Round-bale feeder design affects hay waste and economics during horse feeding.
Abstract: Many horse owners find round bales convenient, less labor intensive, and more affordable than other hay types, but report an inability to control horse BW gain and excessive hay waste. The objectives were to compare hay waste, hay intake, and payback of 9 round-bale feeders and a no-feeder control when used during horse feeding. Nine round-bale feeders were tested: Cinch Net, Cone, Covered Cradle, Hayhut, Hay Sleigh, Ring, Tombstone, Tombstone Saver, and Waste Less. Each feeder design was placed on the ground in a dirt paddock. Five groups of 5 horses were fed in rotation for a 4-d period with each feeder. Every fourth day, groups were rotated among paddocks and a new round bale was placed in each feeder. In the 5 paddocks used, 5 feeders were installed for d 1 through 20, and the remaining 4 feeders and no-feeder control were installed for d 21 through 40. Groups of horses were sequentially assigned to feeders using two 5 × 5 Latin squares, the first for d 1 through 20, the second for d 21 through 40. Horse groups of similar age, BW, breed, and sex were formed from 25 Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred geldings and open mares (means: 11 yr; 541 kg of BW). Hay on the ground surrounding the feeder was collected daily, dried, and weighed. The total amount of hay removed around each feeder for a 4-d period was considered waste. Dry matter intake was estimated as the difference between hay disappearance and waste. Number of months for the reduction in waste to repay feeder cost (payback) were calculated using hay valued at $110/t, and improved feeder efficiency over the control. Feeder design did not affect hay intake (P > 0.05); all feeders resulted in an estimated hay intake of 2.0 to 2.4% BW; the no-feeder control resulted in a reduced intake of 1.3% BW (P = 0.001). Mean percentage of hay waste differed among feeders (P < 0.001): Waste Less, 5%; Cinch Net, 6%; Hayhut, 9%; Covered Cradle, 11%; Tombstone Saver, 13%; Tombstone, Cone, and Ring, 19%; Hay Sleigh, 33%; and no-feeder control, 57%. Feeder design also affected payback (P < 0.01). The Cinch Net paid for itself in less than 1 mo; Tombstone and Ring, 2 mo; Hayhut and Tombstone Saver, 4 mo; Hay Sleigh, 5 mo; Waste Less, 8 mo; Cone, 9 mo; and Covered Cradle, 20 mo. Round-bale feeder design affected hay waste and payback, but not estimated hay intake or BW change during horse feeding.
Publication Date: 2011-10-07 PubMed ID: 21984721DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4087Google 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.
- Journal Article
- Research Support
- Non-U.S. Gov't
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.
The research explores how the design of round-bale feeders impacts hay wastage, hay intake, and payback time in horse feeding. It concluded that while all designs showed similar hay intake rates, the amount of hay waste and the time taken for reduction in waste to repay the cost of the feeder varied significantly depending on the design of the feeder.
Methodology
- The researchers tested nine different round-bale feeder designs: Cinch Net, Cone, Covered Cradle, Hayhut, Hay Sleigh, Ring, Tombstone, Tombstone Saver, and Waste Less.
- Groups of five horses were chosen and these groups were then moved around different types of feeders every four days.
- The horses used for the study were Quarter Horses and Thoroughbred geldings and open mares with similar age, body weight, breed, and sex characteristics.
- Hay waste was measured by collecting, drying and weighing the leftover hay on the ground surrounding the feeder on a daily basis.
- Dry matter intake was estimated by considering the difference between the amount of hay that disappeared and the quantity that was wasted.
- The time taken for the reduction in waste to repay feeder cost, also known as payback, was calculated using a hay value of $110 per ton, and improvements in feeder efficiency over a no-feeder control.
Outcomes
- Feeder design did not affect hay intake, with all feeders showing similar levels of hay intake between 2.0 to 2.4% of body weight.
- There were, however, significant differences in the percentage of hay waste among different feeders. The Cinch Net wasted the least amount (6%), followed by Waste Less (5%) and Hayhut (9%). The no-feeder control had the highest level of waste (57%).
- The design also impacted the time taken for feeders to recoup their costs. The Cinch Net had the shortest payback time of less than a month, whereas the Covered Cradle took the longest (20 months).
- In terms of body weight change during feeding, the design of the feeder had no effect.
Cite This Article
APA
Martinson K, Wilson J, Cleary K, Lazarus W, Thomas W, Hathaway M.
(2011).
Round-bale feeder design affects hay waste and economics during horse feeding.
J Anim Sci, 90(3), 1047-1055.
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4087 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108, USA. Krishona@umn.edu
MeSH Terms
- Animal Feed
- Animal Husbandry / economics
- Animal Husbandry / methods
- Animals
- Feeding Behavior
- Female
- Horses / physiology
- Male
- Poaceae
- Weather
Citations
This article has been cited 9 times.- Garland A, van Doorn DA, van den Boom R, Roelfsema E, Jung L, Boast M, Papadakis K, Margiotta M, Wafelbakker S, Briggs M, McCrae P, Pearson W. Morphometric changes in overweight horses following 10-week weight loss programs. BMC Vet Res 2025 Oct 10;21(1):596.
- Share ER, Mastellar SL, Rumble JN, Eastridge ML. Ohio horse industry survey: feeding and housing management practices. Transl Anim Sci 2025;9:txaf072.
- Bordin C, Raspa F, Greppi M, Harris P, Ellis AD, Roggero A, Palestrini C, Cavallini D, Bergero D, Valle E. Pony feeding management: the role of morphology and hay feeding methods on intake rate, ingestive behaviors and mouth shaping. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1332207.
- Hyde KA, Altman A, Banasek R, Gastal MO, Gastal EL. Efficiency of round bale feeders: comparison of Tombstone versus Hay Saver. J Equine Sci 2023 Jun;34(2):51-54.
- Sexten AJ, Moore MF, McMurphy CP, Mourer GL, Linneen SK, Brown MA, Richards CJ, Lalman DL. Effects of bale feeder design on hay waste, intake, and apparent diet digestibility in gestating beef cows. Transl Anim Sci 2021 Jul;5(3):txab104.
- Jaderborg JP, Bird SL, Crawford GI, Walker RS, DiCostanzo A. Influence of hay feeding method, supplement moisture, or access time on intake and waste by beef cows. Transl Anim Sci 2021 Apr;5(2):txab069.
- Raspa F, Roggero A, Palestrini C, Marten Canavesio M, Bergero D, Valle E. Studying the Shape Variations of the Back, the Neck, and the Mandibular Angle of Horses Depending on Specific Feeding Postures Using Geometric Morphometrics. Animals (Basel) 2021 Mar 10;11(3).
- Reiter AS, DiCostanzo A, Webb M, Zeltwanger J, Sheaffer CC, Jaqueth A, Martinson KL. Forage quality and beef cow preference is affected by wrap type of conventional and reduced-lignin alfalfa round bales stored outdoors. Transl Anim Sci 2020 Jul;4(3):txaa167.
- Dickson EC, Kayser WC, Latham CM, Leatherwood JL, Daigle CL, White SH. Evaluating equine feeding behavior utilizing GrowSafe Systems: a pilot study. Transl Anim Sci 2019 Jan;3(1):288-294.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
