|
|
Baumgartner, M., Boisson, T., Erhard, M. H., & Zeitler-Feicht, M. H. (2020). Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding. Animals, 10, 441.
Abstract: During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses� behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses� natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses� ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as �rebound effect�), this might indicate that the horses� welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage.
|
|
|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H. (2004). [Critical consideration of the “Guideline for the Evaluation of Raising Horses” and keeping horses outside in the winter]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 111(3), 120–123.
Abstract: The guidelines of the Federal Ministry of User Protection, Nutrition and Agriculture (BMVEL) regarding “horse keeping with respect to animal welfare” are from 1995 (BMELF, 1995). Therefore, they are not suitable for modern horse keeping. The Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (TVT) held it to be necessary to rework the guide-lines in light of 1) many subsequent investigations concerning horse keeping, and 2) the species-specific needs of horses in practice. Each chapter of the BMELF (1995) guide-lines was revised such that the literature and practical experiences were updated. Several chapters (recumbency resting behaviour, fences, underground outdoor and in stables, litter) were added in the position paper of the TVT to reflect the increasing use of boxes with paddocks, loose housing systems with open yards, pasture and winter yards as housing conditions. Keeping horses outdoors permanently during winter is possible because horses have very good thermoregulatory capabilities so that they are able to adapt themselves to cold conditions. However, in light of animal welfare, the holding system must include adequate shelter (natural or artificial). Shelters should protect against wetness, heat, cold and wind, and must be sufficiently large and high, with a dry and clean underground. In keeping horses outdoors permanently, the paths to the feeding and watering areas and to the shelter must be dry. The food must also be protected against mould and soiling. Keeping horses permanently without adequate shelter or in deep marsh without any dry places is against the Animal Protection Act.
|
|
