Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:36:53.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm manager involvement in an equine on-farm welfare assessment: opportunities for education and improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C DuBois ,
TJ DeVries ,
DB Haley ,
P Lawlis  and
K Merkies
C DuBois
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
TJ DeVries
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
DB Haley
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
P Lawlis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
K Merkies*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: kmerkies@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous work surveying equine professionals has suggested ignorance to be a primary cause of poor welfare within the industry, highlighting the importance of improving educational opportunities for industry stakeholders. This may be achieved through on-farm assessments designed to evaluate facilities and share resources with farm owners. While used extensively for evaluating production animal facilities, equine facilities are rarely formally assessed, making it important to determine how well those assessments would be received by equine owners and managers. As part of a larger project, an on-farm equine welfare assessment tool was pilot-tested on a sample of diverse horse farms (n = 26). Farm managers completed a self-assessment to determine their perception of their own farms with respect to animal welfare and then participated in the on-farm assessment process. Post-assessment interviews allowed participants to provide feedback regarding their experience. Farm managers most often underestimated the prevalence of structural issues in their facilities but were more discerning in management-related elements (eg stall cleanliness). Descriptive analysis indicated that farm managers felt that the on-farm assessment tool had the potential to be useful to newcomers to the industry and for a certification programme. Participants also highlighted areas that could make enforcing welfare standards an issue, such as horse and farm ownership. Understanding the perception of on-farm assessments is useful to gauge the potential success of animal care assessment programmes. If well-received, an industry-driven, on-farm welfare assessment has the potential to better educate horse farm managers and, by extension, improve the welfare of the animals under their care.

Keywords

animal welfareassessmenteducationequineon-farmstable yard
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 173 - 181
Copyright
© 2019 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

Association of British Riding Schools (ABRS) 2018 About ABRS Approved Riding Establishments. http://www.abrs-info.org/About_us-220.htmGoogle Scholar
Burke, J and Roderick, S 2006 Examination of the impact and effectiveness of herd health and welfare assessment in improving animal welfare on organic dairy farms, using qualitative interviews. Joint Organic Congress. 30-31 May 2006, Odense, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 2009 Guidelines on: the care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. CCAC: Ottawa, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Chapinal, N, Weary, DM, Collings, L and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2014 Lameness and hock injuries improve on farms partic-ipating in an assessment programme. The Veterinary Journal 202:646–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.09.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Lebelt, D, Scholz, P, Barbieri, S, Canali, E, Zanella, AJ and Minero, M 2016 Welfare assessment of horses: the AWIN approach. Animal Welfare 25: 481–488. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.4.481Google Scholar
Dollinger, SJ and Leong, FTL 1993 Volunteer bias and the five-factor model. Journal of Psychology 127: 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, C, DeVries, TJ, Haley, DB, Lawlis, P and Merkies, K 2018b Putting an on-farm welfare assessment tool into practice in the Canadian equine industry, a pilot study. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 63: 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, C, Odame, HH, Haley, DB and Merkies, K 2018a An exploration of industry expert perception of equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique. PLoS One 13(7): e0201363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Park, M and Malleau, AE 2012 Global Animal Partnership's 5-Step™ Animal Welfare Rating Standards: a wel-fare-labelling scheme that allows for continuous improvement. Animal Welfare 21: 113–116. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2006 Animal welfare assurance programmes in food production: a framework for assessing the option. Animal Welfare 15: 93–104Google Scholar
Giles, SL, Rands, SA, Nicol, CJ and Harris, PA 2014 Obesity prevalence and associated risk factors in outdoor living domestic horses and ponies. PeerJ 2: e299. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, SE 1995 Preparing horse farms, horses and their owners for disasters. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 15: 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-0806(06)81861-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh, A, Callander, S and Robinson, M 2011 Patient demo-graphic characteristics and facial expressions influence nurses’ assessment of mood in the context of pain: A virtual human and lens model investigation. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48: 1330–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, MK, Westerath-Niklaus, HS, Knierim, U, Tessitore, E, Cozzi, G, Vogl, C and Winckler, C 2014 Attitudes and expectations of beef farmers in Austria, Germany and Italy towards the Welfare Quality® assessment system. Livestock Science 160: 102–112Google Scholar
Kratzer, DD, Netherland, WM, Pulse, RE and Baker, JP 1977 Maze learning in Quarter horses. Journal of Animal Science 46:896–902. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.454896xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesimple, C and Hausberger, M 2014 How accurate are we at assessing others’ well-being? The example of welfare assessment in horses. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linnabary, RD, New, JC, Vogt, BM, Griffith-Davies, C and Williams, L 1993 Emergency evacuation of horses, a Madison County, Kentucky Survey. Journal of Veterinary Science 13: 153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinier, SL and Alexander, AJ 1994 The use of a maze in testing learning and memory in horse. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90137-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquié, L, Raufaste, E, Lauque, D, Mariné, C, Ecoiffier, M and Sorum, P 2003 Pain rating by patients and physicians: evi-dence of systematic pain miscalibration. Pain 102: 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00402-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, CA, Potter, GD, Friend, TH and Ingram, RS 1981 Learning abilities in yearling horses using the Hebb-Williams closed field maze. Journal of Animal Science 53: 928–933. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1981.534928xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Ward, M, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011 Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry. Animal Welfare 20: 597–601Google Scholar
National Farm Animal Care Committee (NFACC) 2013 Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines. http://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/equine_code_of_practice.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 2002 Equine learning: progress and suggestions for future research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78: 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00093-XGoogle Scholar
Payne, M, Bruhn, CM, Reed, B, Scearce, A and O’Donnell, J 1999 On-farm quality assurance programs: A survey of producer and industry leader opinions. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 2224–2230. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75469-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raabymagle, P and Ladewig, J 2006 Lying behavior in horses in relation to box size. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 26: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2005.11.015Google Scholar
Sischo, WM, Kiernan, NE, Burns, CM and Byler, LI 1997 Implanting a quality assurance program using a risk assessment tool on dairy operations. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 777–787. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75998-8Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Fraser, D 2010 On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, CD, Pleasant, RS, Geor, RJ, Elvinger, F, Negrin, KA, Franklin, J, Gay, L and Werre, SR 2008 Prevalence of obe-sity in mature horses: an equine body condition study [Abstract]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Nutrition 92: 222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00789 8.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The British Horse Society (BHS) 2018 Becoming BHS Approved. http://www.bhs.org.uk/professionals/become-bhs-approvedGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K and Clarkson, L 2016 Views on equine-related research in Australia from the Australian equestrian community: perceived outputs and benefits. Australian Veterinary Journal 94: 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaarst, M 2003 Evaluating a concept for an animal welfare assess-ment system providing decision support using qualitative inter-views. Animal Welfare 12: 541–546Google Scholar
Ventura, BA, Weary, DM, Giovanetti, AS and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016 Veterinary perspectives on cattle wel-fare challenges and solutions. Livestock Science 193: 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Keyserlingk, MAG, Barrientos, A, Ito, K, Galo, E and Weary, DM 2012 Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facil-ity design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 7399–7408. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wageningen UR Livestock Research 2011 Welfare monitoring system – Assessment protocol for horses. http://edepot.wur.nl/238619Google Scholar
Yeates, J and Main, D 2009 Assessment of companion animal quality of life in veterinary practice and research. Journal of Small Animal Practice 50: 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00755.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

DuBois et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 138.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Download undefined(PDF)
PDF 138.2 KB