4.1 Article

The Effect of Different Bedding Materials Used in Stable on Horses Behavior

Journal

JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages 57-66

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.03.007

Keywords

Horse; Welfare; Bedding; Behavior

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bedding material used in stables is an important factor affecting the welfare of horses. One of the factors used for investigating the level of welfare of animals is behavior observations. The aim of the study was an assessment and analysis of impact of straw (S), peat moss with shavings, and crushed wood pellets beddings used in the stables on the behavior of horses. In this study, among the observed behaviors were behavioral events and behavioral states showing the comfort of animals (standing at rest, occupation with bedding, resting in sternal, and lateral position), as well as comfortable behavioral events (laying down into sternal and lateral position, and occupation with the bedding) undesirable behavioral events, including the behavior of demonstrating a lack of occupation (lignophagia, walking around the box, and biting the bars) and aggressive behaviors (threatening neighbor, biting the neighbor, and kicking the box). Compared with peat moss with shavings bedding and crushed pellets, the application of S led to significantly longer duration and higher frequency of occupation with bedding and, in turn, shorter fractions of standing. The longest total time spent on recumbency was observed during usage of S. Except for neighbor threatening, the undesired behaviors appeared the least frequently during usage of S. In addition, the smallest percentage of horses manifested undesired behaviors when the S bedding was used. Regard to the obtained results, it was concluded that S bedding was the best in terms of fulfilling behavioral needs of horses staying in boxes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available