FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2018; 8(3); 41; doi: 10.3390/ani8030041

Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity-competition; C12 Activity-work; C13 Activity-breeding females; and C14 Activity-breeding males. Scores on a 1-10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1-10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-03-18 PubMed ID: 29562654PubMed Central: PMC5867529DOI: 10.3390/ani8030041Google 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 study used a specialist panel to assess the negative impact of common domestic horse practices on their welfare. The aspects studied included veterinary treatment, equine handling, and care tactics. The intent was to determine any harmful effects these practices have on horses and to provide insights for better welfare practices.

Five Domains Model

  • The research employed the use of the Five Domains Model, a tool that assesses animal welfare by evaluating physical and mental states. These domains include nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioural interactions, and psychological, labelled as Domain 1 through 5, respectively.
  • The model was used to analyze the impacts of various common interventions on horse welfare. These were considered across 14 different horse care and training contexts.

Procedures and Evaluation

  • The panelists scored the impacts of these interventions on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most severe impact on Domain 5, which evaluates the horse’s mental state.
  • The panel met over four days for the assessment and definition of the various interventions, discussing and ranking each in terms of their negative effect on the welfare of the horses.

Findings

  • The research identified the most severe negative impacts within each context, with some practices such as abrupt, individual weaning and indoor tie stalls with no social contact scoring notably high.
  • Other practices like feeding 100% low-energy concentrate and major deep intracavity surgery also scored high, indicating a significant adverse welfare impact.
  • Practices associated with breeding, like using a horse as a wet nurse during the transition between foals and using a teaser horse, presented less severe, but nonetheless significant, welfare impacts.
  • The scores for Domain 5 showed a strong correlation with the overall impact scores assigned by the panelists before the workshop, thus implying a consistent perception of welfare impacts among the experts.

Limitations and Future Use

  • The Domain 1, nutrition, had the weakest association with Domain 5, suggesting the need for more precise evaluation in this aspect.
  • The paper provided a series of assumptions for each context that future practitioners can refer to when using the same welfare assessment technique.
  • The research also highlighted limitations in the framework employed to apply the model. These limitations will be beneficial in refining the assessment process for future studies.

Cite This Article

APA
McGreevy P, Berger J, de Brauwere N, Doherty O, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L, Nicol C, Preshaw L, Thomson P, Tzioumis V, Webster J, Wolfensohn S, Yeates J, Jones B. (2018). Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare. Animals (Basel), 8(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8030041

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 3
PII: 41

Researcher Affiliations

McGreevy, Paul
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. paul.mcgreevy@sydney.edu.au.
Berger, Jeannine
  • San Francisco SPCA, 201 Alabama Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA. jberger@sfspca.org.
de Brauwere, Nic
  • Redwings Horse Sanctuary, Hapton, Norwich NR15 1SP, UK. nde-brauwere@redwings.co.uk.
Doherty, Orla
  • Life Sciences Department, University of Limerick, Limerick V94 T9PX, Ireland. animalbehaviourclinic@gmail.com.
Harrison, Anna
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK. anna.harrison@thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk.
Fiedler, Julie
  • Horse SA: 105 King William St, Kent Town 5067, Australia. horsesa@horsesa.asn.au.
Jones, Claudia
  • RSPCA NSW, PO Box 34, Yagoona 2199, Australia. cjones@rspcansw.org.au.
McDonnell, Sue
  • University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, 382 W Street Rd, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA. suemcd@vet.upenn.edu.
McLean, Andrew
  • Equitation Science International, 3 Wonderland Ave, Tuerong 3915, Victoria, Australia. andrewmclean@esi-education.com.
Nakonechny, Lindsay
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. lnakonec@uoguelph.ca.
Nicol, Christine
  • Royal Veterinary College, 4 Royal College St, Kings Cross, London NW1 OTU, UK. cnicol@rvc.ac.uk.
Preshaw, Liane
  • The Horse Trust, Slad Lane, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire HP27 OPP, UK. liane@horsetrust.org.uk.
Thomson, Peter
  • School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. peter.thomson@sydney.edu.au.
Tzioumis, Vicky
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. vicky.tzioumis@sydney.edu.au.
Webster, John
  • Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK. john.webster@bristol.ac.uk.
Wolfensohn, Sarah
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK. s.wolfensohn@surrey.ac.uk.
Yeates, James
  • RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, Sussex, RH13 9RS, UK. james.yeates@rspca.org.uk.
Jones, Bidda
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. bjones@rspca.org.au.
  • RSPCA Australia, P.O. Box 265, Deakin West, Australian Capital Territory 2600, Australia. bjones@rspca.org.au.

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

References

This article includes 38 references
  1. Home Office . Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures Act 1986) HMSO; London, UK: 1986.
  2. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, Macleod M, Mignini LE, Jayaram P, Khan KS. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review.. BMJ 2007 Jan 27;334(7586):197.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BEpmc: PMC1781970pubmed: 17175568google scholar: lookup
  3. Mason G, Mendl M. Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare?. Anim. Welf. 1993;2:301–319.
  4. Bracke M.B.M., Spruijt B., Metz J. Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible?. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1999;47:279–291.
  5. Dawkins M.S.. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:3–7.
  6. Hemsworth P.H., Coleman G.J.. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Farmed Animals. 2nd ed. CAB International; Oxon, UK: 2011.
  7. Bracke MB, Spruijt BM, Metz JH, Schouten WG. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: model structure and weighting procedure.. J Anim Sci 2002 Jul;80(7):1819-34.
    doi: 10.2527/2002.8071819xpubmed: 12162649google scholar: lookup
  8. Barnard C. Ethical regulation and animal science: Why animal behaviour is special. Anim. Behav. 2007;74:5–13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.002google scholar: lookup
  9. Nicol C.J., Caplen G., Edgar J., Browne W.J.. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Anim. Behav. 2009;78:413–424.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.016google scholar: lookup
  10. Bracke MB, Metz JH, Spruijt BM, Schouten WG. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: validation by expert opinion.. J Anim Sci 2002 Jul;80(7):1835-45.
    doi: 10.2527/2002.8071835xpubmed: 12162650google scholar: lookup
  11. Spoolder H., De Rosa G., Horning B., Waiblinger S., Wemelsfelder F. Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:529–534.
  12. Haslam S.M., Kestin S.C.. Use of conjoint analysis to weight welfare assessment measures for broiler chickens in UK husbandry systems. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:669–675.
  13. Whay H.R., Main D.C.J., Green L.E., Webster A.J.F.. Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:205–217.
  14. Rousing T., Jakobsen I.A., Hindhede J., Klaas I.C., Bonde M., Rensen J.T.. Evaluation of a welfare indicator protocol for assessing animal welfare in AMS herds: Researcher, production advisor and veterinary practitioner opinion. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:213–216.
  15. Broom D.M.. Quality of life means welfare: How is it related to other concepts and assessed?. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:45–53.
  16. Kirkwood J.K.. Quality of life: The heart of the matter. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:3–7.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.157.24.783-cgoogle scholar: lookup
  17. Scott E.M., Nolan A.M., Reid J., Wiseman-Orr M.L.. Can we really measure animal quality of life? Methodologies for measuring quality of life in people and other animals. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:17–24.
  18. Yeates J.W.. Is ‘a life worth living’ a concept worth having?. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:397–406.
  19. Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J.. 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
  20. Mellor D.J., Reid C.S.W.. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker R., Jenkin G., Mellor D.J., editors. Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching; Glen Osmond, Australia: 1994. pp. 3–18.
  21. Beausoleil NJ, Mellor DJ. Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control.. N Z Vet J 2015 Jan;63(1):37-43.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.956832pubmed: 25147947google scholar: lookup
  22. Williams V.M., Mellor D.J., Marbrook J.. Revision of a scale for assessing the severity of live animal manipulations. Altern. Anim. Exp. ALTEX 2006;23:163–169.
  23. Mellor D.J., Patterson-Kane E., Stafford K.J.. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing; Oxford, UK: 2009.
  24. Sharp T., Saunders G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods. 1st ed. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Canberra, Australia: 2008.
  25. Beausoleil N.J., Fisher P., Littin K.E., Warburton B., Mellor D.J., Dalefield R.R., Cowan P.. A systematic approach to evaluating and ranking the relative animal welfare impacts of wildlife control methods: Poisons used for lethal control of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wildl. Res. 2016;43:553–565.
    doi: 10.1071/WR16041google scholar: lookup
  26. International Society for Equitation Science. The Use of Aversive Stimuli in Horse Training. [(accessed on 22 December 2017)];2013 Available online: http://equitationscience.com/equitation/position-statement-on-aversive-stimuli-in-horse-training.
  27. Huntingdon P., Myers J., Owens J. Horse Sense: The Guide to Horse Care in Australia and New Zealand. 2nd ed. Landlinks Press; Collingwood, Australia: 2004.
  28. Munroe G., Weese S. Equine Clinical Medicine: Surgery and Reproduction. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2011.
  29. Sharp T., Saunders G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods. 2nd ed. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Canberra, Australia: 2011.
  30. Jones B., McGreevy P.D.. Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach. J. Vet. Behav. 2010;5:196–202.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.001google scholar: lookup
  31. 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
  32. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, USA: 2002.
  33. Christensen R.H.B.. Regression Models for Ordinal Data. [(accessed on 18 March 2018)]; R Package Version. Available online: http://www.cran.r-project.org/.
  34. Schwartzkpof-Genswein K.S., Stookey J.M.. The use of infrared thermography to assess inflammation associated with hot-iron and freeze branding in cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1997;77:577–583.
    doi: 10.4141/A97-019google scholar: lookup
  35. Cooper J., McGreevy P.D.. Stereotypic behaviour in the stabled horse: Causes, effects and prevention without compromising horse welfare. In: Waran N., editor. The Welfare of Horses. Springer; Berlin, Germany: 2007. pp. 99–124.
  36. Nicol C.J., Badnell-Waters A.J., Bice R., Kelland A., Wilson A.D., Harris P.A.. The effects of diet and weaning method on the behaviour of young horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;95:205–221.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.004google scholar: lookup
  37. Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy P. The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses' Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses.. PLoS One 2016;11(5):e0154179.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179pmc: PMC4854461pubmed: 27140187google scholar: lookup
  38. Duquesne F, Pronost S, Laugier C, Petry S. Identification of Taylorella equigenitalis responsible for contagious equine metritis in equine genital swabs by direct polymerase chain reaction.. Res Vet Sci 2007 Feb;82(1):47-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2006.05.001pubmed: 16806331google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 42 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.