FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2023; 32; e21; doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.20

Welfare of extensively managed Swedish Gotland ponies.

Abstract: It has been suggested that grazing horses could be used as a credible tool for landscape conservation which would, at the same time, improve horse welfare as opposed to conventional housing. A study was conducted between May 2014 and April 2015 on 12 one year old Gotland ponies managed extensively without supplementary feed. Monthly animal welfare assessments (n = 13) revealed welfare issues in most of the horses, i.e. low body condition score (BCS < 3/5), recurring poor skin condition in 11/12 horses and ocular discharge in 7/12 horses. At the end of the study, compared to the beginning, chafing and poor skin condition increased while coat condition improved. A correlation was found between a negative reaction (score > 0) in the human approach test and BCS < 3 and ocular discharge. Avoidance Distance test values were correlated with faecal parasite counts (> 350 eggs per gram [EPG]). These results indicate that the horses had acceptable welfare during late spring/summer (May-September) and that some horses required additional feed during winter. The animal welfare protocol proved to be an efficient tool for monitoring welfare. The results showed that factors important for extensive management are: daily monitoring; enclosures that provide sufficient feed; access to recovery enclosure; and habituation of horses to human approach.
© The Author(s) 2023.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-02-23 PubMed ID: 38487419PubMed Central: PMC10936338DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.20Google 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 a study on the welfare of Swedish Gotland ponies that are extensively managed and graze rather than being conventionally housed. The research identifies some welfare issues in the ponies and outlines important factors for their extensive management.

Research Objectives and Methodology

  • The researchers aim to explore the idea that grazing horses could potentially not only contribute to landscape conservation, but also provide better welfare for the horses compared to traditional housing methods.
  • Using a sample size of 12 Gotland ponies aged one year old, the research was conducted over a period of one year starting from May 2014 until April 2015. These ponies were managed extensively without any additional feed.
  • Monthly animal welfare assessments were performed, for a total of 13 assessments over the given period.

Findings of the Study

  • Most of the ponies demonstrated welfare issues, including low body condition score (BCS < 3/5), recurring poor skin condition in 11 of the 12 horses, and ocular discharge in seven horses.
  • By the end of the study, chafing and poor skin condition had increased in the horses, but their coat condition had improved.
  • A correlation was discovered between a negative reaction in the human approach test (score > 0) and a low body condition score as well as ocular discharge.
  • The Avoidance Distance test values were linked with high faecal parasite counts (>350 eggs per gram [EPG]). This suggests that the horses that had higher faecal parasite count were more likely to avoid humans.
  • It was determined that the ponies had acceptable welfare during late spring and summer (May to September) and that during winter, some horses required extra feed.

Implications of the Research

  • The findings proved the usefulness of the animal welfare protocol for monitoring welfare and highlighted the need for its adoption in extensive management systems.
  • The results indicated that a few key factors are important for the extensive management of the ponies. These include daily monitoring of the animals, enclosures that provide sufficient feed, access to a recovery enclosure, and habituation of the horses to human approach.

Cite This Article

APA
Viksten SM, Hartmann E, Schneller K, Steen M. (2023). Welfare of extensively managed Swedish Gotland ponies. Anim Welf, 32, e21. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.20

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 32
Pages: e21
PII: e21

Researcher Affiliations

Viksten, Sofie M
  • Hästfokus AB, Vickeby 84, 74190 Knivsta, Sweden.
Hartmann, Elke
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Schneller, Karin
  • Österängsgatan 24B, 753 28 Uppsala, Sweden.
Steen, Margareta
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Swedish Centre for Animal Welfare, Box 7053, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None. 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. The writing of this article was funded by Marie-Claire Cronstedts Stiftelse (mccstiftelse@billandreasson.com).

References

This article includes 58 references
  1. Australian Horse Industry Council. Australian Horse Welfare Protocol. 2011.
  2. AWIN. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses. 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_HORSES_2015google scholar: lookup
  3. Blokhuis H, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A 60: 129–140.
  4. Boyd L, Houpt KA. Przewalski’s Horse: The History and Biology of an Endangered Species. 1994.
  5. Bracke M, Spruijt B, Metz J. Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible?. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 47: 279–291.
  6. Brinkmann L, Gerken M, Riek A. Effect of long-term feed restriction on the health status and welfare of a robust horse breed, the Shetland pony (Equus ferus caballus). Research in Veterinary Science 94: 826–831.
    pubmed: 23141417
  7. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126: 109–118.
  8. Carroll C, Huntington P. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 20: 41–45.
    pubmed: 3366105
  9. Christie JL, Hewson CJ, Riley CB, McNiven MA, Dohoo IR, Bate LA. Management factors affecting stereotypies and body condition score in nonracing horses in Prince Edward Island. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 47: 136–143.
    pmc: PMC1345728pubmed: 16579039
  10. Cousins SA, Auffret AG, Lindgren J, Tränk L. Regional-scale land-cover change during the 20th century and its consequences for biodiversity. Ambio 44: 17–27.
    pmc: PMC4288995pubmed: 25576277
  11. Czycholl I, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. Interobserver reliability of the animal welfare indicators welfare assessment protocol for horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 75: 112–121.
    pubmed: 31002084
  12. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Zanella AJ, Minero M. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach. Animal Welfare 25: 481–488.
  13. Dalla Costa E, Murray L, Dai F, Canali E, Minero M. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators. Animal Welfare 23: 323–341.
  14. Debeffe L, McLoughlin PD, Medill SA, Stewart K, Andres D, Shury T, Wagner B, Jenkins E, Gilleard JS, Poissant J. Negative covariance between parasite load and body condition in a population of feral horses. Parasitology 143: 983–997.
    pubmed: 27046508
  15. Fleurance G, Duncan P, Fritz H, Gordon IJ, Grenier-Loustalot MF. Influence of sward structure on daily intake and foraging behaviour by horses. Animal 4: 480–485.
    pubmed: 22443953
  16. Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12(4): 433–443.
  17. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6(3): 187–205.
  18. Garrido P, Edenius L, Mikusiński G, Skarin A, Jansson A, Thulin C-G. Experimental rewilding may restore abandoned wood-pastures if policy allows. Ambio 50: 101.
    pmc: PMC7708577pubmed: 32152907
  19. Garrido P, Mårell A, Öckinger E, Skarin A, Jansson A, Thulin C-G. Experimental rewilding enhances grassland functional composition and pollinator habitat use. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: 946–955.
  20. Górecka-Bruzda A, Jaworski Z, Jaworska J, Siemieniuch M. Welfare of free-roaming horses: 70 years of experience with Konik Polski breeding in Poland. Animals 10: 1094.
    pmc: PMC7341202pubmed: 32599935
  21. Graaf K. Det Gotländska Russets Historia. 2015.
  22. Gustavsson E. Grassland plant diversity in relation to historical and current land use. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 106.
  23. Hampson BA, Zabek MA, Pollitt CC, Nock B. Health and behaviour consequences of feral horse relocation. The Rangeland Journal 33: 173–180.
  24. 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 10: 148.
    pmc: PMC7022444pubmed: 31963232
  25. 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 10: 371.
    pmc: PMC7143857pubmed: 32106531
  26. Henneke D, Potter G, Kreider J, Yeates B. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Veterinary Journal 15: 371–372.
    pubmed: 6641685
  27. Hoffmann M. Experiences with grazing in Flemish nature reserves (N. Belgium). Grazing as a conservation management tool in peatland. Report of a Workshop. 22–26 April 2002.
  28. Kunkle K, Houpt T. Effect of water restriction on equine behaviour and physiology. Equine Veterinary Journal 32: 341–344.
    pubmed: 10952384
  29. Jezierski T, Jaworski Z, Gorecka A. Effects of handling on behaviour and heart rate in Konik horses: comparison of stable and forest reared youngstock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 1–11.
  30. Keeling LJ, Rushen J, Duncan IJ. Understanding animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 13–26.
  31. Labartino M, Carnevale G, Thulin C-G. Eco-ethological study on the effect of winter conditions on a population of Gotlandsruss horses and monitoring of their animal welfare. 2015.
  32. Lesimple C. Indicators of horse welfare: State-of-the-Art. Animals 10: 294.
    pmc: PMC7070675pubmed: 32069888
  33. Mejdell CM, Bøe KE, Jørgensen GHM. Caring for the horse in a cold climate: Reviewing principles for thermoregulation and horse preferences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 231: 105071.
  34. Mellor DJ. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the ’Five Freedoms’ towards ’A Life Worth Living.’. Animals 6: 21.
    pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171
  35. Morel M, McBride S, Chiam R, McKay A, Ely E. Seasonal variations in physiological and behavioural parameters in a bachelor group of stallion ponies (Equus caballus). Animal Science 82(5): 581–590.
  36. Naundrup PJ, J-C Svenning. A geographic assessment of the global scope for rewilding with wild-living horses (Equus ferus). PLoS One 10: e0132359.
    pmc: PMC4503665pubmed: 26177104
  37. Piek H. The practical use of grazing in nature reserves in The Netherlands. 1998.
  38. Popescu S, E-A Diugan. The relationship between behavioural and other welfare indicators of working horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 33: 1–12.
  39. Research WUL. Welfare monitoring system: assessment protocol for horses. 2012.
  40. Ringmark S, Skarin A, Jansson A. Impact of year-round grazing by horses on pasture nutrient dynamics and the correlation with pasture nutrient content and fecal nutrient composition. Animals 9: 500.
    pmc: PMC6720502pubmed: 31362460
  41. Saastamoinen M, Herzon I, Särkijärvi S, Schreurs C, Myllymäki M. Horse welfare and natural values on semi-natural and extensive pastures in Finland: Synergies and trade-offs. Land 6: 69.
  42. Sandström J, Bjelke U, Carlberg T, Sundberg S. Tillstånd och trender för arter och deras livsmiljöer – rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. Report no 17. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden 2015.
  43. Scott DW, Miller WH. Equine Dermatology-E-Book. 2010.
  44. Sherwin CM, Christiansen SB, Duncan IJ, Erhard HW, Lay DC Jr, Mench JA, O’Connor CE, Petherick JC. Guidelines for the ethical use of animals in applied ethology studies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 291–305.
  45. Slivinska K, Kopij G. Diet of the Przewalski’s horse (Equus przewalskii) in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Polish Journal of Ecology 59: 841–847.
  46. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Naturbetesmarker - en resurs i vår hästhållning. Jordbruksinformation 9-2016 2016.
  47. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Djurskyddslag. SJVFS 2018:1192. 2018a.
  48. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Föreskrifter om ändring i Statens jordbruksverks föreskrifter och allmänna råd (SJVFS 2015:25) om miljöersättningar, ersättningar för ekologisk produktion, kompensationsstöd och djurvälfärdsersättningar. 2018b.
  49. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Animal welfare ordinance. SJVFS 2019:66. 2019a.
  50. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Statens jordbruksverks föreskrifter och allmänna råd om hästhållning - Saknr L 101. SJVFS 2019:17 L 101. 2019b.
  51. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Weather reports. 2021.
  52. Tydén E, Jansson A, Ringmark S. Parasites in horses kept in a 2.5 year-round grazing system in nordic conditions without supplementary feeding. Animals 9: 1156.
    pmc: PMC6940839pubmed: 31861066
  53. Tälle M, Deák B, Poschlod P, Valkó O, Westerberg L, Milberg P. Grazing vs mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 200–212.
  54. Viksten S, Visser E, Nyman S, Blokhuis H. Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol. Animal Welfare 26: 59–65.
  55. Viksten SM. Improving horse welfare through assessment and feedback. 2016.
  56. Visser E, Neijenhuis F, de Graaf-Roelfsema E, Wesselink H, De Boer J, van Wijhe-Kiezebrink M, Engel B, Van Reenen C. Risk factors associated with health disorders in sport and leisure horses in the Netherlands. Journal of Animal Science 92: 844–855.
    pubmed: 24352963
  57. Visser EK, Van Wijk-Jansen EE. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 7: 295–304.
  58. Wright B, Rietveld G, Lawlis P. Body Condition Scoring of Horses - Factsheet. Canadian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs 1998.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. McDonald S, Harley JJ, Hockenhull J. A comparison of the welfare of free-ranging native pony herds on common land with those used for conservation grazing in the UK. Anim Welf 2024;33:e30.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.35pubmed: 39315352google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.