28/04/2026
I just saw a post with the images below. I only show the images, not the whole post, as it is irrelevant who posted it.
The point is to be cautious when interpreting Digital Cushion (DC) based on cross-sections alone. It can be very misleading.
The top image with the two cuts next to each other is not even the same cut. The one on the right is almost through the midline, the left one is just about along the collateral groove (CG). Therefore, they are not comparable as they show a different anatomical location. A cut along the CG will always show less DC than a cut through the midline, even on the same hoof. That's just how the anatomy is.
Now looking at the two images that say poor and great DC. The one that says great DC seems to have a compromised laminar connection and the short pastern is pulled up, aka stretching the DC. The image showing poor DC has the short pastern (P2) pushing down on the DC, but seems to show a better laminar connection.
Both those hooves show as distinct downward bulge of the frog corium, leading to a thin frog in that area. That suggests there are significant other pathological aspects in those hooves, which are not visible in these views. Compare that to the frog at the top right image.
