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) / Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Infor...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(14); doi: 10.3390/ani12141822

Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses.

Abstract: Equine Quality of Life (QoL) is an important concern in decision making in veterinary medicine and is especially relevant for chronically ill or geriatric horses towards the end of their lives. To our knowledge, there is no currently available QoL assessment tool for chronically ill or geriatric horses that assesses equine QoL defined as the horse's evaluation of their life. However, tools exist to assess equine welfare in different contexts. Hence, the aims of this study were to analyse how equine welfare, QoL, well-being and happiness assessment tools label, define and operationalise the concepts and to discuss the tools' suitability to assess equine QoL in the context of end-of-life decisions for chronically ill or geriatric horses. Fourteen articles were found through a systematic literature search, describing ten equine welfare assessment tools and one approach to integrating equine QoL in veterinary practice that suggests QoL assessment parameters. We discuss that some welfare assessment tools have the potential to support the development of a QoL assessment tool informing decisions towards the end of horses' lives if they are adjusted to focus on the horses' experiences, to provide an integration into an overall QoL grade and are tailored to chronically ill or geriatric horses.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-07-17 PubMed ID: 35883370PubMed Central: PMC9311870DOI: 10.3390/ani12141822Google 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
  • Review

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.

The research article explores potential Quality of Life assessment tools for chronically ill or elderly horses, a vital consideration in veterinary decision making, despite there presently being no dedicated tool to evaluate a horse’s perception of their life quality. Specifically, the study analyses existing animal welfare assessment tools’ definitions and operationalisation of related concepts and discusses their appropriateness in assessing equine Quality of Life, specially in end-of-life situations for chronically ill or older horses.

Study Objective

  • The main goal of this research was to investigate current equine welfare and Quality of Life (QoL) assessment tools, focusing on their labelling, defining, and operationalising of pertinent concepts. Relevant to horses at the end of their lives, especially those geriatric or chronically ill, the study aims to explore these tools’ potential suitability for assessing equine QoL in this context.

Methodology

  • A systematic literature search was the basis of the methodology employed in this study. Fourteen articles were identified and analysed for this study, which included ten different equine welfare assessment tools and one approach for incorporating QoL assessment within traditional veterinary practice.

Findings

  • The findings suggested that some existing welfare assessment tools could support the development of a QoL tool specifically tailored towards decision making at the life-end situations for chronically ill or elderly horses. These tools would, however, need modifications to more closely focus on the individual horse’s experiences, and allow for the collection of data that can be compiled into an overall QoL score.

Implications

  • This study’s implications suggest an enhanced need for a dedicated tool in assessing elderly or chronically ill horses’ Quality of Life. It advocates for the adaptation of current welfare assessment tools. By shifting the focus to personalised experiences of individual horses and aiming for an integrated QoL score, these tools have the potential to influence decisions around end-of-life care for these animals, ultimately leading to improvements in their welfare and QoL.

Cite This Article

APA
Long M, Dürnberger C, Jenner F, Kelemen Z, Auer U, Grimm H. (2022). Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses. Animals (Basel), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141822

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 14

Researcher Affiliations

Long, Mariessa
  • Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Dürnberger, Christian
  • Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Jenner, Florien
  • Equine Surgery Unit, University Equine Hospital, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Kelemen, Zsófia
  • Equine Surgery Unit, University Equine Hospital, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Auer, Ulrike
  • Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care Medicine Unit, Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Grimm, Herwig
  • Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.

Grant Funding

  • This research was funded by Gut Aiderbichl. / Gut Aiderbichl

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 94 references
  1. Ireland J, Clegg P, McGowan C, Platt L, Pinchbeck G. Factors associated with mortality of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011;101:204–218.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.06.002pubmed: 21733586google scholar: lookup
  2. Ireland J, Clegg P, McGowan C, Duncan J, McCall S, Platt L, Pinchbeck G. Owners’ perceptions of quality of life in geriatric horses: A cross-sectional study.. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:483–495.
  3. McGowan T.W, Phillips C.J.C, Hodgson D.R, Perkins N, McGowan C.M. Euthanasia in aged horses: Relationship between the owner’s personality and their opinions on, and experience of, euthanasia of horses.. Anthrozoös 2012;25:261–275.
    doi: 10.2752/175303712X13403555186091google scholar: lookup
  4. Pollard D, Wylie C.E, Newton J.R, Verheyen K.L.P. Factors associated with euthanasia in horses and ponies enrolled in a laminitis cohort study in Great Britain.. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020;174:104833.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104833pubmed: 31751854google scholar: lookup
  5. Ireland J. Assessing quality of life in older horses.. UK-Vet Equine 2020;4:124–130.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2020.4.5.124google scholar: lookup
  6. McGowan C.M, Ireland J.L. Welfare, quality of life, and euthanasia of aged horses.. Vet. Clin. Equine 2016;32:355–367.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2016.04.011pubmed: 27449393google scholar: lookup
  7. McMillan F.D. Quality of life in animals.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2000;216:1904–1910.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2000.216.1904pubmed: 10863585google scholar: lookup
  8. Taylor K, Mills D. Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals?. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:55–65.
  9. McMillan F.D. Maximizing quality of life in ill animals.. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2003;39:227–235.
    doi: 10.5326/0390227pubmed: 12755194google scholar: lookup
  10. Mellor D. Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare.. Animals 2017;7:60.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080060pmc: PMC5575572pubmed: 28792485google scholar: lookup
  11. Yeates J. Is “a Life Worth Living” a Concept Worth Having?. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:397–406.
  12. Russell J.A. Emotion, core affect, and psychological construction.. Cogn. Emot. 2009;23:1259–1283.
    doi: 10.1080/02699930902809375google scholar: lookup
  13. Webb L.E, Veenhoven R, Harfeld J.L, Jensen M.B. What is animal happiness?. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2019;1438:62–76.
    doi: 10.1111/nyas.13983pmc: PMC7379717pubmed: 30345570google scholar: lookup
  14. McMillan F.D. The concept of quality of life in animals.. In: McMillan F.D., editor. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. 1st ed. Blackwell Publishing; Ames, IA, USA: 2005. pp. 183–200.
  15. McMillan F.D, Yeates J.W. The problems with well-being terminology.. In: McMillan F.D., editor. Mental Health and Well-being in Animals. 2nd ed. CAB International; Boston, MA, USA: 2020. pp. 8–20.
  16. Richter S.H, Hintze S. From the individual to the population—And back again? Emphasising the role of the individual in animal welfare science.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019;212:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.012google scholar: lookup
  17. Parker R.A, Yeates J.W. Assessment of quality of life in equine patients.. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:244–249.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00411.xpubmed: 21767299google scholar: lookup
  18. Yeates J.W. Quality of life of animals in veterinary medical practice.. In: McMillan F.D., editor. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. 2nd ed. CAB International; Boston, MA, USA: 2020. pp. 82–95.
  19. Mullan S. Assessment of quality of life in veterinary practice: Developing tools for companion animal carers and veterinarians.. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 2015;6:203–210.
    doi: 10.2147/VMRR.S62079pmc: PMC6070017pubmed: 30101107google scholar: lookup
  20. Wojciechowska J.I, Hewson C.J. Quality-of-life assessment in pet dogs.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005;226:722–728.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.722pubmed: 15776944google scholar: lookup
  21. Broom D. Quality of life means welfare: How is it related to other concepts and assessed?. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:45–53.
  22. Yeates J. Quality of life and animal behaviour.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;181:19–26.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.018google scholar: lookup
  23. Lawrence A.B, Vigors B, Sandøe P. What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—A critical review of the literature.. Animals 2019;9:783.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9100783pmc: PMC6826906pubmed: 31614498google scholar: lookup
  24. Rault J, Hintze S, Camerlink I, Yee J. Positive welfare and the like: Distinct views and a proposed framework.. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:370.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00370pmc: PMC7343720pubmed: 32714949google scholar: lookup
  25. Shearer T. Where have we been, where are we going: Continuity from 2011.. Vet. Clin. Small Anim. 2019;49:325–338.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2019.01.001pubmed: 30846384google scholar: lookup
  26. Springer S, Axiak Flammer S. 36. Shifting from ‘cure’ to ‘care’—Theoretical considerations of small animal hospice and palliative care.. In: Schübel H., Wallimann-Helmer I., editors. Justice and Food Security in a Changing Climate, Proceedings of the EurSafe 2021, Fribourg, Switzerland, 24–26 June 2021. Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2021. pp. 242–247.
  27. Hausberger M, Lerch N, Guilbaud E, Stomp M, Grandgeorge M, Henry S, Lesimple C. On-farm welfare assessment of horses: The risks of putting the cart before the horse.. Animals 2020;10:371.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10030371pmc: PMC7143857pubmed: 32106531google scholar: lookup
  28. April K.T, Feldman D.E, Platt R.W, Duffy C.M. Comparison between children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and their parents concerning perceived quality of life.. Qual. Life Res. 2006;15:655–661.
    doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-3690-1pubmed: 16688498google scholar: lookup
  29. Bryan S, Hardyman W, Bentham P, Buckley A, Laight A. Proxy completion of EQ-5D in patients with dementia.. Qual. Life Res. 2005;14:107–118.
    doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-1920-6pubmed: 15789945google scholar: lookup
  30. Janse A.J, Uiterwaal C.S.P.M, Gemke R.J.B.J, Kimpen J.L.L, Sinnema G. A difference in perception of quality of life in chronically ill children was found between parents and pediatricians.. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005;58:495–502.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.010pubmed: 15845336google scholar: lookup
  31. Pearlman R.A, Uhlmann R.F. Quality of life in chronic diseases: Perceptions of elderly patients.. J. Gerontol. 1988;43:M25–M30.
    doi: 10.1093/geronj/43.2.M25pubmed: 3346521google scholar: lookup
  32. Pierre U, Wood-Dauphinee S, Korner-Bitensky N, Gayton D, Hanley J. Proxy use of the Canadian SF-36 in rating health status of the disabled elderly.. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998;51:983–990.
    doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00090-0pubmed: 9817116google scholar: lookup
  33. Sneeuw K.C.A, Sprangers M.A.G, Aaronson N.K. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease.. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2002;55:1130–1143.
    doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00479-1pubmed: 12507678google scholar: lookup
  34. Vetter T.R, Bridgewater C.L, McGwin G. An observational study of patient versus parental perceptions of health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with a chronic pain condition: Who should the clinician believe?. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2012;10:85.
    doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-85pmc: PMC3478968pubmed: 22824550google scholar: lookup
  35. Belshaw Z, Asher L, Harvey N.D, Dean R.S. Quality of life assessment in domestic dogs: An evidence-based rapid review.. Vet. J. 2015;206:203–212.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.016pmc: PMC4641869pubmed: 26358965google scholar: lookup
  36. Bijsmans E.S, Jepson R.E, Syme H.M, Elliott J, Niessen S.J.M. Psychometric validation of a general health quality of life tool for cats used to compare healthy cats and cats with chronic kidney disease.. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2016;30:183–191.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.13656pmc: PMC4913638pubmed: 26567089google scholar: lookup
  37. Budke C.M, Levine J.M, Kerwin S.C, Levine G.J, Hettlich B.F, Slater M.R. Evaluation of a questionnaire for obtaining owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments for dogs with spinal cord injuries.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008;233:925–930.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.233.6.925pubmed: 18795853google scholar: lookup
  38. Giuffrida M.A, Kerrigan S.M. Quality of life measurement in prospective studies of cancer treatments in dogs and cats.. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2014;28:1824–1829.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.12460pmc: PMC4895614pubmed: 25308707google scholar: lookup
  39. Lavan R.P. Development and validation of a survey for quality of life assessment by owners of healthy dogs.. Vet. J. 2013;197:578–582.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.03.021pubmed: 23639368google scholar: lookup
  40. Niessen S.J.M, Powney S, Guitian J, Niessen A.P.M, Pion P.D, Shaw J.A.M, Church D.B. Evaluation of a quality-of-life tool for cats with diabetes mellitus.. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2010;24:1098–1105.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0579.xpubmed: 20707839google scholar: lookup
  41. Viksten S.M, Visser E.K, Blokhuis H.J. A comparative study of the application of two horse welfare assessment protocols.. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A—Anim. Sci. 2016;66:56–65.
    doi: 10.1080/09064702.2016.1186726google scholar: lookup
  42. Browning H. If I Could Talk to the Animals: Measuring Subjective Animal Welfare.. Ph.D. Thesis. The Australian National University; Canberra, Australia: 2020.
  43. Huth M, Weich K, Grimm H. Veterinarians between the frontlines?! The concept of One Health and three frames of health in veterinary medicine.. Food Ethics 2019;3:91–108.
    doi: 10.1007/s41055-019-00038-4google scholar: lookup
  44. Gunnarsson S. The conceptualisation of health and disease in veterinary medicine.. Acta Vet. Scand. 2006;48:20.
    doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-48-20pmc: PMC1949874pubmed: 17090301google scholar: lookup
  45. WHO. Basic Documents.. 49th ed. World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland: 2020. [(accessed on 1 June 2022)]. Constitution of the World Health Organization; p. 1. Including Amendments Adopted Up to 31 May 2019. Available online: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=1.
  46. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare.. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008;50:S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1pmc: PMC4235121pubmed: 19049678google scholar: lookup
  47. Briefer Freymond S, Briefer E.F, Zollinger A, Gindrat-von Allmen Y, Wyss C, Bachmann I. Behaviour of horses in a judgment bias test associated with positive or negative reinforcement.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014;158:34–45.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.06.006google scholar: lookup
  48. Henry S, Fureix C, Rowberry R, Bateson M, Hausberger M. Do horses with poor welfare show ‘pessimistic’ cognitive biases?. Sci. Nat. 2017;104:8.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-016-1429-1pubmed: 28083632google scholar: lookup
  49. Hintze S, Roth E, Bachmann I, Würbel H. Toward a choice-based judgment bias task for horses.. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017;20:123–136.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1276834pubmed: 28139164google scholar: lookup
  50. Hintze S, Schanz L. Using the judgment bias task to identify behavioral indicators of affective state: Do eye wrinkles in horses reflect mood?. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021;8:681.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.676888pmc: PMC8295722pubmed: 34307525google scholar: lookup
  51. Löckener S, Reese S, Erhard M, Wöhr A.-C. Pasturing in herds after housing in horseboxes induces a positive cognitive bias in horses.. J. Vet. Behav. 2016;11:50–55.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.005google scholar: lookup
  52. Stomp M, d’Ingeo S, Henry S, Cousillas H, Hausberger M. Brain activity reflects (chronic) welfare state: Evidence from individual electroencephalography profiles in an animal model.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021;236:105271.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105271google scholar: lookup
  53. Wemelsfelder F. How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour.. Anim Welf. 2007;16:25–31.
  54. Fleming P.A, Paisley C.L, Barnes A.L, Wemelsfelder F. Application of qualitative behavioural assessment to horses during an endurance ride.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;144:80–88.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.001google scholar: lookup
  55. Hintze S, Murphy E, Bachmann I, Wemelsfelder F, Würbel H. Qualitative behaviour assessment of horses exposed to short-term emotional treatments.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;196:44–51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.06.012google scholar: lookup
  56. Minero M, Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Canali E, Barbieri S, Zanella A, Pascuzzo R, Wemelsfelder F. Using qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) to explore the emotional state of horses and its association with human-animal relationship.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018;204:53–59.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.008google scholar: lookup
  57. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Zanella A, Minero M. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  58. Sommerville R, Brown A.F, Upjohn M. A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries.. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  59. Raw Z, Rodrigues J.B, Rickards K, Ryding J, Norris S.L, Judge A, Kubasiewicz L.M, Watson T.L, Little H, Hart B. Equid assessment, research and scoping (EARS): The development and implementation of a new equid welfare assessment and monitoring tool.. Animals 2020;10:297.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020297pmc: PMC7070371pubmed: 32069910google scholar: lookup
  60. Fröhlich N, Sells P.D, Sommerville R, Bolwell C.F, Cantley C, Martin J.E, Gordon S.J.G, Coombs T. Welfare assessment and husbandry practices of working horses in Fiji.. Animals 2020;10:392.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10030392pmc: PMC7142562pubmed: 32121106google scholar: lookup
  61. Harvey A.M, Beausoleil N.J, Ramp D, Mellor D.J. A Ten-stage protocol for assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals: Free-roaming horses (Equus ferus caballus) as an example.. Animals 2020;10:148.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010148pmc: PMC7022444pubmed: 31963232google scholar: lookup
  62. Kubasiewicz L.M, Rodrigues J.B, Norris S.L, Watson T.L, Rickards K, Bell N, Judge A, Raw Z, Burden F.A. The welfare aggregation and guidance (WAG) tool: A new method to summarize global welfare assessment data for equids.. Animals 2020;10:546.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040546pmc: PMC7222376pubmed: 32218133google scholar: lookup
  63. DuBois C, DeVries T, 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. 2018;63:35–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.12.004google scholar: lookup
  64. Viksten S, Visser E, Nyman S, Blokhuis H. Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol.. Anim. Welf. 2017;26:59–65.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.1.059google scholar: lookup
  65. Hitchens P.L, Hultgren J, Frössling J, Emanuelson U, Keeling L.J. An epidemiological analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities.. Animal 2017;11:1237–1248.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116002512pubmed: 27931268google scholar: lookup
  66. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses.. Università degli Studi di Milano; Milan, Spain: 2015. Version 1.1.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_HORSES_2015google scholar: lookup
  67. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Welfare Monitoring System: Assessment Protocol for Horses. 2.0 Version.. Wageningen UR Livestock Research; Lelystad, The Netherlands: 2011. pp. 1–44. Report Number 569.
  68. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D.G, Group T.P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097pmc: PMC2707599pubmed: 19621072google scholar: lookup
  69. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Welfare Monitoring System Horses—Calculation of Scores—Version 2.0.. Wageningen UR Livestock Research; Lelystad, The Netherlands: 2012. pp. 1–44. Report Number 570.
  70. Sanmartín Sánchez L, Blanco-Penedo I, Perea Muñoz J.M, Quiñones Pérez C, Delgado J.V, Vega-Pla J.L. Welfare assessment at a Spanish army equine breeding centre.. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020;19:137–146.
    doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2019.1706433google scholar: lookup
  71. Haddy E, Burden F, Prado-Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L. Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico.. Equine Vet. J. 2021;53:763–770.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13349pubmed: 32920907google scholar: lookup
  72. Norris S.L, Kubasiewicz L.M, Watson T.L, Little H.A, Yadav A.K, Thapa S, Raw Z, Burden F.A. A new framework for assessing equid welfare: A case study of working equids in Nepalese brick kilns.. Animals 2020;10:1074.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10061074pmc: PMC7341268pubmed: 32580418google scholar: lookup
  73. Rodrigues J.B, Sullivan R.J.E, Judge A, Norris S.L, Burden F.A. Quantifying poor working equid welfare in Nepalese brick kilns using a welfare assessment tool.. Vet. Rec. 2020;187:445.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.106135pubmed: 33115919google scholar: lookup
  74. National Farm Animal Care Council. Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines.. Equine Canada; Ottawa, ON, Canada: 2013. pp. 1–92.
  75. Dubois C, Devries T, Haley D, Lawlis P, Merkies K. Farm manager involvement in an equine on-farm welfare assessment: Opportunities for education and improvement.. Anim. Welf. 2019;28:173–181.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.2.173google scholar: lookup
  76. Viksten S, Visser E, Hitchens P, Blokhuis H. The effects of feedback from horse welfare assessments.. Anim. Welf. 2018;27:125–131.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.2.125google scholar: lookup
  77. Czycholl I, Büttner K, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. Evaluation of consistency over time of the use of the animal welfare indicators protocol for horses.. Anim. Welf. 2021;30:81–90.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.30.1.081google scholar: lookup
  78. Czycholl I, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. Interobserver reliability of the animal welfare indicators welfare assessment protocol for horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;75:112–121.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.005pubmed: 31002084google scholar: lookup
  79. Czycholl I, Büttner K, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. An indication of reliability of the two-level approach of the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses.. Animals 2018;8:7.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8010007pmc: PMC5789302pubmed: 29303962google scholar: lookup
  80. 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;11:254–260.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001452pubmed: 27406177google scholar: lookup
  81. Raspa F, Tarantola M, Bergero D, Bellino C, Mastrazzo C.M, Visconti A, Valvassori E, Vervuert I, Valle E. Stocking density affects welfare indicators in horses reared for meat production.. Animals 2020;10:1103.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10061103pmc: PMC7341190pubmed: 32604808google scholar: lookup
  82. Mellor D.J, Beausoleil N.J, Littlewood K.E, McLean A.N, McGreevy P.D, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare.. Animals 2020;10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  83. Broom D.M. Indicators of poor welfare.. Br. Vet. J. 1986;142:524–526.
    doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0pubmed: 3594185google scholar: lookup
  84. Yeates J. Life, the universe and everything.. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2010;51:81–82.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00907.xpubmed: 20136997google scholar: lookup
  85. Dalla Costa E, Murray L, Dai F, Canali E, Minero M. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: A review of animal-based indicators.. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:323–341.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.3.323google scholar: lookup
  86. Hockenhull J, Whay H.R. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  87. Lesimple C. Indicators of horse welfare: State-of-the-art.. Animals 2020;10:294.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pmc: PMC7070675pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  88. Fureix C, Menguy H, Hausberger M. Partners with bad temper: Reject or cure? A study of chronic pain and aggression in horses.. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e12434.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012434pmc: PMC2928779pubmed: 20865160google scholar: lookup
  89. Fureix C. 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
  90. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Haraldsson H. Significance of group composition for the welfare of pastured horses.. Animals 2019;9:14.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9010014pmc: PMC6356279pubmed: 30621272google scholar: lookup
  91. Ireland J.L, Clegg P.D, McGowan C.M, McKane S.A, Chandler K.J, Pinchbeck G.L. Comparison of owner-reported health problems with veterinary assessment of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:94–100.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00394.xpubmed: 21696434google scholar: lookup
  92. McGowan T, Pinchbeck G, Phillips C, Perkins N, Hodgson D, McGowan C. A survey of aged horses in Queensland, Australia. Part 2: Clinical signs and owners’ perceptions of health and welfare.. Aust. Vet. J. 2010;88:465–471.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00638.xpubmed: 21091457google scholar: lookup
  93. Kim S.-M, Cho G.-J. Validation of eye temperature assessed using infrared thermography as an indicator of welfare in horses.. Appl. Sci. 2021;11:7186.
    doi: 10.3390/app11167186google scholar: lookup
  94. Vøls K.K, Heden M.A, Kristensen A.T, Sandøe P. Quality of life assessment in dogs and cats receiving chemotherapy—A review of current methods.. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2017;15:684–691.
    doi: 10.1111/vco.12242pubmed: 27140826google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.