FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Frequency and nature of health issues among horses housed in...
Equine veterinary journal2024; 57(1); 54-61; doi: 10.1111/evj.14054

Frequency and nature of health issues among horses housed in an active open barn compared to single boxes-A field study.

Abstract: Keeping horses in open barns has positive effects on social interaction and free movement, which may improve horse welfare. However, many horse owners fear that housing in open barns leads to more injuries. Objective: To compare health events among horses housed in an active open barn (AOB) or in single boxes (BOX). Methods: A prospective study during 9 months and a 2-year retrospective study. Methods: Two housing systems in one farm were investigated: AOB and BOX in pairs or alone in paddock (2-4 h/day) using 66 and 69 horses in the prospective respectively retrospective study. Lameness, wounds, colic and days lost from training were recorded. Results: There were lower prevalences of lameness and colic in AOB than in BOX (18% vs. 26% and 0% vs. 5%; p < 0.001). Overall, there was a larger proportion of individuals with health events in AOB (83%) compared with BOX (52%) (p < 0.01). However, number of days lost to training did not differ between AOB (10 ± 15 days) and BOX (15 ± 34 days) (p = 0.36). There were no significant differences between the housing systems in number of health events/horse in the retrospective study: AOB 1.54 ± 1.51 versus BOX 1.14 ± 1.20 (p = 0.22). Conclusions: The different, not standardised, housing systems varied in size and number of horses with no individual consideration in this descriptive field study with no possibility to cross-over. A convenience sample was used. Conclusions: Lameness and colic were less frequent in the AOB system compared to single boxes, probably because the horses in the open barn could move freely day and night. Horses in AOB had a higher prevalence of wounds due to interactions between horses, but this did not lead to more days lost from training.
© 2024 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-01-03 PubMed ID: 38173124PubMed Central: PMC11616948DOI: 10.1111/evj.14054Google 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 investigates the health implications for horses when housed either in an active open barn or in single boxes, with the key finding being that while there may be more minor injuries in the open barn due to social interaction, serious health issues like lameness and colic are reduced.

Study Design

This research paper compares the health conditions of horses housed in two different types of situations- an active open barn (AOB) system and single-box (Box) system. Both a prospective study over nine months and a two-year retrospective study were conducted. Sixty-six horses were examined in the prospective study, while sixty-nine were used for the retrospective study. Health events were monitored and recorded such as lameness, wounds, colic, and days lost from training.

Results and Findings

  • The results revealed lower incidences of lameness and colic in the AOB system compared to the BOX system. Specifically, lameness and colic were found in 18% and 0% of horses in AOB respectively, as against 26% and 5% in BOX horses.
  • In contradiction to this, a larger number of overall health events were found among horses housed in the AOB scenario (83%) than those in the BOX condition (52%).
  • Despite the higher incidences of health events in AOB, the actual number of days lost to training remained similar between the two housing methods. In AOB, horses were out of training for an average of 10 days, while in BOX, the average was 15 days.
  • The retrospective study showed no significant differences between the numbers of health events per horse in the two systems. The AOB system had an average of 1.54 health events per horse, and the BOX system had 1.14.

Conclusion and Implications

While this study did review two different housing systems, it should be noted that the housing systems varied in size and number of horses, without any consideration given to individual horses. Despite the greater prevalence of minor injuries like wounds in the AOB system due to more horse-to-horse interaction, serious health issues were less common. This may be attributed to the fact that horses in the open barn have the freedom to move around both day and night. The findings suggest that despite more overall health events in the AOB system, these did not lead to increased training downtime, implying that the open barn system could be a viable and potentially beneficial housing method for horses, particularly considering the reduced incidence of conditions like lameness and colic.

Cite This Article

APA
Kjellberg L, Dahlborn K, Roepstorff L, Morgan K. (2024). Frequency and nature of health issues among horses housed in an active open barn compared to single boxes-A field study. Equine Vet J, 57(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14054

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 57
Issue: 1
Pages: 54-61

Researcher Affiliations

Kjellberg, Linda
  • National Equine Centre Strömsholm, Strömsholm, Sweden.
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Dahlborn, Kristina
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Roepstorff, Lars
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Morgan, Karin
  • National Equine Centre Strömsholm, Strömsholm, Sweden.
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Housing, Animal
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Male
  • Female
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Animal Welfare
  • Animal Husbandry
  • Lameness, Animal / epidemiology
  • Prospective Studies
  • Colic / veterinary
  • Colic / epidemiology

Conflict of Interest Statement

No competing interests have been declared.

References

This article includes 28 references
  1. Yarnell K, Hall C, Royle C, Walker SL. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing.. Phys & Behav 2015;143:51–57.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.040pubmed: 25725117google scholar: lookup
  2. Hoffmann G, Bockisch FJ, Kreimeier P. Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen (Influence of the husbandry system on the movement activity and stress exposure of horses in discharge husbandry systems). Landbauforschung 2009;59:105–112.
  3. Yngvesson J, Rey Torres JC, Lindholm J, Pättiniemi A, Andersson P, Sassner H. Health and body conditions of riding school horses housed in groups or kept in conventional tie‐stall/box housing.. Animals 2019;9:73.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9030073pmc: PMC6466050pubmed: 30813613google scholar: lookup
  4. Gulbrandsen K, Herlin AH. The influence of housing system on voluntary activity of horses.. Paper presented at XVII International Congress on Animal Hygiene, June 7–11, 2015, Košice, Slovakia.
  5. Søndergaard E, Ladewig J. Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during training.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004;87:105–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.010google scholar: lookup
  6. Hartmann E, Bøe KE, Christensen JW, Hyyppä S, Jansson H, Jørgensen GHM. A Nordic survey of management practices and owners' attitudes towards keeping horses in groups.. J Anim Sci 2015;93(9):4564–4574.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9233pubmed: 26440355google scholar: lookup
  7. Jørgensen GHM, Borsheim L, Mejdell CM, Søndergaard E, Bøe KE. Grouping horses according to gender—effects on aggression, spacing and injuries.. App Anim Behav Sci 2009;120:94–99.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.005google scholar: lookup
  8. Christensen JW, Søndergaard E, Thodberg K, Halekoh U. Effects of repeated regrouping on horse behaviour and injuries.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2011;133(3–4):199–206.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.013google scholar: lookup
  9. Flauger B, Krueger K. Aggression level and enclosure size in horses (Equus caballus).. Pferdeheilkunde 2013;29:495–504.
  10. Fureix C, Bourjade M, Henry S, Sankey C, Hausberger M. Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses Equus caballus.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;138:216–228.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.009google scholar: lookup
  11. Fürst A, Knubben J, Kurtz A, Auer J, Staﾬher M. Pferde in Gruppenhaltung: Eine Betrachtung aus tierärztlicher Sicht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verletzungsrisikos (Group housing of horses: veterinary considerations with a focus on the prevention of bite and kick injuries).. Pferdeheilkunde 2006;22(3):254–258.
  12. Knubben JM, Fürst A, Gygax L, Staﾬher M. Bite and kick injuries in horses: prevalence: risk factors and prevention.. Equine Vet J 2008;40:219–223.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X253118pubmed: 18086579google scholar: lookup
  13. Lehmann K, Kallweit E, Ellendorff F. Social hierarchy in exercised and untrained group‐housed horses—a brief report.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006;96:343–347.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.010google scholar: lookup
  14. Penell JC, Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Olson P, Pringle J. Specific causes of morbidity among Swedish horses insured for veterinary care between 1997 and 2000.. Vet Rec 2005;157:470–477.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.157.16.470pubmed: 16227382google scholar: lookup
  15. Murray RC, Walters JM, Snart H, Dyson S, Parkin TDH. Identification of risk factors for lameness in dressage horses.. Vet J 2010;184:27–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.020pubmed: 19369100google scholar: lookup
  16. Lönnell C, Roepstorff L, Egenvall A. Variation in equine management factors between riding schools with high vs. low insurance claims for orthopaedic injury: a field study.. Vet J 2012;193:109–113.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.11.003pubmed: 22134186google scholar: lookup
  17. Lönnell AC, Bröjer J, Nostell K, Hernlund E, Roepstorff L, Tranquille C. Variation in training regimens in professional show jumping yards.. Equine Vet J 2014;46:233–238.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12126pubmed: 23802646google scholar: lookup
  18. Egenvall A, Tranquille CA, Lönnell AC, Bitschnau C, Oomen A, Hernlund E. Days‐lost to training and competition in relation to workload in 263 elite show‐jumping horses in four European countries.. Prev Vet Med 2013;112(3–4):387–400.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.013pubmed: 24125697google scholar: lookup
  19. Hoffmann KL, Wood AK, Griffiths KA, Evans DL, Gill RW, Kirby AC. Doppler sonographic measurements of arterial blood flow and their repeatability in the equine foot during weight bearing and non‐weight bearing.. Res Vet Sci 2001;70:199–204.
    doi: 10.1053/rvsc.2001.0461pubmed: 11676615google scholar: lookup
  20. Graham‐Thiers PM, Bowen KL. Improved ability to maintain fitness in horses during large pasture turnout.. J Equine Vet Sci 2013;33:581–585.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.09.001google scholar: lookup
  21. Kjellberg L, Morgan K. Introduction to automatic forage stations and measurement of forage intake rate in an active open barn for horses.. Animal 2021;15:100152.
    doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100152pubmed: 33573955google scholar: lookup
  22. Majecka K, Klawe A. Influence of paddock size on social relationships in domestic horses.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2018;21(1):8–16.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1360773pubmed: 28820613google scholar: lookup
  23. Benhajali H, Richard‐Yris M‐A, Ezzaouia M, Charfi F, Hausberger M. Foraging opportunity: a crucial criterion for horse welfare?. Animal 2009;3(9):1308–1312.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731109004820pubmed: 22444907google scholar: lookup
  24. Jørgensen GHM, Hanche‐Olsen Liestøl S, Bøe KE. Effects of enrichment items on activity and social interactions in domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2011;129:100–110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.11.004google scholar: lookup
  25. Jobusch M. Motion asymmetry in Swedish riding school horses – association to management factors (Master thesis).. Swedish University of Agricultural Science Uppsala: Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry 2022.
  26. Hartmann E, Christensen JW, Keeling LJ. Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: effect of pre‐exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009;121:214–221.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.10.004google scholar: lookup
  27. Vervaecke H, Stevens JMG, Vandemoortele H, Sigurjónsdóttir H, De Vries H. Aggression and dominance in matched groups of subadult Icelandic horses (Equus caballus).. J Ethol 2007;25:239–248.
    doi: 10.1007/s10164-006-0019-7google scholar: lookup
  28. Sigurjónsdóttir H, van Dierendonck M, Snorrason S, Thórhallsdóttir A. Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion.. Behaviour 2003;140(6):783–804.
    doi: 10.1163/156853903322370670google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.