90 Development of the Equine Keeper Status Scale

Abstract

Horses with 2 different metabolic tendencies are referred to as “easy keepers” (EK) or “hard keepers” (HK). These tendencies are anecdotal and often related to the Henneke Body Condition Scoring system. EK tends to be over-conditioned (BCS ≥6) and HK need extra feed to maintain a BCS of 5. “Medium keepers” (MK) can maintain a BCS of 5 easily. This simplistic approach to solely use BCS to determine keeper status has led to confusion and poor choices when it comes to equine feeding management. The objective of this work was to develop a reliable and standardized tool for determining equine keeper status. The Equine Keeper Status Scale (EKSS) uses a series of equations based on maintenance requirements and feeding recommendations from the NRC as well as the current diet and BCS to determine keeper status based on the recommended dietary energy intakes (DEI) for an individual horse to achieve the optimal BCS score, 5 (RDI 5 %). The EKSS proposes RDI 5 % cut-off ranges to identify EK (RDI 5 % < 85%), MK (RDI 5 % = 92–109%), and HK (RDI 5 % > 110%) horses as well as 7 keeper level subcategories based on the RDI 5 % cut-off ranges to further identify where horses may lie in the keeper status spectrum. The EKSS was tested using data collected from 238 horses that includes the average BCS from 2 scorers, weighed daily feed rations, and DEI estimated with FeedXL software. Owner reported keeper statuses (ORKS) were obtained by a verbal estimate of their horse's keeper status in regard to their metabolic tendencies with no influence of the research team (ORKS: EK n = 108; MK n = 76; HK n = 56) and evaluated against EKSS assignments (EK n = 84; MK n = 96; HK n = 60). The EKSS determined that only 38% of owners can accurately predict their horse's keeper status. Owners had the most difficulty identifying EK and MK and the least difficulty identifying the HK. Analysis of variance and Tukey's pairwise testing revealed how heavily owners rely on BCS and estimated total body fat to determine keeper status ( P < 0.001). When ORKS diets were compared, minimal differences in grain, forage, and total intakes were found, whereas when reanalyzed with EKSS significantly different feeding patterns were found, particularly in total intakes and DEI ( P < 0.001). The clear differences observed in ORKS BCS, but minimal differences observed in the ORKS diet categories indicate that owners struggle with feeding management. The EKSS removes the objectivity and reliance on ORKS and with the more clearly defined EKSS keeper groups we can identify weight and feed management patterns associated with EK and HK. The EKSS is a valuable tool in that it can evaluate the relationships between feeding management, body condition, and energy intake.