Feeding equine senior to babies?

[JB]

It is well-documented for years now that higher sugar diets are a leading cause of growth issues in young horses. 20% NSC at 1lb isn’t a big deal. But start feeding the recommended 5-6-7lb to these guys and that’s a much bigger impact. Less of an impact on a 2yo than a 6 month old, because growth has slowed.

It’s also well-documented that horses as a whole do better on lower NSC diets. Just a fact.

I have no idea what reputable research company out there says 25% NSC is fine and good for most horses It IS a fact that many horses seem to do just fine on higher NSC diets. However, there is also research that points to a link between a life of higher sugar diets and the subsequent development if IR issues.

MOST horses are not working nearly so hard as to justify some of the “higher starch” diets. They just happen to (appear to) do alright despite it.

Low sugar/starch diets tend also to be lower calorie which, IMVHO, is why some horses don’t do well on them. The answer is not to go from a 15% NSC feed to a 35% feed - it’s to go with something higher fat.

Very hard working horses may absolutely need more soluble carbs to do their jobs, no doubt. They cannot be used to model the average horse though.

[JB]

[QUOTE=Holly F;6468670]
My point is just because one product is say 17% fiber and another is 17% fiber doesn’t mean they are equivalent and/or doesn’t determine if it is a complete feed. In order to be a complete feed and provide all the necessary fiber to replace hay in the diet the product must contain the necessary amount of both digestible and indigestible “bulk” fibers. A high fiber diet that is not a complete feed may not have as many indigestible fibers. Young horses (mainly birth through 6 months or weaning) need maximum nutrition and digestibility so I wouldn’t typically recommend feeding a complete feed to a horse that falls into this category.[/QUOTE]

I’m not talking about the fiber content.

When you compare 2 products on a basis of protein, calcium, lysine, copper, zinc, magnesium, manganese, all the minerals, even the vitamins, and they are identical or very close, how can you call one not suitable for a growing horse but the other is?

[Real_Rush]

OK, just to throw my 2 cents into the ring: I always started my thoroughbred babies out on the Seminole Wellness Grow Right, which is 14% protein, 5% fat, 18% fiber and 12% starch. Over the years I’ve had a handful that just needed a little extra calories, and would switch them over to the Triple Crown Growth, which has 10% fat, 17% fiber and ~6% starch and 14% NSC. On the rare occassions the feed store was out of Growth, I used the TC Senior, which is virtually identical, with ~6.5% starch and 12% NSC. The only other differences between the Growth and the Senior is that the Growth has some oats added in and it contains slightly higher levels of lysine and threonine.

So far, out of almost a dozen babies on the ground, I’ve never had one instance of physitis or any kind of growth problems. You can’t tell me that 2 of the top-rated feed companies in the U.S. (Seminole and Triple Crown) simply don’t know what they’re doing by offering feeds designed for growing babies that have high fiber and low starch. I know my foals are a small pool to draw a comparison from, but if the formulas that these feed companies are offering were bad, there would be problems across the board with a large number of foals.

[Holly_F]

[QUOTE=JB;6468973]
It is well-documented for years now that higher sugar diets are a leading cause of growth issues in young horses. 20% NSC at 1lb isn’t a big deal. But start feeding the recommended 5-6-7lb to these guys and that’s a much bigger impact. Less of an impact on a 2yo than a 6 month old, because growth has slowed.

It’s also well-documented that horses as a whole do better on lower NSC diets. Just a fact.

I have no idea what reputable research company out there says 25% NSC is fine and good for most horses It IS a fact that many horses seem to do just fine on higher NSC diets. However, there is also research that points to a link between a life of higher sugar diets and the subsequent development if IR issues.

MOST horses are not working nearly so hard as to justify some of the “higher starch” diets. They just happen to (appear to) do alright despite it.

Low sugar/starch diets tend also to be lower calorie which, IMVHO, is why some horses don’t do well on them. The answer is not to go from a 15% NSC feed to a 35% feed - it’s to go with something higher fat.

Very hard working horses may absolutely need more soluble carbs to do their jobs, no doubt. They cannot be used to model the average horse though.[/QUOTE]

I am not disagreeing with you on feeding lower starch diets, just disagreeing with what the definition of “low starch” is. In the research that Purina did tracking babies for the first two years of their life feeding both a control diet that had a moderate starch load (in the 30’s) and the Ultium Growth diet which is a lower starch diet (in the low 20’s, so maybe not by your standards) none of the horse’s exhibited any OCD/physitis issues.

Overfeeding and nutritional imbalances are typically considered the leading causes of issues in growth with young growing horses at least in terms of nutritional causes. No doubt high starch & sugar diets can have an effect but again it goes back to defining what that high starch level is.

By the way, I am not an advocate of feeding high starch and sugar at all. There are many reasons that horses do better on lower starch and sugar diets. It’s just that people have extrapolated the definition of a low starch diet to be the same as a low starch diet required by a horse with a condition (like Cushings, IR, founder etc). Those horses need to be carefully monitored (much like a diabetic person) to have the lowest level of guaranteed starch and sugar possible even to the extent of soaking hay, not eating pasture etc. When looking to feed a lower starch diet to the average, healthy horse, a diet that is 15% - 25% starch is perfectly acceptable depending on the horse AND still considered relatively low in starch. Horses that are in heavy aerobic work may do better on a moderate starch load that is higher then that, again depends on the horse.

[snopbobil]

I wouldn’t feed that garbage to a senior horse, let alone to babies, anything Purina is horrible!!!