Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:28:10.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A preliminary study investigating the physical welfare and welfare code compliance for tethered and free-ranging horses on common land in South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EK Samuel ,
HR Whay  and
S Mullan
EK Samuel
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
HR Whay
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
S Mullan*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Siobhan.mullan@bris.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The scientific literature on horses kept on common land in the UK is limited. Welfare codes and legislation are in place to safeguard the welfare of these horses; however, it has little scientific validation. This study investigated the welfare code compliance and physical welfare of both tethered (T) and free-ranging (F) horses kept on a public common in South Wales. A welfare assessment was developed using resource-based and animal-based measures. The assessment was carried out weekly over a six-week period on all horses found on the common, a total of 37 horses, 21 tethered and 16 free-ranging were observed during some or all visits. The mean prevalence of welfare measures assessed during weekly observations of individual horses was calculated. The highest mean prevalences were recorded for rainscald, hoof overgrowth and hoof cracks. Overall, no significant differences were found between welfare indicators for tethered and free-ranging groups of horses on the same common. There were high levels of compliance with the Welsh Government code of practice covering tethering in some areas, eg having a 4-m gap between tethered horses (96% compliance), however, in other areas there was poor compliance, eg exercise off the tether for a period each day (0% compliance). Changes to management, including provision of shelter, increased access to water, exercise and farrier attention, may significantly improve welfare. However, there was no evidence that tethering itself had a significant negative impact on the physical welfare of horses.

Keywords

animal welfarecommon landhorseslegislation compliancephysical assessmenttethering
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , November 2012 , pp. 593 - 598
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Crown 2006 Explanatory Notes for Animal Welfare Act 2006. https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060045_en_1 accessed: 16/04/10 15:31Google Scholar
Defra 2009 Archive: What is Common Land? http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/protected/commonland/about.htmGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2009 Farm Animal Welfare Council: Five Freedoms. http://www.fawc.org. uk/freedoms.htmGoogle Scholar
Jongman, EC, Bidstrup, I and Hemsworth, PH 2005 Behavioural and physiological measures of welfare of pregnant mares fitted with a novel urine collection device. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93(1-2): 147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Dippel, S, Huber, J, March, S, Winckler, C and Whay, HR 2009 Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls. Journal of Dairy Science 92(4): 1567–1574CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeb, C, Henstridge, C, Dewhurst, K and Bazeley, K 2002 Welfare assessment of working donkeys: assessment of the impact of an animal healthcare project in West Kenya. Animal Welfare 12(4): 689–694Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12(4): 523–528Google Scholar
McDonnell, SM, Freeman, DA, Cymbaluk, NF, Schott, HC, Hinchcliff, K and Kyle, B 1999 Behaviour of stabled horses provided continuous or intermittent access to drinking water. American Journal of Veterinary Research 60(11): 1451–1456Google ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S and Whay, HR 2011 Mustang special project: a study of vulnerable equines across South Wales. Report to the Welsh Assembly Government under the Companion Animal Welfare Enhancement Scheme. Welsh Government: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
National Equine Welfare Council (NEWC) 2003 Body condition scoring of horses (Annex C). Equine Industry Welfare Guidelines Compendium for Horses, Ponies and Donkeys. National Equine Welfare Council: Kenilworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Ovnicek, GD, Page, BT and Trotter, GW 2003 Natural balance trimming and shoeing: its theory and application. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 19(2): 353–377Google ScholarPubMed
Pallant, J 2007 SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Pilsworth, RC and Knottenbelt, D 2007 Dermatophilosis (rain scald). Equine Veterinary Education 19(4): 212–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, JC, Burn, CC, Barr, ARS and Whay, HR 2008 Validity of indicators of dehydration in working horses: a longitudinal study of changes in skin tent duration, mucous membrane dryness and drinking behaviour. Equine Veterinary Journal 40(6): 558–564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, JC, Lindberg, AC, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2005 Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69(3-4): 265–283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romney, DL, Sendalo, DSC, Owen, E, Mtenga, LA, Penning, PD, Mayes, RW and Hendy, CRC 1996 Effects of tethering management on food intake and behaviour of Tanzanian goats. Small Ruminant Research 19(2): 113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swansea County Council 2000 Horses in Swansea: Press Release (06/09/00). http://www3.swansea.gov.uk/cmsr/presssystem/PressReleaseTemplate2.asp?sTarget=/cmsr/presssystem/pressdata/2000/000906horses.htm&DocTitle=Horses%20in%20Swansea%2006/09/00 accessed: 02/04/10 08:22Google Scholar
Turner, TA 1992 The use of hoof measurements for the objective assessment of hoof balance. Proceedings American Association of Equine Practice 38: 157–164Google Scholar
Welsh Assembly Government 2008 Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equines. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF and Green, LE 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. The Veterinary Record 153(7): 197–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed