Vettings - What's your opinion?

P

premiersporthorsesuk

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 May 2011
Messages
55
Location
Newcastle
Visit site
Just a general post to see everyone's views on getting horses vetted these days. As myself and my partner sell horses as a living we come across a lot of vettings of our horses.

Recently I've noticed that vets (none inparticular!) seem to be setting out to fail a horse, rather than vet it, and pick up any problems along the way and deem it suitable for the purpose intended.

I'm a great believer in "if the horse doesn't want to do it, it won't!" So surely if anything was majorly the matter with them they wouldn't be doing their job in the first place.

Not out to get a heated dicussion here mind! Just want to know what people think, do you or have you ever had a horse vetted? What are your views....
 
I always have a 5 stage vetting, I know it's a snap-shot in time, but it gives me an idea on the soundness of the animal and lets me watch it being put under pressure for a couple of hours, so I get an idea of the temperament. I have had horses fail on serious heart mumers and been advised against a sale because of sarcoids I did not spot. I have been advised of dental problems and potential breeding problems. i think anyone paying more han £2k for a horse is foolish not to have a 5 stage vetting, especially now that in sept the vettings will carry more weight in law, with regards to the horse's behaviour.
 
I've bought two recently and had one vetted but not the other. I vetted the first one because I bought him from people I didn't know and because I didn't have anyone experienced come with me to view him. I knew what I wanted in terms of temperament and ability and I can pretty much distinguish bad conformation from good but I wanted an expert to run their hands all over him and check him over thoroughly for me. I only had a 2 stage done - I might have had a 5 stage if there were the facilities to do it. It was peace of mind for me really. A 2 stage makes no difference to insurance anyway. If he'd been more expensive I'd have insisted on a 5-stage as petplan for one won't do LOU over 2500 (I think) without a 5 stage certificate.

I didn't think the vet was setting out to fail them. They have to be critical - the buyer wants that. Even a horse that's performing well can show subtle but tell-tale signs if all is not well. My old pony, for example, was happily schooling and jumping like a 5 year old but a sudden increase in his recovery time was the first sign of a respiratory issue which did get worse.

The other horse I'd already known and had on a sort-of loan for several months so I didn't vet.

If I was buying from someone I didn't know, including dealers, I would always have them vetted.
 
BigRed said:
I always have a 5 stage vetting, I know it's a snap-shot in time, but it gives me an idea on the soundness of the animal and lets me watch it being put under pressure for a couple of hours, so I get an idea of the temperament. I have had horses fail on serious heart mumers and been advised against a sale because of sarcoids I did not spot. I have been advised of dental problems and potential breeding problems. i think anyone paying more han £2k for a horse is foolish not to have a 5 stage vetting, especially now that in sept the vettings will carry more weight in law, with regards to the horse's behaviour.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't know that! What's it going to change to?

I personally have had my horse's vetted. I don't think every vet is the same but some stories I have heard and personal experiences I think sometimes they can be a bit harsh. One vetted a horse of ours and because they didn't like us they did about a million flexion tests on the poor thing! It trotted up sound every time but I just felt like, are you trying to vet the horse for these customers or trying to make it fail to get back at us! Just wasn't necessary and found it un professional. But...suppose it was thorough and the customers were happy as it was sound as a pound! ;)
 
I never have vettings now- I can check lameness and respiration myself and imo flexions are very unreliable anyway.

I suppose the only thing I would like is to be able to take bloods for bute etc.

However, I think if I was going to have a horse vetted I would have x-rays as well as one without the other seems a little pointless to me.
 
I would always have some form of vetting - I value my vets opinion and would rather spend a little to have peace of mind. Saying that one of my 2 horses I bought a year ago failed a vetting but I bought him anyway - at least I knew what I was buying ;)
 
leflynn said:
I would always have some form of vetting - I value my vets opinion and would rather spend a little to have peace of mind. Saying that one of my 2 horses I bought a year ago failed a vetting but I bought him anyway - at least I knew what I was buying ;)
Click to expand...

Haha that's very true! I've known horses that have failed vettings or would never pass a vetting (older horses) but are still out there having a whale of a time competing and never had any problems or lameness! Suppose it's all down to personal preference and suppose, experience too!
 
I do have a vetting if im spending a lot.

I am however very non plussed by the flexion test.
Ive had 2 horses fail on the flexion - i bought them anyway.

BOTH horses passed a full vetting a while later when i outgrew them.

Since then im very doubtful of the flexion element.
 
I can bet my boots that a five stage will increase in price once the new "law" comes in, if it is re behaviour, won't the vet have to asses the rider, and the groom, and the owner?
I may have picked this up wrong, but if someone wants a three day eventer, they don't really want a plod.
I had a lovely TB ex race-horse which was sound but had a few behaviour issues, mostly due to rough handling, like she would not stand still to be mounted [but this is normal for a racehorse], she liked to rear when she got a bit excited, [in hand, never when one was on board], she stood at the back of her stall at first, and weaved on day one, but never again, and her shoes did not fit her feet, so I suppose most vets would have had doubts, but she did win a few races for us, [serial maiden] so as far as being a racehorse she was fine, she had no conformation issues and was out of training so not "fit".
 
we always have vettings done especially when two potential horses my friend was going to buy had problems that could not be detected my a horse owner. One had cataracts and was nearly blind in one eye and the other had a bad heart. So even if you had just the basic vetting done its worth it.
 
think it completely depends on your reasons for buying the horse. For instance a friend of mine never gets horses vetted - he reckons insure them for the first year (for the max you can without needing a vetting), if there's an underlying problem its going to appear in the first year and then you're insured. If the same horse had been vetted the potential issue would be excluded from the insurance policy so he'd rather 'not know', if that makes sense?
BUT he buys a fair few cheapish off-track TB's, schools and moves them on, and accepts that every now and again one goes wrong.
If you are a recreational rider buying your 'one' pony then I think its completely different - there's the added issue of the heartbreak when ponio breaks down..
So although I can see that often the financial logic makes sense NOT to vet, I would always vet any horse for me because i would want to take every precaution against something going wrong.. or at least know the risks before i bought!
 
I am the first to admit that I would not know what to look for so when we were buying ours I was really keen to have big chap vetted but hubby wouldn't hear of it. He said that they were a waste of time as it is only a snapshot of health and if something comes up later chances are it will be too late and vet will worm out of it, plus I have heard horror stories of the vet being the vet for the horse anyway and possibly overlooking slight issues. For big hairy cob we went to see him a few times and John rode him quite hard to see how he got on, for the section a's they were so cheap anyway it wouldn't have been worth it. I think it depends as someone else said, how much they are worth and what you are doing, mine are for hacking mainly, possibly will progress to pc for littlies and hunting for cob but we aren't showing or competing. So far, only one prob and that is sweet itch, she said he was hogged for hunting, as he was bought as my Xmas present, I suppose she timed it well to make sure that his symptoms were not present. Don't know if she could have hoodwinked the vet as well or not?!
 
I do think it is a very useful thing to have and I'm certainly not against it! But sometimes it can only detect problems on the day or short term.

I know a horse that now at only 7yrs old is retired due to arthritis is his hock. This wasn't picked up on the vetting a few years earlier as it was something that developed over time and unfortunately he had a severe case and can now not be ridden! So in most cases it is useful but for some I suppose it can't prevent the unexpected things to happen.
 
premiersporthorsesuk said:
I do think it is a very useful thing to have and I'm certainly not against it! But sometimes it can only detect problems on the day or short term.

I know a horse that now at only 7yrs old is retired due to arthritis is his hock. This wasn't picked up on the vetting a few years earlier as it was something that developed over time and unfortunately he had a severe case and can now not be ridden! So in most cases it is useful but for some I suppose it can't prevent the unexpected things to happen.
Click to expand...

That's true. But most people accept that it's just a snapshot - things can and do go wrong but when someone sets out to buy a horse, they usually want a horse that's at it's best at that time. It sounds like most people have vettigns to identify the subtle signs of things that are going wrong that they themselves may have missed.

You have to expect the unexpected but a vetting can at least highlight any early warning signs that are there.
 
Vicki_Krystal said:
I do have a vetting if im spending a lot.

I am however very non plussed by the flexion test.
Ive had 2 horses fail on the flexion - i bought them anyway.

BOTH horses passed a full vetting a while later when i outgrew them.

Since then im very doubtful of the flexion element.
Click to expand...
This always confuses me too, if we are selling a non TB and its vetted (they always are and its the same for the sales at Cavan or Goresbridge) it has to undergo the flexion test (some vets seem to think that this is an opportunity to try to upend a horse:D) but if I send a TB horse to the top sales at Goffs, Doncaster or Tatts it wont have to have a flexion test!:confused: (Some of these horses are sold for up to 300,000:eek: and are aiming at a demanding racing career)
 
We have always historically had any potential new purchase vetted. Back when we were kids though we weren't experienced and neither was my mum when it came to seeing (probably now quite obvious) faults. Our vet probably thought we were bonkers as he failed quite a few in those early days! Lol

Now we know a bit more I am fairly confident checking a horse over myself. However, I cannot detect heart murmurs and I cannot check if a horse has been dped (unless it's glaringly obvious!). I trust our vet as we have used him for years, he has his own horses so knows what to look for and also knows the limitations of certain tests (ie flexions). He could pass my sister's horse when we bought him but neither did he fail him (if that makes sense). After the vetting we discussed in length the potential issues (he had very weak, undeveloped front limbs at the time and his feet turned out slightly in front - he was only 4). We did buy him as the pros outweighed the cons and, other than the legs he was fine.

I even had my most recent purchase (a 15 mth old) 2 stage vetted just for peace of mind more than anything i guess (check the vitals) and I wanted the vet to check his limbs as I felt one turned out a bit in front. Vet 'passed' him ok - although he didn't comment on his "muleish" behaviour.

I think though more people need to be aware that the vetting is only a snapshot of how that horse is on the day it is vetted. Sadly some will stil try and blame a vet months after a vetting if something goes wrong with the horse. It's no wonder vets are inclined to fail more horses - then if the person goes ahead and buys there is no comeback on the vet!

Saying that about insurance though, I wanted to add vets fees to my older horse's cover (he'd been with petplan 14/15 years). Due to his age they wanted a 2 stage vetting done. I had it done and the vet did not find any issues with him. I duly sent Petplan the cert only for themt o say they were not happy with that and they then requested a veterinary history! I was NOT impressed having forked out for the vetting - they shouldhave just asked for the history in the first place as they obviously had no clue what a 2 stage vetting was going to show!!!! They were determind to find something to exclude as obviously assumed he had to have had some illnesses over the years (he hasn't). They did decide to exclude nail bind though. Honestly, very petty (and I worked in horse insurance for years!!)
 
My vet says to me when vetting 'it's not about passing or failing, it's about potential problems that could occur.'

Always have mine vetted, yes I know it's a snapshot of the day but if there's something slightly off about the horse, you wouldn't know it as a new rider but a vet may pick up on it. It's just for peace of mind tbh, as I'll have the horse for a while.

However everything brought up I do take with a pinch of salt, e.g flexions etc.
 
I had my new horse vetted. He failed! But I bought him anyway :)

He failed due to lameness because his shoe had twisted.. The vet stopped the vetting after the trot up.
Afterwards he said he was 99.9% certain that the lameness was due to the shoe :D

I think it is too expensive for what they do, but got mine because Socks is the first horse I have ever bought and wanted the vets opinion as well as my own.. Just for peace of mind really!
 
During a recent (and very long) search for a potential PN Eventer, i had 3 horses 5 stage vetted with x rays. Each vetting cost me over £1000 (largely because of the x rays) but the 2 horses that failed did so on the x rays. I should add that the horses in question were (for me) a lot of money and and I already have "Mr Sick Note" in the stable which has made me very cautious but for me the vettings gave me some peace of mind. I know only too well that any horse can go out tomorrow and get injured but buying a horse that was in the process of developing a spavin and so would almost inevitably go lame was perhaps one heartache avoided? i felt sorry for the owners because the horse was still sound and they clearly had no idea. All of the horses were in different parts of the country and so completely different vets - i felt like all of them were trying hard to be pragmatic but at the end of the day they were there to advise me of the risks and they did their job well.
 
Last edited:
When i bought my current horse i was told he hadnt passes his vetting a couple of months ago because he dragged his toes and didnt pass the flexion test, but i agreed to have him with view to buy, however my mum had bought him by the time i came back off holiday. It was a really stupid decision at the time as we were both naive in buying horses and we knew the people we were buying from however weve had quite a few problems with him (which is our own fault for buying him anyway) but i wouldnt change him for the world. The best character and personality you could wish for and has won most of his sj classes we used to do, as well as going hunting :)

But in the future i would have a 5* vetting to buy a horse because its the most frustrating thing not have the peace of mind.
 
I got Nadia vetted and it hasn't done me any favours really as he thought something was a sarcoid without looking into it further just put it on the certificate and now sarcoids are excluded. She has wingalls, I believe a lot of horses have them and yet they are also excluded.
 
I would always have some sort of vetting. Whilst we might be able to spot lameness and conformation issues you can't tell if the horse might have eyesight problems or a heart problem.
 
I don't understand why you ever wouldn't vet really.... Unless you're a vet yourself I suppose!

Our gorgeous potential horse failed the other week-we walked away-turns out pretty likely owners were trying to screw us over. Thanks very much, Mr Vet, cos it may have cost us £200 for him to say no she's lame, but better than the £15000 she was gonna cost us to get a dud horse!!

We are having horse number 2 vetted as well, same reasons as above. We will have xrays too, although our vet stops the vetting when he picks up a problem-so in horse number 1s case, she never got to the xrays, saving us a fortune!
 
I never have vetting’s now- I can check lameness and respiration myself and imo flexion’s are very unreliable anyway.

I suppose the only thing I would like is to be able to take bloods for bute etc.

However, I think if I was going to have a horse vetted I would have x-rays as well as one without the other seems a little pointless to me.

I have mixed view, you see half me totally agrees with Millitiger as quoted above, unless your horse was going to have a thorough lamesness work up and x-rays etc then things will be missed.

Also it depends on how much the horse is worth purely because if your insuring the horse for a certain amount and over then most insurance companies require a vetting anyway, I'm not one of these just thinks well the horse is only worth £1000 so I won't bother having it vetted because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you have paid for the horse, all injuries cost the same to sort out, so when you look at it like that then yes I do think for extra piece of mind having a vetting is very important to people, not only that but because there is quite a few dealers that do the dirty on people, even when people think they are buying from a good yard with good quality horses at a more top end pricing.

Also it depends on the vet, blood tests aside, in some cases I think you'd be wasting your money if you already had a few experienced folk with you for some of the checks, vets are not always as thorough as they perhaps should be, but some maybe a little over cautious too but I can't blame them for being like that due to how things are now.

But all in all, my view is if you can afford a vetting, get one done.
 
claireandnadia said:
I got Nadia vetted and it hasn't done me any favours really as he thought something was a sarcoid without looking into it further just put it on the certificate and now sarcoids are excluded. She has wingalls, I believe a lot of horses have them and yet they are also excluded.
Click to expand...

When my boy was vetted there was something "suspicious" on his chest. The previous owner and I were pretty sure it was just a rug rub but the vet said it *might* be a sarcoid but it might not but all he put on the form was "rub mark on chest, possibly from rug" or something. It turns out it was a rug rub but I did keep a close eye on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top