Re: Re: Re: Think! Animal By Products in feed

["Robyn Levash" <questarabians@inreach.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
To: Robyn Levash <questarabians@inreach.com>; <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Think! Animal By Products in feed


> The problem is that that's rarely possible these days.  A hundred years
ago,
> on average, we didn't ask our horses for the same level of performance
that
> we are today---yes, the cavalry horses covered some miles, Pony Express
> horses went hell for leather, but at the same time, there were plenty of
> horses to be had and if one broke down, no sweat.  They were a tool and a
> mode of transportation but for the most part, weren't coddled pets as a
lot
> of horses are today.

****Agreed************
>
> A hundred years ago, we didn't push to get maximum production out of every
> farmed acre, so that the soil got depleted and maybe it got replenished
and
> maybe it didn't.  That's the norm these days and the average values
printed
> in the reference texts can wildly flucuate.

*******Agreed***********
>
> A hundred years ago, there were alot of instances of nutritional disease
> that now we know how to avoid because those damned nutritionist figured it
> out for you.  Example, no one knew what the heck caused 'bighead' or
> 'miller's disease'.  Horses belonging to grist mill owners got it and no
one
> knew why.  Turns out those horses were fed heavily with the wheat bran
that
> was swept up from the floor and those horse had so little calcium in their
> bodies, bone was being replaced by cartilage to try to stabilize
everything.
> Now it's common knowledge to understand about calcium-phosphorus ratios.
> Not long ago, owners would have been complaining about this concept that
> they didn't want to be 'blinded by science', never mind that it was at the
> expense of the horse  (hell, I still get emails from people saying that).
> Relying on the 'accumulated wisdom of our forefathers' is fine, except
that
> we no longer live in our forefather's world.  Nor do our horses.  Nor do
our
> crops come from
> grandpa's world anymore.

> ***********agreed*****************

> Funny thing is, alot of the feeds we give our horses *are* feeds that have
> been fed for generations.  Beet pulp has been fed practically forever, and
> was great for horses, they just didn't know exactly why it was so great.
> Now we know exactly *why* it's so great, and what it will do for animals
> that eat it.  How is the science that produced that data a bad thing, just
> because you don't understand it?

*****Didn't ever say that I did not understand it. The problem with data and
science is that
 'sometimes' it tends to be slanted toward one direction. Just because data
tells me that (hypothetical for instance)
That oh, it has been determined that car oil is OK to feed to horses,
doesn't mean that the 'common sense' side of my brain will automatically buy
it.  ************************
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but your comments make it sound as though the advances
in
> research and knowledge are a BAD thing, as though life was so much simpler
> when our horses got sick and we could just shrug our shoulders and blame
it
> on God's will.  For me, I wanna know what I can do to support my horse the
> best way I can, and that means taking advantage of cutting edge knowledge
> and translating it into something simple like, 'hey, if I feed beet pulp
> before a ride, he won't get as dehydrated.'  If you've been to one of my
> seminars or read my articles, you'd see that that's what I try very hard
to
> do---act as a translator between Techno-Speak and real life.  Am I special
> in doing that, hell no.  I know how hungry people are to get it in
straight
> language so they can USE it, not just bury their head in the sand and
mourn
> that nobody feeds the way great grandpa did anymore.

*********I couldn't agree with you more. I am all for the advances for
research and knowledge.
I don't always agree with the marketing ethics, or the type or quality of
certain ingrediant(s) that  'some' feed companies put in their products to
satisfy balancing out a ration. No problem here, I just make my own educated
decision to not feed that particular product.***********
>
> I disagree that nutritionist want you to 'defer to their knowledge'
Believe
> me, nutritionists would *love it* if the average horse owner had a
> basic understanding of what role nutrients play in the body and how
they're
> absorbed and stored (or not) in the body and how the GI tract works.  Most
> people, including yourself, don't have the time or interest to go find out
> for themselves, even though the information is readily available in
> easily-read format.  So it's not that the nutritionists want you to
'defer'
> to them---you just haven't availed yourself of the opportunity to
> knowledgeably make an educated decision yourself, have you?  If you had
(and
> many others *have*, I get emails from them constantly), then you'd have
the
> relatively simple knowledge it takes to use commodity feeds to put
together
> just the ration your individual horse needs to provide every nutrient
(even,
> stunningly enough, those nasty little micronutrients), far better than any
> mass-production feed company could.

*********Who said that I don't have an interest to go out and find out
information for myself?
You continue to make unfair and inaccurate conclusions towards me, yet
hardly know anything about me.
I feel that I have made very educated decisions about feeding my horses.
Would you believe that I actually get my pasture and feed analyzed? I even
go as far as balancing out the ration (thanks to researching, reading, and
also to you for helping to educate me ). Would you believe that in 13 years
of owning horses, I have yet to call the vet for any kind of medical
problems with my horses? Maybe I am just lucky. But isn't it fair to reason
that maybe, just maybe, I am not as ignorant as you might believe, and that
maybe I may  **know just a little something,** or be doing 'something' at
least kinda right ?  Susan, I'm sorry, I really do not want to sound as if I
am bragging here. Just stating facts about my ownership of horses that you
may not be aware of. ***************

> Instead, here we have a population of horse owners that want the best for
> their
> horses, but don't want the hassle of learning to balance a ration by hand,
> don't
> want a bunch of different bags lying around the feed room and yet still
know
> that they're asking a lot from their horses.  No problem, the nice people
at
> the feed company who HAVE learned all the pesky details will put it
together
> into a nice convenient bag for you.  They'll even tell you what went into
> the bag, and AAFCO has gone a long ways in providing rules that make it
> fairly simple reading for the average consumer.  C'mon, those ingredients
> just aren't all that difficult.  Example, dicalcium phosphate---what could
> it possibly be *other* than two calcium molecules bound to a phosphorus
> molecule and therefore a source of both minerals?  I was reading and
> understanding feed tags and what they were telling me long before I went
> back to school to learn about it in depth.  Since you've already said we
all
> have the same brain, and in earlier posts you describe yourself as having
an
> 'extensive background in chemistry, biology and science', how could it
> possibly be foreign to you and 'blinding by science'?  How come I managed
it
> back then and you or any other horse owner can't?  Nonsense.  The ONLY
thing
> stopping anybody is the willingness to pick up a damn book based on fact
and
> not conjecture and find out what the real deal is and what makes their
horse
> tick inside.  Horses aren't nor are they fed as 'test tubes', nutrition
> ain't that tough and if feed companies pay attention to nutrients more
than
> the ingredients, it's because that's how the horse's body looks at it,
too.
> PICK UP A BOOK.

***** I never said that *I* was blinded by science. Never said that science
was foreign to me either.
In my post, I was speaking of consumers in general. *I* understand the
ingredients on the feed tag, and choose to learn about them. If I don't
understand something,  I enjoy reading books and researching about it. Big
deal, this is something that I like to do. You have also been a great help
with helping me to understand some of those missing "links" of nutrition. I
cannot thank you enough for that. I've also taken the time to read several
books (and will continue to read several books) to further my education.
Sorry, you misinterpreted my post. **************

Robyn






> > > > Now my horses - that is entirely different.  Horses are herbivores,
ie
> > > vegan >vegatarians!  Even when starving, I don't believe a horse will
> eat
> > > the >deceased members of its herds...
> > > > dogs will, as will humans.  Horses should not be eating animal by
> > > products, >in my opinion, because they are not designed to do so by
> mother
> > > nature.
> > >
> > This post is no way intended to flame, criticise, or demean Susan G's
> > perspective on the subject, just offer a different perspective on this
> > subject.
> >
> > The feed companies high-tech approach focuses much more on nutrients and
> > chemical formulas that it does on ingredients. If you accept that this
way
> > of thinking is suitable for horses, then it is to be said that the feed
> > companies are doing a very good job. But along the way, we *** the
> > consumers*** are blinded with science, (and no longer trust our own
common
> > sense) and so many different claims are made for so many horse feeds
that
> it
> > can be hard to know where to turn.
> >
> > In the old days when ignorance was bliss, we had little more to worry
> about
> > than protein, carbohydrates, and fiber. Now we have to deal as well with
> > micronutrients, and there has been such an explosion in our knowledge
that
> > more has been written about the roles of vitamins and minerals in
disease
> > during the last twenty years than was written in the previous two
hundred!
> > Micronutrients are needed in only the tiniest quantanties, yet they play
> > vital roles in the maintenance of strong bones and teeth, normal nerve
> > conductivity, muscle contraction, vision, and so much more. Within the
> > complex processes of metabolic activity, a whole chain of interactions
can
> > be stopped in the absence of one vitamin or mineral.
> >
> > The explosion in scientific knowledge makes it apparent that the role of
> > micronutrients within the equine (as well as the human) diet is an
> > exceedingly complex subject which only a biochemist could expect to
> > understand! Yet the truth is that horses are more than test-tube
> processes:
> > they have evolved to eat grasses throughout the seasons, and to deal
with
> > flucuating mineral and vitamin levels (in contrast, the vast majority of
> > feeding regimes must make it seem like spring every day!) Their ability
to
> > store, conserve and manufacture micronutrients is almost without
parallel,
> > and it is a godsend to us that horses are so adaptable.
> >
> > In the case of feeding, there is no third party in between us and the
feed
> > producers - no equivalent of saddlers and farriers - whom we can easily
> try
> > to blame for our problems. The feed companies do what they do extremely
> > well, and their technical know-how is not in question. So as we work our
> way
> > through the jungle of information about feeding, how much do we need to
> > know? The nutritionists in the feed industry want us to defer to them,
and
> > to question the accumulated wisdom of our forefathers. They want to
> convince
> > us that common sense, a keen eye, and the traditional ' rules of good
> > feeding' are no longer enough. Unfortunately, in view of the complicated
> > choices we face about the contents of our feeds, it is all too easy to
> > become so blinded by science that we forget about simple wisdom, and our
> own
> > common sense.(e.g - I don't buy into the argument that it is OK to feed
> > horses animal fat just because scientific research (at this moment in
> time)
> > states that horse's appear to digest it just fine, or the theory that
> > nothing we do with our horse's anymore is natural to their design,< so
> > hell>, let's just give up on everything evenly remotely natural for the
> > horse while we are at it. The brain that I was given tells me that
animals
> > products of any kind should not make their way into the horse's
digestive
> > system period! Of course this is only ***my conclusion/ personal
> > opinion***.)
> >
> > Today's good feeder (so the feed companies want us to believe) relies
not
> > just on the traditional rules, but also on the latest in biochemistry.
> > Although, the feed companies stop short of blinding us with the chemical
> > formulas which guide and fascinate them, the basic premise of their
> > advertising is that ' the more scientific it is, the better it must be'.
> > Once we accept that, it follows that we should indeed leave them to
> > formulate our horse's rations. This allows us to remain relatively
> ignorant,
> > and simply to follow instructions. All I am suggesting is that you owe
it
> to
> > your horse, to read your labels on your horse feed. Research and learn
> what
> > those ingrediants "really" are, use the common sense and the brain that
> God
> > gave you ( you are given the same brain as doctors, scientists, chemists
> > etc.) and make the most 'logical' conclusion for your horse.
> > THINK!
> > Robyn
> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >
> >
> >
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> > Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
>
>