The nutritionist's recommendation....seems extreme

[Red_Barn]

@JB

In your example of the pleasure QH, that’s maintenance to light work, which would be 3.4/4lb, up to 8lb if he really needed the calories (harder keeper, not great quality forage, etc)

In my example, the QH is doing “Light Work”, or “One to three hours per week of work composed of 40% walking, 50% trotting, and 10% cantering.”

In many cases, that’ll amount to 20 minutes of walk, 30 minutes of trot and 6 minutes of canter PER WEEK! Is that really “work” at all? On top of that, this horse might be stalled, or live in a tiny turnout where self-exercise is minimal too.

I don’t see any place on this feed’s page where anything less that 4 to 8 pounds is recommended for “Light Work”; 3.5 pounds is recommended for “Maintenance.” (And wtf IS “Maintenance” in this scenario, anyway? Based on these workloads, it must be full-time bed rest.)

And your point about compensating for crappy hay makes sense in terms of nutrients, but how healthy is that? How much would you have to cut back our QH’s hay to feed that 4 or 6 or 8 pounds of grain without piling on a great many extra pounds? That kind of grain/forage ratio sounds dangerous to me, even though I know plenty of boarding barns pull this kind of stunt all the time now.

@JB

0.5-1.0lb per 100lb is a very typical feeding range.

Exactly.

I don’t mean to be argumentative; I know you’re very knowledgeable about this stuff. I just don’t think these descriptions of “work,” and the corresponding amounts of feed, are very realistic considering the majority of today’s American horses, and the kind of lives they lead. I think it would make much more sense to create a broader range of feeds for easy-keeping breeds, and to advertise them according to realistic work loads.

We know that people often feed too little because feeding the “right” amount is making their horses fat, right? So why keep formulating these super high-octane feeds, and marketing them to weekend pleasure riders? (Our example, after all, was specifically aimed at pleasure rather than performance horses, which is why I chose it.)

All this just seems really perverse to me, and I think it’s one of the reasons that faddish, over-complicated, anti-grain regimens are so prevalent.

[JB]

I must not be understanding your comments then:

"Simple W/T/C on the flat, three times a week is “Heavy Work”? A short, walking ride once a week is “Light Work”? "

nowhere is w/t/c 3x a week defined as “heavy work”

The guidelines in the feed you listed (which is similar to most feeds) seems on par with what the article and the NRC have in mind for the nutritional requirements of each of those levels of work. I guess I’m just missing the disconnect.

I DO think most people over-estimate the level of work their horses are in, and therefore their level of fitness.

Maintenance is generally a pasture puff or “pony ride” kind of work.

The 2-3x a week light trail ride horse may have high calorie needs, but not really elevated nutritional needs. That doesn’t mean it’s a “high octane” feed.

But certainly there are a LOT of “high octane” (high NSC) feeds in every single category, from pleasure to growth to senior to performance. Cheap feeds using cheap high NSC ingredients are everywhere.

They aren’t the reason people should be anti-grain. But they ARE the reason a lot of fanatics use to push their “this way or the highway” mentality.

[Red_Barn]

@JB

imple W/T/C on the flat, three times a week is “Heavy Work”? A short, walking ride once a week is “Light Work”? "

nowhere is w/t/c 3x a week defined as “heavy work”

Right. And I’ve already said that this article was “slightly more rational than some I’ve seen,” which is true. I’ve come across definitions that are much sillier, and could probably find them again if I kept looking.

Still, you haven’t addressed the actual quotes, which, to me, are misleading enough. Do you really think that 20 minutes of walk, 30 minutes of trot and 6 minutes of canter PER WEEK constitute “work” - light, moderate, or whatever? Suppose this was a human being we were talking about: would lifting weights for six minutes, jogging for 30 minutes, and walking for 20 minutes PER WEEK really justify an endurance athlete’s diet?

I don’t think so. But just look at all the fat, soft weekend warriors in the gym, firmly convinced that they need 3,000 calorie protein shakes! This is the very same, perfectly American phenomenon.

Beyond that, you’re basically making my point:

But certainly there are a LOT of “high octane” (high NSC) feeds in every single category, from pleasure to growth to senior to performance. Cheap feeds using cheap high NSC ingredients are everywhere.

They aren’t the reason people should be anti-grain. But they ARE the reason a lot of fanatics use to push their “this way or the highway” mentality.

Right, and I think one of the reason this happens is because . . .

. . . most people over-estimate the level of work their horses are in, and therefore their level of fitness

. . . and then end up with a whole host of problems, which leads them to turn to fanatics in the first place.

So yeah. I just think that gearing commercial feeds to what TYPICAL horses REALLY do, complete with realistic tables of what constitutes “work,” would be a great deal better for everyone.

You don’t think so?

[quietann]

My own bugbear here is easy keeping horses that get “a handful” of feed… when the minimum for that feed is 1 pound or more, even for “maintenance.” I moved my mare from 1/2 pound of ration balancer (half the recommended amount) to less than 1/4 pound of vitamin/mineral supplement. I have to pay for it, while the balancer was included in my board. I do wish barns would offer a vitamin/mineral pellet as a “feed” option for easy keepers.

[kaya842]

You are totally correct! My brain wasn’t functioning entirely - she was originally on Coolstance and Beetpulp with KIS Trace + copper, zinc, salt, magnesium. I switched her to the Tribute Essential K for ease of feeding for others when I’m not able to or there to feed and due to the fact she was eating so little of the Coolstance (and ordering it was a PAIN).

[JB]

@Red_Barn I was simply confused by your statements:

@Red_Barn

It’s also interesting to see what they mean by “Light Work” and “Heavy Work,” which can be quite startling if you’ve never actually looked into this before.

which seemed to be saying that feed companies were defining levels of work (as opposed to just labeling feeding directions with light/mod/heavy), since we had been talking about feeds themselves. If that’s not what you meant, then that’s where we went off track.

and:

@Red_Barn

Simple W/T/C on the flat, three times a week is “Heavy Work”? A short, walking ride once a week is “Light Work”?

that seemed to indicate someone was defining them that way, which I’ve never seen, and your article didn’t support that, so again, I was confused.

@Red_Barn

Still, you haven’t addressed the actual quotes, which, to me, are misleading enough. Do you really think that 20 minutes of walk, 30 minutes of trot and 6 minutes of canter PER WEEK constitute “work” - light, moderate, or whatever?

It doesn’t matter what I think. The NRC (which is summarized in the The Horse article) has defined it as the basis for their nutritional requirements. Good feed companies use those as guidelines for their feeding rates

@Red_Barn

Suppose this was a human being we were talking about: would lifting weights for six minutes, jogging for 30 minutes, and walking for 20 minutes PER WEEK really justify an endurance athlete’s diet?

No, and that’s not the same thing. The above horse’s work is light work at best, nobody would ever claim it to be even a low level Eventer’s level of work.

@Red_Barn

But just look at all the fat, soft weekend warriors in the gym, firmly convinced that they need 3,000 calorie protein shakes! This is the very same, perfectly American phenomenon.

Well, there aren’t 3000 calorie protein shakes, so… There may be a 3000 cal meal replacement shake (not likely), but yes, if someone thinks their new gym habit for their overweight body needs that, they need some nutritional education, badly.

@Red_Barn

I just think that gearing commercial feeds to what TYPICAL horses REALLY do, complete with realistic tables of what constitutes “work,” would be a great deal better for everyone.

You don’t think so?

I don’t think so.

Why can’t a feed company define light/mod/hard right on the bag? that way everyone is on the same page.

There’s always room for that little bit of info. It’s very black and white as defined by every single person doing all this research into how to feed horses for non-disease health, and for optimal health.

[Red_Barn]

@JB

which seemed to be saying that feed companies were defining levels of work (as opposed to just labeling feeding directions with light/mod/heavy), since we had been talking about feeds themselves. If that’s not what you meant, then that’s where we went off track.

Oh, yes. You’re right! I see now how you’d think that. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean each company, I’m referring to industry-wide recommendations, which, regardless of the details, always seem a bit daffy to me.

The NRC (which is summarized in the The Horse article) has defined it as the basis for their nutritional requirements. Good feed companies use those as guidelines for their feeding rates

And I’m guessing these guidelines apply to the US primarily?

Here’s a UK equine health organization with very different definitions of work load:

Matching your horse’s feed to its workload

Here “Quiet hacking, light schooling 1 - 3 times per week” is defined as “Light/Rest,” and “Low energy” food sources are recommended. This is much more in line with how old timers like me think about work and feeding.

Do you see what I mean? That kind of recommendation page - while it probably sells fewer bags of feed! - makes much more sense in the real world. If a person whose horse is doing a couple of easy trail rides a week considers that horse to be “at rest,” and sees a mostly forage, low density diet recommended for that level of activity, she’s much less likely to either overfeed sugary crap on the one hand, or reject all commercial feeds as purely evil on the other.

[JB]

@Red_Barn

And I’m guessing these guidelines apply to the US primarily?

Horses are horses. Their nutrient requirements don’t differ based on where they live.

@Red_Barn

ere “Quiet hacking, light schooling 1 - 3 times per week” is defined as “Light/Rest,” and “Low energy” food sources are recommended.

But that seems to fall in line with how the NRC has defined Light work:
“One to three hours per week of work composed of 40% walking, 50% trotting, and 10% cantering;”

And remember, this isn’t about energy (calorie) requirements, this is about the nutritional needs. My 17h 1500lb WB in moderate work needed fewer calories than my 16.1/2h 1200lb TB mare in no work, but his nutritional needs (per pound body weight) were higher because of his work.

@Red_Barn

If a person whose horse is doing a couple of easy trail rides a week considers that horse to be “at rest,” and sees a mostly forage, low density diet recommended for that level of activity, she’s much less likely to either overfeed sugary crap on the one hand, or reject all commercial feeds as purely evil on the other.

You’re assuming 1) that person reads the ingredients, and 2) knows what it means

I absolutely do think it would be a REALLY good idea for feed bags to have some basic description of the light/mod/hard work that their feeding recommendations have amounts for.

And then - will the person with the “light work” horse not feed more of the feed for calories and let their horse be thin because the bag said that’s all the horse should get? Will the person with the “hard work” horse not feed a different feed if the recommended amount make their horse fat, or will they just feed less than recommended, and short-change nutrition?

The light work owner can (and does) still over-feed a sugary crap feed because it’s the cheapest feed at the store and it said “good for horses in light work” because they don’t read the ingredients, and wouldn’t understand what it means even if they did.

[Red_Barn]

@JB

But that seems to fall in line with how the NRC has defined Light work:
“One to three hours per week of work composed of 40% walking, 50% trotting, and 10% cantering;”

Nnnnnnnot really. They’re calling this level of activity “Rest,” and recommending a “low energy” diet - ie: forage and maybe a balancer - not 4 to 8 pounds of a concentrate whose second ingredient is corn.

I absolutely do think it would be a REALLY good idea for feed bags to have some basic description of the light/mod/hard work that their feeding recommendations have amounts for.

I agree. But would the bag, in the profit-mad US of A, ever say that rest or very light work probably doesn’t require any high energy feed? Or that another feed - perhaps a forage-based, low sugar type - would be better?

That would make all the difference, I think.

And then - will the person with the “light work” horse not feed more of the feed for calories and let their horse be thin because the bag said that’s all the horse should get? Will the person with the “hard work” horse not feed a different feed if the recommended amount make their horse fat, or will they just feed less than recommended, and short-change nutrition?

The light work owner can (and does) still over-feed a sugary crap feed because it’s the cheapest feed at the store and it said “good for horses in light work” because they don’t read the ingredients, and wouldn’t understand what it means even if they did.

And then there’s that.

I don’t suppose there’s anything you can write on a feed bag to overcome plain old laziness.

[trubandloki]

@Red_Barn

I agree. But would the bag, in the profit-mad US of A, ever say that rest or very light work probably doesn’t require any high energy feed? Or that another feed - perhaps a forage-based, low sugar type - would be better?

Since the feed market has some very high priced forage based low sugar type ration balancer type feeds, I would say that yes, the profit-mad (everywhere) world would do that.

[lenapesadie]

Where are these horses that blow up on 6 lbs of complete feed with free choice grass hay and need a strict menu of a VMS and their hay rationed in double slow feed nets?

At legit rest both of my horses seem to need a lot of food as per my feed store and hay bills.

On the upside I’m not wrestling a bunch of hay nets, muzzling horses or mowing grass my horses can’t eat I guess.

[Scribbler]

My mare gets about 17 lbs of hay a day in multiple feedings, now about 5 lbs of her hay is in a one inch slow bag. She gets her VMS in a beet pulp and alfalfa cube mash. She is 15.3, 16 hands when she sucks in her tummy :), tapes at 1250, and gets moderate exercise. Body score 5. I’ve warded off metabolic problems by watching her weight. She would like to be a nice fluffy fertile body score 7.

One recent winter she lived out on a wet field with communal hay piles and didn’t lose overall condition or topline, but had that shimmer of ribs in movement that’s a sign you aren’t going over body score 5. I couldn’t keep it off back in the barn. Is a big bodied Paint.

As a side note I’ve noticed that out of work OTTB often can’t keep weight on. They do better with a job that builds muscle and appetite.

[lenapesadie]

I was mostly jesting as I know these “easy” keepers exist. I just don’t own them. I own expensive keepers that you just keep shoveling the feed too. Ride more? Get a bigger shovel.

[JB]

@Red_Barn

Nnnnnnnot really. They’re calling this level of activity “Rest,” and recommending a “low energy” diet - ie: forage and maybe a balancer - not 4 to 8 pounds of a concentrate whose second ingredient is corn.

You said that level of work is "defined as “Light/Rest,” ". I take that to mean “light work, or rest”. That’s the definition of “light work”, and even the highly active pastured horse who isn’t in forced work.

There is no formal definition of “low energy”. Low energy for who? The very active, forward-thinking, always moving TB, or the low energy, walk is his best friend, happy to slowly walk from spot to spot QH? It’s not fair to say that no horse in “light work/rest” doesn’t need even 4lb of feed

@Red_Barn

But would the bag, in the profit-mad US of A, ever say that rest or very light work probably doesn’t require any high energy feed?

I’d hope not, because see above, there are horses who absolutely need more than a ration balancer in terms of energy/calories. The feed company should never suggest that every horse in each category of work needs X additional pounds of food. That’s about calories, and they have NO idea the calories your horse or any of mine need. I have a 31yo with good teeth who needs 10lb of TC Sr a day in Winter. But I know 35yos with good teeth who are still on ration balancers.

@lenapesadie

Where are these horses that blow up on 6 lbs of complete feed with free choice grass hay

ummm I had 1, and have 2, and the 4th would have in his younger days. Those 3 are/were muzzled late Spring to early Fall AND only got a forage balancer with just enough soaked beet pulp or alfalfa pellets to mix it all.

These are the “easy keepers”. The ones who can have max a ration balancer. Mayyyyybe a Lite feed (of which there are few).

Obesity in horses in the US is an epidemic. I see horses every single day in various FB groups who are FAT, on 5-6lb of feed a day, and their owners want to know what “energy supplement” they can give them.

[Red_Barn]

@JB

I’d hope not, because see above, there are horses who absolutely need more than a ration balancer in terms of energy/calories.

I must be losing my powers of communication completely, because I never said that.

I did say that, in formulating feeds for ordinary pleasure horses, there should be more emphasis placed on products that aren’t as high in calories and sugars as those formulated for, let’s say, Thoroughbred race horses in full training. All three of my own horses - including the retiree - eat commercial feeds, at the rates recommended. I’m not opposed to commercial feeds at all.

There is no formal definition of “low energy”.

In the article I posted, the phrase “low energy” simply applies to feeds that are not calorie dense. That might include hay, pasture or forage-based commercial feeds of various kinds.

. . . Low energy for who? The very active, forward-thinking, always moving TB, or the low energy, walk is his best friend, happy to slowly walk from spot to spot QH? It’s not fair to say that no horse in “light work/rest” doesn’t need even 4lb of feed

I never said that either.

I did say (about 15 times now) that too many feeds are primarily suitable for very hard-keeping, extremely hard working horses, which is not necessarily the norm. So why not formulate practical, realistic feeds with ordinary, easy-keeping pleasure horses in mind?

I didn’t say, “Don’t feed those horses.”

I said, “Let’s demand feeds that are appropriate for those horses.”

Obesity in horses in the US is an epidemic. I see horses every single day in various FB groups who are FAT, on 5-6lb of feed a day, and their owners want to know what “energy supplement” they can give them.

Exactly my point.

I’m not sure how you keep missing it.

[Scribbler]

Feeding horses is an art that requires some experience and some common sense. I have seen folks get their horses obese and foundered on just too much hay, no feed at all.

People are however also not always super alert about human nutrition either. They often have confused ideas about ingredients, calories, vitamins and minerals, fad diets, etc.

I wouldn’t expect a person who is confused on human nutrition to suddenly become clear on equine nutrition.

That said, feed bags rarely have the nutrition and ingredients spelled out, you need to go online and in some cases request a pdf brochure.

The average person is somewhat susceptible to fad diets and ingredients and nutrition scares because they don’t have the knowledge base to evaluate human or equine nutrition.

Also people like fat animals.

On one hand you have people that think hay is mostly indigestible fiber and all nutrition comes from huge amounts of bagged feed. On the other hand you have the free choice hay people foundering their horses even on “tested low sugar hay.”

[Red_Barn]

@Scribbler

People are however also not always super alert about human nutrition either. They often have confused ideas about ingredients, calories, vitamins and minerals, fad diets, etc.

So true.

When you think of all the crackpot human diets people go in for, coupled with our terrifying rates of obesity, it probably shouldn’t come as a shock that our horses’ diets are also a mess. All I’m saying, really, is that feed companies aren’t helping matters any by confusing Mr Pokey the weekender pony with last year’s winner of the Tevis Cup.

On one hand you have people that think hay is mostly indigestible fiber and all nutrition comes from huge amounts of bagged feed. On the other hand you have the free choice hay people foundering their horses even on “tested low sugar hay.”

No kidding!

And a lot of this, I think, comes from the fact that many people nowadays board their horses instead of managing pasture and hay at home. People simply aren’t taught this stuff.

The absolute shit hay that many barns - even upscale barns - feed to their clients’ animals is absolutely appalling, and they don’t seem to realize it at all. The amounts fed are often way off, too, so, of course, the deficits have to be made up by compound feeds and an ever-changing array of faddish supplements.

Oi.

[lenapesadie]

I should have added a /s/ to my op

Locally, I see more skinny horses than fat outside of upper end boarding barns and the shows they go to. Perhaps it’s a function of living in a rural area, maybe it’s the local pastures, possibly we don’t believe in spending money to put excess condition on animals we aren’t gonna eat

*edited bc shows and shoes aren’t the same

[Ghazzu]

@Red_Barn

But that would involve riding , which the Natural Everything crew I’m thinking of tended to avoid at all costs -

Got into it years ago with some barefoot fanatic when I pointed out that some horses will wear their feet to nubs if left barefoot, and was told that “those people are riding their horses too much.”

[Ghazzu]

@Hippolyta

these weird combos of 4 grains/pellets and 7 supplements people create for their horses are overly complicated and usually not addressing total nutrition.

When I was in practice, that used to drive me batty.
I once had to contact 4 different feed companies to get data to calculate what a client was feeding his horses.
In the end, it turned out that the concentrate portion of the diet for the farm’s weanlings/yearlings was protein deficient.
But that was the case that really got me into analyzing clients’ diets.