Horse Forage Management Guide

This section establishes the foundational connection between pasture forage yield and the needs of horses. It emphasizes the significant variability in forage production, highlighting the dependence on several factors. These factors include the type of grass used (such as bermudagrass and winter pasture mixes), the level of fertilization applied (ranging from minimal to moderate), and the overall effectiveness of pasture management techniques. Specific data points illustrate this variability. For instance, in southern Oklahoma, bermudagrass yields can range from 3,000 to 8,000 pounds of forage per acre. A yield of 3,000 pounds is sufficient to support a 1,000-pound horse for approximately 150 days. Conversely, an 8,000-pound yield could potentially support 1.5 horses per acre for around eight months, though the text acknowledges unevenness in stocking rate across this period. The economic implications are also briefly addressed; producing a good acre of small-grain winter pasture incurs costs between $75 and $125, with the cost of forage per ton ranging from $25 to $60. These figures provide a framework for understanding the financial aspects of maintaining adequate horse pasture, especially when considering the cost savings of pasture-based feeding versus entirely hand-fed rations.

This subsection delves into the critical concepts of stocking density and stocking rate. Stocking density refers to the number and weight of horses within a specific paddock at any given time, whereas stocking rate refers to the number and weight of horses across the entire pasture unit. The document highlights that stocking density varies considerably. One guideline suggested is that maintaining smaller groups of roughly ten mature horses in smaller, rotationally grazed paddocks is preferable to larger groups in extensive pastures. Larger groups tend to create challenges; they break into smaller units, potentially leading to issues like stampeding through fences. Although the ideal figure is 10 horses, the text acknowledges that sometimes larger numbers succeed, particularly in larger paddocks. This variation underscores the necessity of considering various factors when determining the appropriate stocking rate for a given pasture, recognizing that successful management may require flexible strategies depending on pasture size and horse behavior.

This section delves into the economic factors associated with forage production for horse pastures. A key finding is that the cost of establishing a high-quality, small-grains-based winter pasture generally falls between $75 and $125 per acre. Furthermore, this type of pasture tends to produce 2 to 3 tons of dry-weight forage per acre annually, at a cost per ton in the range of $25-$60. The daily cost of feeding a 1,000-pound horse using this method comes out to between $0.25 and $0.60. The analysis concludes that this represents an economically efficient approach compared to a complete reliance on hand-fed rations, especially considering the high quality of forage produced by this type of pasture. This emphasizes that cost-effective forage production plays a significant role in the overall management and financial sustainability of equine operations.

This section highlights the key differences between the equine digestive system and that of ruminant animals like cattle. Horses are classified as cecal fermenters, meaning that the majority of roughage digestion occurs in the cecum (large intestine). This contrasts with ruminants, where digestion primarily happens in the rumen (a pre-stomach). The process in horses involves forage initially entering the stomach, undergoing breakdown, and then passing through the small intestine where protein, simple sugars, and fats are absorbed. Further digestion of cellulose takes place in the large intestine via specialized bacteria. This contrasts with the ruminant process, where bacteria in the rumen break down most forage components into simpler molecules. The text emphasizes that the horse's digestive system necessitates high-quality forages for efficient nutrient utilization, unlike cattle which can utilize lower-quality forage effectively. This crucial difference in digestive physiology is a fundamental aspect to consider when selecting and managing forage for horses, ensuring that their nutritional needs are met.

The section emphasizes the vital connection between forage quality and horse health. It notes that seemingly healthy, lush pastures aren't always nutritionally sound. For example, pastures with excessively high water content (over 85 percent) can be deficient in fiber, leading to inadequate nutritional intake despite plentiful vegetation. Horses on such pastures may consume excessive water without sufficient nutrient absorption. Low-quality forage can further lead to digestive issues such as hay gut and impaction colic. The text explains that this is a consequence of the horse's digestive anatomy: the long, folded large intestine makes them particularly prone to impaction colic when consuming low-quality roughage. This reinforces the need for high-quality forage to maximize horse performance; insufficiently nutritious forage necessitates supplemental feeding to ensure optimal health and well-being. The point is that maintaining good horse health depends directly on providing the proper quality and type of forage.

This section explains the link between digestive anatomy and feeding behavior in horses. Their digestive system drives them to consume small meals of high-quality forage, contributing to their reputation for spot grazing. This grazing pattern, combined with their susceptibility to impaction colic due to low-quality roughage, highlights the need for careful pasture management and forage selection. The text states that horses efficiently utilize forage only when its quality is high; otherwise, supplemental feeding is necessary to achieve their full potential. A different digestive system would be required for the efficient use of low-quality forage. The reference to Freeman (1996) suggests additional information can be sought from external sources. The key takeaway is that while spot-grazing is a natural horse behavior, understanding this behavior is crucial to providing them with adequate nutrition and preventing health issues from poorly managed or low quality pastures.

Bermudagrass is presented as a prominent and resilient grass for horse pastures, though it requires careful management. The text notes that while it is considered tough, horses can still damage or even kill it if not properly managed, specifically by grazing it too short. A suitable recovery period is essential to maintain the grass's vigor. Several bermudagrass varieties are listed, including ‘Caucasian’, ‘Ganada’, ‘King Ranch’, ‘Plains’, and several bluestem varieties such as ‘WW-Spar’, ‘WW-Ironmaster’, ‘WW-B Dahl’, and ‘PMT-587’. ‘King Ranch’ and ‘Plains’ bluestem are highlighted as having proven successful, and the text suggests the others are likely suitable as well. ‘Caucasian’ bluestem is described as the most productive perennial grass in the region, while ‘Plains’ bluestem demonstrates wide adaptability and proven forage value. ‘Ganada’ bluestem is characterized as dense and low-growing, potentially offering more resistance to horse trampling. This overview emphasizes the importance of choosing the appropriate bermudagrass variety and implementing effective management practices to ensure pasture health and productivity.

Crabgrass is presented as a valuable addition to horse pastures, especially in areas with sufficient rainfall (at least 25 inches) or irrigation. It's praised for its high quality, even rivaling the best summer grasses, and its digestibility makes it excellent for hay or pasture. Crabgrass's green season is comparable to bermudagrass, although it typically starts about two weeks later in the spring. One acre of good crabgrass pasture is cited as potentially sustaining one horse throughout the entire summer. This information suggests that crabgrass can be a highly suitable summer forage option for horses, offering a high-quality alternative or supplement to other pasture grasses, particularly in regions with appropriate climatic conditions. The information also illustrates how appropriate rainfall or irrigation are critical factors in achieving successful crabgrass growth.

The document goes on to discuss several other grass types suitable for horse pastures. Annual ryegrasses are recommended for a specific geographic area (southeastern two-thirds of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas), providing excellent forage from March to June. Several varieties like ‘Marshall’, ‘Ribeye’, and ‘Jackson’ are mentioned. Fescue is another option, particularly useful when mixed with bermudagrass, creating a long-term, productive pasture base that covers different seasons. The combination of fescue and bermudagrass provides extended grazing capabilities (fall, winter, and early spring for fescue and spring to fall for bermudagrass). Winter wheat varieties are considered dependable, offering stockpiled forage in the fall and abundant spring growth. Oats are less consistently reliable due to their winter hardiness, and soft wheat is noted as potentially more productive than hard red winter wheat for early fall planting. These descriptions illustrate the variety of grass types available, each with its unique characteristics, seasonal suitability, and regional adaptations, allowing for flexible pasture choices depending on specific requirements and locations. The text highlights the benefits of specific varieties and suitable planting methods.

Beyond introduced grasses, the document discusses native range grasses and legumes. Native grasses are described as good horse forages but are less productive than introduced species, more susceptible to overgrazing and trampling, and generally of lower quality—often requiring supplemental feeding. However, their consistent, though moderate, quality is noted as advantageous. Legumes, while providing some benefits, can lead to spot grazing, as horses prefer grasses in mixtures. Johnsongrass is briefly mentioned, with a reference to another section for more details, and millets (German and pearl) are noted as short-season emergency options, but with potential nitrate buildup concerns. Teff, an annual lovegrass, is also discussed, highlighted by its high quality and palatability but limited availability in the United States. Wheatgrass is mentioned as a good horse hay when well-managed. Orchardgrass, another option, is characterized as a relatively stable perennial, particularly in certain Oklahoma regions. This comprehensive overview showcases the range of forage choices available for horse pastures, each with specific strengths and weaknesses that need to be considered during pasture planning and management.

The document strongly advocates for rotational grazing as a fundamental practice for successful horse pasture management. It emphasizes that this method, when properly implemented, significantly enhances forage production and quality, improves pasture stand sustainability, and helps control several common problems associated with continuous grazing. The text states that there are no exceptions to this rule if high-quality pasture management is the goal. Rotational grazing is crucial for maintaining pasture longevity, enhancing forage quality, promoting uniform use (reducing spot grazing), ensuring adequate pasture recovery, and generally extending the lifespan of the pasture. Failure to use rotational grazing is identified as a primary contributor to pasture decline, second only to insufficient production practices. Even a resilient grass like bermudagrass can suffer greatly without rotational grazing. The effectiveness of rotational grazing is directly linked to the number of paddocks used. Multiple paddocks are significantly better than fewer ones, improving the overall effectiveness of the system.

The section presents different approaches to pasture fertilization. The first is minimal fertilization, solely for maintaining existing grass stands and sufficient forage for light stocking. The second approach involves optimizing forage production per pound of fertilizer. This entails determining the most cost-effective fertilizer application rate to achieve a high level of forage production. The text cautions that the information provided is only a guideline, and individual accuracy and yield variations need to be considered. The document highlights the importance of seeking professional advice to determine the optimal application amount tailored to specific land, forage type, and management goals. It also recommends multiple applications at lower rates for top-dressing, especially given potential animal health issues associated with high nitrate content in forage.

This section addresses weed control in horse pastures, comparing two approaches: herbicides and mowing. Herbicides are presented as the more effective method, though the text acknowledges some horse managers' reservations. Caution is advised, especially regarding herbicides applied near roadside areas or oil fields, as these might include unapproved chemicals. Mowing, while having a role in weed control, is considered less effective than herbicides and more expensive. It's suggested as a last resort, mainly when there's a risk of herbicide damage to surrounding areas. Optimal mowing involves waiting until weeds reach at least 12 inches in height and are budding. Multiple mowings are often necessary per season. The section emphasizes that mowing might be more suitable when aesthetic considerations and the balance of forage use in a grazing approach need to be incorporated. This points to the need for careful planning when implementing weed control measures.

This subsection addresses the management of manure in horse pastures, distinguishing horse behavior from that of other livestock. Horses tend to concentrate their waste in certain areas, unlike cattle, goats, and sheep. Therefore, dragging is recommended to evenly distribute manure and smooth out pawed areas. This can be done using various tools, and it is most effective after rain or in high humidity. However, the text references Herd's (1986) work, suggesting that sweeping may be a superior approach. Sweeping physically removes manure, minimizing parasite transmission. This method can substantially reduce pasture larval counts (up to 95 percent) and increase usable pasture area (up to 50 percent). While effective, sweeping is best suited for short pastures and smaller paddocks, and commercial sweepers are suggested. This analysis shows the options and importance of manure management practices.

This section highlights the importance of gradual transitions in horse diets, particularly when introducing pasture. Abrupt changes, especially from low-quality pasture or no pasture to high-quality pasture, can cause significant health problems such as colic, founder, and other digestive issues. These reactions can be severe, even fatal. Horses should adapt to changes gradually to avoid these problems. The risk is largely absent when switching from high-quality to lower-quality forage. This emphasizes the importance of carefully managing the transition between different forage types or between a solely fed ration and pasture, ensuring a smooth dietary change to minimize health risks for the animals.

This section emphasizes the direct relationship between the quantity of available forage and the performance of horses. Research from Aiken et al. (1985) and Roquette (1985) indicates that providing 60 to 100 pounds or more of dry matter pasture per 100 pounds of body weight leads to peak individual performance. The text provides examples of forage requirements for different pasture types. For a 1,000-pound horse, good, thick bermudagrass pasture might require only 4 to 6 inches of growth above the soil line per acre. However, for a small-grain winter pasture, 6 to 12 inches of growth would be necessary for optimal gains. If the pasture is shorter and forage is scarce, more land will be needed to meet the horse's daily dry matter intake requirement (approximately 2% of body weight). Even with increased acreage, extremely short pasture might still limit the horse's ability to reach peak performance due to insufficient forage intake.

Aiken et al.'s (1985) research on bermudagrass stocking rates shows a strong correlation between stocking density and horse weight gain. The data indicates that heavier stocking rates generally result in lower horse gains, even to the point of weight loss at the highest densities. Conversely, lighter stocking rates lead to better gains, but this is only up to a point. Lighter stocking rates can result in selective or spot grazing, ultimately reducing gains as horses select the most desirable short vegetation while ignoring taller, less preferred areas. This selective grazing is linked to lower forage quality and reduced overall intake. The research highlighted that frame growth was unaffected by stocking rate, underscoring the impact of forage quantity and quality on weight gain. This illustrates that finding the right balance of stocking rate is crucial for achieving optimal horse performance. Too high a stocking rate limits individual intake; too low a stocking rate leads to selective grazing and under-utilization of the available pasture.

This section presents a 201-day trial (Roquette, 1985) comparing the performance of yearling horses on pasture alone versus a combination of pasture and supplemental feed. The horses receiving both pasture (sod-seeded winter pasture of rye-ryegrass-clovers in bermudagrass, then pure bermudagrass in summer) and supplemental feed (8.3 pounds of 14 percent crude protein feed per head per day) had a greater average daily gain (ADG) of 1.46 pounds compared to 1.12 pounds for those on pasture only. The advantage was mostly seen during the high-quality winter pasture phase. In the summer months, ADG was similar in both groups. The lower gains of horses on winter pasture alone are attributed to the high moisture content of the winter forage (often 80 percent or higher), limiting dry matter intake. The horses on pasture and feed also tended to wait for feed rather than graze actively; this suggests that supplemental feeding might interfere with optimal pasture utilization. This data shows the benefits of supplemental feeding, particularly when pasture quality or quantity is limited, but also points to potential drawbacks in terms of grazing behavior.

This section emphasizes the critical role of weed control in maintaining healthy horse pastures. It highlights that some plants possess definite toxicity, negatively affecting both horses and other livestock. The document stresses that some palatable weeds can accumulate nitrates, posing significant health risks. The main goal is to increase awareness of these potential problems. For identifying these and other plants, the text recommends using the Noble Foundation's website (www.noble.org) and its plant gallery, created by Chuck Coffey and Russell Stevens. The text also suggests consulting Hall et al. (1995)'s 'Natural Poisons in Horses' for more in-depth information on plant toxicity. This underscores that proactive weed identification and removal is crucial for preventing equine health problems associated with poisonous plants in pastures.

Fescue pasture is singled out as a significant concern due to its known impact on mare reproduction. Extensive research on fescue toxicity is cited because it causes a variety of issues, including reduced performance, abortion, and reproductive tract malfunctions (such as overly thick placentas). These issues can also lead to sick or dead foals and agalactia (poor lactation in mares). The variability of the toxicity syndrome is mentioned, highlighting the range of potential problems. The section suggests several strategies to mitigate fescue's negative effects. These include using novel endophyte fescue varieties (like ‘Max Q’), adding acceptable legumes to the fescue pasture, implementing good horse nutrition and health programs, and carefully monitoring udder development in mares before foaling. The text stresses that even with monitoring, milk production for foals can't be fully guaranteed, and malnutrition resulting from fescue issues can lead to other problems in the foal. This indicates that fescue management is vital for optimal mare and foal health.

This section focuses on the risks associated with sorghum grasses, particularly sudangrass, in horse pastures. Sudangrass in its green growing stages can cause cystitis syndrome or cystitis/ataxia (staggering) in horses. The disease is described as irreversible and linked to low levels of cyanide (prussic acid) in the forage. The text notes that Piper sudangrass, a low-prussic-acid variety, might be a safer alternative to mitigate this problem. This section emphasizes that specific plant types and their stages of growth can have significant impacts on horse health, requiring careful pasture selection and management. It also highlights that while some varieties of sorghum grasses may pose a risk, other varieties are available with reduced toxicity, allowing for informed decisions about pasture composition.