Coat Clipping of Horses: A Survey

Understanding and treating equine behavioural problems

Behaviour-related issues are common in horses. Many 'undesirable behaviours' pose important safety concerns for the human handlers / riders / carers, as well as welfare concerns for the horse. Undesirable behaviours can also devalue a horse, or result in the horse being re-homed, relinquished, or euthanased. Undesirable behaviours occur for a range of reasons. These include physiological causes, poor management, and the use of inappropriate or poorly applied handling and training techniques. The potential contribution of each of these aspects must be considered when attempting to reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviours. Effectively modifying the existing behaviour includes investigation and treatment of potential physiological causes, assessing and adjusting existing handling, husbandry and management, and undertaking behaviour modifying training. Unlike in the treatment of dogs and cats, the use of psychotropic agents is uncommon in equine behaviour medicine but the benefits of using these agents in appropriate cases is gaining recognition. This review discusses potential causes for the development and maintenance of undesirable behaviours in horses and highlights the various considerations involved in determining the most appropriate course for reducing or eliminating these behaviours. There is also a brief discussion about the potential role of psychotropic agents as an additional component of an overall behaviour modification plan to reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviours in horses.

A survey on the use of rugs in Australian horses

The practice of horse rugging has important implications for horse welfare and performance, but in Australia, rugging practices have not been properly documented. The objective of this study was to obtain an understanding of Australian horse rugging practices. An online survey reviewed the management of 2659 Australian horses over 12 months. Of the reported horses a total of 84.8% were rugged, although most owners (69.5%) indicated that they were unsure whether horses needed to be rugged at all. Rugging was felt by 59.8% of owners to be a requirement for horses in competition. Riding and competition were significantly associated with the use of rugs. Nearly all respondents (89.0%) felt that 'over-rugging' was a concern. However, 4.8% of owners would use up to 4 rugs at any one time on their horse and 21.4% of horses were still rugged in temperatures above 20°C in Australia. Many Australian horse owners (42.8%) also believe that horses feel cold if they are not rugged. Anthropomorphism when it comes to rugging horses cannot be justified as the horse has a much wider thermoneutral zone (TNZ) than humans. Australian climate, owner opinions, equestrian discipline and whether a horse is used for riding influence Australian horse rugging practices. However, current practices are based on limited available research and are not necessarily to the benefit of the horse. The major limitation was that the survey likely attracted respondents who are interested in the topic creating a self-selection bias.

Quantitative sensory testing of the equine face

BACKGROUND

Quantitative sensory testing methods are now standard in the evaluation of sensory function in man, while few normal equine values have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this experimental study was (a) to define the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds of the equine face; (b) to assess the effect of age, sex, stimulation site and shaving; (c) to evaluate the reliability of the methods and (d) to provide reference facial quantitative sensory testing values.

STUDY DESIGN

Method description.

METHODS

Thirty-four healthy Warmblood horses were used in the study. Six (tactile sensory threshold) and five (mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds) areas of the left side of the face with clear anatomical landmarks were evaluated. Ten horses had two (mechanical nociceptive threshold) or three (tactile sensory and thermal nociceptive thresholds) of these areas shaved for another study. A linear Mixed model was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

All thresholds increased with age (tactile sensory threshold: by 0.90 g/y (CI = [0.12 g; 0.36 g]) P = .001; mechanical nociceptive threshold: by 0.25 N/y (CI = [0.13-0.36 N]) P = .000; thermal nociceptive threshold: by 0.2°C/y (CI = [0.055-0.361]) P = .008). Sex had no effect on thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P = .1; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P = .09; thermal nociceptive threshold: P = .2). Stimulation site affected tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (P = .001 and P = .008), but not thermal nociceptive threshold (P = .9). Shaving had no significant effect on any of the thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P = .06; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P = .08; thermal nociceptive threshold: P = .09).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

Only the left side was investigated and measurements were obtained on a single occasion.

CONCLUSIONS

Handheld quantitative sensory testing does not require shaving or clipping to provide reliable measurements. Stimulation over the nostril (tactile sensory threshold), temporomandibular joint (mechanical nociceptive threshold) and supraorbital foramen (thermal nociceptive threshold) resulted in the most consistent thresholds.