|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Baumgartner, M., Frank, V., Gandorfer, J., Ramoser, A., Seiler, S., & Zeitler-Feicht, M. H. (2015). Feasible animal-based indicators for assessing equine welfare. In Krüger. K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting. Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Introduction
Are horses doing well in their husbandries? For the first time the answer shall be given objectively by an integral on-farm welfare assessment system for horse husbandries. A current research project at the Technical University Munich evaluates indicators for well-being, pain and suffering in horses in order to develop a welfare assessment system (Baumgartner and Zeitler-Feicht 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, Zeitler-Feicht et al. 2015). The research project is professionally supported by horse husbandry experts from academics, industries as well as leading organizations for horse owners and veterinarians.
The aim of the project is to develop a welfare assessment system for all horse husbandry systems which can be applied both for sport horses and for leisure horses. It is based on national animal welfare standards (BMELV 2009) and does take sustainability into consideration. Animal-based indicators are completed with resource-based indicators if necessary. It is stipulated that indicators are valid, reliable and feasible.
Welfare criteria were formulated for the two principles „good health“ and „behavioural demands“ (see figure 1 and 2). Each has to be represented by at least one indicator.
The principle „behavioural demands“ aims at the possibility for horses to practise species-specific behaviour. It is gathered to what extent the housing conditions allow the horses to live out and show species-specific behaviour. Furthermore in the present studies the frequency of selected behaviours including abnormal behaviour were collected in precise timeframes.
Potential indicators for assessing equine welfare on-farm were selected by study of literature and field tests. The field tests included direct observations on free-ranged horses, horses in group-housing systems and single-stabled horses. The following section presents selected indicators that are feasible for assessing equine behaviour on-farm.
Feasible behavioural indicators for well-being
The literature research revealed that „being together“ is linked with affiliative behaviour. It includes „resting together“, „foraging together“ and additionally „walking together“. Horses do have a strong need for social bonds. „Being-together“ amongst horses must be voluntary and not caused by bad weather conditions or lack of space. Therefore the context must be considered. For temporary direct observations the frequency in group-housing systems is sufficient (0.57 ± 0.67 per horse per 20 minutes). That´s why in our study „being-together“ is considered as a feasible indicator for well-being for horses in permanent or temporary groups. It is intended to conduct further studies on its validity.
Other behaviours such as „social play“ is not only linked with positive emotional states in adult horses. Several studies showed that horses use „social play“ as a stress relief. However, it is too seldom to collect in an on-farm assessment system. Because of the lack of feasibility and validity we excluded „social play“ as an indicator for well-being.
Feasible behavioural indicators for suffering
Horses show „abnormal behaviour“ in distress, frustration, deprivation or conflict situations. The present studies showed a relatively high frequency in single-stabled horses (3.3 ± 6.45 per horse per 20 minutes). Hence „abnormal behaviour“ is a feasible and valid indicator for suffering. However, established stereotypes need to be excluded, because they may indicate a previous welfare status rather than the current welfare status.
Horses use „agonistic behaviour“ to regulate social relations, to defend themselves or to defend resources. If husbandry or management is inadequate, „agonistic behaviour“ increases and thereby the frequency of injuries caused by social conflicts. A high frequency of „agonistic behaviour“ indicates a high aggression level in group-housed horses and therefore distress and suffering. The mean frequency of group-housed horses is sufficient for temporary observations (2.6 ± 2.26 per horse per 20 minutes). As a result „agonistic behaviour“ is a feasible and vaild indicator for suffering. Further studies need to be done on the scoring and severity.
Key words
Animal-based indicators
Equine welfare
Being-together
Abnormal behaviour
Agonistic behaviour
References
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2013): Entwicklung eines Bewertungssystems zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen als Bestandteil eines Nachhaltigkeitsmanagementsystems. KTBL Schrift: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 503, 226 – 227.
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2014a): Indikatoren für Tierwohl beim Pferd. 7. Pferde-Workshop Uelzen 2014. DGfZ-Schriftreihe Heft 64, 161 – 166.
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2014b): Entwicklung eines Bewertungssystems zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen als Bestandteil eines Nachhaltigkeitsmanagementsystems. 9. Niedersächsisches Tierschutzsymposium in Oldenburg, Hrsg. Nds. Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, 37 – 42.
Baumgartner M. & M.H. Zeitler-Feicht (2015): Eignung ausgewählter tierbezogener Indikatoren zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen hinsichtlich Praktikabilität. In: Tagungsband der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft e.V. (DVG), Fachgruppen „Ethologie und Tierhaltung“ sowie „Tierschutz“, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, S. 182 – 192.
BMELV (2009): Leitlinien zur Beurteilung von Pferdehaltungen unter Tierschutzgesichtspunkten. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. Sachverständigengruppe tierschutzgerechte Pferdehaltung.
Zeitler-Feicht M.H., Frank V., Ramoser A., Seiler S., Girisch C., Baumgartner M. (2015): Anhand welcher Verhaltensweisen lassen sich Rückschlüsse auf das Wohlbefinden von Pferden ziehen? In: Tagungsband der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft e.V. (DVG), Fachgruppen „Ethologie und Tierhaltung“ sowie „Tierschutz“, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, S. 148 – 156.
|
|
|
|
Osman, F., Zeitler-Feicht, M., Fink, G. W., Arnhard, S., & Krüger, K. (2020). Überprüfung der lichten Weiten von Gitterstäben in der Pferdehaltung [Analysing demands for the clear widths of lattice bars in horse husbandry]. Landtechnik [Agricultural Engineering], 75(1), 24–33.
Abstract: An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.]
|
|
|
|
Streit, S., Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., & Dempfle, L. (2008). Gibt es in der Gruppenhaltung von Pferden bei der Abruffütterung am Automaten mehr Auseinandersetzungen als bei der Fütterung in Fressständen? [Keeping horses in groups, are there more confrontations when feeding is done with automatic feeding systems than with feeding stalls?]. In KTBL-Schriften (Vol. 471). KTBL.
Abstract: Das Droh- und Meideverhalten von 270 Pferden wurde im Fressbereich von 10 Offenlaufställen
mit Fressständen und 11 Offenlaufställen mit computergesteuerten Abrufstationen
anhand von visuellen kontinuierlichen Direktbeobachtungen erfasst. Diese erfolgten je Betrieb
über einen 24-Stunden-Tag, der nach dem Tortenstückverfahren (6x4 Stunden) zusammengesetzt
war.
Insgesamt wurden 6297 agonistische Verhaltensweisen in, vor und hinter den
Fütterungseinrichtungen registriert (Meiden 40,6 %, Verdrängen 12,8 %, Beißen/ Hinterhandschlag/
Angehen 12,7 % und Drohen/ Drohbeißen/ Hinterhanddrohen 33,9 %). In den
Futterstationen wurden 22,5 % dieses Verhaltens beobachtet, vor und hinter den Futterstationen
77,5 %. Bei den Betrieben mit Fressständen fanden 31 % der agonistischen Verhaltensweisen
in den Ständen statt, bei den Betrieben mit Abruffütterung 21 %.
Der Einfl uss des einzelnen Betriebes (innerhalb Fütterungssystem) auf die agonistischen
Verhaltensweisen vor und hinter den Fütterungseinrichtungen war signifi kant. Die Auswertung
ergab, dass Drohgesten im Wartebereich von Abrufstationen häufi ger auftreten
als in dem von Fressständen. Demgegenüber können Pferde in Abrufstationen ungestörter
fressen. Insgesamt betrachtet war jedoch die Anzahl an sozionegativen Interaktionen im
Bereich der Futtereinrichtungen bei beiden Fütterungssystemen gering. Die agonistischen
Verhaltensweisen wurden zusätzlich noch von der Heumenge und dem Konstitutionstyp
beeinfl usst.
Der Betrieb erwies sich als maßgeblicher Einfl ussfaktor. Als Resümee ergibt sich, dass
bei ordnungsgemäßer Gruppenhaltung mit fachgerechtem Management beide Fütterungssysteme
für Pferde im Offenlaufstall geeignet sind.
[The threatening and avoiding behaviour of 270 horses living in run-out sheds was observed
at 10 stables with feeding stalls and at 11 stables with automatic feeding systems for hay
and concentrates. Every group of horses was observed on five succeeding days visually
and immediately for 6 sessions, each of 4 hours. These 6 slices form together 24 hours, a
complete day.
Altogether, 6297 agonistic behaviour patterns were registered in front of, inside and
behind the feeding stations (avoiding behaviour 40.6 %, edging out of others 12.8 %,
Auseinandersetzungen an automatischer Abruffütterung und Fressständen
KTBL-Schrift 471 79
biting/rear leg kicking/charging 12.7 % und threatening/biting threats/rear leg kicking
threats 33.9 %). 22.5 % of these types of behaviour were recorded in the feeding stations,
77.5 % together in front and behind of these. In the stables with feeding stalls there were
31 % of the observed threatening gestures inside the feeding stations, in the stables with
automatic feeders only 21 %.
The individual farm showed signifi cant infl uence on the modes of agonistic behaviour
in front and behind the feeding facilities. Threatening gestures happen more often in the
waiting area of automatic feeders than in that of feeding stalls. On the other hand horses
in computer controlled systems will be less disturbed at eating. All together the number
of negative interactions in the feeding area at both feeding systems was relatively low.
In addition the agonistic behaviour was infl uenced by the quantity of hay and the constitutional
typ of the horses.
Because of the management of the individual stable exercises the most substantial
infl uence on the behaviour of the horses, it can be said, that, correct group keeping with
professional management provided, both feeding systems are suitable for horses in run-in
sheds.]
|
|
|
|
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., & Buschmann, S. (2008). Investigation on standing stalls for horses with regard to animal welfare. In IESM 2008.
Abstract: The aim of the present study was to test housing conditions of horses (65 horses) in standing stalls (13 farms) with regard to animal welfare. Further behavioural observations were made on 39 horses. 52 horses stabled in 3 farms housed under natural conditions provided as a basis for sampling.
There were exclusively saddle horses as well as breeding horses present. The results of stabling conditions showed that most of the standing stalls fell short of the minimum requirements. 68% of standing stalls were too narrow, 38% not long enough and 28% of the tieing up systems were too short. Important behaviour patterns of social, recumbence resting, grooming and investigation behaviour, especially movement was extremely reduced in the standing stalls. 70% of the horses had no regular everyday lokomotion. A great part of the horses (51%) showed stereotypies. Half of these horses showed more than one stereotypy. The conclusion of the present study is: The standing stalls for horses do not take in account to the animal needs under present conditions in Germany.
The research resulted in a ban of continuous “roped husbandry” of horses, in most Bundesländer in Germany. Adjacent countries, such as Austria and Switzerland implemented expressly in their animal rights bill (2006) and animal rights regulation (2008) a ban of continuous “roped husbandry” of horses. It is hoped that other nations will follow.
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., Streit, S., & Dempfle, L. (2010). Automatic feeding systems for horses in group housing systems with regard to animal welfare. Part 1: Feeding stalls versus automatic feeding systems. Tierärztl Prax, 38(G), 363–370.
Abstract: Gegenstand und Ziel: Überprüfung der Tiergerechtheit von Abrufstationen
für Kraftfutter und Heu in der Gruppenhaltung von Pferden anhand
ethologischer und physiologischer Parameter im Vergleich zu konventionellen
Fressständen. Material und Methoden: Die Verhaltensbeobachtungen
fanden in 11 bzw. 10 Offenlaufställen mit Abrufstationen
bzw. Fressständen statt. 270 Pferde wurden individuell unterschieden.
Untersuchungsparameter waren: Drohverhalten mit und ohne Verletzungsrisiko,
Meideverhalten, Verdrängung aus dem Fressstand sowie
Herzfrequenz und Integumentverletzungen. In jedem Betrieb erfolgten
kontinuierliche Direktbeobachtungen für je einen 24-Stunden-Tag (Tortenstückverfahren).
Ergebnisse: Im Wartebereich der Abrufautomaten
traten signifikant mehr Drohgesten ohne bzw. mit Verletzungsgefahr je
Pferd und Tag (8,6 bzw. 3,0) auf als im Wartebereich der Fressstände
(3,4 bzw. 0,9). Demgegenüber konnten die Pferde in Abrufstationen
(1,4 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag) ungestörter fressen als in Fressständen
(3,2 Drohgesten je Pferd und Tag). Insgesamt betrachtet ergab sich
jedoch bei beiden Fütterungssystemen eine geringe Anzahl an sozionegativen
Interaktionen im Bereich der Futtereinrichtungen. Die Herzfrequenz
lag im Warteareal im Durchschnitt im physiologischen Bereich
(44,59 ± 11,73 Schläge/min). Integumentverletzungen im Zusammenhang
mit dem Fütterungssystem traten nicht auf. Der wichtigste Einflussfaktor
auf die Untersuchungskriterien war der Betrieb (Fläche, Konzeption,
Management). Schlussfolgerung: Unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit
hinsichtlich des Stress- und Verletzungsrisikos durch soziale
Interaktionen eignen sich bei ordnungsgemäßer Gruppenhaltung mit
fachgerechtem Management sowohl Fressstände als auch Abrufstationen
für Pferde im Offenlaufstall.
[Objective: A comparison with regard to animal welfare of feeding
stalls and automatic feeding systems for hay and concentrates in group
housing systems for horses using parameters of ethology and physiology.
Material and method: The observations of animal behaviour took
place in 10 stables with feeding stalls and in 11 stables with automatic
feeding systems. The field around the feeding systems was divided into
three areas with comparable dimensions (waiting area, exit area and
inside of the feeding system). 270 horses were individually observed.
Parameters of research comprised: threatening behaviour with and
without risk of injury, avoiding behaviour, ”chasing away from the feeding
place”, as well as heart rate and injuries of the integument. Every
group of horses was continuously observed for 24 hours. This observation
took place on four different days and comprised six sessions, each
of 4 hours. Results: In the waiting area of the automatic systems there
were significantly more threatening gestures with and without risk of
injuries for each horse and day (8.6 and 3.0, respectively) than in the
waiting area of the feeding stalls. In contrast, the horses could eat more
relaxed in the automatic systems (1.4 threatening gestures for each
horse and day) than in the feeding stalls (3.2 threatening gestures for
each horse and day). All together the number of negative interactions in
the feeding area of both feeding systems was relatively low. The heart
rate was within the physiological range (44,59 ± 11,73 beats/min) in
the waiting area. There were no injuries of the integument in correlation
with the feeding systems. The most important factor of the observation
criteria was the individual group housing system with its different dimension,
conception and management. Conclusion: Under the aspect
of animal welfare both feeding systems are suitable for horses with respect
to the risk of stress and injuries by social interactions and under
the condition of proper group housing with professional management.]
Keywords: Pferd, Fütterungseinrichtungen, soziale Interaktionen, Herzfrequenz, Verletzungsrisiko, Betriebseinfluss [Horse, feeding stations, social interactions, heart rate, risk of injury, individual farm management]
|
|
|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H., Walker, S., Buxade, C., & Reiter, K. (2004). Untersuchungen verschiedener Formen der Heuvorlage bei Pferden unter ethologischem Aspekt. In KTBL Schriften (Vol. 437).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
