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) / Evaluation of the Feasibility, Reliability, and Repeatabilit...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(7); 1981; doi: 10.3390/ani11071981

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

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.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-07-02 PubMed ID: 34359108PubMed Central: PMC8300213DOI: 10.3390/ani11071981Google 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.

This research article is about a pilot study that tested certain welfare indicators to determine their applicability, repeatability, and reliability when assessing the welfare of free-roaming Carneddau Mountain ponies.

Study Objectives and Methods

  • The study was designed to develop a reliable method for assessing the welfare of free-roaming horses, using the specific example of Carneddau Mountain ponies. This horse population requires unique welfare assessment methodologies that differ from the ones utilised for sport, pleasure, or working horses that are intensively managed.
  • The project began with the identification of animal-based and resource-based welfare measures. This was done through an examination of existing literature and consultations with expert groups.
  • The feasibility and repeatability of a modified body condition score and mobility score, parameters typically used in assessing managed horse populations, were tested on 34 free-roaming and conservation grazing Carneddau Mountain ponies.
  • Following this, a prototype welfare assessment template was created. It combined 12 animal-based and 6 resource-based welfare indicators, amounting to a total of 20 questions. These questions were designed with the capability to evaluate the welfare state of free-roaming horses.
  • The prototype assessment tool was then tested on a further 35 free-roaming Carneddau Mountain ponies to understand its inter-assessor reliability and repeatability.

Findings of the Study

  • The study found that many of the welfare indicators tested were highly repeatable and demonstrated good inter-assessor reliability. This means these indicators were reliable when used by different assessors and could be repeated with consistent results.
  • However, some indicators did not have enough instances for reliability testing, highlighting low or absent occurrences of the specific wellbeing conditions they were designed to track in the population considered.
  • One of the crucial findings was that several animal and resource-based indicators, typically used in the welfare assessment of intensively managed equines, could also be applied to the welfare measurement of free-roaming horses given minor adjustments to the measurement protocols.
  • The study is critical as it lays the foundation for further work in creating a validated tool that can effectively assess the welfare of free-roaming and conservation grazing ponies – a tool currently absent in equine welfare studies.

Cite This Article

APA
Harley JJ, Stack JD, Braid H, McLennan KM, Stanley CR. (2021). Evaluation of the Feasibility, Reliability, and Repeatability of Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses: A Pilot Study. Animals (Basel), 11(7), 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071981

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 7
PII: 1981

Researcher Affiliations

Harley, Jessica J
  • Animal Behaviour & Welfare Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK.
Stack, J David
  • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, The University of Liverpool, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
Braid, Helen
  • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, The University of Liverpool, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
McLennan, Krista M
  • Animal Behaviour & Welfare Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK.
Stanley, Christina R
  • Animal Behaviour & Welfare Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 16;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010148pmc: PMC7022444pubmed: 31963232google scholar: lookup
  2. Knierim U, Winckler C. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: Validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach.. Anim. Welf. 2009;18:451–458.
  3. Munoz C, Campbell A, Hemsworth P, Doyle R. Animal-Based Measures to Assess the Welfare of Extensively Managed Ewes.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Dec 24;8(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8010002pmc: PMC5789297pubmed: 29295551google scholar: lookup
  4. Ohl F, Putman R. The Biology and Management of Animal Welfare.. Whittles Publishing Ltd.; Scotland, UK: 2018. p. 66.
  5. Sterling P. Principles of Allostasis: Optimal Design, Predictive Regulation, Pathophysiology, and Rational Therapeutics.. In: Schulkin J., editor. Allostasis, Homeostasis, and the Costs of Physiological Adaptation. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2004. pp. 17–64.
    doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316257081.004google scholar: lookup
  6. Whaytt H.R., Main D.C.J., Green L.E., Webster A.F.J. Animal-based methods for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs, and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion.. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:205–217.
  7. Battini M, Barbieri S, Vieira A, Stilwell G, Mattiello S. 2016 Results of testing the prototype of the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats in 30 intensive farms in Northern Italy.. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2016;15:283–293.
    doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2016.1150795google scholar: lookup
  8. Welfare Quality. Assessment Protocol for Cattle.. Welfare Quality; Lelystad, The Netherlands: 2009.
  9. Barnard S, Pedernera C, Candeloro L, Ferri N, Velarde A, Dalla Villa P. Development of a new welfare assessment protocol for practical application in long-term dog shelters.. Vet Rec 2016 Jan 2;178(1):18.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.103336pubmed: 26612859google scholar: lookup
  10. Hawkins P, Morton DB, Burman O, Dennison N, Honess P, Jennings M, Lane S, Middleton V, Roughan JV, Wells S, Westwood K. A guide to defining and implementing protocols for the welfare assessment of laboratory animals: eleventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement.. Lab Anim 2011 Jan;45(1):1-13.
    doi: 10.1258/la.2010.010031pubmed: 21123303google scholar: lookup
  11. Harley J, Clark F.E. BIAZA Animal Welfare Toolkit.. BIAZA; London, UK: 2019.
  12. Yon L, Williams E, Harvey ND, Asher L. Development of a behavioural welfare assessment tool for routine use with captive elephants.. PLoS One 2019;14(2):e0210783.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210783pmc: PMC6364905pubmed: 30726232google scholar: lookup
  13. Wolfensohn S, Shotton J, Bowley H, Davies S, Thompson S, Justice WSM. Assessment of Welfare in Zoo Animals: Towards Optimum Quality of Life.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Jul 4;8(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8070110pmc: PMC6071229pubmed: 29973560google scholar: lookup
  14. Kagan R, Carter S, Allard S. A Universal Animal Welfare Framework for Zoos.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2015;18 Suppl 1(sup1):S1-10.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075830pmc: PMC4673521pubmed: 26440493google scholar: lookup
  15. Kaurivi Y, Laven R, Hickson R, Stafford K, Parkinson T. Identification of suitable animal welfare assessment indicators for extensive beef systems in New Zealand.. Agriculture 2019;9:66.
    doi: 10.3390/agriculture9030066google scholar: lookup
  16. Turner S.P., Dwyer C.M. Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: Challenges and opportunities.. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:189–192.
  17. Hobbs R.J., Hinds L.A. Could current fertility control methods be effective for landscape-scale management of populations of wild horses (Equus caballus) in Australia?. Wildl. Res. 2018;45:195–207.
    doi: 10.1071/WR17136google scholar: lookup
  18. BLM. [(accessed on 20 June 2021)];2020 Available online: www.blm.gov/plrograms/wild-horse-and-burro/about-the-program/program-data.
  19. Dalla Costa E, Murray L, Dai F, Canali E, Minero M. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: A review of animal-based indicators.. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:323–341.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.3.323google scholar: lookup
  20. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Whay HR. Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders.. PLoS One 2016;11(8):e0160269.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160269pmc: PMC4976980pubmed: 27501387google scholar: lookup
  21. Spratling B. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program: Welfare on the Range.. Proc. Am. Assoc. Equine Pract. 2012;58:309–311.
  22. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  23. . Livestock Research Welfare Monitoring System: Assessment Protocol for Horses (Rapport/Wageningen UR Livestock Research; No. 569).. 2012 Wageningen UR Livestock Research. [(accessed on 20 June 2021)]; Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/.
  24. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Minero M. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  25. Viksten S, Visser E, Nyman S, Blokhuis H. Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol.. Anim. Welf. 2017;26:59–65.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.1.059google scholar: lookup
  26. Sommerville R, Brown AF, Upjohn M. A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries.. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  27. Fraser M.D., Stanley C.R., Hegarty M.J. Recognising the potential role of native ponies in conservation management.. Biol. Conserv. 2019;235:112–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.014google scholar: lookup
  28. Stanley C.R., Mettke-Hofmann C., Hager R., Shultz S. Social stability in semiferal ponies: Networks show interannual stability alongside seasonal flexibility.. Anim. Behav. 2018;136:175–184.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.013google scholar: lookup
  29. Winton CL, Hegarty MJ, McMahon R, Slavov GT, McEwan NR, Davies-Morel MC, Morgan CM, Powell W, Nash DM. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic analysis of native mountain ponies of Britain and Ireland reveals a novel rare population.. Ecol Evol 2013 Apr;3(4):934-47.
    doi: 10.1002/ece3.507pmc: PMC3631405pubmed: 23610635google scholar: lookup
  30. Stanley C.R. Carneddau Ponies—Advice on Potential for Seeking Rare Breed Status.. Snowdonia National Park Authority; Wales, UK: 2018. Internal Report for Carneddau Landscape Partnership Scheme.
  31. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration.. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  32. Mullan S, Szmaragd C, Hotchkiss J, Whay H.R. The welfare of long-line tethered and free-ranging horses kept on public grazing land in South Wales.. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:25–37.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.025google scholar: lookup
  33. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses.. AWIN; Milan, Italy: 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_HORSES_2015google scholar: lookup
  34. Viksten S, Visser E.K., Blokhuis H. A comparative study of the application of two horse welfare assessment protocols.. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. 2016;66:56–65.
    doi: 10.1080/09064702.2016.1186726google scholar: lookup
  35. Czycholl I, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. Interobserver Reliability of the Animal Welfare Indicators Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses.. J Equine Vet Sci 2019 Apr;75:112-121.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.005pubmed: 31002084google scholar: lookup
  36. Lesimple C. Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 13;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pmc: PMC7070675pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  37. Reed S.M., Bayly W.M., Sellon D.C. Equine Internal Medicine.. 4th ed. Elseiver; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2018. pp. 747–754.
  38. AAEP Lameness Exams: Evaluating the Lame Horse. [(accessed on 25 February 2021)]; Available online: https://aaep.org/horsehealth/lameness-exams-evaluating-lame-horse.
  39. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Mobility Scoring for Dairy Cows. [(accessed on 20 February 2020)]; Available online: https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/mobility-scoring-for-dairy-cows.
  40. Carroll CL, Huntington PJ. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses.. Equine Vet J 1988 Jan;20(1):41-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  41. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares.. Equine Vet J 1983 Oct;15(4):371-2.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xpubmed: 6641685google scholar: lookup
  42. Debeffe L, McLoughlin PD, Medill SA, Stewart K, Andres D, Shury T, Wagner B, Jenkins E, Gilleard JS, Poissant J. Negative covariance between parasite load and body condition in a population of feral horses.. Parasitology 2016 Jul;143(8):983-97.
    doi: 10.1017/S0031182016000408pubmed: 27046508google scholar: lookup
  43. Cain JL, Jarisch K, Macaluso KR, Luedtke BE. Correlation between fecal egg count, presence of Strongylus vulgaris, and body score of feral horses on Fort Polk, Louisiana.. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports 2018 Aug;13:14-17.
    pubmed: 31014862doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2018.03.002google scholar: lookup
  44. Rudman R, Keiper RR. The body condition of feral ponies on Assateague Island.. Equine Vet J 1991 Nov;23(6):453-6.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1991.tb03760.xpubmed: 1778164google scholar: lookup
  45. ISAP. In: Part III: Pain Terms, A Current List with Definitions and Notes on Usage Classification of Chronic Pain.. 2nd ed. Merskey H., Bogduk N., editors. IASP; Seattle, MA, USA: 1994. pp. 209–214. IASP Task Force on Taxonomy.
  46. Hellebrekers L.J. Pathophysiology of Pain in Animals and Its Consequence for Analgesic Therapy in Animal Pain: A Practice-Oriented Approach to an Effective Pain Control in Animals.. Van Der Wees Uitgeverij; Utrecht, The Netherlands: 2000. pp. 71–83.
  47. McLennan K.M., Rebelo C.J., Corke M.J., Holmes M.A., Leach M.C., Constantino-Casas F. Development of a facial expression scale using footrot and mastitis as models of pain in sheep.. App. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;176:19–26.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.007google scholar: lookup
  48. Keating SC, Thomas AA, Flecknell PA, Leach MC. Evaluation of EMLA cream for preventing pain during tattooing of rabbits: changes in physiological, behavioural and facial expression responses.. PLoS One 2012;7(9):e44437.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044437pmc: PMC3436883pubmed: 22970216google scholar: lookup
  49. Sotocinal SG, Sorge RE, Zaloum A, Tuttle AH, Martin LJ, Wieskopf JS, Mapplebeck JC, Wei P, Zhan S, Zhang S, McDougall JJ, King OD, Mogil JS. The Rat Grimace Scale: a partially automated method for quantifying pain in the laboratory rat via facial expressions.. Mol Pain 2011 Jul 29;7:55.
    pmc: PMC3163602pubmed: 21801409doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-7-55google scholar: lookup
  50. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2020. [(accessed on 20 September 2020)]. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/.
  51. . MedCalc Statistical Software Version 19.2.3.. MedCalc Software Ltd.; Ostend, Belgium: 2020. [(accessed on 25 September 2020)]. Available online: https://www.medcalc.org..
  52. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
    doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104google scholar: lookup
  53. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.. Psychol Bull 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20.
    doi: 10.1037/h0026256pubmed: 19673146google scholar: lookup
  54. Altman D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research.. Chapman and Hall; London, UK: 1991.
  55. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22(3):276-82.
    doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031pmc: PMC3900052pubmed: 23092060google scholar: lookup
  56. Revelle W. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research.. Northwestern University; Evanston, IL, USA: 2020. [(accessed on 20 September 2020)]. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychVersion=2.0.7.
  57. Lewis J.S., Spaulding S., Swanson H., Keeley W., Gramza A.R., VandeWoude S., Crooks K.R. Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: Implications for spatial and temporal refuges.. Ecosphere 2021;12:e03487.
    doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3487google scholar: lookup
  58. Brooks D.E., Matthews A.G. Equine ophthalmology.. Vet. Ophthalmol. 1999;2:1108.
  59. HadUKP Monthly Northwest England & Wales Precipitation (mm) [(accessed on 25 February 2021)]; Available online: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/monthly/HadNWEP_monthly_qc.txt.
  60. Alexander L.V., Jones P.D. Updated precipitation series for the UK and discussion of recent extremes.. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 2001;1:142–150.
    doi: 10.1006/asle.2001.0025google scholar: lookup
  61. Stemler S.E. A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability.. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2004;9:4.
    doi: 10.7275/96jp-xz07google scholar: lookup
  62. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.. Fam Med 2005 May;37(5):360-3.
    pubmed: 15883903
  63. Gwet K.L. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement among Assessors.. Advanced Analytics, LLC.; Gaithersburg, MD, USA: 2014.
  64. Kristensen E, Dueholm L, Vink D, Andersen JE, Jakobsen EB, Illum-Nielsen S, Petersen FA, Enevoldsen C. Within- and across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in Danish Holstein cattle.. J Dairy Sci 2006 Sep;89(9):3721-8.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72413-4pubmed: 16899709google scholar: lookup
  65. Stanley C.R. Influences of Kinship, Social Bonds and Genetics on Animal Social Structure.. The University of Manchester; Manchester, UK: 2015.

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Apr 28;13(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091507pubmed: 37174544google scholar: lookup
  2. Górecka-Bruzda A, Jaworska J, Stanley CR. The Social and Reproductive Challenges Faced by Free-Roaming Horse (Equus caballus) Stallions.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Mar 24;13(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13071151pubmed: 37048406google scholar: lookup
  3. Boys RM, Beausoleil NJ, Pawley MDM, Betty EL, Stockin KA. Evaluating Potential Cetacean Welfare Indicators from Video of Live Stranded Long-Finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala melas edwardii).. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 21;12(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141861pubmed: 35883407google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.