title: Effects of forage species and poultry litter application timing on forage preference by horses.
abstract: Bermudagrass ( L.) is a familiar forage in the equine industry and teff () is gaining popularity as well. However, it is unclear if the application of poultry litter as a fertilizer affects palatability of these forages in horses. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if forage species and timing of litter application as a fertilizer has an effect on preference by horses. Hay treatments were arranged in a 2 × 3 factorial treatment arrangement consisting of teff and bermudagrass harvested after no poultry litter application (NL), poultry litter applied to stubble immediately after removal of the previous cutting (L0), or poultry litter applied 14 d after the previous cutting (L14). Mature, stock-type geldings ( = 5; 480 ± 52.9 kg) were used in this study arranged as a balanced incomplete block design. Horses were offered different combinations of 4 of the 6 total forages daily for 3 d in each of 3 evaluation periods that immediately followed a 10-d adaptation period. Each forage was offered at half of the total daily DMI as measured during the last 5 d of the 10-d adaptation period to encourage selection among the 4 forages. Each hay offered was randomly allocated to a corner and suspended in hay nets over muck buckets in the corners of each stall. Horses were individually housed in 3.6- by 3.6-m indoor stalls with sand bedding and access to 3.6- by 7.6-m outdoor runs. Along with hay, horses were offered oats twice daily at 0.125% of BW at each feeding. Dry matter intake was greater ( < 0.01) for bermudagrass than for teff and for NL and L0 treatments compared with L14 treatments. Horses spent more ( < 0.01) time consuming bermudagrass compared with teff. However, there were no differences ( ≥ 0.25) in time spent consuming hay across litter treatments. Therefore, horses may prefer bermudagrass to teff and later application of poultry litter may affect voluntary intake by horses. However, all forages were mature, which may have impacted total intake and preference.
authors.forename: J K
authors.initials: JK
authors.lastname: Clark
authors.forename: B C
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Shanks
authors.forename: K S
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Jogan
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Philipp
authors.forename: K P
authors.initials: KP
authors.lastname: Coffey
authors.forename: N E
authors.initials: NE
authors.lastname: Jack
authors.forename: J D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Caldwell
authors.forename: R T
authors.initials: RT
authors.lastname: Rhein
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed / Q000032:analysis*; D000818:Animals; D031744:Cynodon / Q000737:chemistry*; D004032:Diet / Q000662:veterinary; D031750:Eragrostis; D005308:Fertilizers; D006736:Horses / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008372:Manure; D011200:Poultry; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D005308:Fertilizers; D008372:Manure