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) / Examining Canadian Equine Industry Participants’ Perce...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2018; 8(11); doi: 10.3390/ani8110201

Examining Canadian Equine Industry Participants’ Perceptions of Horses and Their Welfare.

Abstract: The diversity of the Canadian equine industry makes determining baseline attitudes and beliefs a challenge. Adult members of the Canadian equine industry (n = 901) participated in an online survey to report demographic information and views on the role of horses and their ability to experience affective states. Questions regarding the welfare state of all horses in the industry, potential ways to address welfare issues, and eight short scenarios were presented. Qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics, and a Chi-squared test for independence examined survey results and potential relationships. Participants strongly believed horses were capable of feeling positive and negative emotions, particularly pain and fear, but rarely were these beliefs reflected in their answers regarding aspects of equine welfare, which may be due to the large bias in these beliefs. Lack of knowledge and financial difficulties were noted as the biggest threats to equine welfare. Overall, there was widespread agreement regarding the presence of welfare issues within the equine industry, but opinions were more divided regarding how to best address them and which horses were most at risk. Understanding these perceptions may be useful to direct educational programs and industry-wide initiatives to address equine welfare through human behaviour change.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-11-07 PubMed ID: 30405030PubMed Central: PMC6262281DOI: 10.3390/ani8110201Google 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 study explores the perceptions and beliefs of participants in the Canadian equine industry about horse welfare, their ability to experience different emotions, and suggestions on how to improve these conditions. The study identifies some notable incongruences between the beliefs and the actual state of horse welfare, providing insights to address these gaps through educational programs and industry initiatives.

Survey Design and Participants

  • The paper details a survey taken by 901 adult participants who are involved in the Canadian equine industry. The survey was designed to be detailed enough to gain comprehensive information on the demographics of participants and their views about horses, including their roles and their capacity to experience different affective states.
  • The participants were asked about their perceptions of the welfare of all horses in the industry, and also given a chance to suggest possible solutions to any perceived welfare issues. The survey also presented eight short scenarios for the participants to react to.

Analysis of Survey Results

  • The analysis of the survey results involved qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics, and Chi-squared tests. The authors were interested in examining the participants’ beliefs about horses and their welfare and identifying any potential relationships or trends in these beliefs.
  • Most participants strongly believed that horses could experience positive and negative emotions, especially fear and pain. However, these beliefs were not always reflected in their responses about specific welfare aspects.
  • The authors note that these disparities may be due to biases in the participants’ beliefs. This could be because the participants are deep-seated in their industry and could hold beliefs based on traditional or popular practices, or be susceptible to subjective judgments influenced by their personal experiences or affiliations.

Perceived Threats to Equine Welfare and Possible Solutions

  • The survey respondents commonly mentioned lack of knowledge and financial difficulties as the main threats to equine welfare. This suggests that ensuring better education about horse welfare and providing greater financial support could significantly improve the conditions.
  • Although the participants agreed broadly that there were welfare issues within the equine industry, they had more varied opinions on how to address these issues and which horses were most at risk.

Implications and Future Directions

  • The study provides valuable insight into the current perceptions within the Canadian equine industry and reveals some gaps between the participants’ beliefs and the actual state of horse welfare.
  • Understanding these perceptions can help the industry and educators to develop effective programs to increase awareness and foster positive changes in human behavior towards horses.
  • Additionally, industry-wide initiatives that address the identified threats (like knowledge gaps and financial issues) and prioritize the welfare needs of the most at risk horses could be beneficial.

Cite This Article

APA
DuBois C, Nakonechny L, Derisoud E, Merkies K. (2018). Examining Canadian Equine Industry Participants’ Perceptions of Horses and Their Welfare. Animals (Basel), 8(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110201

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 11

Researcher Affiliations

DuBois, Cordelie
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. cdubois@uoguelph.ca.
  • Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. cdubois@uoguelph.ca.
Nakonechny, Lindsay
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. ljnakone@gmail.com.
  • Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. ljnakone@gmail.com.
Derisoud, Emilie
  • Agrocampus Ouest, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, CS 84215, 35042 Rennes CEDEX, France. emilie.derisoud@gmail.com.
Merkies, Katrina
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. kmerkies@uoguelph.ca.
  • Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. kmerkies@uoguelph.ca.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 44 references
  1. Evans V. Canadian Horse Industry Profile Study. Equine Canada 2010.
  2. Lund V, Coleman G, Gunnarsson S, Appleby M.C, Karkinen K. Animal welfare science: Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;97:37–49.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.017google scholar: lookup
  3. Rappaport N.M. Valuation of Equine Welfare Skills: Indiana 4-H Horse and Pony Adult Volunteers. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009;5:476–477.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.04.167google scholar: lookup
  4. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr AR, Whay HR. Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders' Understanding.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2017 Jan-Mar;20(1):9-23.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1197776pubmed: 27414640google scholar: lookup
  5. Battini M, Barbieri S, Canali E, Dai F, Dalla Costa E, Ferrante V, Ferrari L, Mattiello S, Minero M. Outcomes of a web-survey for collecting stakeholders’ opinion on welfare requirements for sheep, goats, turkeys, donkeys, and horses. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2017;16:53.
  6. McBride SD, Long L. Management of horses showing stereotypic behaviour, owner perception and the implications for welfare.. Vet Rec 2001 Jun 30;148(26):799-802.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.148.26.799pubmed: 11467606google scholar: lookup
  7. Visser E.K, Van Wijk-Jansen E.E.C. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. J. Vet. Behav. 2012;17:295–304.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  8. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Minero M. Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses.. Animal 2017 Feb;11(2):254-260.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001452pubmed: 27406177google scholar: lookup
  9. Carroll H.K, Bott R.C, Mastellar S.L, McNeill L.R, Djira G.D. Perceptions of equine well-being in South Dakota. J. Anim. Sci. 2016;94:24–25.
    doi: 10.2527/msasas2016-054google scholar: lookup
  10. Lofgren E.A, Tucker M.A, Rice B, Voigt M.A, Brady C.M. Does discipline matter? An analysis of equine welfare perceptions and beliefs in the context of horse show participation. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:115.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.188google scholar: lookup
  11. Rice B.M, Lofgren E, Tucker M.A, Voigt M.A, Brady C.M. Demographic characteristics influencing perceptions of the equine welfare through the lens of the five freedoms. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:115.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.189google scholar: lookup
  12. DuBois C, Hambly Odame H, Haley DB, Merkies K. An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique.. PLoS One 2018;13(7):e0201363.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201363pmc: PMC6066239pubmed: 30059509google scholar: lookup
  13. Minero M, Canali E. Welfare issues of horses: An overview and practical recommendations. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;8:219–230.
    doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.219google scholar: lookup
  14. Moynagh J. EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. AgBioForum 2000;3:107–114.
  15. Martelli G. Consumers’ perception of farm animal welfare: An Italian and European perspective. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;8:31–41.
    doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.31google scholar: lookup
  16. Bachmann LM, Mühleisen A, Bock A, ter Riet G, Held U, Kessels AG. Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers' medical decision behaviour: systematic review.. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008 Jul 30;8:50.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50pmc: PMC2515847pubmed: 18664302google scholar: lookup
  17. Collins J, Hanlon A, More SJ, Wall PG, Duggan V. Policy Delphi with vignette methodology as a tool to evaluate the perception of equine welfare.. Vet J 2009 Jul;181(1):63-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.012pubmed: 19375962google scholar: lookup
  18. DuBois C, Hambly-Odame H, Haley DB, Merkies K. An Exploration of Industry Expert Perception of Equine Welfare Using Vignettes.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Dec 20;7(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani7120102pmc: PMC5742796pubmed: 29261119google scholar: lookup
  19. Hemsworth L.M, Jongman E, Coleman G.J. Recreational horse welfare: The relationships between recreational horse owner attributes and recreational horse welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015;165:1–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.019google scholar: lookup
  20. . Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines. National Farm Animal Care Committee (NFACC) 2013.
  21. Mellor DJ. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living".. Animals (Basel) 2016 Mar 14;6(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  22. . Lameness Exams: Evaluating the Lame Horse. American Association of Equine Practitioners 2017.
  23. McGreevy PD. The advent of equitation science.. Vet J 2007 Nov;174(3):492-500.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.09.008pubmed: 17157542google scholar: lookup
  24. Lofgren E.A, Voigt M.A, Brady C.M. Information-Seeking Behavior of the Horse Competition Industry: A Demographic Study. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2016;37:58–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.10.005google scholar: lookup
  25. Merkies K, Nakonechny L, DuBois C, Derisoud E. Preliminary study on current perceptions and usage of training equipment by horse enthusiasts in Canada.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2018 Apr-Jun;21(2):141-152.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1392301pubmed: 29172720google scholar: lookup
  26. McGreevy PD, Cripps PJ, French NP, Green LE, Nicol CJ. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the thoroughbred horse.. Equine Vet J 1995 Mar;27(2):86-91.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1995.tb03041.xpubmed: 7607155google scholar: lookup
  27. Waters AJ, Nicol CJ, French NP. Factors influencing the development of stereotypic and redirected behaviours in young horses: findings of a four year prospective epidemiological study.. Equine Vet J 2002 Sep;34(6):572-9.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776180241pubmed: 12357996google scholar: lookup
  28. Parker M, Goodwin D, Redhead E.S. Survey of breeders’ management of horses in Europe, North America and Australia: Comparison of factors associated with the development of abnormal behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;114:206–215.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.02.003google scholar: lookup
  29. Heiervang E, Goodman R. Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys: evidence from a child mental health survey.. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2011 Jan;46(1):69-76.
    doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0171-9pubmed: 19921078google scholar: lookup
  30. DuBois C, DeVries T.J, Haley D.B, Lawlis P, Merkies K. Putting an on-farm welfare assessment tool into practice in the Canadian equine industry—A pilot study. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;63:35–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.004google scholar: lookup
  31. Thompson K, Haigh L. Perceptions of Equitation Science revealed in an online forum: Improving equine health and welfare by communicating science to equestrians and equestrian to scientists. J. Vet. Behav. 2018;25:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.02.002google scholar: lookup
  32. Van Loon J.P.A.M, Van Dierendonck M.C. Objective pain assessment in horses. Vet. J. 2018;242:1–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.10.001google scholar: lookup
  33. Keaveney S.M. Equines and their human companions. J. Bus. Res. 2008;61:444–454.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.017google scholar: lookup
  34. Dashper K. Listening to horses. Soc. Anim. 2017;25:207–224.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341426google scholar: lookup
  35. Hötzel M.J, Vieira M.C, Leme D.P. Exploring horse owners’ and caretakers’ perceptions of emotions and associated behaviours in horses. J. Vet. Behav. 2018.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.002google scholar: lookup
  36. Wilkins A.M, McCrae L.S, McBride E.A. Factors affecting the Human Attribution of Emotions toward Animals. Anthrozoös 2015;28:357–369.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1052270google scholar: lookup
  37. Reece VP, Friend TH, Stull CH, Grandin T, Cordes T. Equine slaughter transport--update on research and regulations.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000 Apr 15;216(8):1253-8.
    pubmed: 10767964
  38. McCluskey A, Lovarini M. Providing education on evidence-based practice improved knowledge but did not change behaviour: a before and after study.. BMC Med Educ 2005 Dec 19;5:40.
    doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-5-40pmc: PMC1352357pubmed: 16364181google scholar: lookup
  39. Nielsen L, Riddle M, King JW, Aklin WM, Chen W, Clark D, Collier E, Czajkowski S, Esposito L, Ferrer R, Green P, Hunter C, Kehl K, King R, Onken L, Simmons JM, Stoeckel L, Stoney C, Tully L, Weber W. The NIH Science of Behavior Change Program: Transforming the science through a focus on mechanisms of change.. Behav Res Ther 2018 Feb;101:3-11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2017.07.002pmc: PMC5756516pubmed: 29110885google scholar: lookup
  40. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.. Implement Sci 2011 Apr 23;6:42.
    doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42pmc: PMC3096582pubmed: 21513547google scholar: lookup
  41. Bushell R, Murray J. A survey of senior equine management: Owner practices and confidence. Live Sci. 2016;186:69–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2015.04.024google scholar: lookup
  42. McLean A.N, McGreevy P.D. Horse-training techniques that may defy the principles of learning theory and compromise welfare. J. Vet. Behav. 2010;5:187–195.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.002google scholar: lookup
  43. McGreevy P.D, McLean A.N. Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation. J. Vet. Behav. 2009;4:193–197.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.001google scholar: lookup
  44. Lund V. Natural living—A precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Live Sci. 2006;100:71–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.08.005google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 17 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.