FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Transl Anim Sci / Evaluating equine feeding behavior utilizing GrowSafe System...
Translational animal science2019; 3(1); 288-294; doi: 10.1093/tas/txz002

Evaluating equine feeding behavior utilizing GrowSafe Systems: a pilot study.

Abstract: Equine research and management is limited to single-housing systems if individual animal intake is to be precisely recorded. Even then, dry forage intake is difficult to quantify accurately due to stomping or mixing hay with fecal matter and bedding. In cattle management, GrowSafe Systems (GrowSafe) is a commonly used tool to closely monitor individual animal feeding data using radio frequency identification (RFID) tag technology. Animals are equipped with a unique RFID tag that is read by the feed bunks each time the animal lowers its head into the bunk to consume feed. The objectives of this pilot study were 1) to test the feasibility of use of the GrowSafe system with horses by measuring intake of dry hay and 2) to characterize feeding behaviors of horses in an individually housed (without competition) or group-housed (with competition) setting. To test the hypothesis that horses would consume more hay when individually (NOCOMP) compared to group-housed (COMP), 10 mature Quarter Horses (14 ± 1.5 yr) were placed in one of four pens containing GrowSafe feed bunks in a 4-wk crossover design consisting of two 2-wk treatment periods. Pen 1 contained five horses with access to two GrowSafe bunks (Period 1: = 4 mares, = 1 gelding; Period 2: = 5 geldings); pens 2, 3, and 4 contained one horse each with access to one bunk. Horses were individually fed 0.25% body weight (BW; dry matter [DM] basis) of a commercial concentrate once per day and were allowed Coastal bermudagrass hay in the GrowSafe bunks ad libitum. Although five horses were used in the group-housed (COMP) pen to more closely mimic a true group environment, only data from horses that experienced both housing systems ( = 3 mares and = 3 geldings) were used for statistical analyses. Hourly ( = 0.008) and daily ( = 0.003) durations of hay feeding were higher for NOCOMP compared to COMP horses, and total daily intake (g DM/kg BW) of NOCOMP horses tended to be greater ( = 0.09) than COMP horses. Conversely, eating rate (g DM/kg BW/min) was greater ( = 0.04) for COMP compared to NOCOMP mares but was unaffected by housing in geldings. The GrowSafe system may provide an opportunity for efficient and effective monitoring of individual horse feed intake and feeding behavior in group-housing situations in horses.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-01-18 PubMed ID: 32704800PubMed Central: PMC7200394DOI: 10.1093/tas/txz002Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research investigates the use of the GrowSafe system in monitoring the eating habits of horses, comparing the behaviours between horses individually housed versus those in a group setting. The study found that horses in single-housing consumed more hay and at a slower rate than those housed together.

Objectives and Methodology

  • The study had two main objectives. The first was to determine the effectiveness of the GrowSafe system in monitoring horse feed intake. This system is commonly used in cattle management where it uses radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to track each animal’s feeding intake.
  • The second objective was to compare the feeding behaviors of individually housed horses (without competition) to those living in a group (with competition).
  • To achieve these objectives, the experiment involved 10 adult Quarter Horses which were rotated in 2-week treatment cycles between competitive and non-competitive settings, feeding off GrowSafe equipped feeding bunks.
  • The horses were fed a consistent diet of commercial concentrate and Coastal bermudagrass hay. Strict monitoring was performed for accurate data collection on feeding behaviour in both settings.
  • In the group setting, although data were collected from five horses in total, only the data from those horses who experienced both housing conditions were used in the final analysis.

Findings

  • The duration of feeding sessions and the daily intake of hay was found to be higher in non-competitively housed horses.
  • In contrast, horses in group housing consumed hay at a faster rate. The findings note a difference in feeding rates between female and male horses, with female horses in single-housing consuming hay slower than those in group housing, while the feeding speed of male horses remained consistent in both environments.
  • Overall, the findings suggest that the GrowSafe system can be an effective way to closely monitor individual horse feeding behaviours in both single and group housing systems.

Implications

  • This study implies that management and housing type can influence feeding patterns in horses. This can be used to inform behavioural management strategies for optimal nutrition uptake in horses.
  • The successful application of the GrowSafe system in this study also suggests that it could be a valuable tool for future research in equine diet and nutrition.

Cite This Article

APA
Dickson EC, Kayser WC, Latham CM, Leatherwood JL, Daigle CL, White SH. (2019). Evaluating equine feeding behavior utilizing GrowSafe Systems: a pilot study. Transl Anim Sci, 3(1), 288-294. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz002

Publication

Translational animal science
ISSN: 2573-2102
NlmUniqueID: 101738705
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 3
Issue: 1
Pages: 288-294

Researcher Affiliations

Dickson, Emily C
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
Kayser, William C
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
Latham, Christine M
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
Leatherwood, Jessica L
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
Daigle, Courtney L
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
White, Sarah H
  • Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.

References

This article includes 11 references
  1. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MA, Weary DM. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows.. J Dairy Sci 2004 May;87(5):1432-8.
    pubmed: 15290991doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73293-2google scholar: lookup
  2. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MA, Weary DM, Beauchemin KA. Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring feeding behavior of dairy cows.. J Dairy Sci 2003 Nov;86(11):3571-4.
    pubmed: 14672187doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73962-9google scholar: lookup
  3. Henderson AJ. Don't fence me in: managing psychological well being for elite performance horses.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2007;10(4):309-29.
    pubmed: 17970632doi: 10.1080/10888700701555576google scholar: lookup
  4. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares.. Equine Vet J 1983 Oct;15(4):371-2.
    pubmed: 6641685doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. Jørgensen G.H.M., Borsheim L., Mejdell C.M., Søndergaard E., Bøe K.E.. Grouping horses according to gender—effects on aggression, spacing and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120:94–99.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.005google scholar: lookup
  6. Keiper R., Receveur H.. Social interactions of free-ranging Przewalski horses in semi-reserves in the Netherlands. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 33:303–318.
    doi: 10.1016/s0168-1591(05)80068-1google scholar: lookup
  7. Krüger K, Flauger B. Social feeding decisions in horses (Equus caballus).. Behav Processes 2008 May;78(1):76-83.
    pubmed: 18313236doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.009google scholar: lookup
  8. Martinson K, Wilson J, Cleary K, Lazarus W, Thomas W, Hathaway M. Round-bale feeder design affects hay waste and economics during horse feeding.. J Anim Sci 2012 Mar;90(3):1047-55.
    pubmed: 21984721doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-4087google scholar: lookup
  9. Mendes ED, Carstens GE, Tedeschi LO, Pinchak WE, Friend TH. Validation of a system for monitoring feeding behavior in beef cattle.. J Anim Sci 2011 Sep;89(9):2904-10.
    pubmed: 21512115doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3489google scholar: lookup
  10. NRC 2007. Nutrient requirements of horses. 6th rev. ed.Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
  11. Yarnell K, Hall C, Royle C, Walker SL. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing.. Physiol Behav 2015 May 1;143:51-7.
    pubmed: 25725117doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.040google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.