Introduction:

The effects of changing the physical form of long-stem hay were studied for horse rations. Compared to long—stemmed hay, cubed alfalfa has been shown to produce an increase in average daily gain in horses (Jackson et al. 1985). Coleman et al. (1989), reported increase gains and feed efficiency for horses eating high quality roughages in a cubed form. Coleman et al. (1989), also indicated an 18.5% increase in feed efficiency when a simple hay feeder was used in comparison to feeding on the ground. Voluntary intake studies by Todd, (1986) showed the intake of cubes were highest when compared to long-stem alfalfa, pelleted alfalfa and chopped alfalfa.

 Water intake has often been thought to be greater for horses on cubed rations as compared to long—stemmed hay rations. Pagan and Jackson, (1991) suggest that horses on long-stemmed hay will excrete more water and drink more than horses on pelleted rations. Coemen and Meyer, (1987) showed that horses on roughage diets have a higher fecal output of water than horses on concentrate diet. Edwards, (1973) showed that horses on high roughage diets had higher amounts of water in the large intestine do to a higher binding ability of undigested material thus supporting the theory of increased water content in the fecies of horses on long—stemmed hay rations as compared to concentrate and pelleted hay rations as seen in other studies. It has also been suggested that horses on long—stemmed hay have a higher fecal output than horses on cubed or pelleted rations. Pagan and Jackson, (1991) suggest that this is due to increased fecal water content of horses on long—stemmed hay rations than horses on pelleted hay. Coenen and Meyer, (1987) suggest that there is a higher water content in the gut of horses on long—stemmed hay and is due to increased endogenous secretions and/or absorption rates. They also suggest that horses utilize dryed grass protein to a higher degree than ruminants because of the chewing effects and increased salivation.

Materials and Methods:

Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of cubed rations on water intake and fecal output. It was hypothesized that horses on cubed rations consumed more water than horses on long—stemmed hay and grain, (LSGH), that wastage was greater on LSHG, and fecal output is greater for LSHG. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of cubed rations on water intake, fecal output and feed wastage.

Eight mature geldings were randomly assigned to two treatments: 1) Long-stemmed alfalfa hay and grain (LSHG), or 2) complete cubed alfalfa hay and grain. Horses were kept in stalls and individually fed to 1.5% of body weight. Individual body weights were recorded on day 1 of the collection period and again on day 10. A seven day adaptation period preceded the ten day collection period. Animals were fed one half ration both in the AM and PM. and given a 3 hour feeding time for each bout. All animals were supplied water in calibrated buckets and allowed to consume to appetite during each feeding period. All animals were dry lotted between the AM and PM feeding except during days 5 and 7 of the trial when 24 hr fecal collection were taken. During these periods horses were supplied as much water as desired. Horses were haltered and tied short enough that they could not reach the floor to consume any dropped feed which was considered to be wastage.

All feed wastage was weighted after each feeding bout and recorded. Water consumption was measured and recorded for each treatment.

Analysis of each feed was conducted and are presented in Table 5. Results were analyzed by Analysis of Variances, a procedure of GLM of SAS.

Results:

Initial weights of horses on trial averaged 527 kg. Health and condition of horses during the trial were excellent. There were no horses that required special treatment or veterinary care. Least square means of feed wastage, water consumption and fecal output are presented in Table 1.

For feed wastage there was a significant difference (P<.05) between complete cube ration (CCR) and LSHG ration with LSHG consistently being greater. The wastage in the LSHG treatment was completely made up of hay with the grain portion being completely consumed each feeding. There were no significant differences in wastage between AM and PM feedings. Analysis of the model for animal differences indicates a significant difference between, (P<.05) individual animals but also between feeds, indicating that the difference is likely the feed rather than the animal. Water consumption was significantly greater (P<.05) for horses on the CCR than LSHG. Horses on CCR consumed 35% more water than for horses on LSHG. There was not a significant difference between individual animals and water intake in the model. Fecal output was analyzed by weight per sample and number of samples per horse. The mean number of samples per treatment was not significant as well as the mean weight per sample, (Table 2), indicating there were no differences in total output for each treatment. When mean fecal outputs for each animal on test were compared in the model there were significant differences between animals indicating the difference was do to individual animals and not treatment. Fecal dry matters were not significantly different between treatments, (Table 3) but horses on LSHG had slightly higher fecal moisture than those on CCR, (73.4% LSHG vs. 71.2% CCR).

Table 1 -

T-Grouping: Those with different T-grouping letters are significant at the P<0.05 level.  Number of horses = 8.

Table 2 - Least Square Mean for Fecal Output