Factors Associated With the Development and Prevalence of Abnormal Behaviors in Horses: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Seabra, Jéssica Carvalho; Dittrich, João Ricardo; Vale, Marcos Martinez do

doi:10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103750

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, several authors have reported that SFs are effective in reducing waste: found a reduction in hay waste from 57% (no dispenser) to 6% when using nets (Martinson et al 2012) and Grev et al (2014) found that all feeders they tested paid for themselves within 11 months. Carvalho Seabra et al (2023) also reported a reduction from 16.6 to 9.3 kg of wasted hay per day in groups of 5 horses. Waste reduction was more often mentioned by operators, for whom the financial impact is of greater importance as they have to live from their equine operation.…”

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Weight management was the second most commonly reported reason for using SFs, with over 55% and 45% of operators and owners reporting it. In the study of Carvalho Seabra et al (2023) horses fed ad libitum hay in SFs consumed significantly less hay than when offered loose hay. Interestingly, within each country, weight management was reported more frequently by operators than by owners.…”

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It should be noted that overall HV nets were mentioned by only 39.5% of the 1'192 users (all groups combined), which is a rather low number considering that this type of net represents the majority of research projects on slow-feeding (Bordin et al 2023;Ellis et al 2015aEllis et al , 2015bSpeaight et al 2016;Hodgson et al 2022;Raspa et al 2021;Glunk et al 2014). On the other hand, CO nets are the most commonly used haynets and are only beginning to be studied (Carvalho Seabra et al 2023). This can be explained by the fact that a lot of research is carried out on horses in individual boxes (more convenient for observations, most common type of housing in several countries), and HV nets can be used in different situations, whereas CO nets require horses in group housing.…”

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Slowfeeding dispensers for horses: who, how and why?

Roig-Pons,

Bachmann,

Briefer

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slowfeeders (SFs) are feed dispensers designed to mechanically slow feed intake. As such, they are a promising tool for improving the welfare of horses by meeting their behavioural and physiological feeding needs while controlling the risk of obesity. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the current use of SFs by horse owners and the profile of horses using such feeders. The objective of this questionnaire-based study was to evaluate the slow-feeding practices among horse owners and yard operators in some French-speaking European countries (Belgium, France and Switzerland). We received 1,283 replies, revealing that the population of horses fed with SFs differs from the general population of ridden horses in several aspects, such as age, training, and housing. This information is valuable for ensuring representative sampling in future studies. Regarding the type of SF used, more than 85% of the respondents reported using hay nets, with hay nets covering the hay in the hayrack or surrounding a bale of hay being particularly popular. The main reasons for using SFs were waste management, weight reduction, and increased feeding time for horses. Most respondents did not encounter any issues when using SFs and less than 10% of respondents reported health problems and accidents resulting from the use of SF. Differences were also found between countries and between operators and owners, indicating that different user profiles have varying requirements for the feeder they use.

show abstract

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: ) Slowfeeding Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Slowfeeding dispensers for horses: who, how and why?

Roig-Pons,

Bachmann,

Briefer

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have reported that horses kept in barns have a higher frequency of locomotor stereotypies, whereas those that do not have ad libitum access to forage will manifest oral stereotypies. Both conditions were found to be present in the population evaluated [ 11 , 24 , 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most accepted definition of stereotypy is a behavior pattern that is repetitive and invariant with no apparent goal or function [ 10 , 11 ]. However, Mason [ 12 ] defined stereotypy as repetitive behavior induced by frustration, repeated coping attempts, or central nervous system dysfunction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colombian Creole Horse: Frequency of oral and motor stereotypies

Mejía¹,

Jaramillo

Corrales³

2022

Vet World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: The current stable housing of Colombian Creole Horses severely restricts the animals' locomotion and natural behaviors. In addition, their feed consists of a combination of high-energy concentrates with considerably little forage which potentially leads to locomotor or oral stereotypies. This study aimed to report the frequency of locomotor and oral stereotypies in Colombian Creole Horses in Girardota (Antioquia, Colombia) and associated risk factors. Materials and Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from 2019 to 2020, in which 102 stabled horses aged 28 months and older participated. A questionnaire was developed to collect information on the horses' daily barn routines. The horses were observed twice a day for 2 h for 3 consecutive days to record information related to stereotypy behaviors. The Fisher's exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test were utilized for data analyses. Associations were considered statistically significant at p<0.05. Results: Among the horses evaluated, 32.35% presented at least one stereotyped behavior. The most common was crib-biting (i.e., cribbing), with 17.65% exhibiting this behavior. Age, weight, gender, type of feeding, visual contact between horses, and natural lighting were all associated with oral stereotypies. Crib-biting was most common in young horses (U=1.36, p≤0.05), wind-sucking was more common in lighter weight animals (U=1.45, p=0.01), and lip-smacking was more common in stallions (χ2=9.10, p≤0.01). It is noteworthy that their feeding diet included bran, molasses, and gopher. Horses that did not have visual contact with other horses and those that did not have natural lighting were associated with pica (χ2=9.52, p≤0.02; χ2=3.72, p≤0.05; and χ2=3.72, p≤0.05, respectively). Of locomotor stereotypies, kicking the wall was significant in young animals (U=1.54, p=0.03) and walking in circles in lactating mares (χ2=13.20, p≤0.02). Conclusion: Housing conditions in this study were found to have several risk factors affecting horses that exhibit stereotypic behaviors, and all these factors resulted in a higher frequency of stereotypies. Establishing risk factors for the presentation of abnormal behaviors allows for the implementation of better management practices in the production systems of the Creole Colombian Horse and will help improve their overall welfare.

show abstract

Oral stereotypic behaviors in farm animals and their causes

Li,

2024

Animal Research and One Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High stocking density and suboptimal conditions limit animal behaviors in modern livestock farming. This is particularly evident in captive animals, in which the motivation for foraging behavior is often thwarted. Oral stereotypic behaviors are common in farm animals. Ruminants (e.g., cattle and sheep) show oral stereotypic behaviors such as tongue‐rolling, self‐sucking, and inter‐sucking. Captive pigs exhibit oral stereotypic behaviors such as bar‐biting, sham‐chewing, and ear‐biting. Chickens peck at drinkers, feeders, and pens. Stereotypic behavior in livestock can be reduced by selecting a specific diet composition that prolongs their eating time and increases their satiety. Furthermore, reducing stocking density and enriching the farming environment encourage livestock to explore and reduce stereotypic behavior. It is important to note that stereotypic behavior is also influenced by organismal physiology. Stereotypic behavior was considered an indicator of poor animal welfare. However, recent research has revealed that animals engage in stereotypic behavior as a response to external stimuli, aiming to alleviate the negative impact of these stimuli on their well‐being. Animals that frequently show stereotypic behavior may have higher levels of stress. Certain stress indicators also affect the expression of stereotypic behavior, such as 5‐hydroxytryptamine and dopamine. Consequently, further investigation is necessary to understand how stereotypic behaviors affect the physiological state and metabolic processes of animals. This paper discusses the research progress on the oral stereotypic behaviors of farm animals. The objective is to establish a foundation for enhancing livestock feeding conditions and optimizing feeding practices, ultimately reducing stereotypic behaviors.

show abstract

Factors Associated With the Development and Prevalence of Abnormal Behaviors in Horses: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Cited by 16 publications

References 42 publications

Slowfeeding dispensers for horses: who, how and why?

Slowfeeding dispensers for horses: who, how and why?

Colombian Creole Horse: Frequency of oral and motor stereotypies

Oral stereotypic behaviors in farm animals and their causes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About