Re: Beet Pulp

Susan Evans Garlinghouse (
Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:12:14 -0800

David Bennett wrote:
> Susan - I wonder if the dry beet pulp that you mentioned as used in the
> studies was shredded. What many of us get here in the Southeast are
> pellets that expand considerably when soaked. A large coffee can full
> makes about 5 gallons when soaked. It would seem that this would be more
> a problem than the dry shredded beet pulp.

Hi David,

The one study that immediately leaps to hand that used beet pulp
specifically described the beet pulp as "loose, dry" which I would take
to mean the shredded rather than pellets. However, I get both the
shredded and the pellets here in the Southwest, and if memory serves,
they expand in water about the same amount---a large coffee can of
pellets weighs about 4 pounds, plus 2 1/2 cans of water soaked overnight
almost fills a five gallon bucket when it's fluffed up a bit the next
morning. Offhand, I think the shredded beet pulp measured by equal
volume weighs a little less---that is, a coffee can of shreddedbeet pulp
isn't as compact as the pellets so is less by weight.

However, in the studies, feed is always measured by weight, not volume,
so five pounds of beet pulp is five pounds of beet pulp regardless of
the form it's delivered in. I don't think it would make any difference,
however, I have to go get some more beet pulp this week, anyway. I'll
throw an equal number of pounds into some buckets with equal water, see
what the final expanded volume is and let everyone know what happens (am
I easy to amuse or WHAT).