|
|
Streit,, S., Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., & Dempfle, L. (2008). Automatic feeding systems versus feeding stalls for horses kept in groups: visiting frequency, stress situations and risk of injury. In IESM 2008.
Abstract: When keeping horses in run-out sheds, feeding stalls are usually recommended for individual feeding; which allows equine typical simultaneous eating. However, automatic feeding devices for hay and concentrates are being increasingly used, and these do not allow simultaneous eating. This research aims to compare visiting frequency, stress situations, and the risk of injury, in the area of automatic feeding systems with those at feeding stalls. The studies were carried out at 10 stables with feeding stalls and at 11 with automatic feeding systems for hay and concentrates. These stables were otherwise similar regarding the keeping of the horses and the management of the facilities. Each group consisted of 8 to 21 horses, with 260 horses taking part in total. Every group was observed for 6 sessions, each of 4 hours. These 6 sessions together made 24 hours, a complete day.
Horses in stables with feeding stalls visited the feeding area (waiting area, the station, exit area) 45.5 ± 27.3 times on average in 24 hours, and in stables with automatic feeders for hay and concentrates, 93.1 ± 53.5 times. This difference was significant. Threatening behaviour, without risk of injury or with risk of injury, occurred significantly more frequently in stables with automatic feeders (9.6 ± 12.9 times and 4.2 ± 5.5 times respectively per 24 hours and horse) than in stables with feeding stalls (6.0 ± 10.4 times and 1.5 ± 3.3 times respectively per 24 hours and horse). The management of the stable, however, proved to have its most important influence on the behaviour of the horses.
Displacement activities were observed in stables with feeding stalls 0.3 ± 1.0 times per horse and 24 hours and in stables with automatic feeders for hay and concentrate 12.9 ± 23.3 times. Situations that could cause either stress or injuries to the horses occurred in stables with feeding stalls within 24 hours per horse only 3.7 ± 13.1 and 1.3 ± 4.8 times on average respectively. Such situations were to be seen in stables with automatic feeder 17.0 ± 33.4 and 8.6 ± 15.3 times respectively per horse and 24 hours – clearly more often.
We may therefore conclude that the more often the feeding area is visited, the more frequently threatening gestures without and with risk of injury occur. The same goes for the number of situations that may result in stress or injuries. Therefore to sum up it can be said that feeding in feedings stalls leads to less risk of stress and injuries compared with feeding by computer controlled systems. On the other hand, computer controlled systems have the advantage of stimulating the horses to move, which is very important for their health. While assessing this study it should be taken into account that there were very big individual differences between the horses. The result of the statistical evaluation was that the management of the stable has a decisive influence on the observed features. Therefore both feeding systems can be recommended, especially as the number of conflicts in the feeding area in all stables was relatively low and no injuries were observed in connection with the feeding.
|
|
|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., Streit, S., & Dempfle, L. (2011). Automatic feeding systems for horses in group housing systems with regard to animal welfare. Part 2: Comparison of different automatic feeding systems. Tierärztl Prax, 39(G), 33–40.
Abstract: Ziel: Überprüfung der Tiergerechtheit von in der Bauweise unterschiedlichen
Futterabrufstationen für Pferde in Gruppenhaltung anhand ethologischer
und physiologischer Parameter. Material und Methoden: In 32
Offenlaufställen (452 Pferde) mit computergesteuerten Abrufstationen
für Kraftfutter und Heu erfolgten kontinuierliche Direktbeobachtungen
für je einen 24-Stunden-Tag (Tortenstückverfahren). Erfasst wurden: Aufenthaltsdauer,
Besuchshäufigkeit, Droh- und Meideverhalten im Fütterungsbereich,
Blockaden sowie Herzfrequenz und Integumentverletzungen.
Ergebnisse: Eine Durchlaufstation reduzierte die Zahl der Auseinandersetzungen
im Fütterungsbereich signifikant. Ansonsten erhöhten die
für das fressende Pferd tiergerechten Varianten (Fressstand mit Eingangssperre,
ohne Austreibehilfe) Besuchshäufigkeit und Aufenthaltsdauer und
steigerten somit auch die Anzahl an Drohgesten je Tier und Tag. Insgesamt
betrachtet kann jedoch die Anzahl an sozionegativen Interaktionen
im Fütterungsbereich der Abrufstationen als relativ gering eingestuft
werden. Die Herzfrequenz lag im Warteareal bei den meisten Pferden im
physiologischen Bereich (45,1 ± 12,42 Schläge/min), erhöhte sich jedoch
in der Abrufstation um ca. 20 Schläge/min. Einige Tiere zeigten möglicherweise
stressbedingt kurzfristig auffallend hohe Werte (≥ 100 Schläge/
min). Integumentverletzungen im Zusammenhang mit dem Fütterungssystem
traten nicht auf. Der wichtigste Einflussfaktor auf die Untersuchungskriterien
war der Betrieb (Fläche, Konzeption, Management).
Schlussfolgerung: Durchlaufstationen sind pferdegerechter als Rücklaufstationen.
Nicht tiergerecht sind Stationen mit stromführender Austreibehilfe.
Weitere bauliche Unterschiede der derzeitigen Futterabrufstationen
dürften eher von untergeordneter Bedeutung sein, vor allem da
Flächengebot und Konzeption der Offenstallanlage sowie das Management
die überprüften Kriterien zur Tiergerechtheit maßgeblich beeinflussen.
Untersuchungen zur Abklärung der Ursache für die vereinzelt aufgetretenen
sehr hohen Herzfrequenzwerte sollten durchgeführt werden.
Objective: Comparison with regard to animal welfare of different automatic
feeding systems for hay and concentrate in group housing systems
for horses using parameters of ethology and physiology. Material and
methods: Parameters of research comprised: duration of stay, frequency
of visit, threatening behaviour with and without risk of injury, and avoiding
behaviour as well as heart rate and injuries of the integument. 452
horses were observed at the feeding area of 32 run-out-sheds. Every group
of horses was continuously observed following the pie chart system for
24 hours. Results: The “walk-through” station significantly reduced the
number of conflicts in the feeding area, whereas those systems which are
appropriate for the feeding horses (feeding station with access barrier and
without stimulation device by electric shock) led to a higher frequency of
visits and a longer duration of stay resulting in more threatening gestures.
However, the number of negative interactions in the feeding area of the
feeding systems can all together be classified as relatively insignificant.
The heart rate was within the physiological range (45.1 ± 12.42 beats/min)
in the waiting area, but increased by approximately 20 beats/min on average
within the feeding station. Some horses showed a very high heart rate
(≥ 100 beats/min) while entering the feeding station, possibly stress-related.
There were no injuries of the integument associated with the feeding
systems. The most important factor of the observation criteria was the
individual group housing system with its different dimensions, conception
and management. Conclusion: “Walk-through” stations are better than
”walk-back” stations with regard to animal welfare. Likewise, automatic
feeding stations with a current-carrying stimulation device are not supportive
of good welfare. The other differences between the constructions
of feeding stations of present systems are probably of less importance, particularly
as it was shown that the stable (management, stable area, conception)
had a significant influence on the surveyed parameters. Investigations
to obtain information on the cause for the sporadic occurrence of
very high heart rate values should be undertaken.]
Keywords: Pferd, Fütterungssystem, Bauvarianten, soziale Interaktionen, Besuchshäufigkeit, Aufenthaltsdauer, Herzfrequenz, Verletzungsrisiko [Horse, feeding system, different types of construction, social interactions, visiting frequency, duration of stay, heart rate, risk of injury]
|
|
