Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses

How Useful Are Existing Protocols in the Quick Assessment of the Welfare of Semi-Feral Horses? Pilot Study on Konik Polski Horses Living in the Forest Sanctuary

Scientifically validated and standardised methods for the evaluation of the welfare of free-living horses are urgently needed by both the owners and managers of these populations and those responsible for implementing national welfare legislation. The aim of the study was to test the feasibility and usefulness of two welfare protocols that could be applied to semi-feral populations: a prototype of welfare assessment template (WAT) for Carneddau semi-feral ponies and the IFCE/INRAE Horse Welfare Protocol. Additionally, the body condition scale designed by Henneke (BCS-H) was employed. The study took place in July/August 2022 and April 2023 to evaluate the welfare of a pilot population of nineteen semi-feral Konik polski horses. The horses scored high or satisfactory under indicators across both protocols; only body condition scores were significantly lower in early spring (BCS-WAT: 1.11 ± 0.57; BCS-H: 3.84 ± 1.17) than in the summer (BCS-WAT: 1.58 ± 0.61; BCS-H: 5.63 ± 1.01). Our study confirmed the feasibility of utilising most of the WAT and IFCE/INRAE welfare indicators in semi-feral horses. Some adaptations, such as considering validation of scales, positive welfare indicators and animals' free-choice of conditions, have been suggested for future in-field application.

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach.