This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Dr. Miriam Baumgartner
Technical University of Munich TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan Chair of Organic Agriculture and Agronomy Ethology, Animal Husbandries and Animal Welfare Research Group

Basic Info


Research Keywords & Expertise

0 Animal Behaviour
0 Animal Husbandry
0 Animal Welfare
0 Horses
0 welfare assessment

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Journal article
Published: 11 August 2021 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

A scientific consultation tool is currently being developed in Germany to assess, analyze, and improve animal welfare on site and simultaneously consider aspects of environmental sustainability in horse husbandry in order to contribute to a resource-conserving and responsible handling of natural resources and the welfare of living beings. To date, no study has assessed to what extent species-appropriate free-range locomotion possibilities are implemented on horse farms and to what extent turnout areas are affected by unwanted nutrient inputs from horse excretions. Using the indicators “species-appropriate turnout” (hereafter: “turnout”) and “unwanted nitrogen inputs in water bodies” (based on “nitrogen surplus”), we exemplarily examine animal- and environmentally relevant aspects of horse husbandry. We conducted 88 assessments on 46 horse farms (n = 2220 horses) to test literature-based indicators of animal welfare and environmental sustainability. We found that the indicator “nitrogen surplus,” used to assess an aspect of environmental sustainability, was mostly a problem in the wintertime (summertime = −4.24, range: −109.27–58.97; wintertime: mean: 12.01, range: −35.19–468.00 nitrogen surplus per hectare, n = 44 farms, p< 0.001), when the horses had a reduced space allowance for free locomotion. On most farms, “turnout” was provided daily for several hours, but in many of the single housing systems, not all horses had the possibility for free locomotion (24.1 ± 20.4% of horses per farm), which is unacceptable in terms of animal welfare. Husbandry systems with a large enough space allowance for turnout (≥200 m2 per horse) were found to be measures with a valuable synergetic effect, providing a resource which is an opportunity both for an environmentally sustainable and welfare-friendly horse husbandry. Demanuring remarkably decreased the nitrogen surplus (p< 0.001). Hence, based on the study, we recommend to daily demanure the pasture or paddock if the space allowance is less than 200 m2 per horse. In conclusion, regarding animal welfare, group housing is favorable, but regarding a site-specific environmentally friendly or even biodiversity-enhancing management, space allowance per horse is a crucial factor rather than the type of housing system. The two selected exemplary indictors demonstrate the need for a holistic and comprehensive decision support system that considers the linkage between horse welfare and environmental sustainability in order to assist peoples’ decision-making with horses under their care.

ACS Style

Miriam Baumgartner; Sandra Kuhnke; Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen; Michael H. Erhard; Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8991 .

AMA Style

Miriam Baumgartner, Sandra Kuhnke, Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen, Michael H. Erhard, Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (16):8991.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miriam Baumgartner; Sandra Kuhnke; Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen; Michael H. Erhard; Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. 2021. "Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus." Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8991.

Journal article
Published: 02 March 2020 in Animals
Reads 0
Downloads 0

It is a basic high priority need of every horse to take in roughage continuously. In order to ensure the horses’ behavioural, physical and mental welfare, any pause of feed intake should not last for more than 4 hours. However, this basic need is often neglected in practice. The aim of the presented study was to assess the welfare of horses that are fed restrictively (non ad libitum) and kept in individual housing systems. We analyzed whether the feed intake behaviour of horses on edible bedding differs from the one of horses on non-edible bedding. As a common practice, the individually stabled horses were fed roughage twice or thrice a day. Our results showed that with this restrictive feeding practice, the horses were not able to eat any roughage for approx. 9 h during the night. Horses on non-edible bedding altered their feed intake behaviour - i.e., they paused less often during their meals and at a later point in time than the horses on edible bedding. We conclude that special feeding patterns have to be implemented (e.g., automated forage feeding systems) to avoid any impairment of the horses’ welfare if kept on non-edible bedding. During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses’ behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses’ natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses’ ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as “rebound effect”), this might indicate that the horses‘ welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage.

ACS Style

Miriam Baumgartner; Theresa Boisson; Michael H. Erhard; Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding. Animals 2020, 10, 411 .

AMA Style

Miriam Baumgartner, Theresa Boisson, Michael H. Erhard, Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding. Animals. 2020; 10 (3):411.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miriam Baumgartner; Theresa Boisson; Michael H. Erhard; Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht. 2020. "Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding." Animals 10, no. 3: 411.