Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T04:29:47.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of feedback from horse welfare assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SM Viksten ,
EK Visser ,
PL Hitchens  and
HJ Blokhuis
SM Viksten
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ecosof@live.se
EK Visser
Affiliation:
Horsonality, Skipper 3, 8456 JB De Knipe, The Netherlands
PL Hitchens
Affiliation:
Equine Centre, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, 250 Princes Hwy, Werribee, Victoria 3030, Australia
HJ Blokhuis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was designed to determine whether feedback from welfare assessments, using the Horse Welfare Assessment Protocol, affected actual horse welfare in 21 stables. After the first assessment, stable managers in the high feedback (HF; n = 10 stables) group were supplied with extensive information and support regarding the welfare measures and relevance of the results. The low feedback (LF; n = 11 stables) group only received the results without additional information. Upon re-assessment, six months later, no significant changes were seen in the stable overall (SO) score in either group. Significant changes occurred in individual measures; in the HF group more fresh-air inlets were open but water drinker function and ocular discharge deteriorated. In the LF group, the feeding troughs were cleaner but mane and tail condition deteriorated. Both groups had cleaner water troughs and less equipment chafing but the sum of relative air humidity (RH) and temperature (T) deteriorated. Significant decreases occurred in the stable welfare issues (SWI) score; the HF group decreased from 93.3 to 72.0 and the LF group from 113.3 to 91.3. There were also nonsignificant changes; in the HF group, 71 measures and five stables improved while 63 measures and five stables (50%) deteriorated. In the LF group, 65 measures and seven stables improved while 62 measures and four stables deteriorated. The observed improvements in both groups suggest that assessment alone (with no detailed feedback) might raise awareness but we cannot yet conclude whether or not the type of feedback affects overall horse welfare.

Keywords

animal welfareequineHorse Welfare Assessment Protocolimproving horse welfareprotocolwelfare assessment
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 125 - 131
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AHIC 2011 Australian Horse Welfare Protocol. Australian Horse Industry Council: AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 1985 From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J and Beckmann, J (eds) Action Control. Springer: Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AWIN 2015 AWIN Welfare assessment protocol for horses, version 1.1. https://doi.org/10.13130/AWIN_HORSES_2015CrossRefGoogle 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: 445–455Google 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: 129–140Google Scholar
Braam Å 2010 Hästskattningarna 2004 och 2010 - en analys utifrån näringens perspektiv. OVR252, Jordbruksverket och Hästnäringen Nationella Stiftelse, Stockholm, Sweden. [Title translation: The horse estimates 2004 and 2010: an analysis based on the nutrition perspective]Google Scholar
Carroll, CL and Huntington, PJ 1988 Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 20: 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIGR 2012 Climatization of Animal Houses, Second Edition, Working Group Reports. Centre for Climatization of Animal Houses, Advisory Services, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, State University of Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Edge, MK and Barnett, JL 2009 Development of animal welfare standards for the livestock transport industry: process, challenges, and implementation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 4: 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlemark, A 1994 Naturlig ventilation i djurstallar. Fakta Teknik, nr 12. University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. [Title translation: Natural ventilation in animal shelters]Google Scholar
Heleski, CR and Anthony, R 2012 Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethical assessment for a more com-prehensive view of equine welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 7: 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR and Zanella, AJ 2006 Animal science student atti-tudes to farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 19: 3–16. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785593883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J, Steuten, C, Renes, R, Aarts, N and Lam, T 2010 Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: effective com-munication on udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1296–1306. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2015 Jordbruksverket. http://www.jordbruksverket.seGoogle Scholar
Leckie, EJ 2001 Equine population of the UK: A Report for the International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH). ILPH: UKGoogle Scholar
Lönnell, C, Roepstorff, L and Egenvall, A 2012 Variation in equine management factors between riding schools with high vs low insurance claims for orthopaedic injury: A field study. The Veterinary Journal 193: 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.11.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Mullen, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM and Blokhuis, HJ 2014 Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37: 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEWC 2008 National Equine Welfare Protocol. National Equine Welfare Council: Kenilworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Rycroft-Malone, J and Bucknall, T 2010 Models and Frameworks for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice pp 23–50. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Scott, DW and Miller, WH 2011 Equine Dermatology. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Seers, K, Cox, K, Crichton, NJ, Edwards, RT, Eldh, AC, Estabrooks, CA, Harvey, G, Hawkes, C, Kitson, A and Linck, P 2012 FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence): a study protocol. Implementation Science 7: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Søndergaard, E, Clausen, E, Christensen, J and Schougaard, H 2004 Housing of horses. Danish Recommendations. DIAS Report 122. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Wageningen, UR 2012 Welfare Monitoring System – Assessment Protocol for Horses. Version 2.0. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Viksten, SM, Nyman, S, Visser, EK and Blokhuis, HJ 2017 Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol. Animal Welfare 26: 59–65. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.1.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viksten, SM, Visser, EK and Blokhuis, HJ 2016 A comparative application of two horse welfare assessment protocols. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A – Animal Science 66: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2016.1186726Google Scholar
Viksten, SM, Visser, EK and Blokhuis, HJ Swedish horse own-ers’ decision making on welfare: motivational factors and information needs, submittedGoogle Scholar
Visser, EK, de Graaf-Roelfsema, E, Wesselink, HG, 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 92:844–855. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visser, EK and Van Wijk-Jansen, EE 2012 Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 7:295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007CrossRefGoogle 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: 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-010-0195-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B, Rietveld, G and Lawlis, P 1998 Body condition scoring of horses. Original factsheet Agdex 460/28. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Viksten et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 118.2 KB