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 / Horses are worthy of care: Horse sector participants’ ...
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025; 34; e6; doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.69

Horses are worthy of care: Horse sector participants’ attitudes towards animal sentience, welfare, and well-being.

Abstract: Organisations for which sentient animals are central to the business model need to demonstrate the safeguarding of animal welfare and well-being. This requires providing positive experiences for animals which is critical to maintaining the social licence to operate. A cross-sectional survey captured the attitudes of experienced horse sector participants regarding sentience, welfare and well-being. Almost all respondents (99.9%; n = 676/677), believed horses were sentient. Analysis of open-ended responses identified two themes: (1) Sentience is a pathway to understanding the mental state, welfare and well-being of horses; and (2) A moral obligation for humans to consider sentience. Respondents' observations that horses reacted to stimuli and responded to their surroundings underpinned their belief that horses were sentient. Theme one related to respondents' understanding of sentience and how sentience informed their interpretations of horse behaviours and the making of inferences regarding the equine mental state. Theme two related to a moral obligation believed to exist towards horses because humans manage the horses' environment and need to consider the impact of their interactions with horses. These obligations were perceived as responsibilities to consider sentience when determining good welfare and well-being in horse activity settings, when interacting with horses and when training and competing with horses. The results suggested a sophisticated understanding of sentience existed among experienced horse sector participants, who recognised the sentient horse as worthy of care. We propose that leveraging experienced participants' existing knowledge of sentience could support the implementation of the Five Domains model when updating organisational policies.
© The Author(s) 2025.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-01-14 PubMed ID: 39935777PubMed Central: PMC11811708DOI: 10.1017/awf.2024.69Google 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 surveys those experienced in caring for horses about their perceptions of horse sentience, welfare, and wellbeing, finding widespread agreement that horses are sentient beings deserving care. The researchers suggest these insights could be applied to improve animal welfare policies.

Study Overview

  • This study conducted a comprehensive survey to investigate the attitudes of experienced horse sector participants towards horse sentience, welfare, and well-being.
  • The survey received a strong participation, with a total of 677 responses collected.

Key Findings

  • Nearly all participants (99.9%; n = 676/677) believed horses to be sentient beings, showcasing a broader acknowledgment of animal consciousness and feelings.
  • The participant’s belief in horse sentience was based on their observations of how horses react to stimuli and respond to their surroundings.
  • Two major themes were identified from the analysis of open-ended responses. The first theme dealt with participants understanding the concept of sentience as a way to better comprehend the mental state, welfare, and well-being of horses. The second theme revolved around the moral obligation humans have towards horses, given that we manage their environment and interact with them regularly.
  • This obligation was seen by respondents as a duty to consider the sentience of horses when deciding their welfare and wellbeing, in settings such as horse-training and competing events.
  • The study found that experienced horse-care participants had a sophisticated understanding of sentience and its implications, recognizing the sentient horse as deserving of care.

Implications

  • The research team proposed that this deep understanding of horse sentience could be used to inform and update policies within organisations. This could lead to an improved consideration of animal welfare and wellbeing.
  • The study particularly highlights the potential for integrating this knowledge into the Five Domains model, a well-established approach for assessing animal welfare, which considers nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state.

Cite This Article

APA
Fiedler JM, Ayre ML, Rosanowski S, Slater JD. (2025). Horses are worthy of care: Horse sector participants’ attitudes towards animal sentience, welfare, and well-being. Anim Welf, 34, e6. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.69

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 34
Pages: e6
PII: e6

Researcher Affiliations

Fiedler, Julie M
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia.
Ayre, Margaret L
  • School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne, Royal Parade, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Rosanowski, Sarah
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia.
Slater, Josh D
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 113 references
  1. Anonymous. Animal Welfare Act 1999. 1999.
  2. Anonymous. FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse. 2013.
  3. Anonymous. Position statement on the use/misuse of leadership and dominance concepts in horse training. 2017.
  4. Anonymous. IFHA Publishes Minimum Horse Welfare Standards. 2020.
  5. Anonymous. Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. 2022.
  6. Anonymous. Horse Welfare Policy. 2023a.
  7. Anonymous. IFHA Transportation Welfare Guidelines. 2023b.
  8. Anonymous. Basic management and care. 2024a.
  9. Anonymous. FEI Veterinary Regulations. 2024b.
  10. Anonymous. Microsoft Excel®. 2024c.
  11. Anonymous. NVivo Statistical and Mathematical Software. 2024d.
  12. Anonymous. Qualtrics. 2024e.
  13. Anonymous. Racehorse welfare prioritised by new standards policy. 2024f.
  14. Anonymous. Statistical and Mathematical Software: NVivo. 2024g.
  15. Anonymous. What is safeguarding?. 2024h.
  16. Beck JM, Elliott KC, Booher CR, Renn KA, Montgomery RA. The application of reflexivity for conservation science. Biological Conservation 2021;262:109322.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109322google scholar: lookup
  17. Birke L, Thompson K. (Un)stable Relations. 2018.
  18. Bogna F, Raineri A, Dell G. Critical realism and constructivism: merging research paradigms for a deeper qualitative study. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 2018;15(4):461–484.
    doi: 10.1108/qrom-06-2019-1778google scholar: lookup
  19. Bornmann T, Randle H, Williams J. Investigating equestrians’ perceptions of horse happiness: An exploratory study. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2021;103697.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103697pubmed: 34416986google scholar: lookup
  20. 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 2023;13(6):1065.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13061065pmc: PMC10044549pubmed: 36978606google scholar: lookup
  21. Brando S, Norman M. Handling and training of wild animals: Evidence and ethics-based approaches and best practices in the modern zoo. Animals 2023;13(14):2247.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13142247pmc: PMC10375971pubmed: 37508025google scholar: lookup
  22. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. 2022.
  23. Briard L, J-L Deneubourg, Petit O. Group behaviours and individual spatial sorting before departure predict the dynamics of collective movements in horses. Animal Behaviour 2021;174:115–125.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.01.014google scholar: lookup
  24. Campbell ML. Ethical justifications for the use of animals in competitive sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 2023;1–19.
    doi: 10.1080/17511321.2023.2236798google scholar: lookup
  25. Carminati L. Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research 2018;28(13):2094–2101.
    doi: 10.1177/1049732318788379pubmed: 30043686google scholar: lookup
  26. Chapman M, Fenner K, Thomas MJJS. Development of a human factors approach to equine-related human accident analysis, and preliminarily evaluation with simulated incidents. Safety 2022;8(4):1–13.
    doi: 10.3390/safety8040072google scholar: lookup
  27. Chapman M, Thomas M, Thompson K. What people really think about safety around horses: The relationship between risk perception, values and safety behaviours. Animals 2020;10(12):2222.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122222pmc: PMC7761269pubmed: 33256171google scholar: lookup
  28. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2014.
  29. Cousquer G. From domination to dialogue and the ethics of the between: Transforming human-working equine relationships in mountain tourism. Austral Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2023;55(1):35–60.
    doi: 10.4067/s0719-81322023000100035google scholar: lookup
  30. Dashper K. Listening to horses: Developing attentive interspecies relationships through sport and leisure. Society & Animals 2017;25(3):207–224.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341426google scholar: lookup
  31. Dawson LC, Cheal J, Niel L, Mason G. Humans can identify cats’ affective states from subtle facial expressions. Animal Welfare 2019;28(4):519–531.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.4.519google scholar: lookup
  32. Douglas J, Owers R, Campbell ML. Social licence to operate: what can equestrian sports learn from other industries?. Animals 2022;12(15):1–14.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151987pmc: PMC9367437pubmed: 35953977google scholar: lookup
  33. DuBois C, Nakonechny L, Derisoud E, Merkies K. Examining Canadian equine industry participants’ perceptions of horses and their welfare. Animals 2018;8(11):201.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110201pmc: PMC6262281pubmed: 30405030google scholar: lookup
  34. Duncan I. The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2006;100(1–2):11–19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.011google scholar: lookup
  35. Edelblutte É, Krithivasan R, Hayek MN. Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. Conservation Biology 2023;37(1):1–15.
    doi: 10.1111/cobi.13853pubmed: 35262968google scholar: lookup
  36. Fernandes JN, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Tilbrook AJ. Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 2021;11(2):104.
    doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020104google scholar: lookup
  37. Fernandez EJ. The Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2023;pp 63-68.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2023.12.001google scholar: lookup
  38. Fiedler J, Ayre M, Rosanowski S, Slater J. Animal safeguarding for organisations. Animals in Sports and Work: Ethics and Animal Welfare Symposium 2024;1 March 2024, Australia.
  39. Fletcher KA, Cameron LJ, Freeman M. Contemplating the Five Domains model of animal welfare assessment: UK horse owner perceptions of equine well-being. Animal Welfare 2021;30(3):259–268.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.30.3.003google scholar: lookup
  40. Fowler F. Designing questions to be good measures. 2013.
  41. Gleerup KB, Forkman B, Lindegaard C, Andersen PH. An equine pain face. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2015;42(1):103–114.
    doi: 10.1111/vaa.12212pmc: PMC4312484pubmed: 25082060google scholar: lookup
  42. Graham R, McManus P. Changing human-animal relationships in sport: An analysis of the UK and Australian horse racing whips debates. Animals 2016;6(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6050032pmc: PMC4880849pubmed: 27153097google scholar: lookup
  43. Green T, Mellor D. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 2011;59(6):263–271.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.610283pubmed: 22040330google scholar: lookup
  44. Haddy E, Burden F, Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Zappi Bello JH, Brown J, Kaminski J, Proops L. Belief in animal sentience and affective owner attitudes are linked to positive working equid welfare across six countries. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2023;pp 1–19.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2023.2228029pubmed: 37381695google scholar: lookup
  45. Hampton J, Jones B, McGreevy P. Social license and animal welfare: Developments from the past decade in Australia. Animals 2020;10(12):2–11.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122237pmc: PMC7760378pubmed: 33260531google scholar: lookup
  46. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. Mental experiences in wild animals: Scientifically validating measurable welfare indicators in free-roaming horses. Animals 2023;13(9):1507.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091507pmc: PMC10177449pubmed: 37174544google scholar: lookup
  47. Hausberger M, Bruderer C, Le Scolan N, Pierre J-S. Interplay between environmental and genetic factors in temperament/personality traits in horses (Equus caballus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 2004;118(4):434–446.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.434pubmed: 15584780google scholar: lookup
  48. Heleski C, Stowe CJ, Fiedler J, Peterson ML, Brady C, Wickens C, MacLeod JN. Thoroughbred racehorse welfare through the lens of ‘social license to operate’—with an emphasis on a US Perspective. Sustainability 2020;12(5):1706.
    doi: 10.3390/sህ1706google scholar: lookup
  49. Heleski CR, Anthony R. Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethical assessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2012;7(3):169–178.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.003google scholar: lookup
  50. Hitchens P, Morrice-West A, Stevenson M, Whitton R. Meta-analysis of risk factors for racehorse catastrophic musculoskeletal injury in flat racing. The Veterinary Journal 2019;245:29–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.11.014pubmed: 30819423google scholar: lookup
  51. Hitchens PL, Booth RH, Stevens K, Murphy A, Jones B, Hemsworth LM. The welfare of animals in Australian filmed media. Animals 2021;11(7):1986.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11071986pmc: PMC8300105pubmed: 34359113google scholar: lookup
  52. Hogg R, Hodgins G. Symbiosis or sporting tool? Competition and the horse-rider relationship in elite equestrian sports. Animals 2021;11(5):1–36.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051352pmc: PMC8151029pubmed: 34068606google scholar: lookup
  53. Hötzel MJ, Vieira MC, Leme DP. Exploring horse owners’ and caretakers’ perceptions of emotions and associated behaviors in horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019;29:18–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.002google scholar: lookup
  54. Ijichi C, Wilkinson A, Riva MG, Sobrero L, Dalla Costa E. Work it out: Investigating the effect of workload on discomfort and stress physiology of riding school horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2023;267:106054.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106054google scholar: lookup
  55. Jaramillo FM, Oliveira TM, Silva PEA, Trindade PHE, Baccarin RYA. Development of a fixed list of descriptors for the qualitative behavioral assessment of thoroughbred horses in the racing environment. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2023;10:1189846.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1189846pmc: PMC10482396pubmed: 37680385google scholar: lookup
  56. Javanaud K. The ethics of horse riding, sports, and leisure. Journal of Animal Ethics 2022;12(2):158–171.
    doi: 10.5406/21601267.12.2.06google scholar: lookup
  57. Jolivald A, Ijichi C, Hall C, Yarnell K. The mane factor: Compliance is associated with increased hair cortisol in the horse. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2023;258:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105819google scholar: lookup
  58. Jolivald A, Yarnell K, Hall C, Ijichi C. Do you see what I see? Investigating the validity of an equine personality questionnaire. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2022;248:105567.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105567google scholar: lookup
  59. Jones B, McGreevy PD. Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2010;5(4):196–202.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.00google scholar: lookup
  60. Kieson E, Goma AA, Radi M. Tend and befriend in horses: Partner preferences, lateralization, and contextualization of allogrooming in two socially stable herds of quarter horse mares. Animals 2023;13(2):1–15.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13020225pmc: PMC9854972pubmed: 36670764google scholar: lookup
  61. Kleinberger R, Cunha J, Vemuri MM, Hirskyj-Douglas I. Birds of a feather video-flock together: Design and evaluation of an agency-based parrot-to-parrot video-calling system for interspecies ethical enrichment. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 2023.
  62. Kremer L, Klein Holkenborg SEJ, Reimert I, Bolhuis JE, Webb LE. The nuts and bolts of animal emotion. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2020;113:273–286.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.028pubmed: 31982603google scholar: lookup
  63. Ladewig J. Body language: Its importance for communication with horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019;29:108–110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.06.042google scholar: lookup
  64. Ladewig J, McLean AN, Wilkins CL, Fenner K, Christensen JW, McGreevy PD. A review of The Ridden Horse pain ethogram and its potential to improve ridden horse welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2022;54:54–61.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2022.07.003google scholar: lookup
  65. Lawrence MG, Williams S, Nanz P, Renn O. Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth 2022;5(1):44–61.
    doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010google scholar: lookup
  66. Learmonth M. The matter of non-avian reptile sentience, and why it ‘matters’ to them: A conceptual, ethical and scientific review. Animals 2020;10(5):1–25.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10050901pmc: PMC7278454pubmed: 32455969google scholar: lookup
  67. Leconstant C, Spitz E. Integrative model of human-animal interactions: A One Health-One Welfare systemic approach to studying HAI. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2022;9:656833.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.656833pmc: PMC9372562pubmed: 35968006google scholar: lookup
  68. Linzey A. What prevents us from recognizing animal sentience?. 2012.
  69. Littlewood KE, Heslop MV, Cobb ML. The agency domain and behavioural interactions: Assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains model. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2023;10:1284869.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1284869pmc: PMC10656766pubmed: 38026638google scholar: lookup
  70. Luke KL, McAdie T, Smith BP, Warren-Smith AK. New insights into ridden horse behaviour, horse welfare and horse-related safety. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2022;246:105539.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105539google scholar: lookup
  71. Maeda T, Ochi S, Ringhofer M, Sosa S, Sueur C, Hirata S, Yamamoto S. Aerial drone observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Scientific Reports 2021;11(1):71.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79790-1pmc: PMC7794487pubmed: 33420148google scholar: lookup
  72. Mata F, Jaeger B, Domingues I. Perceptions of farm animal sentience and suffering: Evidence from the BRIC countries and the United States. Animals 2022;12(23):3416.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12233416pmc: PMC9736651pubmed: 36496937google scholar: lookup
  73. McGreevy P, Berger J, De Brauwere N, Doherty O, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L. Using the Five Domains model to assess the adverse impacts of husbandry, veterinary, and equitation interventions on horse welfare. Animals 2018;8(3):41.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8030041pmc: PMC5867529pubmed: 29562654google scholar: lookup
  74. McGregor SL. Transdisciplinary Knowledge Creation. Transdisciplinary Professional Learning and Practice 2015;pp 9–24.
  75. McLean AN, Christensen JW. The application of learning theory in horse training. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2017;190:18–27.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.020google scholar: lookup
  76. McLean AN, McGreevy PD. Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2010;5(4):203–209.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.003google scholar: lookup
  77. McManus P. Animal-based entertainment industries, animal death and social licence to perate (SLO): An analysis of ‘The Final Race’ and the 2019 Melbourne Cup. Social & Cultural Geography 2022;pp 1–20.
    doi: 10.1080/14649365.2022.2053194google scholar: lookup
  78. Mellor DJ. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 2016;6(3):1–20.
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  79. Mellor DJ. Operational details of the Five Domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals 2017;7(8):1–20.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080060pmc: PMC5575572pubmed: 28792485google scholar: lookup
  80. Mellor DJ. Welfare-aligned sentience: Enhanced capacities to experience, interact, anticipate, choose and survive. Animals 2019;9(7):440.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9070440pmc: PMC6680886pubmed: 31337042google scholar: lookup
  81. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 2020;10(10):1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  82. Mellor DJ, Burns M. Using the Five Domains model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 2020;68(3):150–156.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2020.1715900pubmed: 31973682google scholar: lookup
  83. Mellor DJ, Hunt S, Gusset M. Caring for wildlife: The world zoo and aquarium animal welfare strategy. 2015.
  84. Mendl M, Neville V, Paul ES. Bridging the gap: Human emotions and animal emotions. Affective Science 2022;3(4):703–712.
    doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00125-6pmc: PMC9743877pubmed: 36519148google scholar: lookup
  85. Mendl M, Paul ES. Assessing affective states in animals. Mental Health and Well-being in Animals 2020;pp 328–344.
  86. Merkies K, Franzin O. Enhanced understanding of horse–human interactions to optimize welfare. Animals 2021;11(5):1347.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051347pmc: PMC8151687pubmed: 34065156google scholar: lookup
  87. Morton R, Hebart ML, Ankeny RA, Whittaker AL. An investigation into ‘community expectations’ surrounding animal welfare law enforcement in Australia. Frontiers in Animal Science 2022;3:1–16.
    doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.991042google scholar: lookup
  88. Morton R, Whittaker AL. Understanding subordinate animal welfare legislation in Australia: Assembling the Regulations and Codes of Practice. Animals 2022;12(18):1–23.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12182437pmc: PMC9495124pubmed: 36139295google scholar: lookup
  89. Neethirajan S, Reimert I, Kemp B. Measuring farm animal emotions—Sensor-based approaches. Sensors 2021;21(2):553.
    doi: 10.3390/s21020553pmc: PMC7830443pubmed: 33466737google scholar: lookup
  90. Paul ES, Mendl MT. Animal emotion: Descriptive and prescriptive definitions and their implications for a comparative perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2018;205:202–209.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.01.008pmc: PMC6041721pubmed: 30078924google scholar: lookup
  91. Payne G, Williams M. Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology 2005;39(2):295–314.
    doi: 10.1177/0038038505050540google scholar: lookup
  92. Pickersgill O, Mills DS, Guo K. Owners’ beliefs regarding the emotional capabilities of their dogs and cats. Animals 2023;13(5):820.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13050820pmc: PMC10000035pubmed: 36899676google scholar: lookup
  93. Polanyi M. The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy 1966;41(155):1–18.
    doi: 10.1017/S0031819100066110google scholar: lookup
  94. Rørvang MV, Christensen JW, Ladewig J, McLean A. Social learning in horses—fact or fiction?. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2018;5:212.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00212pmc: PMC6135911pubmed: 30238009google scholar: lookup
  95. Rørvang MV, Nielsen BL, McLean AN. Sensory abilities of horses and their importance for equitation science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2020;7:1–17.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00633pmc: PMC7509108pubmed: 33033724google scholar: lookup
  96. Rousseau D, Billingham J. A systematic framework for exploring worldviews and its generalization as a multi-purpose inquiry framework. Systems 2018;6(3):27.
    doi: 10.3390/systems6030027google scholar: lookup
  97. Schuppli CA, Spooner JM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Canadian dairy farmer views about animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2023;32:e38.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.32pmc: PMC10936387pubmed: 38487429google scholar: lookup
  98. Schuurman N. Horses as co-constructors of knowledge in contemporary Finnish equestrian culture. Animal Agency in the Global North 2017;pp 53–64.
  99. Shrestha K, Gilkerson J, Stevenson MA, Flash M. Racehorse networks: Unravelling movements of Thoroughbred racehorses in Australia. The 16th International Symposium of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Canada 2022.
  100. Simons G, Baldwin DS. A critical review of the definition of ‘wellbeing’ for doctors and their patients in a post Covid-19 era. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2021;67(8):984–991.
    doi: 10.1177/00207640211032259pmc: PMC8592098pubmed: 34240644google scholar: lookup
  101. Spence K, O’Sullivan T, Poljak Z, Greer A. Descriptive and network analyses of the equine contact network at an equestrian show in Ontario, Canada and implications for disease spread. BMC Veterinary Research 2017;13(1):191.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1103-7pmc: PMC5480143pubmed: 28637457google scholar: lookup
  102. Spence KL, Slater J, Rosanowski SM, Cardwell JM. A cross-sectional study of horse owners’ awareness and perceived risk of exotic diseases in the United Kingdom. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2019;169:104706.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104706pubmed: 31311639google scholar: lookup
  103. Stowell F. The Appreciative Inquiry Method: From knowledge elicitation to organisational inquiry. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 2022;39(4):765–775.
    doi: 10.1002/sres.2806google scholar: lookup
  104. Tolls C, Carr N. Horses on trail rides: tourist expectations. Tourism Recreation Research 2021;46(1):132–136.
    doi: 10.1080/02508281.2020.1800201google scholar: lookup
  105. Van Den Berg M, Giagos V, Lee C, Brown W, Cawdell-Smith A, Hinch G. The influence of odour, taste and nutrients on feeding behaviour and food preferences in horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2016;184:41–50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.015google scholar: lookup
  106. Vieira FVR, Silveira RMF, Franchi GA, da Silva IJO. The impact of training on stockpersons’ behaviour and cows’ fear response. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 2023;11(2).
    doi: 10.31893/jabb.23017google scholar: lookup
  107. Vincent A, Burke R, Coates K. A competition question: Horse welfare, pentathletes, and competitive riding. Zoophilologica. Polish Journal of Animal Studies 2023;pp 1–23.
    doi: 10.31261/zoophilologica.2023.s.04google scholar: lookup
  108. Walker KD. Appreciative inquiry. 2023;pp 29–33.
  109. Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 2020;158(1):S65–S71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012pubmed: 32658654google scholar: lookup
  110. Webber S, Carter M, Smith W, Vetere F. Co-designing with orangutans: enhancing the design of enrichment for animals. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2020.
  111. Williams J, Douglas J, Davies E, Bloom F, Castejon-Riber C. Performance demands in the endurance rider. Comparative Exercise Physiology 2021;17(3):199–217.
    doi: 10.3920/CEP200033google scholar: lookup
  112. Williams JM, Berg LC, Clayton HM, Kirsch K, Marlin D, Randle H, Roepstroff L, MSv Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan, Weishaupt MA, Munsters C. A Delphi study to determine international and national equestrian expert opinions on domains and sub-domains essential to managing sporthorse health and welfare in the Olympic disciplines. Animals 2023;13(21):3404.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13213404pmc: PMC10650931pubmed: 37958159google scholar: lookup
  113. Yeates JW. Ascribing sentience: Evidential and ethical considerations in policymaking. Animals 2022;12(15):1893.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151893pmc: PMC9330238pubmed: 35892543google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.