Classification of horses as livestock or companion animals is often contested in cases of management and welfare concerns, legislation, and educational forums. Limited data are available regarding perception of equids in relationship to animal agriculture management practices. Therefore, our objective was to test associations between livestock management practices and perception of horses as companion animals or livestock. An online survey was administered for 6 weeks to U.S. residents over age 18. Participants provided demographic information, connection to the industry, and welfare definition of choice. Management questions included 2 scenarios each—one regarding horses and a direct comparison for another livestock species. Respondents then chose which scenario was most concerning or if the scenarios were equally non-concerning (i.e. no issue) or concerning. Analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with significance set at α=0.05. Multinomial logistic regression (PROC GLIMMIX) was used to test factors affecting management scenario responses. Out of 1,334 respondents, 807 (60.5%) categorized equids as companion animals; 527 (39.5%) classified equids as livestock. Welfare definition, equid classification, and industry connection significantly affected responses to every management scenario (P < 0.01). People who classified horses as livestock had 2.8 times greater odds (OR=2.8; 95%CI:1.8, 4.5) to select lack of shelter during spring months as equally non-concerning for horses and cattle rather than selecting horses without shelter as a concern compared to respondents who classified horses as companion animals. Respondents heavily connected to the equine industry were less likely (OR=0.38; 95%CI:0.19, 0.75) to select that both species without shelter were concerning rather than selecting that only horses lacking shelter was concerning compared to respondents lightly connected to the industry. Understanding associations between public perceptions of livestock management and individual’s welfare definition, equine classification and industry connection may improve our ability to educate the public regarding animal agricultural practices.

Equine welfare and processing are a major topic of interest, often debated by industry professionals and the public alike. These debates often focus on the welfare of equines during the different aspects of processing and the impacts related to the processing legislation passed in 2007. Our objective was to determine if one’s definition of welfare, industry connection, or their classification of equines was associated with their perceptions of equine processing and related impacts. Over a 6 week period, a survey was distributed via email and social media outlets to United States residents over the age of 18 (n=1,334). Participants responded to questions including demographic information, connection to the industry, equine classification, and indicated the changes they expected occurred due to the 2007 processing legislation. Furthermore, participants selected sources from which they commonly obtain information regarding animal welfare issues. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05. Multinomial logistic regression in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC; PROC LOGISTIC) was used to determine factors associated with participants’ likelihood to respond “increase”, “decrease”, or “no impact” to each area in which the 2007 legislation could have impacted the industry. When asked if there was an impact on the number of horses processed, connection to the industry (P=0.03), welfare definition (P< 0.0001) and classification of horses (P=0.009) were associated with responses. Respondents with light connection, when compared to moderate connection, were 10 times more likely (OR=10.9; 95% Cl: 1.03, 111.1) to say there was an increase in horse processing, versus no impact, in response to the 2007 legislation. Understanding interactions between industry connection, welfare definition, classification of equids relative to current industry issues may prove beneficial to bridge an educational gap and provide clarity to important welfare concerns.

No abstract

Equine welfare and processing are a major topic of interest, often debated by industry professionals and the public alike. These debates often focus on the welfare of equines during the different aspects of processing and the impacts related to the processing legislation passed in 2007. Our objective was to determine if one’s definition of welfare, industry connection, or their classification of equines was associated with their perceptions of equine processing and related impacts. Over a 6-wk period, a survey was distributed via email and social media outlets to U.S. residents over the age of 18 (n = 1,334). Participants responded to questions including demographic information, connection to the industry, equine classification, and indicated the changes they expected occurred due to the 2007 processing legislation. Furthermore, participants selected sources from which they commonly obtain information regarding animal welfare issues. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05. Multinomial logistic regression in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC; PROC LOGISTIC) was used to determine factors associated with participants’ likelihood to respond “increase,” “decrease,” or “no impact” to each area in which the 2007 legislation could have impacted the industry. When asked if there was an impact on the number of horses processed, connection to the industry (P = 0.03), welfare definition (P < 0.0001) and classification of horses (P = 0.009) were associated with responses. Respondents with light connection, when compared to moderate connection, were 10 times more likely (OR=10.9; 95% Cl: 1.03, 111.1) to say there was an increase in horse processing, versus no impact, in response to the 2007 legislation. Understanding interactions between industry connection, welfare definition, classification of equids relative to current industry issues may prove beneficial to bridge an educational gap and provide clarity to important welfare concerns.

The equine industry is highly variable with many different sectors and management practices. To determine how the public views common management practices and discipline-specific areas of the equine industry, an online study was distributed via email and social media over a 6-week period to U.S. residents over the age of 18 (n = 1,372). Survey questions included demographics, industry connection, definition of welfare and equine classification. Respondents were asked to select the most concerning option from a series of management-related scenarios. The production livestock and equine industries were then segmented by species or discipline, respectively, and respondents were asked which sector was most problematic. To analyze the data, frequency tables (Proc FREQ) and multinomial logistic regression (Proc LOGISTIC) were used in SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC) to test the factors associated with likelihood to select a given management scenario from each series (α=0.05). Respondents who were heavily connected to the industry were four times more likely than lightly connected individuals to select that a blanketed horse or unblanketed horse in 30°F weather with unlimited access to food and water equally presented no concern than to say that a blanketed or unblanketed horse in 30°F weather with unlimited access to food and water and were concerning (OR= 4.09; 95%CL: 2.08,8.04). Of the 1,244 respondents who answered, 563 (45%) said that the gaited horse industry is the most problematic equine industry compared to the racing industry (41%) and stock horse industry (8.7%). Understanding how the public perceives the various animal industries and management scenarios in relation to an individual’s connection to the industry, classification of equines and welfare definition is important to assess and improve educational intervention strategies.