A Bioeconomic Model for the Thoroughbred Racing Industry-Optimisation of the Production Cycle with a Horse Centric Welfare Perspective.
Authors: Legg Kylie A, Gee Erica K, Breheny Mary, Gibson Michaela J, Rogers Chris W
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary Thoroughbred racing operates under conflicting pressures: economic viability, biological constraints of horse athleticism, and public acceptance—yet these three drivers manifest differently across racing jurisdictions worldwide, making direct comparison of injury and wastage rates problematic. Through comparative analysis of racing metrics, stakes structures and gambling patterns internationally, Legg and colleagues reveal that Asian racing jurisdictions prioritise high turnover and rapid horse turnover (more starts per animal, greater betting volumes), whilst North American racing operates with lower stakes, fewer horses per race and longer-term investment models—differences rooted in distinct ownership cultures and expected returns on investment. These structural variations produce measurably different welfare and injury profiles; for example, high-frequency racing models expose horses to cumulative fatigue stress differently than lower-frequency systems, yet current injury risk research fails to account for these jurisdiction-specific contexts. The authors advocate for adoption of a bioeconomic model that simultaneously optimises for economic sustainability, respects equine biology and physiology, and maintains social licence to operate, allowing each jurisdiction to design production cycles that prioritise horse welfare without sacrificing viability. For practitioners, this framework suggests that injury prevention strategies, training protocols and retirement policies cannot be one-size-fits-all; instead, effective welfare outcomes require alignment with local economic structures and realistic assessment of how production demands affect individual animals.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Understand that racing injury risks and welfare pressures differ significantly by jurisdiction due to different economic models and training cultures—what works for welfare in one region may not apply elsewhere.
- •Recognize that short-term versus long-term investment philosophies in horse ownership drive different training intensities and racing schedules that impact injury and wastage rates.
- •Consider advocating for bioeconomic models in your jurisdiction that balance economic viability with measurable horse welfare outcomes rather than accepting injury rates as inevitable.
Key Findings
- •Asian racing jurisdictions prioritize gambling efficiency with high starts per horse and betting turnover, while USA racing shows lower stakes and fewer horses per race, reflecting different ownership philosophies.
- •Significant differences exist within each racing jurisdiction across three moderators: economic sustainability, horse biology, and social licence to operate, creating challenges for cross-jurisdictional injury risk comparison.
- •Wastage studies reveal varying injury risks influenced by predominant racing culture, training methods, and production focus within individual jurisdictions.
- •A bioeconomic model incorporating all three moderators could optimize jurisdiction-specific production cycles while prioritizing horse-centric welfare perspectives.