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.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of stock-type horse show competitors' understanding of welfare and level of concern for stock-type show horses' welfare. Data were collected through an online questionnaire that included questions relating to (a) interest and general understanding of horse welfare, (b) welfare concerns of the horse show industry and specifically the stock-type horse show industry, (c) decision-making influences, and (d) level of empathic characteristics. The majority of respondents indicated they agree or strongly agree that physical metrics should be a factor when assessing horse welfare, while fewer agreed that behavioral and mental metrics should be a factor. Respondent empathy levels were moderate to high and were positively correlated with the belief that mental and behavioral metrics should be a factor in assessing horse welfare. Respondents indicated the inhumane practices that most often occur at stock-type shows include excessive jerking on reins, excessive spurring, and induced excessive unnatural movement. Additionally, respondents indicated association rules, hired trainers, and hired riding instructors are the most influential regarding the decisions they make related to their horses' care and treatment.

Despite evidence for rat tickling’s animal welfare benefits, the technique is rarely implemented in part because of a lack of training. This study’s purpose was to determine the efficacy of online-only or online + hands-on training programs on key outcomes for rat tickling in comparison to a waitlist control condition. After completing a baseline survey, laboratory animal personnel currently working with rats in the United States were semi-randomized to receive online-only training (n = 30), online + hands-on training (n = 34), or waitlist control (n = 32). Participants received further surveys directly after training and 2 months later. Data were analyzed using general linear mixed models. At the 2-month follow-up compared to baseline, both training groups reported increased implementation, self-efficacy, knowledge, and familiarity of rat tickling while only the online + hands-on training participants reported increased control beliefs (while the waitlist group stayed the same). At the 2-month follow-up compared to the waitlist, hands-on training participants reported increased self-efficacy and familiarity with rat tickling. Overall, findings show that both online-only and online + hands-on training can improve key outcomes for rat tickling. Although online + hands-on training is slightly more effective, the interactive online-only training has the potential to improve widescale implementation of a welfare-enhancing technique.

The shortage of graduates pursuing careers in the poultry industry is linked to a low awareness and lack of interest. Increasing agricultural literacy could promote engagement in future poultry science opportunities. We developed an integrated STEM curriculum within a poultry science context to assess the program's impact on students' agricultural literacy development. The Elementary Education Gain Grow (E.G.G.) program consists of 5 online modules, an interactive notebook, a simulation game, and a team project. In fall 2019, 480 Indiana 4th and 5th grade students enrolled in the pilot program. A 14-point poultry content-based questionnaire was administered online to students prior to program engagement, between online and team project activities, and at program completion. Student content scores (n = 111; 23.13% response rate) increased from 7.99 (SD = 1.85) preprogram to 9.76 (SD = 2.44) post online modules (P < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.82) and remained constant throughout the remainder of the program. Student notebook responses (n = 172; 35.83% response rate) provided qualitative data of their self-reported agricultural literacy gains and revealed patterns of increased agricultural literacy relating to the program's learning objectives. These results support the program's ability to increase student agricultural literacy. Teacher feedback (n = 9; 69.2% response rate) suggests that teachers agreed with the program's effectiveness, with qualitative responses highlighting individual experiences. Our pilot program findings support the use of an integrated STEM and poultry science elementary curriculum to increase student agricultural literacy as well as demonstrate the effectiveness of the program as an educational resource.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the current state of stock-type show horse welfare based on the perceptions of show officials and to identify potential means of preventing and intervening in compromises to show horse welfare. Thirteen horse show officials, including judges, stewards, and show managers, were interviewed. Findings revealed the officials had an incomplete understanding of nonhuman animal welfare and a high level of concern regarding the public's perception of show horse welfare. The officials attributed most of the frequently observed compromises to show horse welfare to (a) novices', amateurs', and young trainers' lack of experience or expertise, and (b) trainers' and owners' unrealistic expectations and prioritization of winning over horse welfare. The officials emphasized a need for distribution of responsibility among associations, officials, and individuals within the industry. Although the officials noted recent observable positive changes in the industry, they emphasized the need for continued improvements in equine welfare and greater educational opportunities for stakeholders.