Department of Equine Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 114, 3584 CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Prev Vet Med. 2013 Feb 1;108(2-3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
Little is known about wastage in riding horses and the factors like fitness and workload that may reduce injuries and maximise welfare. To evaluate fitness, workload and reasons for premature training ends (PTEs) and temporary training breaks (TTBs) during a nine week training period, two groups of riding horses were used: Group A consisting of 58 horses used for student equitation courses (32 with training prior to admission and 26 without) and Group B consisting of 26 horses owned by two riding schools (school-I and school-II). To assess fitness, all horses performed a standardised exercise test (SET) at the start (SET-I) and end of the training period (SET-II) measuring heart rate (HR bpm) and speed (m/s). In addition, all horses were monitored daily during the training period for their health and workload. In Group A, trained horses had significantly lower HRs in SET-I (P=0.05) compared to untrained horses and in SET-II, trained horses tended to have lower HRs than untrained horses, though this was not statistically significant (P=0.057). During the training period all horses received an identical workload. A total of 19.0% of Group A horses ended the training period prematurely for veterinary reasons (PTEV); of those untrained horses had earlier a PTEV in the training period (after 2.8 ± 1.3 weeks) than trained horses (after 4.1 ± 1.5 weeks, P=0.030). In Group B, school-I and school-II horses did not differ significantly in fitness level nor in workload. More school-II horses ended the training period prematurely for veterinary reasons (n=7; 70%) compared to school-I horses (n=4; 25%, P=0.032), although seven (63.6%) of these horses were still continuously used in riding lessons. In both groups (A and B), small injuries (without a temporary training break) were significantly associated with premature training ends for veterinary reasons later on: in Group A small injuries preceded 27.3% of the PTEVs (P=0.005) and in Group B small injuries preceded 54.5% of the PTEVs (P=0.030). In conclusion, as all horses in each subgroup had the same workload, the occurrence of PTEV seemed not associated with the workload. In Group A horses, level of fitness seems to be an important factor for the point in time injuries will occur during the training period. In all horses, injuries were more likely when a temporary training break was not taken following seemingly minor injuries. Since a lot of injured Group B horses were used in riding lessons against veterinary advice, this may indicate that riding school owners have different perception on welfare and if true this may cause serious welfare problems.
关于骑马的浪费以及可能减少伤害和最大限度提高福利的因素,如健康状况和工作量,人们知之甚少。为了评估在九周的训练期间的健康状况、工作量和提前结束培训(PTE)和临时培训中断(TTB)的原因,使用了两组骑马的马:A 组由 58 匹马组成,用于学生骑术课程(32 匹在入学前接受过培训,26 匹没有),B 组由两所骑术学校的 26 匹马组成(学校-I 和学校-II)。为了评估健康状况,所有的马在训练期开始时(SET-I)和结束时(SET-II)都进行了标准的运动测试(SET),测量心率(bpm)和速度(m/s)。此外,在训练期间,所有的马每天都要监测健康状况和工作量。在 A 组中,经过训练的马在 SET-I 中的心率明显低于未经训练的马(P=0.05),在 SET-II 中,经过训练的马的心率也倾向于低于未经训练的马,尽管这在统计学上并不显著(P=0.057)。在训练期间,所有的马都接受了相同的工作量。共有 19.0%的 A 组马因兽医原因提前结束了训练期(PTEV);在那些未经训练的马中,有更早的 PTEV 在训练期(2.8±1.3 周后),而训练过的马(4.1±1.5 周后,P=0.030)。在 B 组中,学校-I 和学校-II 的马在健康水平或工作量方面没有显著差异。与学校-I 的马(n=4;25%)相比,学校-II 的马(n=7;70%)因兽医原因提前结束训练期的比例更高(P=0.032),尽管其中 7 匹马(63.6%)仍在继续用于骑术课。在这两组(A 和 B)中,小伤(无临时训练中断)与以后兽医原因导致的提前训练结束显著相关:在 A 组中,小伤导致 27.3%的 PTEV(P=0.005),在 B 组中,小伤导致 54.5%的 PTEV(P=0.030)。总之,由于每组中的所有马都有相同的工作量,因此 PTEV 的发生似乎与工作量无关。在 A 组中,健康状况似乎是训练期间发生伤害的一个重要因素。在所有的马中,当没有接受看似轻微的伤害后进行临时训练中断时,更有可能发生伤害。由于大量受伤的 B 组马在兽医建议下仍被用于骑术课,这可能表明骑术学校的所有者对福利有不同的看法,如果这是真的,这可能会导致严重的福利问题。