Fat or thin, are they both as bad as the other?

Which is worse? A condition score of 2 or 4?

  • Total voters
    0
Wagtail

Wagtail

Horse servant
Joined
2 December 2010
Messages
14,815
Location
Lincs
Visit site
Another thread got me thinking. During the summer, at almost any yard, you will see some, or all of the horses that are in lush grazing 24/7 and are obese. Owners are often fine with it as their horses will drop weight in the winter. It's natural, right? We will also hear of horses that are neglected and starving. Should the yard owner be responsible in both cases? Is it worse to have a skinny horse than a fat one? Which is worse, a condition score of 2 or a condition score of 4? Or do they rate about the same in terms of welfare? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I said both are as bad as each other.
However if you were to push me on the subject I think fatties are in a worse state. The amount of owners who seem oblivious to the weight of their beloved horses. I think a big part of this is the huge amount of uneducated owners out there now, they are not looking for health issues related to weight purely because they haven't a scooby what they are looking for.
Personally I think there should be some sort of competence test that must be passed before your allowed to own a horse.
How that would work I have no idea, but that would be a law if I ruled the world (along with banning huge wages for football players ;) x
 
I voted both are as bad but condition scoring is a blunt instrument a slim fit horse muscled for fast work may look thin but is fact healthy for the work it's doing .
Personally I think a horse can be a bit thin and suffer so ill effects what so ever but as soon as a horse is a bit fat it's joints are at a higher risk if it's asked to work, and that's not even thinking about the whole laminitis thing.
But do I worry if I need to give a horse on box rest so much forage that it gains wieght no I don't I'd rather keep it settled and and protect it as much as possible from ulcers especially as such horses are often on medication , and deal with the issue later.
We need all to work all time to keep weights in the ideal range at all times ,I know you can get very fat horses to slim having got one from 760 kilos to 577 kilos.
 
I think fatties are worse. At least underweight horses are blatent abuse and owners can be prosicuted. Ovetweight ones tend to have owners wearing rose tinted glasses who will only learn the harm their doing when fattys pedal bone rotates!
 
Gypley said:
I think fatties are worse. At least underweight horses are blatent abuse and owners can be prosicuted. Ovetweight ones tend to have owners wearing rose tinted glasses who will only learn the harm their doing when fattys pedal bone rotates!
Click to expand...

Horses have to be very very unwieght for owners to be prosecuted but even these horses have more chance of making a full recovery than laminitics .
 
There are usually no long term health implications from a horse that is too thin through lack of food, once he is back up to weight he will have normal health.

A horse that becomes overweight can develop EMS for life, its liver can be damaged, laminitis, arthritis, heart and lung problems are all far reaching for the rest of the horses life, which will probably be shortened due to the effects of obesity. So in my opinion, it is far, far worse for a horse to be overweight than underweight, although of course neither are ideal.
 
No contest for me. Fat/obese 4 is a death/debility sentence. 2 might look worse to many of us but agree with touchstone there are no long term effects providing there aren't underlying serious conditions.
 
i would rather my horse slightly underweight than slightly overweight... this is also because its easier to put on weight then loose it! also im sure they suffer from more health issues being over weight but then it does depend on how underweight the horse is or how overweight!
 
amandap said:
No contest for me. Fat/obese 4 is a death/debility sentence. 2 might look worse to many of us but agree with touchstone there are no long term effects providing there aren't underlying serious conditions.
Click to expand...

My four / five when he arrived is now a fantasic looking fit horse I had to deal with heart problems luckily fot him he had a full recovery from these repeated infections of his sheath , stopped occurring when he lost weight . Serious skin issues now resolved but he still a bit of an itchy horse, luckily he never got laminitis despite gaining even more wieght when the heart issues meanlt he had to have steriods .
He sustained a minor suspensory strain as I tried to walk it off him even though I was very very carefull he was just to heavy for his limbs , more box more wieght gain aaagggh it was an epic nightmare I doult I will ever put myself though it again how ever lovely the horse is I will pass on it and let someone else go through it.
 
amandap said:
No contest for me. Fat/obese 4 is a death/debility sentence. 2 might look worse to many of us but agree with touchstone there are no long term effects providing there aren't underlying serious conditions.
Click to expand...
Completely agree that a horse being overweight poses more risk to health than it being underweight (unless it is extremely thin). However, I would suggest that, going by a recent case highlighted here, body score 2 would be considered grounds for prosecution by the RSPCA.
 
I would always, always rather them be a 2 than a 4. I can't stand my horses to be fat. Never mind lami there is also the strain on joints, the lungs, the heart.

I actually don't even aim for mine to be at 3. I like them at 2.5 really when they're in proper work...

ETS: I can always see both my horses ribs. I prefer them that way.
 
I think that one condition that is pretty much life long if a horse is allowed to drop too much weight due to insufficient food, is gastric ulcers. We have a mare here that was starved at her last livery yard (was on full livery and owner didn't know as she had had 6 weeks off riding due to a knee op and hadn't removed the rugs). She has had recurrent ulcers ever since. :(
 
I think it is harder to keep weight off horses than it is to put weight on in general unless there is something medically wrong with the horse.

If you keep your horse at a livery yard it's often very hard to control what they eat especially grazing. You can't always section bits off, it's difficult to do a couple of hours out and then bring in unless the yard is flexible on services, you don't work long hours or you have a nice friend to help. Muzzles are often the only remaining option but can be hard to fit and often rub. Psychologically it's very hard on owners to deny their horse food when finding food is what drives them constantly - not saying it is right if they don't do something about it.
 
I put both as bad as each other but if I HAD to pick - obese is worse.
Look at the WHW videos - it takes less time to get weight on a horse than it does to get the same amount of weight off of a horse.
 
I think the other problem is overweight is more of an unnoticed thing and not everyone agrees on it.

People are very quick to comment and do something if a horse is underweight. With overweight horse people don't always agree and I have seen horses I would consider as very overweight described as looking 'well'.
 
I put both as bad as each other... But I think that the main problem is that people simply don't recognise the problems associated with an overweight horse - or even an overweight horse...

I am often told that my cob needs to be fatter - he should have a big gutter on his backside, and I'll never be able to muscle him up if he doesn't have fat to convert to muscle... From lovely and well meaning friends no less. Sigh. And the 'highly scoring' horses are not seen as a problem, whilst someone got pilloried for having a (new) scrawny, gangly, youngster that 'looked like a welfare case' :(
 
fburton said:
Completely agree that a horse being overweight poses more risk to health than it being underweight (unless it is extremely thin). However, I would suggest that, going by a recent case highlighted here, body score 2 would be considered grounds for prosecution by the RSPCA.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Perhaps a 4 should be too? :)
 
There was a really interesting study done by the WHW (I think) which they had on their web site for ages (may still be there). It showed a horse 20% underweight - looked like a brook advert, then it showed a horse 20% overweight - looked in bad 'show condition'. The underweight horse was fed properly for 3 months, looked perfect was fighting fit and would never suffer any ill effects.
The overweight horse took a year to slim down, major hard work and it would suffer long term health problems inc. feet issue etc. for the rest of it's life, ie it would never recover. On that basis I voted fat being worse than thin - although clearly neither ideal.
 
Last time I checked, on the WHW condition score info sheets they had a "traffic light" system which went like this:

0: red
1: amber
2: green
3: green
4: amber
5: red

http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/in..._advice?view=downloads.open&tag=rw3470&ajax=1

Personally I am inclined to agree - a horse with a condition score of 2 is perfectly acceptable (described as "moderate condition" by whw). It lacks muscle and could carry more weight, but it is NOT thin. I keep my youngster at a condition score of 2. I also often find my old cob scores between 2 and 2.5, which I find acceptable as he's not in real work and I do not wish to overload his aging joints.

A condition score of 4 is classed as "overweight" - it is not an acceptable condition and the owner should be making an effort to reduce its weight. Sadly in my experience, for many owners, any condition less than a 4 is considered to be underweight.

That said, I don't care for the wording of your options - "it could die of laminitis" is true of most scores (since laminitis is not limited to obese horses) and there are many and varied negative health implications of keeping horses overweight.
 
fburton said:
Completely agree that a horse being overweight poses more risk to health than it being underweight (unless it is extremely thin). However, I would suggest that, going by a recent case highlighted here, body score 2 would be considered grounds for prosecution by the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

I really hope not, or the RSPCA will be knocking on my door :eek:

I'll point them in jesstickle's direction too :p
 
JFTD said:
I really hope not, or the RSPCA will be knocking on my door :eek:

I'll point them in jesstickle's direction too :p
Click to expand...

You should. I can see Nitty's ribs and as she is 4 and not in hard work she is carrying little in the way of top line. Definitely more towards 2 than 3. I am actually feeding her and everything. Which is unlike me! :eek:

Still rather her like that than scoring 4 though :D
 
jesstickle said:
You should. I can see Nitty's ribs and as she is 4 and not in hard work she is carrying little in the way of top line. Definitely more towards 2 than 3. I am actually feeding her and everything. Which is unlike me! :eek:

Still rather her like that than scoring 4 though :D
Click to expand...

Shocking :eek: I gave D two whole sections of hay this evening as well as his straw - he didn't know what to do with himself! I reckon he's a 2.5 but I daren't show his photos on here for fear of the RSPCA coming to take him off me :p
 
I think there is plenty of evidence that in mammals being underweight prolongs life, while being overweight shortens it.

Condition score 2 is not life threatening. Condition score 4 is. Simples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top