Re: Sources of Foods (Grains)

[Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

HELFTER 77 wrote:
> 
> Sources of Foods
> 
> Horse feeds are evolving toward processed forms with feed companies using
> "least cost" ingredients and manufacturing practices. Commercial feeds may be
> composed of soybean meal or cleanings and fines from cracked corn (by-
> products) with molasses added to reduce dust and increase palatability of
> ingredients which would otherwise be discarded with a swish of the upper lip
> or one good snort, and understandably so.

Geez, I have to admit it's a real pet peeve to read articles that try to
scare people into thinking anything processed must be horrible.  Least
cost analysis doesn't mean the feed manufacturers are sweeping the floor
and dumping trash into the mixing bins and calling it horse feed.  If
one feed source is equal to another in digestibility, nutrients and
quality, using the more expensive feed anyway is just dumb.  Yes, alot
of horse feeds contain "by-products".  Beet pulp, bran, soybean hulls,
yeast, molasses, straw, etc are all by-products and they all are very
well utilized and valuable animal feeds in the right proportions. 
Sometimes the only way to get a horse to eat any feed combination in the
right amount is to pellet it---as an example, there's a hay shortage in
the NW right now.  Horses can't get by without some source of
roughage---if good quality hay isn't available, good, clean straw,
processed into a pellet with a little grain and molasses is a perfectly
acceptable and nutritious hay substitute until hay is again available.
If you tried just dumping straw in front of a horse, he may or may not
eat it in adequate amounts.   Assuming that anything a horse sorts
through and discards if given the choice must be bad is...well, not
exactly the best application of equine nutrition or physiology I've ever
seen. 



> Sugar is as bad for horses as it is for any other species,

Oh, please.  The animal body RUNS primarily on sugar, mostly in the form
of glucose.  Without it, life stops.  Period.



 and horses may
> exhibit mood swings similarly seen in humans. Time and time again horses calm
> rapidly after molasses-sweetened feeds are removed from the diet.

And you automatically attribute that in all cases to molasses?  Yes,
SOME horses do better without molasses in the diet.  Just as many horses
also exhibit sensitivity to specifically corn, barley, oats, milo, etc
etc, or to protein levels, or allergies from another source.  Such
blanket, all-encompassing statements are fine for personal opinion, but
in my opinion, shouldn't be offered as education.



 Molasses
> also contains chemical preservatives or surfactants. Preservatives to reduce
> spoilage in the heat of the summer and surfactants such as propylene glycol to
> reduce congelation in the chill of the winter. Molasses and its baggage bring
> inconsistencies that we like to avoid.

More vague, blanket statements that don't mean much.  Please cite a
single published, peer-reviewed journal article in which the specific
preservatives you refer to used in processing have caused problems. 
Molasses itself is a preservative.  Assuming you can find and cite even
one such empirical study, now please compare that to the thousands upon
thousand of animals and humans that have become sick and/or died as the
results of molds, fungus, aflatoxins and bacteria ingested as the result
of spoiled food.



> Pelleted feeds are used as alternatives to sweet feeds and do not cause the
> increase in blood sugar that is associated with feeding molasses coated
> grains. 

I disagree.  The smaller the particle size, the faster the absorption in
the small intestine and to a certain extent, the more like a simple
sugar a feed is going to behave.  Please review the journals.


 Grain
> sources are where a number of amino acids and natural occurring trace minerals
> are retrieved.

Amino acids are available from dozens of different sources, quite a few
of them more bioavailable, not just from grains.  And, actually, most of
an herbivore's mineral requirements come from the forage, not the
grains.  But, whatever.


 With the methods of pelleting, even if the quality of the
> grains are good to begin with, many of the nutrients are lost in processing.

Very often not.  Many nutrients are made more digestible by processing. 
Some nutrients, such as the protein in soybean meal, isn't bioavailable
UNTIL it's been heat-processed.  Furthermore, you're grouping every
method of "processing" under the same umbrella.  For every nutritional
disadvantage to processing, there is an equally important advantage. 
And finally, why are you assuming that nutrients are going to be lost
through processing, but no oxidation ever takes place in the rolled,
flaked, crimped grains you advocate?  Feed manufacturers aren't entirely
stupid--yes, some vitamin and protein content is going to be lost
through heat processing---which is why it's added back in afterwards to
make up for losses.  Not so with grains that are simply cracked, flaked
or whatever.  If a label's guarenteed analysis says it provides X mg of
this and Y ppm of that, you better believe it's there within a
reasonable margin.  USDA gets very, very fussy about things like that.



> The philosophy behind a good quality feed is to make sure you see what you are
> getting. Therefore the best feeds are oats, barley and corn.

So what you're saying is that you are capable of looking at a handful of
grain and knowing exactly what level and quality of nutrition that feed
provides?  You can tell whether or not the grain is old and oxidized or
not?  And that any feed in a pellet form must be garbage because you
can't individually see every nutrient in there?  I've done analyses on
whole grain samples that all looked and smelled equally as good---one
was good quality feed, the other wasn't much more than garbage.  No
matter WHAT form you buy your feed in, to some extent, you're relying on
the integrity and reputation of the feed company.



 A combination of
> the three is the best providing a wide spectrum of amino acids and trace
> minerals. A mixture that works well consists of 45% oats (large racehorse oats
> or crimped oats); 30% steamed, rolled barley (the only form available in
> bulk); and 25% large cracked or flaked corn.

Crimped, steamed, rolled, cracked, flaked...you mean "processed"?  Why
is this suddenly okay?

Yes, COB is a good mixture of grains, but not a magic bullet and
certainly no better, and in many ways worse, than a good quality,
pelleted complete concentrate ration.  For example, if corn/barley/oats
were fed with orchard grass or oat hay (common in many parts of the
country) you're feeding a badly inverted calcium-phosphorus ratio and
are deficient in iron, selenium and zinc, vitamins D and E, and protein
in a growing or lactating horse.  A good complete pellet from a
reputable company, on the other hand, can and will be balanced to
provide all the nutrients a horse needs for a certain production level.

 However, in some areas quality of
> the grains may be a concern and an adjustment of the ratios may be made.

And who is going to be the one to discern when and how this should be
done?  You're saying the average horse owner is going to be able to tell
subtle differences in grain quality and are going to know how that's
going to be able to affect their horse's nutrient profile, AND how to
make allowances for those variations?

> Contrary to popular belief, corn generates less heat when digested as opposed
> to other grain sources because corn contains less fiber and more digestible
> energy.

True.  In other words, corn is easily broken down to mono- and
disaccharides and readily absorbed to a very large extent as simple
sugars.  So why is corn such a great feed, but "sugars are as bad for
horses..."?  I'm confused.



> Hay constitutes the bulk of the horse's diet in the winter and, in some areas
> of the country, year round.

Somebody please tell me where in the country hay is not the predominant
component of a horse's diet, winter or not.  Anybody not feeding some
form of roughage as around 50% or more of the ration in a mature horse
is asking for trouble.



 The horse's "fermentation vat" (cecum) needs long-
> stem fiber and not chopped fiber such as the form found in hay cubes.

What's the difference between realtively short chop fibers found in a
hay cube and a mouthful of well-chewed, long-stem hay?  Last I checked,
hay doesn't reach the hindgut in the same form it went into the mouth. 
Yes, there are differences, advantages and disadvantages to feeding one
form of forage and/or particle size over another, but if you're going to
make such blanket statements, you should either explain those specific
differences or not make the statement.


> Digestion of short-stem fiber takes place primarily in the small intestine,
> leaving the cecum less full than it should be. 

I will agree that more ABSORPTION takes place in the small intestine,
but fermentation of fiber still must take place in the cecum and large
colon, regardless of the source.  The above is a partially true
statement, but is kinda missing the forest for the trees.

I personally like feeding commodities to my own horses vs. complete
feeds just because of the cost factor.  But trying to scare people over
heaven forbid, processing and chemicals and by-products, is in my
opinion, irresponsible education and borderline yellow journalism.  At
Cal Poly, we use the blanket term Terrorist Nutrition, though at least
this author wasn't blatently selling some product or another.  Offering
personal opinions on the advantages of one grain source over another is
fine and more than welcome in this forum, but should either be clearly
identified as such, or should include a much more thorough discussion
and explanation of the empirical facts.

Just my .02, of course.

Susan Garlinghouse, BS, MSc. An. Sci.
Equine Research Center
Cal Poly University