Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:44:37.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An epidemiological analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2016

P. L. Hitchens ,
J. Hultgren ,
J. Frössling ,
U. Emanuelson  and
L. J. Keeling
P. L. Hitchens*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
J. Hultgren
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden
J. Frössling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden National Veterinary Institute(SVA), 751 89 Uppsala, Sweden
U. Emanuelson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7054, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
L. J. Keeling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Determining welfare status in a population is the first step in efforts to improve welfare. The primary objective of this study was to explore a new epidemiological approach for analysis of data from official competent authorities that pertain to compliance with animal welfare legislation. We reviewed data already routinely collected as part of Swedish official animal welfare inspections for 2010–13, using a checklist containing 45 checkpoints (CPs). These covered animal-, resource- and management-based measures of equine welfare. The animal-based CPs were measures that directly related to the animal and included social contact, body condition, hoof condition and cleanliness. Non-compliance with one or more of the animal-based CPs was used as a binary outcome of poor equine welfare; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the exact binomial distribution. Associations were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for clustering on premises. Resource- and management-based CPs (model inputs) were reduced by principal component analysis. Other input factors included premises characteristics (e.g. size, location) and inspection characteristics (e.g. type of inspection). There were 30 053 premises with horses from 21 counties registered by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. In total 13 321 inspections of premises were conducted at 28.4% (n=8532) of all registered premises. For random inspections, the premises-prevalence of poor equine welfare was 9.5% (95% CI 7.5, 11.9). Factors associated with poor equine welfare were non-compliance with requirements for supervision, care or feeding of horses, facility design, personnel, stable hygiene, pasture and exercise area maintenance, as well as the owner not being notified of the inspection, a previous complaint or deficiency, spring compared with autumn, and not operating as a professional equine business. Horses at premises compliant with stabling and shelter requirements had significantly better welfare if they also complied with documentation requirements. We present a novel approach for analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities, and propose on-going analyses and benchmarking of trends in animal-based measures over time. We also suggest how such a database could be further improved to facilitate future epidemiological analyses of risk factors associated with poor equine welfare. The study has implications for other competent authorities and researchers collaborating in the area of animal welfare epidemiology.

Keywords

horselegislationanimal-based measureswelfare indicatorsrisk assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , July 2017 , pp. 1237 - 1248
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Equine Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Hwy, Werribee 3030, Australia.

References

Bachmann, I, AudigÉ, L and Stauffacher, M 2003. Risk factors associated with behavioural disorders of crib-biting, weaving and box-walking in Swiss horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 35, 158–163.Google Scholar
Christie, JL, Hewson, CJ, Riley, CB, McNiven, MA, Dohoo, IR and Bate, LA 2004. Demographics, management, and welfare of nonracing horses in Prince Edward Island. Canadian Veterinary Journal 45, 1004–1011.Google Scholar
Christie, JL, Hewson, CJ, Riley, CB, McNiven, MA, Dohoo, IR and Bate, LA 2006. Management factors affecting stereotypies and body condition score in nonracing horses in Prince Edward Island. Canadian Veterinary Journal 47, 136–143.Google Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Murray, L, Dai, F, Canali, E and Minero, M 2014. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators. Animal welfare 23, 323–341.Google Scholar
Djurskyddslagen [Animal Welfare Act] (1988: 534). DL 2-4, 9 §§, Sweden.Google Scholar
Edwards, JH and Edwards, AWF 1984. Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Biometrics 40, 563–563.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2012. Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10, 2767.Google Scholar
Geiger, M and Hovorka, AJ 2015. Using physical and emotional parameters to assess donkey welfare in Botswana. Veterinary Record Open 2, e000062.Google Scholar
Giles, SL, Rands, SA, Nicol, CJ and Harris, PA 2014. Obesity prevalence and associated risk factors in outdoor living domestic horses and ponies. PeerJ 2, e299.Google Scholar
Green, L and Nicol, C 2004. Use of epidemiology to assess animal welfare-advantages and disadvantages. Proceedings of the Food Safety and Biosecurity Branch, New Zealand Veterinary Association, pp. 101–106.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C and Scott, K 2011. Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare 20, 79–87.Google Scholar
Ireland, JL, McGowan, CM, Clegg, PD, Chandler, KJ and Pinchbeck, GL 2012. A survey of health care and disease in geriatric horses aged 30 years or older. The Veterinary Journal 192, 57–64.Google Scholar
Ireland, JL, Wylie, CE, Collins, SN, Verheyen, KLP and Newton, JR 2013. Preventive health care and owner-reported disease prevalence of horses and ponies in Great Britain. Research in Veterinary Science 95, 418–424.Google Scholar
Jämtlands County Administrative Board 2013. Projekt VAD – verifiering av djurskyddskontroll [Project VAD – verification of welfare controls]. Diarienummer 282-9031-12. Länsstyrelsen Jämtlands län, Östersund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Joel, N 2015. Verifiering av djurskyddskontroll-en fallstudie från Gotlands län [Verification of welfare controls – a case study from Gotland]. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kaiser, HF 1958. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 187–200.Google Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2009. Horses in Europe. EU Equus, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Luescher, UA, McKeown, DB and Dean, H 1998. A cross-sectional study on compulsive behaviour (stable vices) in horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 30, 14–18.Google Scholar
McGreevy, PD, Cripps, PJ, French, NP, Green, LE and Nicol, CJ 1995a. Management factors associated with stereotypic and redirected behaviour in the Thoroughbred horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 27, 86–91.Google Scholar
McGreevy, PD, French, NP and Nicol, CJ 1995b. The prevalence of abnormal behaviours in dressage, eventing and endurance horses in relation to stabling. Veterinary Record 137, 36–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millman, ST, Johnson, AK, O’Connor, AM and Zanella, AJ 2009. Animal welfare and epidemiology – across species, across disciplines, and across borders. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 83–87.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, D 2010. Veterinary epidemiology: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons, University of London, London, UK.Google Scholar
Sarrafchi, A and Blokhuis, HJ 2013. Equine stereotypic behaviors: causation, occurrence, and prevention. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 8, 386–394.Google Scholar
Snijders, T and Bosker, R 1999. Multilevel modeling: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
StataCorp, L 2013. Stata multivariate statistics reference manual: Release 13. In StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Statistics Sweden 2014. Befolkningsstatistik [Population statistics]. Statistiska centralbyrån, Sweden.Google Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture 2004. Djurskyddsmyndighetens föreskrifter om kravet på tillstånd enligt 16 § djurskyddslagen för hållande m.m. av häst, hund, katt och övriga sällskapsdjur [Animal Welfare Agency’s regulations on the requirement of a permit under §16 of the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534) for the keeping of horses, dogs, cats and other companion animals] (DFS 2004: 5). L120. Statens Jordbruksverket, Sweden.Google Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture 2007. Djurskyddsmyndighetens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om hästhållning [Animal Welfare Agency’s regulations and general guidelines for horse keeping] (2007:6). L101 4kap.1 § punkt 4. Statens Jorbruksverket, Sweden.Google Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture 2011. Hästar och anläggningar med häst 2010: Resultat från en intermittent undersökning [Horses and facilities with horses 2010: Results from an intermittent survey]. In Serie JO – Jordbruk, skogsbruk och fiske. Statens Jordbruksverket, Sweden.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2006. Part I. Baseline reference of equine health and management, 2005. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Fort Collins, CO, USA.Google Scholar
Viksten, SM, Visser, EK and Blokhuis, HJ 2016. A comparative study of the application of two horse welfare assessment protocols. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 66, 56–65.Google Scholar
Willeberg, P 1997. Epidemiology and animal welfare. Epidemiol. Santé anim, 31, 3–7.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hitchens supplementary material

Hitchens supplementary material

Download Hitchens supplementary material(File)
File 46.7 KB