Bit-related oral lesions are common and may impair horse welfare. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of oral lesions and their risk factors in a sample of Finnish event horses. The rostral part of the oral cavity (the bit area) of 208 event horses (127 warmbloods, 52 coldbloods, and 29 ponies) was examined in a voluntary inspection after the last competition phase, i.e., the cross-country test. Acute lesions were observed in 52% (109/208) of the horses. The lesion status was graded as no acute lesions for 48% (99/208), mild for 22% (45/208), moderate for 26% (55/208) and severe for 4% (9/208) of the horses. The inner lip commissure was the most common lesion location observed in 39% (81/208) of the horses. A multivariable logistic regression model with data of 174 horses was applied to risk factor analysis. Horses wearing thin (10–13 mm) (OR 3.5, CI 1.4–8.7) or thick (18–22 mm) (OR 3.4, CI 1.4–8.0) bits had a higher risk of moderate/severe lesion status than horses wearing middle-sized (14–17 mm) bits (P = 0.003). Breed was associated with moderate/severe lesion status (P = 0.02). The risk was higher for warmbloods (reference group) and coldbloods (OR 2.0, CI 0.88–4.7) compared with ponies (OR 0.2, CI 0.04–0.87). Mares were at higher risk of moderate/severe lesion status (OR 2.2, CI 1.1–4.5) than geldings (reference group) (P = 0.03). Bar lesions were more common in horses with unjointed bits (40%, 8/20) than with basic double-jointed (10%, 5/52), formed double-jointed (8%, 6/78) or single-jointed bits (5%, 2/40) (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.002). The results of this study suggest that thin and thick bits and mare sex should be considered risk factors for mouth lesions. In addition, in this sample ponies had smaller risk for lesions than other horse breeds. We encourage adopting bit area monitoring as a new routine by horse handlers and as a welfare measure by competition organizers for randomly drawn horses.

Oral lesions in the bit area are common in horses, but not comprehensively studied in harness racing horses. This study describes the type and occurrence of oral soft tissue lesions in the area affected by the bit, hereafter called the bit area, in trotters after a race. Based on our results, we suggest a system for scoring lesions according to size, type (bruise or wound), age, and depth (superficial or deep). The data was collected during a welfare program for trotters, conducted by The Finnish Trotting and Breeding Association (Suomen Hippos ry). The rostral part of the mouth of 261 horses (151 Standardbreds, 78 Finnhorses, and 32 ponies) was examined after a race in a systematic manner, using a bright light source without sedation or a mouth gag. The lip commissures (outside and inside), bars of the mandible, buccal area near the second upper premolar teeth, tongue, and hard palate were visually examined; bars of the mandible were also palpated. Points were assigned to every lesion and then added together, such that each horse got an acute lesion score. Based on the score, the horses were divided into four groups (A—D) as follows: Group A, no lesions; B, mild lesions; C, moderate lesions; D, severe lesions. Of all the horses examined, 84% (219/261) had acute lesions in the bit area. In total, 21% (55/261) had mild lesions, 43% (113/261) had moderate lesions, and 20% (51/261) had severe lesions. Visible bleeding outside the mouth was observed in 2% (6/261) of the horses. Further, 5% of the horses (13/261) had blood on the bit when it was removed from the mouth, even though no blood was visible outside the mouth. In conclusion, soft tissue lesions in the bit area were common in the Finnish trotters examined. Moreover, the absence of blood outside the mouth does not rule out serious injuries inside the mouth. The scoring system presented can be used for evaluating the severity of oral lesions in different equestrian disciplines and populations to allow for comparable data across studies.

Background: Bit‐related lesions in competition horses have been documented, but little evidence exists concerning their potential risk factors.Objectives: To explore potential risk factors for oral lesions in Finnish trotters.Study design: Cross‐sectional study.Methods: The rostral part of the mouth of 261 horses (151 Standardbreds, 78 Finnhorses and 32 ponies) was examined after a harness race. Information on bit type, equipment and race performance was collected.Results: A multivariable logistic regression model of Standardbreds and Finnhorses showed a higher risk of moderate or severe oral lesion status associated with horses wearing a Crescendo bit (n = 38, OR 3.6, CI 1.4–8.9), a mullen mouth regulator bit (n = 25, OR 9.9, CI 2.2‐45) or a straight plastic bit (n = 14, OR 13.7, CI 1.75‐110) compared with horses wearing a snaffle trotting bit (n = 98, P = .002). Bar lesions (67 horses) were more common in horses wearing unjointed bits than in horses wearing jointed bits (Fisher's exact test P < .001). Lesions in the buccal area and the inner lip commissures were not associated with bit type. Using a tongue‐tie or an overcheck, galloping, placement in the top three or money earned in the race were not associated with lesion risk.Main limitations: The sample size for certain bit types was insufficient for statistical analysis.Conclusions: Moderate and severe oral lesion status was more common in horses wearing a Crescendo bit, a mullen mouth regulator bit or a straight plastic bit than in horses wearing a single‐jointed snaffle trotting bit. However, lesions were observed regardless of bit type. Further studies on rein tension, the interaction between bit type and rein tension and prevention of mouth lesions in trotters are warranted.

This study investigated Finnish veterinarians' perceptions of medication safety risks in sows, an area with limited research in veterinary medicine. Understanding these risks is essential for enhancing sow medication safety, health and welfare. This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, thematic individual interviews with 15 veterinarians who provide herd health visit services to sow farms. The interviews employed open-ended questions to elicit in-depth information from participants. Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was conducted using the ATLAS.ti software to identify key medication safety risks. The analysis identified eight key risk themes: (1) overreliance on caretakers' competence; (2) insufficient veterinary guidance; (3) communication and information barriers; (4) challenges with medicine logistics and availability; (5) unhygienic and inappropriate medication practices; (6) insufficient sick sow examination and follow-up; (7) injection-related pain and insufficient pain management; and (8) challenges in farm conditions and management. Recognizing medication safety risks is vital for veterinarians to effectively guide and monitor medicine use, ensuring optimal care for sows. This study offers new perspectives into these risks within veterinary medicine, particularly concerning animals used for food production. By identifying key risks that can jeopardize medication safety, this study provides valuable information for producers, veterinarians, policymakers, and regulatory bodies. Understanding these mechanisms enables stakeholders to develop targeted systems-based protocols that enhance sow health and welfare while promoting safer and more responsible medication practices.

Background: In Finland, caretakers are allowed to initiate medical treatments for sick sows under veterinary guidance, as veterinarians may, under specific conditions, dispense medicines for later use on farms. The aim of this qualitative interview study was to explore veterinarians’ perceptions of medication safety in sows by identifying and characterizing safety defences, that is, the mechanisms and practices that promote safe medicine use on sows. A total of 15 veterinarians, who perform herd health visits on sow farms, participated in the study. The interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams, recorded, transcribed, and analysed through an abductive thematic analysis employing ATLAS.ti software. Results: The interviewed veterinarians often found it challenging to identify good medication practices on farms. However, the analysis revealed eight key defence themes: (1) veterinary awareness and oversight; (2) comprehensive veterinary guidance; (3) effective communication and collaboration; (4) reliable medicine logistics; (5) hygienic and appropriate medication practices; (6) clinical examination and follow-up of sick sows; (7) pain and stress reduction during treatment; and (8) caretaker attitudes and farm resources. In addition to defences currently in practice, the interviews revealed four novel defence themes that could further improve medication safety on sow farms, comprising: (1) support and development of veterinary practices; (2) caretaker competence; (3) introduction of regulatory frameworks; and (4) self-monitoring and auditing practices. Conclusions: The identified defences can inform the needed systems-based medication safety risk management actions for producers, veterinarians and policymakers. By understanding protective mechanisms, stakeholders can develop targeted protocols to enhance animal welfare and ensure responsible medicine use on sow farms.