Understanding product labels is valuable knowledge
How often—and how carefully—do you read the ingredient and composition labels of the feeds you give your horse? For owners of horses with allergies, this is often part of everyday routine, but many others may rely primarily on marketing promises such as lower starch, high fiber, or high vitamin content. However, the quality and actual composition of feeds can vary significantly, even between products designed for almost identical purposes.
Substantial differences can exist even when ingredient lists appear very similar at first glance—for example when both list vitamin E, vitamin C, copper, iron, or zinc. Why does this happen, and how can these ingredients actually differ from one another despite having the same name on the label?
Check and identify the information on the product label
Horse feeds should be selected so that the horse receives the nutrients it truly needs, and in a form that the body is capable of utilizing efficiently.
One of the most decisive factors in feed formulation is often price. The feed industry aims to keep products affordable, competitive, and attractive to consumers. This inevitably leads to compromises in ingredient selection. Natural vitamins and minerals are expensive raw materials, which is why industrially manufactured (and cheaper) versions are widely used, especially in animal nutrition.
The market contains a large number of products whose ingredients are industrial copies of natural nutrients. These synthetic versions may not be utilized by the body in the same way as naturally occurring nutrients. For example, the antioxidant vitamin C—important for joint function—may appear on a label as D-ascorbic acid, vitamin C, or as a natural source such as rosehip. Chemically produced vitamins are always described as “nature-identical,” but they are not nutritionally identical in terms of absorption and utilization. Due to weaker bioavailability, much larger quantities are often required.
The horse’s body utilizes nutrients most effectively in the form in which they naturally occur. Product labels are therefore a key place to assess ingredient origin and quality, but interpreting them often requires background knowledge and familiarity with terminology.
D-alpha-tocopherol vs. dl-alpha-tocopherol
A clear example of this difference can be seen with vitamin E. Natural vitamin E is labeled as d-alpha-tocopherol, whereas synthetic vitamin E is labeled as dl-alpha-tocopherol. Similarly, synthetic vitamin C appears as ascorbic acid, while natural vitamin C may come from sources such as rosehip or sea buckthorn powder.
Organic or natural supplements are easiest to identify when the ingredient list clearly names the raw materials they are derived from—for example rosehip, nettle, spirulina, or organically bound zinc. If the ingredient list consists mainly of isolated vitamins and minerals such as copper, iron, zinc, vitamin A, or vitamin E, the product is very likely synthetic.
Many feeds contain both organic and inorganic forms, but often only a small proportion of the more expensive natural version. Marketing may highlight phrases such as “contains natural ingredients” or “also includes natural…”, even when the majority of the formulation is industrial. The degree of naturalness is often easiest to assess by looking at both price and recommended feeding rate: a low price combined with a high dosage requirement usually indicates an industrial product.
The difference in bioavailability between natural and synthetic nutrients lies in the fact that synthetic vitamins are isolated compounds that lack supporting co-factors. Many industrial supplements contain large amounts of vitamins, trace elements, and minerals but lack enzymes or other compounds that would support absorption and utilization. Natural nutrients contain all the compounds required for effective absorption. In nature, vitamins and minerals are bound to proteins, flavonoids, or carbohydrates, enabling the body to recognize and absorb them efficiently.
For example, nettle naturally contains iron, but it also contains vitamin C and folate, which support iron absorption. Organically bound minerals also reduce the risk of overdosing and are therefore safer to use.
Pellets, powders, and flakes
Many feeds are sold in pelleted form. This is not inherently problematic, but product labels should still be read carefully. Pellets can easily contain additional substances beyond what the product is marketed for. It is also technically easy to add cheaper ingredients into a pellet mixture.
In addition, pelletizing almost always requires a binding agent to hold the pellet together. Pure, non-pelleted ingredients are always fully visible and identifiable. Structurally intact feed components encourage chewing, which in turn stimulates saliva production and supports digestion.
Fillers or raw ingredients?
In addition to organic versus inorganic origin, it is important to examine the list of fillers and additives. Common fillers include maltodextrin, glucose, molasses, calcium carbonate, feed yeast, soy protein, soy hulls, and bran. By definition, fillers are not intended to serve a primary nutritional purpose.
However, this distinction is not always straightforward. In one feed, an ingredient may be a justified raw material, while in another it functions purely as a filler. For example, bran may provide valuable nutrition for gut microbes when included in a complete feed. Dextrose may enhance amino acid utilization, calcium carbonate may help correct calcium-phosphorus balance, and yeast may support digestion when dosed appropriately. In low-dose supplements, however, these same ingredients often serve mainly as fillers.
Unfortunately, fillers are frequently used to reduce the amount of expensive raw materials by diluting the product with cheaper ingredients. For example, adding fillers to a joint supplement reduces the proportion of costly active ingredients and lowers production costs. This often results in higher feeding rates but lower concentrations of active compounds. Fillers can be particularly problematic for owners of allergic horses. For instance, a corn-allergic horse owner should be able to determine whether maltodextrin is derived from potato, wheat, or corn. Synthetic ascorbic acid is also often corn-based.
Fillers are not always included solely for cost reduction. In some cases, they are necessary for safety and usability. Certain trace elements are required only in very small amounts, and safe, practical dosing often requires a carrier material. Carrier substances allow trace elements to be evenly distributed and accurately dosed. Feed additives are regulated under EU legislation, and only approved substances may be marketed and used. Carrier materials can also be chosen wisely; for example, CdG uses antioxidant-rich chokeberry powder as the carrier for selenium.
Definitions may vary, but typically a filler is an inexpensive, low-quality ingredient with minimal nutritional value. These substances often contain starch or simple carbohydrates and provide little direct health benefit. On the other hand, by-products from the food industry can sometimes be excellent raw materials for horse feeds. Fiber sources such as rice bran, other cereal brans, molasses, or beet pulp can be valuable additions to equine diets and can reduce waste while improving overall resource efficiency.
However, when such ingredients are added to joint supplements or trace mineral products, it is worth considering their purpose in that specific context. Reading feed labels therefore requires not only attention but also experience and the ability to evaluate ingredients in their proper nutritional role.
