ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN COMMONLY USED APPARATUS AND CONFLICT BEHAVIORS REPORTED IN THE RIDDEN HORSE IN AUSTRALIA

Determination of Equine Behaviour in Subjectively Non-Lame Ridden Sports Horses and Comparison with Lame Sports Horses Evaluated at Competitions

The Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram (RHpE) was developed to facilitate the identification of musculoskeletal pain. The aim of the current study was to collate behavioural data using the RHpE from horses at competitions assumed by their owners and/or riders to be fit for competition. The objectives were to quantify the frequency of occurrence of behaviours in pain-free horses and those with lameness or abnormalities of canter and to determine any differences between disciplines and levels of competition. The RHpE was applied to 1358 horses competing in Grand Prix (GP) dressage (n = 211), 5* three-day events (TDE) (n = 137), or low-level one-day events (ODE) (n = 1010). The median RHpE score for all horses was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2, 5; range 0, 12) and the median lameness grade was 0 (IQR 0, 1; range 0, 4). The Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's test for pairwise comparisons, found a difference in median RHpE scores between low-level ODE and GP dressage (p = 0.001), but not between 5* TDE and low-level ODE (p = 0.09) or between GP dressage and 5* TDE (p = 1.00). The median RHpE score was highest for low-level ODE. The Chi-square/Fisher's exact test identified a significant difference in prevalence of most of the 24 behaviours of the RHpE in non-lame compared with lame horses. Recognition of the behaviours of non-lame horses may improve equine welfare and performance, and rider comfort, confidence, and safety.

A Relaxed Horse-A Relaxed Client? An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Therapy Horses' Stress on Clients' Stress, Mood, and Anxiety

Equine-assisted therapies are becoming increasingly popular for addressing physical and psychological disabilities in clients. The role of the horse's welfare in equine-assisted service receives increasing attention in research. Several studies have shown that horses are able to perceive human emotions and respond to human stress responses. However, no research has yet looked at the other side of the coin-whether and how humans perceive and react to equine stress levels during equine-assisted services. To fill this gap in the research, we employed a within-subjects design, in which horse-naïve participants had a standardized interaction with both an experimentally stressed horse and an experimentally relaxed horse. We assessed physiological indicators of stress (heart rate, heart rate variability, and salivary cortisol) in participants and horses, as well as psychological indicators of stress (state anxiety and positive and negative affect) in participants. Although our stress and relaxation manipulations were successful (indicated by horses' physiological indicators of stress), we did not find any difference in the participants' physiological or psychological indicators of stress between the interaction with a stressed and the interaction with a relaxed horse. Together with results from previous studies, this suggests that humans cannot intuitively recognize the (physiological) stress level of horses, which has important implications for effective communication and bonding between humans and horses and for the safety of equine activities.

How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?

More than ever the welfare of horses in equestrian sport is in the spotlight. In response to this scrutiny, one peak body, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) has created an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission to protect their sport's longevity. However, for welfare-based strategies to be successful, the conceptualisation of horse welfare must align across various stakeholders, including the general public. The value-laden nature of welfare makes agreement on its definition, even among scientists, difficult. Given little is known about how equestrians conceptualise horse welfare, we interviewed 19 Australian amateur equestrians using a semi-structured format. Systems thinking and the Five Domains Model provided the theoretical framework and informed our methods. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified: (1) good horse welfare is tangible; (2) owners misinterpret unwanted horse behaviour; and (3) equestrians publicly minimise horse welfare issues but are privately concerned. Our results highlight participants' conceptualisations of horse welfare do not align with the Five Domains Model; participants' ideal of prioritising horse welfare does not align with their practice; and there is inconsistency between what participants share publicly and what they think privately about horse welfare. These findings can inform the development of programmes to improve ridden horse welfare throughout the horse industry. As a starting point, programmes that provide a safe space for equestrians to explore their private horse welfare concerns, and programmes that build a partnership mindset to facilitate knowledge exchange between all stakeholders are needed.

Sustainability and the Thoroughbred Breeding and Racing Industries: An Enhanced One Welfare Perspective

As society debates the use of animals in sport, entertainment, and leisure, there is an increasing focus on the welfare, social, and ecological impacts of such activities on the animals, human participants, people close to them, and the physical environment. This article introduces the "Enhanced One Welfare Framework" to reveal significant costs and benefits associated with Thoroughbred breeding and racing globally. In addition, relative to calls to ban horseracing and similar activities as part of sustainability approaches that focus chiefly on animals, the "Enhanced One Welfare Framework" is better positioned politically to guide discussions that renegotiate the conditions under which horses are used for sport and the impact racing has on humans and the planet. In 2020, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities issued its minimum horse welfare standards based on the Five Domains model, positioning lifelong horse welfare as "fundamentally important to the viability and sustainability of the industry". In this article, we critique the One Welfare framework's historic lack of focus on sport and enhance it by including sport, leisure, and entertainment and framing it within the Five Domains model. We offer a novel extension of the Five Domains model beyond animal welfare to consider human welfare and the physical environmental impacts of the sport, leisure, and entertainment industries and propose innovations that may help thoroughbred breeding and racing assure a sustainable future.

Trialling Locally Made, Low-Cost Bits to Improve Bit-Related Welfare Problems in Cart Horses: Findings from a Study in Senegal

Bits used for cart horses in Senegal are typically made of recovered construction iron and often have defects related to design, shape, fit and metal quality. Consequently, there is widespread presence of bit-related oral injury amongst these equids. It was hypothesised that improving bit design would ameliorate bit-related welfare issues for working cart horses. This study aimed to develop locally made alternative bit prototypes and test their efficacy as less harmful to working horses, and their acceptability to their drivers. Eight animal-based welfare indicators (four physical and four behavioural) were designed to measure positive or negative effects of the new bits. Following a testing phase to appraise and mitigate potential animal welfare risk associated with the alternative bit designs, a total of 540 driver/horse combinations were opportunistically selected across five municipalities in Senegal. Welfare indicators were observed when new bits were introduced and again after 21 weeks of daily use. The results indicated statistically significant improvements in all welfare indicators measured (i.e., lesions on lip commissures, tongue, buccal mucosa and bars; and open mouth, tongue loll, head toss/shake, and head tilt/turn behaviours). None of the drivers reported any difficulty with horse control, nor chose to revert back to their original bits. Whilst acknowledging the limitation of inability to control all potential confounding variables, these preliminary findings suggest the bit itself as an important contributor to oral injury, and the possibility to improve this through alternative bit design that is low-cost, locally produced and acceptable to drivers.

Noseband Fit: Measurements and Perceptions of Canadian Equestrians

Recent concerns regarding horse welfare during competition has highlighted the occurrence of overtightened nosebands on competition horses. Current rules are often vague—e.g., “nosebands may never be so tightly fixed as to harm the horse.” To investigate the need and acceptance prior to any rule changes Equestrian Canada (EC) launched a pilot noseband measuring project. Nineteen officiating stewards measured noseband fit using the ISES taper gauge (TG) at 32 equestrian events of various disciplines in 2021. Additionally, stakeholder surveys collected data from 1528 EC members and 27 stewards regarding opinions and perceptions on noseband use, fit, measurement and rules. Descriptive and qualitative statistics along with Pearson chi-squared examined relationships between specific variables. Of the 551 horses tested with the TG, 71% passed the 1.5 cm (two-fingers) measurement and an additional 19% passed the 1 cm (one-finger) measurement. Stewards unanimously agreed that overtightened nosebands present a welfare issue although 63% believed this to represent only a small subset of riders. While 60% of stewards believed the current rules were sufficient, 40% did not. Despite the fact that 84% of stewards believe there should be a standardized fit across disciplines, 52% felt the use of the TG should be at their discretion. The top three reasons riders indicated for using nosebands were discipline expectation (41%), requirement for competition (39%) or for control/safety (32%). Open comments referred to an option to not wear a noseband in competition. Professional riders believed overtightened nosebands were less of a welfare issue than amateur riders (76% vs. 88% respectively; p < 0.025) and correspondingly did not feel the TG was a fair method (44% vs. 68% respectively; p < 0.001). Slightly more than half of the respondents (51.5%) believed that measuring noseband fit on the frontal nasal plane was the appropriate location. To advance equestrian practice, more education is needed to inform stakeholders of the reasons for noseband measurements and appropriate fit.