The international governing body for equestrian sports, the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), states that the welfare of the horse must be paramount and never subordinated to competitive or commercial influences. However, there is growing unease about welfare issues from both within and outside the sport. The aim of this study was to understand stakeholder perceptions of current welfare issues within equestrian sport, determine whether there is scope for change, and explore attitudes towards welfare assessment. Participants (n = 48) from equestrian sport (n = 38) and animal welfare research (n = 10) attended a workshop that included welfare-related presentations and focus group sessions. The focus group sessions were recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic analysis. Conflict between the demands of competition and the needs of the horse was identified as a key welfare challenge. Although the physical health of equine athletes is closely monitored, horses’ psychological needs are sometimes overlooked. Participants recognised that improving competition practices may not be as impactful as improving the general management and training of horses. The term “quality of life” was considered preferable to “welfare”, which had negative connotations. Participants appreciated the idea of incorporating formal welfare assessments into their training and competition plans but stated that existing tools are rarely used and are not deemed feasible for real-life conditions.

Background: Equine obesity is considered one of the most serious welfare concerns in UK leisure horses, yet little is known about how horse owners conceptualise their horse's weight as part of its health, or how they plan and carry out weight management. Objectives: This study aimed to further our understanding of leisure horse owners' perceptions of equine health and awareness of excess fat in order to clarify our understanding of successful strategies for managing equine weight. Study design: This study used a qualitative research methodology. Methods: Data comprised 16 threads from online UK equine discussion fora, 28 individual interviews with leisure horse owners, 19 interviews with equine professionals such as vets and nutritionists, and two focus groups with a further 21 horse owners. Data were anonymised and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Results: Awareness of excess fat was a complex issue, with owners finding it difficult to differentiate equine obesity from the shape they thought the horse was “meant to be”, particularly if the horse was a heavier breed such as a native pony or cob. Owners were not necessarily “aware” or “unaware” of fat, but instead equine body fat was constructed as an integral part of the equine body. For example, owners might say that they thought their horse was an ideal weight yet describe their horse's overall body shape as “like a Thelwell”. When owners became aware of fat as a changeable part of the horse's body, and/or a threat to health, the presence of fat was articulated as a strong‐willed adversary, and weight management was considered a “battle” or “war”. Owners found weight management difficult because they perceived that it had immediate negative welfare implications for the horse, and this therefore interfered with their preferred ownership practices and the horse‐human relationship. Main limitations: Interview data are self‐reported, and people may not always do what they say they do. Conclusions: This study has provided valuable insight into how owners conceptualise weight and weight management, yielding important information about communicating with owners about weight, tailoring weight management strategies, and promoting positive welfare.

Human assessment of equine wellbeing is fundamental to ensuring the optimal care of domestic horses. However, terminology associated with wellbeing is still not fully defined and there are currently no validated quality of life (QoL) assessment tools. Furthermore, little is known about what equine wellbeing or QoL means to horse owners, or how their beliefs impact on the management decisions they make for their horse. This study sought to establish how UK leisure horse owners use wellbeing-related terminology by exploring their accounts within a focus group setting. Four online focus group discussions (FGD) were held and qualitative data were collected. FGDs involved a semi-structured discussion, followed by a group activity to compare seven equine wellbeing-related terms of interest introduced by the facilitator. The collected data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach, and also by content analysis, to examine the frequency and subjective meaning of the terms of interest. The results showed that horse owners did not clearly delineate between different terms, rather, they used the terms in the context of their own assessments of their horse. The meanings assigned to what owners experienced with their horse were individual and subjective, shaped by past experiences, relationships with their animal, and peers or social groups. This individualised construction of equine wellbeing impacted on the meaning conveyed when using wellbeing-related terminology. In this study, we extend the literature on equine wellbeing terminology usage, and highlight differences between the academic literature and the real-world experiences of horse owners.

Equestrian grazing management is a poorly researched area, despite potentially significant environmental impacts. This study explored keepers’ use of alternative grazing systems in the care of UK horses, donkeys and mules through an internet survey. The survey was available during the summer of 2020 and comprised closed and open questions, which were analysed with descriptive statistics and iterative thematic analysis, respectively. A total of 758 responses was incorporated into the analysis; the most popular system used were tracks (56.5%), Equicentral (19%), “other” (e.g., non-grass turnout) (12.5%), rewilding (7.5%) and turnout on either moorland (0.7%) or woodland (2.5%). The thematic analysis highlighted that equid keepers across the systems were highly engaged in exploring sustainable practices. Their approaches varied according to each system, yet all aimed to fulfil practices in three major categories, i.e., supporting diverse plant life (usually through restricting equid access to certain areas), supporting wildlife (through the creation of biodiverse environments) and sustainably managing droppings and helminths. Additionally, proponents of the Equicentral systems declared to be aiming to support soil health. These data provide a promising insight into equid keepers’ behaviour and attitudes to sustainability.