www.msnusers.com/horselover/hoofcracks.msnw. Unknown Date.

Sigafoos, R. Polymeric Composite Repair for Acute and Chronic Refractory Hoof Injuries in Horses. 41st. A.A.E.P. Proceedings. 1995. Turner, TA. AAEP Proceedings. 1996.

Vettec Educational Step-by-Step Hand Book. 2004/2005 Edition. Vettec, Inc, 600 East Hueneme Road, Oxnard, CA. 2004/05.

a Adhere. Vettec, Inc, 600 E. Hueneme Rd, Oxnard, CA, 93033.

b Chlorhexadine Antiseptic Surgical Scrub. BD (Benton, Dickinson and Company), 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ, 07417.

c Antimicrobial Test Formulations. Life Data® Labs, Inc, PO Box 349, Cherokee, AL, 35616.



Acknowledgments

This research was self funded by the author, Esco Buff.
Material support was provided by Life Data® Labs, Inc. and Frank Dugan of Vettec®, Inc.
The author would like to thank David Trachtenberg, DVM of Ledgewood Equine Clinic for allowing the use of his technicians and lab for this research.
The author would also like to acknowledge the help, consultancy and collaboration by Jane Patterson of Ledgewood Equine Clinic and Frank Gravlee, DVM, MS, CNS.




24/7 Lameness Emergencies: 585-298-6619

Esco buff's professional farrier service, llc