No Winter Turnout - Welfare issue?

[Dexter]

Try reading what I wrote (and didn't write) again. And a stabled horse does not need 4 hours work a day but it does need a lot more than a quick 30 minute amble around the block! Many horses fair very well kept stabled as I explained. Perhaps you are not understanding what good stable management looks like.

4 hours exercise means 20 hours stabled. If you reduce that down then you are looking at 21/22/23 hours with almost no movement. The maximum recommended time for a dog to be in a crate is 4 hours and they arent grazing animals designed to be on the move all the time.

I understand what good stable management is, I also know its not the same as whats best for the horse. There are countries where it is illegal not to have turnout, why is that the case if its not whats best for the horse?

Its just another example where people justify something as it means they can keep horses when they shouldn't.

I think if the general public ever truly understood what being stabled 24/7 equated to, there would be a huge outcry.

 

[Dexter]

We don't actually know what's best for horses in the round because nobody has done lifetime studies of horses kept in different ways, and until they do this argument will rage time and again on horse forums.
.

Theres plenty of research. This is a very easy to access and understand overview.

https://horseandcountry.tv/research-reveals-stress-caused-by-stabling/

 

[Burnttoast]

We don't actually know what's best for horses in the round because nobody has done lifetime studies of horses kept in different ways, and until they do this argument will rage time and again on horse forums.
.

You honestly need lifetime studies before you come to the conclusion that a species that evolved to spend all its time with its conspecifics and the great majority of its time moving around just might be better served by standing still on its own for most of its life?

Not to mention there are already studies showing lower gut motility in stabled/exercised than pastured horses and significantly less incidence of soft tissue injury over a 6-year span in horses turned out for more than 12 hours daily - and probably others, if I spent more time googling.

 

[Dexter]

and for those advocating a "holiday" to mitigate a winter of no turnout, research shows that

"A temporary period on pasture did not improve the horse’s welfare when stabled again."

https://www.equinebehaviourist.co.uk/blog/2020/10/17/how-do-holidays-at-grass-affect-stabled-horses

 

[ycbm]

Theres plenty of research. This is a very easy to access and understand overview.

https://horseandcountry.tv/research-reveals-stress-caused-by-stabling/

No, we've been through this before, there isn't any lifetime research, and what short term studies there have been generally fail to meet scientific rigour.
.

 

[Burnttoast]

and for those advocating a "holiday" to mitigate a winter of no turnout, research shows that

"A temporary period on pasture did not improve the horse’s welfare when stabled again."

https://www.equinebehaviourist.co.uk/blog/2020/10/17/how-do-holidays-at-grass-affect-stabled-horses

And by the same token it's very difficult to persuade a cat that's used to going out to become a happy house cat. I don't suppose anyone who is advocating for the acceptability of stabling here would be happy to put their cats or dogs into crates in another part of the house except for when they wanted to interact with them or let them run round the garden for a bit.

 

[ycbm]

significantly less incidence of soft tissue injury over a 6-year span in horses turned out for more than 12 hours daily - and probably others, if I spent more time googling.

Is that the study that divided into "more than 12 hours" and "less than 12 hours" and failed to analyse exactly what exercise the horses in each group had?
.

 

[HashRouge]

the horses living out group on FB is DREADFUL for this- overstocked clay fields reduced to an absolute bottomless slop so horses either knee deep in it or all crammed on a tiny island of mud mats.......and the owners championing this as natural and better than a stable............

Isn't it shocking? Some of the posters have amazing set ups, either lots of grass and space or really good all weather surfaces. But just as many seem to be keeping their horses in fetlock deep mud on very small areas. I just don't see how that is "better" than stabling overnight and preserving your grazing a bit more.

 

[Burnttoast]

Is that the study that divided into "more than 12 hours" and "less than 12 hours" and failed to analyse exactly what exercise the horses in each group had?
.

Do you think that standing still on its own (or box-walking, alternatively) for about three-quarters of its life is likely to be better for a horse than walking around a field with other horses for the same period? In the absence of apparently satisfactory studies, you and everyone else must make this judgement based on what we know about horses' evolution and biology. My view is that it's disingenuous to suggest there might be a possibility, because studies haven't shown otherwise to your satisfaction, that denying a horse movement, agency or the company of its own kind for most of its life will be better for it mentally and physically than the opposite conditions. If only someone would fund and carry out a 25-year study, but we all know that will never happen.

 

[Fieldlife]

I find it very sad that some horses dont get at the very least a few hours of turnout every 24 hours. I personally could not do that to any of my horses (unless for vet short term reasons). I do think its a big welfare concern but as usual in the horse world loads of people will go nuts and tell me their horses are "happy" because they are clean and rugged up the eyeballs whereas my horses who live out might be standing in a bit of mud in horizontal rain. Sorry but IMO horses have to have their basic needs met. That to me, is not ridden or planned exercise but time to be horses, to have the freedom to move, to graze and to interact with other horses freely. I absolutely class it as a cage, a cage restricts an animals movement - thats exactly what a stable does, horses are big animals yet I wouldnt put my horse into some of the tiny stables lots of people think is adequate.

I think it depends, deep, welly sucking clay mud is no fun for anyone. I have had horses on this, and after less than an hour out they all wanted back in. When it is that bottomless it is grim and hard to walk in., horses dont want to be out either.

I moved to not be on clay, and now have my single horse out all the time (but we have 1/2 acre of surfaced ground for the horses to be in on at night. turnout is sloping and not clay, and three large field shelters.

Point being some field conditions ARE so grim and bottomlessly boggy the horses would rather be in than out. And if you cannot relocate, I guess have to make do, ideally with pens / surfaced areas / exercise both ends of the day etc.

 

[Fieldlife]

Isn't it shocking? Some of the posters have amazing set ups, either lots of grass and space or really good all weather surfaces. But just as many seem to be keeping their horses in fetlock deep mud on very small areas. I just don't see how that is "better" than stabling overnight and preserving your grazing a bit more.

I tend to assume the bad photos are the high traffic areas of the field and the rest is better so horses have an unpictured dry area to stand. But dont envy anyone trying to

the horses living out group on FB is DREADFUL for this- overstocked clay fields reduced to an absolute bottomless slop so horses either knee deep in it or all crammed on a tiny island of mud mats.......and the owners championing this as natural and better than a stable............

I tend to assume the mud in photos is the high traffic areas, and there is some dry in the back of the field out of photos. But maybe I am an optimist. I dont envy anyone keeping horses out on wet low lying clay!

That said maybe a decent sized field shelter, and a island of mud mats, and adlib hay in a feeder, the option of wading through deep clay mud if chose and company of friends is still better for many horses than being in a stable alone?

 

[ycbm]

Do you think that standing still on its own (or box-walking, alternatively) for about three-quarters of its life is likely to be better for a horse than walking around a field with other horses for the same period? In the absence of apparently satisfactory studies, you and everyone else must make this judgement based on what we know about horses' evolution and biology. My view is that it's disingenuous to suggest there might be a possibility, because studies haven't shown otherwise to your satisfaction, that denying a horse movement, agency or the company of its own kind for most of its life will be better for it mentally and physically than the opposite conditions. If only someone would fund and carry out a 25-year study, but we all know that will never happen.

First, there is no reason for stabled horses to be devoid of neighbours they can talk to and touch.

Second, I think it is entirely possible if a lifetime study of a big enough group of horses was done that it would show that more horses were still alive at, say 25, if they did not have group turnout. And then we would be into all sorts of qualitative assessments as to whether the benefits are outweighed by the downsides.

But what I really am against is calling other people cruel for keeping a horse the best way they are able, when there really is no decent evidence to to show how to give a horse the allround healthiest, longest life.

In 45 years of horse keeping I have seen many, many apparently very contented stabled horses. But just in case you are thinking that I am defending my own practices, I have not needed to stable a horse full time since the winter of 1989/90. I recently moved my current horse to improve his turnout to group. In spite of a very careful introduction, that decision has already cost me a suspected broken splint bone (just bruised) and two rugs.
.

 

[Michen]

First, there is no reason for stabled horses to be devoid of neighbours they can talk to and touch.

Second, I think it is entirely possible if a lifetime study of a big enough group of horses was done that it would show that more horses were still alive at, say 25, if they did not have group turnout. And then we would be into all sorts of qualitative assessments as to whether the benefits are outweighed by the downsides.

But what I really am against is calling other people cruel for keeping a horse the best way they are able, when there really is no decent evidence to to show how to give a horse the allround healthiest, longest life.

In 45 years of horse keeping I have seen many, many apparently very contented stabled horses. But just in case you are thinking that I am defending my own practices, I have not needed to stable a horse full time since the winter of 1989/90. I recently moved my current horse to improve his turnout to group. In spite of a very careful introduction, that decision has already cost me a suspected broken splint bone (just bruised) and two rugs.
.

Totally agree.

Also not all horses WANT to interact in the ways we may want them too. I had a choice with mine of two stables, one with bars separating the wall so the horses could shove noses through and touch etc. One totally on it's own. I chose the latter, intentionally.

My horse HATES other horses being able to stick his nose in his stable, he gets annoyed/stressed and then doesn't concentrate on eating.

 

[Red-1]

Traditionally we would muck spread in feb in the frosts back in late 80s/early 90s as easy to get on the fields. Turnout would be easy as colder and just not the wet you get now. The climate has changed rapidly in just 15 years. We spent £7k on an all weather turnout which has proved a blessing. Most liveries I know round here have some kind of all weather turnout.

I agree, and I find that turnout is scarse now compared to the early 80's and later. I do think climate change is making it more difficult, as is the price of land for houses meaning many places have sold land off.

Is that the study that divided into "more than 12 hours" and "less than 12 hours" and failed to analyse exactly what exercise the horses in each group had?
.

I have not seen the survey but agree that, if they have not accounted for other factors too, this data would be meaningless. For example, many competition horses would be out for less than 12 hours, but it would likely be the high levels of training causing the injury than the time in the stable. I think modern arenas are to blame in many cases. In my olden days (in the late 80s) I was competing at fair height jumps but most training was done out and about. Somehow, we found areas of open ground we could ride on. We could do canter work, hill work, jump little things (and sometimes not so little things) all without entering a school. Even out showjumping paddock was in a field, so larger than most arenas.

I would think that the majority of horses out for more than 12 hours through the year are happy hackers rather than those in a serious level of training. I think this is less so, so more exceptions, now, but still the majority.

At home, mine are on all weather turnout in winter as our fields are clay. Rigs has access to the outside 24/7 but it isn't as big as I would prefer. Both mine are worked under saddle as well.

I did hate it when I knew a horse who was kept in an indoor stable and worked in an indoor within the same building. Any turnout was brief in the same indoor space. The horse had no access to the outside at all during winter. I would not have chosen to keep my own horses like that.

 

[LEC]

How is being stabled 24/7 all winter not a welfare issue? An animal designed to be almost constantly in motion is restricted to a 12x12 stable. Some of them allowed to run around for 15mins if they are lucky, lots just moved from their stable to a tie ring and back again. Quite often left without forage for hours on end. A couple of weeks out 24/7 doesn't balance out a winter stood in.

I am yet to meet or know of any of these mythical owners that exercise their horses twice a day for a couple of hours. I don't think they exist.

Most decent yards have a Walker and then exercise - certainly the professional yards I know then with 1-2 hours of some form of turnout.

 

[Burnttoast]

First, there is no reason for stabled horses to be devoid of neighbours they can talk to and touch.

Second, I think it is entirely possible if a lifetime study of a big enough group of horses was done that it would show that more horses were still alive at, say 25, if they did not have group turnout. And then we would be into all sorts of qualitative assessments as to whether the benefits are outweighed by the downsides.

But what I really am against is calling other people cruel for keeping a horse the best way they are able, when there really is no decent evidence to to show how to give a horse the allround healthiest, longest life.

In 45 years of horse keeping I have seen many, many apparently very contented stabled horses. But just in case you are thinking that I am defending my own practices, I have not needed to stable a horse full time since the winter of 1989/90. I recently moved my current horse to improve his turnout to group. In spite of a very careful introduction, that decision has already cost me a suspected broken splint bone (just bruised) and two rugs.
.

In about the same period I've also been involved with many horses mostly stabled and mostly putting up with it with equanimity although most stables then and now don't in fact have options for horses to interact (this was a topic in the recent WHW webinar IIRC). I've also seen plenty of stereotypies over the years, though (haven't we all?), and plenty of horses made asocial and aggressive by this and individual turnout, who are often difficult to resocialise when people try. They can still do a job for their owners, though. Problems can also arise among horses that don't get along and can't get away from each other in a stabled situation. Even with a solid wall between them I have seen horses try to fight. There is plenty we need to be doing in welfare terms for both stabled and pastured horses but I will always consider stabling to be a less than ideal option. It's not compulsory to keep horses at all, when it comes to it - I sometimes get the impression that people are happy to have their horses choose between a rock and a hard place (a stable or a bog, say) - but aren't willing to make that choice themselves by admitting they cannot access suitable living arrangements for a horse.

 

[shortstuff99]

My young horse lived her first 3 years on over 20 acres with a herd. I then brought her down to my yard with my others for backing and while out 24/7 in summer they come in at night in winter. I worried for ages that she wouldn't like this.

Bloomin heck can I get this horse to live out now ?. She has company, food, grass and shelter in the field but after 5 mins she is staring at me to come in and I have to just ignore her and go home. If she could live in permanent through winter I think she would!

My old mare had to live on her own in the field with company next door because she would kill any horse that lived with her and I tried often to have her in a group. Guess they haven't read the horse manual ?‍

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

This subject has already been done to death on this forum, especially when posters start to call stables 'cages'.

If owners keep their horse at a yard with no turnout, it is up to them to make sure that the horse has plenty of exercise and time out of the stable. Horses can and do cope without winter turnout if well managed. Is it ideal? No, it is not.

I agree - I worked at one yard in Fulmer and one in London, both had no turnout due to location - horses were fine and had plenty of excercise.

 

[Gallop_Away]

In the absence of apparently satisfactory studies, you and everyone else must make this judgement based on what we know about horses' evolution and biology. My view is that it's disingenuous to suggest there might be a possibility, because studies haven't shown otherwise to your satisfaction, that denying a horse movement, agency or the company of its own kind for most of its life will be better for it mentally and physically than the opposite conditions. If only someone would fund and carry out a 25-year study, but we all know that will never happen.

Quite! I find it quite sad that people would need a study to prove that keeping a naturally socialable animal confined to a stable 20+ hrs a day for 6 months is not a detriment to the animal's welfare.

As for there being little evidence to prove otherwise, the fact that ulcers and stable vices are incredibly common in stabled horses should speak volumes. My own senior vet who has been in practice for over 20 years and who's opinion I trust implicitly, said that in her experience, impaction colic is more common in stabled horses than those who have access to adequate turnout. Also whilst there may not be any equine specific studies, there have many studies into other similar species and the detriment to keeping them in small spaces and confined to cages at zoos for example. People recognise these animals shouldn't be confined to cages or pens, and these types of zoos are far less socially acceptable now than they have been in previous years.

I think it's about time the equine world stop tip toeing around issues that are causing issues to the welfare of our horses. Issues such as too heavy a rider and equine obesity are perfect examples where people have turned a blind eye for too long and I think lack of turnout is another issue that should fall into this category. So I will continue to speak out against a practice I think is cruel and should not continue. If that offends someone I make no apologies, but would say that if it strikes a nerve, then perhaps that should tell you something. If you are confident in the way you manage your horses, the opinion of a stranger on a forum should make no difference. I also say this as someone who has kept my horses at a yard where mid-way through winter YO restricted turnout. I lasted less than 3 months and I will never subject my horses to that again.

 

[Lois Lame]

... and before that many horses were in fact stabled in stalls where they couldn't even turn round.

Yeah, that's what I thought, hence my question in a thread not long ago. Stables aren't my cup of tea, but then I've never been anything other than a low key, fair-weather rider. Stalls, however, are so awful that I don't even like to think about them.

 

[Lois Lame]

The in at night/out during during the day type model has really only developed over the last few decades, as people realised that more turn out was more optimal and as horses have become leisure horses rather than "working" horses working several hours a day. I'm not saying stable management in far gone times was preferable, but the trend is more turn out not less.

I do think that that has been the go at many places for much, much longer than that.

 

[Squeak]

I'm probably going to sound completely bonkers but to an extent I think we can also relate this situation to ourselves as a human species.

We weren't designed to only do one burst of exercise a day (gym or run etc.) and then predominantly sit for the rest of the day (particularly those with desk jobs). I also don't think(?? I can't remember this from biology and haven't looked up studies to check) we were designed to not interact with other people for days at a time (those who wfh?) although I know there are some who prefer social interaction more than others - same as some horses enjoy company more than others. However someone who works from home and does their one gym session a day and possibly a walk of some sort at the other end of the day is still happy. The exercise is more intense and so adequately tires them. This to me seems very relatable to a stabled horse who let say goes on a walker in the morning and is exercised in the afternoon.

Would a lifestyle where we moving around and outside for more hours and seeing more people be beneficial for our health - probably but we've negated the negative impacts as much as we can and the majority of us are happy with our lifestyle and healthy. I don't think it's necessarily so different for horses.

 

[ycbm]

In about the same period I've also been involved with many horses mostly stabled and mostly putting up with it with equanimity although most stables then and now don't in fact have options for horses to interact (this was a topic in the recent WHW webinar IIRC). I've also seen plenty of stereotypies over the years, though (haven't we all?), and plenty of horses made asocial and aggressive by this and individual turnout, who are often difficult to resocialise when people try. They can still do a job for their owners, though. Problems can also arise among horses that don't get along and can't get away from each other in a stabled situation. Even with a solid wall between them I have seen horses try to fight. There is plenty we need to be doing in welfare terms for both stabled and pastured horses but I will always consider stabling to be a less than ideal option. It's not compulsory to keep horses at all, when it comes to it - I sometimes get the impression that people are happy to have their horses choose between a rock and a hard place (a stable or a bog, say) - but aren't willing to make that choice themselves by admitting they cannot access suitable living arrangements for a horse.

Why do you keep trying to convince me? Did you not read my last paragraph? I don't disagree with any of this. But i do disagree with villainising people who are doing their best with horses which appear to be happy with that.
.

 

[ycbm]

Quite! I find it quite sad that people would need a study to prove that keeping a naturally socialable animal confined to a stable 20+ hrs a day for 6 months is not a detriment to the animal's welfare.

That's because you are only thinking of the animals' welfare at that point in time. If it was found that horses which are stabled 6 months of the year in winter have a longer average life (for example because they get less mud fever complications like cellulitis, fewer broken legs from crowding gateways to come in out of the rain, fewer soft tissue injuries from sliding on surface mud etc) then how does that change the welfare balance?

I won't apologise for wanting data before I demonise other people's choices.

 

[Goldenstar]

Those making comments about countries where the law says that turnout is provided we have been here on the forum before the amount of turnout mandated was tiny a couple of hours a couple of times a week as far as I remember so not effective in welfare terms .

 

[meleeka]

Isn't it shocking? Some of the posters have amazing set ups, either lots of grass and space or really good all weather surfaces. But just as many seem to be keeping their horses in fetlock deep mud on very small areas. I just don't see how that is "better" than stabling overnight and preserving your grazing a bit more.

I don’t think anyone on here has a problem with stabling overnight. That’s not the same as stabling 24/7.

I have two in overnight currently and two who are free to choose. They tend to hang around in the yard with the stabled ones, so for them, companionship is clearly more important than exercise. Out of the two in at night, one definitely prefers it in the winter and one would love to be out, but is a cob, so left out would just eat everyone’s hay.

 

[SO1]

You are right I wonder if this contributes towards the number of people who have mental health problems.

I'm probably going to sound completely bonkers but to an extent I think we can also relate this situation to ourselves as a human species.

We weren't designed to only do one burst of exercise a day (gym or run etc.) and then predominantly sit for the rest of the day (particularly those with desk jobs). I also don't think(?? I can't remember this from biology and haven't looked up studies to check) we were designed to not interact with other people for days at a time (those who wfh?) although I know there are some who prefer social interaction more than others - same as some horses enjoy company more than others. However someone who works from home and does their one gym session a day and possibly a walk of some sort at the other end of the day is still happy. The exercise is more intense and so adequately tires them. This to me seems very relatable to a stabled horse who let say goes on a walker in the morning and is exercised in the afternoon.

Would a lifestyle where we moving around and outside for more hours and seeing more people be beneficial for our health - probably but we've negated the negative impacts as much as we can and the majority of us are happy with our lifestyle and healthy. I don't think it's necessarily so different for horses.

 

[Burnttoast]

Why do you keep trying to convince me? Did you not read my last paragraph? I don't disagree with any of this. But i do disagree with villainising people who are doing their best with horses which appear to be happy with that.
.

I suppose because it's clearly becoming a live welfare issue, as illustrated by https://hallmarq.net/2022/11/29/joi...ider-when-asking-when-does-use-becomes-abuse/ from which: "Lee [Mottershead, Senior Writer at the Racing Post] raised how stabling racehorses, a well-accepted husbandry protocol, may well come into light soon as being abuse. He commented that only by being challenged on our practices can we move standards forward." And it is an easy one for non-horsey people to understand. So in the spirit of retaining SLO (not that I care particularly about horse sport or even riding but I would like to continue to keep my ponies because I like them quite a lot) it might be productive to think more actively about different systems of keeping for the majority of horses, such as large barn housing with permanent access to pasture, and about things like the amount and type of land that's now (given climate change) likely to be suitable for housing a given number of horses. It's not like the days when we needed horses to keep society running so horse people are probably going to have to justify their place increasingly and convincingly.

 

[Gallop_Away]

That's because you are only thinking of the animals' welfare at that point in time. If it was found that horses which are stabled 6 months of the year in winter have a longer average life (for example because they get less mud fever complications like cellulitis, fewer broken legs from crowding gateways to come in out of the rain, fewer soft tissue injuries from sliding on surface mud etc) then how does that change the welfare balance?

I won't apologise for wanting data before I demonise other people's choices.

It is frequently discussed on this forum that quality of life is of greater importance that quantity. So even if such a study existed, it would not convince me that keeping a horse confined to a stable for months at a time, is preferable or in the horse's best interest. A horse's mental wellbeing is just as important as its physical wellbeing.

 

[ycbm]

It is frequently discussed on this forum that quality of life is of greater importance that quantity.

I've never seen it argued that horses should be shot rather than kept in for the winter.