But the reasons given don’t make sense in the real world, which includes what these feeds are actually made of - ingredients, and GAs.
“Feed a more calorie dense concentrate” was given as a reason not to use a Sr feed.
And yet, TC Sr Gold is one of the most calorie-dense feeds out there, Sr or otherwise.
And yet, TC Sr regular is more calorie dense than almost everything one whole brand has, performance feeds included. Its 1546cal/lb is very middle of the road from a calorie perspective, most feeds are in that range, right in the middle of a bell curve.
And who says that a Sr automatically requires a ton of calories anyway? Isn’t that why the feed industry as a whole has everything from ration balancers to high calorie regular feeds, to help accommodate the widely varying calorie needs of horses regardless of their nutritional status?
Purina Sr Active is, IIRC, around 1600 cal/lb - more than TC Sr, it’s not a complete feed, but it IS a Sr feed, so is that an acceptable “senior feed”? Why, or why not?
The feeding rate of senior feeds was used as an example of why not to use them, yet I gave an example of one Sr feed with a LOWER min feeding rate than the non-Sr feed that was being used.
Those are the facts of the situations/scenarios, which negate the reasons given as to why senior feeds in general are unacceptable for chewing-able horses.
