ArticleEquine veterinary journal2025
Minimising feeding behaviour interference: A hay-shaker device to assess dust exposure in horses.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Airborne dust and microorganisms from hay produced on intensively and extensively managed grasslands in Switzerland.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Minimising feeding behaviour interference: A hay-shaker device to assess dust exposure in horses.Equine veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Sensory Assessment of Hay Samples: Abnormal Odor Predicts Increased Dust Levels and Impurities Suggest Microbiological Contamination.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOrganic dust from hay is a primary trigger of equine asthma.
objectives(1) To introduce a novel hay-shaker (HS) device for standardised hay dust generation, enabling simultaneous measurements of various particulate matter (PM) size fractions. (2) To compare these measurements with those in the horse's breathing zone (BZ) to assess the influence of environmental and individual factors. STUDY
designComparative experimental study.
methodsA HS generating dust was developed. Total dust (PMT) and size fractions (PM1, PM2.5, PM4 and PM10, representing particle size in μm) were measured from 50 hay samples provided by clients using an aerosol monitor (DustTrak DRX 8534) in the HS (HS-PMx) and the BZ (BZ-PMx) of 50 horses (26 healthy, 24 asthmatic) during hay feeding. Linear regression analysis evaluated the relationship between HS-PMx and ln BZ-PMx for each fraction, accounting for environmental (humidity, temperature) and individual factors (horse characteristics and feeding behaviour, assessed with the Hay Contact Score).
resultsThe HS generated measurable dust across all PM sizes. Regression models explained 69% to 73% of ln BZ-PMx variance, showing a weak positive association between HS-PMx and ln BZ-PMx across all size fractions. Hay Contact Score had the strongest positive association with ln BZ-PMx. Cohort, ambient temperature and humidity were negatively associated with ln BZ-PMx for certain particle sizes. The final model, incorporating HS-PM4, Hay Contact Score, cohort, temperature, and humidity as predictors, demonstrated robust predictive accuracy for BZ-PM4 (adjusted R MAIN LIMITATIONS: Clinical impact of hay dust and poor-quality hay was not assessed.
conclusionsThe HS reliably generates hay dust for measuring standard PM fractions, particularly respirable PM4, critical to equine respiratory health. BZ dust concentrations are significantly influenced by feeding behaviour. The HS offers a standardised method for assessing hay quality, enabling informed decisions on hay selection to support respiratory health in stabled horses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.