The results of the survey conducted into the husbandry practices that are adopted in the training of racehorses across Europe
Article by Dr Paull Khan
This article must start with an expression of gratitude to the 141 trainers/pre-trainers who gave of their valuable time to respond to our Survey of European Thoroughbred Racehorse Practices.
The survey was prompted by the review currently being conducted by the European Commission (EC) on animal husbandry, and its specific focus on horses. The EC has engaged its scientific advisors, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), to produce a scientific opinion on the protection of horses, and a technical report on current practices for their keeping. The terms of reference for this work specifically include horses kept for ‘competitive activity’ (eg racehorses). The report is wide-ranging but will also consider the access that horses do or do not have to the outdoors and to other horses, the periods they have at grass, as well as their nutrition and feeding regimes. It will look at how these husbandry practices affect such things as gastro-enteric disorders; it will comment on how horses’ welfare is impacted by such aspects of their housing conditions as air quality, temperature and lighting (including natural light and visual horizon). More specifically, it will look at:
Social needs…..(i.e. access to conspecifics, including in visual, auditory, and olfactory form and including stallions).
and
Outdoor access (or lack of), providing the opportunity for grazing and free movement and including the risks related to…..the absence of an outdoor enclosure.
EFSA’s opinion will be evidence-based and it will examine the available scientific and other literature which has a bearing on the terms of reference it has been given. This research is limited, but what there is gives further clues as to likely areas of focus.
A matter which appears to be a growing area of concern is around the degree of social contact which racehorses enjoy, and whether this is sufficient for their needs. Discussion of this subject often leads to the specific consideration of the length of time horses spend outside their boxes, especially when turned-out and freed of training or racing duties. It is in this context that the expression ‘the other 23 hours’ has quickly gained currency, often evoking censure: the implication being that racehorses are ‘let out’ for just one hour a day.
The organisation Eurogroup for Animals, has pronounced on this issue. Based on a ‘case study’, it concludes: “Looking at the holistic picture and multiple indicators, including animal-based indicators, demonstrates that the positive experiences for a racehorse do not counterbalance the negative experiences. When looking holistically at this Thorougbred Racehorse’s life experiences, it is clear he is not living a Good Life, but rather is having only his basic needs met.”.
In our struggle to retain our social licence, anthropomorphism is, of course, a potent enemy and it is easy to imagine the general public being led to compare the ‘fate’ of the racehorse with that of the prisoner, allowed out of his cell to exercise for just one hour a day.
Time out of the stable is, of course, not the only measure of social contact. Even when in their boxes, there are opportunities for social contact between horses. The degree and quality of such contact is variable, depending on the design and layout of the boxes.
The abstract of a 2019 study Housing Horses in Individual Boxes Is a Challenge with Regard to Welfare (Animals, Alice Ruet, Julie Lemarchand etc) begins in trenchant fashion: “Horses are mainly housed in individual boxes. This housing system is reported to be highly detrimental with regard to welfare….” The study duly concluded that: “…the longer the horses spent in individual boxes, the more likely they were to express unresponsiveness to the environment. To preserve the welfare of horses, it seems necessary to allow free exercise, interactions with conspecifics, and fibre consumption as often as possible, to ensure the satisfaction of the species' behavioural and physiological needs.”
One of the most relevant studies that has been conducted in this area, Racehorse welfare across a training season, a doctoral thesis by Rachel Annan et al, was published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science in 2023. This paper noted:
“Our results suggest that a racing season indeed represents a form of challenge for a racehorse’s welfare state, but that some specific factors—such as opportunities for social contacts and increased visual horizons—have potential to help horses overcome the challenge”.
“If racehorses are expected to work at the upper limit of equine athletic ability, it is important that, overall, they experience many positive experiences in order to ensure a positive welfare balance”.
“Our results highlight the importance of the opportunities for social contact for racehorse welfare. All horses were individually housed in a variety of types of stables with differing amounts of social contact both between, and within training yards. Thereby, 54.1% of horses had physical social contact when stabled, which meant they could at least sniff another horse through a social panel or grill between stables, a low wall or at the stable door. This level of social contact is higher than that reported in the leisure horse population where 39%–44% had physical contact while stabled. In our study, access to physical contact (sniff or head and neck) was associated with more lying down, suggesting a greater level of relaxation and quality of sleep. Indeed, horses are more likely to lie down in a sternal or recumbent position when they feel safe and there are social companions nearby. Furthermore, horses can also only enter paradoxical Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep when they lie down in a recumbent position, making lying down an essential activity. Providing opportunities for social contacts appeared therefore positive for the welfare of the present racehorse population”.
“As a social species, the importance of well-established bonds with known conspecifics has been well documented as an essential welfare need for horses. Our results suggest that efforts to increase social contacts for racehorses have been made within the racing industry and has positive repercussions. However, improvement is still required as the majority of social contacts we observed were still restricted to nose-to-nose contacts, usually through bars. Previous research indeed showed that even if horses are intrinsically motivated to access any level of social contacts, full-body contacts are necessary to the establishment of social relationships. As we observed in our study, racehorses are still mainly housed in individual stables during training, as protection from injury and cross-contamination of pathogens is a major concern. Yet, in 2020, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities published minimum horse welfare standards, which included “opportunities to bond with other animals as a desirable condition to optimise horse welfare.” The Irish Thoroughbred Welfare Council also included social contact as an important aspect of horse welfare in their recently published welfare principles. Finally, social contact was highlighted as “the best life” scenario for racehorses by stakeholders within the racing industry. Altogether, these elements suggest that pursuing the efforts to increase social contacts for racehorses would be an effective and concrete way to improve equine welfare in the industry”.
Studies such as those above, together with the terms of reference of the EC study, helped us shape our questionnaire, which concentrated on stabling, feeding and turnout (both when in and out of training).
A purpose of our pan-European survey - believed to be the first of its kind - is to enhance knowledge of the current situation on the ground in racing yards across the continent. What are trainers’ practices, and what are the experiences of the horses in their care? Are these static, or evolving?
Beyond this, it is hoped to stimulate thought and discussion among trainers and racing regulators, in order that we, as a sector, can best contribute to the broader discourse which is bound to flow from the EC’s review.
THE RESULTS
We received 141 responses from nine countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland (Republic and Northern), Spain and Sweden.
The vast majority were trainers, but 6 responses (4%) came from pre-trainers. There was a good spread of trainers over the two codes. While half described themselves as ‘predominantly flat’, 27% were ‘both flat and jump’ and the remaining 23% were ‘predominantly jump’.
Similarly, there was pleasing representation of all sizes of yard. The survey asked: ‘What is the approximate number of horses you have in your yard at peak season?’ For 31%, this number was up to 15; 39% reported peak totals of between 16 and 35 horses and 30% gave a figure of 35 horses or more.
Twelve yards had 100 or more and five had between 150 and 200.
The figures indicate that, between them, our respondents accounted for over 5,000 horses and over 6,000 boxes.
STABLING
Our responses indicate that, out of the 5,000 or so horses covered, fewer than 150 are stabled in groups. Over 97% are housed individually.
We asked trainers about the design of their boxes, with specific regard to the degree and nature of the contact with other horses that they afforded. Specifically, we asked whether the horse could see out, could put its head out, could see other horses, could do so when lying down (eg through floor to ceiling grills), could sniff/touch noses with another horse, could interact with another horse, could see a short distance (eg to stables opposite), or a long distance (eg a large courtyard or field), or could see people (eg working in the yard). Trainers were asked to tick all those which were applicable. The breakdown of responses is shown below.
Almost universally, trainers’ horses can look out of their box and see other horses. Over 95%% replied that their horses could put their heads out of the box door/window and see people. Seventy per cent said their horses could see a long distance from their boxes. A little over half said their charges could interact with another horse, and sniff/touch noses with another horse. One quarter of respondents had boxes which allowed the horse to see another when lying down.
FEEDING
As regards the feeding regime which trainers adopt, we first asked: “What percentage of time do your horses have free access to forage (hay / haylage etc.)?”
Two-thirds of trainers give their horses free access to forage all, or virtually all, of the time. All but 15% give access for at least 16 hours daily.
Question: How many times per day are your horses fed forage?
There is a broad spread of practice when it comes to the number of times a trainer’s horses are fed forage. The most popular answer was 3 to 4 times a day (40.8% of trainers). Around 30% of trainers forage-fed their horses on an adlib basis, with around a quarter of trainers feeding once or twice daily. A small percentage (6.4%), fed four or five times a day.
Question: How many times per day do your horses receive hard feeds?
There is greater consensus when it comes to frequency of hard feeds, with 84% choosing their feed their horses three or four times a day. Those who feed less frequently and those who feed more frequently are roughly evenly split.
TURNOUT
We defined ‘turnout’ as more than 15 minutes on a field or pen. We asked “What percentage of your horses in training are turned out daily when weather conditions allow?”
More than half of respondents said they turned 90% or more of their horses out every day. Fewer than one trainer in eight answered that they turned out less than 10% of their horses daily.
We turned next to the typical duration of turnout, asking: “On each occasion, for how long would your horses typically be turned out?”
As can be seen from this chart, the most popular duration was 1 to 2 hours, with significant numbers of trainers selecting 2 to 3 hours and 3 to 4 hours. For more than a quarter of trainers, turnout spells of between 4 and 24 hours were the norm.
The great majority of trainers turn their horses out on grass. For 72%, this was the sole surface, with a further 15% divided between grass and another surface, variously described as ‘sand’, ‘woodchip’, ‘all-weather’ or ‘dirt’. Where more than one surface was used, the reason was seasonal and weather-related, with grass favoured in summer and the alternative surface in winter. But one trainer’s choice was based on the horse’s gender, answering thus: “Fillies on very large grass fields in groups//colts on 400qm sand paddocks”. One respondent elaborated further: “Mainly grass or sand or inside round pen (sand mixed with fibres - great to have a roll, it's soft), indoor manege = sand surface”.
Ninety-three percent of respondents turned their horses out outdoors.
Almost 90% of trainers reported that their horses had access to fresh water when turned out.
We then asked: “What is the approximate area (square metres) of the space in which they are turned out?” There was great variability in the answers here, as shown by the chart.
(To help interpret these figures, it might be noted that 1 acre is around 4,000 square metres, and a hectare is 10,000 square metres).
Almost universally, when asked: “Do they have forage availability (grass, hay, etc.)?”, trainers answered affirmatively.
A majority (54%) of trainers provide the horses which they turn out with shelter against the sun or rain.
We next asked whether trainers turned their horses out alone, or with others. Two thirds of the replies indicated that at least some horses were turned out with others.
Where there was a mixture of solo or accompanied turnout, the most common reason cited was gender based, with fillies and geldings, but not colts, being trusted to coexist peaceably. For some, the decision was made on the basis of the horses’ character or friendships with other individuals. Several trainers set a limit on the numbers put out together.
Trainers were asked: “If they are turned out alone, do they have the opportunity to (a) sniff/touch other horses (over a fence), (b) see other horses or (c) neither of the above”. It can be seen that all but 4% of trainers give their solo turned-out horses the chance of some contact with others, with a majority allowing them to sniff and touch another horse.
TIME OUT OF THE YARD
One aspect of a racehorse’s life that can easily be overlooked is their time spent out of training. We sought to build up a picture of racehorses’ experiences during this ‘downtime’, when not in training and therefore not in their trainer’s yard. We asked: “When out of training, are you aware of any instances where horses you train are not either at grass 24 hours a day or at least part of any day (stabled at night for example)?”
Almost universally, it was reported that, when out of training, horses are at grass for all or part of each day, other than when injured or ill. Many yards reported that they come in at night, some said that they would be housed in inclement weather.
Next, we enquired: “While out of training, typically, for how long each year would your racehorses not be housed in the yard?”
For the great majority, this ‘downtime’ lasts for one to three months. One respondent explained: “It varies a lot. Every horse is an individual and their holidays and how they are turned out is based on their health and mental well-being”. Where trainers specified a typical length of time out of the yard, the spread of responses is shown in the chart below.
Thirteen per cent of trainers stated that there was no time out of the yard. Around one quarter gave a figure of 1 to 2 months, with 38% saying 2 to 3 months. One quarter of trainers reported ‘down-time’ of three months or more.
EVOLUTION
We enquired: “If future legislation were to require horses to be turned out, please select the option that best applies to your situation:
It would be impossible to accommodate this.
I could accommodate this, but only after making extensive and costly adjustments.
No problem, I have the facilities to do this already”.
Half of the trainers explained that they could cope without problem with any such theoretical future legislation. Thirty-one per cent could do so, but that it would require costly and extensive changes. Eighteen per cent replied that it would be impossible for them to comply.
We were keen to ascertain the extent to which trainers were settled and static in their approach to such matters as box design and turnout, or, on the other hand, were making changes in these areas. We asked: “Have you recently changed your practices in any way relevant to the above (for example, modifying your boxes or turnout regime)? If so, please describe what you have done”.
No fewer than 30% replied that they had modified their practices in recent years in regard to their housing or turnout regimes. The changes they cited were many and varied. Here is a selection of their comments:
Increasing air, light and social contact in the boxing, adding a paddock and utilising a forest riding area for turnout.
Increasing size and modifying box design so as to allow mutual visibility (eg adding a window in the back wall, or contact/interaction with others
Taking out the top grills to allow grooming and touching
Increasing ventilation in the stable block
Bigger boxes and daily turnout (suitably rugged if inclement weather)
Increasing the number of horses turned out in pairs.
Creating more opportunities for colts to be turned out.
I created 3 paddocks and a large meadow for their recovery and well-being.
I have changed from having water buckets to automatic drinkers in the stables. I previously preferred to know how much water a horse drank on a daily basis but I have not had any issues since switching.
We’ve put webbings in our boxes (American style) to have open doors, more sunshine and better airflow in the boxes.
We built 400qm sand paddocks to bring all colts out 7/7 for at least 1.5 hours;
(fillies on big fields in groups).In the past only groups of 2 horses were outside for 2 hours; now all horses are together outside in two groups (racehorse/riding horses and old racehorses).
Lack of additional space was a common problem, so some initiatives were aimed at making improved use of the space available: “we constantly move the pens and rest the paddocks, harrow, roll and re seed when necessary”, or converting areas especially prone to muddying into all-weather areas: “Added more all weather areas. Our rainfall is high so fields get muddy quickly which then causes the horses to be miserable”. Also “we work hard to find pre-trainers who can turn horses out”.
However, some trainers were keen to point out that turnout is not a simple panacea, as is reflected in these comments:
“Four years ago we started turning the horses out for 2 hours after exercise. Not all horses will settle turned out though and have been upset or even injured themselves”.
“Geldings and fillies in training are turned out in pairs to minimise risk of injury. We used to turnout in larger groups of four but risk factor was higher. We don’t turn out colts in training - risk of injury to themselves is too high. Colts can be turned out individually in pen or lunge ring if needed”.
“More turnout places available in the past but it is far from certain that the horses have benefitted from this”.
Finally, in this section, we enquired as to future plans: “Would you consider doing so in the future? If so, please describe what you would consider doing?”
Almost half of those who responded replied in the affirmative. Here are some examples of their plans:
“Build more paddocks for our colts to be able to keep each one out for longer”
“Get a loan to do fencing on the 10 ha I have bought. Safety fencing. Create more individual paddocks, around the yard, to turn horses out for a few hours a day. Create better access to the private ponds, to walk through/ play. Swim? Re-installing solarium, a treadmill.”
“If I had the money, I would prefer all my horses to live outside as it’s their nature to live in groups. It keeps them relaxed and happy.”
“Going forward I hope to continue to have a large window area in each stable and I would choose gates rather than standard doors as far as is practical.”
“I am considering altering the partition walls in my stables to allow horses to see each other and interact with the horses adjacent to them. The cost of this is a factor though.”
“I think turnout is very important and a great way to keep a horse fresh and happy. If it were possible, all my horses would have some turnout each day”.
Again, though, a few trainers struck a cautionary note about the concept of turnout:
“If find there is always one or two that cant be turned out due to injury or they are a danger to themselves therefore a legislation would have negative impacts on horses welfare”.
“We have turnout but would struggle to turn every horse out every day, the reality is not every thoroughbred is relaxed and settled turned out when in full training. We have a variety of box settings and they are all large, with direct sight of horses again some horses are happy with lots of opportunity to interact with others whilst other prefer a more isolated setting”.
“There are pros and cons to turnout and the fact that people have come to perceive turnout as a principal requirement of good husbandry, doesn't necessarily mean it is right”.
CLOSING REMARKS
The implications of the EC’s review should not be over-stated. We are led to expect that what will result will be guidance, rather than new legislation. But, even if that proves to be so, individual governments may choose to introduce national legislation. Some European countries already have laws which require turnout. Norway requires horses to be turned out/exercised for a minimum of two hours daily; Sweden and Finland mandate daily turnout without specifying the duration. Sweden requires conditions under which horses can exhibit ‘natural behaviour’, (ridden exercise does not count as ‘turnout’).
It is important that racing understands the realities of the way our horses are kept and looked after and hopefully this survey provides a step forward in that aim. The survey highlighted the weight given by trainers to individual care regimes, reflecting a widespread recognition that horses are individuals, with different needs and preferences. What appears very clear from the responses is that European trainers are indeed sensitive to the welfare needs of the racehorses in their care, and are far from resistant to considering where further improvements might be made. This should not surprise us, on the basis that a happy racehorse will be one who will perform better on the track and therefore it is in trainers’ own interests to provide the best possible environment for their horses. It may well be that this flexibility will prove critical in the long-term retention of our social licence.
