 |
Re: [RC] Horse Journal feed advice - Susan GarlinghouseThe Horse Journal had a note in this month's issue that discusses feeds, <snip> They recommend a little rice bran to even out the Ca:P of the alfalfa being fed (after first recommeding it would be better to switch to grass :-)) then state that "beet pulp has a Ca profile similar to alfalfa's". Message being that even though it's good to feed, BP won't help equilibrate the Ca:P ration like the rice bran will. Is that correct? No, and it's a sad statement that that level of inaccurate info is being published as good advice. Sigh. Okay, the thing about calcium-phosphorus ratio is a one-way road. The ideal ratio is between 1.2 - 2 parts calcium to 1 part phosphorus, and if your diet provides more phosphorus than calcium, it's considered inverted---example, a diet that provides 1 gram of calcium and 2 grams of phosphorus has a ca-p ratio of .5, which is no good and needs correcting through the addition of either more calcium, or less phosphorus. If you don't then the shortfall in calcium is 'deducted' from bone storage and over time, can cause an assortment of metabolic and lameness problems. The critical idea here is just to make sure that the diet supplies more calcium than phosphorus, and THAT'S the one-way road. As long as the ratio is not inverted, and as long as the daily requirement of phosphorus is being met, you do NOT need to "correct" a high calcium-phosphorus ratio by adding more phosphorus. And that's what was being recommended here---the alfalfa is a high calcium feed source, on the low side of adequate in phosphorus content and, fed by itself, provides a ca-p ratio of usually around 5-6 to 1. Not ideal for endurance horses IMO, but really not a big deal most of the time. If fed as the sole forage, it would provides roughly 665 g of calcium and 161 g of phosphorus per day. Both *well* in excess of daily requirements. So what's the point of adding more phosphorus? There isn't one---excess phosphorus in the diet suppresses absorption of calcium, but the reverse is NOT true. Excess calcium in the diet doesn't suppress phosphorus, at least not to an appreciable degree that needs correcting. There's absolutely no value to adding more phosphorus to an already adequate ration just to make the ca:p ratio look better (falsely so). In fact, there's more worthwhile argument that adding additional phosphorus is a POOR choice---at least in the Southwest, enteroliths (gut stones) are common enough to be worth paying attention to, and the minerals those rocks are comprised of are ammonium, magnesium and phosphorus. The ammonium comes from the high protein content of alfalfa, the magnesium also comes from Southwest-grown alfalfa and now, GREAT---you just added excess phosphorus into the gut to help those enteroliths form. Who exactly *WROTE* this advice for the Horse Journal???? <sound of head banging against wall>. So, just to round out the mistakes in this article, no, beet pulp doesn't have a calcium profile similar to alfalfa's, EXCEPT that beet pulp does have a vaguely similar calcium-phosphorus ratio. Very misleading to say they're similar, because alfalfa provides roughly twice the amount of both calcium and phosphorus per measure as does beet pulp. The ratios are the same in both feeds, but that's it. It's like saying that because I have five $100 dollar bills in one pocket, and five $1 bills in the other pocket, both pockets are equally good for paying my bills because the "ratios" are the same. Uh uh, it just don't work that way. I have been putting a couple cups of alfalfa pellets into my beet pulp to compensate for what I *thought* was the low Ca level in the BP. [The horses are on pasture, and I add the BP (in winter sometimes 3-4 # twice a day) w/the pellets, a handful or two of Omolene 200, and their supplement (usually Dynamite)]. It would be fine either way. A few cups of alfalfa isn't a big deal anyway, and while the beet pulp was actually providing a reasonable amount of calcium (3-4 pounds provides about 20 grams of calcium, which is sufficient for maintenance), a little alfalfa is fine. If anything, it's a good source of lysine, so you just got a different benefit than the one you thought you were getting. I myself only feed rice bran when the horses are going thru a lot of calories, but I want to make sure I have the right information in any case. Depending on how much rice bran (and everything else) you're feeding, and whether or not the rice bran has additional calcium added to it (some do, some don't), you may be fine or you may have an inverted ratio. You'd have to crunch the numbers. Given that I am not feeding anything like straight alfalfa, can the Ca levels still be too high? Very unlikely. BTW, the same issue of the Journal has an article on feeding fats - nothing new, but a good summary. You'll forgive me if I doubt their credibility at this point?<g> thanks as always for your expertise Welcome. Hope it helped. Susan G =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|