How owners determine if the social and behavioral needs of their horses are being met: Findings from an Australian online survey

The idea of what is natural has particular relevance in the thoroughbred racing and breeding discourse. It guides breeding regulations; influences how the thoroughbreds’ behaviour is perceived and has implications for husbandry, handling, training and racing practices. This study investigates how key industry and animal advocacy informants based in the US, Australia and the UK conceptualise naturalness within the context of common racing practices that potentially impact the horses’ welfare. The informants were interviewed using semi-structured interviewing and photo-elicitation. Four common images of thoroughbreds on race day were presented to elicit the informants’ responses. Differences emerged between how the two groups tended to describe the images and the role naturalness played in their conceptualisations. The findings were analysed using an updated version of the Layers of Engagement with Animal Protection developed by Bergmann to situate the informants’ conceptualisations of naturalness within the wider thoroughbred protection discourse. In conclusion, the industry informants tended to defend the status quo of common racing practices. They tended to naturalise and normalise these practices and downplay their welfare impact. This poses risks for thoroughbred welfare, which are amplified by misrepresentations of what is natural. With the public’s understanding of welfare and racing practices growing, racing’s legitimacy may be further questioned. Opportunities to leverage the potential of the notion of naturalness for thoroughbred protection are discussed.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Competing Conceptions Of Naturalnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalness and the Legitimacy of Thoroughbred Racing: A Photo-Elicitation Study with Industry and Animal Advocacy Informants

Bergmann

2020

“…Whilst the primary data were qualitative, the research question was ultimately quantitative, as was the need to conduct analyses to infer statistical significance [31]. This kind of approach has been used elsewhere in relation to the analysis of naturalistic or free-text survey data [32]. The study design followed a two-stage qualitative-quantitative design, commencing with qualitative coding followed by inferential statistics including logistic regression.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Whip Use Important to Thoroughbred Racing Integrity? What Stewards’ Reports Reveal about Fairness to Punters, Jockeys and Horses

Thompson

McManus

Stansall

et al. 2020

Self Cite

The idea that whip use is critical to thoroughbred racing integrity is culturally entrenched but lacks empirical support. To test the longstanding beliefs that whip use aids steering, reduces interference, increases safety and improves finishing times, we conducted a mixed-method analysis of 126 race reports produced by official stewards of the British Horseracing Authority, representing 1178 jockeys and their horses. We compared reports from 67 “Hands and Heels” races, where whips are held but not used (whipping-free, WF), with 59 reports from case-matched races where whipping was permitted (whipping permitted, WP). Qualitative coding was used to identify and categorise units of analysis for statistical testing via logistic regression and linear mixed model regression. For both types of race, we explored stewards having anything to report at all, movement on course, interference on course, incidents related to jockey behaviour and finishing times. There were no statistically significant differences between WF and WP races for anything to report (OR: 3.06; CI: 0.74–14.73), movement on course (OR: 0.90; CI: 0.37–2.17), interference (OR: 0.90; CI: 0.37–2.17), jockey-related incidents (OR: 1.24; CI: 0.32–5.07), and race times (0.512 s, t = 1.459, p = 0.150). That is, we found no evidence that whip use improves steering, reduces interference, increases safety or improves finishing times. These findings suggest that the WF races do not compromise racing integrity. They also highlight the need for more effective ways to improve the steering of horses.

“…Understanding how horses perceive emotional information from humans can lead to a greater understanding of their affective state and cognitive abilities [ 5 ], enabling effective approaches to daily care and training, ultimately improving the horse-human bond [ 17 ]. Although research has provided evidence of horses distinguishing human facial expressions through the use of photographs, there is no research on their initial response to live humans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Ponies (Equus Caballus) Distinguish Human Facial Expressions?

Merkies

Sudarenko

Hodder

2022

Communication within a species is essential for access to resources, alerting to dangers, group facilitation and social bonding; human facial expressions are considered to be an important factor in one’s ability to communicate with others. Evidence has shown that dogs and horses are able to distinguish positive and negative facial expressions by observing photographs of humans, however there is currently no research on how facial expressions from a live human are perceived by horses. This study investigated how ponies distinguish facial expressions presented by live actors. Trained actors (n = 2), using the human Facial Action Coding System, displayed four facial expressions (anger, sadness, joy and neutral) individually to twenty ponies. Heart rate and behaviors of the ponies including first monocular eye look, eye look duration (right and left side bias) and latency to approach were observed. A generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) using Sidak’s multiple comparisons of least squared means determined that when exposed to anger expressions ponies looked more often with their left eye first and when exposed to joy, looked more often with their right eye first (p = 0.011). The ponies spent more time looking at angry expressions (p = 0.0003) in comparison to other expressions. There was no variation in heart rate across expressions (p > 0.89). Regardless of human facial expression, ponies looked longer (p = 0.0035), took longer to approach (p = 0.0297) and displayed more oral behaviours (p < 0.0001) with one actor than the other indicating increased arousal or negative valence. Ponies with more experience as a lesson mount had lower heart rates (p < 0.0001) carried their head lower (p < 0.0001), kept their left ear on the actor (p < 0.03) and exhibited more oral behaviours (p < 0.0001) than ponies with less experience. This study demonstrates that ponies are able to distinguish facial expressions presented by a live human, but other factors also contribute to their responses to humans.