Product evaluated: Farnam Weight Builder Weight Support Supplement for Horses, Helps Maintain Optimal Body Condition, 7.5 lb, 30 Day Supply
Related Videos For You
Liquid Muscle Supplement for Horses - PERFORMANCE BUILDER
Ask the Vet - Tips and tricks to get a horse to gain weight
Data basis: I reviewed hundreds of buyer reports, combining written reviews, product Q&A, and video demonstrations collected between 2020 and 2025. Most feedback came from written reviews, supported by videos, and the distribution shows clear recurring patterns.
Comparative risk snapshot
| Outcome | Farnam Weight Builder | Typical mid-range supplement |
|---|---|---|
| Weight gain reliability | Inconsistent results — commonly reported lack of measurable weight change after weeks. | More consistent — most mid-range alternatives show steady gains when fed correctly. |
| Palatability | Mixed acceptance — several buyers report refusal or picky horses. | Generally palatable — many competitors provide flavored blends horses accept more readily. |
| Digestive upset risk | Higher-than-normal risk — more frequent reports of loose stools when started quickly. | Lower risk — typical products are gentler during introduction. |
| Price vs servings | Higher per-serving cost — perceived value drops if multiple bags are needed. | Better value — mid-range options often cost less per effective serving. |
| Regret trigger | Unmet primary goal — many buyers expected reliable weight gain and did not get it. | Lower regret — fewer complaints about failing basic weight goals. |
Top failures
Why doesn't it reliably add weight?
Regret moment: Buyers often notice no measurable weight increase after several weeks of daily feeding.
Pattern: This is the primary issue and appears repeatedly across reports, especially from buyers who expected steady gains.
Usage anchor: Failure commonly shows up after 2–6 weeks of routine use, when owners expect visible improvement.
Category contrast: This feels worse than expected because most mid-range supplements produce visible gains for similarly managed horses.
Will my horse actually eat it?
- Early sign: Some horses refuse the powder or sort it from the grain on first feeds.
- Frequency tier: This is a secondary issue — it’s common but not universal among buyers.
- Cause: Acceptance problems appear when mixed dry or offered without a palatable carrier.
- Impact: Refusal increases wasted servings and reduces expected calorie delivery.
- Fix attempts: Owners often needed to mix with sweet feed or molasses to get acceptance.
Could it cause digestive upset?
- Pattern statement: Reports of loose stools are persistent for a subset of buyers after product introduction.
- When it appears: Issues usually arise within days of starting or when dose is increased quickly.
- Scope signal: Mostly recent buyers report this, suggesting formula tolerance matters.
- Why worse than normal: Other supplements let you ramp up faster with fewer digestive reactions.
- Impact severity: Digestive upset leads to skipped feeds, vet checks, or stoppage for safety.
- Fixability: Gradual introduction helps, but some horses still remain sensitive.
- Hidden requirement: Many owners must plan extra transition time and alternative calories during introduction.
Is price and packaging worth the effort?
- Value concern: Buyers report the 7.5 lb bag often feels small for long-term needs.
- Per-serving pain: Higher cost per ounce becomes clear after multiple purchases.
- Usage anchor: Cost issues surface when a product is used for monthly maintenance rather than short-term boost.
- Hidden requirement: Effective use often requires pairing with extra feed, raising total cost and effort.
- Packaging gripe: Several reports mention unclear measuring guidance on the bag.
- Comparison: This is more effort than most mid-range choices that include clearer dosing and larger sizes.
- Attempted fixes: Buyers mix into concentrates or buy bigger, more economical alternatives.
- Final impact: The combination of slow results and extra expense raises buyer regret more than price alone.
Illustrative excerpts (not actual quotes)
"No visible weight after a month of daily feeding." — primary pattern
"Horse refused the dry mix until I added molasses." — secondary pattern
"Loose stools started two days after increasing dose." — secondary pattern
"Smaller bag than expected for ongoing maintenance." — edge-case pattern
Who should avoid this
- Owners needing reliable gain: Avoid if you require consistent, measurable weight gains without trial and error.
- Sensitive digestive systems: Avoid if your horse has a history of loose stools or metabolic sensitivity.
- Budget-conscious buyers: Avoid if you want low cost per month and minimal extra feed purchases.
Who this is actually good for
- Short-term boosters: Good for owners wanting a temporary calorie top-up while switching feeds.
- Horses that accept powders: Good if your horse is a non-picky eater or accepts additives easily.
- Owners who can transition slowly: Good if you can ramp up dosage and monitor for digestive signs.
Expectation vs reality
Expectation: A reasonable category expectation is that a weight supplement produces visible gains within weeks.
Reality: Farnam more often produces inconsistent results, requiring longer trials or extra feed changes.
Expectation: Consumers expect clear dosing and economical packaging from mid-range products.
Reality: Packaging and serving size lead to higher ongoing cost and extra measuring work.
Safer alternatives
- Look for proven consistency: Choose supplements with strong reports of steady weight gain as their main selling point.
- Prefer palatable formulas: Pick products labeled and reviewed for high acceptance to avoid refusal waste.
- Gentle ramp-up options: Select supplements advertised for low digestive risk and gradual introduction schedules.
- Better value packaging: Buy larger bags or bulk options to lower cost per serving and reduce repeat purchases.
The bottom line
Main regret: The product often fails to deliver the primary promise of reliable weight gain for many buyers.
Why worse: This exceeds normal category risk because it combines inconsistent effectiveness with higher digestive and cost burdens.
Verdict: Avoid if you need predictable, fuss-free weight gain; consider tested mid-range alternatives for better consistency.
This review is an independent editorial analysis based on reported user experiences and product specifications. NegReview.com does not sell products.