Simple SummaryUsing an adaptation of the domain-based welfare assessment model, a panel of horse welfare professionals (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement) assessed the perceived harms, if any, resulting from 116 interventions that are commonly applied to horses. Scores for Domain 5 (the integrated mental impact) gathered after extensive discussion during a four-day workshop aligned well with overall impact scores assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop, although some rankings changed after workshop participation. Domain 4 (Behaviour) had the strongest association with Domain 5, whilst Domain 1 (Nutrition) had the weakest association with Domain 5, implying that the panellists considered commonly applied nutritional interventions to have less of a bearing on subjective mental state than commonly applied behavioural restrictions. The workshop defined each intervention, and stated assumptions around each, resulting in a set of exemplar procedures that could be used in future equine welfare assessments.AbstractThe 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; n = 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) an...

Foreword This document was commissioned to provide UK veterinary surgeons with up-to-date information on Streptococcus equi infection and to provide practical recommendations for veterinary surgeons in the field. The participants were selected to provide representation from a range of expertise and viewpoints and included practitioners, academics and social scientists. The document and practical recommendations were developed using a modified non-anonymised two-round Delphi process, considering published and unpublished research relating to ‘strangles’ using online discussion. The expert group was convened by UK-Vet Equine and Redwings and an online meeting held on 20th January 2021 with sponsorship from MSD and support from World Horse Welfare. The sponsors did not participate in the meeting and had no influence over editorial content. Each of the panellists was provided with a sub-topic and presented a review of the evidence pertaining to that area prior to taking two rounds of questions relating to the evidence presented. Where research evidence was conflicting or absent, collective expert opinion, based on the experience of the group, was applied. The opinions expressed are the consensus of views expressed by the authors who all approved the final manuscript. Where it was not possible to reach consensus, different viewpoints are presented.

No abstract

No abstract

Redwings' Head of Welfare and Behaviour Nic de Brauwere MRCVS explains why the charity's updated Strangles: Speak Out information pack reflects appetite for change in the horse world

His dedication and commitment to animal welfare set him apart from the rest. Never afraid to call out poor welfare, he always took an independent view and was scrupulously fair.