This meta-analysis evaluates feeding dynamics and behavior in horses, highlighting welfare implications and management practices.
The time-activity budget is a key indicator of animal welfare. This meta-analysis integrates data from 14 studies (1979-2020), involving 364 horses across various management conditions (wild, natural-living, and stabled) to evaluate feeding, resting, standing, and locomotion behaviours. Fixed and random effects models, forest plots, and ANOVA were used to assess the influence of management system, sociality, sex, age, body size, and feeding type. Feeding time varied significantly by management (free-ranging: 56%, stabled: 38%; p < 0.0001), social housing (grouped: 54%, isolated: 39%; p = 0.0052), sex (females: 64%, males: 48%, mixed: 46%; p = 0.0253), and feeding type (grazing: 56%, hay-fed: 39%; p = 0.0003). Resting time was influenced by age (<3 years: 24%, >3 years: 6%; p < 0.0001), body size (ponies: 24%, horses: 9%; p = 0.0005), sociality (grouped: 20%, isolated: 6%; p = 0.0120), and feeding type (pasture: 20%, hay: 9%; p = 0.0418). Standing was more common in stabled (47%) than free-ranging horses (25%; p = 0.0013), in isolated (51%) vs. grouped (25%; p = 0.0002), in adults (44%) vs. young horses (24%; p = 0.0047), in horses (41%) vs. ponies (23%; p = 0.0088), and in hay-fed (47%) vs. grazing horses (24%; p = 0.0004). Locomotion was higher in free-ranging (7.5%) than stabled (4.5%; p = 0.0001), in grouped (6.6%) vs. isolated (4.5%; p = 0.0220), and in grazing (7.5%) vs. hay-fed horses (4.5%; p = 0.0001). This study underscores the importance of management practices that promote foraging, social interaction, and locomotion, supporting equine welfare.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamanna et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: