Slow-Feeder Restrictor With Vertical Translation for Low-Force Foraging

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing slow-feeders for equids do not adequately accommodate individual equid size, age, or medical conditions, often requiring excessive force to extract forage and risking injury, while failing to naturally mimic foraging behavior and extend foraging time without compromising welfare.

Innovation Solution

A modular and configurable slow-feeder with a container, feeding restrictor, and adjustable straps that allow the restrictor to translate vertically, reducing extraction force and extending foraging time while accommodating equid-specific needs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Duration of action of moving object

If a feeding restrictor with small apertures is used to extend foraging time, then the foraging duration is increased, but the force required to extract forage increases significantly causing neck pressure and potential injury

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveforaging durationVSAvoidextraction force
Core Design Contradiction:
Duration of action of moving objectVSForce

Solution Approach 1:

The feeding restrictor is made movable rather than fixed, allowing it to translate vertically within the container as forage is consumed. This dynamic adjustment maintains optimal aperture distance from the forage surface, reducing extraction force while extending foraging time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Straps serve as an intermediary mechanism connecting the feeding restrictor to the container, providing controlled movement and tension. The straps allow the restrictor to follow forage level changes while limiting excessive movement, balancing foraging extension with force reduction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Stability of the object's composition

If the feeding restrictor is constrained by vertical bars or guides to maintain position, then structural stability is improved, but the restrictor may tilt and become stuck causing failure to move freely

Engineering Contradiction:
Improverestrictor stabilityVSAvoidmovement reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent removes the vertical bars or guides from the container design, eliminating the source of tilting and sticking problems. Instead, the feeding restrictor is allowed to move freely within the container using straps for positional control, thereby maintaining stability while ensuring reliable movement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Ease of operation

If the feeding restrictor translates vertically to follow forage level, then foraging behavior is made more natural, but the restrictor may become misaligned or stuck in container structures

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveforaging naturalnessVSAvoidrestrictor movement reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Straps act as intermediaries between the feeding restrictor and container, enabling vertical translation that follows forage levels while preventing misalignment and sticking. The straps provide controlled movement without requiring the restrictor to interact with container walls or guides.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The feeding restrictor is designed to dynamically adjust its vertical position within the container, following the forage level as it decreases. This dynamic movement makes foraging more natural while the strap mechanism ensures smooth, sticking-free translation throughout the range of motion.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Adaptability or versatility

If a modular and configurable slow-feeder design is used to accommodate individual equid needs, then adaptability is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveequid-specific configurabilityVSAvoidslow-feeder structure complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The slow-feeder is divided into modular components: a container, a separate feeding restrictor, and adjustable straps. This segmentation allows each component to be independently configured or replaced to suit individual equid needs, providing adaptability while keeping the overall structure relatively simple.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The feeding restrictor and container design incorporates universal features that can accommodate different equid sizes, ages, and medical conditions through adjustable strap configurations and aperture selections, rather than requiring entirely different devices for each case.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP4551009B1Slow-feeder for feeding forage to an equid
Publication Date: 2026.04.22 MARS INC
  • EP4551009B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4551009B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4551009B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A slow-feeder for feeding forage to an equid includes a container (110) to hold the forage. The slow-feeder includes a feeding restrictor (120) that is provided in the container (110) on the forage, and that has apertures through which the equid extracts the forage from the container (110). The slow-feeder includes straps (130) that connect the feeding restrictor (120) to the container (110), that provide tension between the feeding restrictor (120) and the container (110), and that permit the feeding restrictor (120) to translate within the container (110) in a vertical direction.