Received: 5 March 2024 | Accepted: 9 March 2024 DOI: 10.1111/eve.13972


C L INI C A L COMMENTA RY


Welfare considerations for management of horses on prolonged periods of box rest


Gemma Pearson 1,2


1 The Horse Trust , Buckinghamshire , UK 2 The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies , Edinburgh , UK


Correspondence: Gemma Pearson Email: gemma.pearson@ed.ac.uk


INTRODUCTION


Peeters et al. ( 2024 ) describe the presentation, diagnosis and suc- cessful management of an unusual fracture, of the femoral greater trochanter, in an 8- year- old Warmblood mare. Internal fixation was not considered feasible due to the high likelihood of implant failure at this location and financial constraints. However, based on suc- cessful outcomes with similar proximal limb bony protuberances, conservative management was undertaken with an excellent out- come—the horse returned to its previous level of exercise. The au- thors should be commended in this case report for considering the welfare implications of horses on prolonged box rest and reflecting on what further steps could have been taken to improve this mare ' s welfare. This clinical commentary will discuss the welfare implica- tions of confinement in horses before expanding on further options for optimising the management of horses undergoing box rest.


WELFARE


The term welfare is often associated with negative connota- tions, at least in part, this may be due to historical teaching of the subject revolving around the five freedoms (Brambell, 1965 ). The five freedoms focused on the absence of negatives to ensure animals have a life worth living. As welfare science has evolved, we now strive to provide animals not just with a life worth liv- ing but with a good life (Mellor, 2016 ) and we now recognise that welfare represents how that individual animal feels, that is their mental state, which is dependent on the balance of negative to positive experiences. This balance can be measured using the five domains model, which has evolved over nearly 30 years and now


specifically includes intra- species interactions in addition to inter- species ones (Mellor et al., 2020 ). When considering the welfare of a horse on box rest, we should


therefore consider the experience from that individual horse ' s per- spective. To do this, we use the horse ' s behaviour as a proxy for their mental state, and some behavioural indicators of stress were suggested by the authors. However, previous work has shown poor agreement on the perceived level of stress a horse is experiencing among equine veterinarians (Pearson et al., 2021 ). Evaluating stress is challenging as individuals across all species employ different cop- ing mechanisms (Budzyńska, 2012 ; Koolhaas et al., 1999 ; Vindas et al., 2017 ). It is easy to recognise the horse that employs a pro- active coping mechanism, it may be doing the wall of death round the box or frequently vocalising. But we should not forget that horses may also utilise a reactive coping mechanism (Budzyńska, 2012 ). Reactive coping often results in the horse appearing content in the situation, despite mounting a similar physiological stress response to those clearly not coping (Yarnell et al., 2013 ). Mice kept in a cage environment that meets minimum legal standards spend more time inactive but awake compared with those in an enriched envi- ronment, yet visibly they appear content. However, either moving them to enriched cages or providing anti- depressants significantly reduces time spent inactive but awake (Fureix et al., 2022 ). When you consider the depth and breadth of research demonstrating the negative welfare implications of keeping horses stabled, as reviewed by Krueger et al. ( 2021 ), we should always remain mindful that this is inevitably stressful, even in horses that appear outwardly to be cop- ing. As demonstrated by Fureix et al. ( 2022 ), providing an enriched environment improves welfare. The term environmental enrichment is appealing and suggests we are creating a positive experience for the animal. But perhaps it would be better described as reduced


This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Education published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.


342 | aaep.org/wiley-redirect Equine Vet Educ. 2024;36:342–346.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92