A comparative study of the application of two horse welfare assessment protocols

Managing multi-functional peri-urban landscapes: Impacts of horse-keeping on water quality

Eutrophication assessments in water management to quantify nutrient loads and identify mitigating measures seldom include the contribution from horse facilities. This may be due to lack of appropriate methods, limited resources, or the belief that the impact from horses is insignificant. However, the recreational horse sector is growing, predominantly in multi-functional peri-urban landscapes. We applied an ecosystem management approach to quantify nutrient loads from horse facilities in the Stockholm Region, Sweden. We found that horses increased the total loads with 30-40% P and 20-45% N, with average area-specific loads of 1.2 kg P and 7.6 kg N ha-1 year-1. Identified local risk factors included manure management practices, trampling severity, soil condition and closeness to water. Comparisons of assessment methods showed that literature standard values of area-specific loads and water runoff may be sufficient at the catchment level, but in small and more complex catchments, measurements and local knowledge are needed.

Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses

Equine Quality of Life (QoL) is an important concern in decision making in veterinary medicine and is especially relevant for chronically ill or geriatric horses towards the end of their lives. To our knowledge, there is no currently available QoL assessment tool for chronically ill or geriatric horses that assesses equine QoL defined as the horse's evaluation of their life. However, tools exist to assess equine welfare in different contexts. Hence, the aims of this study were to analyse how equine welfare, QoL, well-being and happiness assessment tools label, define and operationalise the concepts and to discuss the tools' suitability to assess equine QoL in the context of end-of-life decisions for chronically ill or geriatric horses. Fourteen articles were found through a systematic literature search, describing ten equine welfare assessment tools and one approach to integrating equine QoL in veterinary practice that suggests QoL assessment parameters. We discuss that some welfare assessment tools have the potential to support the development of a QoL assessment tool informing decisions towards the end of horses' lives if they are adjusted to focus on the horses' experiences, to provide an integration into an overall QoL grade and are tailored to chronically ill or geriatric horses.

Thirty Years of Changes and the Current State of Swedish Animal Welfare Legislation

Simple Summary

Sweden is often cited as a leading country in animal welfare and related legislation, but some recent changes in the national legislation are seen as lowering the animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. In this study, we analysed suggested changes to the Swedish welfare legislation between 1988 and 2019 relating to horses, cattle and pigs, including the written motivations, the written stakeholder responses and the actual changes to the final regulations. We used a sample of 77 legal requirements to assess in depth whether the animal welfare level was affected by these changes in the legislation. The results showed that the animal welfare requirements in Sweden for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year study period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to satisfy interests other than animal welfare. Thus, the new requirements should be evaluated more fully in order to determine whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Abstract

Sweden is often seen as a leading country in animal welfare and legislation, but some recent amendments to the legislation are perceived as relaxing animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of the relevant industry and of farmers. In this study, we analysed the suggested and actual changes in the Swedish national animal welfare regulations relating to horses, cattle and pigs between 1988 and 2019 and the consequences for the intended animal welfare level. The regulations and amendments, including the proposals, the written motivations, the stakeholders’ written responses to the proposed amendments and the final amendments, were scrutinised in detail. A sample of 77 requirements was then selected to assess whether and how the animal welfare level was affected by these legislative changes. The results indicated that the animal welfare protection level for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to meet objectives other than animal welfare. It was more difficult to determine whether animal welfare improved in practice during the same period, due to the lack of systematic evaluations of the consequences of amending the regulations. Future evaluations are needed to evaluate the outcome of new legislative requirements and to monitor whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Evaluation of the Feasibility, Reliability, and Repeatability of Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses: A Pilot Study

Simple Summary

Animal welfare assessment is an essential tool for maintaining positive animal wellbeing. Validated welfare assessment protocols have been developed for farm, laboratory, zoo, and companion animals, including horses in managed care. However, wild and free-roaming equines have received relatively little attention, despite populations being found worldwide. In the UK, free-roaming ponies inhabit areas of Exmoor, Dartmoor, and New Forest, England, and Snowdonia National Park in Wales, amongst others. Visitors and local members of the public who encounter free-roaming ponies occasionally raise concerns about their welfare, as they are not provided with additional food, water, or shelter. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and repeatability of welfare indicators that can be applied to a population of free-roaming Carneddau Mountain ponies to address such concerns. Our findings indicate that many of the trialed indicators were successfully repeated and had good levels of inter-assessor reliability. Reliable and repeatable welfare indicators for free-roaming and semi free-roaming ponies will enable population managers and conservation grazing schemes to manage the welfare of free-roaming horses and ponies.

Abstract

Validated assessment protocols have been developed to quantify welfare states for intensively managed sport, pleasure, and working horses. There are few protocols for extensively managed or free-roaming populations. Here, we trialed welfare indicators to ascertain their feasibility, reliability, and repeatability using free-roaming Carneddau Mountain ponies as an example population. The project involved (1) the identification of animal and resource-based measures of welfare from both the literature and discussion with an expert group; (2) testing the feasibility and repeatability of a modified body condition score and mobility score on 34 free-roaming and conservation grazing Carneddau Mountain ponies; and (3) testing a prototype welfare assessment template comprising 12 animal-based and 6 resource-based welfare indicators, with a total of 20 questions, on 35 free-roaming Carneddau Mountain ponies to quantify inter-assessor reliability and repeatability. This pilot study revealed that many of the indicators were successfully repeatable and had good levels of inter-assessor reliability. Some of the indicators could not be verified for reliability due to low/absent occurrence. The results indicated that many animal and resource-based indicators commonly used in intensively managed equine settings could be measured in-range with minor modifications. This study is an initial step toward validating a much-needed tool for the welfare assessment of free-roaming and conservation grazing ponies.

Managing Animal Welfare in Food Governance in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in Implementation and Coordination

Simple Summary

Animal welfare is an important issue in society, and having a strong animal welfare legislation is per se important. However, in addition to a strong legislation, it is necessary to create a system that can enforce the legislation and to have a public administration in place in order to achieve a coordinated implementation. Both Norway and Sweden have received some criticism for their coordination of animal welfare control efforts. However, they have reacted to this criticism in different ways. Norway has centralised the coordination, making the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) solely responsible for animal welfare control. Sweden, on the other hand, has instead focused on developing better guidelines to be used by the 21 regional County Administration Boards in order to improve uniformity. In this study, we have compared the Norwegian and Swedish ways of coordinating animal welfare control and identified challenges and relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance. The results show that Sweden’s organisation may need more coordination between multiple organisational units, while Norway has better preconditions for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto “inspector”, “prosecutor” and “judge”.

Abstract

A key issue in food governance and public administration is achieving coordinated implementation of policies. This study addressed this issue by systematically comparing the governance of animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, using published papers, reports, and legal and other public information, combined with survey and interview data generated in a larger research project (ANIWEL). Governing animal welfare includes a number of issues that are relevant across different sectors and policy areas, such as ethical aspects, choice of legal tools, compliance mechanisms and achieving uniform control. Based on the challenges identified in coordinating animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance were assessed. The results showed that Sweden’s organisation may need more horizontal coordination, since its animal welfare management is divided between multiple organisational units (Swedish Board of Agriculture, National Food Agency and 21 regional County Administration Boards). Coordination in Norway is managed solely by the governmental agency Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), which has the full responsibility for inspection and control of food safety, animal health, plant health, as well as animal welfare. Thus, Norway has better preconditions than Sweden for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto “inspector”, “prosecutor” and “judge”.

Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors

Dirty cattle have been commonly recorded in official animal welfare inspections in Sweden for years. The relevant authorities have initiated work to better understand the causes of dirty cattle, in order to improve compliance and standardize the grounds for categorizing a farm as non-compliant with welfare legislation when dirty animals are present. This study investigated the occurrence of dirty cattle in official animal welfare controls, on Swedish cattle farms, and examined farmers' views on the reasons for non-compliance and on key factors in keeping animals clean. The data used were collected by animal welfare inspectors at the county level during the regular official inspections of 371 dairy and beef cattle farms over two weeks in winter 2020. In addition to completing the usual inspection protocol, the inspectors asked farmers a set of questions relating to why their animals were clean or dirty. Dirty cattle were found on 49% of the farms inspected, but only 33% of the farms were categorized as being non-compliant with Swedish welfare legislation. According to inspectors and farmers, dirtiness in cattle depends mainly on management routines, which is a promising result since routines can be improved. The results also revealed a need for better guidance for inspectors and farmers on when dirtiness should be categorized as non-compliance with animal welfare legislation.

Stocking Density Affects Welfare Indicators in Horses Reared for Meat Production

Simple Summary

Not enough effort is being made to safeguard the welfare of horses reared for meat production. These horses are kept in intensive breeding farms where they are housed in group pens at high stock densities and fed high amounts of concentrates. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether the stocking density of horses raised in group pens for meat production and their feeding management affects their welfare according to different stocking density. According to our results, when the horses had more than 4.75 m²/horse, many indicators were affected (i.e., improvement of coat cleanliness, improvement of bedding quantity, improvement of mane and tail conditions, less resting in a standing position, and less feeding related to the greater space available at the feed bunk). However, a further increment of space and/or changes in management regimes may be necessary to improve all the welfare indicators. The results also revealed the need to improve the feeding management of these animals.

Abstract

Horses kept for meat production are reared in intensive breeding farms. We employed a checklist adapted from the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) assessment protocol. Our evaluation aims to assess whether welfare indicators are influenced by stocking densities (m²/horse) and feeding strategies applied. An analysis was carried out on the data obtained from 7 surveys conducted at a single horse farm designed for meat production. In each survey, the same 12 pens were assessed, but on each occasion, the horses in the pens had been changed as had the stocking densities. Briefly, 561 horses aged 16 ± 8 months (mean ± standard deviation) were evaluated. Two stocking density cut-off values (median and 75th percentile: 3.95 and 4.75 m²/horse, respectively) were applied to investigate the effect of stocking density on horse welfare. Data were analysed using Mann–Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests (p < 0.05). When cut-off was set as the median percentile, lower stocking density was associated with improvements in body condition score (BCS), coat cleanliness and bedding quantity, less coughing, less resting in a standing position, and less feeding related to the greater space available at the feed bunk. When the 75th percentile cut-off was used, indicators that improved were coat cleanliness, bedding quantity and mane and tail condition, as well as less resting in standing position and less feeding related to the greater space available at the feed bunk. Accordingly, the use of two different stocking density cut-off values showed that the increase of space allowance affected specific welfare indicators. Further increment of space and/or changes in management regimes should be investigated to improve all the indicators. Moreover, results related to feeding indicated the need to intervene as starch intakes exceeded recommended safe levels, negatively affecting horse welfare.

Private Animal Welfare Standards-Opportunities and Risks

The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim to highlight the most important opportunities and risks identified in relation to the trend of increasingly relying on private standards for safeguarding or improving farm animal welfare. Our results show that different focuses, intentions, animal welfare requirements, inspection methods (i.e., methods for measuring and evaluating the compliance with a regulation), and inspection results, together with the use of vague wordings and a drive towards more flexible regulations does certainly not facilitate the interpretation and implementation of animal welfare regulations, especially not in relation to each other. Since farmers today often have to comply with several animal welfare regulations, including private standards, it is important to stress that a given regulation should never be seen as a single, stand-alone phenomenon, and the policymakers must hence consider the bigger picture, and apply the standards in relation to other existing regulations. This is especially relevant in relation to the legislation, a level that a private standard can never ignore.