Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art

Self Cite

Although the question of animal welfare has been an important source of concern in the scientific community for several decades, many aspects are still under debate. On-farm assessments have to be rapid, acceptable to farmers and safe for both the assessors and animals. They are thus very demanding, with multiple decisions to make, such as the choice of appropriate indicators, sampling methods and scoring. Research has moved from resource-based to animal-based criteria, which reflects the subjective welfare state of an animal rather than relying upon external indices. In the present review, we describe two major (i.e., the most frequently/recently tested or disseminated) protocols: one in low-/middle-income countries, and the other in high-income countries, for on-farm assessments of horses, using animal-based resources; we evaluate their strengths and limitations, and then we compare their results with those obtained by various other studies. We propose lines of improvement, particularly in view of public dissemination, and offer suggestions for further refinement or new protocols. We emphasize the high risks of putting the cart before the horse, i.e., proposing protocols that rely upon indicators and sampling methods that need to be refined, as this could lead to under-evaluation (or less likely over-evaluation) of current welfare problems. Because welfare is a subjective experience, the true representation of an individual’s actual welfare status has to be evaluated by using objective assessment tools (that are validated and have a scientific basis) used by well-trained observers.

“…A review of animal-based indicators and proposals can be found in Lesimple [1]; thus, we will evoke here only a few examples.…”

Section: Welfare Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Horses: The Risks of Putting the Cart before the Horse

Hausberger

Lerch

Guilbaud

et al. 2020

Self Cite

“…Concerns about anthropomorphic reasoning have led, among other things, to skepticism regarding whether or not animals can experience pain in ways that cause them to suffer (e.g., [25,26]), and whether mammals other than human beings can be shown unequivocally to have any conscious experiences at all, including pain experience (e.g., [27,28]). Such concerns also underlie an apparent hesitation, reluctance, or extreme caution among some scientists to accept that animals can have a wide range of observable subjective experiences, including pain, which are of significance to their welfare (e.g., in horses [28,29]), despite a large body of supporting literature to the contrary (Section 2.3).…”

Section: Cerebrocortical Involvement In the Conscious Experience Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mouth Pain in Horses: Physiological Foundations, Behavioural Indices, Welfare Implications, and a Suggested Solution

Mellor

2020

A proposition addressed here is that, although bitted horses are viewed by many equestrians as being largely free of bit-related mouth pain, it seems likely that most behavioural signs of such pain are simply not recognised. Background information is provided on the following: the major features of pain generation and experience; cerebrocortical involvement in the conscious experience of pain by mammals; the numerous other subjective experiences mammals can have; adjunct physiological responses to pain; some general feature of behavioural responses to pain; and the neural bases of sensations generated within the mouth. Mouth pain in horses is then discussed. The areas considered exclude dental disease, but they include the stimulation of pain receptors by bits in the interdental space, the tongue, the commissures of the mouth, and the buccal mucosa. Compression, laceration, inflammation, impeded tissue blood flow, and tissue stretching are evaluated as noxious stimuli. The high pain sensitivity of the interdental space is described, as are likely increases in pain sensitivity due to repeated bit contact with bruises, cuts, tears, and/or ulcers wherever they are located in the mouth. Behavioural indices of mouth pain are then identified by contrasting the behaviours of horses when wearing bitted bridles, when changed from bitted to bit-free bridles, and when free-roaming unbitted in the wild. Observed indicative behaviours involve mouth movements, head-neck position, and facial expression (“pain face”), as well as characteristic body movements and gait. The welfare impacts of bit-related pain include the noxiousness of the pain itself as well as likely anxiety when anticipating the pain and fear whilst experiencing it, especially if the pain is severe. In addition, particular mouth behaviours impede airflow within the air passages of the upper respiratory system, effects that, in their turn, adversely affect the air passages in the lungs. Here, they increase airflow resistance and decrease alveolar gas exchange, giving rise to suffocating experiences of breathlessness. In addition, breathlessness is a likely consequence of the low jowl angles commonly maintained during dressage. If severe, as with pain, the prospect of breathlessness is likely to give rise to anxiety and the direct experience of breathlessness to fear. The related components of welfare compromise therefore likely involve pain, breathlessness, anxiety, and fear. Finally, a 12-point strategy is proposed to give greater impetus to a wider adoption of bit-free bridles in order to avoid bit-induced mouth pain.

“…HR is considered as a measure of stress in animals because it reflects the ratio between the vagal (which reduces HR) and the sympathetic tone of ANS (which increases HR) [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. At rest, vagal regulation dominates, but the influence of the sympathetic components of ANS increases with physical activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethological and Physiological Parameters Assessment in Donkeys Used in Animal Assisted Interventions

Panzera

Alberghina

Statelli

2020

Background: Few studies have been performed to identify objective indicators for the selection of therapeutic donkeys or to assess their welfare during animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the response to the ethological test and the modifications of physiological parameters in donkeys subjected to AAI sessions. Methods: Thirteen donkeys were subjected to a behavioral evaluation during an AAI session. Heart rate, heart rate variability, and root mean square of successive difference values were detected. Results: Statistically significant changes in the tested parameters were observed during AAI sessions. Conclusions: In donkeys, there was a neurovegetative involvement during AAI sessions. Our data give a contribution to the evaluation of donkey welfare during AAIs.