FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Attitudes of the Equestrian Public towards Equine End-of-Lif...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(6); 1776; doi: 10.3390/ani11061776

Attitudes of the Equestrian Public towards Equine End-of-Life Decisions.

Abstract: A key welfare concern for the equine population in the U.K. has been identified as delayed death, leading to prolonged suffering of horses. Reasons why some horse owners fail to have their horses euthanised include financial cost, emotional attachment, peer pressure, negative attitudes towards killing and poor recognition of behavioural indicators of equine pain and stress. The Five Freedoms framework of welfare was used to build a Likert-style survey to investigate the factors underlying attitudes of horse owners towards welfare measures in an end-of-life decision. Participants were asked to respond to hypothetical welfare scenarios and to give details of any horses they had had euthanised. The survey was conducted predominantly via equestrian Facebook groups and obtained 160 participant responses. Reliability of the scale was acceptable, with Cronbach's α=0.89. Principal Component Analysis was used to load the hypothetical scenarios onto seven factors containing 62.2% of the variance. The first four factors could be categorized according to "Ethology-informed Management", "Traditional Horse Management", "Emotional Issues" and "Physical Issues". Participants were more likely to consider euthanasia for physical issues, compared with issues relating to affective state and/or ethology, although it was not clear whether this was due to disregard for welfare issues relating to mental health or failure to recognise them as such. A large number of responses stated that the scenario had no bearing on whether a horse should be euthanised, again suggesting a lack of recognition of welfare issues and their implications. When asked to state their reasons for euthanising their horses, participants cited almost exclusively physical reasons, with the exception of those citing dangerous behaviour. Only a small number of responses also included consideration of affective and/or ethological factors, suggesting that welfare issues concerning affective state and/or behaviour are at risk of omission from end-of-life decisions.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-06-14 PubMed ID: 34198636PubMed Central: PMC8232243DOI: 10.3390/ani11061776Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study delved into the attitudes of horse owners about making end-of-life decisions, exploring why some hesitate to euthanize suffering horses and how horse owners’ views differ on the subject. The research utilized a survey and primarily focused on factors like management styles, emotional issues, and physical problems.

Survey Design and Execution

  • The research employed a Likert-style survey built around the Five Freedoms framework of welfare. This framework is widely recognized in animal welfare studies and includes freedom from hunger or thirst, discomfort, pain, injury or disease, the freedom to express normal behavior, and freedom from fear and distress.
  • The survey asked participants to respond to hypothetical welfare scenarios and additionally asked them to provide details of any horses they had had euthanised.
  • The survey was mainly conducted via equestrian Facebook groups and managed to gather 160 participant responses.

Data Analysis

  • The reliability of the scale was found to be acceptable with a Cronbach’s α score of 0.89. In statistics, Cronbach’s α is used as a measure of internal consistency or reliability of test or survey scores.
  • Principal Component Analysis, a statistical procedure that uses orthogonal transformation to convert possible correlated variables into principal components, was used to load the hypothetical scenarios onto seven factors. These seven factors accounted for 62.2% of the variance.
  • The first four factors were classified as “Ethology-informed Management”, “Traditional Horse Management”, “Emotional Issues”, and “Physical Issues”.

Findings

  • The study found that participants were more likely to consider euthanasia for physical issues than for affective state and/or ethology-related issues. This either suggests ignorance towards mental health-related welfare issues or failure to recognize them.
  • Several respondents stated that the provided scenario had no impact on whether a horse should be euthanised, indicating a lack of awareness about welfare issues and their implications.
  • When asked to state their reasons for euthanising their horses, participants mainly pointed out physical reasons, with a small number including affective and/or ethological factors.
  • The results suggest that welfare issues concerning a horse’s affective state and/or behaviour might be overlooked when making end-of-life decisions.

Cite This Article

APA
Bell C, Rogers S. (2021). Attitudes of the Equestrian Public towards Equine End-of-Life Decisions. Animals (Basel), 11(6), 1776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061776

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 6
PII: 1776

Researcher Affiliations

Bell, Catherine
  • Equine Behaviour and Training Association, Godalming GU8 6AX, UK.
Rogers, Suzanne
  • Equine Behaviour and Training Association, Godalming GU8 6AX, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 25 references
  1. Horseman SV, Mullan S, Barr A, Knowles TG, Buller H, Whay HR. Horses in Our Hands. .
  2. Bell C, Rogers S, Taylor J, Busby D. Improving the Recognition of Equine Affective States.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Dec 11;9(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121124pmc: PMC6941154pubmed: 31835886google scholar: lookup
  3. Hockenhull J, Whay HR. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  4. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 14;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  5. Mellor D, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker RM, Jenkin G, Mellor DJ, editors. Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching; Glen Osmond, Australia: 1994. pp. 3–18.
  6. Mellor DJ, Burns M. Using the Five Domains Model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand.. N Z Vet J 2020 May;68(3):150-156.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2020.1715900pubmed: 31973682google scholar: lookup
  7. Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Rickards K, Ryding J, Norris SL, Judge A, Kubasiewicz LM, Watson TL, Little H, Hart B, Sullivan R, Garrett C, Burden FA. Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS): The Development and Implementation of a New Equid Welfare Assessment and Monitoring Tool.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 13;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020297pmc: PMC7070371pubmed: 32069910google scholar: lookup
  8. Webster J. Animal Welfare: Freedoms, Dominions and "A Life Worth Living".. Animals (Basel) 2016 May 24;6(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6060035pmc: PMC4929415pubmed: 27231943google scholar: lookup
  9. Torcivia C, McDonnell S. Equine Discomfort Ethogram.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Feb 23;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020580pmc: PMC7931104pubmed: 33672338google scholar: lookup
  10. Merkies K, Ready C, Farkas L, Hodder A. Eye Blink Rates and Eyelid Twitches as a Non-Invasive Measure of Stress in the Domestic Horse.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Aug 15;9(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9080562pmc: PMC6721043pubmed: 31443315google scholar: lookup
  11. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, McKane SA, Pinchbeck GL. A cross-sectional study of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom. Part 2: Health care and disease.. Equine Vet J 2011 Jan;43(1):37-44.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00142.xpubmed: 21143632google scholar: lookup
  12. Hartmann E, Bøe KE, Christensen JW, Hyyppä S, Jansson H, Jørgensen GH, Ladewig J, Mejdell CM, Norling Y, Rundgren M, Särkijärvi S, Søndergaard E, Keeling LJ. A Nordic survey of management practices and owners' attitudes towards keeping horses in groups.. J Anim Sci 2015 Sep;93(9):4564-74.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9233pubmed: 26440355google scholar: lookup
  13. Albright JD, Mohammed HO, Heleski CR, Wickens CL, Houpt KA. Crib-biting in US horses: breed predispositions and owner perceptions of aetiology.. Equine Vet J 2009 May;41(5):455-8.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X372584pubmed: 19642405google scholar: lookup
  14. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, Platt L, Pinchbeck GL. Factors associated with mortality of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Prev Vet Med 2011 Sep 1;101(3-4):204-18.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.06.002pubmed: 21733586google scholar: lookup
  15. McGowan TW, Phillips CJC, Hodgson DR, Perkins N, McGowan CM. Euthanasia in Aged Horses: Relationship between the Owner’s Personality and Their Opinions on, and Experience of, Euthanasia of Horses. Anthrozoös 2012;25:261–275.
    doi: 10.2752/175303712X13403555186091google scholar: lookup
  16. Clough H, Roshier M, England G, Burford J, Freeman S. Qualitative study of the influence of horse-owner relationship during some key events within a horse's lifetime.. Vet Rec 2021 Mar;188(6):e79.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.79pubmed: 33739494google scholar: lookup
  17. Rioja-Lang FC, Connor M, Bacon H, Dwyer CM. Determining a Welfare Prioritization for Horses Using a Delphi Method.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Apr 9;10(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040647pmc: PMC7222753pubmed: 32283607google scholar: lookup
  18. Hockenhull J, Furtado T. Escaping the gilded cage: Could COVID-19 lead to improved equine welfare? A review of the literature. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021;237:105303.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105303google scholar: lookup
  19. British Psychological Society. Code of Ethics and Conduct. 2018.
  20. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications Ltd.; London, UK: 2018.
  21. Jolliffe IT, Cadima J. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments.. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2016 Apr 13;374(2065):20150202.
    doi: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0202pmc: PMC4792409pubmed: 26953178google scholar: lookup
  22. McDonnell S. The Equid Ethogram: A Practical Field Guide to Horse Behaviour. Eclipse Press; London, UK: 2003.
  23. Rogers S. Equine Behaviour in Mind: Applying Behavioural Science to the Way We Keep, Work and Care for Horses. 5M Publishing; Sheffield, UK: 2018.
  24. Hall C, Goodwin D, Heleski C, Randle H, Waran N. Is there evidence of learned helplessness in horses?. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2008;11(3):249-66.
    doi: 10.1080/10888700802101130pubmed: 18569222google scholar: lookup
  25. McBride SD, Cí·¯ord D. The putative welfare-reducing effects of preventing equine stereotypic behaviour. Anim. Welf. 2001;10:173–189.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Smith R, Furtado T, Brigden C, Pinchbeck G, Perkins E. A Qualitative Exploration of UK Leisure Horse Owners' Perceptions of Equine Wellbeing.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Oct 26;12(21).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12212937pubmed: 36359063google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.