Lesedauer 9 Minuten  

Inhalte Verbergen
1 Introduction
2 Feed Charcoal
3 Dry moor and Leonardite
4 Sources

Introduction

The market for supplements is booming, especially for those aimed at the “detoxification” of horses. While some products are sensible, others are not, and some may not work in the way one might initially think or as the manufacturer advertises. Therefore, it’s important to take a closer look at what exactly is involved and what the underlying mechanism is.

Most people who have experienced food poisoning, for example, are familiar with activated charcoal. A similar product, known as plant or feed charcoal, is now increasingly making its way into the feed room. In addition, there are two relatives of feed charcoal: dried moor and leonardite. The first and most noticeable feature that links these three feed ingredients is their brown-black colour, due to the concentrated carbon they contain. There are also similarities in their composition, but in terms of their effects, they each differ slightly.

Feed Charcoal

Feed charcoal should not be confused with black or brown coal, which is used to heat stoves.

Feed charcoal is made from plants that are thermally decomposed in a controlled process with limited oxygen, a process known as “charring.”

In contrast to activated charcoal, whose surface area is further increased during production by even higher temperatures, feed charcoal has a surface area of 200-500m² per gram. This allows it to bind both water (up to five times its own weight) and substances dissolved in the water, such as toxins.

For a long time, plant charcoal has been used in (livestock) feeding to address digestive issues, which is why, as is often the case in animal feed research, most studies have been conducted on chickens or cattle. All studies show that the animals’ health improved, and the ingested feed was better utilised. However, poultry and ruminants are only somewhat comparable to the horse in terms of their digestive systems, and the feed quality between livestock and horses is often significantly different.

In terms of its mechanism of action, feed charcoal is capable of binding various toxins such as mycotoxins, plant toxins, or even pathogens and their metabolic by-products in the digestive tract. It is believed that this toxin binding occurs in the foregut, and the toxin-laden feed charcoal is then excreted with the faeces.

A grey horse is eating its feed from a feed bowl in the pasture.
Feed charcoal should not be given long-term. ©Adobe Stock / Aneta

In cattle, the level of glyphosate in urine was reduced through the feeding of humic acids or the administration of a combination of feed charcoal and sauerkraut juice. In chickens, the dioxin contamination in eggs and fatty tissue was significantly reduced after feeding with feed charcoal. These effects are attributed to the binding of toxins in the digestive tract, preventing them from entering the metabolism and subsequently the storage or excretion organs.

However, feed charcoal should not be fed long-term, as the long-term effects on the shift of the microbiome have not yet been studied, and it may also prevent essential nutrients from being available to the organism in adequate amounts over time. Previous in vitro studies (conducted in a laboratory rather than in animals) suggest that no negative effects are to be expected. However, the exact proof in vivo (in live horses) is still pending.
Additional feeding of feed charcoal should also be avoided when administering medications, as studies with activated charcoal (which has a higher binding capacity than feed charcoal but is otherwise comparable) have shown that medications can be bound and excreted by it.

It’s also important to note that a wide range of organic materials can be used in the production of feed charcoal—not just tree trunks, as one might typically imagine when thinking of traditional charcoal production.
In tropical regions, a significant amount of feed charcoal is produced from the waste of palm oil production. As an environmentally conscious individual, one may be careful not to buy food products with palm oil to avoid supporting deforestation, yet this issue might be unknowingly brought back into the home through the feed trough.

It is therefore crucial to pay attention to the sources of the raw materials, in order to avoid toxin contamination in the final product, which could ultimately cause more harm than good.

Dry moor and Leonardite

Dry moor and Leonardite, unlike feed charcoal, were not intentionally produced by humans but rather formed over the course of Earth’s history through the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. In the case of peat, this process takes thousands of years to form a suitable layer. Plants decompose under acidic conditions and limited oxygen, eventually becoming moor. If, in the next step, for example, through the folding of the Earth’s crust, the water and organic matter from the moor are pressed out, over millions of years, (soft) brown coal is formed, and from this, Leonardite is obtained.

While dry moor consists of decomposed plant material that is extracted from active moors and sold after being dried, Leonardite refers to a surface layer, a specifically defined sedimentary layer in soft brown coal, found above brown coal deposits, and it is mined from these layers.

In both moor and Leonardite, it is primarily the humic acids they contain that make these two substances valuable feed additives. Therefore, their effects are quite similar.

Moor contains, in addition to silica, minerals, trace elements, essential oils, etc., humic acids as its main active ingredient, which make up approximately 20% of its content. In comparison, Leonardite contains around 70-85% humic acids. The exact compositions can vary depending on the origin, extraction methods, and other factors.

Similar to the supplementation of feed charcoal, studies in livestock feeding have shown that adding humic acids significantly improves feed utilisation, reduces the need for antibiotics, and results in healthier, calmer, and more content animals overall.

Not only livestock, but also all pets benefit from the use of humic acids. Due to their molecular structure, humic acids are also able to bind pollutants and toxins, such as heavy metals, herbicides, or pesticides, allowing them to be excreted with the faeces. They act in the same way as feed charcoal – as detoxifying agents.

In contrast to feed charcoal, they also have antiviral, antibacterial, and anti-inflammatory effects. Additionally, they can promote the regeneration of the intestinal mucosa by stimulating mucus production. Furthermore, they have positive effects on the microbiome, meaning they can help stabilise the gut environment in horses, particularly when dysbiosis (undesirable fermentation) is present.

ColoBalance Okapi
© OKAPI GmbH

Humic acids are suitable as a feed supplement for horses both in acute cases—such as faecal water syndrome, acidic droppings, diarrhea, or bloating—and preventively to help stabilize and improve the microbiome. Once the gut stabilizes, improvements can often be seen in conditions such as allergies or inflammatory joint issues, meaning overall health improves on multiple levels. Humic acids also help regenerate and stabilize the digestive tract microbiome after a course of antibiotics, which in turn helps minimize the unwanted side effects of medically necessary antibiotic treatments.

All in all, both leonardite and moor are valuable additions to the feed bowl (or dog bowl, as the proven benefits apply to almost all animal species, from dogs to chickens). While feeding activated charcoal should be reserved for acute cases and not necessarily over extended periods, humic acids can be given even before visible health problems arise.

They can help stabilise health before serious illnesses develop. As these are natural products, the quality can vary significantly depending on the area of extraction. Therefore, as with activated charcoal, it is important to select a trusted manufacturer to ensure that the final product is not contaminated.

Since moors are extremely valuable ecosystems, only dried moor material from certified suppliers should be used—specifically from areas that have already been drained and designated for purposes such as construction. In these cases, the soil is being excavated anyway. (Yes, one could certainly debate the sense of building residential or commercial developments on former moorland instead of restoring it—but the development of such areas is a daily reality, and using material from them can help prevent the destruction of still-intact moorlands.) It’s important not to be under any illusions: both moor material and leonardite are formed over thousands to millions of years. Raised moors, for example, grow at a rate of just about 1 mm per year. Exploiting such resources to correct issues caused by poor feeding practices is always ecologically questionable.

Sources

Edmunds, J. L., Worgan, H. J., Dougal, K., Girdwood, S. E., Douglas, J. L., & McEwan, N. R. (2016). In vitro analysis of the effect of supplementation with activated charcoal on the equine hindgut. Journal of equine science, 27(2), 49-55.

Man, K. Y., Chow, K. L., Man, Y. B., Mo, W. Y., & Wong, M. H. (2021). Use of biochar as feed supplements for animal farming. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 51(2), 187-217.

AYANKOSO, M. T., OLUWAGBAMILA, D. M., & ABE, O. S. (2023). Effects of activated charcoal on livestock production: A review. Slovak Journal of Animal Science, 56(01), 46-60.

Kholif, A. E., Matloup, O. H., EL-Bltagy, E. A., Olafadehan, O. A., Sallam, S. M. A., & El-Zaiat, H. M. (2021). Humic substances in the diet of lactating cows enhanced feed utilization, altered ruminal fermentation, and improved milk yield and fatty acid profile. Livestock Science, 253, 104699.

Shehata, A. A., Kühnert, M., Haufe, S., & Krüger, M. (2014). Neutralization of the antimicrobial effect of glyphosate by humic acid in vitro. Chemosphere, 104, 258-261.

Manieson, V. E., Kachepa, U. E., & Vasiliev, A. A. (2018). Use of humic acids in cattle production. Аграрный научный журнал, (5), 35-36.

Degirmencioglu, T. (2014). Using humic acid in diets for dairy goats. Animal Science papers and reports, 32(1), 25-32.

Vasiliev, A. A. (2019). Global experience of using humic acids in cattle breeding. Основы и перспективы органических биотехнологий, (1), 3-4.

Terratol, L. L. C. (2002). Effects of humic acid on animals and humans.

Suteky, T., Dwatmadji, D., & Soetrisno, E. (2023). The Potential Used of Humic Substance As Natural Organic Additives For Ruminants: A Review. Jurnal Sain Peternakan Indonesia, 18(1), 64-70.

Marcinčák, S., Semjon, B., Marcinčáková, D., Reitznerová, A., Mudroňová, D., Vašková, J., & Nagy, J. (2023). Humic Substances as a Feed Supplement and the Benefits of Produced Chicken Meat. Life, 13(4), 927. Duary, S. (2020). Humic Acid-A Critical Review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci , 9(10), 2236-2241.

Elke Malenke
Latest posts by Elke Malenke (see all)