Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:26:37.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SM Viksten*
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Box 7068, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
EK Visser
Affiliation:
Horsonality, Skipper 3, 8456 JB De Knipe, The Netherlands
S Nyman
Affiliation:
Wallby Säteri, Skirö, 574 96 Vetlanda, Sweden
HJ Blokhuis
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Box 7068, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Sofie.Viksten@slu.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper describes the development and pilot-testing of a horse welfare assessment protocol (HWAP). The HWAP consists of the collective measurement of numerous factors considered likely to affect a horse's welfare and is thereby designed to provide a holistic score of its welfare status and to identify potential risk factors. The draft protocol contains 47 measures: 15 animal-based, 24 resource-based and eight management-based. It was tested in the autumn at two Swedish riding schools using a total of 37 horses of varying breed, gender and age. Each assessment was repeated after 16-25 days. The results showed that 66% (31/47) of the measures had over 85% repeatability between assessments. Results indicated occurrence of behavioural issues, eg aggression and avoidance, and potential risk factors, such as inadequate management routines and feeding regimes. Using the HWAP, the assessment of up to 22 horses could be carried out in one day. Changes were proposed to the draft protocol which included incorporating an ethogram to assess the human-animal relationship and assessing bit-related injuries. We propose that the protocol might: i) provide a firm basis for the welfare monitoring of horses; ii) identify important potential risk factors; iii) guide welfare improvement and management practices for horse owners and stable managers; and iv) contribute to the development of certification schemes for horse facilities.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AHIC 2011 Australian Horse Welfare Protocol. Australian Horse Industry Council: Geelong, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Akucewich, LH and Anthony, AY 2007 Equine pastern der-matitis. Compendium: Equine Edition, Volume 2, No 4. http://www.vetfolio.com/search?q=equine+pastern+dermatitisGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445455Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Veissier, I and Miele, M 2013 The Welfare Quality® vision, In: Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Veissier, I and Miele, M (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality Approach pp 7189. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 60: 129140Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999 Overall ani-mal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 47: 279291Google Scholar
Carroll, CL and Huntington, PJ 1988 Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 20: 4145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, JW, S⊘ndergaard, E, Thodberg, K and Halekoh, U 2011 Effects of repeated regrouping on horse behav-iour and injuries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133: 199206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIGR 2012 International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering. Working group reports; Climatization of Animal Houses. http://cigr.org/Resources/working-group-reports.phpGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Mason, GJ 1998 The identification of abnormal behaviour and behavioural problems in stabled horses and their relationship to horse welfare: a comparative review. Equine Veterinary Journal 30: 59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1998.tb05136.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2012 Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow char-acteristics and inter-observer reliability. Animal Welfare 21: 219231. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlemark, A 1994 Naturlig ventilation i djurstallar. Fakta-Teknik, nr 12. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: SwedenGoogle Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2009 Checklista häst version 1.0. Swedish Board of Agriculture: Jönköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, E, Dueholm, L, Vink, D, Andersen, J, Jakobsen, E, Illum-Nielsen, S, Petersen, F and Enevoldsen, C 2006 Within- and across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in Danish Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 37213728. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72413-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krüger, K and Flauger, B 2008 Social feeding decisions in hors-es (Equus caballus). Behavioural Processes 78: 7683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, J and Koch, G 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellor, D, Patterson-Kane, E and Stafford, KJ 2009 The Sciences of Animal Welfare. John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
Miller, G, Stull, C, Ferraro, G and Meierhenry, B 2010 Minimum standards of horse care in the state of California. Reserve for law enforcement of applicable federal and state regulations, codes and laws Edition. Center of Equine Health: School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, USAGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, KF 1979 Mould growth on building materials. PhD Thesis, By og Byg, Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Reeves, MJ, Salman, MD and Smith, G 1996 Risk factors for equine acute abdominal disease (colic): Results from a multi-cen-ter case-control study. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 26: 285301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(95)00551-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, DW and Miller, WH 2011 Equine Dermatology. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
S⊘rensen, J, Sand⊘e, P and Halberg, N 2001 Animal welfare as one amongst several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 30: 1116Google Scholar
Tinker, MK, White, NA, Lessard, P, Thatcher, CD, Pelzer, KD, Davis, B and Carmel, DK 1997 Prospective study of equine colic risk factors. Equine veterinary journal 29: 454458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1997.tb03158.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visser, EK, de Graaf-Roelfsema, E, Wesselink, HGM, de Boer, J, van Wijhe-Kiezebrink, MC, Engel, B and van Reenen, CG 2014 Risk factors associated with health disorders in sport and leisure horses in The Netherlands. Journal of Animal Science 92: 844855. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wageningen, UR 2012 Welfare Monitoring System – Assessment Protocol for Horses, Version 2.0. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wålinder, R, Riihimäki, M, Bohlin, S, Hogstedt, C, Nordquist, T, Raine, A, Pringle, J and Elfman, L 2011 Installation of mechanical ventilation in a horse stable: effects on air quality and human and equine airways. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 16: 264272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-010-0195-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare Quality®Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality®Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009c Welfare Quality®Assessment Protocol for Poultry. Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Viksten et al. supplementary material

Tables 2a-2f

Download Viksten et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 41 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Viksten et al. supplementary material

Table 3

Download Viksten et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 28.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Viksten et al. supplementary material

Table 4

Download Viksten et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 157.6 KB