Hello everyone,
I'm going to get a hay sample cored today. At the moment I'm planning to
only test for sugars and starch to see if it's safe to purchase for my IR horse.
Once I've determined that sugar and starch is below or close to the 10%, I will
proceed with the remainder of the #603 trainer test. However, I'm still a bit
confused about the sugar and starch test. I'll be sending it to
equi-analytical. So, to see if it's safe for my IR horse, can someone please
tell me which tests to have run? I'm not sure if I need WSC, ESC, NFC and/or
starch. Thanks so much!

Denise Peterson - MN
Shalimar
September 2010

Hi Denise,

You'll need ESC and starch.

Teresa, Alixia and Ollie
Lititz,PA
October 2006
<http://tinyurl.com/cev6un <http://tinyurl.com/cev6un> > (link to case
history)

Looks like 600 will give you the ESC + starch you need to calculate NSC. 601 will give you those and other values for actually balancing.

http://www.equi-analytical.com/Services/ForageInfoEqui.pdf

--- In EquineCushings@..., "Robin Lake" <lake22802@...> wrote:

Looks like 600 will give you the ESC + starch you need to calculate NSC. 601 will give you those and other values for actually balancing.

http://www.equi-analytical.com/Services/ForageInfoEqui.pdf

Wow that's a great price! Thanks for the link . I'll use the 601 for my Orchard grass mix hay analysis for balancing.


Gay & Frisco & Haiku
1/22/2011
South Central PA
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ECHistory4/files/morgansnme/

Wow that's a great price! Thanks for the link . I'll use the 601 for my Orchard grass mix hay analysis for balancing

Hi Gay,
Although the #601 and #603 do test for the same things, the process that is used is different. The 603 test is a more accurate process. If money is very tight, the 601 is certainly better than not testing at all.

Lavinia, I recently talked to equi-analytical (gal who answered the phone), I asked what the difference was between #601 and #603 besides results for lignin, fat, and ash were included in #601. She told me they used 2 processes in #603 but the results in both #601 and #603 were identical. I asked about the price difference, she said #603 cost more because 2 processes were used. The results were always the same in each. Was she wrong?

Jackie and Gacy
Iowa and Indiana
2006

I recently talked to equi-analytical (gal who answered the phone), I asked what the difference was between #601 and #603 besides results for lignin, fat, and ash were included in #601. She told me they used 2 processes in #603 but the results in both #601 and #603 were identical. I asked about the price difference, she said #603 cost more because 2 processes were used. The results were always the same in each. Was she wrong?

Good question, Jackie. Don't know the answer to that but will check with the hay gurus and let you know what I find. I know there's been discussion before about this.

Lavinia, both Nappi and George over the Bridge
Jan 05, RI
EC Support Team

Hi Jackie,
Here's the scoop on the analyses. The 601 and 603 use different methods to determine the makeup of the hay. The most important difference is in the ESC and Starch numbers and how they are derived. The 603 will give a more accurate picture and that is important to those with IR/PPID horses. Please see message #116262 for a full description from Paul at EA.

Lavinia, both Nappi and George over the Bridge
Jan 05, RI
EC Support Team

Thanks Lavinia.

Jackie and Gacy
Iowa and Indiana
2006

--- In EquineCushings@..., "Lavinia" <dnlf@...> wrote:

Please see message #116262 for a full description from Paul at EA.

Lavinia, both Nappi and George over the Bridge
Jan 05, RI
EC Support Team

Looks like 600 will give you the ESC + starch you need to calculate NSC.

I just want to make some clarification of terms here and why there seems to be some confusion:

1. NSC (non-structural carbohydrates) is a term used to describe WSC + starch.

2. ESC + starch is simply that, ESC + starch or sometimes referred to here as "sugar and starch."

NSC is not relevant to horses with hyperinsulinemia (elevated blood insulin) because this carbohydrate fraction contains primarily fructan which is not digested in the stomach and foregut. It is fermented in the hindgut. A large bolus of fructan can lead to laminitis but this is not through the same mechanism that we see with insulin-induced laminitis.

ESC (simple sugar) and starch are digested in the stomach and foregut and result in a glucose/insulin "spike" after eating. These are the carbohydrate fractions we want to control in the horse with hyperinsulinemia.

This is a subject of debate at times - whether there is really high enough WSC in hay to be a problem. Most agree that there is not enough in North American hays and I've been monitoring the status of several horses in the Pacific Northwest that are on very high NSC (WSC+starch) hays, some as high as 23%, and so far no issues with insulin control have been reported. There have also been no reports of hind gut disturbances associated with high NSC hays.

Here's a good tutorial on the uses and abuses of NIR testing: <http://dairy.ifas.ufl.edu/rns/2006/Undersander.pdf>

Kathleen (KFG in KCMO)
ECIR Moderator
Missouri - Dec 2005
http://www.ecirhorse.com/

I also called the lab and got the same answer. The lab should know. I don't
understand why this group doubts the lab. They run the tests and see the
results. It is a huge price difference.

Diana, Nor Cal

--- In EquineCushings@..., "Fantov/Rooklidge" <crni@...> wrote:

I also called the lab and got the same answer. The lab should know. I don't understand why this group doubts the lab. They run the tests and see the results. It is a huge price difference.

It is a huge price difference, but they're not the same methods and a person should understand the differences between the two methods:

Wet chemistry actually *measures* the nutrient content and NIR *predicts* it.

NIR (near infrared) compares the sample's reflectance of near infrared light to its chemical composition. In order for this method to be accurate, hundreds of forage samples need to be first analyzed by wet chemistry methods and then tested again using NIR. This creates a "prediction equation" for specific feeds. Therefore, when you test using NIR methods, the lab simply matches the prediction equation to your sample. For labs like Dairy One/Equi-Analytical that have hundreds of thousands of samples and continuously calibrate and update their prediction equations and are certified for wet chemistry and NIR, we should expect comparable results for wet chemistry vs. NIR.

If money is tight, NIR is better than nothing. Just keep in mind that they are very different measures - actual measure vs. prediction.

Kathleen (KFG in KCMO)
ECIR Moderator
Missouri - Dec 2005
http://www.ecirhorse.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/nolaminitis/home

Hi Diana,

The question is, what level of accuracy do you want? How big of a risk do you want to take that the testing methodolgy is wrong? If a 2% difference in sugar alone, plus an additional 1-2% difference in starch is an acceptable level of inaccuracy, then by all means go for the less expensive test. For my little Dazzle, a possible error of 4% is not acceptable in the sugar starch levels.

I, too, was very concerned about this very thing. I called Equi-Analytical. Chris was very helpful, but didn't give me any detailed information. I spoke with Paul, the manager and wrote up what he had to say.

Below is my entire post of post 116262 regarding this. Perhaps our concern will make more sense after you read throught this post.

******************************************

Post 116262:

Great post Donna,

This is a typical demonstration of one of the flaws of NIR.

I followed up with Paul at Equi-Analytical regarding the NIR vs wet chem testing.

This is what he explained to me:

The certification process for NIR only looks at 4 things: Dry matter, crude protein, ADF, NDF.

When you request a package 601, you get the following analyzed by NIR: Crude protein, ADF, NDF, starch, ESC, WSC, Fat and Ash (which are the organic components). In that same package, the following are analyzed by wet chem: Calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium, iron, zinc, copper, manganese, and molybdenum.

In the package 603, all components are analyzed by wet chem.

So then, the question becomes, what's the accuracy of the NIR testing? The way that way measure accuracy, statistically, is to ask, "Do the numbers correlate to the wet chem?"

For ESC the r squared value is 0.93 (with 0 being no correlation and 1 being perfect correlation). The standard error is plus or minus 0.95.

This means that an actual ESC of 6.0 can be come out on the NIR testing as 5.05 or as 6.95 for the majority of the samples.

Some people think that's close enough. Hay testing is not a perfect science. One side of the field may test differently than the other side of the field. Or the part that was started being mowed first thing in the morning may be lower than that mowed later in the morning.

Paul reported that 70% of the tests that they do are done be NIR. He attributes that high number to the following: 1. The tests are reasonably accurate. 2. The turn-around time is fast. 3. The price is more cost effective for the client.

Joan and Dazzle

--- In EquineCushings@..., donna <donnajbrowne@...>
wrote:

I'm not one of the gurus, but I thought I'd chime in on something I
just discovered about different results. First, it looks like the
difference between 604 and 603 is the addition of lignin, ash, fat,
cobalt, sulfur and chloride. Others will have to comment on most of
those.

What I found out about ash and fat is Equi-analytical uses these along
with crude protein (CP), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF), and Neutral
Detergent Fiber (NDF) to help determine the DE (Digestible Energy).
When fat and ash are not analyzed (as is the case for 603), average
values for a particular feed type are substituted into the equation.

What happened to me is I used the Fast Track to get a quick answer for
sugar and starch because the hay grower didn't want to hold the hay
too long. They reported my hay's DE as .85 using average values of
ash and fat for Bermuda. When I had a more complete analysis done
(601 Equi-Tech), the actual ash and fat values were used and changed
the DE to .78 for my hay. And I also had the 603 done for my last
batch of hay which I'm still feeding, but don't know the real value of
DE, so I don't know if I'm feeding the correct amount.

DE is used to determine how much you need to feed to meet their daily
MCal requirements. When I compared the amount of hay I had to feed
using .85 and then .78 for DE, it shortened my hay supply by three
weeks because I had to feed them more to get their MCals right.

I imagine it would also have some affect on the mineral amounts when
balancing as well. I would love to know what the balancing gurus have
to say about how important accurate DE is to the whole mineral
balancing stuff.

Donna

******************************************

In the above post, Donna indicated that she was short on her hay by 3 weeks due to the error in digestible energy. That's significant if you have to buy 3 extra weeks of hay due to a testing inaccuracy.

What I've found is that all sorts of people can tell you things in life, but it doesn't mean that it's accurate. My vet told me that my horse's insulin level was "normal", when in fact she's insulin resistant. My trimmer said that there was no hope for Dazzle after she rotated and penetrated, but she's still here today.

I've found that nobody cares for my Princess Dazzle like I do. I'm willing to ask the extra questions to help her. To them, she's just another horse. To me, she's the princess of my heart.

I'll ask the extra questions and go the extra mile for my little girl. That's why I'm here.

Joan and Dazzle
Anaheim, CA 2006

--- In EquineCushings@..., "Fantov/Rooklidge" <crni@...> wrote:

I also called the lab and got the same answer. The lab should know. I don't
understand why this group doubts the lab. They run the tests and see the
results. It is a huge price difference.

Diana, Nor Cal

Kathleen, thank you for breaking down the formula equi-analytical uses for #601 and #603. This is the very first time seeing this information, imo, this is very important. When I first came to this forum, I was told to use #603, don't remember if there were any specific reasons to do so. I am becoming wiser in my older age to investigate more, that is why I called equi-analytical. How was I to know I had to talk to a person "in charge". I've been led down the wrong road too many times regarding Gacy's care.

Quote from message #116262 "This means that an actual ESC of 6.0 can be come out on the NIR testing as 5.05 or as 6.95 for the majority of the samples."

Your statement in this post, "For labs like Dairy One/Equi-Analytical that have hundreds of thousands of samples and continuously calibrate and update their prediction equations and are certified for wet chemistry and NIR, we should expect comparable results for west chemistry vs. NIR."

We need this information in the Files, this way when one goes to find information, they can make their decision based on known facts.

Thank you.

Jackie and Gacy
Iowa and Indiana
2006

--- In EquineCushings@..., "stc4qh" <stc4qh@...> wrote:

We need this information in the Files, this way when one goes to find information, they can make their decision based on known facts.

Thanks for your feedback. Too bad we can't all take a field trip to Equi-Analytical and see how it's done. These things can be difficult to explain in writing but understanding that one is measured (#603) and one is predicted (#601) really cleared it up for me. That plus Joan's explanation of the variability and the tutorial on uses and abuses of NIR (see message #150405 for the link) gave me a better understanding.

Kathleen (KFG in KCMO)
ECIR Moderator
Missouri - Dec 2005
http://www.ecirhorse.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/nolaminitis/home

Joan, for those who are coming here for the first time or have been a member for awhile, the information about how important the differences are between wet-chemistry and NIR are great decision makers. I don't remember anyone telling me that for Gacy's sake I should use #603 because of the variances. It is overwhelming to say the least when we are trying to learn everything dealing with special diets and some with foundered hooves. Like I said to Kathleen, we should have this information put in a folder in the Files. I've been here for awhile and I'm still learning. I know I was told to use #603 but not told why. So when I received the packet from EA, I reviewed the choices and went with #601 simply because of the cost. Our minds are so cluttered and overwhelmed and I've never been a science person so I didn't understand the differences in the analysis packages. Not to mention the trouble we have dealing with vets who don't know what I'm talking about regarding tests. Won't even mention trimmers/farriers. I'm glad to have had these discussions.

Jackie and Gacy
Iowa and Indiana
2006

--- In EquineCushings@..., "Joan and Dazzle" <horsies4luv@...> wrote:

For ESC the r squared value is 0.93 (with 0 being no correlation and 1 being perfect correlation). The standard error is plus or minus 0.95.

This means that an actual ESC of 6.0 can be come out on the NIR testing as 5.05 or as 6.95 for the majority of the samples.

Just a short comment on this.

The above statement doesn't mean that they guarantee that the ESC value by NIR will fall within 5.05 – 6.95 if the ESC value by wet chem is 6.0. It may very well fall outside that range. What it means is that if you do a lot of testing the majority of the samples will fall within that range. It doesn't say anything about an individual sample though. The problem with statistics is that there will always be extreme values that for one reason or another will fall outside a given range.

Lars, July 2008 Sweden