Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T00:25:31.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The apparent digestibilities and rates of passage of two chop lengths of big bale silage and hay in ponies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

H J Morrow ,
M Moore-Colyer  and
A. C Longland
H J Morrow
Affiliation:
Enniskillen College of Agriculture, Levaghy, Enniskillen, Co. Fermangh BT74 4GF, UK
M Moore-Colyer
Affiliation:
Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystywth SY23 3AL, UK
A. C Longland
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK
Get access

Extract

A wide range of roughage foodstuffs is available for feeding to horses. Considerable variation exists in the quality of these feeds in terms of nutrient composition and freedom from dust, fungal and bacterial contamination and infestation by mites. Many horse-owners are now feeding forages such as haylage and baled silage to horses as opposed to hay. However, limited information is available regarding the effect of chop length on digestibility and thus the feeding value of chopped or long-cut silage to horses. More information on fodder type and preparation could help to provide the basis for improvements in the practical guidelines and recommendations for those involved with the production and feeding of forages to horses.

Type
Programme
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1999 , 1999 , pp. 142
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Teeter, R. G., Owens, F.N. and Mader, T.L. (1984) Ytterbium Chloride as a marker for particulate matter in the rumen, Journal of Animal Science, 58(2), 465–473 Google Scholar