Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding.
Authors: Baumgartner Miriam, Boisson Theresa, Erhard Michael H, Zeitler-Feicht Margit H
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary Horses evolved consuming forage continuously throughout the 24-hour cycle and will not voluntarily extend feeding pauses beyond 4 hours; yet many common management practices restrict roughage to just two or three discrete meals daily, particularly in individual housing systems. Baumgartner and colleagues observed feed intake behaviour in 104 horses across ten farms, comparing animals bedded on edible (straw, n=30) versus non-edible (shavings, n=74) substrates to quantify how these feeding regimens affect natural foraging patterns. Horses on shavings with no supplementary roughage experienced median nocturnal feed interruptions of 8 hours 45 minutes, with nearly three-quarters (74%) exceeding the critical 4-hour threshold; these animals also consumed their evening meals more rapidly and paused less frequently than their straw-bedded counterparts—a "rebound effect" suggesting compensatory eating behaviour. Beyond body condition scoring, the duration of the longest daily feed interruption emerges as a measurable welfare indicator, with the implication that non-edible bedding combined with restrictive feeding schedules creates a particularly compromised environment where horses cannot satisfy innate ethological needs. For practitioners, this research underscores the welfare risks inherent in twice-daily roughage provision on non-edible substrates and supports arguments for increasing feeding frequency or providing continuous access to forage, particularly where straw bedding is impractical.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Avoid housing horses on non-edible bedding (shavings) without continuous roughage access; the resulting feeding interruptions >4 hours violate horses' natural behaviour and compromise welfare
- •Implement ad libitum roughage feeding or increase frequency to at least 3 times daily if non-edible bedding is necessary; monitor nocturnal feed interruption duration as a practical welfare indicator
- •Recognise accelerated/rushed eating patterns ('rebound effect') as a red flag for inadequate feeding management—this behavioural change signals welfare compromise even before body condition changes
Key Findings
- •74.32% of horses on non-edible bedding (shavings) experienced forced nocturnal feed intake interruptions exceeding 4 hours (mean 8:50 ± 1:25 h, range 6:45–13:23 h) with restricted roughage feeding
- •Horses on shavings paused feeding less frequently and at later latency compared to horses on edible bedding (straw), indicating altered natural feeding behaviour
- •Accelerated feed intake ('rebound effect') observed in horses on non-edible bedding suggests compromised welfare when ethological feeding needs are not met
- •Extended feed intake interruption duration is proposed as an important welfare indicator alongside body condition score for horses with limited roughage access