Is that 'one last summer' justifiable? Equine welfare dilemmas debated

Vets and welfare experts debate some of the issues around horses’ health, wellbeing and welfare

- BECKY MURRAY

“DILEMMAS” around turnout, euthanasia and restrictive grazing have come under discussion by experts as they navigate what “good welfare” really means.

At the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) Congress (13–16 September), animal welfare specialist Madeleine Campbell chaired a panel discussion comprising vets Imogen Burrows, Becky Smith and Isabella Wild, and animal welfare researcher Jo Hockenhull, to tackle the theme: “Good health or good welfare? Why can’t we agree what good welfare means?”

Professor Campbell opened the discussion by highlighting that in vets’ everyday lives, they come up against “welfare dilemmas”, and one issue is that there are numerous definitions of welfare, and debate on whether there is a difference between welfare and wellbeing.

The aim was to discuss how a lack of agreement on what good welfare means can affect vets’ ability to serve the best interests of horses under their care – and vets and nurses in their daily practice.

The panellists presented case studies during which they considered the difference between health and welfare, and the moral decisions involved in each.

One was a horse with a history of laminitis, who was kept on restricted grazing with no animal companionship. From a health perspective, the horse was deemed to be doing well as he had had no recent laminitic episodes, but the question arose whether keeping him alone was good for his welfare.