It is widely accepted that our dietary choices have an impact on the environment, but how does this relate to the diet of our horses?
The average 500 kg horse eats between 7.5 and 8 kg of hay per day, which equates to some 225 to 240 kg per month per horse. To produce it, a variety of grasses are grown in fields then cut, dried and bailed.
Meadow hay is the most common type, consisting of a mix of plants from mature meadows including Timothy and dandelions. Other hays, differing in plant composition, can be chosen for different dietary needs. For example, Timothy grass hay might be more suitable for ponies in need of higher fibre content and lower sugar, whilst alfalfa has higher levels of protein.
But how does hay get to your yard and what impact does its production have on the environment? When thinking about hay cultivation from an environmental perspective, it is helpful to compare the different inputs associated with organic production with those of traditional, more intensive farming methods.
To obtain organic farming certification, farmers have to adhere to specific rules (DEFRA, 2016):
- using methods such as rotation to maintain soil fertility
- using approved techniques and materials to control weeds and pests
- choosing approved products (listed in the organics regulations) as fertilisers, pesticides, cleaning/disinfection agents
We know that the use of chemical pesticides contributes to biodiversity loss; fertilisers are one of the main causes of water eutrophication; both pesticides and fertilisers contribute to water pollution; and intensive agricultural systems negatively impact soil fertility. In contrast, opting for organic produce preserves biodiversity, water quality and soil fertility.
The demand for organic products has increased as public awareness of the detrimental environmental effects of intensive agricultural methods has grown. Many people choose an organic diet themselves for this reason, and wish to do the same for their animals.
However, it is not necessarily a straightforward decision. If we look at the output of the different farming systems, a disadvantage of organic farming is that it might require more land to compensate for the reduction in yield (Varanasi, 2019).
A different study looked at the amount of energy required per unit of crop in an organic system compared to a traditional one and, although the results seem to suggest that organic farming can be more efficient from an energy perspective, there are exceptions and more research is needed (Smith et al., 2013).
Furthermore, studies looking specifically at the cultivation of hay and forage suggest a positive effect of organic methods in protecting the soil and its fertility, and for providing a habitat for wild animals (Franzluebbers and Martin, 2022). Therefore, choosing organic meadow hay can be a positive way to reduce the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and thus reduce their impact on nature.
However, the transport of hay does also have an impact on its environmental footprint, so sourcing hay from nearby will reduce its mileage and associated carbon emissions.
Finally, being aware of the extended chain of inputs, energy and labour involved in the production of hay is a useful reminder of the importance of not wasting it, and making sure that each horse is fed the correct amount for its dietary requirements.
References
DEFRA, 2016. Organic farming: how to get certification and funding in Great Britain,
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-farming-how-to-get-certification-and-apply-for-funding
Varanasi, A., 2019. Is organic food really better for the environment? State of the Planet https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-better-environment/
Smith et al., 2013. The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: a review. Renewable agriculture and food system. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1742170513000471
Franzluebbers, A., and Martin, G., 2022. Farming with forages can reconnect crop and livestock operations to enhance circularity and foster ecosystem services. Grass and Forage Science, Vol 77, Issue,4.
It is widely accepted that our dietary choices have an impact on the environment, but how does this relate to the diet of our horses?
The average 500 kg horse eats between 7.5 and 8 kg of hay per day, which equates to some 225 to 240 kg per month per horse. To produce it, a variety of grasses are grown in fields then cut, dried and bailed.
Meadow hay is the most common type, consisting of a mix of plants from mature meadows including Timothy and dandelions. Other hays, differing in plant composition, can be chosen for different dietary needs. For example, Timothy grass hay might be more suitable for ponies in need of higher fibre content and lower sugar, whilst alfalfa has higher levels of protein.
But how does hay get to your yard and what impact does its production have on the environment? When thinking about hay cultivation from an environmental perspective, it is helpful to compare the different inputs associated with organic production with those of traditional, more intensive farming methods.
To obtain organic farming certification, farmers have to adhere to specific rules (DEFRA, 2016):
- using methods such as rotation to maintain soil fertility
- using approved techniques and materials to control weeds and pests
- choosing approved products (listed in the organics regulations) as fertilisers, pesticides, cleaning/disinfection agents
We know that the use of chemical pesticides contributes to biodiversity loss; fertilisers are one of the main causes of water eutrophication; both pesticides and fertilisers contribute to water pollution; and intensive agricultural systems negatively impact soil fertility. In contrast, opting for organic produce preserves biodiversity, water quality and soil fertility.
The demand for organic products has increased as public awareness of the detrimental environmental effects of intensive agricultural methods has grown. Many people choose an organic diet themselves for this reason, and wish to do the same for their animals.
However, it is not necessarily a straightforward decision. If we look at the output of the different farming systems, a disadvantage of organic farming is that it might require more land to compensate for the reduction in yield (Varanasi, 2019).
A different study looked at the amount of energy required per unit of crop in an organic system compared to a traditional one and, although the results seem to suggest that organic farming can be more efficient from an energy perspective, there are exceptions and more research is needed (Smith et al., 2013).
Furthermore, studies looking specifically at the cultivation of hay and forage suggest a positive effect of organic methods in protecting the soil and its fertility, and for providing a habitat for wild animals (Franzluebbers and Martin, 2022). Therefore, choosing organic meadow hay can be a positive way to reduce the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and thus reduce their impact on nature.
However, the transport of hay does also have an impact on its environmental footprint, so sourcing hay from nearby will reduce its mileage and associated carbon emissions.
Finally, being aware of the extended chain of inputs, energy and labour involved in the production of hay is a useful reminder of the importance of not wasting it, and making sure that each horse is fed the correct amount for its dietary requirements.
References
DEFRA, 2016. Organic farming: how to get certification and funding in Great Britain,
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-farming-how-to-get-certification-and-apply-for-funding
Varanasi, A., 2019. Is organic food really better for the environment? State of the Planet https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-better-environment/
Smith et al., 2013. The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: a review. Renewable agriculture and food system. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1742170513000471
Franzluebbers, A., and Martin, G., 2022. Farming with forages can reconnect crop and livestock operations to enhance circularity and foster ecosystem services. Grass and Forage Science, Vol 77, Issue,4.