Daily turnout a legal requirement

[ycbm]

Studies have shown that horses kept this way are healthier and less prone to injuries than stalled horses

I would love to see those studies. I have seen plenty of studies but none of them met any proper level of scientific scrutiny. Usually the number of horses studied is far too small, there are no control groups and/or the timescales of the studies are far too short, to produce any statistically significant results.
.

 

[JBM]

I would love to see those studies. I have seen plenty of studies but none of them met any proper level of scientific scrutiny. Usually the number of horses studied is far too small, there are no control groups and/or the timescales of the studies are far too short, to produce any statistically significant results.
.

I mean I feel it’s common sense that an animal built to be always moving shouldn’t be stalled all the time. I think it’s kinda sad we need studies to prove something that basic
Way to many places don’t offer turnout at all in winter

 

[Barton Bounty]

I would love that! I don’t like horses being stabled all the time
Some horses like to be in more obviously! But I think they need some time everyday to stretch their legs and horse about without being in work

I agree, horses need turnout too, BB would come in every night and come in all the time I am there but I am so happy he likes to be out in the field too.

 

[ycbm]

I mean I feel it’s common sense that an animal built to be always moving shouldn’t be stalled all the time. I think it’s kinda sad we need studies to prove something that basic
Way to many places don’t offer turnout at all in winter

I feel it's going to far too make this a legal requirement when there simply aren't any lifetime studies which show horses are materially worse off for being kept in. For example, if a horse dies of uncontrollable cellulitis caused by a mud fever infection during winter turnout, is it better or worse than keeping a horse in full time? Common sense is fine but life is more complicated.

Especially as it would remove horse owning from huge numbers of people in this country who live in crowded or wet areas.

Please don't misunderstand me, I want winter turnout for my own horse. I just don't like the people who call others cruel (not you) for working with the best they can manage.
.

 

[Elno]

I would love to see those studies. I have seen plenty of studies but none of them met any proper level of scientific scrutiny. Usually the number of horses studied is far too small, there are no control groups and/or the timescales of the studies are far too short, to produce any statistically significant results.
.

.https://www.hippson.se/artikelarkivet/forskning/studie-slar-hal-pa-myter-om.htm?fbclid=IwAR3IlQAatjijCQDUKsxuk13l87-JQkJcz8o6z7esEpJWcOYSWafAACUSYFk

It's in Swedish, but 158 lesson horses were enrolled in the study. They found that the rate of colic, respiratory diseases and aggressive behavior were less prevalent in horses offered " loose housing" ie living outside 24/7. That's more horses than your average joint supplement studies out there....

I can't wrap my head around anyone arguing against keeping horses out on a daily basis. It's animals made to traverse vast distances in herds in search of food. It's in their bloody DNA. To keep them in, honestly no matter the reason, is cruel and against their nature. No wonder the modern horse suffers so many illnesses when even people on an internet forum dedicated specific to horses questions the most basic needs of the animal they so fiercely claim to love. But I mean...you can always try to throw some turmeric on it, and see if it helps

 

[paddy555]

I mean I feel it’s common sense that an animal built to be always moving shouldn’t be stalled all the time. I think it’s kinda sad we need studies to prove something that basic
Way to many places don’t offer turnout at all in winter

100% agree with you but sadly "common sense" isn't quite that common.

I have seen plenty of studies but none of them met any proper level of scientific scrutiny. Usually the number of horses studied is far too small, there are no control groups and/or the timescales of the studies are far too short, to produce any statistically significant results.
.

why do you need a study to realise what must be obvious for anyone connected with horses?
did we have studies in earlier times to tell us it was OK to keep a horse in a 12 x 12 box, stable or cage.

so why do we need studies now to tell us it isn't.
If you (one) have a wind sucker, cribber who is shut in then if you open the door and let it have access to a small yard, doesn't have to be large it stops. I learnt that by common sense ie remove the stress (the enclosed stable) give it freedom (it doesn't have to be very large) and you have a happier horse. Same with a horse that is nasty to you in the stable ie pins ears back, nips etc etc ie it is stressed. Remove the stress and suddenly you have a much nicer animal.

Can we not recognise stress in an animal? Isn't that part of the skill of being a horse keeper.

I am however realistic. I realise it will never stop or change. We value what we want as humans far too much to worry about if some of the methods of horsekeeping are acceptable.
The jumps, the indoor school and all the other facilities.

I feel it's going to far too make this a legal requirement when there simply aren't any lifetime studies which show horses are materially worse off for being kept in. For example, if a horse dies of uncontrollable cellulitis caused by a mud fever infection during winter turnout, is it better or worse than keeping a horse in full time? Common sense is fine but life is more complicated.

Especially as it would remove horse owning from huge numbers of people in this country who live in crowded or wet areas.

I just don't like the people who call others cruel (not you) for working with the best they can manage.
.

how many horses die of cellulitis compared to how many horses live stabled with constant stress. Few I would imagine. (I live in a wet side of the country and my fields are river meadows so I know what wet conditions are)
If we removed some of the stress we would probably remove some of the vet bills.

It might prevent people from owning a horse that is true. However we cannot always have what we want. Many now cannot afford a horse or some other animal. Some would love an animal but because of their living arrangements cannot satisfy it's needs.

I suspect in some establishments it would be possible to give the horse some freedom. It doesn't always have to be acres of grazing, yarding to get it out of the stable is a good step forward. For that land is needed and some of that land (which is available) has other uses which humans prefer.

.https://www.hippson.se/artikelarkivet/forskning/studie-slar-hal-pa-myter-om.htm?fbclid=IwAR3IlQAatjijCQDUKsxuk13l87-JQkJcz8o6z7esEpJWcOYSWafAACUSYFk

It's in Swedish, but 158 lesson horses were enrolled in the study. They found that the rate of colic, respiratory diseases and aggressive behavior were less prevalent in horses offered " loose housing" ie living outside 24/7. That's more horses than your average joint supplement studies out there....

I can't wrap my head around anyone arguing against keeping horses out on a daily basis. It's animals made to traverse vast distances in herds in search of food. It's in their bloody DNA. To keep them in, honestly no matter the reason, is cruel and against their nature. No wonder the modern horse suffers so many illnesses when even people on an internet forum dedicated specific to horses questions the most basic needs of the animal they so fiercely claim to love. But I mean...you can always try to throw some turmeric on it, and see if it helps

I will try and find a way of reading that (if I can translate it) should be interesting

To me your final para. seems pretty obvious.

 

[DabDab]

I do agree that turnout of some description should be a legal requirement and that maybe a very gentle introduction with lots of education put out about how to create turnout areas off-grass (mud) that will do the job. It's hard to know how people would manage with planning restrictions though, as anything with drainage would really need permission which would be a decent expense and I can imagine many planning authorities being sniffy about it.

I also think that daily turnout in the winter cold of Scandinavia would be a damn sight more pleasant for both horses and humans than the mud of the UK and Ireland. Mine get daily all-day turnout with ad lib hay but after a certain point I am really dragging them out there. I'd love to create an all-weather turnout, but again, planning permission faff

 

[ycbm]

how many horses die of cellulitis compared to how many horses live stabled with constant stress. Few I would imagine. (

My point is that we don't know and yet propose to make this law and turn people who keep horses in into criminals.

There are plenty more things that kill and damage horses which are out that don't kill or damage horses which are in, please don't fixate on one example.

 

[ycbm]

.https://www.hippson.se/artikelarkivet/forskning/studie-slar-hal-pa-myter-om.htm?fbclid=IwAR3IlQAatjijCQDUKsxuk13l87-JQkJcz8o6z7esEpJWcOYSWafAACUSYFk

It's in Swedish, but 158 lesson horses were enrolled in the study. They found that the rate of colic, respiratory diseases and aggressive behavior were less prevalent in horses offered " loose housing" ie living outside 24/7. That's more horses than your average joint supplement studies out there....

Do you have a pointer to the published peer reviewed research? That article said, if Google has translated it properly, that "parts" of it were going to be published. It looks very interesting and I'd like to read the detail.

I can't wrap my head around anyone arguing against keeping horses out on a daily basis.

I don't know anyone who does, certainly not me. I only argue against vilifying, and now the suggestion of criminalising, people who for one of many reasons feel that they aren't able to provide that in the UK.
.

 

[marmalade76]

I disagree that turning out a cribber stops them cribbing, every cribber I've known has cribbed when out in the field, even when they're out 24/7. Even my non-horsey OH knows this and won't allow me to have one 'cause he has to repair the fencing!

 

[JBM]

I feel it's going to far too make this a legal requirement when there simply aren't any lifetime studies which show horses are materially worse off for being kept in. For example, if a horse dies of uncontrollable cellulitis caused by a mud fever infection during winter turnout, is it better or worse than keeping a horse in full time? Common sense is fine but life is more complicated.

Especially as it would remove horse owning from huge numbers of people in this country who live in crowded or wet areas.

Please don't misunderstand me, I want winter turnout for my own horse. I just don't like the people who call others cruel (not you) for working with the best they can manage.
.

I mean I do understand where you’re coming from but I also don’t think it’s right for a horses mental state to be worsened because someone can’t afford to give them adequate turnout
If it was a legal requirement livery yards would stop restricting it and give people more access to these yards
I don’t see it as right to keep a in stable 24/7 because that’s all they can manage the same I wouldn’t see it right for someone to adopt a large breed dog and keep it in a small apartment when they don’t have the time to walk it because that’s all they can manage

 

[paddy555]

My point is that we don't know and yet propose to make this law and turn people who keep horses in into criminals.

There are plenty more things that kill and damage horses which are out that don't kill or damage horses which are in, please don't fixate on one example.

mine is that we would have to be blind not to know what is pretty obvious.

I didn't fixate on one example ie cellulitis (I thought it was in fact a strange example) I just commented because you used that example.

Your 2nd line seems to suggest it is dangerous to keep horses out but safer inside. So someone could justify keeping a horse stabled so it won't get hurt? What about freedom and quality of life for it?

 

[ycbm]

how many horses die of cellulitis compared to how many horses live stabled with constant stress.

How many horses suffer fractures on group turnout compared with single turnout compared with no turnout?

These figures matter before criminalising people.

 

[Elno]

How many horses suffer fractures on group turnout compared with single turnout compared with no turnout?

These figures matter before criminalising people.

My last horse broke his forearm when he was in single turn out, so what of it?

These figures do not matter when you look at the whole picture, I'm afraid. You simply cannot ever justify keeping a horse in over turnout (unless ordered box rest by a veterinarian that is for whatever reason). There is no excuse for whatever you're implying. Owning horses is not a human right. If we choose to have them we need to do everything right by them- that includes keeping them as close as nature possible intended.

 

[ycbm]

I'm sorry but I feel lifetime outcomes DO matter before you criminalise people for what has been accepted practice with horses for centuries.
.

 

[TheMule]

Youcould argue that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already covers this. Because to provide horses with the 5 welfare needs, you'd need to include turnout

 

[Elno]

I'm sorry but I feel lifetime outcomes DO matter before you criminalise people for what has been accepted practice with horses for centuries.
.

Just because something has been accepted for centuries doesn't mean it is humane to the animal.

I feel pity for the horses in UK. What horrible lives some of them must endure.

 

[JBM]

Just because something has been accepted for centuries doesn't mean it is humane to the animal.

I feel pity for the horses in UK. What horrible lives some of them must endure.

Based in ireland here but there’s a few stables around me that do no turnout in winter and some of them look downright depressed and they have vices
funnily enough they YO horses get out year round

Thankfully I’m lucky to have my own land so all of mine live out year round and I don’t even think i could keep them in anymore it’s so much extra work!!

mine acted the worst in their lives when they were stabled for long periods. Never again

 

[paddy555]

How many horses suffer fractures on group turnout compared with single turnout compared with no turnout?

These figures matter before criminalising people.

and how many suffer mental problems from being kept in with no turnout? how do you measure that? some are simply stoical and will accept whatever is thrown at them, some will object and it will be shown in their stress and mental health. More to the point, in fact most to the point. what about the quality of life if they are stabled all winter or have such very limited turn out.

Turn out has a risk as have many things. We are quite happy to ride on roads with those dangerous cars, to transport our horses, to risk them round Badminton, Aintree, out hunting and many other potentially dangerous places.

I don't want to criminalise anyone however they are not going to make improvements on their own. If they wanted to they would have done. So I think it is reasonable that things iro horse welfare in this aspect should change.

Things could change but it is way too accepted that lack of turnout is OK.

What I really don't understand is why you think we need a study for something that is so blindingly obvious. What made us think we could keep horses stabled for such long periods in the first place? In the olden days they were working horses, out working all day. Now the vast majority are leisure horses.

If you take the example you chose above ie fractures on group turnout how would a study prove anything. You may have different results depending on the actual horses. One group may be less antagonistic, there may be a single trouble maker in another group. So one group shows zero fractures and the other say 5 fractures. The end conclusion to me would be to be careful which group of horses you turn out together and perhaps to put a trouble maker in single turnout.

 

[paddy555]

I'm sorry but I feel lifetime outcomes DO matter before you criminalise people for what has been accepted practice with horses for centuries.
.

lots of practices were accepted for centuries, didn't make them right though. In fact many have turned out to be unacceptable in the light of modern day thinking.

 

[rabatsa]

I'm sorry but I feel lifetime outcomes DO matter before you criminalise people for what has been accepted practice with horses for centuries.
.

It is only recently that horses have spent so many hours confined to stables. In the past they were out of them and working.

Before saying that stables are safer, how many horses suffer from back, hock and SI injuries from getting cast, kicking walls and doors ect.

 

[ycbm]

Nobody is saying stables are safer. We don't know. That's the problem.
.

 

[JBM]

Nobody is saying stables are safer. We don't know. That's the problem.
.

I know and a lot of other ppl commenting here seem to know
I appreciate you don’t know but you seem to be the one of the only ones here with that opinion?

 

[Barton Bounty]

This is the first year BB has had a different and smaller turnout area over winter and he was absolutely fine. I did put him out in wintery weather. He did stay out for two weeks nearly l, double rugged till I found out the issue was , he didn’t like the stable he was in. We swapped stables over and he was fine. He was ready to stretch his legs in the morning though. I think if he had to stay in, two days max would be all he would suffer. We ride every day though.

 

[ycbm]

I know and a lot of other ppl commenting here seem to know
I appreciate you don’t know but you seem to be the one of the only ones here with that opinion?

That's because the thousands of people who are faced with no winter turnout or very restricted winter turnout in the UK can't face the attack they get on this forum, or don't care about it enough to argue about it, knowing that their own horses have every appearance of being content with life.

To make it clear, my own horse has turnout and I will not keep a horse without it except for medical reasons, but I will not agree with calls to criminalise others who don't without evidence.
.

 

[stangs]

Sample size of 1 but the change in my boy since I bought him (a change in routine from being stabled 22hr a day, to living out 24/7):

- He trots up sound (previously was 4/10 lame behind every morning); he even flexes sound.
- Reduced impaction colic risk because he's no longer stuffing his face with straw after running out of hay, then having no water because he'd knock his water bucket over.
- Some reduced risk of injuries from other horses - there's no longer a post-turning out explosion, with legs flying everywhere, because he's always out.
- Some reduced risk of injury from him to other horses. There's no lunging at other horses walking past his stable or lunging at the horse stabled next to him.
- Reduced risk to handlers because he's no longer running through people as soon as the stable door's opened.

Even if he's at a higher risk of a field accident, he's mentally a completely different horse. I thought it was quality of life not length for the sake of it that mattered. Besides, you'd have a tough time telling him he was better off in a stable too; he plants at the entrance now, and rears if he's left in there.

Having worked with horses that were, on a good day, in stables 20hr a day, and, on a bad day, given duvet days of 24hr stabling - and having watched how those horses declined mentally and physically the longer they were in that routine - I cannot even contemplate the attitude that "stables might be safer".

If a yard can't provide any turnout in winter - even a couple hours loose in the arena is an improvement - they shouldn't be allowed to run imo. And that's not necessarily going to make riding more elitist. The two London livery yards with the least turnout have some of the highest fees. It's not always a wealth issue; it's can be a 'owners prioritising facilities over allowing their horses to fulfil basic needs' issue.

Owning a horse is a privilege not a right.

 

[paddy555]

Nobody is saying stables are safer. We don't know. That's the problem.
.

it's not a problem, we will never know. Accidents will happen in stables and they will happen in fields. No study is going to be able to take into account different horses, different situations and even human error. Would that accident in the stable have happened if the YO or groom had been more vigilant? would the field accident have happened it they had been more realistic in who got turned out where?

 

[SEL]

I don't think it will criminalise YO so much as make them think about best use of turnout all year round. That may well mean price increases because yards can't manage so many horses or need to invest in all weather turnouts - but it will stop this lazy blanket no turnout rule in winter some places have.

The microcob has done two periods of medical box rest. She was easy to manage both times, but she was so, so happy to go out again. Vets know extended periods of box rest are bad for horses so why on earth would 5 months with 23ish hours in a stable be any better just because it's dictated by weather & ground conditions?

 

[Keith_Beef]

It does exist in other countries.

In France you can rent "boxe nu", which is the equivalent of DIY, then the are different levels of service at different prices.

 

[DabDab]

Tbh I'm reading YCBMs posts only as saying that it is more nuanced a discussion than stable=bad and turnout=good. Which it is. I've personally seen probably as many horses miserable and sickly from their field environment as I have seen horses miserable and sickly from their stable environment. Good animal husbandry is generally pretty difficult to legislate for.

And for those of you saying how you used to keep your horses stabled a lot vs how much happier they are with turnout...Well quite frankly why did you think that was acceptable in the first place? That's like keeping a dog in a crate 23hrs a day, then not doing that anymore, realising the dog is happier, and then saying 'crikey the government should really legislate for how long you can put a dog in one of those things'. There does get a point where people really should take responsibility for the welfare of their own animals, and like TheMule has pointed out, the requirement to enable the expression of natural behaviours is already written into law.