FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anim Welf / Friends, forage, freedom: A cluster analysis investigating h...
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026; 35; e15; doi: 10.1017/awf.2026.10073

Friends, forage, freedom: A cluster analysis investigating horse management styles and welfare in the UK and Ireland.

Abstract: This study aims to improve the welfare and management of recreational horses by identifying how different management styles affect horse health and behaviour. We examined the management styles of recreational horse owners in the UK and Ireland, focusing on social interaction (friends), access to suitable forage (forage), and unrestricted movement (freedom). We collected 1,501 survey responses, distributed via social media, and summarised the characteristics and management choices of the respondents. Using the Divisive ANAlysis cluster package in R, three distinct management styles were identified. The largest differences between clusters were in turn-out, individual stabling, and access to forage. The Horse Centred Management Cluster (HCMC) (n = 956) were more likely to provide their horses with 24-h turn-out and access to a forage source, and interaction with two or more horses. The Combined Management Cluster (CMC) (n = 434) showed a combination of management decisions that differed from the HCMC, including horses being kept in an individual stable for longer periods and being provided with shorter turn-out periods (nine or more hours). The Owner Centred Management Cluster (OCMC) (n = 111) provided a more restrictive management style with a much reduced turn-out time (typically 0-6 h), often with no contact with other horses, and less access to a forage source (0-10 h). We explored associations between management factors (friends, forage, and freedom) and horse welfare-related outputs via owner responses to health and behaviour questions, where behaviour was considered to reflect mental state. The HCMC horses were significantly less likely to exhibit gastrointestinal issues, lameness issues, handling problems, or antisocial behaviours compared to both other groups. This study highlights how management impacts the health and behaviour of recreational horses and can contribute to the development of guidance on improved management and welfare for recreational horses.
© The Author(s) 2026.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-02-24 PubMed ID: 41769176PubMed Central: PMC12936806DOI: 10.1017/awf.2026.10073Google 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 investigates how different horse management styles in the UK and Ireland affect the health and behaviour of recreational horses.
  • It identifies three distinct management clusters based on access to social interaction, forage, and freedom, linking these styles to horse welfare outcomes.

Research Purpose and Context

  • The primary goal was to improve welfare and management practices for recreational horses.
  • The focus was on three key welfare-related management factors:
    • Friends: Social interaction with other horses.
    • Forage: Access to suitable food sources like hay or pasture.
    • Freedom: Opportunities for unrestricted movement, such as turnout time.
  • The study acknowledges that these factors significantly influence horse health and mental state.

Methodology

  • Data was collected from 1,501 recreational horse owners in the UK and Ireland via an online survey distributed on social media.
  • Survey questions related to management practices, horse health issues, and behavioural observations reported by owners.
  • The Divisive ANAlysis (DIANA) clustering method was employed in R to identify distinct management styles among respondents.
  • Clusters were analysed based on key variables such as turnout time, stabling duration, social interactions, and forage access.

Identified Management Clusters

  • Horse Centred Management Cluster (HCMC):
    • Largest cluster with 956 respondents.
    • Horses had 24-hour turnout access.
    • Regular access to forage sources throughout the day.
    • Interaction with two or more other horses was common.
  • Combined Management Cluster (CMC):
    • 434 respondents.
    • Horses had mixed management, including longer stabling periods and shorter turnout (9+ hours).
    • Management decisions were a combination of restrictive and permissive practices.
  • Owner Centred Management Cluster (OCMC):
    • Smallest cluster with 111 respondents.
    • Horses generally had limited turnout time (0-6 hours), often no contact with other horses.
    • Access to forage was minimal (0-10 hours).
    • More restrictive management style overall.

Associations with Horse Welfare

  • The study linked management styles to reported horse health and behavioural outcomes.
  • Owners’ reports were used as welfare indicators, with behaviour considered a reflection of mental state.
  • Findings showed:
    • Horses in the Horse Centred Management Cluster (HCMC) had significantly fewer gastrointestinal problems and lameness issues.
    • They also exhibited fewer handling difficulties and antisocial behaviours compared to horses in the other clusters.
    • The Owner Centred Management Cluster (OCMC) horses were more prone to welfare concerns, likely due to restricted turnout, limited social contact, and reduced forage access.

Implications and Conclusions

  • The research reinforces that horse welfare is closely tied to management choices around socialisation, freedom of movement, and diet.
  • Management styles that prioritize the horse’s natural needs (like the HCMC cluster) promote better health and positive behaviour.
  • The findings provide evidence-based insights that can guide owners, trainers, and welfare advisors to improve recreational horse management practices.
  • Ultimately, this study contributes valuable data that may support the development of best practice guidelines for enhancing the wellbeing of recreational horses in the UK and Ireland.

Cite This Article

APA
Watson W, MacKay JRD, Dwyer C. (2026). Friends, forage, freedom: A cluster analysis investigating horse management styles and welfare in the UK and Ireland. Anim Welf, 35, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2026.10073

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 35
Pages: e15
PII: e15

Researcher Affiliations

Watson, Wendy
  • The University of Edinburgh, Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies, UK.
MacKay, Jill R D
  • The University of Edinburgh, Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies, UK.
Dwyer, Cathy
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and BioSciences, SRUC, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Anad D. Gower’s Distance. .
  2. Bachmann I, Bernasconi P, Herrmann R, Weishaupt MA, Stauffacher M. Behavioural and physiological responses to an acute stressor in crib-biting and control horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82: 297–311.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00086-8google scholar: lookup
  3. Bott RC, Greene EA, Koch K, Martinson KL, Siciliano PD, Williams C, Trottier NL, Burk A, Swinker A. Production and environmental implications of equine grazing. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 33: 1031–1043.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2013.05.004google scholar: lookup
  4. Bradshaw-Wiley E, Randle H. The effect of stabling routines on potential behavioural indicators of affective state in horses and their use in assessing quality of life. Animals (Basel) 13: 1065.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13061065pmc: PMC10044549pubmed: 36978606google scholar: lookup
  5. Cameron A, Harris P, Longland A, Horseman S, Hockenhull J. UK horse carers’ experiences of restricting grazing when aiming to prevent health issues in their horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 104: 103685–103685.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103685pubmed: 34417001google scholar: lookup
  6. Cooper JJ, McDonald L, Mills DS. The effect of increasing visual horizons on stereotypic weaving: implications for the social housing of stabled horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 67–83.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00115-5pubmed: 10856785google scholar: lookup
  7. Dunning D. The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 44: 247–296.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6google scholar: lookup
  8. Ellis AD, Longland AC, Coenen M, Miraglia N. Biological basis of behaviour in relation to nutrition and feed intake in horses. EAAP publication 128: 53–74.
    doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-711-0google scholar: lookup
  9. Ermers C, McGilchrist N, Fenner K, Wilson B, McGreevy P. The fibre requirements of horses and the consequences and causes of failure to meet them. Animals (Basel) 13(8): 1414.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13081414pmc: PMC10135103pubmed: 37106977google scholar: lookup
  10. Furtado T. Exploring the recognition and management of obesity in horses through qualitative research. University of Liverpool: UK.
    doi: 10.17638/03053870google scholar: lookup
  11. Furtado T, Perkins E, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Watkins F, Christley R. Hidden in plain sight: Uncovering the obesogenic environment surrounding the UK’s leisure horses. Anthrozoös 34(4): 491–506.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1914431google scholar: lookup
  12. Furtado T, King M, Perkins E, McGowan C, Chubbock S, Hannelly E, Rogers J, Pinchbeck G. An exploration of environmentally sustainable practices associated with alternative grazing management system use for horses, ponies, donkeys, and mules in the UK. Animals (Basel) 12: 151.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12020151pmc: PMC8772570pubmed: 35049774google scholar: lookup
  13. Goodwin D. The importance of ethology in understanding the behaviour of the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 31: 15–19.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05150.xpubmed: 11314229google scholar: lookup
  14. Goodwin D, Davidson HPB, Harris P. Foraging enrichment for stabled horses: effects on behaviour and selection. Equine Veterinary Journal 34: 686–691.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776250450pubmed: 12455839google scholar: lookup
  15. Gower JC. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857–871.
    doi: 10.2307/2528823google scholar: lookup
  16. Halkidi M, Batistakis Y and Vazirgiannis M 2001. On clustering validation techniques. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 17: 107. 10.1023/A:1012801612483
    doi: 10.1023/A:1012801612483google scholar: lookup
  17. Hall C and Kay Rn2024. nLiving the good life? A systematic review of behavioural signs of affective state in the domestic horse () and factors relating to quality of life Part I: Fulfilment of species-specific needs. Animal Welfaren33: e40. 10.1017/awf.2024.38n
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.38pmc: PMC11503716pubmed: 39464387google scholar: lookup
  18. Harris PA, Ellis AD and Fradinho MJ 2017. Review: Feeding conserved forage to horses: recent advances and recommendations. Animal 11: 958–967. 10.1017/S1751731116002469
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116002469pubmed: 27881201google scholar: lookup
  19. Harris P, Bailey SR, Elliott J and Longland A 2006. Countermeasures for pasture-associated laminitis in ponies and horses. The Journal of Nutrition 136: 2114S–2121S. 10.1093/jn/136.7.2114S
    doi: 10.1093/jn/136.7.2114Spubmed: 16772514google scholar: lookup
  20. Hartmann E, Bøe KE, Christensen JW, Hyyppä S, Jansson H, Jørgensen GHM, Ladewig J, Mejdell CM, Norling Y, Rundgren M, Särkijärvi S, Søndergaard E and Keeling LJ 2015. A Nordic survey of management practices and owners’ attitudes towards keeping horses in groups. Journal of Animal Science 93: 4564–4574. 10.2527/jas.2015-9233
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9233pubmed: 26440355google scholar: lookup
  21. Hemsworth LM, Jongman EC and Coleman GJ 2021. The human-horse relationship: Identifying the antecedents of horse owner attitudes towards horse husbandry and management behaviour. Animals (Basel) 11: 278. 10.3390/ani11020278
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020278pmc: PMC7911803pubmed: 33499202google scholar: lookup
  22. Henderson AJZ 2007. Don’t fence me in: Managing psychological well-being for elite performance horses. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10: 309–329. 10.1080/10888700701555576
    doi: 10.1080/10888700701555576pubmed: 17970632google scholar: lookup
  23. Hockenhull J and Creighton E 2014. Management practices associated with owner-reported stable-related and handling behaviour problems in UK leisure horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155: 49–55. 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.02.014
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.02.014google scholar: lookup
  24. Hockenhull J and Creighton E 2015. The day-to-day management of UK leisure horses and the prevalence of owner-reported stable-related and handling behaviour problems. Animal Welfare 24: 29–36. 10.7120/09627286.24.1.029
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.1.029google scholar: lookup
  25. Hockenhull J and Furtado T 2021. Escaping the gilded cage: Could COVID-19 lead to improved equine welfare? A review of the literature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 237: 105303. 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.10530
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.10530google scholar: lookup
  26. Hoffman RM and Middle TSU 2009. Carbohydrate metabolism and metabolic disorders in horses. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38: 270–276. 10.1590/S1516-35982009001300027
    doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982009001300027google scholar: lookup
  27. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S and Whay HR 2016. Current welfare problems facing horses in Great Britain as identified by equine stakeholders. PloS One 11: e0160269. 10.1371/journal.pone.0160269
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160269pmc: PMC4976980pubmed: 27501387google scholar: lookup
  28. Kim H-Y 2017. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 42: 152–155. 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152
    doi: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152pmc: PMC5426219pubmed: 28503482google scholar: lookup
  29. Krueger K, Esch L, Farmer K and Marr I 2021. Basic needs in horses?—A literature review. Animals 11: 1798 10.3390/ani11061798
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061798pmc: PMC8235049pubmed: 34208615google scholar: lookup
  30. Lee J, Floyd T, Erb H and Houpt K 2011. Preference and demand for exercise in stabled horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130(3): 91–100. 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.001
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.001google scholar: lookup
  31. Lesimple C, Gautier E, Benhajali H, Rochais C, Lunel C, Bensaïd S, Khalloufi A, Henry S and Hausberger M 2019. Stall architecture influences horses’ behaviour and the prevalence and type of stereotypies Applied Animal Behaviour Science 219: 104833. 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104833
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104833google scholar: lookup
  32. Lesimple C 2020. Indicators of horse welfare: State-of-the-Art. Animals (Basel) 10: 294. 10.3390/ani10020294
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pmc: PMC7070675pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  33. Longland AC 2013. Pastures and pasture management. Equine Applied and Clinical Nutrition pp 332–350. Elsevier Ltd: The Netherlands. 10.1016/B978-0-7020-3422-0.00018-3
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-3422-0.00018-3google scholar: lookup
  34. Luthersson N, Nielsen KH, Harris P and Parkin TDH 2009. Risk factors associated with equine gastric ulceration syndrome (EGUS) in 201 horses in Denmark. Equine Veterinary Journal 41: 625–630. 10.2746/042516409X441929
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X441929pubmed: 19927579google scholar: lookup
  35. Mason GJ 1991. Stereotypies and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25: 103–115 10.1016/0376-6357(91)90013-P
    doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(91)90013-Ppubmed: 24923970google scholar: lookup
  36. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M and Hornik Kn2022. ncluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions, 2022. R package version, 2(4). https://cran.r-project.org/package=cluster [Accessed February 21st 2023]
  37. McBride S and Hemmings A 2009. A neurologic perspective of equine stereotypy. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 29: 10–16. 10.1016/j.jevs.2008.11.008
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2008.11.008google scholar: lookup
  38. McGreevy PD, Cripps PJ, French NP, Green LE and Nicol CJ 1995. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the Thoroughbred horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 27: 86–91. 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1995.tb03041.x
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1995.tb03041.xpubmed: 7607155google scholar: lookup
  39. Mills DS and Riezebos M 2005. The role of the image of a conspecific in the regulation of stereotypic head movements in the horse. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91: 155–165. 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.027
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.027google scholar: lookup
  40. Moore-Colyer M 2024. Equine gastric ulcer syndrome: is feeding key? UK Vet 8: S3–S8. 10.12968/ukve.2024.8.S1.3
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2024.8.S1.3google scholar: lookup
  41. Naydani CJ and Coombs Tn2025. nExercise as a welfare strategy? Insights from horse () owners in the UK. Animal Welfaren34: 14. 10.1017/awf.2025.11
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2025.11pmc: PMC11894402pubmed: 40071107google scholar: lookup
  42. Pannewitz L and Loftus L 2023. Frustration in horses: Investigating expert opinion on behavioural indicators and causes using a Delphi consultation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258: 105818. 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105818
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105818google scholar: lookup
  43. Paradis E and Schliep K 2019. Ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics: 526–528. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633pubmed: 30016406google scholar: lookup
  44. Phelipon R, Hennes N, Ruet A, Bret-Morel A, Górecka-Bruzda A and Lansade L 2024. Forage freedom of movement and social interactions remain essential fundamentals for the welfare of high-level sport horses. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 11: 1504116. 10.3389/fvets.2024.1504116
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1504116pmc: PMC11615640pubmed: 39634765google scholar: lookup
  45. R Core Teamn2019.   R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://wwwR-projectorg/ [Accessed July 2022]
  46. Reilly AC and Bryk-Lucy JA 2021. Incidence of soft tissue injury and hours of daily paddock turnout in non-elite performance horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 100: 103606. 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103606
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103606google scholar: lookup
  47. Rioja-Lang FC, Connor M, Bacon H and Dwyer CM 2020. Determining a welfare prioritization for horses using a Delphi Method. Animals (Basel) 10: 647. 10.3390/ani10040647
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040647pmc: PMC7222753pubmed: 32283607google scholar: lookup
  48. Roberts K, Hemmings AJ, McBride SD and Parker MO 2017. Causal factors of oral versus locomotor stereotypy in the horse. Journal of Equine Veterinary Behavior 20: 37–43 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.05.003
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.05.003google scholar: lookup
  49. Robertson T, Thomas E, Starbuck G and Yarnell K 2024. Global distribution and gap analysis of equine housing research: The findings so far and where to go next. Animal Welfare 33: 58. 10.1017/awf.2024.64
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.64pmc: PMC11655279pubmed: 39703212google scholar: lookup
  50. Ross M, Proudfoot K, Merkies K, Elsohaby I, Mills M, Macmillan K, Mckenna S and Ritter C 2023. Horse housing on Prince Edward Island Canada: Attitudes and experiences related to keeping horses outdoors and in groups. Animals (Basel) 13: 275. 10.3390/ani13020275
    doi: 10.3390/ani13020275pmc: PMC9855179pubmed: 36670815google scholar: lookup
  51. Ross M, Proudfoot K, Nishimura EC, Morabito E, Merkies K, Mitchell J and Ritter C 2024. ‘It’s more emotionally based’: Prince Edward Island horse owner perspectives of horse weight management. Animal Welfare 33: e14. 10.1017/awf.2024.9
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.9pmc: PMC10951667pubmed: 38510426google scholar: lookup
  52. RSPCAn2025. nnhttps://www.rspca.org.uk/documents/d/rspca/2099_equine_welfare_crisis_report_rgb [Accessed March 30 2025].
  53. Ruet A, Lemarchand J, Parias C, Mach N, Moisan M-P, Foury A, Briant C and Lansade L 2019. Housing horses in individual boxes is a challenge with regard to welfare. Animals 9: 621. 10.3390/ani9090621
    doi: 10.3390/ani9090621pmc: PMC6770668pubmed: 31466327google scholar: lookup
  54. Salter R and Hudson R 1979. Feeding ecology of feral horses in Western Alberta. Journal of Range Management 32: 221–225. 10.2307/3897127
    doi: 10.2307/3897127google scholar: lookup
  55. Scantlebury CE, Perkins E and Pinchbeck GL 2014. Could it be colic? ‘Horse-owner decision making and practices in response to equine colic. BMC Veterinary Research 10: S1. 10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S1
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S1pmc: PMC4122872pubmed: 25238026google scholar: lookup
  56. Schmucker S, Preisler V, Marr I, Krüger K and Stefanski V 2022. Single housing but not changes in group composition causes stress-related immunomodulations in horses. PloS One 17(8): e0272445. 10.1371/journal.pone.0272445
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272445pmc: PMC9385002pubmed: 35976860google scholar: lookup
  57. Scottish Agricultural Reportn2016. nhttps://www.gov.scot/publications/economic-report-scottish-agriculture-2016/pages/9/gov.scot. [Accessed March 20th 2024].
  58. Stowe CJ, Kibler ML and Barrowclough M 2022. Horse owner preferences for equine insurance policies. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 113: 103943. 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103943
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103943pubmed: 35427761google scholar: lookup
  59. van Dierendonck MC 2006. The importance of social relationships in horses. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University Repository, The Netherlands.
  60. Vigors B and Lawrence A 2019. What are the positives? Exploring positive welfare indicators in a qualitative interview study with livestock farmers. Animals (Basel) 9: 694. 10.3390/ani9090694
    doi: 10.3390/ani9090694pmc: PMC6770310pubmed: 31533328google scholar: lookup
  61. Visser EK and Van Wijk-Jansen EEn2012. nDiversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: an explorative study n7: 295–304. 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  62. Waters AJ, Nicol CJ and French NP 2002. Factors influencing the development of stereotypic and redirected behaviours in young horses: findings of a four-year prospective epidemiological study. Equine Veterinary Journal 34: 572–579. 10.2746/042516402776180241
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776180241pubmed: 12357996google scholar: lookup
  63. Watson WL, MacKay JRD and Dwyer CM 2025. Healthy as a horse? Characterising the UK and Ireland’s horse owners their horses and owner-reported health and behavioural issues. Animals (Basel) 15: 397 10.3390/ani15030397
    doi: 10.3390/ani15030397pmc: PMC11816239pubmed: 39943167google scholar: lookup
  64. Wylie CE, Collins SN, Verheyen KLP and Newton JR 2013. Risk factors for equine laminitis: A case-control study conducted in veterinary-registered horses and ponies in Great Britain between 2009 and 2011. The Veterinary Journal 198(1): 57–69. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.028
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.028pubmed: 24070987google scholar: lookup
  65. Zeitler-Feicht MH, Hartmann E, Erhard MH and Baumgartner M 2024. Which affiliative behaviour can be used as a valid reliable and feasible indicator of positive welfare in horse husbandry?’ Applied Animal Behaviour Science 273: 106236. 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106236
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106236google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,001 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.