How should one design and position straw feeders in group-housed horses? A case study on occupancy and agonistic interactions at straw feeders in a large group of horses

IF 2.2 2区农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE

Applied Animal Behaviour Science Pub Date : 2024-10-11 DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106423

N. Puttkammer , F. Hildebrandt , J. Krieter , I. Czycholl

{"title":"How should one design and position straw feeders in group-housed horses? A case study on occupancy and agonistic interactions at straw feeders in a large group of horses","authors":"N. Puttkammer , F. Hildebrandt , J. Krieter , I. Czycholl","doi":"10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As group housing of horses can be associated with increased injury risk especially when there are limited resources, the aim of this study was to allow initial, scientifically based recommendations regarding the positioning and design of straw feeders. Data collection took place in a Hinrichs Innovation + Technik (HIT) active stable with 50–62 horses kept in one single group. Occupancy, feeding distances, prevalence of agonistic interactions (AIS) as well as the percentage of feeding disturbances at two different straw feeders were analysed. Equine behaviour was recorded for 6 h/day on 15 summer and 15 winter days. Using generalised linear mixed models, considering the fixed effects of feeder, a fresh straw supply and the interaction of observation day and time period delivered the best prediction for the number of feeding events/h and the prevalence of AIS/h. Here, both feeders differed (p < 0.05) with twice as many feeding events/h, but threefold more AIS/h respectively twice as many AIS/horse at the larger feeder, where conspecifics fed side by side. Sixty-five % of the AIS with low risk of injury and 92 % of the AIS with high risk of injury led to feeding disturbances. The latter made up 25 % of all AIS in total with no differences between both feeders. Feeding distances did not differ either. The horses tended to use only every third opening space when feeding simultaneously. This knowledge should be taken into account when making assumptions about the de facto animal:feeding place ratio and the design of straw feeders in the future. Moreover, regarding the smaller feeder, the horses preferred to feed simultaneously with the feeder edge between them, so that the actual animal distances were smaller. Additional research is needed to investigate, how feeding in rectangular position to each other influences threatening behaviour inside a feeder. In this study, a central positioning within a paddock was beneficial with respect to feeder usage, but disadvantageous regarding AIS and displacements. However, the investigation of further straw feeders and farms is essential to allow general statements, as the study also proves that many factors such as season and rank order stability potentially influence equine behaviour at straw feeders.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8222,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","volume":"280 ","pages":"Article 106423"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159124002715","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

As group housing of horses can be associated with increased injury risk especially when there are limited resources, the aim of this study was to allow initial, scientifically based recommendations regarding the positioning and design of straw feeders. Data collection took place in a Hinrichs Innovation + Technik (HIT) active stable with 50–62 horses kept in one single group. Occupancy, feeding distances, prevalence of agonistic interactions (AIS) as well as the percentage of feeding disturbances at two different straw feeders were analysed. Equine behaviour was recorded for 6 h/day on 15 summer and 15 winter days. Using generalised linear mixed models, considering the fixed effects of feeder, a fresh straw supply and the interaction of observation day and time period delivered the best prediction for the number of feeding events/h and the prevalence of AIS/h. Here, both feeders differed (p < 0.05) with twice as many feeding events/h, but threefold more AIS/h respectively twice as many AIS/horse at the larger feeder, where conspecifics fed side by side. Sixty-five % of the AIS with low risk of injury and 92 % of the AIS with high risk of injury led to feeding disturbances. The latter made up 25 % of all AIS in total with no differences between both feeders. Feeding distances did not differ either. The horses tended to use only every third opening space when feeding simultaneously. This knowledge should be taken into account when making assumptions about the de facto animal:feeding place ratio and the design of straw feeders in the future. Moreover, regarding the smaller feeder, the horses preferred to feed simultaneously with the feeder edge between them, so that the actual animal distances were smaller. Additional research is needed to investigate, how feeding in rectangular position to each other influences threatening behaviour inside a feeder. In this study, a central positioning within a paddock was beneficial with respect to feeder usage, but disadvantageous regarding AIS and displacements. However, the investigation of further straw feeders and farms is essential to allow general statements, as the study also proves that many factors such as season and rank order stability potentially influence equine behaviour at straw feeders.

查看原文本刊更多论文

如何设计和定位群居马匹的稻草喂食器？关于大群马在草料喂食器上的占用和激动互动的案例研究

由于马匹集体饲养可能会增加受伤风险，尤其是在资源有限的情况下，因此本研究的目的是就稻草喂食器的定位和设计提出初步的、有科学依据的建议。数据收集工作在 Hinrichs Innovation + Technik（HIT）的一个活动马厩中进行，该马厩有 50-62 匹马，每组饲养一匹马。在两个不同的稻草喂食器上，对马匹的占用率、喂食距离、激动互动（AIS）的发生率以及喂食干扰的百分比进行了分析。在 15 个夏季和 15 个冬季，对马匹每天 6 小时的行为进行了记录。使用广义线性混合模型，考虑饲喂器的固定效应、新鲜稻草的供应以及观察日和时间段的交互作用，对每小时的采食事件数和 AIS 的发生率做出了最佳预测。在这种情况下，两个饲喂器之间存在差异（p <0.05），饲喂器的饲喂次数/小时是同类饲喂器的两倍，但AIS/小时分别是同类饲喂器的三倍，AIS/马的数量是同类饲喂器的两倍。65%的低伤害风险 AIS 和 92%的高伤害风险 AIS 都导致了采食干扰。后者占所有 AIS 的 25%，两种喂食器之间没有差异。喂食距离也没有差异。同时喂食时，马匹往往只使用三分之一的开口空间。今后在假设动物与饲喂位置的实际比例和设计稻草饲喂器时，应考虑到这一知识。此外，对于较小的饲喂器，马匹更喜欢在饲喂器边缘夹着饲喂器的情况下同时采食，因此实际的动物距离较小。还需要进行更多的研究，以了解以矩形位置相互喂食如何影响喂食器内的威胁行为。在这项研究中，围场内的中心位置有利于饲喂器的使用，但不利于AIS和位移。不过，对更多草料饲喂器和饲养场进行调查对于得出一般性结论至关重要，因为本研究还证明，季节和排序稳定性等许多因素都可能影响马匹在草料饲喂器内的行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 农林科学-行为科学

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

21.70%

发文量

191

审稿时长

18.1 weeks

期刊介绍： This journal publishes relevant information on the behaviour of domesticated and utilized animals. Topics covered include: -Behaviour of farm, zoo and laboratory animals in relation to animal management and welfare -Behaviour of companion animals in relation to behavioural problems, for example, in relation to the training of dogs for different purposes, in relation to behavioural problems -Studies of the behaviour of wild animals when these studies are relevant from an applied perspective, for example in relation to wildlife management, pest management or nature conservation -Methodological studies within relevant fields The principal subjects are farm, companion and laboratory animals, including, of course, poultry. The journal also deals with the following animal subjects: -Those involved in any farming system, e.g. deer, rabbits and fur-bearing animals -Those in ANY form of confinement, e.g. zoos, safari parks and other forms of display -Feral animals, and any animal species which impinge on farming operations, e.g. as causes of loss or damage -Species used for hunting, recreation etc. may also be considered as acceptable subjects in some instances -Laboratory animals, if the material relates to their behavioural requirements