[RC] catching up re beet pulp, pt. 2 - Susan E. Garlinghouse, D.V.M.
So let’s talk a bit more about bone density and
foals. Despite my liking for beet pulp used intelligently for performance
horses, I’m actually not a fan of feeding it to growing youngsters.
So in that sense, I agree with a statement ‘Beet Pulp Shouldn’t Be
Fed in Large Amounts to Babies”. My dislike is because beet pulp is
a good source of calories, but I’d rather babies get their calories from
straight grass forage. All they want, 24/7. Minimal grain, just
enough to carry supplemented nutrients to balance the ration, and providing
16-18% (or more) protein so the overall protein of the ration is 14-16%,
depending on the age of the youngster. Maybe a smattering of alfalfa if
used intelligently, not as the mainstay of the diet.
Extra calories are good, but they need to be nutrient-dense,
and beet pulp doesn’t provide a helluva lot other than fiber, calories
and that water-carrying aspect. That’s not what a baby needs.
Exact same reasons why I don’t like feeding fats to babies, except for
what’s naturally in the forage or grain. They need nutrients, not
just calories. The most harmful thing you can do to a growing youngster
is to let them get fat. Looks good in the halter show ring, another meat
grinder, but devastating to young, growing bones and joints.
Tom earlier remarked that I had belittled a vet for advising
against feeding beet pulp beyond 30% of the grain ration. I’ll
qualify my remarks, which were undoubtedly harsh. I don’t take them
back, but here’s my frustration. I get questions from owners all
the time saying their vet has advised them nutritionally, and you’ve
never seen such a list of bonehead suggestions in your life. Not only are
they just plain wrong, and easily researched and corrected by a five minute
search in the literature, they’re potentially damaging, even devastating,
to the horse. Honest, the list will turn your hair white. My
opinion in our practice is that as a licensed veterinarian, if you’re
going to advocate and enact a treatment option, first you better damn well be
familiar with how that modality is going to affect the patient (as far as
science is able to explain it), what the contraindications are, how to avoid or
treat adverse reactions and what those adverse reactions are likely to
be. That goes for a drug regime I administer, and it should go for
nutrition advice as well. If you don’t know your stuff, then you
should just shut up and refer the patient to someone who does.
So for the vet that blithely advised limiting beet pulp, I’d
still like to invite that vet to first explain in detail why they advise the
limitation; explain the physiology beyond “throwing off electrolytes”;
what should the limitation be if there is no grain ration; how to correct the
issue and weigh the relative merits and detriments of each strategy. Then
I’ll personally change my opinion that they’re qualified to advise
on that subject--- not that my opinion is worth a damned thing, but if someone
is dumb enough to ask for it, they’re going to get it without varnish.
So much for beet pulp. Tom, you asked for an example
of when sugar has caused a horse’s death, regardless of how stupidly it
was used. I can’t and won’t ever assign an endurance horse’s
death or ills on GL or anything similar, but just for the sake of trivia--- in
clinical trials that require a group of horses to be uniformly suffering from
either endotoxemia and/or laminitis, the guaranteed route to produce it is to
feed a couple pounds of corn starch. It breaks down to straight glucose
in the small intestine and you can count on the onset of devastating laminitis
within 24 hours. Machiavellian, but there you are.
