Round-bale feeder design affects hay waste and economics during horse feeding^1,2

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.

economics, hay, hay waste, horse, horse intake, round-bale feeder

INTRODUCTION

Hay is commonly fed to horses and is the most expensive dietary component for adult horses. Round bales are used throughout the horse industry as a means of providing forage to horses housed in poor pastures, in dry lots, or during winter months (McMillan et al., 2010). Round bales can provide horses with constant access to hay. Ad libitum access to forage resulted in horses spending up to 64% of their time eating and resulted in few abnormal behaviors (Marsden, 1993). Round bales can provide a reduced cost ($/t) option compared with small square bales (McMillan et al., 2010), and the reduced price coupled with convenience are important factors for horse owners. However, some horse owners report excessive hay waste, an inability to control horse BW gain, and increases in disorders like recurrent airway obstruction (Robinson et al., 2006) when horses are fed round bales.

Waste from large round bales can occur during both storage and feeding. Storage losses of round bales can range from 2 to 40% DM, depending on forage type, storage method, environment, and storage length (Belyea et al., 1985; Huhnke, 1987; Harrigan and Rotz, 1994). Hay waste was found to be greater for horses fed coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) round bales without a feeder (38 and 31%, respectively) compared with using a ring feeder (2 and 9%, respectively; McMillan et al., 2010). When fed to beef cattle, different round-bale feeder designs resulted in varying amounts of wasted hay (Buskirk et al., 2003). Several types of round-bale feeders exist and claim to reduce or eliminate hay waste. However, no research has been published to characterize hay waste resulting from different round-bale feeders used while feeding horses. The objectives of this study were to determine hay waste, hay intake, and economics of 9 round-bale feeder designs and a no-feeder control when used in horse feeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All experimental procedures were conducted according to those approved by both the University of Minnesota and University of Wisconsin–River Falls Committees on Animal Use and Care.

In June of 2010, fifty 1.2 × 1.5 m round bales (mean weight ± SD; 401 ± 22 kg) were baled (model 457, Deere and Co., Moline, IL) and tied with 3 revolutions of net wrap from a 15-ha field located near Albertville, Minnesota (45°2′N, 90°6′W). All hay was first-crop harvested from a pure stand of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), variety unknown, in flower. Round bales were immediately removed from the field, transported, and placed in a shed for storage until fed. Before storage, each round bale was individually weighed by driving each bale over 4 portable weigh pads (model PT 300, Intercomp, Medina, MN). After weighing, each bale was cored (2 × 51 cm) 6 times, and samples were analyzed for forage nutrient composition by a commercial forage testing laboratory (DHIA Laboratories, Sauk Centre, MN). Forage quality components included DM, CP, ADF, NDF, equine DE, Ca, and P. Samples were ground, dried at 105°C for 3 h, and weighed to determine percentage of DM. Concentrations of CP, ADF, and NDF were determined in accordance with the AOAC (2000) protocols (methods 990.02, 973.18, and 2002.04, respectively). Equine DE was calculated using an equation developed by Pagan (1998), and Ca and P were analyzed in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency method 3050B (EPA, 1996).

Twenty-five mature, idle, Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred geldings and open mares (mean ± SD: 11 ± 5 yr; 541 ± 53 kg of BW) from the University of Wisconsin–River Falls campus herd were used to form 5 groups of 5 horses each to evaluate the efficiencies of 9 different round-bale feeders during July and August 2010 in River Falls, WI (45°9′N, 92°6′W). Before the study, horses were housed together and had previous access to the paddocks. Individual herds remained together for the duration of the trial (40 d), and no behavioral vices were observed in herds. Immediately before the trial period, horses were individually weighed (model HD850, Tru-Test Inc., Mineral Wells, TX) and identified. Groups were of similar age, initial BW, breed, and sex (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sex, breed, BW, and ages of 5 groups of horses used to evaluate round-bale feeder efficiencies

Group	Horse sex		Horse breed		Mean beginning horse BW, kg ± SD	Mean group age, yr ± SD
	Mare	Gelding	TB1	QH2
1	1	4	1	4	542 ± 64	11 ± 5
2	1	4	1	4	542 ± 36	10 ± 2
3	1	4	1	4	539 ± 57	10 ± 6
4	2	3	1	4	541 ± 64	12 ± 6
5	1	4	1	4	541 ± 63	12 ± 4

¹TB, Thoroughbreds or Thoroughbred types.

²QH, Quarter Horses or Quarter Horse types.

Nine round-bale feeders, specifically manufactured for and marketed to the horse industry, were tested, including the Cinch Net ($147; Cinch Chix LLC, North Branch, MN), Cone ($1,195; model R7C, Weldy Enterprises, Wakarusa, IN), Covered Cradle ($3,200; SM Iron Inc., Sanborn, MN), Hayhut ($650; Hayhuts LLS, Deleon Spring, FL), Hay Sleigh ($425; Smith Iron Works Inc., St. Francis, MN), Ring ($300; R & C Livestock, Bethany, MO), Tombstone ($250; Dura-Built, Eagan, MN), Tombstone Saver ($650; HiQual, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada), and Waste Less ($1,450; JSI Innovations LLC, St. Croix Falls, WI; Figure 1). Prices were quoted at the initiation of the research (July 2010). Feeder dimensions are described in Table 2. The tenth treatment was a no-feeder control. Two feeders had varying dimensions: the Covered Cradle had collapsible side feeding panels that rested on the bale and compressed down as the bale was eaten. The Waste Less feeder also had collapsible side feeding panels, but the panels were lowered by hand every day at 0900 and 1800 h; this was done to ensure horses had ad libitum access to hay in the feeder. The Waste Less feeder was also evaluated with 2 optional 1.2 × 1.8-m rubber mats. The mats were placed on the ground under the feeder and extend approximately 1-m beyond the feeder. The rubber mats are recommended by the manufacturer but are an additional expense.

Figure 1.

Round-bale feeder designs evaluated when horses were fed hay: a) Cinch Net, b) Cone, c) Covered Cradle, d) Hayhut, e) Hay Sleigh, f) Ring, g) Tombstone, h) Tombstone Saver, and i) Waste Less. Color version available in the online PDF.

Table 2.

Dimensions of 9 round-bale feeders marketed for the horse industry

Feeder type	Feeder weight, kg	Outside feeder dimensions, cm				No. of feed openings	Dimension of feed openings, cm		Covered
		Length	Height	Width	Diameter		Height	Width
Cinch Net1	4	—	—	—	244	—	4	4	No
Covered Cradle2	517	226	241	279	—	24	117	15	Yes
Hayhut3	104	178	213	213	—	8	89	41	Yes
Hay Sleigh4	68	188	94	201	—	—	—	—	No
Waste Less5	308	208	213	198	—	22	84	15	Yes
Cone6	258	—	246	—	231	18	129	35	No
Ring7	100	—	81	—	262	—	—	—	No
Tombstone8	107	—	102	—	264	12	Open	30	No
Tombstone Saver9	163	—	147	—	292	15	Open	48	No

¹Cinch Chix LLC, North Branch, MN.

²SM Iron Inc., Sanborn, MN.

³Hayhuts LLS, Deleon Spring, FL.

⁴Smith Iron Works Inc., St. Francis, MN.

⁵JSI Innovations LLC, St. Croix Falls, WI.

⁶Model R7C, Weldy Enterprises, Wakarusa, IN.

⁷R & C Livestock, Bethany, MO.

⁸Dura-Built, Eagan, MN.

⁹HiQual, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

The 9 feeders and no-feeder control were tested in 2 phases, with 5 feeders in each phase. Five outdoor dirt paddocks (mean size 30 × 20 m) were used with 1 feeder in each. Five groups of 5 horses fed in rotation for 4 d from each feeder. Every fourth day, horse groups rotated among paddocks after all waste, remaining hay was removed, and a new round bale was placed in each feeder using a skid loader. To ensure forage would not be limited during each period, 4 d was selected based on total pen BW, bale weight, an estimation of hay intake (2% of BW), and the assumption that the no-feeder control would result in the most waste with ≥38% waste (McMillan et al., 2010). Five feeders (rows 1 to 5 in Table 2) were installed for d 1 through 20, and the remaining 4 feeders (rows 6 to 9 in Table 2) and the no-feeder control were installed on d 21 through 40. Two 5 × 5 Latin squares (phases), with paddocks as columns, 4-d intervals as rows, and horse groups as letters, were used to assign horse groups to feeders. Horses had ad libitum access to shelter, water, a trace mineralized salt block, and hay in the feeder. Horses were weighed individually at the start and end of each 4-d treatment period; the sum of differences within a herd is pen BW change.

Hay that fell onto the ground surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected daily (Buskirk et al., 2003) starting at 0900 h. Waste hay from the no-feeder control was determined to be hay that was not attached to the bale core on d 1 and 2. On d 3 and 4, no bale core remained, and waste was determined to be any hay that was contaminated with manure, urine, or dirt. Care was taken to avoid collection of manure and dirt, although some contamination was unavoidable. The area around each feeder was raked clean of manure after collection to minimize contamination the following day. All waste was dried in a 90°C oven for 24 to 72 h, until moisture reached approximately 15%, and then weighed again. Hay remaining in the feeder at the end of the 4-d period was removed, and total remaining hay weight was based on change in weight of a subsample dried to 15% moisture in a 90°C oven. All feeders had consumable hay at the end of each 4-d period; the no-feeder control had no remaining consumable hay.

The total amount of hay removed from around each feeder and the no-feeder control for a 4-d period was considered hay waste. Hay disappearance was calculated as the amount of hay delivered to each paddock, less the remaining amount of hay in the feeder at the end of a 4-d period. Percentage waste was calculated as the amount of hay waste divided by hay disappearance. Dry matter hay intake was estimated as hay disappearance less hay waste and was expressed as percentage of BW by dividing DMI by average horse BW upon entering the paddock. The number of months for waste reduction to pay back feeder cost (payback; Ross et al., 2005) was calculated using hay valued at $110/t, usage of the no-feeder control at 3 t of hay per mo, and based on mean difference in waste from the no-feeder control. Hay value was established at the time of purchase and was confirmed with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) hay prices for Minnesota in June 2010 (NASS, 2010). Weather data (maximum temperature and rainfall) were collected daily from a weather station located 34 km from the research site in New Richmond, WI (45°1′N, 92°5′W).

Feeders were compared using a mixed-effects linear model in which groups of horses were considered a random effect, and pen was the experimental unit (Proc Mixed, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Carryover effects were estimated by including a lagged treatment variable with the treatment variable in the model (Jones and Kenward, 2003). Neither carryover nor phase effects were significant, and horse-group total BW, maximum temperature, and rainfall did not vary over the 4-d periods or between phases. Hay waste percentage was transformed to the log scale for analysis; geometric means are reported. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05, and means and 95% confidence intervals are reported.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Weather

Mean maximum daily temperature between phase 1 (26.7°C) and 2 (27.2°C) was not different (P = 0.65), nor was the mean maximum daily temperature between the 4-d periods (P = 0.76). Total rainfall of each 4-d period was not different (P = 0.22), nor was the average rainfall between phases 1 (0.66 cm) and 2 (2.44 cm; P = 0.17). Because weather conditions were similar between periods and phases, they are unlikely to have affected hay intake and hay waste. Furthermore, the daily collection and oven drying of waste hay limited the effect of rainfall on feeder efficiencies.

Horse Safety

No injuries were observed from any feeder types during the data collection period. However, cosmetic rub marks along the sides of faces were observed on many horses feeding out of the Waste Less. Experiments utilizing different age groups of horses, and for longer durations, are necessary to further examine the safety of each feeder.

After 2 d of feeding from the Cinch Net, the round bale collapsed and horses were able to stand and defecate on the remaining hay. As a result, the Cinch Net was the only feeder design that resulted in greater moisture (29%) in the remaining hay than the control (P < 0.02). With the exception of the Cinch Net, no other feeder design, covered or uncovered, resulted in remaining hay that was greater than 15% moisture. Hay remaining in a feeder or on the ground that is >15% moisture (from either rainfall or contamination with manure and urine) is susceptible to mold formation (Collins et al., 1987), will likely become unpalatable, has been linked to equine health issues including recurrent airway obstruction (Robinson et al., 2006) and colic (Hudson et al., 2001), and can lead to the production of mycotoxins (Raymond et al., 2000). Thus, we recommend that the Cinch Net be used in combination with another feeder to eliminate horse access as the round bale collapses during feeding. The manufacturer also recommends that horses should not be shod when feeding from the Cinch Net.

Distinct burrowing holes were observed from horses feeding on round bales inside the Hayhut. This same behavior was observed when horses fed out of the Tombstone, Ring, and Tombstone Saver. This could lead to irritation for horse with disorders such as recurrent airway obstruction (Robinson et al., 2006), especially if round bales are dusty or moldy. Harvesting round bales at ≤15% moisture resulted in hay that was relatively stable in terms of forage quality and exhibited little evidence of microbial respiration (Montgomery et al., 1986; Rotz and Muck, 1994). Round bales intended for horse feeding should be ≤15% moisture to avoid mold formation and maintain forage quality (Martinson et al., 2011). This is especially important when using feeders that result in distinct burrowing holes during feeding.

Hay Waste

Hay waste differed between round-bale feeder designs (P < 0.001; Table 3 and Figure 2). All feeders reduced waste compared with the no-feeder control by providing a physical barrier between the horses and forage, thus limiting waste from trampling and manure and urine contamination. Feeders designed to provide greater physical restrictions (i.e., Waste Less, Cinch Net, Hayhut, and Covered Cradle) resulted in less hay waste compared with feeders that provided easier access to hay. With the exception of the Hayhut, these feeders did not allow horses to immerse their heads into the bale, and horses were frequently observed pulling small mouthfuls from the bale with little waste. Feeders that provided easier access to hay (i.e., Hay Sleigh, Ring, and Tombstone) resulted in more waste. Horses were frequently observed immersing their entire head into the bale, pulling hay out of the feeder, and dropping it on the ground. This observation was confirmed when comparing the Covered Cradle and the Hay Sleigh. The Covered Cradle is basically the Hay Sleigh with the addition of vertical sides and a roof. The more restrictive vertical sides of the Covered Cradle resulted in 11% waste compared with 33% waste with the completely open Hay Sleigh. Although the Cone feeder did restrict horse access, the internal cone structure held the round bale up, which required the horses to pull hay down until the remaining hay was confined in the bottom panel. This likely contributed to the greater amounts of waste. Buskirk et al. (2003) observed that the ability of a beef cow to throw its head and toss hay is limited when their head was beneath a rail, thus reducing hay waste. Horses had to insert their heads into the Hayhut, limiting their ability to toss hay outside of the feeder, thus reducing waste.

Table 3.

Hay waste, hay intake, BW change, and payback of 9 round-bale feeders and a no-feeder control when horses were fed hay

Feeder type	Hay waste		Estimated hay intake		Pen BW change		Payback
	%	(95% CI)1	% of BW	(95% CI)	kg	(95% CI)	Months	(95% CI)
Waste Less2	5a	(3, 9)	2.3a	(2.0, 2.7)	32a	(−51, 116)	8e	(6, 10)
Cinch Net3	6ab	(4, 11)	2.4a	(2.0, 2.7)	83a	(−1, 167)	0.8a	(0.6, 1.1)
Hayhut4	9bc	(5, 15)	2.3a	(2.0, 2.6)	−3ab	(−87, 81)	4c	(3, 5)
Covered Cradle5	11c	(6, 18)	2.4a	(2.0, 2.7)	25a	(−59, 109)	20f	(15, 25)
Tombstone Saver6	13cd	(7, 23)	2.2a	(1.9, 2.6)	−16ab	(−100, 68)	4cd	(3, 6)
Cone7	19d	(11, 32)	2.1a	(1.7, 2.4)	26a	(−5, 110)	9e	(7, 12)
Tombstone8	19d	(11, 32)	2.2a	(1.8, 2.5)	79a	(−5, 163)	2b	(2, 3)
Ring9	19d	(11, 34)	2.1a	(1.7, 2.4)	0ab	(−84, 84)	2b	(2, 3)
Hay Sleigh10	33e	(20, 57)	2.0a	(1.7, 2.3)	17a	(−67, 101)	5d	(4, 7)
No feeder	57f	(34, 97)	1.3b	(1.0, 1.7)	−102b	(−186, −18)	—	—

^a–fFeeders compared within a column, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

¹CI = confidence interval.

²JSI Innovations LLC, St. Croix Falls, WI.

³Cinch Chix LLC, North Branch, MN.

⁴Hayhuts LLS, Deleon Spring, FL.

⁵SM Iron Inc., Sanborn, MN.

⁶HiQual, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

⁷Model R7C, Weldy Enterprises, Wakarusa, IN.

⁸Dura-Built, Eagan, MN.

⁹R & C Livestock, Bethany, MO.

¹⁰Smith Iron Works Inc., St. Francis, MN.

Figure 2.

Hay waste percentage from 9 round-bale feeders and a no-feeder control when horses were fed hay. Gray squares indicate geometric mean waste; open circles indicate observations from pens.

There were no differences (P > 0.05) in hay waste between the circular feeders: Tombstone Saver, Tombstone, Cone, and Ring. In feeding beef cattle, hay waste was also similar between circular round-bale feeders including the Ring and Cone with 6 and 3.5% hay waste, respectively (Buskirk et al., 2003). The Ring feeder for cattle described by Buskirk et al. (2003) was not similar to the Ring feeder evaluated in this trial, but the cone feeders were similar. To avoid mane rubbing, the feeding panel heights of the horse-style cone feeder were 61 cm taller than the cone feeder designed for cattle. Greater panel height may have contributed to increased hay waste from horses feeding out of the Cone, but the differences in hay waste are more likely due to the difference in standard management (i.e., number of animals feeding from a round-bale feeder and feeding frequency) between the 2 species.

Although made by different manufacturers, the Ring evaluated by McMillan et al. (2010) is comparable with the Ring evaluated in this trial. McMillan et al. (2010) observed 2% hay waste from the Ring feeder compared with 19% waste observed in this study when grass hay was fed to horses. Previous research (McMillan et al., 2010) used coastal bermudagrass compared with orchardgrass hay fed in this study. Forage quality components of ADF (38 and 40%, respectively) and CP (11 and 10%, respectively) were similar between the coastal bermudagrass and orchardgrass hays. Differences may be a result of periodic waste collection indoors after the entire bale was consumed (McMillan et al., 2010) compared with daily waste collection outdoors in this study. It is possible horses consumed some hay outside of the feeder that was considered waste and collected daily; this would have decreased waste. However, even after 1 d, hay outside of the feeders was contaminated with manure and urine, and we assumed horses would not consume it when uncontaminated hay remained in the feeder. McMillan et al. (2010) observed a greater amount of waste with alfalfa compared with coastal bermudagrass hay when horses fed from a Ring feeder, 9 vs. 2%, respectively. These results imply forage type affects hay waste, and further research to investigate the relationship between hay type and feeder designs is warranted.

Hay Quality, Estimated Hay Intake, and Pen BW Changes

Round bale forage quality means were 10% CP, 40% ADF, 63% NDF, 1.98 Mcal of equine DE/kg, 0.33% Ca, and 0.32% P. The orchardgrass hay met or exceeded the nutritional requirements of the horses for DE, CP, Ca, and P at the 2.0% ad libitum feed intake for nonworking mature horses (NRC, 2007).

There was no difference in estimated hay intake between feeder designs (P ≥ 0.05); all feeders resulted in 2.0 to 2.4% of BW (Table 3). Compared with feeder means, the no-feeder control reduced (P = 0.001) estimated hay intake to 1.3% BW. McMillan et al. (2010) observed a similar DMI per BW (2.0%) for horses fed grass hay in a Ring feeder. According to Dulphy et al. (1997), voluntary intake of grass hay ranged from 2 to 2.43% BW, identical to intake ranges observed in this study when horses were fed using a round-bale feeder. Buskirk et al. (2003) reported similar intake from round-bale feeders with cattle. Decreased DMI for horses fed grass hay without a feeder has been observed (McMillan et al., 2010), although this reduction was not significant. When DMI and hay waste are collectively considered, the lack of differences among feeder DMI indicates that feeder design accounted for differing hay wastes and did not cause restricted hay intake.

Pen BW change was not different among feeder types (P = 0.15; Table 3). However, when compared with the control, 6 of the 9 feeders resulted in small pen BW gains (P ≤ 0.05) including the Cinch Net, Cone, Covered Cradle, Hay Sleigh, Tombstone, and Waste Less feeders. Estimated hay intake of 2.0 to 2.4% BW resulted in excessive DE intake of 18.7 to 42.4%, respectively, which accounted for pen BW gain when fed from feeders. Excessive BW gain is problematic and has been linked to several equine health disorders, including equine metabolic syndrome (Geor and Frank, 2009). The no-feeder control resulted in greater pen BW loss (P = 0.02) than 6 of the feeders, but was not different from the Hayhut, Ring, or Tombstone Saver. At 1.3% BW of estimated hay intake, DE requirements were not met with the no-feeder control, accounting for the pen BW loss, although CP, Ca, and P requirements were still met (NRC, 2007). The magnitude of pen BW loss from the no-feeder control exceeded NRC (2007) expectations. However, hay intake was probably not uniform over the 4 d, and as described previously, the pen with the no-feeder control never had remaining hay after the 4-d period. Initially, bale quality (d 1 and 2) would have been consistent with bales placed in the feeders. However, as the bale flattened out (d 3 and 4), greater hay spoilage from horse defecation, urination, and trampling of hay was observed, contributing to the reduced DMI and loss of herd BW. Increased hay spoilage when a feeder was not used has been previously reported with beef cattle (Lechtenberg et al., 1974) and horses (McMillan et al., 2010). A drastic reduction in feed intake in the last one-half of the 4-d feeding period would result in mobilization of body stores to meet short-term energy requirements and would contribute to overall BW loss. When compared with ad libitum hay consumption, restricting hay intake to 1% of BW for a 3-d period resulted in a 2% decrease in the BW of Thoroughbreds (Rice et al., 2001). Rice et al. (2001) attributed the reduction in BW to a decrease in gut fill. The mean pen BW loss of 102 kg observed in this study is equivalent to just less than 4% BW. However, longer term (>4 d) monitoring of equine BW changes resulting from round-bale feed designs is warranted.

Economics

Feeder design affected payback (P < 0.01; Table 3 and Figure 3). A reduced amount of hay waste and affordable price resulted in the quickest payback time for the Cinch Net. Although the Waste Less feeder resulted in the least amount of waste, the higher price ($1,450) resulted in a longer payback period of 8 mo. Even though the circular feeders (Cone, Ring, Tombstone, and Tombstone Saver) resulted in similar hay waste, the price difference between feeders ($250 to $1,195) resulted in a faster payback (2 mo) for the more affordable Ring and Tombstone feeders. Whereas the Cinch Net paid for itself in the shortest amount of time, the net material is guaranteed to last for 3 yr, and all other feeders claim to last indefinitely. However, feeder longevity was not measured in this study nor accounted for in the payback. Payback is affected by initial hay price. Hay prices are affected by location (NASS, 2010) and weather conditions, and anecdotal information indicates that hay purchased for horse feed is often higher than NASS average prices. Doubling the hay price to $220/t to reflect areas with higher hay prices cut all payback periods in half (data not shown).

Figure 3.

Mean hay waste percentage and cost (as of July 2010) for 9 round-bale feeders.

Sorting feeders by most affordable to most expensive facilitates a feeder-by-feeder comparison of additional purchase cost vs. reduced waste. Because the Cinch Net is recommended for use with another feeder, it was omitted from this analysis. After omitting the Cinch Net, the Tombstone is the next most affordable feeder, resulting in 19% hay waste. Continuing up in purchase cost, the Ring and the Hay Sleigh do not offer less waste compared with the Tombstone. The Hayhut and Tombstone Saver, next in price at $650, did result in decreased hay waste at 9 and 13%, respectively. However, 20 and 32 mo, respectively, would be required to pay off the higher Hayhut and Tombstone Saver purchase prices compared with the Tombstone. Of the feeders that are more expensive and efficient than the Hayhut, the Waste Less reduces waste to 5%, but 60 mo would be required to pay back its additional purchase cost compared with the Hayhut. The Cone and Covered Cradle do not reduce waste compared with the Hayhut, so no amount of time would pay back their added cost from reduced waste. This analysis allows potential buyers to consider round-bale feeders based on both hay waste and purchase price and highlights the fact that there is an additional cost associated with more expensive feeders, even if those feeders result in reduced hay waste.

Round-bale feeder design affected hay waste and feeder payback, but not horse safety, estimated hay intake, or pen BW change during the feeding period. The use of a round-bale feeder, regardless of design, is necessary to avoid the 57% mean hay waste, reduced hay intake, and horse BW loss observed when not using a feeder. Economics was affected by both waste reduction and feeder purchase price; however, all round-bale feeders repaid their cost within 20 mo. This information will aid horse owners and professionals when purchasing round-bale feeders and estimating hay needs.

Footnotes

1

This project was funded by a grant from the Minnesota Horse Council (Plato) and manufacturer fees. We acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of Federated Coop in Albertville, MN, and the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, specifically Kris Hiney and Corey Williams.

2

Mention of trade names in this article is solely to provide specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the University of Minnesota, nor does it imply approval to the exclusion of other products.

© American Society of Animal Science 2012