Straw is an abundant by-product of cereal farming and is often inexpensive compared with hay. Feeding straw to horses may be carried out by horse owners tempted to feed it as a forage source, particularly for horses that need weight management or lower calorie intake.
At first glance, this seems logical. Straw is lower in energy than hay, takes longer to chew, and can help extend foraging time.
However, when we look more closely at its nutritional profile, variability, and real-world risks, a more balanced and often more cautious picture emerges when feeding straw to horses.
At Forageplus, our approach is based on measured forage data, not assumptions. Each year, we analyse thousands of hay, haylage and forage samples, consistently identifying patterns of nutrient deficiency and imbalance.
This data-led approach allows us to assess feeding strategies not just on tradition, but on what they actually deliver nutritionally to the horse.
Drawing on peer-reviewed research, veterinary experts such as Dr Eleanor Kellon and Dr Jaini Clougher, and our own UK forage analysis data, it becomes clear that feeding straw to horses is not a straightforward substitute for hay, and in many cases is not the most appropriate option.
This article reviews the science behind straw feeding, compares the composition of straw with quality hay, summarises research on horse diets, explains the potential health hazards of straw and outlines safer alternatives for managing equine nutrition.
What Is Straw and How Is It Different from Hay?
Straw is the dried stalk of cereal crops such as wheat, barley or oats after the grain has been harvested. It consists primarily of cellulose and lignified structural fibre and is produced as a by-product of arable farming.
In contrast, hay is harvested specifically as a forage crop and cut earlier in the plant’s growth cycle to preserve digestible nutrients. It provides protein, energy, vitamins and minerals essential for equine health.
This difference in maturity is what drives the nutritional gap. It is also closely linked to how straw is produced and utilised within the agricultural system.
Large compositional datasets show that wheat straw averages around 4.2% crude protein (DM), with very high fibre levels (NDF 77.5%) [2]. Barley and oat straw are similar, typically containing only 3.6–3.8% crude protein.
Controlled research reflects this. In Straw as an Alternative to Grass Forage in Horses, wheat straw contained just 2.2% crude protein and 80% fibre [1].
This is not simply a lower-calorie forage. It is a materially different feed material with substantially lower protein, lower digestible nutrient value and a much higher proportion of indigestible structural fibre.
Straw as an Agricultural By-Product: Economic Drivers Behind Its Use
Straw is not produced as a primary feed crop. It is a by-product of cereal production, remaining after the grain has been harvested for human and livestock consumption.
From an agricultural perspective, this distinction is important. The economic value of cereal crops lies primarily in the grain, while straw represents a secondary output with relatively limited high-value uses. Traditional applications include bedding, soil incorporation, composting and, in some cases, bioenergy production.
As a result, finding a market for straw, through feeding straw to horses, can significantly improve overall crop profitability. Converting straw into a saleable feed product allows producers and suppliers to extract value from what would otherwise be a low-value or surplus material.
This economic context has influenced how straw is positioned within the equine sector.
In some cases, feeding straw to horses is promoted as a low-calorie forage for weight management. While this is not inherently incorrect, it does not fully reflect the nutritional limitations and variability outlined later in this article. As shown in forage analysis data and research studies, straw is fundamentally different from forage crops such as hay, both in nutrient content and in its ability to support a balanced diet.
In practical terms, some current feeding recommendations for feeding straw to horses suggest replacing 30–50% of the forage amount with straw as a weight management strategy. While this may reduce calorie intake, it also proportionally reduces the supply of protein, vitamins and essential minerals.
Without careful balancing and forage analysis, this level of inclusion of straw in horse diets increases the risk of nutritional dilution and associated health compromises, particularly in horses with higher requirements or existing health concerns.
It is therefore important to recognise that the inclusion of straw in feeding recommendations may be influenced not only by nutritional considerations, but also by its availability and economic value within the agricultural system.
It is also worth recognising that the equine feed sector sits within a wider agricultural supply chain, where large multinational companies often operate across multiple stages of production, processing and distribution.
Within this structure, nutritional guidance, product development and marketing may be influenced, to varying degrees, by commercial priorities as well as scientific considerations. Nutritionists, researchers and advisors may work directly within industry, or contribute through consultancy, research funding, educational events or collaborations. While this does not invalidate their expertise, it means that some guidance may reflect commercial framing as well as purely nutritional considerations.
This does not mean feeding straw to horses has no role. However, it reinforces the need to evaluate its use critically, based on measured nutritional value, known risks and the individual needs of the horse, rather than on cost or convenience alone.
For this reason, feeding decisions should be based on independently verifiable data, forage analysis and a clear understanding of the horse’s nutritional requirements, rather than relying solely on generalised recommendations or product-led messaging.
Nutritional Differences
Research consistently shows that feeding straw to horses is far less nutritious than quality grass forage.
A 2021 crossover study, Straw as an Alternative to Grass Forage in Horses, replacing half of a horse’s daily forage with wheat straw, measured the following composition (read study):
| Forage type | Metabolisable energy (MJ/kg DM) | Crude protein (g/kg DM) | NDF (g/kg DM) | WSC (g/kg DM) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat straw | 6.7 | 22 | 802 | 8 | Low protein and energy; very high fibre [1] |
| Haylage (reference) | 9.4 | 91 | 635 | 140 | Nutrient-dense forage [1] |
| Barley straw (average) | 6–7 | 20–40 | 800–850 | 15–30 | Poor in calcium and phosphorus [2] |
Straw does not just reduce calories – it reduces nutrient supply.
As Dr Eleanor Kellon highlights, this distinction is critical. Feeding straw to horses dilutes protein, vitamins and essential minerals, not just energy [4].
To match the protein supplied by moderate-quality hay, substantial supplementation would be required, removing any perceived advantage.
Low Sugar – But Not Always Safe
Straw is often promoted as a low-sugar and starch forage, particularly for horses prone to laminitis or insulin dysregulation.
In many cases, this is true. Wheat straw typically contains around 1% starch and 1–2% sugars [2], with some samples as low as 0.8% WSC [1]. However, this is not consistent across all straw.
Where grain heads remain, or harvesting conditions are less controlled, sugar and starch levels can increase significantly. In some cases, they may approach those found in good-quality hay.
Research from Kentucky Equine Research highlights that straw containing grain residues can have carbohydrate levels comparable to hay and should be analysed before feeding [6].
This variability is often underestimated but is highly relevant for metabolically sensitive horses.
The Nutritional Gap: What Straw Doesn’t Provide
While much of the focus is on calorie reduction, the more important question is what feeding straw to horses fails to supply.
Straw is consistently low in crude protein, often between 3–5%, and sometimes lower. By comparison, even average grass hay typically provides 8–12% crude protein.
As Dr Kellon points out, this difference is not trivial. Feeding straw without appropriate balancing can lead to reduced protein intake, loss of topline and compromised overall condition [4].
Mineral content presents a similar issue. Straw is low in calcium, phosphorus and other key nutrients, and levels vary widely depending on soil and growing conditions [2]. It is also notably deficient in vitamins, particularly vitamin A [4].
This creates a scenario where horses may lose weight, but at the expense of muscle, strength and long-term health.
Horses do not eat purely to meet calorie needs. They also seek to meet protein, fibre and micronutrient requirements.
When forage is highly dilute nutritionally, calorie restriction may come at the expense of nutrient intake, which can undermine topline, recovery, hoof quality and overall health.
When protein or key nutrients are insufficient, intake often increases. As a result, calorie restriction strategies that ignore nutrient balance are often ineffective, and in some cases counterproductive.
Real-World Straw Analysis: What the Data Shows
Forageplus forage analysis provides important real-world context to the nutritional profile of feeding straw to horses. Across multiple straw samples analysed between 2014 and 2026, consistent patterns emerge.
Straw is uniformly low in protein, typically ranging between 3–4% crude protein, with some samples as low as 2%. Even higher values rarely exceed 5%, confirming that straw cannot meaningfully contribute to protein requirements.
Fibre levels are consistently high, with neutral detergent fibre (NDF) frequently exceeding 70–78%, reflecting a high proportion of indigestible structural fibre. This contributes to reduced digestibility and increased risk of impaction when fed in larger amounts.
Sugar levels are often low, but highly variable. Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) ranged from below 1% to over 6%, while starch levels, although typically low, still varied between approximately 0.2% and 1.9%. This reinforces that straw cannot be assumed to be consistently low in non-structural carbohydrates without analysis.
Mineral content is notably poor. Key nutrients such as phosphorus, copper and zinc are consistently low, with copper levels commonly around 2–4 mg/kg and zinc often below 20 mg/kg, well below typical equine requirements.
Additional variability is seen in nitrate levels, which ranged from under 30 ppm to over 400 ppm across samples, highlighting another often overlooked source of inconsistency.
Digestible energy is consistently low, typically around 1.4–1.7 Mcal/kg, confirming that while feeding straw to horses may reduce calorie intake, it also significantly reduces overall nutrient supply.
Key Takeaway
Straw is not simply a lower-calorie forage.
It is a nutritionally dilute and highly variable feed material, providing limited protein, limited micronutrients and inconsistent composition.
Research on Feeding Straw to Horses
Cross-Over Study Findings
A 2021 cross-over study published in Animals evaluated diets in which 50% of the daily forage dry matter was replaced with wheat straw over a three-week period. The researchers found that:
- Energy intake was reduced
- Insulin response was lower
- Feeding time increased
- Gastric ulcer scores were not significantly affected [3]
These findings suggest that clean, well-managed straw can be used within a controlled feeding strategy under specific conditions.
However, context is essential.
In this study, straw was carefully selected, hygienic and analysed. However, this should not be assumed to reflect all commercially available straw. As other expert and extension sources note, straw quality can vary considerably, including hygienic quality and contamination risk [4][5][6].
Extension and Industry Advice
Extension guidance consistently reinforces that straw is not a primary nutrient source.
The Rutgers NJAES fact sheet describes straw as having very little nutritional value and warns that introducing straw suddenly can lead to impaction colic [5].
Similarly, Kentucky Equine Research advises that straw is not an ideal forage because its indigestible fibre increases the risk of impaction and choke, particularly in winter when water intake may be reduced [6].
Behavioural Observations
Observational studies show that horses on straw bedding may ingest straw for a portion of their day, sometimes accounting for around 8% of their total time. While this can contribute to foraging behaviour, excessive intake increases the risk of impaction colic when large amounts of indigestible fibre accumulate in the gut.
Risks of Feeding Straw
Feeding straw to horses as a significant part of their diet presents several potential risks.
Nutritional Deficiencies and Weight Loss
Straw lacks sufficient protein and digestible energy to support maintenance or performance. Horses fed primarily on straw may lose condition, muscle mass and overall nutritional balance [1][2].
Its poor mineral profile further increases the risk of deficiencies affecting bone health and metabolic function.
Impaction Colic
Straw’s high lignin and fibre content can slow intestinal transit and increase the risk of impaction.
Kentucky Equine Research highlights that straw-based diets make horses more likely to develop impaction colic, particularly when water intake is insufficient [6].
A sudden introduction further increases this risk, as noted in the extension guidance [5].
Respiratory Issues and Dust
Straw bedding and feed are often associated with higher levels of dust, fungal spores and endotoxins.
A 2025 review on equine asthma identified straw as a significant source of airborne contaminants, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions and compromise lung health [7].
Mycotoxin and Microbial Contamination
Straw may be vulnerable to mould growth, microbial contamination and mycotoxin presence, particularly where harvesting, storage or environmental conditions are suboptimal.
Recent analytical data from Alltech’s 37+ laboratory programme provides important context.
In a dataset of 417 straw samples (including wheat and barley straw), 98% contained at least one mycotoxin, with an average of 4.8 mycotoxins per sample.
Notably, 92% of samples contained multiple mycotoxins, highlighting that exposure is rarely to a single compound but instead to a combination of toxins acting together.
As with any surveillance dataset, these results describe prevalence within the samples tested rather than predicting clinical outcomes in every horse. Clinical relevance will depend on the type of toxin, concentration, duration of exposure and individual susceptibility.
The most commonly identified groups included:
- Type B trichothecenes (such as deoxynivalenol, DON)
- Fusarium-derived toxins (including fumonisins and zearalenone)
- A range of emerging mycotoxins, which are increasingly detected but less well characterised
This pattern of co-contamination is significant. While individual mycotoxins may be present at levels below established guidance thresholds, their combined effects are less well understood and may still influence gut health, immune function and feed intake.
Risk assessment data within the same dataset indicates that a substantial proportion of samples fall into moderate or higher risk categories for horses, reinforcing that this is not a rare or isolated issue.
Why Mycotoxin Risk Is Often Not Visible
It is important to recognise that visual inspection is not a reliable indicator of contamination and may be actively misleading in some seasonal conditions.
Straw may appear clean and dry while still containing multiple contaminants. As highlighted by Dr Radka Borutova, “it is not safe to assume that if straw looks clean and free of mould, it is free of mycotoxins.”
Recent industry analysis shows that seasonal weather patterns play a key role in how this risk presents. As Dr Radka Borutova explains, “everything depends on the weather conditions… especially at specific stages of the growing season”, highlighting how contamination risk is influenced by environmental conditions throughout crop development.
In wetter years, higher rainfall during flowering and delayed drying increase fungal growth. This often results in straw that appears damp, discoloured or visibly mouldy. In these conditions, contamination risk is more obvious and more likely to be recognised.
In contrast, dry and warm growing seasons can create a different risk profile.
In more recent harvest conditions, such as 2025, crops matured rapidly under warm, dry conditions. This often produces straw that appears clean, bright and visually high quality. However, this does not prevent fungal infection earlier in the plant’s development.
Mycotoxins produced during early-stage fungal activity can persist in the plant material even when no visible mould is present.
This creates a “hidden risk” profile, where contamination cannot be identified through appearance alone, as highlighted by Dr Radka Borutova in Uncovering the mycotoxin risk in straw.
Wet vs Dry Years: Visible vs Hidden Mycotoxin Risk
| Condition | Wet Years (Visible Risk) | Dry Years (Hidden Risk) |
|---|---|---|
| Weather | High rainfall, slow drying | Warm, dry, rapid maturation |
| Appearance | Mouldy, damp, discoloured | Clean, dry, bright |
| Fungal activity | High and visible | Early infection, low visibility |
| Mycotoxins | Often obvious | Often present but unseen |
| Detection | Easier | Frequently missed |
| Risk type | Recognised | Underestimated |
Practical Implications
This distinction is important because it challenges a common assumption:
Clean-looking straw is not necessarily low-risk straw.
In practical terms, this means:
- Straw quality cannot be judged on appearance alone
- Dry conditions do not eliminate mycotoxin risk
- Contamination may go unrecognised in routine feeding situations
This is particularly relevant for:
- Horses with compromised gut health
- Metabolic or immune challenges
- Horses in work or under physiological stress
- Horses with respiratory issues
While not all straw will pose a significant risk, the available data shows that mycotoxin exposure is common, variable and often involves multiple compounds simultaneously.
Management Considerations
When feeding straw to horses this reinforces the importance of:
- Careful sourcing and storage
- Avoiding reliance on straw as a major dietary component
- Considering contamination risk alongside nutritional limitations
Where straw is being fed, risk can be reduced by improving visibility and management. For example, laboratory testing such as the Alltech 37+ Mycotoxin Test For Horses can identify the types and levels of mycotoxins present, while mycotoxin binders such as Mycosorb A+ may be used to help reduce absorption of certain toxins.
However, these approaches should be viewed as supportive. They do not remove all risk and do not replace the importance of forage quality and careful feed selection.
Key Takeaway
Mycotoxin contamination in straw appears to be common, variable and frequently not visible.
The combination of high prevalence, multi-toxin exposure and the inability to detect contamination visually means that this risk is often underestimated in practical feeding situations.
For this reason, straw should be considered not just a lower-calorie forage, but a feed material with inherent uncertainty that requires careful evaluation and management.
It is also worth noting that steaming straw or hay is sometimes recommended to reduce mould spores, bacteria and airborne contaminants, but steaming does not inactivate mycotoxins already active in the straw.
Research confirms that steaming can significantly reduce microbial load and respirable particles, which may be beneficial for horses with respiratory conditions. However, this process is not without nutritional consequences.
A 2022 study published in Animals found that while steaming did not significantly change crude protein levels, it reduced the digestibility of protein and essential amino acids due to heat damage and Maillard reactions. [10]
This included:
- A reduction in precaecal digestible protein
- Significant declines in key amino acids such as lysine, methionine and threonine
- Increased formation of heat-damaged, less digestible protein fractions
In practical terms, this means that while steaming may improve hygienic quality, it can reduce the availability of the nutrients the horse actually needs, particularly where protein supply is already limited.
This is especially relevant when feeding straw to horses, which is already very low in protein. Further reductions in amino acid availability will increase the risk of nutritional deficiency unless the diet is carefully balanced.
Pesticide Residues
As a by-product of arable farming, straw may also carry pesticide residues. Data from the Scottish Government (2024) provides a useful baseline context on how cereal crops are managed. [8]
Wheat, barley and oats, the primary sources of straw, are typically treated with multiple pesticide applications during the growing season.
The report shows that:
- Over 98% of cereal crop area receives pesticide treatments
- Fungicides account for approximately 40–50% of total applications
- Herbicides and plant growth regulators are also widely applied
- The average pesticide load is around 2.5–2.6 kg of active ingredient per hectare across arable crops
At the crop level:
- Wheat often receives the highest number of fungicide applications due to disease pressure
- Barley is also treated multiple times, particularly with fungicides and growth regulators
- Oats may receive slightly fewer inputs on average, but are still commonly treated with herbicides and fungicides
These substances are applied to the entire plant, not just the grain. As a result, residues may be present in the straw after harvest, although levels, persistence and relevance will vary depending on product, timing, environmental conditions and regulatory limits.
This is particularly relevant where herbicides are used close to harvest. The Soil Association explains that glyphosate is sometimes used as a pre-harvest desiccant on cereal crops to promote even drying before combining.
In the UK, this practice accounts for approximately 30% of glyphosate use in wheat and barley, meaning that a significant proportion of straw may originate from crops treated shortly before harvest.
Because pre-harvest applications occur close to cutting, there is less time for residues to dissipate within the plant material. Monitoring data from cereal-based food systems indicates that glyphosate residues are commonly detected, with one dataset reporting presence in 41% of tested samples.
While these figures relate primarily to grain entering the human food chain, it is important to recognise that this material typically undergoes cleaning, processing and quality control steps before consumption.
In contrast, straw is a minimally processed by-product, often used directly for bedding or forage, meaning that any residues present at harvest may be carried through into the final material with limited opportunity for reduction.
However, a more detailed analysis highlights a wider issue.
This report, Pesticide Residues in Horse Feedstocks: A Regulatory Proxy Framework Using Human Food and Feed Standards, shows that there is currently no equine-specific framework for assessing long-term exposure to pesticide residues in feed materials such as straw. [11]
In contrast, human food and livestock feed are regulated under EU and UK law (Regulation (EC) No 396/2005), which defines maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticide concentrations. These are legal limits designed to control residues based on good agricultural practice and consumer protection principles.
It is important to interpret this correctly:
- MRLs are not equine safety thresholds
- They do not define safe or unsafe levels in horse diets
- However, they confirm that pesticide residues in feed are a recognised and regulated issue
In the absence of horse-specific thresholds, this framework provides a useful regulatory benchmark, but not a definitive measure of safety.
The same report also reinforces a key agricultural distinction. Cereal systems, from which straw is derived, are significantly more intensively treated than forage systems:
- Arable farming accounts for approximately 85–90% of total pesticide use in UK agriculture
- Around 97% of arable crops receive pesticide applications
- Multiple classes are used, including fungicides, herbicides/desiccants and growth regulators [11]
By comparison, forage systems such as hay and grassland:
- Receive fewer treatments overall
- Are typically less chemically intensive
- Are more often managed with simpler herbicide-based programmes
This leads to an important practical conclusion:
Straw is not just a lower-quality forage. It is a by-product of a more intensively treated crop system and is therefore likely to represent a higher and more complex source of pesticide exposure than hay or grass forage.
Monitoring data and related studies indicate that:
- Pesticide residues are commonly detected in straw samples, particularly fungicides
- It is not unusual for multiple active substances to be present in a single sample
- Some compounds, including certain herbicides, will persist in plant material after harvest
Pesticide use in agriculture is regulated, and the presence of residues does not necessarily mean that straw is unsafe. However, straw is not produced with equine feeding as its primary purpose, and residue levels are not routinely assessed in the context of horse diets.
For horse owners, this highlights the importance of:
- Understanding the source of straw, where possible
- Being aware that cropping practices influence residue exposure
- Considering pesticide residues as one of several factors, alongside nutritional value, hygiene and dust levels
When considered alongside the high prevalence of mycotoxin contamination outlined above, this further reinforces that feeding straw to horses is not simply a lower-calorie forage, but a feed material with multiple, overlapping sources of variability.
While the overall risk will vary depending on sourcing and management, pesticide residues represent an additional variable that should be taken into account when deciding whether feeding straw to horses is appropriate to include in the diet.
Forageplus Position
At Forageplus, our position is simple: feeding decisions should be based on measured data, not assumptions.
Straw is not a nutritionally equivalent substitute for forage. While it may reduce calorie intake, it also dilutes protein, vitamins and essential minerals, and introduces additional variables including mycotoxins, dust and pesticide exposure.
Our forage analysis data consistently shows that even good-quality hay often requires correction to meet a horse’s nutritional needs. Replacing a significant proportion of forage by feeding straw to horses increases the risk of imbalance further.
For most horses, a more reliable approach is to:
- Analyse forage to understand nutrient supply
- Select appropriate low sugar, low energy forage where required
- Balance deficiencies using targeted supplementation
This ensures that calorie control does not come at the expense of health, performance or long-term soundness.
Safer Alternatives to Straw
Although feeding straw to horses is inexpensive, there are safer and more nutritionally appropriate options.
Where possible, forage should be analysed so that both energy intake and nutrient supply can be accurately managed
Good-quality grass hay or haylage remains the foundation of the equine diet, providing digestible fibre, protein and essential nutrients.
For horses requiring weight management, selecting low sugar and starch hay and controlling intake through slow-feeder hay nets can achieve similar calorie reduction, without compromising nutrition.
Additional fibre sources, such as unmolassed beet pulp, can be used to extend feeding time. Dr Kellon recommends combinations of beet pulp and wheat bran to increase chew time while maintaining a more balanced nutrient profile [4].
Processed forage products such as hay cubes, pellets or complete feeds may also be appropriate in certain cases, particularly where chewing ability or intake control is a concern.
Straw and Donkeys: A Different Context
Straw is more commonly recommended for donkeys than for horses, reflecting important differences in their evolutionary background and metabolism. Donkeys evolved in arid environments with sparse, fibrous vegetation and are generally more efficient at extracting energy from fibre than horses.
As a result, organisations such as the Donkey Sanctuary often include straw as part of a controlled feeding programme, typically alongside restricted grazing and/or hay, with appropriate vitamin and mineral supplementation.
However, this does not mean straw is nutritionally complete or without risk for donkeys either. As highlighted by Dr Eleanor Kellon, straw still represents a significant dilution of protein, vitamins and minerals, and donkeys, like horses, will preferentially select more nutrient-dense forage when available.
Research and practical observations also confirm that donkeys can become obese even on forage-based diets, particularly where intake is not carefully managed.
Importantly, while donkeys may tolerate higher fibre and lower protein intakes than horses, their essential amino acid and micronutrient requirements are still not fully defined. The prevalence of white line issues in donkeys, directly connected to nutritional deficiencies, reinforces the need for balanced diets rather than reliance on low-quality forage alone.
In practice, straw can play a role in carefully managed donkey diets, particularly for weight control, but it should always be introduced gradually, sourced carefully, and combined with nutritionally appropriate forage and supplementation.
Conclusion
While feeding straw to horses may appear to be a cost-effective forage option, scientific research, nutritional analysis and large-scale contamination data show that it is not an ideal feed for equines.
Its low protein and energy content, high indigestible fibre, and highly variable composition mean that it cannot support a balanced diet without significant adjustment. In practice, this often leads to reduced muscle condition, nutrient deficiencies and compromised overall health [1][2].
Beyond nutrition, feeding straw to horses also introduces additional and often overlooked variables. Research highlights increased risks of impaction colic [6], exposure to dust and respiratory irritants [7], and microbial contamination [4].
Recent analytical data further shows that mycotoxin contamination is common and frequently involves multiple compounds within a single sample, adding another layer of complexity that is rarely measured or accounted for in feeding decisions.
Taken together, this means that straw is not simply a lower-calorie forage, but a feed with reduced nutritional value and increased uncertainty.
Straw can have a role in carefully controlled horse feeding strategies, particularly in small amounts for weight management. However, it should not be considered nutritionally equivalent to forage and should never replace a properly balanced forage amount.
For most horses, particularly those with metabolic, respiratory or performance considerations, the most reliable approach remains:
- Analysing grass and hay forage
- Correcting nutrient deficiencies
- Managing intake without compromising nutritional balance
This reduces guesswork, improves long-term outcomes, and ensures that the diet supports both health and performance.
References
- [1] Ringmark, S., et al. (2021). Straw as an Alternative to Grass Forage in Horses: Effects on Intake, Behaviour and Gastric Health. Animals.
- [2] Feedipedia (INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ & FAO) (n.d.). Barley Straw.
- [3] Ringmark, S., et al. (2021). Effects of Partial Replacement of Forage with Straw on Energy Intake and Insulin Response in Horses. Animals.
- [4] Kellon, E. (n.d.). Let Them Eat Straw and Can I Feed Straw? Dr Kellon Veterinary Services.
- [5] Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) (n.d.). Forage Substitutes for Horses. Rutgers University Extension.
- [6] Kentucky Equine Research (n.d.). Feeding Straw to Horses: Risks and Considerations. Kentucky Equine Research.
- [7] Couëtil, L.L., et al. (2025). Equine Asthma: Current Understanding and Environmental Risk Factors.
- [8] Scottish Government (2024). Pesticide Usage in Scotland: Arable Crops and Potato Stores 2022. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
- [9] North Carolina State University Extension (n.d.). Herbicide Carryover in Hay and Forage Crops. NC State Extension.
- [10] Müller, C.E., et al. (2022). Effect of Steaming on Protein and Amino Acid Digestibility in Forage for Horses. Animals (MDPI).
- [11] Forageplus (2026). Pesticide Residues in Horse Feedstocks: A Regulatory Proxy Framework Using Human Food and Feed Standards. Internal technical report.
