Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = haynet

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
9 pages, 918 KiB  
Article
Initial Impact of Different Feeding Methods on Feed Intake Time in Stabled Icelandic Horses
by Sveinn Ragnarsson, Sigríður Vaka Víkingsdóttir and Guðrún Jóhanna Stefánsdóttir
Animals 2024, 14(8), 1211; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14081211 - 18 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1889
Abstract
The natural behaviour of horses is to spend the majority of their time on feed intake The feeding of stabled horses is, however, often far from that, as their feed intake is limited to their nutritional requirements. In order to approach their natural [...] Read more.
The natural behaviour of horses is to spend the majority of their time on feed intake The feeding of stabled horses is, however, often far from that, as their feed intake is limited to their nutritional requirements. In order to approach their natural foraging time, it is important to extend the feed intake time of stabled horses. The aim of this study was to estimate if the feed intake time differs when feeding haylage in a haynet, hayball, metal corner manger, or from the box floor. The experimental design consisted of a Latin square, occurred across four days with four adult Icelandic horses and four treatments. Horses were stabled in individual boxes and fed 7 kg of high-energy haylage in two even meals while the intake time was recorded. The feed intake time per kg DM was shorter from the manger or the box floor than from a haynet or hayball (81 or 85 min versus 94 or 96 min; p < 0.05). It can be concluded that feeding haylage in a hayball or in a haynet can increase the feed intake time by 13% per day (12 min/kg DM/day) when compared to the more traditional methods. Thus, with simple alternatives, it is possible to extend the feed intake time of stabled horses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feeding Strategies and Diet Formulation of Horses)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 4221 KiB  
Article
Posture and Pull Pressure by Horses When Eating Hay or Haylage from a Hay Net Hung at Various Positions
by Samantha Hodgson, Pam Bennett-Skinner, Bryony Lancaster, Sarah Upton, Patricia Harris and Andrea D. Ellis
Animals 2022, 12(21), 2999; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212999 - 31 Oct 2022
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 7102
Abstract
These studies assessed the pressure forces exerted by horses to extract forage from haynets. Study 1 measured horse posture and pressure in Newtons (10 N = 1 kg Force) exerted on haynets when feeding from either a single (SH) or double layered (DH) [...] Read more.
These studies assessed the pressure forces exerted by horses to extract forage from haynets. Study 1 measured horse posture and pressure in Newtons (10 N = 1 kg Force) exerted on haynets when feeding from either a single (SH) or double layered (DH) haynet (3 kg Hay), hung low or high. Mean and maximum pull forces were higher for the DH vs. SH (DH: 81 ± 2 N, max 156 N; SH: 74 ± 2.9 N, max 121 N; p < 0.01). Horses pulled harder on low (max pull 144 ± 8 N) compared to high (109 ± 8 N; p < 0.05) hung haynets. Mean maximum angles (nose-poll-withers) recorded were 90° ± 9 for SH and 127° ± 10 for DH (p < 0.01). Study 2 was a latin square design measuring forces exerted by 10 horses when eating from haynets (6 kg fill) with hay or haylage and attached to the wall at single or double points. Pull pressures were significantly higher when eating haylage compared to hay (mean: 7.5 kg vs. 2 kg and max: 32 kg versus 12 kg, respectively, (p < 0.001). Forage type and fracture properties had the greatest effect on apprehension rates of hay from haynets. In this study, the majority of force exerted when eating from haynets was below 70 N for hay and for haylage 50% of pulls were higher than 50 N with 8% of pulls above 200 N. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Nutrition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop