FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1111/evj.14510

Welfare assessment of racehorses provides a baseline for continued monitoring.

Abstract: Racehorse welfare continues to be a focus of stakeholders both within and outside of the industry, and there is a need for evidence-based animal welfare data. Objective: To gather data on racehorse welfare through a combination of animal-based observations and information about management practices, and to ascertain the feasibility of trained industry assessors carrying out a racehorse welfare assessment. Methods: Cross-sectional. Methods: Sixteen trained industry assessors conducted individual observations of 737 racehorses in 21 Flat racing (F), 27 National Hunt (NH) and 26 Dual-purpose (D) training yards in Great Britain (GB). The welfare assessment protocol, including management and animal-based welfare measures, was carried out on up to 10 horses in each yard. Results: Horses were generally in good physical health, although external mouth corner lesions were reported in 18% of horses, with significant variation between yards (p ≤ 0.001). Forage was present in the stable of 86% of horses during the assessment. Daily turnout was available to 27% of all horses, and 55% of horses were reported to be turned out at least weekly. Of the horses that were turned out, 36% were done so in pairs or groups, and 75% were turned out on grass. In total, 47% of all horses had physical social contact when stabled, with 1% being housed in pairs, but 7% of horses had no visual or physical contact when stabled. In total, 7% of horses performed stereotypic behaviour during the individual welfare assessment. The majority of horses (69%-76%) reacted positively to three human reactivity tests. Conclusions: Welfare measures used were constrained by the assessment being carried out on racehorses in an active training and racing schedule. Time available to the assessors was also a limiting factor. Conclusions: This welfare assessment of racehorses in training in GB proved feasible to conduct and provided large-scale data to monitor welfare and highlight areas for targeted welfare improvement strategies. Depending on the ultimate objectives, various implementation options for continued welfare assessments of racehorses are available, working in partnership with trainers and other industry stakeholders.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-04-21 PubMed ID: 40256938DOI: 10.1111/evj.14510Google 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 sought to assess the welfare conditions of racehorses, using a combination of animal observations and data on management methods, conducted by trained industry assessors. The evaluated factors included the physical health of the horses, their feeding and turn out routines, and their behavioral reactions to humans. Results indicate generally favorable welfare conditions, albeit room for improvement in certain areas like social contact and limiting stereotypic behavior.

Methods

The study followed a cross-sectional design, as 16 trained industry assessors performed observations of 737 racehorses located in various training yards in Great Britain. These facilities were classified into Flat racing (F), National Hunt (NH), and Dual-purpose (D) training yards. Each assessor was tasked with evaluating up to 10 horses in each yard, focusing on both animal and management factors relevant to the horses’ welfare.

  • Horse welfare measures involved aspects like the physical health and the prevalence of mouth corner lesions in the sampled horses.
  • Management methods, on the other hand, pertained to practices like feeding routines (particularly the availability of forage in the stable), turnout routines, the horse’s living conditions (solo or in pairs/groups), and their access to social contact.
  • Additional assessments involved human reactivity tests to measure the horses’ response to human presence, a critical aspect of their welfare in a training and racing context.

Results

The findings from the assessments suggested positive welfare conditions for the racehorses overall. Most horses were in good physical health, although an 18% prevalence of external mouth corner lesions pointed towards some health concerns.

  • About 86% of the horses had forage in their stables during the assessment, suggesting good feeding practices among most yards.
  • Many horses had access to daily turnout (27%), and a majority (55%) were turned out at least weekly. Among these horses, 36% were turned out in pairs or groups, and 75% had turnouts on grass.
  • Concerns arose regarding social contact, as although 47% of the horses had physical social contact while stabled, 7% had no visual or physical contact at all.
  • Stereotypic behavior was noticed in 7% of the cases during the individual welfare assessments. But most horses (69%-76%) reacted positively to the human reactivity tests.

Conclusions

While the welfare assessments were indeed constrained by factors like the horses’ active training routines and the available time for assessors, these assessments were feasible to conduct and provided large-scale data for welfare monitoring in racehorses. The findings highlight areas for targeted improvement, such as boosting social contact opportunities and managing stereotypic behavior. The implementation options for future welfare assessments depend on the objectives, but partnerships with trainers and other industry stakeholders could prove beneficial.

Cite This Article

APA
Annan R, Trigg L, Allen K, Hockenhull J, Valenchon M, Mullan S. (2025). Welfare assessment of racehorses provides a baseline for continued monitoring. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14510

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Annan, Rachel
  • University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Trigg, Leah
  • University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Allen, Kate
  • University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hockenhull, Joanna
  • University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Valenchon, Mathilde
  • University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Mullan, Siobhan
  • University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Grant Funding

  • 183/217 / The Racing Foundation

References

This article includes 64 references
  1. Fernandes JN, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Tilbrook AJ. Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare.. Agriculture 2021;11(2):104.
  2. Furtado T, Preshaw L, Hockenhull J, Wathan J, Douglas J, Horseman S. How happy are equine athletes? Stakeholder perceptions of equine welfare issues associated with equestrian sport.. Animals 2021;11(11):3228.
  3. Pearson G, Douglas J, Wolframm I, Furtado T. Used like pawns or treated like kings? How narratives around racehorse welfare in the 2023 Grand National May Affect Public Acceptance: an informed commentary.. Animals 2023;13(19):3137.
  4. Rushen J, Butterworth A, Swanson J. Animal behavior and well‐being symposium: farm animal welfare assurance: science and application.. J Anim Sci 2011;89(4):1219–1228.
  5. Edgar JL, Mullan SM, Pritchard JC, McFarlane UJ, Main DC. Towards a ‘good life’ for farm animals: development of a resource tier framework to achieve positive welfare for laying hens.. Animals 2013;3(3):584–605.
  6. Main D, Kent J, Wemelsfelder F, Ofner E, Tuyttens F. Applications for methods of on‐farm welfare assessment.. Animal Welfare 2003;12(4):523–528.
  7. Horse Welfare Board. A life well lived, a strategic plan for the welfare of horses bred for racing, 2020–2024.. 2020.
  8. International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. IFHA minimum horse welfare standards.. 2020.
  9. Racing Victoria. Equine welfare strategic plan 2023–2027.. 2023.
  10. Irish Thoroughbred Welfare Council. Principles of animal welfare in Ireland's horse racing industry.. 2022.
  11. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. Thoroughbred welfare assessment guidelines.. 2019.
  12. British Horseracing Authority. Written evidence submitted by the British Horseracing Authority to Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into impact of Covid‐19 on DCMS sectors.. 2020.
  13. British Horseracing Authority. British racing's Horse Welfare Board announces results of the country's first Thoroughbred Census [press release].. 2024.
  14. British Horseracing Authority. Racing and industry statistics.. 2021.
  15. Annan R, Trigg L E, Hockenhull J, Allen K, Butler D, Valenchon M. Racehorse welfare across a training season.. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:10.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1208744google scholar: lookup
  16. AWIN. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses.. 2015.
  17. Carroll CL, Huntington PJ. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses.. Equine Vet J 1988;20(1):41–45.
  18. McDonnell SM. The equid ethogram: a practical field guide to horse behavior.. 2003.
  19. Young T, Creighton E, Smith T, Hosie C. A novel scale of behavioural indicators of stress for use with domestic horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;140:33–43.
  20. 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:e92281.
  21. UK Government. Licence to train racehorses (England, Scotland and Wales).. n.d..
  22. R Core Development Team. R foundation for statistical computing.. 2021.
  23. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4.. J Stat Softw 2015;67(1):1–48.
  24. Lenth RV. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least‐squares means.. 2022.
  25. Hartig F. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchica (multi‐level/mixed) regression models.. 2022.
  26. British Horseracing Authority. Horse population report.. 2022.
  27. Uldahl M, Clayton HM. Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses.. Equine Vet J 2019;51(2):154–162.
  28. Shepherdson D, Carlstead K, Wielebnowski N. Cross‐institutional assessment of stress responses in zoo animals using longitudinal monitoring of faecal corticoids and behaviour.. Animal Welfare 2004;13(S1):S105–S113.
    doi: 10.1017/s0962728600014445google scholar: lookup
  29. Williamson A, Rogers C, Firth E. A survey of feeding, management and faecal pH of thoroughbred racehorses in the North Island of New Zealand.. N Z Vet J 2007;55(6):337–341.
  30. Stallones L, McManus P, McGreevy P. Sustainability and the thoroughbred breeding and racing industries: an enhanced one welfare perspective.. Animals 2023;13(3):490.
  31. McGreevy PD, Cripps PJ, French NP, Green LE, Nicol CJ. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the thoroughbred horse.. Equine Vet J 1995;27(2):86–91.
  32. Butler D, Valenchon M, Annan R, Whay HR, Mullan S. Living the ‘best life’ or ‘one size fits all’—stakeholder perceptions of racehorse welfare.. Animals 2019;9(4):134.
  33. Campbell MLH. An ethical framework for the use of horses in competitive sport: theory and function.. Animals 2021;11(6):1725.
  34. Reilly AC, Bryk‐Lucy JA. 143 incidence of soft tissue injury and hours of daily paddock turnout in non‐elite performance horses.. J Equine Vet Sci 2021;100:103606.
  35. Lawrence L. Nutrient needs of performance horses.. Rev Bras Zootec 2008;37:206–210.
  36. Redbo I, Redbo‐Torstensson P, Ödberg FO, Hedendahl A, Holm J. Factors affecting behavioural disturbances in race‐horses.. Anim Sci 1998;66(2):475–481.
  37. Thorne JB, Goodwin D, Kennedy MJ, Davidson HPB, Harris P. Foraging enrichment for individually housed horses: practicality and effects on behaviour.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;94(1):149–164.
  38. Bell RJW, Mogg TD, Kingston JK. Equine gastric ulcer syndrome in adult horses: a review.. N Z Vet J 2007;55(1):1–12.
  39. van den Boom R. Equine gastric ulcer syndrome in adult horses.. Vet J 2022;283‐284:105830.
  40. Galinelli N, Wambacq W, Broeckx BJ, Hesta M. High intake of sugars and starch, low number of meals and low roughage intake are associated with equine gastric ulcer syndrome in a Belgian cohort.. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2021;105:18–23.
  41. Wood L, Lancaster B, Breheny MR, Rogers C. Trainers perceptions of the impact of different feeding and management practices on racehorses they identified displaying symptoms of recurrent exertional rhabdomyolysis.. N Z J Anim Sci Prod 2020;80:90–94.
  42. Fraser L. Behaviour problems? We're all ears.. 2012.
  43. Wadham H, Wallace C, Furtado T. Agents of sustainability: how horses and people co‐create, enact and embed the good life in rural places.. Sociol Rural 2023;63(3):390–414.
  44. Goodwin D. Horse behaviour: evolution, domestication and feralisation.. 2007.
  45. Krueger K, Esch L, Farmer K, Marr I. Basic needs in horses?—a literature review.. Animals 2021;11(6):1798.
  46. Yarnell K, Hall C, Royle C, Walker SL. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing.. Physiol Behav 2015;143:51–57.
  47. Tadich T, Weber C, Nichol J. Prevalence and factors associated with abnormal behaviors in Chilean racehorses: a direct observational study.. J Equine Vet Sci 2013;33:95–100.
  48. Hockenhull J, Creighton E. The day‐to‐day management of UK leisure horses and the prevalence of owner‐reported stable‐related and handling behaviour problems.. Animal Welfare 2015;24(1):29–36.
  49. Søndergaard E, Jensen MB, Nicol CJ. Motivation for social contact in horses measured by operant conditioning.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2011;132(3–4):131–137.
  50. Dalla Costa E, Stucke D, Dai F, Minero M, Leach MC, Lebelt D. Using the horse grimace scale (HGS) to assess pain associated with acute laminitis in horses (Equus caballus).. Animals 2016;6:47.
  51. Waters AJ, Nicol CJ, French NP. Factors influencing the development of stereotypic and redirected behaviours in young horses: findings of a four‐year prospective epidemiological study.. Equine Vet J 2002;34(6):572–579.
  52. Nicol C. Understanding equine stereotypies.. Equine Vet J 1999;31(S28):20–25.
  53. Hemmings A, Parker MO, Hale C, McBride SD. Causal and functional interpretation of mu‐ and delta‐opioid receptor profiles in mesoaccumbens and nigrostriatal pathways of an oral stereotypy phenotype.. Behav Brain Res 2018;353:108–113.
  54. Heleski C, Stowe CJ, Fiedler J, Peterson M, Brady C, Wickens C. Thoroughbred racehorse welfare through the lens of social license to operate—with an emphasis on a U.S. perspective.. Sustainability 2020;12:1706.
  55. Cooper JJ, McDonald L, Mills DS. The effect of increasing visual horizons on stereotypic weaving: implications for the social housing of stabled horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000;69(1):67–83.
  56. Nicol C, Bejder L, Green L, Johnson C, Keeling L, Noren D. Anthropogenic threats to wild cetacean welfare and a tool to inform policy in this area.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:57.
  57. Wemelsfelder F, Mullan S. Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment.. OIE Sci Tech Rev 2014;33(1):111–120.
  58. Heath CAE, Lin Y, Mullan S, Browne WJ, Main DCJ. Implementing welfare quality in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges.. Animal Welfare 2014;23(1):95–107.
  59. Mullan S, Edwards S, Butterworth A, Ward M, Whay HR, Main D. Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry.. Animal Welfare 2011;20:597–601.
  60. Pandolfi F, Barber C, Edwards S. The ‘real welfare’ scheme: changes in UK finishing pig welfare since the introduction of formal welfare outcome assessment.. Animals 2022;12(5):607.
  61. Mullan S, Szmaragd C, Cooper M, Wrathall J, Jamieson J, Bond A. Animal welfare initiatives improve feather cover of cage‐free laying hens in the UK.. Animal Welfare 2016;25(2):243–253.
  62. AssureWel. The AssureWel manual: the AssureWel approach to improving farm animal welfare: the development and use of welfare outcome assessments in farm assurance.. 2018.
  63. Hockenhull J, Main DC, Mullan S. ‘Would it sell more pork?’ Pig farmers' perceptions of real welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme.. Animal 2019;13(12):2864–2875.
  64. Van Dijk L, Pritchard JC, Pradhan SK, Wells K. Sharing the load: a guide to improving the welfare of working animals through collective action.. 2010.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.