Katrina Merkies

Validation of triaxial accelerometers to measure the lying behaviour of adult domestic horses.

Examining the characteristics of an animals lying behaviour, such as frequency and duration of lying bouts, has become increasingly relevant for animal welfare research. Triaxial accelerometers have the advantage of being able to continuously monitor an animals standing and lying behaviour without relying on live observations or video recordings. Multiple models of accelerometers have been validated for use in monitoring dairy cattle; however, no units have been validated for use in equines. This study tested Onset Pendant G data loggers attached to the hind limb of each of two mature Standardbred horses for a period of 5 days. Data loggers were set to record their position every 20 s. Horses were monitored via live observations during the day and by video recordings during the night to compare activity against accelerometer data. All lying events occurred overnight (three to five lying bouts per horse per night). Data collected from the loggers was converted and edited using a macro program to calculate the number of bouts and the length of time each animal spent lying down by hour and by day. A paired t-test showed no significant difference between the video observations and the output from the data loggers (P=0.301). The data loggers did not distinguish standing hipshot from standing square. Predictability, sensitivity, and specificity were all >99%. This study has validated the use of Onset Pendant G data loggers to determine the frequency and duration of standing and lying bouts in adult horses when set to sample and register readings at 20 s intervals.

An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique

The diversity of sectors that comprise the equine industry makes reaching a consensus regarding welfare issues a challenge. To allow for productive discussion, equine professionals (n = 34) chosen to represent the diverse specializations from across Canada were surveyed using the Delphi technique—a survey technique employing multiple, iterative “rounds” to consolidate viewpoints—to gather and consolidate information regarding areas of welfare concern in the Canadian equine industry. Only participants who completed the prior round could participate in subsequent rounds. In the first round, respondents were asked to identify examples of welfare issues. Qualitative analysis was used to sort and group answers based on their similarities. Participants identified 12 welfare issues best addressed at the individual horse level, and an additional 12 welfare issues best addressed at the industry level. In the second (n = 24) and third (n = 14) rounds, welfare issues, solutions, and potential motives were consolidated based on order ranking. Themes of “ignorance” and “lack of knowledge” identified throughout all three rounds were cited as both potential risks to welfare as well as motives leading to poor welfare situations. Responses in this study suggest that in order to improve the welfare of equids in the Canadian industry, equine professionals propose that a greater effort is required to help educate industry members and stakeholders such that, through daily routine care and management, higher standards of welfare can be attained.

Putting an On-Farm Welfare Assessment Tool into Practice in the Canadian Equine Industry–A Pilot Study

&NA; On‐farm assessments play an important role in evaluating animal welfare at the farm level, ensuring legislative standards are being met and providing farm owners with information. With the recent revision of the Canadian National Farm Animal Care Councils (NFACCs) Equine Code of Practice, determining how well these standards are met in the Canadian industry is a major step in evaluating the welfare of horses within the industry. To that end, an on‐farm welfare assessment tool designed to evaluate farms to the NFACCs Equine Code of Practice was designed and tested on a diverse group of volunteer farms in Southern Ontario (n = 26). This pilot on‐farm welfare assessment tool was completed, on average, within 144 ± 15 minutes, and the duration was affected by the total number of horses on‐farm, the number stalled at night, and the order in which the assessments were conducted. In addition, the information gathered from these assessments demonstrated not only the diversity between farms but also within farms, and this lack of uniformity in their care added additional challenges to on‐farm assessment procedures. Interviews with participants and assessors helped to identify areas in which a welfare assessment program would be useful to the Canadian industry as well as areas where implementing such a program would prove challenging. This project laid the groundwork for future studies regarding the implementation of an on‐farm welfare assessment tool, demonstrating that despite the lack of legislative pressure, on‐farm welfare assessments have the potential to help improve the welfare of animals in the Canadian equine industry. HighlightsAn assessment tool was created and pilot tested on horse farms in Ontario (n = 26).On average, the assessment process was completed within 144 ± 15 minutes.Duration was statistically affected by several factors including horse number.The pilot documented diversity of animals and management both between and within farms.The pilot identified areas where conducting on‐farm assessments could prove challenging.

Preliminary study on current perceptions and usage of training equipment by horse enthusiasts in Canada

ABSTRACT Training practices may impose restrictions on the equine behavioral repertoire through the use of training equipment. Presently, the prevalence of the use of training equipment in Canada is unknown. Through an online survey for horse enthusiasts (n = 654), this study evaluated the prevalence and predominant uses of whips, spurs, and head-control equipment by enthusiasts with direct contact with horses compared to perceptions held by enthusiasts with no direct horse contact using chi-squared analyses. Respondents primarily reported using whips and spurs to augment rider or trainer cues and reported using head-control equipment mainly for lunging purposes. The perceived frequency of spurs and head-control equipment use during riding or training by nonactive horse enthusiasts was significantly greater than reported usage by riders and trainers (p < .05). The results potentially indicate a lack of understanding and miscommunication of training equipment use by riders and trainers. The frequent reporting of training equipment for the purpose of augmenting rider cues may imply misinterpretation of the correct application of learning theory. These preliminary results warrant further investigation of equipment use within the horse industry.

An Exploration of Industry Expert Perception of Equine Welfare Using Vignettes

Simple Summary Short scenarios were used to examine how equine professionals evaluated potentially welfare-compromising situations as part of a larger survey project. Participants were asked to score scenarios based on perceived severity, justify their answer, and provide an explanation for what might cause a person to put the horse in that situation. Based on the answers provided, it was determined that the duration of the situation and extent of its consequences most greatly impacted scoring values, though a large variation in score values was seen. Results from this study suggested that professionals were most sensitive to situations that had the potential to cause horses pain, which is likely to influence how they perceive and react to horses experiencing a state of poor welfare. Overall, responses from the vignettes allowed for a picture of welfare perception based on personal values. Abstract As part of a larger Delphi survey project, equine professionals (n = 14) were presented with twelve short scenarios in which a horse’s welfare could be compromised. They were asked to rank each scenario (with 0 indicating no welfare concerns and 5 indicating a situation where immediate intervention was necessary), provide justification for their ranking, and give examples of what might have been the motivation behind the scenario. The wide range within vignette scores demonstrated the diversity of opinion even among a relatively small group of equine professionals. Qualitative analysis of responses to vignettes suggested that respondents typically ranked situations higher if they had a longer duration and the potential for greater or longer-lasting consequences (e.g., serious injury). Respondents were also the most sensitive to situations in which the horse’s physical well-being (e.g., painful experience) was, or could be, compromised. Financial reasons, ignorance, and human convenience were also areas discussed as potential motivators by survey respondents. Overall, responses from the vignettes allowed for a picture of welfare perception based on personal values.