Re: Sources of Foods (Grains)

["Amber Knight" <ambrnite@fix.net>]

YEA! Susan, that was a great reply!!! Obviously, you understand Equine
Nutrition!!

----------
> From: Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: Sources of Foods (Grains)
> Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 3:51 PM
> 
> 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
>