NSC levels

Dawn · 12-03-2007, 09:56 AM

I've not personally had it tested, but I've researched it a lot and the link that you provided is the only one that I've seen with amounts that high on many of the products. As opposed to the multiple testings that I've found that have many of the products at much lower levels. That stands to reason that the one testing is wrong or skewed as opposed to the many others which agree.

PeggySue · 12-03-2007, 09:59 AM

Dawn I have been digging all morning and the one link that JB posted is the lowest I have found it, the numbers are different on every site are they not a fixed forumla??

Dawn · 12-03-2007, 10:08 AM

All TC feeds are a fixed formula (even their crappy sweet feed line). Like I said, numbers are different because they were tested at different facilities, using different methods, by different people. That won't cause as big of a difference as what is on the other site though.

http://www.equussource.com/articles/...carbtables.pdf

Compare the numbers on the site you listed to the numbers here. See how off some of them are?

Here is another (I love this particular site) that also shows large descrpencies from the earlier site, and agrees with the one above.

http://www.equi-analytical.com/CommonFeedProfiles/

Now I will add here that I must have had a mistype earlier, and the NSC for TC 30% is around 13%. I had just read the starch and sugar content and it must have stuck in my head when I was typing it (sugar content is around 9%). I just went back and saw that.

JBandRio · 12-03-2007, 10:09 AM

Oh ****, I just realized what may be the source of our confusion, and I did it too!!!!

My second link has TC30 at 9.1% SUGAR, with an additional 4% Starch, for a TOTAL NSC of 13.1%. Dawn, perhaps that is where you have found the lower numbers.

I noticed it when I went to see what my link has for the Reliance. It has the 10% Textured, Pelleted, and All-Grain, respectively, at (sugar/starch/total) 9.1/28/37, 5.3/28/34, and 10.5/31.4/41.9. The 12% figures are a little lower for the Textured (34), a good bit lower for the Pelleted (26.6), and a little for the All-grain (39.9)

Does this clear things up?

I have been PMing with someone about their feed, and whenever they have called a company to find out the "NSC" value, they get the "sugar" value. I think some of the customer service folks don't understand the difference.

Dawn · 12-03-2007, 10:11 AM

Lol, I just noted that in my above post. I knew it was 13%, but I typed up 9% and didn't even catch it. 13% is still quite a bit lower than 18%, and I can't find anything but the one source stating that high.

Notice on that site too the high levels listed for alfalfa and timothy (I believe).

PeggySue · 12-03-2007, 10:11 AM

dawn the second one you posted is raw feed stuff not "prepared" feeds

Dawn · 12-03-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeggySue

dawn the second one you posted is raw feed stuff not "prepared" feeds

What do you mean?

PeggySue · 12-03-2007, 10:12 AM

and the first one is the one JB posted in her first post

PeggySue · 12-03-2007, 10:13 AM

all I can get to at that site is raw grain .. not mixed feed stuffS?? I am going to the wrong place on the site??

Dawn · 12-03-2007, 10:14 AM

I must of missed that. They're just 2 sites that I had off hand that show what a 'normal' range for tested feedstuffs is. You'll have a hard time finding test results that deviate much off of what those two show. Except for the site that you posted. That is why I feel fairly confident in saying that the site you posted isn't accurate.

12-03-2007, 10:09 AM	#14
JBandRio Senior Member+ Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NC Posts: 23,694 Images: 144 Blog Entries: 12	Oh ***, I just realized what may be the source of our confusion, and I did it too!!!! My second link has TC30 at 9.1% SUGAR, with an additional 4% Starch, for a TOTAL NSC of 13.1%. Dawn, perhaps that is where you have found the lower numbers. I noticed it when I went to see what my link has for the Reliance. It has the 10% Textured, Pelleted, and All-Grain, respectively, at (sugar/starch/total) 9.1/28/37, 5.3/28/34, and 10.5/31.4/41.9. The 12% figures are a little lower for the Textured (34), a good bit lower for the Pelleted (26.6), and a little for the All-grain (39.9) Does this clear things up? I have been PMing with someone about their feed, and whenever they have called a company to find out the "NSC" value, they get the "sugar" value. I think some of the customer service folks don't understand the difference. __________________ - JB Acres, owned and operated by Dynamite* animals. - It's a wonder horses as a whole don't just kill us all and be done with their misery. - Keep your voice soothing and low - even when things get western (buck1173) - You can't hit me with all those snowballs!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Jumping Levels	Feliche	Equestrian Events, Shows, Competitions	18	07-05-2006 11:55 AM
reputation levels??	mandiemoo	Forum Help	6	07-03-2006 04:03 PM
Riding levels	Caterina	Horse Chat	11	09-06-2005 03:51 PM
dressage levels..	zorse	Equestrian Events, Shows, Competitions	8	03-08-2004 03:35 PM
levels	belle4	Horse Training	2	03-02-2004 04:17 AM

12-03-2007, 09:56 AM	#11
Dawn Senior Member+ Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 31,458 Images: 1390	I've not personally had it tested, but I've researched it a lot and the link that you provided is the only one that I've seen with amounts that high on many of the products. As opposed to the multiple testings that I've found that have many of the products at much lower levels. That stands to reason that the one testing is wrong or skewed as opposed to the many others which agree.

12-03-2007, 10:08 AM	#13
Dawn Senior Member+ Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 31,458 Images: 1390	All TC feeds are a fixed formula (even their crappy sweet feed line). Like I said, numbers are different because they were tested at different facilities, using different methods, by different people. That won't cause as big of a difference as what is on the other site though. http://www.equussource.com/articles/...carbtables.pdf Compare the numbers on the site you listed to the numbers here. See how off some of them are? Here is another (I love this particular site) that also shows large descrpencies from the earlier site, and agrees with the one above. http://www.equi-analytical.com/CommonFeedProfiles/ Now I will add here that I must have had a mistype earlier, and the NSC for TC 30% is around 13%. I had just read the starch and sugar content and it must have stuck in my head when I was typing it (sugar content is around 9%). I just went back and saw that.

12-03-2007, 10:11 AM	#15
Dawn Senior Member+ Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 31,458 Images: 1390	Lol, I just noted that in my above post. I knew it was 13%, but I typed up 9% and didn't even catch it. 13% is still quite a bit lower than 18%, and I can't find anything but the one source stating that high. Notice on that site too the high levels listed for alfalfa and timothy (I believe).

12-03-2007, 10:14 AM	#20
Dawn Senior Member+ Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 31,458 Images: 1390	I must of missed that. They're just 2 sites that I had off hand that show what a 'normal' range for tested feedstuffs is. You'll have a hard time finding test results that deviate much off of what those two show. Except for the site that you posted. That is why I feel fairly confident in saying that the site you posted isn't accurate.