Results back on ration balancer

[JB]

@Red_Barn

You’re right - I should have tested it. The vet actually suggested that, but I haven’t gotten around to it.

All I know is that the mini’s blood sugar was in the high-ish normal range on soaked hay and Poulin Carb Safe, and that it skyrocketed to unmeasurable levels when “Safe” Starch replaced approximately half the hay. And yes, they dropped again when I removed it from his diet.

I probably still have some hanging around. Do you have a favorite testing lab?

I’d say it’s unfair to imply the SS isn’t what is claimed, just because 1 horse couldn’t handle it. EMS is not black and white. Feedstuffs that, on paper, should work, work for some and not for others. Maybe the WSC in this SS is a bit too high for this horse - it’s not always just about ESC + starch for the EMS guys

If you really want to test, Equi-Analytical. Just be aware that you can’t base an entire product off testing 1 bag

@walkinthewalk

I highly recommend HorseTech’s HighPoint for grass fed horses:)

It is condensed vit/min supplement with zero added iron and does not use soy as the protein source.

For those easiest keepers, the lack of protein may mean you need to add amino acids

@walkinthewalk

Why go thru all this bull-pukky with bagged feeds, ration balancers etc. when that can all go away (in most cases) by feeding a quality condensed product mixed into some Timothy pellets — or alfalfa/mix pellets if the horse needs some alfalfa:)

Why do you feel hay pellets are going to be any more, or less reliable than a bagged feed?

[rubygirl1968]

I’ve looked into the High Point Grass but it doesn’t have enough zinc and copper to balance out hay. So I’m still adding a filler feed and extra of both.

Maybe I’m just being difficult today. I’m tired and stressed. Lol

I’ll look at it again and how much I have to add. I have heard good things about it.

[JB]

@rubygirl1968

I’ve looked into the High Point Grass but it doesn’t have enough zinc and copper to balance out hay. So I’m still adding a filler feed and extra of both.

I add cu and zn to the HPG as well. It’s just the nature of the best. No single product can properly balance all hay. It’s all about averages

It’s cheaper and easier to feed a balancer, over HPG + Nutramino + extra cu/zn (though the latter is really cheap)

[Red_Barn]

@JB

If you really want to test, Equi-Analytical.

Thank you.

And you know, much as I respect your expertise, I think you’re being way too generous with these people. If their on-bag estimates are really that sloppy, they have no business making specific health claims about their products.

[JB]

I get where you’re coming from. I am a “innocent until proven guilty” person

This is from petaafco, but it reiterates what I’ve said above:

“Each batch of finished product is going to vary in composition due to variation in ingredient composition, mixing rates, and amount of water driven off during the cooking process. Unfortunately, a single analytical value does not give any indication as to the expected batch-to-batch variation. As a result, the composition of the batch that was tested may be very different from the one the feed control official analyzes”

The real issue is when things are below minimums listed, and above maximums listed. 700ppm min means it’s still 100% legal to have it test at 1650. But unless you test multiple bags from the same batch (and preferably not within the 10 bags you bought since they likely have a very close mix), you can’t say the entire product is “lying”

I have no idea how far below/above the min/max numbers is cause for alarm from an inspection concern. 161ppm copper vs 200ppm is a difference of 17.7mg per pound - tiny in the context of a ration balancer serving.

Technically any below min and over max is a reportable offense but I don’t know how much variation they are actually ok with.

[Red_Barn]

@JB

“Each batch of finished product is going to vary in composition due to variation in ingredient composition, mixing rates, and amount of water driven off during the cooking process. Unfortunately, a single analytical value does not give any indication as to the expected batch-to-batch variation. As a result, the composition of the batch that was tested may be very different from the one the feed control official analyzes”

That’s some pretty damning language right there!

That sounds like on-bag labeling is essentially meaningless, and that there’s no possible way for the purchaser to figure out, even roughly, what they’re actually buying from one week to the next.

And that would fine if we were talking about an unprocessed, natural product like hay. One expects products like that to vary somewhat, and builds that variation into the feeding plan.

But if a highly processed commercial product that markets itself as being “ideal for horses with metabolic disease, founder and laminitis” and claims to be “great for managing sugar spikes often found in Spring and Fall pastures,” the implication is that this variation is within reasonable - and safe! - bounds. That’s why we’re shelling out 20 bucks a bail for this stuff, right?

Safe Starch® Forage - Triple Crown Feed

So yeah. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if my mini’s sugar levels stayed roughly the same or were slightly raised when introducing new feed. That would be within reasonable and safe bounds of variation. But blood sugar readings literally off the chart?

No.

I understand your point, JB, but I can’t agree.

[JB]

@Red_Barn

That’s some pretty damning language right there!

That sounds like on-bag labeling is essentially meaningless, and that there’s no possible way for the purchaser to figure out, even roughly, what they’re actually buying from one week to the next

What do you think a hay analysis is? It’s an average of a random sampling of bales. My example earlier still stands. The bale from the edge of the field, maybe more weeds, more or less sun, different soil composition, may test VERY differently from a bale on the other side of the 100 acres, yet it’s the same cutting from the “same” field.

Why would a batch of feed be expected to be 100% uniform? Yes, they do their best to make sure all the forage ingredients are mixed as uniformly as possible, all the added nutrients mixed as uniformly as possible, that the combination of the forages and the minerals are mixed together as uniformly as possible, if there’s oil and/or molasses added, that all that is mixed as uniformly as possible.

But these aren’t drugs where it is 100% expected that every tiny pill in every bottle of every batch be 100% the same.

I understand your concern. I’d recommend not feeding commercial feeds then. But then what?

Are you going to test every batch of Timothy or alfalfa pellets? I guarantee they’re going to vary from batch to batch. Are you going to test every batch of oats you get? I guarantee those test differently.

Are you certain that every Standlee chopped alfalfa is 100% the same as on the GA, every time?

[Red_Barn]

@JB

What do you think a hay analysis is? It’s an average of a random sampling of bales. My example earlier still stands. The bale from the edge of the field, maybe more weeds, more or less sun, different soil composition, may test VERY differently from a bale on the other side of the 100 acres, yet it’s the same cutting from the “same” field.

Of course. It’s a natural, unprocessed product.

Why would a batch of feed be expected to be 100% uniform?

In the first place, I didn’t say “100% uniform”. I said reasonably, safely uniform.

And I’d expect this because it’s a processed, commercially produced product that makes very specific claims about its ingredients and health benefits.

@JB

Are you going to test every batch of Timothy or alfalfa pellets? I guarantee they’re going to vary from batch to batch. Are you going to test every batch of oats you get? I guarantee those test differently.

Are you certain that every Standlee chopped alfalfa is 100% the same as on the GA, every time?

No, I’m not certain and I wouldn’t expect it. But they’re not making these very specific health claims, either.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[JB]

@Red_Barn

Of course. It’s a natural, unprocessed product.

You’re missing the point. Are you 100% certain that a giant mixing bat can mix the contents of 1000 bales of dry hay (or whatever they dump in there) to be so uniform that no single handful will unsafely different from the next handful? And then repeat that through all the next mixing stations.

@Red_Barn

And I’d expect this because it’s a processed, commercially produced product that makes very specific claims about its ingredients and health benefits.

It’s an average

@Red_Barn

No, I’m not certain and I wouldn’t expect it. But they’re not making these very specific health claims, either.

Standlee absolutely does state a guarantee for protein, fat and fiber. Are you sure there are 0 bales of any of their alf that would test less than 30% protein?

This isn’t about health claims. By that logic, the SafeChoice line of feeds are all lying. Don’t look at marketing words. Look at ingredients and the GA

[Ghazzu]

The basis of most concentrates is a “natural” product. And the values are going to differ in the same way that hay does, as JB pointed out.
Even a conscientious manufacturer is not going to be able to nail down every single variable to an exact number in every batch of feed.

It also appears that you are accusing a feed manufacturer of not being correct w/ the GA when you admit you haven’t tested the feed you are bitching about, only that it didn’t work for your individual animal. (It may be worth pointing out here that individual living organisms display a wide range of “normal” physiologic parameters, which is why lab reports display a range and not an absolute number…)

[Red_Barn]

@Ghazzu

It also appears that you are accusing a feed manufacturer of not being correct w/ the GA when you admit you haven’t tested the feed you are bitching about, only that it didn’t work for your individual animal.

Fair enough. I really should have it tested.

Have a great day.

[walktrot]

I’m with walkinthewalk on products from HorseTech.com. My gelding was on Selen, which is natural vit E and selenium for several years. Selenium levels in the soil around there are very low When I added Sentinel Performance LS to his diet I didn’t pay any attention to total selenium. His bloodwork came back and he was right at the top of the range.

I called Rod, the owner, at HorseTech. I also use their biotin and HylaSport CTS for his joints. (I also love the leather soap.) He looked up an online map of selenium levels in the soil. Low in Maine? Depends. He said in the Bangor area it’s close to normal, but down here it is low. He looked up the grain on the Blue Seal site. He converted them to the same unit of measurement and said the grain has enough selenium. I had just opened a new container of Selen. He suggested a smaller serving of both products, not mixing them. A couple of days later a few pounds of the natural E arrived, at no charge. With my cookies, of course!

I saw a comment in an article recently about buying products from different manufacturers. We don’t think about this often enough. - trying to get the best combination of nutrients. It is common to have too much of something in product A, and not enough of something else in product B, while trying to solve the issue with nutrient number 3 in product C. .

I prefer to do business with smaller companies, particularly family-run operations like HorseTech… Rod, the owner, knows his stuff, as they say, and he is always available to answer questions. He has been very helpful as my 26 y.o. gelding continues to get older. He will do custom products: He figures out the formula and assigns it a product number so it is easy to reorder. He usually sends a sample for a taste test. Their service is terrific, free shipping, and cookies - although there was a shortage when the virus hit.

Also, the ingredients and guaranteed nutritional levels are on the bag of Sentinel LS grain, and they are on the website. It is a fixed component formula so it doesn’t vary from batch to batch. I’d be cautious if ingredients are on a tag sewn to the bag. Often it means they vary between batches trying to keep the cost down. Is the “corn” ground, flaked or cracked? Does that make a difference? JB?

[JB]

@walktrot

Also, the ingredients and guaranteed nutritional levels are on the bag of Sentinel LS grain, and they are on the website. It is a fixed component formula so it doesn’t vary from batch to batch.

Is it a fixed formula, or just fixed ingredients?

Fixed ingredients is all the same ingredients every time, so no “grain products” or “forage products”.

Fixed formula is the same amount of the same ingredients. This means the company - like TC - has very strict requirements on what a batch of oats, or alfalfa meal, etc, can be nutrient-wise. I can’t say for sure but I’d assume it’s along the lines of the GAs - min this with some margin of overage accepted, max that with some margin of underage accepted. I will ask my TC rep and find out

I’d be cautious if ingredients are on a tag sewn to the bag. Often it means they vary between batches trying to keep the cost down. Is the “corn” ground, flaked or cracked? Does that make a difference? JB?

As long as corn is whole it doesn’t much matter.

For ingredients on a tag - that may easily be because of different regional formulas but they still use the same bag. I wouldn’t read anything nefarious into a tagged vs bagged GA

[grayarabians]

I shared the results of the pro elite grass advantage. I’ll also share the test results of Triple Crown 30 that someone tested from the ecir group. these are the only two test results from ration balancers I have seen. You will see that on the TC30 the iron is also in the 1600’s.
So what are the odds that both of them are in the 1600’s?
Per Triple Crowns website for minimum ppm:
iron 500 copper 300 zinc 1000.

test results from EA:
iron 1620 copper 309 zinc 902

JB if I could get yours or another members email address I could forward the email exchange I had with the Cargill feed rep.
maybe someone could make sense of it.

[rubygirl1968]

@grayarabians

Thank you for posting this and the Proelite.

Are the amounts in the test from EA mg/lb or something else?

[grayarabians]

Ruby you have to convert PPM to milligrams per pound. Divide the PPM by 2.2

[grayarabians]

A JFYI newly posted under test results at ecir. Nutrena safe Choice Special Care.
guarantee max per their website:
Starch 10% sugar 3%.

test results from September 2020:
Starch 12.9% sugar 5.4%

[Red_Barn]

@grayarabians

A JFYI newly posted under test results at ecir. Nutrena safe Choice Special Care.
guarantee max per their website:
Starch 10% sugar 3%.

test results from September 2020:
Starch 12.9% sugar 5.4%

Interesting.

Thank you.

[grayarabians]

Update. I sent off a sample from a different bag with results much the same. I contacted the feed company about how high the iron tested. I was told some of the ingredients can carry a lot of iron - like Dicalcium Phosphate which would show on a test but is indigestible / not absorbed by horses. FWIW.
I just checked the ingredients of two feeds with no added iron. Stabul 1 lists Dical Phos and test results show IIRC iron around 500 ppm. (ECIR / Equi Analytical)
The new Tribute Wholesome Blends balancer - No added iron -no soy - lists Monocal Phos not Dical Phos.
Monocal Phos doesnt have “background” iron?
JB?

[JB]

The Wholesome Blends Balancer has, according to Tribute, 175ppm intrinsic iron.

Are you saying dicalcium phosphate itself isn’t digestible, or the iron content in it is indigestible? I assume the latter.

According to this thread per a study I found, dicalcium phosphate can contain a range from 20ppm to 11,000ppm, depending on where it’s from, with an average of 7500ppm.

The question is - how much dical phos is in the product? 7500ppm is 213mg in 1oz. Compare that to a typical 200ppm grass hay around my area, which is 1800mg in 20lb.

I have no idea the Fe content of monocal phos and couldn’t find anything on a quick search