Following the 2008 Breeders’ Cup, where European horses had their best results ever, the Paulick Report Daily Poll questioned readers about why the European runners fared so well. Was it the recent California ban on anabolic steroids, leveling the playing field for international runners who have never raced on the medication? Was it the synthetic surface at Santa Anita used for the traditional dirt races? Or were European horses simply better this year? The
results were mixed, but 47% of respondents thought the synthetic surface made the biggest difference.
One thing that never crossed my mind was a possible difference in the feed given horses in Europe vs. what they are fed in the United States. Sharon Hinsley, who with her husband runs a public stable in Chicago and Tampa Bay, thinks that could be a factor in the increasing fragility of American-based runners.
Pending the results of scientific research, some ingredients have been banned from feed in Europe, where a movement for “natural” or “green” food ingredients is much farther along than in the U.S. GMO feed (with genetically modified organisms) is labeled as such in European Union countries. (Click here to read about European protests against GMO food.) Nutrition experts here caution us, however, that “natural” products are not necessarily any safer, and that all food ingredients should be monitored and tested.
The following commentary by Sharon Hinsley (who can be reached at Dhhstable1@aol.com) certainly opens for us a new debate about food ingredients, one that has been ongoing in European and Asian countries. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the Paulick Report, but we think the subject matter is important enough to be discussed. – Ray Paulick
By Sharon Hinsley
My husband and I have been owners and trainer of a public racing stable for over 22 years. As with so many others whose life’s work has been in this industry, we have seen first-hand the increasing fragility of the Thoroughbred and its growing impact on this once-great and beloved sport.
Following the European success in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita, I couldn’t help but think back to several of the comments voiced in a magazine article about the success of the European runners. For instance, a comment was made that American-bred horses competing in Europe race significantly more than their counterparts here in the United States.
In the same discussion, someone questioned whether changes in the water or type of feed may be contributing to the durability problem. While factors such as racing surface, breeding practices oriented toward speed and precocity, steroids and medication (both legal and otherwise) have dominated the discussions about the seemingly increased fragility of our horses, have we missed some very important and fundamental contributing factors? Could something as basic as what we feed our horses be a part of the durability and soundness problem? Is there something different about the feed given to horses in Europe versus what we feed our horses in the United States?
A review of
UK horse feed Web sites shows some interesting terminology not seen associated with horse feed in the United States. For instance, many of the UK feeds contain statements such as “non-GMO” and “Identity Preserved”. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism and Identity Preserved refers to quality assurance programs and certifications aimed at ensuring that products can be traced through the entire production cycle so they have not been contaminated by genetically modified organisms.
A genetically modified organism is the result of genetic engineering. Also known as transgenic organisms, they are the product of laboratory processes that take genes from one species and insert them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired characteristic. Although genetic engineering holds great promise, particularly in the field of medicine, its application in the agricultural arena has been primarily focused on herbicide tolerance and pesticide control. By making a crop herbicide resistant, herbicides can be applied over and over again allowing the plant to live while everything else around it dies. This has proven to be economically advantageous for the producers of the herbicides but potentially troublesome for consumers, not to mention the environment. And what of the effect that ingestion of these genetically modified crops might have on horses?
There is a significant difference between what has happened in the United States agriculturally and in many parts of Europe where GMOs have been banned from being grown or used in any feed or food. Within the United States (and Canada), the proliferation of genetically modified organisms within the food supply is troubling, particularly given the high degree of uncertainty that exists with respect to the health effects of GMOs in food. This is equally true for the unknown effects that GMO feed may be having on our horses.
The current technology of genetic engineering is not nearly as precise as most would believe. The insertion of new genetic material is still a highly inaccurate procedure. Unintended side effects are often encountered, and many of these unintended side effects are not well-studied or documented. Genetically modified plants have been known to create toxins. The plant may be significantly altered with respect to its nutrient content, the balance of proteins within the plant may be disrupted, again with unknown consequences. In addition, due to the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes, GMOs may be contributing to increased antibiotic resistance, particularly in critical gut bacteria. GMOs may also be contributing to increases in allergies. The effect of GMOs in what we feed our horses is simply not well-known or understood. In the United States, though, it is likely we are feeding our horses a steady diet of GMO feed. Could this be a contributing factor to the durability issues of the modern Thoroughbred? It is certainly food for thought.
As horsemen we must become educated about what is in our feeds. We cannot assume that the quality of grains we used to get in decades past is the same as what is now in bags of feed. The recipes of our favorite brands may have changed without us even knowing. Oftentimes, we may simply see that bright label saying "new and improved." However, “new and improved” might mean something substantially different from what we would expect it to mean. We must put pressure on our mills to produce non-GMO feed free of pesticide contamination just like our European counterparts have available to them. We need to start asking and validating the contents and quality of the feed we provide to our horses. Even though every horse in the racing business is for sale one way or another, we have a moral obligation to preserve the durability and quality of the breed no matter who owns the horse we raise. Garbage in/garbage out and eventually we are all out of business.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.
Tags: Breeders' Cup, DHH Stable, eu, european union, genetically modified organism, gmo, Horsefeed, identity preserved, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, Sharon Hinsley, Synthetic surfaces
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm and is filed under Horse Health, Horse Racing, Horsefeed.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
What an interesting post, this subject is seldom discussed in the USA at all, let alone through the lens of performance!
GMO grains and crops dominate not only US horse grain and feed mixes, but also supplements. I visited the Farriers Formula/Life Data Labs in Alabama once and was amazed to see that they made two batches of the famous supplement, one clearly labeled to contain non-GMO ingredients for Europe and one for “the rest of the world”.
Since horses in training are fed primarily oats, I would think that the spotlight should be on gmo cereals that dominate the huge tubs of feed given to broodmares in the USA.
Michael Dickinson (highly-successful US trainer who emigrated from England, now retired) was way ahead of his time in his insistence on organic feed and grass for horses in his care. He has some very interesting comments if you have a chance to hear him speak on the subject. It would be interesting to know what farms raising TBs avoid GMO feeds…if that is even possible these days.
January 24th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
France has a healthy phobia of GMO food, and that carries through to our horse feeds. I’m also very careful to try to avoid buying carrots or hay where pesticides have been used. I have occasionally unwittingly fed artichokes that were treated with something (they came from the regular human grocery store - big mistake) and the horse broke out in hives. Same horse had no reaction when eating artichokes from the organic food store. I had never thought about it in terms of performance, but just in terms of overall health. But this post is very interesting.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Great subject, I love it! I wrote this about two years ago but it was too scary to get published:
http://www.equidaily.com/bestbet/guest/2007/70207.html
European vs. U.S. racing is not just about quality of food. It is about culture, horsemanship and different priorities.
Unless American horses are stabled at a great but rare training center like Fair Hills, they have a lousy life compared to most European horses who benefit from fresh air in the country side and are offered cleaner, larger and sunnier stalls facing the outside, with peace and quiet. European horses exercise between one and two hours each day on spacious tracks and only see the racetrack when they run. Then we have the drugs.
In France, for example, when people don’t feel well, they are sent to a spa for one to several weeks under medical supervision and are not given drugs unless it is the last resort. In America, a depressed person might get Prozac which can make people suicidal right away and will certainly not be sent to a spa to cure depression with a change of environment, some pampering like hot mineral bathes and massages.
In the U.S. horses were/are being pumped with anabolic steroids when they are sore or depressed and stop eating or don’t recover fast enough, instead of being turned out for a while. It is not the track which hurts so many American horses, it’s people and the drug culture.
Prevention, sound horsemanship including patience, regular rest periods and a healthy dose of compassion for horses is best. When we add speed and fast tracks, dark, small and dusty stalls, a quick trip to the track and back always turning left… Some horses exercise in the dark for days and are back in their dark stalls as the sun rises.,I know, I exercised some of them, out at 5.30 am in the winter. Beside the drugs they get, no wonder so many horses have ulcers, stop eating, go crazy or fall apart and die like one horse did one month after looking so empty but still running in a Grade 1 race.
Most American horses are stabled at racetracks, in overcrowded urban barn areas, with constant traffic, manure trucks, feed trucks, vet trucks, farrier trucks, cars, sometimes planes taking off and landing nearby and the smell of kerosene, city smog and noise pollution, dust and poultry, cats, dogs, goats, pigeons and rats… With the ability to block and drop sore horses into lower and lower claiming races, it is no wonder that racing has so many catastrophic injuries.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
and when they’re right next to the track and have to listen to the tractors harrowing and booming by all night. Nice post. Pitiful. . One of many problems.
As to Paulick’s post, seems to me just another of those rumors that takes off into it’s own reality. Let’s see. Hmm… The premise that we now have more fragile horses or so observe these trainers over 20 years, which is exactly the opposite of mine over 20 years. I’d say my horses are more sound now. I know more.
Anyway, where this fragility stuff comes from. Someone tell us. Any studies, stats. How are they more fragile? Lighter bones, less dense bone cells, condylar aspects tend to fracture these days compared to yesteryear, maybe, the sesamoids now days in revolt. Do we have weaker tendons on these horses. What are they talking about when they say “less fragile”. Do the Hancocks would agree they are breeding fragile horses. I agree that they all probably need more calcium/D.
My own take: injuries have multiiple variables. Here are my top ten in order of priority:
1. Trainer negligence.
2. Dumb trainers.
3. Negligent trainers.
4. Trainer incompetence.
5. Stupid training.
6. Non-training.
7. Uniformed trainer.
8. Bad trainer.
9. Did I say “negligent trainer”
10. Everything else.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Sharon mentions that “American-bred horses competing in Europe race significantly more than their counterparts here in the United States.” Thus the weak-breeding theory doesn’t seem to hold up. In addition to the advantages of open space and clean air, European horses have the luxury of training on soft ground, up hills, on gallops that are not concentrated with hundreds of horses training at once. The pace is not focused on speed, as their racecourses are not conducive to early speed. Legs hold up better under those conditions. We live with what we have here in the US, so that means protecting the horse by racing less and training more carefully and moving to surfaces that are kinder to the horse, like the European courses are. The quality of our feed is very important, but if it were the reason European horses were dominating, we would have seen a gradual domination, not suddenly this year when the BC was run on synthetics. One only needs to look at a horse to see if he is thriving on his feed, with good weight and a shiny coat, digestive health is obvious. We have plenty of shiny healthy horses in America.