|
|
Regular
Posts: 60
| So confusing when looking at horse feed and different ingredients. So what ingredients do you look for in horse feed? What ingredients do you not want? When I look at the analysis on some feeds I like what I see then get to the ingredients and just disappointed. Between middlings of this and that and hulls of this and that I get lost. |
|
| |
|
 Texas Taco
Posts: 7499
  
Location: Bandera, TX | I'm looking for low a NSC content. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 60
| What is considered low NSC values? |
|
| |
|
Texas Taco
Posts: 7499
Location: Bandera, TX | Almostafarm - 2014-07-11 12:31 PM What is considered low NSC values?
I try and stay under 20%. TC Senior has 11.7% for example. Currently switching from it to ADM SeniorGlow which has 16.9%. I also like a high fat content. |
|
| |
|
  Neat Freak
Posts: 11216
Location: Wonderful Wyoming | GoMistyGo - 2014-07-11 11:40 AM Almostafarm - 2014-07-11 12:31 PM What is considered low NSC values? I try and stay under 20%. TC Senior has 11.7% for example. Currently switching from it to ADM SeniorGlow which has 16.9%. I also like a high fat content.
A big reason I went with ADM as well. I don't like to see alot of corn or molassas. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 60
| I may be weird but I love researching feeds. The more I read about different things though the more confused I get. Lol One person will tell you one thing and someone else will tell you another. I fed strategy healthy edge for a few years and loved it but when I had to move my horses didn't have the same quality of pasture or hay and it was no longer keeping them looking good. I switched them to ADM ultra fiber and healthy glo nuggets and they picked their weight back up. Have recently stopped the nuggets and switching them over to the ADM patriot 12/10. I like higher fat feeds without a lot of molasses. I get so frustrated though trying to find a good feed that doesn't cost 25$ a bag around here. Triple Crown Complete is around 24$ a bag here. |
|
| |
|
 Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | most of themore expensive feeds have everything in it so not needing extra supplements.. etc.. also you feed less..
love my triple crown and also adm feeds.great quality grains |
|
| |
|
The Advice Guru
Posts: 6419
| I try and avoid alfalfa as the first ingredient.
I have switched to buckeye it is pricey but I feed a maintenance dose, so one bag lasts me about a month per horse. The NSC is 13% the protein is 16% and far is less then 5 (this is all off the top of my head). I add flax to increase the fat content.
Sometimes the required amount of the cheaper feed is more expensive in the long run. |
|
| |
|
Neat Freak
Posts: 11216
Location: Wonderful Wyoming | cheryl makofka - 2014-07-13 9:02 PM I try and avoid alfalfa as the first ingredient. I have switched to buckeye it is pricey but I feed a maintenance dose, so one bag lasts me about a month per horse. The NSC is 13% the protein is 16% and far is less then 5 (this is all off the top of my head). I add flax to increase the fat content. Sometimes the required amount of the cheaper feed is more expensive in the long run.
This is what I have found as well. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 2685
| I like low NSC, high fat, high protein.
I fed ADM for about 6mos (junior glo, sr glo and moorglo)my hard keeper had to be on 4lbs srglo plus 2lbs moorglo a day and still didn't look like I wanted her to if I rode hard and kept her on high work load. my other 2 (babies on jr glo) looked amazing. 1 ate 1lb/ day but the other had to be on like 3.5lbs a day.
Now I feed renew gold (Plus THE MM special blend to the hard keeper). the hard keeper gets 2lbs a day (getting almost to chunky on me) and the others get 1lb a day. they all look like a million dollars.
Idk if it was the switching feeds or the THE for the hard keeper but the renew gold has turned out MUCH cheaper for me.
ETA: sorry ill answer your question lol after the Renew gold, IMO the less ingredients the better. I like to see flax, alfalfa, Soybean hulls (if I remember correctly), coconut oil (RG) off the top of my head
Edited by RoaniePonie11 2014-07-14 12:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 330
| I also am not too concerned with specific ingredients as I am the starch content.
I personally like to keep it under 15% NSC, although there are a few good feeds that are a tad higher, like Poulin's FiberMax is high in fat and fiber, with a slightly higher NSC, I think around 18 or 19%.
High fat/low starch options that are awesome in my area are the Blue Seal Sentinel Performance LS and the Triple Crown Senior.
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | I like beet pulp based feeds. I want them to have high fat and as high a protein as needed based on their activity level. Depending on whether or not they are an easy keeper we may feed a little cheaper feed. Most of our horses' diets is grass though or good quality hay. When my baby gets back from the trainer, she'll go on TC Training. My hard keeper gelding is usually on a low amount of ultium mixed with a pelleted feed to keep him fat. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1695
Location: Willows, CA | Limiting NSC to the amount that it contributes in a positive way to the diet rather than interferes with digestion or health in general is a very positive thing. When you compare one feed to another however, you need to consider both percentage of NSC and feed rate. There is a short cut that you can use. While this does not give you the exact amount of NSC that the feed you are looking at is providing. It is useful to compare the total amount of NSC provided by a one feed to another feed. If a feed is, say 20% NSC and the feed recommendation is for 4 pounds per day, just multiply 20 x 4 = 80. This is not a specific weight number, but an accurate REFERENCE NUMBER for comparison. If you are comparing this feed to one that 17% NSC, but recommended to be fed at 6 pounds per day, you would multiply 17 x 6= 102. As you can see, the 17% feed is putting more NSC into the diet than the 20% NSC feed is at the recommended feeding rates. For those horses that are sensitive to elevated blood sugar levels, prone to colic, or have metabolic issues this can be a good tool to understand just what your diet is providing. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1611
| winwillows - 2014-07-14 1:49 PM
Limiting NSC to the amount that it contributes in a positive way to the diet rather than interferes with digestion or health in general is a very positive thing. When you compare one feed to another however, you need to consider both percentage of NSC and feed rate. There is a short cut that you can use. While this does not give you the exact amount of NSC that the feed you are looking at is providing. It is useful to compare the total amount of NSC provided by a one feed to another feed. If a feed is, say 20% NSC and the feed recommendation is for 4 pounds per day, just multiply 20 x 4 = 80. This is not a specific weight number, but an accurate REFERENCE NUMBER for comparison. If you are comparing this feed to one that 17% NSC, but recommended to be fed at 6 pounds per day, you would multiply 17 x 6= 102. As you can see, the 17% feed is putting more NSC into the diet than the 20% NSC feed is at the recommended feeding rates. For those horses that are sensitive to elevated blood sugar levels, prone to colic, or have metabolic issues this can be a good tool to understand just what your diet is providing.
Thanks for sharing this info!  |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 60
| Winwillows thank you for the information. Thank you for sharing |
|
| |
|
The Advice Guru
Posts: 6419
| winwillows - 2014-07-14 12:49 PM
Limiting NSC to the amount that it contributes in a positive way to the diet rather than interferes with digestion or health in general is a very positive thing. When you compare one feed to another however, you need to consider both percentage of NSC and feed rate. There is a short cut that you can use. While this does not give you the exact amount of NSC that the feed you are looking at is providing. It is useful to compare the total amount of NSC provided by a one feed to another feed. If a feed is, say 20% NSC and the feed recommendation is for 4 pounds per day, just multiply 20 x 4 = 80. This is not a specific weight number, but an accurate REFERENCE NUMBER for comparison. If you are comparing this feed to one that 17% NSC, but recommended to be fed at 6 pounds per day, you would multiply 17 x 6= 102. As you can see, the 17% feed is putting more NSC into the diet than the 20% NSC feed is at the recommended feeding rates. For those horses that are sensitive to elevated blood sugar levels, prone to colic, or have metabolic issues this can be a good tool to understand just what your diet is providing.
One thing to look at would be the label to see how the NSC percentage is calculated, per serving, per pound, etc |
|
| |
|
 Pork Fat is my Favorite
Posts: 3791
Location: The Oklahoma plains. | Excellent point CM. In Okla and I am pretty sure most of the US- the Ag Dept doesnt have a standard requirement for NSC on a lable so it is not regulated. Therefore it is figured differently to hit a target number for certain markets.
I of course am not on the anti corn campaign. I think like Michael Phelps- athletes need carbs. But I also know my opinion is not a popular one.  |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1695
Location: Willows, CA | cheryl makofka - 2014-07-15 7:35 AM
winwillows - 2014-07-14 12:49 PM
Limiting NSC to the amount that it contributes in a positive way to the diet rather than interferes with digestion or health in general is a very positive thing. When you compare one feed to another however, you need to consider both percentage of NSC and feed rate. There is a short cut that you can use. While this does not give you the exact amount of NSC that the feed you are looking at is providing. It is useful to compare the total amount of NSC provided by a one feed to another feed. If a feed is, say 20% NSC and the feed recommendation is for 4 pounds per day, just multiply 20 x 4 = 80. This is not a specific weight number, but an accurate REFERENCE NUMBER for comparison. If you are comparing this feed to one that 17% NSC, but recommended to be fed at 6 pounds per day, you would multiply 17 x 6= 102. As you can see, the 17% feed is putting more NSC into the diet than the 20% NSC feed is at the recommended feeding rates. For those horses that are sensitive to elevated blood sugar levels, prone to colic, or have metabolic issues this can be a good tool to understand just what your diet is providing.
One thing to look at would be the label to see how the NSC percentage is calculated, per serving, per pound, etc
There is no moving target when it come to calculating NSC. It is simply the total starch and sugars in any feed product added together. Say a feed is 10% starch and 7 % sugars = 17% NSC. When a label lists NSC (and it is not required by any state), it is as a percentage of the entire product. A 17% NSC statement on a feed label means that whatever amount of that feed you use in your horses diet, 17% of that feed will be Non-structural Carbohydrates. If you feed one pound of a 17% NSC feed, it is contributing 77 grams of NSC to the diet. If you feed 1/2 pound that would be half of that or 38.5 grams. If you feed 4 pounds it would be 4 times 77 grams or 308 grams of NSC. Many companies do not list NSC. They are not required to. Starches and sugars are valuable energy sources for a performance horse and you would not have much of a performance horse with none. The issue, as I pointed out before is when there is more introduced to the digestive system that can be completely digested in the small intestine. At that point they go from being a potentially positive energy source to a disruption in the digestive process. How much a horse can handle depends on how it is fed, and how much is fed at one time. I always try to get horse owners to limit concentrates to less than 2 pounds per feeding. When it is fed has an impact also, but that is a much longer topic.
Edited by winwillows 2014-07-15 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1695
Location: Willows, CA | As to worst ingredients, in my opinion, and only my opinion. animal protein byproducts (could be hydrolyzed poultry feathers, pig hair or something else to raise protein number), forage byproducts (could be chopped corn stocks or corn cobs with next to no value), most kinds of hulls, corn.
Least cost formulations that don't really tell you on the tag exactly what the ingredients are but use the "vague description". Alfalfa as the first ingredient, (nothing wrong with alfalfa, but in this application it is the most expensive hay you can buy). When working on a performance horse diet I try to move people away from all of the above, whether they are going to use my product or not.
Edited by winwillows 2014-07-15 12:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Pork Fat is my Favorite
Posts: 3791
Location: The Oklahoma plains. | winwillows - 2014-07-15 12:14 PM As to worst ingredients, in my opinion, and only my opinion. animal protein byproducts (could be hydrolyzed poultry feathers, pig hair or something else to raise protein number), forage byproducts (could be chopped corn stocks or corn cobs with next to no value), most kinds of hulls, corn. Least cost formulations that don't really tell you on the tag exactly what the ingredients are but use the "vague description". Alfalfa as the first ingredient, (nothing wrong with alfalfa, but in this application it is the most expensive hay you can buy). When working on a performance horse diet I try to move people away from all of the above, whether they are going to use my product or not.
Well said! And I know there are some DIE HARD naturalists on here who feed a cobb mix. They claim because it is old school and all natural and they can SEE the ingredients. I call BS and say it is because it is CHEAP. But they have an aversion to wheat midds thinking in their minds that they are floor sweepings.  My horse would choose to eat wheat and I dont have a problem with midds as an ingredient. |
|
| |
Folks on-line