| Literature DB >> 35883287 |
Federica Raspa1, Martina Tarantola1, Edlira Muca1, Domenico Bergero1, Dominga Soglia1, Damiano Cavallini2, Ingrid Vervuert3, Clara Bordin1, Pasquale De Palo4, Emanuela Valle1.
Abstract
Horses reared for meat production are generally fed a diet rich in starch with the aim of maximizing production performances. This study evaluated the effects of two feeding management systems on horse welfare by analysing the relative time spent engaged in different behavioural activities. Nineteen Bardigiano horses aged 14.3 ± 0.7 months were randomly assigned to one of two group pens: one group was fed high amounts of starch-rich concentrates (HCG; n = 10), the other was fed a fibre-based diet (HFG; n = 9). Behavioural activities performed by each horse were video-recorded over a 96-h period. A scan sampling process (n = 144 scans/horse/day; total n of scans sampled = 10,368) was used, and the scans were analysed according to a specific ethogram. The mean frequency (%/24 h) spent exhibiting each behavioural activity was calculated to obtain the time budget. After checking for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), Student's t tests (normally distributed data) and Mann-Whitney tests (not normally distributed data) were used to compare the time budgets of the two groups of horses (HCG vs. HFG). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to identify the components explaining the variability in behavioural activities between the two groups. K-means cluster analysis subsequently confirmed the PCA results. The behavioural activities associated with feeding horses a fibre-based diet correlated with better horse welfare compared with feeding horses a starch-based diet. Feeding horses a fibre-based diet resulted advantageous from both the welfare and economic perspective; it allowed horses to spend more time expressing feeding behaviours and reduced energy expenditure in the form of excitable, or "fizzy", behaviours.Entities:
Keywords: concentrate; diet; equine; forage; welfare
Year: 2022 PMID: 35883287 PMCID: PMC9311627 DOI: 10.3390/ani12141740
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 3.231
Descriptions of the evaluated behavioural activities. Adapted from Raspa et al. [20].
| Behavioural Activities | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Self-grooming | The horse cleans its body by shaking its entire body or a part of it, nibbling or licking the coat hair, rolling on the ground, or rubbing parts of the body against objects or other parts of the body (e.g., rubbing the muzzle against the limbs) |
| Mutual grooming | Body cleaning is performed reciprocally, or by one horse towards a conspecific |
| Lying | The horse is lying on the ground in the sternal position or in lateral position |
| Playing | The horse plays alone or with other horses. It includes: play with structural parts of the pen, sexual play, locomotor play, and play fighting |
| Locomotion | The horse moves inside the pen by taking steps; the neck is in a horizontal position or lowered to the ground to sniff |
| Feeding | The horse eats hay, straw, or feedstuff in the trough or on the ground |
| Drinking | The horse drinks |
| Standing | The horse is in a quadrupedal station. The expression is relaxed (standing relaxed) or attentive (standing alert) |
| Snaking | The horse stretches its neck towards a conspecific with the ears turned backwards, threatening to bite |
| Kicking | The horse lifts one or both hind limbs off the ground and quickly stretches it/them towards a conspecific |
| Biting | The horse quickly opens and closes its mouth, and its teeth touch the body of a conspecific. Its ears are turned backwards |
| Sexual behaviour | The stallion sniffs or bites the female’s genitals. Or the stallion mounts the female: erection and penetration are present |
| Stereotypic behaviour | The horse expresses a stereotyped behaviour: both oral and locomotor stereotypes are considered |
Time budget (%/24 h) engaged in different behavioural activities (HCG vs. HFG). All data are expressed as means ± SEM, with the exception of snaking and kicking which are expressed as medians (plus 25th–75th percentiles).
| Behavioural Activities | HCG | HFG | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feeding | 25.77 ± 0.38 | 40.21 ± 0.69 | <0.01 * |
| Standing | 30.29 ± 0.60 | 24.82 ± 0.57 | <0.01 * |
| Lying | 22.65 ± 1.19 | 20.82 ± 0.56 | 0.18 |
| Locomotion | 13.63 ± 0.61 | 7.44 ± 0.77 | <0.01 * |
| Playing | 3.06 ± 0.10 | 1.92 ± 0.07 | <0.01 * |
| Drinking | 1.68 ± 0.34 | 2.61 ± 0.32 | 0.06 |
| Mutual grooming | 1.52 ± 0.33 | 1.52 ± 0.35 | 0.99 |
| Self-grooming | 0.83 ± 0.20 | 0.33 ± 0.15 | 0.06 |
| Stereotypic behaviour | 0.38 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | <0.01 * |
| Sexual behaviour | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | 0.47 |
| Biting | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.02 * |
| Snaking | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.08 (0.00–0.23) | <0.01 * |
| Kicking | 0.00 (0.00–0.02) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.15 |
* Statistical significance: p < 0.05.
Figure 1Principal component analysis biplot (PC1 and PC2) performed on selected behavioural activities by horses belonging to HCG and HFG.
Principal component analysis loadings of behavioural activities performed by horses belonging to HCG and HFG.
| PC1 (40.29%) | PC2 (20.67%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Feeding | −39% | −25% |
| Standing | 30% | 42% |
| Lying | 26% | −40% |
| Locomotion | 28% | 41% |
| Playing | 32% | 15% |
| Drinking | −23% | 40% |
| Mutual Grooming | −7% | 1% |
| Self-grooming | 29% | −23% |
| Stereotypic behaviour | 36% | 4% |
| Sexual behaviour | −15% | −20% |
| Biting | 26% | −34% |
| Snaking | −33% | 16% |
| Kicking | 19% | −12% |
Figure 2Cluster analysis 3D plot (PC1 and PC2) performed on the selected behavioural activities by horses belonging to HCG (red) and HFG (green).