Classification of horses as livestock or companion animals is often contested in cases of management and welfare concerns, legislation, and educational forums. Limited data are available regarding perception of equids in relationship to animal agriculture management practices. Therefore, our objective was to test associations between livestock management practices and perception of horses as companion animals or livestock. An online survey was administered for 6 weeks to U.S. residents over age 18. Participants provided demographic information, connection to the industry, and welfare definition of choice. Management questions included 2 scenarios each—one regarding horses and a direct comparison for another livestock species. Respondents then chose which scenario was most concerning or if the scenarios were equally non-concerning (i.e. no issue) or concerning. Analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with significance set at α=0.05. Multinomial logistic regression (PROC GLIMMIX) was used to test factors affecting management scenario responses. Out of 1,334 respondents, 807 (60.5%) categorized equids as companion animals; 527 (39.5%) classified equids as livestock. Welfare definition, equid classification, and industry connection significantly affected responses to every management scenario (P < 0.01). People who classified horses as livestock had 2.8 times greater odds (OR=2.8; 95%CI:1.8, 4.5) to select lack of shelter during spring months as equally non-concerning for horses and cattle rather than selecting horses without shelter as a concern compared to respondents who classified horses as companion animals. Respondents heavily connected to the equine industry were less likely (OR=0.38; 95%CI:0.19, 0.75) to select that both species without shelter were concerning rather than selecting that only horses lacking shelter was concerning compared to respondents lightly connected to the industry. Understanding associations between public perceptions of livestock management and individual’s welfare definition, equine classification and industry connection may improve our ability to educate the public regarding animal agricultural practices.

No abstract

No abstract

An adult mare presented acutely down in the pasture on January 21, 2018. On arrival at the farm, the mare was found recumbent with a heart rate of 60 beats per minute, evidence of struggle and profuse watery diarrhoea. An oral examination revealed a capillary refill time of three seconds and severe gingival and glossal ulcers. The ulcers were filled with seed heads with evidence of chronicity. The mare was determined to have a gas-distended colon on rectal examination and was humanely euthanised due to financial constraints. The mare was submitted for postmortem examination. No ulcers or grass awns were found in any other area of the gastrointestinal tract. Histopathological examination revealed embedded plant material in the oral lesions, with plant features similar to that reported with foxtail species. Hay samples were submitted for wet chemistry analysis and species identification, and determined to be an inadequate nutritional source for horses.

Equine welfare and processing are a major topic of interest, often debated by industry professionals and the public alike. These debates often focus on the welfare of equines during the different aspects of processing and the impacts related to the processing legislation passed in 2007. Our objective was to determine if one’s definition of welfare, industry connection, or their classification of equines was associated with their perceptions of equine processing and related impacts. Over a 6 week period, a survey was distributed via email and social media outlets to United States residents over the age of 18 (n=1,334). Participants responded to questions including demographic information, connection to the industry, equine classification, and indicated the changes they expected occurred due to the 2007 processing legislation. Furthermore, participants selected sources from which they commonly obtain information regarding animal welfare issues. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05. Multinomial logistic regression in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC; PROC LOGISTIC) was used to determine factors associated with participants’ likelihood to respond “increase”, “decrease”, or “no impact” to each area in which the 2007 legislation could have impacted the industry. When asked if there was an impact on the number of horses processed, connection to the industry (P=0.03), welfare definition (P< 0.0001) and classification of horses (P=0.009) were associated with responses. Respondents with light connection, when compared to moderate connection, were 10 times more likely (OR=10.9; 95% Cl: 1.03, 111.1) to say there was an increase in horse processing, versus no impact, in response to the 2007 legislation. Understanding interactions between industry connection, welfare definition, classification of equids relative to current industry issues may prove beneficial to bridge an educational gap and provide clarity to important welfare concerns.