FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Frontiers in veterinary science2026; 12; 1713303; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1713303

Biosecurity perspectives of equestrian competition organizers in Ontario, Canada.

Abstract: Biosecurity plays an important role in the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks in the equine population. With competition organizers responsible for implementing and upholding biosecurity requirements at competitions, it is important to understand the biosecurity landscape at these locations where Ontario horses commonly travel and interact in large group settings. Unassigned: The objective of this study was to describe the perspectives, challenges and experiences of competition organizers of both sanctioned and unsanctioned events in Ontario, Canada regarding implementing equine biosecurity at competitions. Unassigned: This study used a qualitative content analysis in order to gather data describing the lived experiences of competition organizers. Unassigned: Of 53 invited participants, semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted virtually with 10 Ontario competition organizers in English disciplines (Eventing, Dressage, Hunter/Jumper). A qualitative, inductive coding method was used to analyze the interview data. Unassigned: Interviews resulted in two major categories: (i) biosecurity at competitions is a balancing act among other important considerations and (ii) there is a disconnect between groups that play key roles in biosecurity at competitions. Unassigned: The recruitment process allowed for the possibility of introducing self-selection bias where some of the participants may have an existing interest in biosecurity, which may not be representative of all competition organizers. Individual interviews as well as the design of the interview guide helped to mitigate some potential for social desirability bias. Unassigned: Biosecurity at equestrian competitions is a multifaceted issue that requires stakeholder input and buy-in to be successful. However, there is an overall willingness from competition organizers to work toward finding a path forward to improving biosecurity and maintaining equine health and welfare at competitions.
Copyright © 2026 Turcotte, O’Sullivan, Spence, Winder and Greer.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-01-23 PubMed ID: 41659966PubMed Central: PMC12875910DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1713303Google 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.

Overview

  • This study explores the perspectives, challenges, and experiences of equestrian competition organizers in Ontario, Canada regarding the implementation of biosecurity measures at horse competitions.
  • The research highlights the complexities and stakeholder dynamics involved in maintaining equine biosecurity during events where horses gather and interact.

Research Objective

  • To describe the viewpoints of organizers of both sanctioned and unsanctioned equestrian competitions about biosecurity practices.
  • To identify challenges they face and their overall experience with implementing infectious disease prevention measures at such events.

Study Design and Methodology

  • Qualitative content analysis was employed to gather in-depth data on organizers’ lived experiences.
  • The study invited 53 competition organizers from Ontario and conducted virtual, semi-structured individual interviews with 10 participants.
  • Participants represented English riding disciplines: Eventing, Dressage, and Hunter/Jumper.
  • Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative coding to identify themes and categories from interview transcripts.

Key Findings

  • Two major thematic categories emerged:
    • 1. Balancing Act: Implementing biosecurity measures involves balancing multiple priorities including event logistics, participant compliance, and animal welfare.
    • 2. Disconnect Among Stakeholders: There is a perceived lack of alignment and communication between different groups responsible for biosecurity, such as organizers, horse owners, and regulatory bodies.

Challenges Identified

  • Difficulties in ensuring adherence to biosecurity protocols amid varying levels of stakeholder commitment.
  • Resource constraints affecting organizers’ ability to enforce or promote stringent disease prevention measures.
  • Communication gaps that hinder cohesive implementation and understanding of biosecurity importance.

Bias and Limitations

  • Potential self-selection bias: participants who chose to participate may have been more interested or engaged in biosecurity issues, possibly skewing perspectives.
  • Social desirability bias was addressed by individual interviews and carefully designed questions, reducing participants’ likelihood to provide overly favorable responses.

Conclusions and Implications

  • Biosecurity management at equestrian competitions is complex and requires collaboration among multiple stakeholders.
  • Despite challenges, competition organizers are generally motivated to improve biosecurity practices.
  • The findings suggest the need for enhanced communication, education, and shared responsibility to effectively prevent equine infectious disease outbreaks in competitive settings.
  • Stakeholder engagement and buy-in are critical to achieving sustainable improvements in biosecurity and safeguarding equine health and welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Turcotte GK, O'Sullivan TL, Spence KL, Winder CB, Greer AL. (2026). Biosecurity perspectives of equestrian competition organizers in Ontario, Canada. Front Vet Sci, 12, 1713303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1713303

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Pages: 1713303
PII: 1713303

Researcher Affiliations

Turcotte, Gabrielle K
  • Department of Human Health Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
O'Sullivan, Terri L
  • Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Spence, Kelsey L
  • Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Winder, Charlotte B
  • Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Greer, Amy L
  • Department of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 39 references
  1. Turcotte G, O’Sullivan TL, Spence KL, Winder CB, Greer AL. A Mixed Methods Approach to Characterizing the Role of Biosecurity in the Ontario Equine Industry. [PhD thesis, University of Guelph]. (2024). The Atrium, Guelph.
  2. Weese JS. Infection control and biosecurity in equine disease control. Equine Vet J (2014) 46:654–60.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12295pmc: PMC7163522pubmed: 24802183google scholar: lookup
  3. Klosowicz J, Wilton B, Gal A, Kapitan K, Coombs C, Deveau J. The Canadian Equine Sector: Socio-economic Insights 2023. In: Equestrian Canada , editor. Ottawa: (2023).
  4. White N, Pelzel-McCluskey A. Cross-sectional survey of horse owners to assess their knowledge and use of biosecurity practices for equine infectious diseases in the United States. Animals (2023) 13:3550.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13223550pmc: PMC10668770pubmed: 38003167google scholar: lookup
  5. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. National farm and facility-level biosecurity standard for the equine sector. (2016).
  6. Equestrian Canada. Equine biosecurity and response plan self-assessment. Ottawa: Equestrian Canada; (2021).
  7. Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN). Ontario equine disease alerts. (2021).
  8. Firestone SM, Lewis FI, Schemann K, Ward MP, Toribio J-ALML, Taylor MR. Applying bayesian network modelling to understand the links between on-farm biosecurity practice during the 2007 equine influenza outbreak and horse managers’ perceptions of a subsequent outbreak. Prev Vet Med (2014) 116:243–51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.015pubmed: 24369825google scholar: lookup
  9. Rosanowski SM, Cogger N, Rogers CW. An investigation of the movement patterns and biosecurity practices on thoroughbred and standardbred stud farms in New Zealand. Prev Vet Med (2013) 108:178–87.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.08.003pubmed: 22939775google scholar: lookup
  10. Schemann K, Firestone SM, Taylor MR, Toribio J-ALML, Ward MP, Dhand NK. Horse owners’/managers’ perceptions about effectiveness of biosecurity measures based on their experiences during the 2007 equine influenza outbreak in Australia. Prev Vet Med (2012) 106:97–107.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.01.013pubmed: 22326045google scholar: lookup
  11. Spence KL, Cardwell JM, Slater J, Rosanowski SM. Preliminary insight into horse owners’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, exotic diseases in the United Kingdom. BMC Vet Res (2019) 15:338.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-2120-5pmc: PMC6790027pubmed: 31606050google scholar: lookup
  12. Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African J Emerg Med (2017) 7:93–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001pmc: PMC6234169pubmed: 30456117google scholar: lookup
  13. Schreier M. Introduction: what is qualitative content analysis?. Qualitative Content Anal Practice (2012) 1–19.
    doi: 10.4135/9781529682571.n1google scholar: lookup
  14. Bhaskar R. Chapter 2: philosophy and scientific realism. In: Critical realism: Essential readings. New York: Routledge; (1998). 16–47.
  15. Leung DY, Chung BP. Content analysis: using critical realism to extend its utility. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (2017). 1–15.
    doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_102-1google scholar: lookup
  16. Maxwell JA, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in Social & Behavioral Research 2010;145–68.
    doi: 10.4135/9781506335193.n6google scholar: lookup
  17. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care (2007) 19:349–57.
    doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042pubmed: 17872937google scholar: lookup
  18. Busetto L, Wick W, Gumbinger C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice (2020) 2:14.
    doi: 10.1186/s42466-020-00059-zpmc: PMC7650082pubmed: 33324920google scholar: lookup
  19. Panel on Research Ethics. TCPS 2: CORE-2022 (Course on Research Ethics). TCPS 2: CORE 2022.
  20. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med (2022) 292:114523.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523pubmed: 34785096google scholar: lookup
  21. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant (2018) 52:1893–907.
    doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8pmc: PMC5993836pubmed: 29937585google scholar: lookup
  22. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res (2005) 15:1277–88.
    doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687pubmed: 16204405google scholar: lookup
  23. Bengtsson M. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nurs Plus Open (2016) 2:8–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001google scholar: lookup
  24. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today (2004) 24:105–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001pubmed: 14769454google scholar: lookup
  25. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs (2008) 62:107–15.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xpubmed: 18352969google scholar: lookup
  26. Evans V. 2010 Canadian equine industry profile study. Equestrian Canada 2011.
  27. White NA, Flynn K. Survey of state animal health officials reveals lack of personnel and resources to manage equine infectious disease outbreaks. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2024) 262:1504–10.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.24.04.0248pubmed: 39084239google scholar: lookup
  28. Schemann K, Toribio J-A, Taylor M, Ward M, Dhand N. Survey of Australian equine veterinarians evaluating their biosecurity training and perceptions and opinions about the management of the 2007 equine influenza outbreak. Aust Vet J (2014) 92:93–100.
    doi: 10.1111/avj.12160pubmed: 24673133google scholar: lookup
  29. Hu J, Liden RC. Making a difference in the teamwork: linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Acad Manag J (2015) 58:1102–27.
    doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.1142google scholar: lookup
  30. Krist AH, Tong ST, Aycock RA, Longo DR. Engaging patients in decision-making and behavior change to promote prevention. Inf Serv Use (2017) 37:105–22.
    doi: 10.3233/isu-170826pmc: PMC6996004pubmed: 28972524google scholar: lookup
  31. Friedman HH. Cognitive biases that interfere with critical thinking and scientific reasoning: a course module. SSRN Electron J (2017) 1–64.
    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2958800google scholar: lookup
  32. Luby S, Arthur R. Risk and response to biological catastrophe in lower income countries. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol (2019) 424:85–105.
    doi: 10.1007/82_2019_162pmc: PMC7121610pubmed: 31127360google scholar: lookup
  33. Firestone SM, Schemann KA, Toribio J-ALML, Ward MP, Dhand NK. A case-control study of risk factors for equine influenza spread onto horse premises during the 2007 epidemic in Australia. Prev Vet Med (2011) 100:53–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.03.002pubmed: 21481961google scholar: lookup
  34. Turcotte G, O’Sullivan T, Rossi T, Spence K, Winder C, Greer A. Integration of empirical network data and agent-based modelling to examine the risk of equine influenza infection in equine athletes in Ontario, Canada. Prev Vet Med (2025) 245, 1–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106665pubmed: 40897123google scholar: lookup
  35. Cardwell JM, Van Winden S, Beauvais W, Mastin A, De Glanville WA, Hardstaff J. Assessing the impact of tailored biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales. Prev Vet Med (2016) 135:9–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.10.018pubmed: 27931934google scholar: lookup
  36. Scollo A, Perrucci A, Stella MC, Ferrari P, Robino P, Nebbia P. Biosecurity and hygiene procedures in pig farms: effects of a tailor-made approach as monitored by environmental samples. Animals (2023) 13:1262.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13071262pmc: PMC10093544pubmed: 37048519google scholar: lookup
  37. Gasmi A, Noor S, Tippairote T, Dadar M, Menzel A, Bjørklund G. Individual risk management strategy and potential therapeutic options for the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Immunol (2020) 215:108409.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108409pmc: PMC7139252pubmed: 32276137google scholar: lookup
  38. Neale J, Allen D, Coombes L. Qualitative research methods within the addictions. Addiction (2005) 100:1584–1593.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01230.xpubmed: 16277621google scholar: lookup
  39. Rogers C, Cogger N. A cross-sectional survey of biosecurity practices on thoroughbred stud farms in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal (2010) 58:64–68.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2010.65087pubmed: 20383239google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,129 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.