Roig-Pons Marie, Bachmann Iris, Freymond Sabrina Briefer
Animal Welfare Division, Veterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Agroscope, Swiss National Stud Farm, Avenches, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 25;20(6):e0325928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325928. eCollection 2025.
Finding feeding strategies that meet horses' needs without compromising health is essential for optimising welfare, particularly in group housing, where limited hay availability increases aggression and injury risks. Recently, two strategies have emerged: portioning daily intake into smaller, frequent meals using time-controlled hay racks, or slowing intake with "slow-feeders." However, the effects of such management practices on horse behaviour remain underexplored. We conducted a cross-over study with 18 mares divided into four groups to compare three feeding strategies: "traditional" (3 of 2-hours meals during daylight, TD), "portioned" (6 of 1-hour meals spread over 24h, PO) and "slow-feeding" (ad libitum hay covered by a net, SF). Each treatment included 3 weeks of habituation and 2 weeks of data collection. We continuously recorded social interactions for 15 hours and noted the position and activity of all horses every 15 minutes. We also recorded injuries periodically and measured the lying behaviour using accelerometers. We analysed the effects of treatment on agonistic and affiliative behaviour within groups using generalised mixed model and selected the best model using AIC. We used the same procedure for the injuries and lying behaviour at the individual level. Horses in SF exhibited activity time budgets resembling natural conditions, while TD and PO resulted in time budgets similar to box-stall systems, despite the loose-housing system. Surprisingly, our results suggest that PO may be more frustrating for the horses than TD. Indeed, there was no significant reduction of agonistic behaviours during feeding times in PO compared to TD and lying behaviour tended to be impaired in PO (-11.3 min/day, 95% CI [-25.8; 3.1]) compared to SF and TD (37.5 min/day on average). In our study, portioning into smaller, more frequent meals did not reduce the stress in horses. This highlights the need for further research on portioning strategies to find optimal feeding management. In addition, slow-feeding was a more suitable feeding strategy for horses than portioning. However, more research is required to substantiate the initial findings on the efficacy of ad libitum slow-feeding on the horse's health and behaviour.
找到既能满足马匹需求又不损害其健康的饲养策略对于优化福利至关重要，尤其是在群体饲养环境中，有限的干草供应会增加攻击和受伤风险。最近，出现了两种策略：使用时间控制的饲草架将每日摄入量分成较小、较频繁的餐食，或者使用“慢速喂食器”减缓摄入量。然而，这种管理方式对马匹行为的影响仍未得到充分研究。我们进行了一项交叉研究，将18匹母马分为四组，比较三种饲养策略：“传统”（白天分3次，每次2小时进食，TD）、“分餐”（24小时内分6次，每次1小时进食，PO）和“慢速喂食”（用网覆盖自由采食的干草，SF）。每种处理包括3周的适应期和2周的数据收集期。我们连续记录15小时的社交互动情况，并每隔15分钟记录所有马匹的位置和活动。我们还定期记录受伤情况，并使用加速度计测量躺卧行为。我们使用广义混合模型分析处理对组内攻击性行为和亲和行为的影响，并使用AIC选择最佳模型。我们在个体层面上对受伤情况和躺卧行为采用相同的程序。尽管是散养系统，但SF组的马匹表现出类似于自然条件下的活动时间分配，而TD组和PO组的时间分配类似于厩栏系统。令人惊讶的是，我们的结果表明，与TD组相比，PO组可能让马匹更沮丧。事实上，与TD组相比，PO组在喂食期间攻击性行为没有显著减少，并且与SF组和TD组（平均每天37.5分钟）相比，PO组的躺卧行为往往受到损害（每天减少11.3分钟，95%置信区间[-25.8；3.1]）。在我们的研究中，分成较小、较频繁的餐食并没有减轻马匹的压力。这突出表明需要对分餐策略进行进一步研究，以找到最佳的饲养管理方法。此外，对于马匹来说，慢速喂食比分餐更适合作为饲养策略。然而，需要更多研究来证实关于自由采食慢速喂食对马匹健康和行为有效性的初步发现。
