This review addresses the question of whether Thoroughbred horse racing is sustainable in the context of current social values. A recently acknowledged framework, known as ‘Social License to Operate’ (SLO), provides us with a lens through which to view and assess racehorse welfare. In multiple surveys of the general public, the horse owning public, and university students, the primary topics of concern regarding Thoroughbred racing show considerable concordance: concern about catastrophic injuries—particularly as related to track surfaces, concern over the racing of two-year-olds, whip use by jockeys, drug/medication policies, and aftercare opportunities for retired Thoroughbred racehorses. Legitimacy of an industry, consent from industry stakeholders, and trust between the community players, are all essential to have and maintain SLO. In the current era of 24/7 global media access, and the proliferation of social media providing an interactive platform for all interested parties, a dramatic change has occurred in commentary related to racehorse welfare concerns. The situation at Santa Anita (California, USA) from late December 2018 through mid-November 2019 demonstrated just how tenuous the SLO for horse racing is. This article will provide a brief review of what ‘Social License to Operate’ is, along with a brief literature review of five of the areas of primary concern voiced by stakeholders.

Little published information exists on the horses in equine-assisted services (EAS), particularly their selection, longevity, and retirement. The purpose of this study was to characterize horses and procedures used in EAS. A pilot survey was developed using focus group discussions and distributed to Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship, International (PATH Intl) centers in Florida (n = 45, Part I) before further modification and distribution to members of PATH Intl., American Hippotherapy Association (AHA), eagala, and Certified Horsemanship Association (CHA) (n = 26,000, Part II). Response rates were 36% (Part I) and 0.7% (Part II). Centers report a median of 10 (Part I) or 9 (Part II) horses and ponies. Selection procedures included initial screening (Part I = 100%, Part II = 96%), pre-purchase or pre-donation exam (I = 64%, II = 60%), acclimation period (I = 100%, II = 84%), trial period (I = 91%, II = 90%), and other (II = 11%). Horses remained active in programs for less than a year to over 20 years with the greatest number working 7–10 (Part I) or 1–6 (Part II) yr. In Part I of the study, behavior (44%) was the leading cause of retirement followed by unsoundness (33%). In Part II, unsoundness was the highest ranked response followed by behavior. Behavior, soundness, and health emerged as key factors in horse selection and retirement. Future work should focus on investigating these issues at an individual horse level.

Approaches for raising calves vary across commercial dairy farms and relate to behavioral opportunities and animal welfare. The objectives of this study were to evaluate how US dairy producers and calf managers perceive (1) the welfare implications of varying management practices (including social housing and milk allowance) and behaviors in dairy calves, and (2) aspects of the human-animal relationship in calf rearing and relationships with on-farm management and personal calf handling habits. Survey questions were primarily quantitative (e.g., Likert scales) and addressed how common calf management practices and observed calf behaviors were related to aspects of welfare, including calf health and comfort. We additionally posed questions addressing respondent habits, management protocols, and perceptions related to human-animal interaction. Responses from 93 dairy producers and calf managers were collected via digital surveys. Social housing was viewed as being generally positive for both calf comfort and health, although this view was stronger with respect to calf comfort. Respondents from farms using social housing (56%) had more positive perceptions of social housing, viewed social play as being associated with better calf comfort and health, and considered access to other calves and "freedom to express natural behavior" as being more important for calves, compared with respondents from farms not providing social housing. Providing greater milk allowances (>7.6 L/d) was viewed as being good for both calf comfort and health, although respondents from farms providing these milk allowances (59%) had more positive perceptions than those who provided lesser allowances. Abnormal oral behaviors were viewed as being associated with both poor calf comfort and health. The welfare importance of various resources which may reduce abnormal oral behaviors (including hay and brushes) was perceived more ambiguously, although respondents from farms providing these resources, compared with those who do not, generally viewed them as more preferred by calves. We observed a positive relationship between how respondents perceived the human-animal bond (i.e., that calves enjoy contact with humans) and stated personal behavior related to calf contact (frequency of contacting calves to scratch or pet them). Respondent demographics were not related to perceptions of the human-animal relationship, but respondents identifying as female described more frequent positive calf interactions. Described aspects of human-animal interactions were not related to implementation of social housing on-farm. Job satisfaction was positively related to perception of the human-animal relationship. Overall, these results suggest that most calf management personnel place a high value on calf welfare, although farms implementing social housing appear to place a greater value on subjective calf well-being, and individual perceptions of animal welfare may depend on practical experience.