Loading…

Effect of forage presentation on feed intake behaviour in stabled horses

•We compared four haynets on feed intake behaviour in 12 stabled horses.•Small holed nets were similarly effective in increasing intake time by 5min.•Horses had eaten all forage by 22:30 irrespective of haynets used.•Small nets led to greater amounts of individual feeding bouts at night. In some sta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied animal behaviour science 2015-04, Vol.165, p.88-94
Main Authors: Ellis, Andrea Dorothea, Fell, Michelle, Luck, Katherine, Gill, Laura, Owen, Heather, Briars, Hannah, Barfoot, Clare, Harris, Patricia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•We compared four haynets on feed intake behaviour in 12 stabled horses.•Small holed nets were similarly effective in increasing intake time by 5min.•Horses had eaten all forage by 22:30 irrespective of haynets used.•Small nets led to greater amounts of individual feeding bouts at night. In some stabled horses, the lack of foraging opportunity leads to a reduction in chewing time with consequent negative impacts on the digestive system and potentially development of stereotypies. This study aimed to compare the effect of four types of haynets on feed intake behaviour in stabled horses. Feed intake behaviour (intake time, bite rate, chews/kilogram, chews/minute) was measured in 12 horses (age 13±4 yrs; BW 585±62kg) using four types of haynets (Eliminet 25mm mesh, Furlong 30mm, Haylage net 30mm, Original ‘Large’ 75mm) in a 4×4 Latin Square Design. Horses were provided with their daily forage intake via each haynet for a 10-day period and forage intake measurements were taken at the beginning, middle and end of each period to account for acclimatisation to the haynets. Data was analysed using ANOVA and is presented as means±standard error. The ‘Large’ haynet recorded more chews per minute (66±1.1 versus 60±1.0chews/min, p
ISSN:0168-1591
1872-9045
DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.01.010