Literature DB >> 21984721

Round-bale feeder design affects hay waste and economics during horse feeding.

K Martinson1, J Wilson, K Cleary, W Lazarus, W Thomas, M Hathaway.   

Abstract

Many horse owners find round bales convenient, less labor intensive, and more affordable than other hay types, but report an inability to control horse BW gain and excessive hay waste. The objectives were to compare hay waste, hay intake, and payback of 9 round-bale feeders and a no-feeder control when used during horse feeding. Nine round-bale feeders were tested: Cinch Net, Cone, Covered Cradle, Hayhut, Hay Sleigh, Ring, Tombstone, Tombstone Saver, and Waste Less. Each feeder design was placed on the ground in a dirt paddock. Five groups of 5 horses were fed in rotation for a 4-d period with each feeder. Every fourth day, groups were rotated among paddocks and a new round bale was placed in each feeder. In the 5 paddocks used, 5 feeders were installed for d 1 through 20, and the remaining 4 feeders and no-feeder control were installed for d 21 through 40. Groups of horses were sequentially assigned to feeders using two 5 × 5 Latin squares, the first for d 1 through 20, the second for d 21 through 40. Horse groups of similar age, BW, breed, and sex were formed from 25 Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred geldings and open mares (means: 11 yr; 541 kg of BW). Hay on the ground surrounding the feeder was collected daily, dried, and weighed. The total amount of hay removed around each feeder for a 4-d period was considered waste. Dry matter intake was estimated as the difference between hay disappearance and waste. Number of months for the reduction in waste to repay feeder cost (payback) were calculated using hay valued at $110/t, and improved feeder efficiency over the control. Feeder design did not affect hay intake (P > 0.05); all feeders resulted in an estimated hay intake of 2.0 to 2.4% BW; the no-feeder control resulted in a reduced intake of 1.3% BW (P = 0.001). Mean percentage of hay waste differed among feeders (P < 0.001): Waste Less, 5%; Cinch Net, 6%; Hayhut, 9%; Covered Cradle, 11%; Tombstone Saver, 13%; Tombstone, Cone, and Ring, 19%; Hay Sleigh, 33%; and no-feeder control, 57%. Feeder design also affected payback (P < 0.01). The Cinch Net paid for itself in less than 1 mo; Tombstone and Ring, 2 mo; Hayhut and Tombstone Saver, 4 mo; Hay Sleigh, 5 mo; Waste Less, 8 mo; Cone, 9 mo; and Covered Cradle, 20 mo. Round-bale feeder design affected hay waste and payback, but not estimated hay intake or BW change during horse feeding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21984721     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  3 in total

1.  Influence of hay feeding method, supplement moisture, or access time on intake and waste by beef cows.

Authors:  Jeffery P Jaderborg; Scott L Bird; Grant I Crawford; Ryon S Walker; Alfredo DiCostanzo
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-05-09

2.  Studying the Shape Variations of the Back, the Neck, and the Mandibular Angle of Horses Depending on Specific Feeding Postures Using Geometric Morphometrics.

Authors:  Federica Raspa; Angela Roggero; Claudia Palestrini; Martina Marten Canavesio; Domenico Bergero; Emanuela Valle
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.752

3.  Effects of bale feeder design on hay waste, intake, and apparent diet digestibility in gestating beef cows.

Authors:  Austin J Sexten; Mikayla F Moore; Casey P McMurphy; Gant L Mourer; Sara K Linneen; Michael A Brown; Chris J Richards; David L Lalman
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-06-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.