Hay Feeders and the Potential to Reduce Hay Waste

Apr 01, 2022

By Danielle Smarsh

In 2020, Penn State researchers from the Animal Science Department developed an online survey to characterize how horses in Pennsylvania are managed. The results of this project revealed that on average 56% of equids are fed their hay on the ground and not in a hay feeder. This statistic indicates that many equines in Pennsylvania may be wasting a significant proportion of the hay they are given.

What is a hay feeder?

Forage is an important component of a horse's diet and thus a large portion of their diet may consist of hay. It is generally suggested that horses have access to forage 24/7, so hay feeders can play a key role in ensuring your horse has constant access to hay. Hay feeders come in many different shapes and sizes and range in price between $150-$3,200 (2021 prices). There are feeders designed to feed small quantities of hay and feeders designed to feed whole bales (ranging from small square bales to large round bales). Some are considered "slow feeders" because the horse can only grab a small amount of hay with each bite, and some are considered "free choice" feeders which provides the horse more access to the hay and allows them to take as much as they wish. Sometimes a hay net will be combined with a free choice feeder to slow the rate of eating and reduce hay waste at the same time. Hay feeders can typically be bought from livestock equipment dealers.

Large bale free-choice style feeder (Hay Hut).

Large bale free-choice style feeder (Hay Hut).

Small bale free-choice style feeder (basket feeder).

Hay Feeder Use and Benefits

Wastage and Economic Loss

One major benefit to using a hay feeder is that it reduces the amount of hay lost due to waste. A study conducted at the University of Minnesota found that using round bale feeders results in significantly less hay wasted by horses. Nine different commercial round bale feeders were all found to reduce hay waste when compared to round bales fed directly on the ground. When the bales were fed on the ground, researchers found that 57% of the hay was wasted, compared with 5-33% hay waste when using different types of hay feeders. Furthermore, financially the feeders paid for themselves in 1-20 months when the amount of hay that would have been lost without the use of the feeder was considered. More details about this study are available on the University of Minnesota website. A similar horse study was conducted at Sam Houston State University with round bales and ring feeders (a specific type of round bale feeder). When hay was fed in a ring feeder, only 5.5% of the hay was wasted, but when the hay was fed without a ring feeder, about 35% of the hay was wasted. Another study at the University of Minnesota (read more) found that when hay was fed in small square bale feeders (such as basket, slat, and bunk feeders), less hay wastage occurred (1-5% wastage) compared to when horses were fed hay on the ground (13%). Because hay (and money) was saved with the use of any type of small square bale feeder, the feeders paid for themselves between 9-12 months. While hay wastage when feeding from small bales has been observed to be lower than that from round bales, it is clear that hay feeders can reduce the waste of hay in your pastures and dry lots no matter the size of hay bale you plan to feed.

The online survey of Pennsylvania equine caretakers found that the size of hay bale being fed appeared to affect whether a hay feeder was used or not (Table 1). When caretakers fed large bales (round or square), hay feeders were used on average by 58% of horse caretakers (it ranged from 37% to 79% depending on if the hay was fed in a stall, dry lot, or pasture). However, when feeding small square bales or flakes, only 34% of caretakers used a hay feeder (it ranged from 31% to 37% depending on if the hay was fed in a stall, dry lot, or pasture). This wide range in use of hay feeders in Pennsylvania, particularly for large bales, may be due to the fact that these bales were fed in a variety of locations on the farm. The finding that more caretakers used feeders when feeding from large bales was interesting since feeding small square bales in hay feeders has also been found to significantly reduce hay waste.

Location	Type of Bale/Flake Offered	Percent of caretakers using a hay feeder
Pasture	Large Bale	79%
Pasture	Small Bale/Flakes	39%
Dry Lot	Large Bale	37%
Dry Lot	Smale Bale/Flakes	30%

Table 1. Table displaying the percent of horses who were fed hay in a feeder depending on if they were fed large or small bales and the location.

Health Considerations

Not only does the use of hay feeders save money but they can also decrease the risk of horses consuming spoiled hay, which might cause gastrointestinal issues. This is particularly true when feeding from large bales outside. When horses eat from bales of hay placed directly on the ground without a hay feeder, the amount of hay waste is high because horses will pull large amounts from the bales and then drop some of it on the ground. The hay then becomes trampled and contaminated with urine and manure. If consumed, horses may experience digestive upset and other health-related issues. The combination of horse feces and hay waste may also create an ideal environment for filth fly development, increasing the number of flies on that horse farm, which is a common nuisance for horse owners.

Additionally, not protecting the hay in a feeder with a roof can leave hay exposed to rain and moisture which may encourage mold growth. Consuming moldy hay can lead to a number of respiratory and digestive issues in horses. Feeders should be cleaned regularly to avoid mold growth on any remaining fine pieces of hay. Properly using hay feeders decreases the risk of horses consuming spoiled hay and protects horse health.

Recently, there has been speculation that the height of the hay placement may affect horse health. Horses consuming hay with a high head and neck posture has been proposed to suffer detrimental health issues. This could happen, for example, when tying hay nets above the horse's head in the stall or trailer. While studies have shown that feeding from hay nets at a position above the ground causes different back posture in horses, no negative effects other than an unnatural feeding posture have been found to date. Tying hay nets at or below head level or using feeders that are placed on the ground will better simulate natural posture in horses but could pose a risk of legs or shoes getting caught in the net. Generally, feeders for large bales are designed to sit lower to the ground, which allows horses to eat in a more natural head and neck position.

Hay feeders can also raise concerns with regards to dental health. Choose hayfeeders that do not involve horses' teeth coming into contact with metal grating as this can damage or wear teeth. For example, when choosing a restricted access/slow feeder, use one that has soft mesh. Regular upkeep of feeders will ensure that horses do not accidentally hurt themselves on any sharp edges.

Conclusion

The use of hay feeders when providing any amount of hay to horses helps to prevent hay wastage, reduce the risk of horses consuming contaminated hay, and can save caretakers money. Therefore, it may be something that horse owners should consider implementing to make the most of their horse hay supply.

Source : psu.edu

Video: The 15-Year Bet Behind Every New Variety!

Canada is trying to decide how much agricultural research capacity it can afford to lose. Brian Rossnagel believes the better question is whether the country can afford to rebuild it.

The longtime barley and oat breeder makes the case with a simple fact about his profession: the consequences of today’s decisions may not become visible for 10 or 15 years.

“Pick the right parents. That’s the biggest thing,” Rossnagel says. “If you pick the wrong parents, you’re not going to get anywhere—and you don’t know that until 10 years, 15 years later.”

That warning carries particular weight as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada moves to reduce spending and streamline parts of its science operations. The department’s 2026–27 plan anticipates the loss of approximately 665 positions by 2028–29 and says some research will be reduced where capacity exists in academia or industry. AAFC says the changes will make its science operations more cost-effective over the long term.

For Canada’s seed industry, Rossnagel’s career illustrates what is at stake.

This fall, the retired University of Saskatchewan breeder will be inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. During his 35-year career at the Crop Development Centre, he helped develop more than 100 barley and oat varieties, including CDC Austenson—one of Western Canada’s most widely grown feed barleys. His induction recognizes not only those varieties, but the collaboration and research system that made them possible.

Rossnagel is quick to emphasize that none of it was the work of one person.

“The first thing I thought about was all the other people who contributed to whatever success I and my program had over the years,” he says. “We know that it’s not an individual who does this. It’s a group—a team.”

That team extends well beyond the breeder whose name appears beside a variety. It includes technicians, pathologists, quality specialists, statisticians, regional testing sites, seed growers and industry partners. It also includes the breeders who came before and those who will carry the germplasm forward.

CDC Fraser barley, for example, moved through three breeding careers. Its parents came from Brian Harvey’s program. Rossnagel advanced the material after Harvey retired, and Aaron Beattie later guided it through registration and release.

That kind of handoff is normal in plant breeding. The person who makes the original cross may never see the resulting variety reach farmers.

It also explains why lost research capacity cannot simply be switched back on when budgets improve.

“If you shut it off, it’s very, very difficult—and particularly costly—to start it up again,” Rossnagel says. “If you have to start from scratch, it’s going to be at least 10 years before anybody notices whether you’re getting anything done or not.”

The concern is not simply how many experimental lines Canada can process. Modern equipment, statistical tools and genetic technologies allow today’s breeding programs to evaluate tens of thousands of lines—far more than Rossnagel could handle when he entered the field in the early 1970s.

But efficiency and automation do not generate every idea.

“If you pare back down, and instead of having six or seven individual scientists concentrating on wheat breeding, you go down and say three people could handle all this, well, that’s half the ideas gone,” he says. “Particularly if you happen to lose the three people who had the really neat and innovative ideas, boy, that’s a problem.”

It is a timely distinction for Canadian agriculture. Consolidating programs may preserve the volume of material moving through a system, at least initially. It may not preserve the diversity of thinking, regional knowledge or willingness to pursue unconventional crosses.

That regional knowledge matters because Canadian agriculture is not one uniform production environment. A variety suited to southern Alberta may face different disease, moisture and maturity pressures than one grown in Manitoba, Ontario or Atlantic Canada.

“Agriculture is applied biology,” Rossnagel says. “Biology, all around the Earth, moves from the poles to the equator. It does not move from Newfoundland to B.C. like politics do.”