Hi,
Welcome to topic 3 for 624EHS - Contemporary Issues in Equine Science.
This topic is all about competition horse welfare. You have from now until 3 pm on Monday 17th of January 2022 to contribute to this blog, to debate the issues surrounding the welfare of the competition horse. Ensure you can also evidence your opinions and remember that you are also required to submit a reference list (word document emailed to module leader) by 3 pm on Monday 17th of January 2022. You will be graded on the quality and quantity of both your blog contributions and your reference list. Remember, the point of this is to debate the issues, so you should be replying to other posts and well as making suggestions and comments on other aspects. I will be keeping an eye on the blog, but if you have any issues, you should email me. Please remember to register your name with your comments so that I know who has contributed with which comment.
When looking at the welfare of horses, the five freedoms must be looked at. However the framework was produced for farm animals as well as to be used for horses, this makes them very vague when being used in the equine industry. It only focuses on the negative rather than the positives of welfare (McCulloch, 2013), which would include veterinary attention to any diseases or injuries, appropriate housing and nutrition, appropriate skilled care and interactions between both horses and owner (Hockenhull and Whay, 2014). Without including the positive and more specific factors of welfare, the term ‘as free as possible...’ isn’t promoting the welfare of equine athletes (Campbell, 2016). (comment by previous student)
ReplyDeleteMcCulloch 2013 critique of the five freedoms does judge them to be satisfactory despite being negatively charged. However, as it has now been a decade since McCulloch, 2013 paper was published, perhaps it is time to be re-evaluated as the freedoms only become more vague as our animal husbandry and knowledge improves, the freedoms were only ever intended to be a minimum level of care anyway. However it could be argued that the freedom from pain/suffering, in addition to UK laws Protection of Animals Act 1911 already instates the requirement for veterinary attention in the case of sick or injured animals (Protection of Animals Act 1911, 2022). From this perspective, the five freedoms do remain sufficient and do not need to detail the positive aspects of care.
Delete(Kaya Wales)
DeleteMoreover, as you have mentioned the freedoms were created for farming livestock (Brambell 1965). Although many countries still keep horses as working farm animals, when looking at the performance horse, the animal can no longer be considered the same but instead as a serious athlete. The evolution that the domestic horse has undergone, from farmhand to athlete is considerable and thus, completely changed how they are managed. Housing and nutrition are meticulously planned, but if they continue to be in the horses best interest remains to be seen. Performance horses are under different types of stress, the opposite of neglect which is essentially what prompted the five freedoms (Mellor and Burns 2020). Instead every aspect of their athletic life, including nutrition, housing, exercise, travel etc are controlled by what owners and trainers deem to be the most 'successful', not necessarily taking into account the long term effects that competition and training has (Furtado et al 2021).
Lesimple et al (2020) says despite the negative impacts on the horse it is commonly accepted to stable sports horses for 20 plus hours a day. reasons for doing this include fear of injury and the impairment of future performance if turned out. it is also accepted in the industry that one hour of exercise is enough to meet the locomotion needs of the horse per day.
ReplyDeleteLesimple et al (2020) undertook study in which the aim was to access the feasibility of allowing some adult sports horses who had always been confined to stables to have daily turnout in paddocks, and to evaluate the behaviour of the horses and the consequences of these turnout sessions. Findings show that the horses quickly become habituated to the turnout and the regular time for free movement has a clear and positive impact on the horse welfare and emotional state.
limitations to this study suggest that the horses became so quickly acclimatised to the turnout because of hay in the paddock.
Further experimentation should include longer paddock sessions for sports horses, with emphasis on the occurrence of field injury and its affect on performance.
Is there a requirement to include the free movement of horses in regulations for welfare? (comment from previous student)
KAYA: The issue with your argument, is confusing turn out time with exercise, when it actually provides so much more. We have spoken about the evolution and domestication of horses, and how much they have changed but their basic physiology has not (Henderson 2018). Turn out, and indeed the act of grazing is vital.
DeleteIdeally horses should spend 20 hours per day feeding, as their feral counterparts do in order to keep saliva, HCI and glandular secretions at adequate levels (Hewetson and Tallon 2021). When pH is low, vital volatile fatty acids (VFA) penetrate the non-glandular squamous-mucosal barrier of the proximal 1/3rd of the stomach inhibiting sodium transport, thus predisposing equines to squamous ulcers. Lack of grazing reduces saliva secretion, leading to elevated VFAs production and should therefore be avoided. Just 4 hours without feeding puts them at risk of gastric ulcers (Hewetson and Tallon 2021).
KAYA: An interesting point brought up by Lesimple et al 2020 is that it is possible to be in a good welfare state and still experience acute fear or pain, and conversely, short-term positive emotions can be experienced during impaired welfare states. This point illustrates the possible faults in the commonly used techniques of using cortisol levels in blood/saliva to determine emotional wellbeing and welfare (Witkowska-Piłaszewicz et al 2021). Welfare as a chronic state has to be clearly distinguished from temporary states related to emotions, pain or stress. This is likely why Lesimple et al 2020 instead uses equine stereotypies as a welfare indicator, and according to Lesimple et al (2020) study, the psychological well being of today's performance horse appears to be compromised.
DeleteKAYA: On the other hand, Daniels et al 2019 links equine stereotypies with gastric issues. This is notable because around 90% of horses in active race training tend to have gastrointestinal ulcers (Stefanyk and Slivinska 2018). It is thought that this high prevalence of gastric ulcers in racehorses is due to their typically intense management strategies, mostly relating to diet, intense exercise and lack of free turn out.
DeleteFurthermore, Henderson 2018 states how minimal management changes can enhance horses' well being while still remaining compatible with the requirements of the sport-horse industry.
Spur use within elite competition is common practice, dressage riders require spurs from advanced medium and above (British Dressage 2019)
ReplyDeleteSpurs are used by riders to reinforce the riders leg aids prompting the horse to move, either forwards in a quicker pace, or lateral movements as we see in dressage test movements.
Over recent years the use of spurs in equestrianism has attracted a negative public attention, on occasions where the spur has injured the horse’s side and induced a production of visible blood (Jones, 2018)
(Lemon et al. 2020) undertook a questionnaire based research to record the use and type of spurs across the UK equine disciplines and relate these findings to the frequency of equine injury associated with their use.
628 participants and 19 types of equestrian activity were reported.
47% used spurs. 60% of the professional riders used spurs and were 1.5 times more likely to use spurs than not. 34% of spur users reported skin abrasions because of spur use. With affiliated riders 3.57 times more likely to have experienced this. the majority agreed with the current FEI regulations of elimination for both excessive use of spurs and the presence of blood on a horse.
The public opinion of spur use being negative may have impacted the participants of this study, and had influence on the answers they gave. More research using a larger sample size, and a scientific review of current spur regulations and sanctions be implemented for a more in depth view on how spurs affect the welfare of the horse. (comment from previous student)
KAYA: In addition to Lemon et al 2020 finding professional riders 1.5 times more likely to use spurs, a correlation between spur use and gender was also noted. Males riders were 2.88 times more likely to use spurs than females, which is interesting, as male riders only made up 5% of completed responses, the other 95% were female. Finding a correlation between male riders and spur use in a study mainly of female riders begs the question of a follow up study with equal numbers of female and male respondents. Perhaps, to disinclude disciplines which require spurs such as dressage, would also be prudent.
DeleteFurthermore, lower level competition riders were significantly associated with hair on the spurs and worn hair on the horse's ribcage. This indicates that experience and skill are key to correct spur use. On the other hand riders cannot gain that level of experience or skill without using spurs, we all must start somewhere.
Finally, Lemon et al 2020 found longer spur shanks (>32 mm) significantly increased the risk of skin abrasions and hair loss. Rotating spur designs were 1.5 times more likely to be associated with injury compared with fixed shank designs.
KAYA: However, the selection of rider/horse combination was not random. This may have given better or even different understandings of the correlations found between levels of experience, level of competition and gender with spur use. Nevertheless, lesions on the chest wall may be decreased by limiting the length of spurs.
DeletePerhaps, sports that advocate the use of spurs, such as dressage should ban certain types of spurs, like long and/or rotating spurs, in lower levels of competition or even all together, until solid and proven methods on how to best train riders on how to use them without injuring the horse are determined and implemented.
Unfortunately, in Lemon et al 2020 study the equestrian federation did not permit a full intraoral examination Had full intraoral examination been permitted, results may have been drastically different but unlikely in a way that disproved Lemon et als 2020 findings, more likely full examination would have only exacerbated
KAYA: Spurs were not the only thing Lemon et al 2020s study focused on. The absence of a cavesson increased the risk of lesions at the commissures of the lips 2.39 times compared with the loosest noseband yet looser upper nosebands were associated with decreased risk of oral lesions. In conclusion, lesions of the skin or mucosa at the commissures of the lips may be decreased by limiting noseband tightness.
DeleteSpurs may be required in advanced dressage, but if they are actually needed is another matter. Instead we should be turning our attention to the training of the animal and the relationship between the horses and rider. If both of these are optimal there really is no obvious need for spurs, especially not at the price of the animals' welfare.
Eventing is considered the most dangerous of the equestrian sports (Thompson & Nesci 2013; Hennessy 2016; Foreman & Foreman 2019) fatalities to both horse and rider are well documented in news surrounding events and via social media posts on Facebook. Hennesy (2016) reports 12 fatalities in all from 2003-2013
ReplyDeleteRotational falls have a high relative risk for catastrophic injury, with about 1 in every 5 rotational falls resulting in a serious injury or fatality compared to 1 in every 54 for unseated riders. Rotational falls are defined as falls in which a horses linear momentum is arrested as it strikes an obstacle, this will cause the horse to violently rotate its haunches over its head, strike its head and neck on the ground and ultimately land on its back, often on top of the rider (Foreman & Foreman 2019)
The FEI have recommended that “everything should be done to prevent horses from falling.”
Accordingly, many eventing organisations have prioritised the reduction of rotational falls through risk management initiatives that involve enhanced training, improved assessment of qualifications, and the research and implementation of cutting-edge safety technologies (FEI 2014)
Frangible pins have been designed to reduce the risk of rotational falls. As a certain amount of force is placed on the fence the pin will break, causing the fence to collapse and remove the fulcrum point at which the horse rotates(FEI 2019)
The use of frangible pins and deformable fences would appear to have a substantial role to play in reducing risk of a horse falling.
Are frangible pins enough to reduce and prevent injury to the horse in the cross country phase of eventing. Horses will hit the fences with different variables such as speed, stride, obstacle heights and horse experience (Foreman & Foreman 2019) (comment from previous student)
KAYA: Frangible pin technology allows jump obstacles to collapse in the event of a horse hitting the obstacle at a specific vertical angle (Gates and Lin 2020). The issue with this, is that certain impact types may not activate the safety mechanism of frangible pin technology. That being said, they are a good starting point in combating injury rates.
DeleteIn any case other obstacles on jump courses have been associated with potentially even higher injury risk than rotational falls, such as those that are round, have a square spread, or are on downhill terrain (Nylund et al 2021). O’Brien 2016 suggested that solid jumps themselves are the primary risk factor for cross-country eventing injuries to both horses and equestrians. Thus future technologies should aim to mitigate the risk factors associated with solid obstacles (O’Brien 2016) and take into consideration the visual judgement capabilities of the horse.
In the interest of welfare, there is talk in the media and on social media that such jumps ought to be reduced on competitive courses until we have found a way to approach them with less risk. That being said, even with all the knowledge and skill on how to prepare for such jumps, that does not guarantee a successful and safe course. risks in horse-riding activities are different from other sports
due to the human–animal interaction (O’Connor et al 2018), making it a risky and dangerous sport for a multitude of reasons; the rider being so far from the ground, the speed at which the horse is going and the fact that the animal being ridden is a skittish pray animal and thus never 100% predictable (O’Brien 2016) .
Another, influencing factor which could impact injury rates and welfare could be human and rider relationships.
ReplyDeleteDashper (2014) interviewed 26 elite riders and conducted an ethnographic study of competitive equestrian sport. Dashper (2014) found that the commodity value of sport horses increases and the pressure of quick results and “quick fixes” are often used, which can sometimes hinder the welfare of the animal and threatens the bonds formed between horse and rider. Increased pressure and intense training which can often result in “quick fixes” compromises welfare, furthermore, this change has reduced the importance of the horse being a trusted partners to being a commodity which in can bought and sold for human commercial benefit.
Neumann et al., (2020) reviewed databases to investigate the consequences of the possible differences in horse performance due to the number of riders who have changed over the course of the horses career. The initial research suggested that horse performance depends upon the age of the horse and number of riders it has. Horse performance increased up to ten years of age but after it decreases. Furthermore, horses ridden by only 1 to 2 riders achieve better results. Horses can adapt to competitive situations, but horses exposed to less riders achieve better results however, this could potentially raise ethical issues, especially if the horse is competing with multiple riders on the same day. Despite this the data used could not determine whether the change of rider also meant a change in the social environment with all the contexts (moving the horse to the other stable, among other horses, the use of other training methods.) (comment from previous student)
KAYA: According to Tufton and Jowett 2021, the horse-rider connection is vital to not only equine welfare but success in competition. Within the context of the rider - horse relationship, the most prevalent model to date is the 4Cs (Jowett & Shanmugam 2016): closeness, commitment, complementary, and co-orientation. These constructs are the key ingredients which constitute a high-quality relationship (Tufton and Jowett 2021).
DeleteThe 4Cs highlight the importance of a shared understanding, achieved through quality communication, and underpinned by the interdependent elements of empathic understanding and empathic accuracy (Jowett and Arthur 2019). Both empathic understanding and empathic accuracy enhance the potential of increased congruence within the relationship and importantly “offer a solution to the confusion surrounding understanding between riders and their horses” (Jowett and Arthur 2019).
KAYA: In Hogg and Hodgins 2021 study, 36 elite equestrian athletes were interviewed about their inter-species relationships. An increase in transient, instrumental horse-rider relationships may be resulting in a shift towards a commercial, detached model of relating to horses, raising ethical questions around the professionalisation of equestrianism and the management of competition horses.
DeleteInterestingly, results indicated that a strong horse-rider relationship could, in some instances, inhibit a rider’s ability to compete successfully and engage in a commercialised sporting context, due to tensions between an instrumental approach to animals and meaningful horse-rider connection. Results also suggested that horse-rider relationships may be peripheral to performance outcomes, or conversely, essential to performance success.
The difference in modern day elite equestrian sports from amateur equestrian sports must be considered (Hogg and Hodgins 2021). Especially where an elite rider earns their primary income from riding and competing horses, and third-party sponsors and owners are financially invested in a horse-rider combination.
The relationship between sporting outcomes and the horse-rider relationship in an elite setting is clearly complex and multifaceted (Hogg and Hodgins 2021).
More research must be done on this new emerging “transient relationship”, to determine the impact on the horses welfare and the impact on competition results. If it does not have an effect on competition results, does the horse require a more permanent rider outside of competition to make up for transient riders during competition and how would this effect the animals welfare.