Introduction to Non-Structural Carbohydrates and Hydrolyzable Carbohydrates

If you have ever tried to choose hay, feed, or treats for a metabolic horse, you have probably seen the terms NSC, ESC, WSC, starch, and sometimes HC.

They are usually discussed in the same breath as “low sugar,” “low starch,” “safe for metabolic horses,” or “appropriate for laminitis-prone horses.”

The problem is that these terms are not interchangeable.

NSC stands for nonstructural carbohydrates. In forage analysis for horses, it is commonly estimated as:

NSC = WSC + starch

HC stands for hydrolyzable carbohydrates. In metabolic-horse discussions, it is commonly estimated as:

HC = ESC + starch

Those two calculations can give different numbers from the same forage report. Neither is “fake.” Neither is automatically better in every situation. They simply answer slightly different questions.

Key Takeaway: NSC gives a broader estimate of sugars, fructans, and starch. HC gives a more targeted estimate of simple sugars plus starch—the carbohydrate fractions most directly associated with glucose and insulin response.

This distinction matters for horses with insulin dysregulation, equine metabolic syndrome, PPID/Cushing’s with insulin concerns, obesity, laminitis history, PSSM management, and for owners trying to choose treats thoughtfully.

This article explains what NSC and HC mean, how they are calculated, where they are useful, where they can mislead, and how to apply them to forage, feed, and treats without turning nutrition into panic.

Why Carbohydrates Matter in the Horse Diet.

Carbohydrates are not bad.

In fact, carbohydrates are the foundation of the equine diet. Horses are designed to eat forage, and forage is mostly carbohydrate. The fiber in hay and pasture feeds the hindgut microbial population, supports digestive function, and provides a major source of energy through fermentation.

The important distinction is not “carbs versus no carbs.”

The important distinction is which carbohydrates, how much, how quickly they are digested, and which horse is eating them.

A healthy horse in regular work may tolerate a diet very differently from an insulin-dysregulated pony with a history of laminitis. A handful of treats may be insignificant for one horse and worth tracking carefully for another. A pasture that is appropriate in one season may be risky in another.

Myth vs. Fact: Myth: “Low-carb” means a horse should avoid carbohydrates. Fact: Horses need fiber-rich carbohydrates. For metabolic horses, the management focus is usually on limiting sugar and starch exposure while preserving forage intake.

This is why NSC and HC exist as practical tools. They help owners and professionals look more closely at carbohydrate fractions instead of relying on vague label claims.

Structural vs. Nonstructural Carbohydrates

Plants contain different types of carbohydrates.

Some carbohydrates form the structure of the plant. Others are used as energy storage.

Structural carbohydrates are the reason forage comes first. They are not the enemy. They are the base.

Nonstructural carbohydrates are more variable. They change with plant species, maturity, season, time of day, weather, stress, harvest, and storage. They are also the carbohydrate category most often discussed when selecting hay or feed for horses with metabolic concerns.

Key Takeaway: A horse should not be fed a “carbohydrate-free” diet. The goal is to provide abundant appropriate fiber while managing the sugar and starch fractions that may create problems for sensitive horses.

For more on the forage-first framework, see Why Forage Comes First.

The Four Numbers Owners Need to Understand

The most important carbohydrate terms are:

• ESC: ethanol-soluble carbohydrates
• WSC: water-soluble carbohydrates
• Starch
• Fructans, often estimated indirectly rather than measured directly

Quick Tip: If your forage report gives ESC, WSC, and starch, you can usually calculate both NSC and HC. If it only gives NSC, you may not know how much of that number is sugar/starch versus fructan-containing WSC.

For a deeper walk-through, see Understanding Your Forage Analysis.

What Is NSC?

NSC stands for nonstructural carbohydrates.

In many equine forage reports, NSC is commonly estimated as:

NSC = WSC + starch

This gives a broad estimate of the forage’s nonstructural carbohydrate pool. It includes simple sugars, fructans, and starch.

NSC is widely used because it is familiar, appears in many equine feeding discussions, and is commonly referenced in veterinary and extension guidance for horses that need lower-sugar or lower-starch diets.

For horses with equine metabolic syndrome, insulin dysregulation, PPID with insulin concerns, obesity, or laminitis history, many veterinary and extension resources recommend selecting forage with NSC around or below 10% on a dry matter basis, or following the veterinarian’s specific recommendation.

Key Takeaway: NSC is useful as a broad screening tool, especially when comparing hay, pasture, feed, or treats. But because it includes WSC, it may include fructans that behave differently from simple sugars and starch in the horse.

What Is HC?

HC stands for hydrolyzable carbohydrates.

In practical metabolic-horse discussions, HC is commonly estimated as:

HC = ESC + starch

The purpose of HC is to focus more closely on the carbohydrate fractions most directly relevant to glucose and insulin response: simple sugars plus starch.

The word “hydrolyzable” refers to carbohydrates that can be broken down by digestive enzymes into absorbable sugars. In horses, simple sugars and much of the digestible starch are handled primarily in the small intestine and can contribute to post-meal glucose and insulin responses.

This is why some metabolic-focused veterinarians, nutritionists, and owner education groups pay close attention to ESC + starch, especially when evaluating hay for insulin-dysregulated horses.

Important Nuance: HC is very useful, but it is not as universally standardized on forage reports as NSC. Many labs report ESC, WSC, and starch; the owner or nutritionist may calculate HC from those numbers.

NSC vs. HC Comparison Table

Practical Example: A hay with 12% WSC, 7% ESC, and 1% starch would have an NSC of 13% but an HC of 8%. Those are different interpretations from the same hay report.

Why HC Can Be Useful for Metabolic Horses

For horses with insulin dysregulation, the central concern is often post-meal hyperinsulinemia: an excessive insulin response after eating.

That is why sugar and starch matter so much.

Simple sugars and digestible starch are the carbohydrate fractions most directly tied to glucose absorption and insulin response. HC focuses on these by using ESC + starch.

This can be especially helpful for:

• horses with insulin dysregulation
• horses with equine metabolic syndrome
• horses with PPID and elevated insulin
• horses with a history of endocrinopathic laminitis
• easy keepers requiring careful sugar and starch management
• owners comparing low-sugar treats or carriers

HC can help prevent a common problem: rejecting reasonable hay because its NSC appears high due to fructans, even when ESC + starch is within a more practical target range.

Key Takeaway: For metabolic horses, HC can help focus attention on the carbohydrate fractions most directly relevant to insulin response. But it should be interpreted alongside the whole forage analysis, total intake, clinical history, and veterinary guidance.

Why NSC Still Matters

It would be a mistake to conclude that NSC is useless.

NSC is still one of the most common carbohydrate values used in equine nutrition. It is familiar to veterinarians, nutritionists, extension educators, feed companies, and forage laboratories.

NSC is also useful because it reminds us that forage carbohydrates are broader than sugar and starch alone. Fructans do not behave exactly like starch or simple sugars, but they are still fermentable carbohydrates and still part of the plant’s nonstructural carbohydrate pool.

NSC may be especially useful when:

• you are comparing forages broadly
• you do not have ESC available
• a veterinarian or nutritionist has specifically asked for NSC
• you are evaluating pasture risk
• you are comparing feed labels where HC is not reported
• you want a conservative screening number for a high-risk horse

Myth vs. Fact: Myth: “HC replaces NSC.” Fact: HC and NSC answer different questions. HC can be more targeted for sugar/starch exposure; NSC remains useful as a broader carbohydrate screen.

Where Fructans Fit In

Fructans are one reason NSC and HC can differ.

Fructans are storage carbohydrates found in many cool-season grasses. They are included in WSC and therefore contribute to NSC when NSC is calculated as WSC + starch.

Unlike simple sugars and digestible starch, fructans are not broken down by mammalian digestive enzymes in the small intestine in the same way. They pass to the hindgut, where they are fermented by microbes.

This matters because insulin-dysregulated horses are primarily managed around glucose and insulin response. Simple sugars and starch are more directly connected to that pathway than fructans.

That does not mean fructans never matter. Large amounts of rapidly fermentable carbohydrate may affect hindgut conditions. Pasture-associated laminitis is complex, and older fructan-overload models are not the same as typical day-to-day management of insulin dysregulation.

Veterinarian Insight: Modern metabolic-horse management focuses heavily on insulin dysregulation and hyperinsulinemia-associated laminitis. That makes sugar and starch especially important, but it does not make the rest of the forage analysis irrelevant.

Dry Matter vs. As-Fed: A Common Source of Confusion

Forage reports often include two columns:

• As-fed, as-sampled, or as-received
• Dry matter, often abbreviated DM

The dry matter column removes water from the comparison. This makes it the better column for comparing hay, pasture, feeds, and treats across different moisture levels.

This matters because a fresh pasture sample, dry hay sample, soaked hay sample, pelleted feed, and crunchy treat may all have different moisture levels. Comparing carbohydrate percentages without paying attention to dry matter can lead to misleading conclusions.

Quick Tip: When comparing NSC or HC between products, use dry matter values whenever possible. When calculating how much the horse actually eats, use the amount fed and adjust carefully if needed.

Practical Forage Analysis Example

Let’s look at a simplified forage report.

Using the common calculations:

• NSC = WSC + starch = 11.5 + 1.2 = 12.7%
• HC = ESC + starch = 6.5 + 1.2 = 7.7%

What does this mean?

If you are using NSC alone, the hay may look slightly above a strict 10% target. If you are using HC, the sugar-plus-starch estimate looks much lower.

That does not automatically make the hay right or wrong. It means you have more context.

For a high-risk laminitic horse, your veterinarian may still want a very conservative forage choice. For another insulin-dysregulated horse doing well clinically, HC may help identify a hay that is more practical than NSC alone suggests.

Practical Example: NSC can be the cautious screening number. HC can help clarify how much of that number is simple sugar and starch versus fructan-containing WSC.

Why Treats Are Part of the Diet

Treats are small. But small does not mean nutritionally invisible.

For most healthy horses, a few thoughtful treats are unlikely to make or break the diet. For horses with insulin dysregulation, EMS, PPID with elevated insulin, obesity, or laminitis history, treat choice deserves more attention.

The reason is simple: frequency and serving size matter.

One treat may be tiny. Ten treats a day, every day, plus a sugary carrier feed, plus seasonal pasture, plus hay with unknown sugar and starch is no longer tiny.

When evaluating treats, ask:

• What is the serving size?
• How often is it fed?
• Does the company provide carbohydrate analysis?
• Is the treat based on forage and digestible fiber?
• Does it contain molasses, grain, cereal byproducts, syrups, or sweeteners?
• Is the horse metabolically normal or metabolically sensitive?

Key Takeaway: Treats do not need to be eliminated for every metabolic horse, but they should be chosen intentionally. The best treat is one that fits the horse’s total daily diet.

For a deeper discussion, see Treats Are Part of the Diet.

Reading Sugar Claims on Labels

Front-of-label claims can be helpful, but they are not the same as a carbohydrate analysis.

Common claims include:

• no added sugar
• low sugar
• sugar-free
• no molasses
• grain-free
• metabolic friendly
• safe for easy keepers

Some of these claims may be meaningful. Others may be incomplete.

For example, “no added sugar” means sugar was not added as a separate ingredient. It does not necessarily mean the finished product is low in ESC, starch, NSC, or HC. Ingredients can naturally contain sugar or starch.

“No molasses” is useful, but it does not tell you whether the product contains grain, cereal byproducts, fruit, sweetened flavoring, or other carbohydrate sources.

“Grain-free” does not automatically mean low sugar or low starch.

Quick Tip: For metabolically sensitive horses, look beyond the front of the bag. Ingredients, serving size, ESC, starch, NSC, HC, and total daily intake matter more than a single marketing phrase.

For a focused label-reading guide, see Reading Sugar Claims.

Why Metabolic Status Matters More Than Appearance

Not every overweight horse is insulin dysregulated. Not every insulin-dysregulated horse is obviously overweight.

That is one reason nutrition advice can become confusing.

A horse’s metabolic status is influenced by insulin regulation, body condition, regional fat deposits, breed tendency, age, PPID status, prior laminitis history, exercise, diet, and individual biology.

UC Davis describes equine metabolic syndrome as involving insulin dysregulation, often with increased fat deposition and difficulty losing weight. It also notes that insulin dysregulation can occur in thinner animals, and that not all horses with a high body condition score have EMS.

This matters because carbohydrate decisions should be based on risk, not appearance alone.

Veterinarian Insight: If a horse has a history of laminitis, suspected EMS, PPID, regional fat deposits, unexplained weight changes, or abnormal insulin results, forage and treat decisions should be made with veterinary guidance.

For more context, see Understanding Metabolic Status.

How to Choose Forage, Feed, and Treats More Thoughtfully

NSC and HC are tools. They are not the whole diet.

When choosing forage, feed, or treats, consider the full picture:

• the horse’s metabolic status
• history of laminitis or foot soreness
• body condition and regional fat
• PPID/Cushing’s status
• exercise level
• forage intake and forage analysis
• total daily sugar and starch exposure
• meal size
• treat frequency
• mineral balance
• protein adequacy
• overall calories

Forage should remain the foundation whenever possible. But forage should be chosen with awareness. Hay that is appropriate for one horse may not be appropriate for another.

The same is true of treats.

A treat for a metabolically normal horse does not need to meet the same standard as a treat intended for a horse with insulin dysregulation. When a treat is being fed regularly to a sensitive horse, carbohydrate transparency matters.

Key Takeaway: Good nutrition is not about chasing one perfect number. It is about matching the diet to the horse’s biology, workload, health history, and management reality.

Common Mistakes With NSC and HC

Mistake 1: Treating NSC and HC as the Same Number

NSC and HC are related, but they are not the same calculation. NSC is commonly WSC + starch. HC is commonly ESC + starch. Because WSC includes fructan-containing fractions, NSC is often higher than HC.

Mistake 2: Ignoring Dry Matter

Comparing one product’s dry matter value to another product’s as-fed value can create confusion. Use dry matter values when comparing feeds, forages, and treats.

Mistake 3: Assuming Low NSC Means the Whole Diet Is Balanced

A low-NSC hay can still be too high in calories, too low in protein, imbalanced in minerals, or inappropriate for another reason. Carbohydrate values are important, but they do not replace full diet evaluation.

Mistake 4: Assuming “No Added Sugar” Means Metabolic-Safe

No added sugar does not automatically mean low ESC, low starch, low NSC, or low HC. The finished product matters more than the claim.

Mistake 5: Forgetting Treat Frequency

One treat may be small. Repeated servings can contribute meaningfully over time, especially for sensitive horses.

Mistake 6: Waiting for Laminitis to Take Carbohydrates Seriously

For horses with known insulin dysregulation, EMS, PPID, or prior laminitis, diet management is preventive care. It is better to evaluate forage and treats before a crisis.

Myth vs. Fact: Myth: “If the hay or treat is labeled low sugar, I do not need to look further.” Fact: The best decisions come from ingredient review, carbohydrate analysis, serving size, and the horse’s individual risk level.

Summary

NSC and HC are both carbohydrate tools, but they answer different questions.

NSC, commonly calculated as WSC + starch, gives a broader estimate of sugars, fructans, and starch. It is widely used in equine nutrition, forage analysis, extension guidance, and veterinary discussions.

HC, commonly calculated as ESC + starch, gives a more targeted estimate of simple sugars plus starch. It can be especially useful when evaluating sugar/starch exposure for insulin-dysregulated or laminitis-prone horses.

The difference matters because WSC includes fructan-containing fractions, while ESC more closely reflects simple sugars. Starch is added to both calculations because digestible starch can contribute to glucose and insulin response.

Forage, feed, and treats should not be judged by a single claim or a single number. Dry matter basis, serving size, meal size, metabolic status, forage quality, mineral balance, and veterinary guidance all matter.

Bottom Line

NSC is a broad carbohydrate screen. HC is a more targeted sugar-plus-starch estimate. For metabolically sensitive horses, understanding both can help owners make better forage, feed, and treat decisions.

Use NSC to understand the bigger nonstructural carbohydrate picture. Use HC when you want a closer look at the carbohydrate fractions most directly tied to glucose and insulin response.

Neither number replaces veterinary care, forage testing, or thoughtful ration balancing. But together, they give owners better language for asking the right questions.

That is the goal: not fear, not perfection, but informed feeding.

FAQ: NSC vs. HC for Horses

1. What does NSC mean in horse feed?

NSC stands for nonstructural carbohydrates. In horse forage and feed analysis, NSC is commonly estimated by adding water-soluble carbohydrates, or WSC, to starch. This gives a broad estimate of sugars, fructans, and starch in the feed or forage. NSC is important because high levels can be a concern for horses with insulin dysregulation, equine metabolic syndrome, PPID with insulin issues, obesity, or a history of laminitis. However, NSC is not the whole diet. Protein, minerals, calories, fiber, meal size, and the horse’s health status also matter.

2. What does HC mean in horse nutrition?

HC stands for hydrolyzable carbohydrates. In metabolic-horse nutrition discussions, HC is commonly estimated as ESC plus starch. ESC represents primarily simple sugars, while starch is another carbohydrate fraction that can contribute to glucose and insulin response. HC is useful because it focuses more closely on the sugar and starch fractions most directly relevant to insulin-dysregulated horses. HC is not always printed on forage reports, so owners often calculate it themselves when ESC and starch values are available. It should be used alongside the full forage analysis and veterinary guidance.

3. How do I calculate NSC from a hay analysis?

NSC is commonly calculated by adding WSC and starch on a dry matter basis. For example, if a hay report lists WSC at 10% and starch at 2%, the NSC would be approximately 12%. Always make sure you are using the same column, preferably dry matter, when comparing values. Some reports may calculate NSC differently or may not list it directly. If you are managing a horse with EMS, PPID, insulin dysregulation, or laminitis history, ask your veterinarian or nutritionist how they want NSC interpreted for that horse.

4. How do I calculate HC from a hay analysis?

HC is commonly calculated by adding ESC and starch on a dry matter basis. For example, if ESC is 6% and starch is 1.5%, HC would be approximately 7.5%. This number is often lower than NSC because ESC is usually lower than WSC. WSC includes simple sugars plus additional water-soluble carbohydrates such as fructans, while ESC is more focused on simple sugars. HC can be useful for metabolically sensitive horses because it better estimates sugar-plus-starch exposure, but it is not universally printed on every forage report.

5. Which is more important for metabolic horses: NSC or HC?

Both can be useful. NSC is widely recognized and commonly used in veterinary and extension recommendations, especially for selecting lower-carbohydrate hay. HC can add important nuance because it focuses on ESC plus starch, the fractions most directly tied to glucose and insulin response. For many insulin-dysregulated horses, ESC plus starch may be especially informative. However, veterinary guidance often still refers to NSC, and not all labs or professionals use HC routinely. The best approach is to understand both and use them in context with the horse’s insulin status, laminitis history, forage intake, and total diet.

6. Why is HC often lower than NSC?

HC is often lower than NSC because the calculations use different sugar fractions. NSC is commonly WSC plus starch. HC is commonly ESC plus starch. WSC includes ESC plus additional water-soluble carbohydrates, especially fructans in many forages. Since WSC is usually higher than ESC, NSC is usually higher than HC. This does not mean one number is wrong. It means they are measuring different carbohydrate pools. For metabolic horses, HC can help clarify how much of the carbohydrate value is simple sugar and starch rather than fructan-containing WSC.

7. Are fructans bad for horses?

Fructans are not simply “bad,” but they matter in context. Fructans are storage carbohydrates found in many cool-season grasses. They are not digested in the small intestine like simple sugars and digestible starch; instead, they pass to the hindgut and are fermented by microbes. Very large amounts of rapidly fermentable carbohydrate may affect hindgut conditions. However, for many horses with insulin dysregulation, the main dietary concern is post-meal insulin response, which is more directly affected by sugars and starch. This is why both NSC and HC can be useful, depending on the question being asked.

8. What NSC level is safe for horses with EMS or laminitis history?

Many veterinary and university resources recommend forage around or below 10% NSC on a dry matter basis for horses with equine metabolic syndrome, insulin dysregulation, or laminitis risk, unless a veterinarian recommends otherwise. Some sources use 10–12% depending on the horse and circumstances. There is no single number that guarantees safety for every horse. Meal size, total intake, pasture access, insulin status, body condition, exercise, medication, and individual response all matter. Horses with active laminitis or severe insulin dysregulation should be managed with veterinary guidance.

9. Are low-sugar treats safe for metabolic horses?

Low-sugar treats may be appropriate for some metabolic horses, but the answer depends on ingredients, serving size, carbohydrate analysis, frequency, and the individual horse. “Low sugar” should ideally be backed by data, not just a front-of-label claim. For a horse with insulin dysregulation or laminitis history, treats should be included in the total diet rather than treated as nutritionally invisible. A forage-based, low sugar/starch treat with transparent analysis may be a better choice than molasses-based, grain-based, or fruit-heavy treats, but veterinary guidance still matters for high-risk horses.

10. Does “no added sugar” mean a treat is low NSC or low HC?

No. “No added sugar” means sugar was not added as a separate ingredient. It does not tell you the total sugar, starch, NSC, or HC of the finished product. Ingredients such as grains, fruits, certain byproducts, and some forage ingredients can naturally contain sugar or starch. For metabolically sensitive horses, the finished analysis matters more than the claim. A product can have no added sugar and still be inappropriate for a high-risk horse if the total sugar and starch are too high or if the serving size is excessive.

11. Should I use dry matter or as-fed values when comparing feeds?

Use dry matter values when comparing hay, feed, pasture, and treats. Dry matter values remove water from the comparison, which makes different products easier to compare fairly. As-fed values include moisture and are useful for calculating what the horse consumes in the form actually fed. Confusion happens when owners compare one product’s dry matter NSC to another product’s as-fed NSC. For forage selection and product comparison, dry matter is usually the better starting point. For actual daily intake, serving size and amount fed also matter.

12. Can I manage a metabolic horse by looking at NSC or HC alone?

No. NSC and HC are important tools, but they are not the entire management plan. Metabolic horses need an appropriate total diet, controlled calories when weight loss is needed, adequate protein, balanced minerals, safe forage intake, careful pasture management, appropriate exercise when sound, and veterinary diagnosis and monitoring. Insulin dysregulation, EMS, PPID, and laminitis are medical and nutritional issues together. NSC and HC help you ask better questions about sugar and starch, but they should be used with the horse’s clinical picture and professional guidance.

Education-First CTA

If this article helped you understand the difference between NSC and HC, the next step is to look at your horse’s real daily intake.

What is in the hay? What is in the carrier feed? How many treats are fed each day? Is your horse metabolically normal, or are you managing insulin dysregulation, EMS, PPID, obesity, or laminitis risk?

For owners who want a thoughtful reward option built around forage-first, low sugar/starch principles, Grazers Nutri-Treats were created to make everyday treating easier to fit into a careful feeding program.

As always, if your horse has active laminitis, known insulin dysregulation, PPID, obesity, or a complex medical history, work with your veterinarian or equine nutritionist to evaluate the full diet.

References

1. Burns, T. A. (2025). Nutritional management of equine insulin dysregulation. Today’s Veterinary Practice. Source
2. Durham, A. E., Frank, N., McGowan, C. M., Menzies-Gow, N. J., Roelfsema, E., Vervuert, I., Feige, K., & Fey, K. (2019). ECEIM consensus statement on equine metabolic syndrome. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 33(2), 335–349. DOI
3. Equi-Analytical. (n.d.). Analytical service packages. Equi-Analytical Laboratories. Source
4. Frank, N., Geor, R. J., Bailey, S. R., Durham, A. E., Johnson, P. J., & American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. (2010). Equine metabolic syndrome. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 24(3), 467–475. DOI
5. Longland, A. C., & Byrd, B. M. (2006). Pasture nonstructural carbohydrates and equine laminitis. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(7), 2099S–2102S. DOI
6. Macon, E. L., Harris, P. A., Barker, V. D., Adams, A. A., Menzies-Gow, N. J., & Elliott, J. (2023). Identifying possible thresholds for nonstructural carbohydrates in the insulin dysregulated horse. Equine Veterinary Journal. DOI
7. Martinson, K. (2021). Understanding your hay analysis. University of Minnesota Extension. Source
8. Oregon State University Extension Service. (2023). Understanding sugar and nonstructural carbohydrates in equine pasture and hay. Oregon State University. Source
9. Penn State Extension. (2023). Understanding a hay analysis. Pennsylvania State University. Source
10. Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. (n.d.). Analysis of feeds and forages for horses. Rutgers University. Source
11. Weinert-Nelson, J., Dolan, C., & Williams, C. A. (n.d.). Non-structural carbohydrates and equine warm-season grass pastures. Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. Source
12. Young, A., & Berryhill, E. (2020). Equine metabolic syndrome. UC Davis Center for Equine Health. Source
13. Equine Cushing’s and Insulin Resistance Group. (2026). Hydrolyzable carbohydrates and the metabolic horse. ECIR Group Inc. Source