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) / Use of Remote Camera Traps to Evaluate Animal-Based Welfare ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(7); 2101; doi: 10.3390/ani11072101

Use of Remote Camera Traps to Evaluate Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Individual Free-Roaming Wild Horses.

Abstract: We previously developed a Ten-Stage Protocol for scientifically assessing the welfare of individual free-roaming wild animals using the Five Domains Model. The protocol includes developing methods for measuring or observing welfare indices. In this study, we assessed the use of remote camera traps to evaluate an extensive range of welfare indicators in individual free-roaming wild horses. Still images and videos were collected and analysed to assess whether horses could be detected and identified individually, which welfare indicators could be reliably evaluated, and whether behaviour could be quantitatively assessed. Remote camera trapping was successful in detecting and identifying horses (75% on still images and 72% on video observation events), across a range of habitats including woodlands where horses could not be directly observed. Twelve indicators of welfare across the Five Domains were assessed with equal frequency on both still images and video, with those most frequently assessable being body condition score (73% and 79% of observation events, respectively), body posture (76% for both), coat condition (42% and 52%, respectively), and whether or not the horse was sweating excessively (42% and 45%, respectively). An additional five indicators could only be assessed on video; those most frequently observable being presence or absence of weakness (66%), qualitative behavioural assessment (60%), presence or absence of shivering (51%), and gait at walk (50%). Specific behaviours were identified in 93% of still images and 84% of video events, and proportions of time different behaviours were captured could be calculated. Most social behaviours were rarely observed, but close spatial proximity to other horses, as an indicator of social bonds, was recorded in 36% of still images, and 29% of video observation events. This is the first study that describes detailed methodology for these purposes. The results of this study can also form the basis of application to other species, which could contribute significantly to advancing the field of wild animal welfare.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-07-15 PubMed ID: 34359229PubMed Central: PMC8300222DOI: 10.3390/ani11072101Google 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.

The research article discusses the use of remote camera trapping for assessing the welfare of free-roaming wild horses using a combination of still images and videos. The study successfully detects and identifies horses and evaluates a range of welfare indicators.

Objective of the Research

  • The goal of this research was to assess the utility of remote camera traps in evaluating a comprehensive spectrum of welfare indicators in free-roaming wild horses.
  • The researchers used a Ten-Stage Protocol they previously developed, based on the Five Domains Model, to carry out a systematic evaluation of the animals’ welfare.

Research Methodology

  • The research was conducted by capturing and analyzing still images and videos of the wild horses.
  • The aim was to ascertain if the horses could be detected and identified individually.
  • Part of the study was also to determine which welfare indicators could be reliably measured.
  • The researchers also set out to establish if behaviour can be quantitatively evaluated.

Research Findings

  • The study found that remote camera trapping was effective for detecting and identifying horses, with success rates of 75% on still images and 72% on video observation events.
  • A total of twelve indicators of welfare across the Five Domains were assessed with equal frequency on both still images and video.
  • The most frequently assessable indicators included body condition score, body posture, coat condition, and whether the horse was sweating excessively.
  • An additional five indicators could only be assessed on video; these were the presence or absence of weakness, qualitative behavioural assessment, presence or absence of shivering, and gait at walk.
  • The study also identified specific behaviours in 93% of still images and 84% of video events, allowing researchers to calculate the proportions of time different behaviours were captured.
  • Social behaviours were mostly unobserved, but close spatial proximity to other horses, an indicator of social bonds, was recorded in a significant percentage of still images and video observation events.

Conclusions and Future Applications

  • This research contributes toward a detailed methodology for assessing the welfare of free-roaming wild horses using remote camera trapping.
  • The outcomes can serve as the groundwork for applications to evaluate the welfare of other species, thereby significantly advancing the field of wild animal welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Harvey AM, Morton JM, Mellor DJ, Russell V, Chapple RS, Ramp D. (2021). Use of Remote Camera Traps to Evaluate Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Individual Free-Roaming Wild Horses. Animals (Basel), 11(7), 2101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072101

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 7
PII: 2101

Researcher Affiliations

Harvey, Andrea M
  • Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
Morton, John M
  • Jemora Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 2277, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
Mellor, David J
  • Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
Russell, Vibeke
  • Veterinary Contractor, c/o Animal Emergency Australia, P.O. Box 1854, Springwood, QLD 4217, Australia.
Chapple, Rosalie S
  • Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, 16 Dunmore Lane, Katoomba, NSW 2780, Australia.
Ramp, Daniel
  • Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 16;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010148pmc: PMC7022444pubmed: 31963232google scholar: lookup
  2. Klingel H. Social organization and reproduction in equids.. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1975 Oct;(23):7-11.
    pubmed: 1060868
  3. Duncan P. Time budgets of Camargue horses: II. Time budgets of adult horses and weaned sub-adults.. Behaviour 1979;72:26–49.
    doi: 10.1163/156853980X00023google scholar: lookup
  4. Garrott RA, Taylor L. Dynamics of a feral horse population in Montana.. J. Wildl. Manag. 1990;54:603–612.
    doi: 10.2307/3809357google scholar: lookup
  5. Berman DM. The Ecology of Feral Horses in Central Australia.. Ph.D. Thesis. University of New England; Armidale, Australia: 1991.
  6. Linklater WL. Social and Spatial Organisation of Horses.. Ph.D. Thesis. Massey University; Palmerston North, New Zealand: 1998.
  7. Linklater WL, Cameron EZ, Stafford KJ, Veltman CJ. Social and spatial structure and range use by Kaimanawa wild horses (Equus caballus: Equidae). N. Zeal. J. Ecol. 2000;24:139–152.
  8. Cameron E, Linklater W, Stafford K, Minot E. Social grouping and maternal behaviour in feral horses (Equus caballus): The influence of males on maternal protectiveness.. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2003;53:92–101.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-002-0556-1google scholar: lookup
  9. Linklater WL, Cameron EZ, Minot EO, Stafford KJ. Feral horse demography and population growth in the Kaimanawa Ranges, New Zealand.. Wildl. Res. 2004;31:119–1128.
    doi: 10.1071/WR02067google scholar: lookup
  10. Dawson MJ. The Population Ecology of Feral Horses in the Australian Alps–Management Summary.. Australian Alps Liaison Committee; Canberra, Australia: 2005.
  11. Cameron EZ, Linklater WL, Stafford KJ, Minot EO. Maternal investment results in better foal condition through increased play behaviour in horses.. Anim. Behav. 2008;76:1511–1518.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.009google scholar: lookup
  12. Grange S, Duncan P, Gaillard JM. Poor horse traders: large mammals trade survival for reproduction during the process of feralization.. Proc Biol Sci 2009 May 22;276(1663):1911-9.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1828pmc: PMC2674491pubmed: 19324787google scholar: lookup
  13. Ransom JI, Cade BS. Quantifying equid behavior: A research ethogram for free-roaming feral horses.. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Report 2-A9. USGS; Fort Collins, CO, USA: 2009.
  14. Ransom JI, Cade BS, Hobbs NT. Influences of immunocontraception on time budgets, social behavior, and body condition in feral horses.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;124:51–60.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.015google scholar: lookup
  15. Scorolli AL, Lopez Cazorla AC. Demography of feral horses (Equus caballus): A long-term study in Tornquist Park, Argentina.. Wildl. Res. 2010;37:207–214.
    doi: 10.1071/WR09059google scholar: lookup
  16. Dawson MJ, Hone J. Demography and dynamics of three wild horse populations in the Australian Alps.. Austral Ecol. 2012;37:97–109.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02247.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  17. Zabek MA. Understanding Population Dynamics of Feral Horses in the Tuan and Toolara State Forest for Successful Long-Term Population Management.. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Queensland; Queensland, Australia: 2015.
  18. Zabek MA, Berman DM, Blomberg SP, Collins CW, Wright J. Population dynamics of feral horses (Equus caballus) in an exotic coniferous plantation in Australia.. Wildl. Res. 2016;43:358–367.
    doi: 10.1071/WR15209google scholar: lookup
  19. Scorolli AL. Feral horse population model and body condition: Useful management tools in Tornquist Park, Argentina?. J. Wildl. Manag. 2020:1–7.
    doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21965google scholar: lookup
  20. Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of Animal Well-Being and Predicting the Impact of Procedures on Experimental Animals.. Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. ANZCCART; Glen Osmond, Australia: 1994. pp. 3–18.
  21. Mellor DJ, Patterson-Kane E, Stafford KJ. The Sciences of Animal Welfare.. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing; Oxford, UK: 2009.
  22. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states.. Anim. Welf. 2015;24:241–253.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241google scholar: lookup
  23. Mellor DJ. Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Aug 9;7(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080060pmc: PMC5575572pubmed: 28792485google scholar: lookup
  24. 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 (Basel) 2020 Oct 14;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  25. Cutler L, Swann DE. Using Remote Photography in Wildlife Ecology: A Review.. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1999 27:571–581.
  26. Silveira L, Jácomo ATA, Diniz-Filho JAF. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: A comparative evaluation.. Biol. Conserv. 2003;114:351–355.
    doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00063-6google scholar: lookup
  27. O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses.. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 2010. Evolution of camera trapping; pp. 1–8.
  28. Meek PD, Ballard GA, Vernes K, Flemming PJS. The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia.. Aust. Mammal. 2015;37:1–12.
    doi: 10.1071/AM14021google scholar: lookup
  29. Silver SC, Ostro LET, Ma LK. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis.. Oryx. 2004;38:148–154.
    doi: 10.1017/S0030605304000286google scholar: lookup
  30. Smit J, Pozo R, Cusack J, Nowak K, Jones T. Using camera traps to study the age-sex structure and behaviour of crop-using elephants in Udzungwa Mountains National Park, Tanzania.. Oryx. 2017;53.
    doi: 10.1017/S0030605317000345google scholar: lookup
  31. Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Samba Kuma N. Estimating of Demographic Parameters in a Tiger Population from Long-term Camera Trap Data.. In: O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU, editors. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 2010. pp. 145–162.
  32. Duggan G, Burn CC, Clauss M. Nocturnal behavior in captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)--A pilot study.. Zoo Biol 2016 Jan-Feb;35(1):14-8.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21248pubmed: 26479272google scholar: lookup
  33. Rose PE, Lloyd I, Brereton JE, Croft DP. Patterns of nocturnal activity in captive greater flamingos.. Zoo Biol 2018 Sep;37(5):290-299.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21440pubmed: 30168187google scholar: lookup
  34. Fazio JM, Barthel T, Freeman EW, Garlick-Ott K, Scholle A, Brown JL. Utilizing Camera Traps, Closed Circuit Cameras and Behavior Observation Software to Monitor Activity Budgets, Habitat Use, and Social Interactions of Zoo-Housed Asian Elephants (Elephus maximus).. Animals (Basel) 2020 Nov 3;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10112026pmc: PMC7692367pubmed: 33153175google scholar: lookup
  35. Wooster E, Wallach AD, Ramp D. The Wily and Courageous Red Fox: Behavioural Analysis of a Mesopredator at Resource Points Shared by an Apex Predator.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Nov 1;9(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9110907pmc: PMC6912404pubmed: 31683979google scholar: lookup
  36. Hockings KJ, Mubemba B, Avanzi C, Pleh K, Düx A, Bersacola E, Bessa J, Ramon M. Leprosy in Wild Chimpanzees.. bioRxiv 2020.
    doi: 10.1101/2020.11.10.374371google scholar: lookup
  37. Zhang Y, Cao QS, Rubenstein DI, Zang S, Songer M, Leimgruber P, Chu H, Cao J, Li K, Hu D. Water Use Patterns of Sympatric Przewalski's Horse and Khulan: Interspecific Comparison Reveals Niche Differences.. PLoS One 2015;10(7):e0132094.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132094pmc: PMC4498657pubmed: 26161909google scholar: lookup
  38. Schlichting PE, Dombrovski V, Beasley JC. Use of abandoned structures by Przewalski’s wild horses and other wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.. Mammal Res. 2020;65:161–165.
    doi: 10.1007/s13364-019-00451-4google scholar: lookup
  39. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares.. Equine Vet J 1983 Oct;15(4):371-2.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xpubmed: 6641685google scholar: lookup
  40. Carroll CL, Huntington PJ. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses.. Equine Vet J 1988 Jan;20(1):41-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  41. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995;43:147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  42. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Lawrence AB, Mendl MT. Assessing the ‘whole-animal’: A Free-Choice-Profiling approach.. Anim. Behav. 2001;62:209–220.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1741google scholar: lookup
  43. McDonnell SM, Poulin A. Equid play ethogram.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;78:263–290.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00112-0google scholar: lookup
  44. McDonnell SM. The Equid Ethogram: A Practical Field Guide to Horse Behaviour.. CAB International; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2003.
  45. Ashley FH, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies.. Equine Vet J 2005 Nov;37(6):565-75.
    doi: 10.2746/042516405775314826pubmed: 16295937google scholar: lookup
  46. Wemelsfelder F. How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour.. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:25–31.
  47. Samuel EK, Whay HR, Mullan S. A preliminary study investigating the physical welfare and welfare code compliance for tethered and free-ranging horses on common land in South Wales.. Anim. Welf. 2012;21:593–598.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.4.593google scholar: lookup
  48. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration.. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  49. 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
  50. Mullan S, Szmaraged C, Hotchkiss I, Whay HR. The welfare of long-line tethered and free-ranging horses kept on public grazing land in South Wales.. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:25–37.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.025google scholar: lookup
  51. Hockenhull J, Whay HR. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  52. Gleerup KB, Forkman B, Lindegaard C, Andersen PH. An equine pain face.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2015 Jan;42(1):103-14.
    doi: 10.1111/vaa.12212pmc: PMC4312484pubmed: 25082060google scholar: lookup
  53. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Zanella AJ, Minero M. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim. Welf. 2016;2:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Sommerville R, Brown AF, Upjohn M. A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries.. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  57. 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 (Basel) 2018 Jan 5;8(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8010007pmc: PMC5789302pubmed: 29303962google scholar: lookup
  58. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Haraldsson H. Significance of Group Composition for the Welfare of Pastured Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Jan 5;9(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9010014pmc: PMC6356279pubmed: 30621272google scholar: lookup
  59. Torcivia C, McDonnell S. Equine Discomfort Ethogram.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Feb 23;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020580pmc: PMC7931104pubmed: 33672338google scholar: lookup
  60. Wolter R, Stefanski V, Krueger K. Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Oct 27;8(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110191pmc: PMC6262610pubmed: 30373257google scholar: lookup
  61. Goel MK, Khanna P, Kishore J. Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate.. Int J Ayurveda Res 2010 Oct;1(4):274-8.
    doi: 10.4103/0974-7788.76794pmc: PMC3059453pubmed: 21455458google scholar: lookup
  62. Meek P, Ballard G, Claridge AW, Kays R, Moseby K, Brien TO, O’Connell A, Sanderson JB, Swann DE, Tobler MW. Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research.. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014;23:2321–2343.
    doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0712-8google scholar: lookup
  63. Kophamel S, Illing B, Ariel E, Difalco M, Skerratt LF, Hamann M, Ward LC, Méndez D, Munns SL. Importance of health assessments for conservation in noncaptive wildlife.. Conserv Biol 2022 Feb;36(1):e13724.
    doi: 10.1111/cobi.13724pubmed: 33634525google scholar: lookup
  64. Fadok VA. Overview of equine pruritus.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1995 Apr;11(1):1-10.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30327-9pubmed: 7634158google scholar: lookup
  65. Metz M, Grundmann S, Ständer S. Pruritus: an overview of current concepts.. Vet Dermatol 2011 Apr;22(2):121-31.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2010.00945.xpubmed: 21251097google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 10 times.
  1. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses. Animals (Basel) 2023 Apr 28;13(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091507pubmed: 37174544google scholar: lookup
  2. Boys RM, Beausoleil NJ, Pawley MDM, Littlewood KE, Betty EL, Stockin KA. Identification of potential welfare and survival indicators for stranded cetaceans through international, interdisciplinary expert opinion. R Soc Open Sci 2022 Oct;9(10):220646.
    doi: 10.1098/rsos.220646pubmed: 36312566google scholar: lookup
  3. Boys RM, Beausoleil NJ, Pawley MDM, Betty EL, Stockin KA. Evaluating Potential Cetacean Welfare Indicators from Video of Live Stranded Long-Finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala melas edwardii). Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 21;12(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141861pubmed: 35883407google scholar: lookup
  4. White SC, Thomas J, Shores C, Zimmerman K. Where Dinner Roams: The Role of Feral Horses as a Resource Subsidy for Wolves and Cougars in West-Central British Columbia. Ecol Evol 2026 Feb;16(2):e73089.
    doi: 10.1002/ece3.73089pubmed: 41684831google scholar: lookup
  5. Czycholl I, Skovlund CR, Forkman B. Literature review of the use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment with a fixed list of terms. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1588346.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1588346pubmed: 41585521google scholar: lookup
  6. Simmons AG, Boys RM, Nunny L, Simmonds MP. An assessment of cetacean welfare in the Faroe Islands' drive hunt. Biol Lett 2025 Nov;21(11):20250311.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2025.0311pubmed: 41189502google scholar: lookup
  7. Zieliński D, Nawłatyna P, Wójcik Z, Sobieszek B, Słaby A, Nolewajka M, Kapustka J. Assessment of Animal Welfare at an Exotic Animal Fair in Poland: A Focus on the Quality of Exhibition Containers for Reptiles and Amphibians. Animals (Basel) 2024 Jun 25;14(13).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14131872pubmed: 38997984google scholar: lookup
  8. Schütz AK, Louton H, Fischer M, Probst C, Gethmann JM, Conraths FJ, Homeier-Bachmann T. Automated Detection and Counting of Wild Boar in Camera Trap Images. Animals (Basel) 2024 May 8;14(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14101408pubmed: 38791626google scholar: lookup
  9. Hampton JO, Hemsworth LM, Hemsworth PH, Hyndman TH, Sandøe P. Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model. Anim Welf 2023;32:e62.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.84pubmed: 38487458google scholar: lookup
  10. Górecka-Bruzda A, Siemieniuch M, Lansade L, Stanley CR. How Useful Are Existing Protocols in the Quick Assessment of the Welfare of Semi-Feral Horses? Pilot Study on Konik Polski Horses Living in the Forest Sanctuary. Animals (Basel) 2023 Dec 19;14(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14010008pubmed: 38200740google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.