Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare.
Authors: McGreevy Paul, Berger Jeannine, de Brauwere Nic, Doherty Orla, Harrison Anna, Fiedler Julie, Jones Claudia, McDonnell Sue, McLean Andrew, Nakonechny Lindsay, Nicol Christine, Preshaw Liane, Thomson Peter, Tzioumis Vicky, Webster John, Wolfensohn Sarah, Yeates James, Jones Bidda
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary An international panel of 16 equine experts—including veterinarians, physiotherapists, equitation scientists, and welfare specialists—convened to systematically evaluate the welfare impacts of 95 common husbandry, veterinary, and training interventions using the Five Domains Model, a framework that assesses physical health, behaviour, mental state, natural living conditions, and overall quality of life. Across 14 distinct contexts ranging from weaning and housing through to breeding and competition work, panellists scored each intervention on a 1–10 scale, with particular attention to psychological welfare impacts; notably, castration without veterinary supervision, abrupt individual weaning, and indoor tie stalls without social contact all received maximum severity scores (10, 10, and 9 respectively), whilst controversial management practices like tongue ties and restrictive nosebands scored 8 for welfare impact. The research revealed that whilst panellists' pre-workshop and post-workshop assessments generally aligned, discussion and expert consensus sometimes shifted rankings—especially regarding breeding practices—suggesting that multidisciplinary dialogue can refine welfare judgements that individual practitioners might make in isolation. This structured assessment offers equine professionals a transparent, evidence-informed reference point for evaluating whether interventions are justified by genuine clinical or management necessity, and highlights practices where alternatives merit serious consideration from both ethical and welfare-science perspectives.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Reconsider common practices scoring highest for welfare impact: abrupt weaning, unsupervised castration, prolonged tie-stall confinement, forced flexion, and ear twitches warrant revision or elimination from standard protocols
- •When implementing veterinary or training procedures, consider the mental/emotional domain separately from physical comfort, as these may require different mitigation strategies
- •Engage with specialist colleagues before adopting routine procedures—workshop consensus identified several high-impact practices that individual practitioners might have underestimated
Key Findings
- •Abrupt individual weaning, castration without veterinary supervision, and indoor tie stalls with no social contact scored highest (median 9-10) for adverse welfare impacts
- •Forced flexion and dropping horse with ropes in foundation training both scored 9/10 for welfare impact
- •Domain 1 (nutrition/environment) had the weakest association with Domain 5 (mental/affective state), suggesting these welfare domains may not always correlate
- •Workshop participation changed some welfare rankings, particularly for breeding practices, indicating consensus-building can alter initial individual assessments