Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar 18;8(3):41.
doi: 10.3390/ani8030041.

Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare

Paul McGreevy  1 , Jeannine Berger  2 , Nic de Brauwere  3 , Orla Doherty  4 , Anna Harrison  5 , Julie Fiedler  6 , Claudia Jones  7 , Sue McDonnell  8 , Andrew McLean  9 , Lindsay Nakonechny  10 , Christine Nicol  11 , Liane Preshaw  12 , Peter Thomson  13 , Vicky Tzioumis  14 , John Webster  15 , Sarah Wolfensohn  16 , James Yeates  17 , Bidda Jones  18   19
Affiliations

Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare

Paul McGreevy et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity-competition; C12 Activity-work; C13 Activity-breeding females; and C14 Activity-breeding males. Scores on a 1-10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1-10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

Keywords: equitation; five domains; horse; husbandry; welfare assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Domains of potential welfare compromise divided broadly into physical or functional and mental components. (Modified from Mellor et al., 2009 [24]).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various weaning interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S1.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various dietary interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S2.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various housing interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various foundation training interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S4.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various medical interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S5.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various surgical interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S6.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various elective procedures, and the workshop scores assigned to these procedures using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S7.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various care procedures, and the workshop scores assigned to these procedures using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S8.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various restraint interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S9.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various road transport interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S10.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various competition interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S11.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various work interventions, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S12.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various interventions with breeding mares, and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S13.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Box-and-whisker plots showing the distribution of pre-workshop (Pre) estimates (where available) of the impact of various interventions with breeding stallions (and teasers), and the workshop scores assigned to these interventions using the Five Domains approach. The pre-workshop estimates were not based on the Five Domains approach. For the assumptions and notes on which these domain scores were based, see Supplementary Materials Table S14.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Model-based percentages of each Domain 5 score versus the pre-workshop score, for Weaning context.
Figure 17
Figure 17
A graphical illustration of the relationships between scores for Domain 1 and Domain 5 for weaning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Home Office . Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures Act 1986) HMSO; London, UK: 1986.
    1. Perel P., Roberts I., Sena E., Wheble P., Briscoe C., Sandercock P., Macleod M., Mignini L.E., Jayaram P., Khan K.S. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334:197. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mason G., Mendl M. Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Anim. Welf. 1993;2:301–319.
    1. Bracke M.B.M., Spruijt B., Metz J. Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1999;47:279–291.
    1. Dawkins M.S. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:3–7.