Forage Feeding Systems for Stable and Turnout

Forage-feeding equipment is often described as a choice between convenience and waste reduction. In practice, it is a management system that influences how long a horse eats, where it moves, the posture it adopts, how much forage is contaminated or wasted, whether subordinate horses can access food, and how easily staff can monitor intake.

The appropriate system depends on the forage, the horse, the environment and the management objective. A slow feeder may be useful for extending eating time, but it is not automatically safer or more welfare-positive than loose forage. A haynet can reduce waste, but a poorly positioned or damaged net can create avoidable hazards. A rack can keep forage clean, but may increase competition in a group unless there are sufficient access points. Good design therefore starts with the horse’s nutritional and behavioural needs rather than with the equipment itself.

Forage first: the purpose of the feeding system

Horses are herbivores adapted to spend much of the day walking, selecting and consuming forage. Domestic management commonly compresses this pattern into a small number of feeding events, particularly when stabled or kept on restricted grazing. The role of a forage-feeding system is to provide the required quantity and quality of forage in a way that supports welfare, hygiene, practical handling and reliable monitoring.

In Great Britain, the government code of practice states that where grass is insufficient, sufficient supplementary forage should be available throughout the day. It also emphasises a suitable diet, clean water, safe equipment and access to food for all horses in a group. These are welfare responsibilities, not optional features of a particular feeder design.

A feeding system may be intended to:

• provide the full daily forage ration;
• extend the time taken to consume a restricted ration;
• reduce trampling, bedding contamination or mud contamination;
• reduce forage waste and improve ration accuracy;
• encourage movement and foraging during turnout;
• separate horses during feeding;
• allow a horse with special dietary requirements to be monitored individually; or
• deliver forage safely during transport or temporary confinement.

These aims can conflict. A very restrictive feeder may extend feeding time but frustrate a horse or reduce intake below the planned amount. A communal feeder may reduce labour but make it difficult to confirm what each horse has eaten. A floor-based system may support a natural feeding posture but produce more waste if the surface is wet, dirty or heavily bedded.

Core design criteria

Quantity and intake rate

The feeder must allow the horse to obtain the intended daily amount of forage within the available time. A system that leaves substantial forage behind is not necessarily successful: uneaten forage may indicate excessive restriction, poor palatability, unsuitable mesh, social competition or mechanical failure.

Intake rate is affected by forage type, stem length, dryness, bale structure, mesh opening, number of layers, fill level and the individual horse. Mesh size should therefore be treated as an approximate management variable, not a universal prescription. Two nets with nominally identical openings can perform differently if one is loosely filled and the other tightly packed.

Access and competition

In group turnout, the number and distribution of feeding points are at least as important as the feeder itself. A single rack or bale may create a defendable resource. Dominant horses can control access while quieter horses wait, move away or consume less desirable forage elsewhere. Multiple stations should be separated sufficiently to reduce blocking and allow horses to leave without being trapped against a fence, wall or corner.

As a practical principle, the system should provide more usable access than the minimum number of horses, particularly where horses differ in age, size, mobility, temperament or nutritional status. England’s licensing guidance for hiring-out establishments specifies one feeding site per horse plus an extra one in relevant group-management circumstances. Although that guidance is not a universal design standard for every private yard, it is a useful benchmark for commercial operations.

Hygiene and contamination

Forage that is repeatedly pulled through mud, urine-soaked bedding, manure or stagnant water becomes less suitable, and contamination can be difficult to detect when it is hidden inside a feeder. Feeders should be positioned on a well-drained, stable surface and inspected for mould, dampness, faecal contamination and accumulated fines.

Ground feeding is not inherently unhygienic. It can be an excellent option where the surface is clean and the forage is removed before it becomes stale or contaminated. Conversely, a raised feeder is not automatically hygienic if old forage accumulates inside it or if rain collects beneath a cover.

Safety and failure modes

Safety assessment should consider normal use, misuse and foreseeable failure. Ask what happens if a net becomes empty, a fastening breaks, a feeder is pushed over, a horse paws at it, a shod foot enters an opening, or several horses compete for access.

Potential hazards include:

• loose loops, long tie cords or protruding fittings that can catch a hoof or limb;
• mesh that is damaged, stretched or large enough for a foot or shoe to enter;
• rigid corners, sharp edges, broken welds or exposed wire;
• feeders that can be tipped, rolled or dragged into fencing;
• low-hanging nets that become accessible to a pawing horse;
• restricted access that causes excessive pulling, biting or repeated striking;
• entrapment between a feeder and a wall, gate or shelter; and
• equipment that blocks an escape route or prevents a horse from lying down comfortably.

There is no single universally safe hanging height for every horse and every net. Height, tension, net size, fastening method, horse size, footwear and behaviour all matter. A net should be secured so that it cannot fall, but the fastening should not create a rigid projection or a loop that can catch a limb. It must be checked after installation and again as the forage is consumed, because an apparently safe full net can become hazardous when empty.

Floor feeding

Loose forage on the floor provides the most direct access and allows the horse to adopt a low-head posture. British and Welsh welfare guidance recognises floor-level forage as beneficial for respiratory health when the underlying surface is kept reasonably clean. Feeding at floor level can also reduce the pulling force required to extract forage and is often preferred by horses when they are given a choice.

The main limitations are waste, contamination and monitoring. Horses may drag forage through bedding or manure, and a restricted ration can be consumed rapidly. Loose forage is also difficult to protect from rain in turnout unless it is placed under a suitable shelter or in a low-sided receptacle.

Useful refinements include:

• placing forage on a clean, well-drained surface rather than directly in deep mud;
• using a broad, stable, non-toxic tub or floor feeder with no sharp edges;
• dividing a ration into several piles to encourage movement;
• spreading piles apart in group turnout to reduce guarding of a single resource; and
• removing contaminated leftovers rather than repeatedly topping up old forage.

Floor feeding should not be rejected solely because some forage is wasted. The relevant question is whether the waste is acceptable in relation to welfare, cost, availability and hygiene. In some yards, a small amount of clean residual forage is preferable to a system that prevents a horse from obtaining enough forage.

Haynets and hay bags

Haynets are flexible textile containers, usually made from knotted or knotless synthetic rope, with openings through which the horse extracts forage. Hay bags use a fabric or semi-rigid body and may have a mesh panel, opening or perforated surface. Both are widely used in stables, transport and turnout.

Construction and performance

Important construction variables include fibre type, rope diameter, knot or weave design, mesh opening, seam strength, suspension points, abrasion resistance and the quality of the closure. A nominal opening dimension does not fully describe performance. The effective aperture changes as the net is filled, pulled, stretched and emptied.

Research has consistently shown that smaller openings and multiple layers can extend forage consumption time. However, studies also demonstrate that feeding position and net design alter posture and the force required to remove forage. A small-holed or double-layered net may therefore achieve a longer feeding period at the cost of greater effort and, in some arrangements, less favourable posture.

Some horses adapt readily to a net; others paw, bite, shake or repeatedly strike it. A prolonged feeding time is not automatically a positive outcome if it is accompanied by persistent frustration. One study of prolonged haynet feeding reported increased frustration-related behaviour, pawing and pacing in the net treatment, while other research has found that suitable slow-feeder systems can reduce unwanted behaviours and increase feeding time. These apparently contradictory findings are best understood as evidence that design and implementation matter.

Hanging position

A hanging net changes the horse’s feeding height, head and neck angle and the direction of pulling. Very high placement may encourage an uncomfortable upward reach, while very low placement can increase the risk of a foot entering the net, particularly when the horse paws or when the net becomes empty.

Where a net is used, the horse should be observed eating rather than relying on a fixed rule. The net should remain stable, with no long trailing sections. It should not swing into walls or fencing, and it should not be placed where the horse must stand in urine or manure to eat. Some yards use a low or floor-level slow feeder for part of the ration and a separate elevated source for the remainder, but any mixed-height arrangement should be introduced gradually and assessed individually.

Introducing smaller mesh

Small-holed nets should be introduced progressively. A horse that has previously eaten loose forage may initially find a tightly packed net difficult or frustrating. The British Horse Society recommends decreasing hole size gradually or beginning with a lightly packed net. During the transition, staff should confirm that the horse is still consuming the planned quantity and is not becoming distressed or damaging the equipment.

Small mesh is not a substitute for ration calculation. If the horse is overweight or metabolically at risk, reducing forage access without professional nutritional planning can create a different welfare problem. The complete diet, forage analysis where appropriate, body condition, workload and access to pasture must be considered together.

Rigid slow feeders and forage boxes

Rigid slow feeders use a box, tray, grid or perforated lid to restrict access to loose or chopped forage. They may be installed in a stable, placed in a paddock or integrated into a shelter. Compared with a hanging net, a rigid feeder can provide a more stable feeding surface and may be easier to clean and inspect.

Quality indicators include rounded edges, non-toxic and weather-resistant materials, secure but accessible covers, drainage, adequate capacity, and a design that prevents the horse’s hoof or shoe entering a hazardous aperture. The feeder should not have a lid that can trap the muzzle or become detached under pressure. Plastic should resist cracking in cold weather and ultraviolet exposure; metal should be protected against corrosion and have no exposed sharp edges.

The principal limitation is that a rigid feeder can encourage concentrated standing and repeated pushing. It may also collect wet forage in corners. The feeder should be emptied and cleaned on a schedule appropriate to the weather, forage and stocking density, rather than only when it appears visibly dirty.

Hay racks and wall-mounted systems

Hay racks can reduce trampling and allow a large amount of forage to be presented in a stable or shelter. They are particularly useful where loose floor feeding is impractical. Wall-mounted designs must be installed so that the horse cannot place a leg through the rack or become caught between the rack and the wall.

Rack dimensions should suit the horse rather than merely the bale. A rack that is too deep encourages the horse to reach far inside; one with large openings may allow a hoof to enter. A cover or upper restraint can prevent forage being pulled out in large quantities, but it must not create a trapping point.

Respiratory considerations are relevant. Dust and small particles can fall from a raised rack towards the horse’s breathing zone. Clean forage remains fundamental, and a feeding system should not be used to disguise dusty or mouldy material. Where respiratory health is a concern, feeding close to floor level may be preferable, subject to hygiene and individual management advice.

Round-bale feeders and turnout systems

Round-bale systems are designed for group turnout, dry lots and extensive management. A bale net, metal ring, covered feeder or combined ring-and-net can reduce trampling and extend access over several days. They can also significantly reduce staff labour compared with repeated hand-feeding.

The risks are correspondingly larger because several horses may interact with the system continuously. The bale should be placed on a firm, drained base and protected from prolonged mud. The feeder must remain stable when pushed. Covers must not collapse onto the bale or create a low clearance point. Any net must be checked for enlargement, tearing and displaced fastenings.

Social structure is critical. A single communal bale may work for a compatible group but fail for horses with substantial differences in status or nutritional needs. A low-ranking horse may lose access even when the bale is technically available. Multiple bales or stations, spaced to prevent one horse controlling all of them, may be necessary.

Turnout systems also need a contingency plan for weather. Rain, freezing conditions and mud can alter both the forage and the accessibility of the equipment. Water must remain available and free from ice, and the feeding area may need relocation before the surface becomes deep, slippery or contaminated.

Forage distribution as enrichment

Dividing forage between several locations can encourage movement and searching. In a stable, this may mean separate piles or feeders positioned so the horse is not confined to one feeding corner. In turnout, forage may be distributed across a safe area or provided at several feeding stations.

Distribution should not become a scavenger hunt that makes the horse work excessively for an inadequate ration. The forage must remain findable, accessible and clean. A horse that is elderly, visually impaired, lame, anxious or socially subordinate may need a simpler arrangement.

Forage balls and mobile feeders introduce movement but require careful supervision when first used. They can roll under gates, into corners or out of reach. Their openings should not allow a hoof or shoe to become trapped. Products intended for treats may not have sufficient capacity, durability or ventilation for a full forage ration.

Matching systems to management situations

Inspection and maintenance protocol

Forage equipment should be treated as working equipment, not as a permanent installation that can be ignored after purchase. A documented inspection routine is particularly important on livery yards, riding schools and commercial premises.

1. Before use: check seams, knots, mesh, fastenings, corners, welds, lids and suspension points.
2. During feeding: observe whether the horse can obtain forage without excessive pulling, pawing or repeated striking.
3. After emptying: inspect the equipment when relaxed and unloaded; damaged areas may be hidden when full.
4. After weather events: check for flooding, ice, displaced feeders, mud and deteriorated materials.
5. At set intervals: wash or brush equipment as appropriate, remove old forage and record defects.
6. After any incident: withdraw the item until the failure has been understood and corrected.

Feeders should be labelled where several systems or rations are used. Staff should know the intended quantity, refill frequency, cleaning procedure and escalation route if a horse leaves forage, damages equipment or becomes unable to access it.

Common misconceptions

“A slow feeder is always better than loose forage.”

No. A slow feeder may improve intake duration and reduce waste, but the result depends on design, placement, forage and the individual horse. Persistent frustration, inadequate intake or unsafe behaviour indicates that the system needs modification.

“Small holes are safer because they stop the horse eating quickly.”

Small openings can extend feeding time, but they may also increase pulling effort and frustration. They should be introduced gradually and monitored. The smallest available mesh is not automatically the best choice.

“Raised forage is cleaner and therefore preferable.”

Raised equipment can reduce contact with bedding or mud, but it may increase dust exposure or create entrapment hazards. Clean floor feeding can be entirely appropriate where the surface is suitable.

“If a horse is losing weight, the feeder is working.”

Weight loss may indicate insufficient intake, social exclusion, dental difficulty, illness or poor forage quality. Feeding equipment should not be used to create unintended restriction. Any unexplained change in weight or appetite should be addressed with appropriate professional advice.

“One communal feeder is enough if there is plenty of forage.”

Quantity does not guarantee access. Dominant horses may control a single resource. Distribution, spacing and observation are necessary to confirm that all horses can eat.

Selection checklist for buyers and specifiers

• What is the primary objective: hygiene, waste reduction, longer feeding time, ration control or movement?
• Can the horse obtain the planned quantity within the available period?
• Does the design support a comfortable posture and manageable extraction force?
• Can a hoof, shoe, muzzle, halter or limb enter any opening?
• What happens when the feeder is empty, overturned or damaged?
• Is the material resistant to chewing, abrasion, weather and cleaning?
• Can all surfaces be inspected and cleaned?
• Will the feeder remain stable under pushing, pawing and group pressure?
• Is there enough access for every horse, including subordinate animals?
• Can staff weigh or estimate the ration reliably?
• Is there a safe alternative if the horse refuses or cannot use the system?

Conclusion

The best forage-feeding system is not defined by whether it is a haynet, rack, box, bale ring or floor pile. It is the system that supplies appropriate forage in sufficient quantity, allows practical monitoring, minimises contamination and waste, supports normal behaviour, and remains safe throughout use.

For stable management, this usually means choosing between simple floor feeding, a carefully positioned net, a rigid slow feeder or a combination of methods. For turnout, the emphasis shifts towards station design, social access, drainage, stability and weather resistance. In both settings, the equipment should be evaluated by observing the horse: eating time, posture, behaviour, body condition, forage residues and access for every individual are more informative than product labels alone.

Sources and further reading

• DEFRA, Code of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids.
• Welsh Government, Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equines.
• British Horse Society, Stable enrichment.
• British Horse Society, The Use of Alternative Grazing Systems in the UK.
• Effect of hay nets on horse bodyweight, body condition score, hay usage, and dental health in mature adult horses, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science.
• Posture and Pull Pressure by Horses When Eating Hay or Haylage from a Hay Net Hung at Various Positions, Animals.
• Hay-bags and slow feeders: Testing their impact on horse behaviour and welfare, Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
• Effects of prolonged hay net feeding on equine behavior, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science.
• The effect of presenting forage in multi-layered haynets and at multiple sites on night time budgets of stabled horses, Nottingham Trent University repository.
• GOV.UK, Hiring out horses: licensing statutory guidance for local authorities.

Related research

Hygiene Principles for Horse Feeding EquipmentContinue research →Feed Buckets, Mangers and Trough Materials ComparedContinue research →Automatic Waterers for Horses: Design and MaintenanceContinue research →Equine Feed Storage: Moisture, Pests and Contamination ControlContinue research →Slow Feeders and Hay Nets: Design, Safety and UseContinue research →