From Human Perception of Good Practices to Horse (Equus Caballus) Welfare: Example of Equine-Assisted Activities.

The research focuses on understanding the effects of Equine-Assisted Interventions (EAI) on the welfare of horses (Equus Caballus) involved in these programs. It observes how the perceptions and decisions of the facilities’ managers directly influence horse management, work conditions, and ultimately welfare, particularly in those facilities where EAI is the main activity.

Study Design and Methodology

• The researchers used two methods to collect data – a survey on the strategies of facility managers and a direct observational study on the management and working practices at eight facilities.
• The survey involved 51 facility managers while the observational study tracked the conditions and welfare of 174 horses.
• The research aimed to see if certain management decisions had clear correlates to the welfare of the horses.

Main Findings

• The research found that there were differences in the perception of good management practices among the facility managers and these differences were related to the facility’s involvement in EAI activities.
• Managers from facilities where EAI was the main activity showed increased awareness of the horses’ needs, particularly in terms of housing and feeding.
• The observational study confirmed these findings and also demonstrated that certain working modalities, like groundwork and bitless work, had a positive impact on horse welfare. These practices were more commonly found in EAI facilities.
• However, facilities where horses were heavily involved in mixed activities had the most number of horses with compromised welfare. This is attributed to conventional working modalities being less adapted and riskier for the welfare of the equines.

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The researcher’s findings suggest that EAI facilities need to carefully consider their management and working practices to safeguard the welfare of their horses.
• The study revealed some discrepancies between reported and observed prevalence, specifically in relation to the choice of equid type, highlighting the need for additional research and transparency in reporting.