Hartpury University Repository

Williams, Jane

Tabor, Gillian

English

Rider impacts on equitation

Oxley, James A.

Evans, Brian

Montrose, V. Tamara

Discussion point  1 
Prevention of sheep worrying in the UK: Rethinking the approach 2 
 3 
James A. Oxley1, Brian Evans2 and V. Tamara Montrose2 4 
 5 
1 Independent Researcher, 35 Farnes Drive, Gidea Park Romford, Essex, RM2 6NS, 6 
UK  7 
2 Department of Animal and Agriculture, Hartpury University Centre, Hartpury GL19 8 
3BE, Gloucestershire, UK.  9 
 10 
Contact: James_oxley1@hotmail.com 11 
Keyword: Sheep, Worrying, Dogs, Prevention 12 
 13 
 Introduction  14 
Livestock worrying occurs when dogs attack or chase livestock, and also describes 15 
dogs simply being at large in a field containing livestock (Dogs (Protection of 16 
Livestock) Act, 1953). Under this act if a dog worries livestock the person in charge of 17 
the dog is guilty of an offence and may risk prosecution. Owners may also be liable to 18 
pay compensation to farmers for livestock deaths or injuries (Animals Act, 1971). 19 
Farmers may also shoot dogs which are attacking or chasing livestock (Animal Act, 20 
1971). Worrying can have a significant impact on livestock as pregnant ewes may 21 
abort lambs and worrying can cause significant injury, mis-mothering, suffering and 22 
even death (Phythian et al., 2011; National Sheep Association, 2016). From the 23 
farmer’s perspective, attacks on livestock also cause various problems including 24 
stress, anxiety, concerns about reduced animal welfare and financial losses (National 25 
Sheep Association, 2016).   26 
 27 
Livestock worrying has been frequently noted in past years within the UK (e.g., 28 
Ainsley, 1968) and to date continues to remain commonplace (Stocker et al., 2015). A 29 
general increase in the annual incidents of dog worrying was recorded by police forces 30 
from 2011-2015 (e.g., 2011: 691 cases; 2012: 738 cases; 2013: 1074 cases; 2014: 31 
1002 cases; 2015: 1069 cases) (National Sheep Association, n.d.-a). It is important to 32 
note that these figures are likely to be lower than the actual occurrence due to under-33 
reporting by farmers (e.g., only 37% of sheep farmers were noted to contact the police 34 
every time they have an attack) (National Sheep Association, 2016) and not all cases 35 
are evident in police reports (National Sheep Association, n.d.-a). Recently, the 36 
National Farmers Union Scotland also stated that an increase in livestock worrying 37 
incidents from 93 to 133 occurred from 2014-2015 (NFU Scotland, 2016). The National 38 
Sheep Association’s 2016 survey highlighted that 33% of farmers suffered between 39 
two and five attacks each year (with some respondents encountering 50-100 or even 40 
greater incidents) with on average five sheep being injured and four sheep being killed 41 
(National Sheep Association, 2016).  42 
 43 
Method 44 
To further investigate the recent incidence of sheep worrying as a result of dog attacks 45 
in 2016, the authors searched and reviewed online news articles, through Google 46 
news (UK pages only) in local and national news within the UK. The search terms 47 
were (‘Sheep’ OR ‘Livestock’) AND (‘Worrying’) AND (‘Dog’).  48 
 49 
Results and Discussion  50 
In total 20 news articles were found between January and July 2016.  Of those articles 51 
which provided specific figures, 217 sheep in total were killed (average 11.4; ranging 52 
from 0 – 116 per incident) and 22 sheep in total were injured (average 1.8; ranging 53 
from 0 – 6 per incident). Of those sheep injured, the main body locations were the 54 
neck, shoulders and legs. In the majority of these cases (15/20) the owners or dog 55 
could not be located. For three of the incidents an individual was charged by the police. 56 
In two cases the dogs involved were shot as a result of attacking sheep. Of the 20 57 
incidents, seven occurred in March, four in April, four in June, two in February, two in 58 
July and one in January. This pattern is possibly representative of seasonal patterns 59 
resulting in an increase in dog walking in rural locations, or associated with the 60 
presence of lambs which could spur attacks by dogs. A concerning aspect of these 61 
news articles is that in four cases it was stated that these incidents of sheep worrying 62 
had occurred at the location on multiple previous occasions.  63 
 64 
There is a key focus on methods to prevent livestock worrying. The National Sheep 65 
Association (2016) found that 64% of sheep farmers put warning posters/signs up on 66 
their land stating that dogs need to be kept on the lead. However, previous research 67 
suggests that online advice of best practice may vary for dog walkers in fields where 68 
livestock are kept (Fraser-Williams et al., 2015). Additional prevention methods and 69 
campaigns have included the Kennel Club and the National Farmers Union 70 
collaborating to provide information to dog owners (NFU, 2015). This has included the 71 
utilisation of signs and posters informing walkers of the need to place their dogs on a 72 
lead. Similarly, the National Sheep Association have also issued guidance for farmers 73 
(National Sheep Association, n.d.-b) and provided plastic signs free of charge, 74 
highlighting the need to keep dogs on a lead and noting that permitting dogs to chase 75 
or attack sheep is a serious welfare offence (National Sheep Association, n.d.-c). In 76 
addition, the National Sheep Association, in conjunction with the Sheep Veterinary 77 
Society and Farmers Guardian produced a poster for veterinary surgeries highlighting 78 
that livestock worrying is a criminal offence which may result in fines or prosecution, 79 
the welfare implications for sheep and that the dog may be shot or destroyed (National 80 
Sheep Association, n.d.-c; Stocker et al., 2015). Initiatives such as ‘SheepWatch UK’ 81 
have also been set up to record dog attacks on sheep, investigate the cost of such 82 
attacks and aim to educate the public (Sheepwatch UK, n.d.). Despite these efforts, 83 
incidents of sheep worrying are a frequent occurrence.  84 
 85 
Owner awareness and understanding of the impact of livestock worrying is a 86 
fundamental factor in preventing these incidents. Despite current campaigns, 87 
continuing education to improve awareness and compliance is needed for dog owners 88 
to ensure that dogs are kept on leads when near to livestock and that owners are 89 
aware of where their dogs are at all times. Further consideration of how best to prevent 90 
sheep worrying would be beneficial. Currently prevention materials tend to 91 
predominantly focus on the dangers of fines and prosecution, and on sheep welfare 92 
(NFU, 2015; National Sheep Association, n.d.-c). While these are important 93 
considerations, increased focus on the dangers to the dog in terms of being shot or 94 
having a destruction order placed on them may be beneficial in increasing owner 95 
concern. Over 305 dogs have been killed by farmers for livestock worrying over the 96 
past six years in England and Wales, with an average of one dog a week being shot 97 
(BBC news, 2016). Whilst dog owners may oppose measures that are perceived to 98 
restrict the freedom of their pets (e.g., Williams et al., 2009), concern over the loss of 99 
their dog may encourage compliance with leashing.   100 
 101 
Another method that may encourage greater leashing of dogs around sheep may 102 
relate to strategies that encourage compliance with social norms or pro-social 103 
behaviour. Compliance with social norms can encourage owners to clean up their 104 
dog’s faeces (Webley and Siviter, 2000; Lowe et al., 2014). Dog owners are also more 105 
likely to keep dogs on their leads when they believe others expect their dogs to be 106 
leashed (e.g., Williams et al., 2009). Greater focus on promoting the concept that most 107 
dog owners keep their dogs on leads when walking near sheep, and that doing so is 108 
an important aspect of responsible pet ownership may be of value. Adapting signs to 109 
encourage prosocial behaviour may also be useful. Images of watching eyes can 110 
reduce the occurrence of antisocial behaviour such as littering (Ernest-Jones et al., 111 
2011; Bateson et al., 2013) and bicycle theft (Nettle et al, 2012). Incorporation of 112 
watching eye images on preventative signs and posters may also be useful in this 113 
context. 114 
 115 
A further consideration could involve making dog owners better consider the threat 116 
that their dog poses to the sheep. The National Sheep Association (2016) found that 117 
farmers believed that one of the most common causes of sheep worrying was owners 118 
not thinking that their dog would attack or chase livestock.  There is a danger that while 119 
owners may recognise that dogs in general pose a threat to other animals, they do not 120 
believe this to be true of their own dog. Owners may feel more compelled to keep their 121 
dog on a lead when they better recognise that their dog represents a threat to other 122 
animals (Williams et al, 2009). Greater owner education and a focus in preventative 123 
materials on ensuring that owners recognise the dangers posed by their dog to sheep 124 
may be beneficial and help to combat the potential belief by owners that their own dog 125 
is different and not a threat.  126 
 127 
In contrast to sheep worrying, livestock guarding dogs are currently used to protect 128 
livestock on farms in a number of countries and have been found to be a highly 129 
efficient, environmentally friendly and non-lethal  method of protecting livestock (van 130 
Brommel and johnson, 2015; Potgieter et al., 2015). However, to the authors’ 131 
knowledge minimal research has investigated the use of these dogs in the UK and 132 
how effective they are. 133 
 134 
In conclusion, further investigation is needed into methods to prevent livestock 135 
worrying. Consideration and testing of the efficacy of new prevention materials and 136 
approaches is important. Systematic study of how best to appropriately inform dog 137 
walkers of the risks and dangers of worrying, as well as exploration of dog owners' 138 
perception of the likelihood, outcomes and prevalence of worrying is warranted. The 139 
death rate of ewes and lambs, as well as the rate of incidence, also needs to be 140 
accurately assessed and the economic effects of these rates highlighted within the 141 
UK. Assessment of police and local council support provided for worrying would also 142 
be beneficial. Further study of worrying could also be undertaken with sheep farmers 143 
to investigate this topic in more detail. Gathering information ranging from qualitative 144 
interviews into the impacts of worrying on farmers (e.g., both psychological and 145 
financial) to in-depth quantitative records of incidents, e.g., such as farm information 146 
(size, set-up, security, fencing type, etcetera), location (public paths through/near farm 147 
and distance, footfall), frequency of previous incidents, identification of cause of attack, 148 
and prevention methods used will be helpful in elucidating the scale of the problem. 149 
 150 
Conflict of interest: None 151 
 152 
 153 
 154 
 155 
 156 
Reference  157 
Ainsley, J.K., 1968. A Case of Sheep Worrying, The Police Journal. 41, 27 158 
 159 
Animal Act, 1971. Legislation. Available at: 160 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/contents Accessed July 6, 2016. 161 
 162 
Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J.R., Roche, M.L.R., Nettle, D., 2013. Do images of 163 
‘watching eyes’ induce behaviour that is more pro-social or more normative? A field 164 
experiment on littering. PloS one. 8: e82055. 165 
 166 
BBC News, 2016. Hundreds of dogs shot for worrying sheep. Available at: 167 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35960051 Accessed July 28, 2016 168 
 169 
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953. Legislation. Available at: 170 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/28 Accessed July 27, 2016 171 
 172 
Ernest-Jones, M., Nettle, D., Bateson, M., 2011. Effects of eye images on everyday 173 
cooperative behavior: a field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior. 32: 172-174 
178. 175 
 176 
Fraser-Williams, A.P., McIntyre, K.M., Westgarth, C., 2016. Are cattle dangerous to 177 
walkers? A scoping review. Injury prevention. 0 1-5. 178 
 179 
Lowe, C.N., Williams, K.S., Jenkinson, S., Toogood, M., 2014. Environmental and 180 
social impacts of domestic dog waste in the UK: investigating barriers to behavioural 181 
change in dog walkers. International Journal of Environment and Waste 182 
Management. 13: 331-347. 183 
 184 
National Sheep Association, 2016. Sheep worrying by dog survey (April 2016). 185 
Available at: http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/workspace/pdfs/2016-results.pdf 186 
Accessed July 27, 2016. 187 
  188 
National Sheep Association, n.d.-a. Sheep worrying survey results. Available at: 189 
http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/dog-owners/sheep-worrying/2462/sheep-worrying-190 
survey-results/ Accessed July 29, 2016. 191 
 192 
National Sheep Association, n.d.-b. Advice for farmers. Available at: 193 
http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/dog-owners/advice-for-farmers/ Accessed July 28, 194 
2016. 195 
 196 
National Sheep Association, n.d.-c. Dog Control Signs. Available at: 197 
http://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/dog-owners/dog-control-signs/ Accessed July 27, 198 
2016. 199 
 200 
Nettle, D., Nott, K., Bateson, M., 2012. ‘Cycle thieves, we are watching you’: impact 201 
of a simple signage intervention against bicycle theft. PloS one. 7, e51738. 202 
 203 
NFU, 2015. New partnership for NFU and The Kennel Club. Available at : 204 
http://www.nfuonline.com/back-british-farming/love-your-countryside/new-205 
partnership-for-nfu-and-the-kennel-club/ Accessed July 28, 2016. 206 
 207 
NFU Scotland, 2016. Livestock Worrying Incidents Highest for Six Years. Accessed 208 
at: http://www.nfus.org.uk/news/2016/march/livestock-worrying-incidents-highest-six-209 
years  Accessed July 27, 2016. 210 
 211 
Phythian, C.J., Michalopoulou, E., Jones, P.H., Winter, A.C., Clarkson, M.J., 212 
Stubbings, L.A., Grove-White, D., Cripps, P.J. & Duncan, J.S., 2011. Validating 213 
indicators of sheep welfare through a consensus of expert opinion. Animal. 5: 943-214 
952. 215 
 216 
Potgieter, G.C., Kerley, G.I. and Marker, L.L., 2016. More bark than bite? The role of 217 
livestock guarding dogs in predator control on Namibian farmlands. Oryx, 50(03), 218 
pp.514-522. 219 
 220 
SheepWatch UK, ND. A community response to a National Problem. Available at:  221 
http://www.terena.co.uk/sheepwatch-uk.html Accessed July 29, 2016. 222 
 223 
Stocker, P., Wilson, J., Bebbington, T., Lovatt, F., 2015. Sheep health: Sheep 224 
worrying. Veterinary Record. 177: 131-131. 225 
van Bommel, L. and Johnson, C.N., 2014. Where do livestock guardian dogs go? 226 
Movement patterns of free-ranging maremma sheepdogs. PloS one, 9(10), 227 
p.e111444. 228 
 229 
Webley, P., Siviter, C., 2000. Why Do Some Owners Allow Their Dogs to Foul the 230 
Pavement? The Social Psychology of a Minor Rule Infraction. Journal of Applied 231 
Social Psychology. 30: 1371-1380. 232 
 233 
Williams, K.J.H., Weston, M.A., Henry, S.,  Maguire, G.S., 2009. Birds and beaches, 234 
dogs and leashes: Dog owners’ sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in 235 
Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 14: 89–101. 236 


Prevention of sheep worrying in the UK: Rethinking the approach

Davies, Emma

Reindl, Gillian

Whincup, Richard

Hartpury Personal Tutoring

Greening, Linda

Habershon, Emma

Collop-Smith, Sarah

Ghaye, Tony

1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as
‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs
2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors
3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,
where human experience appeared limited by understanding at times
4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be a
prescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view
5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’
The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based college
Contact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.uk
Perceptions of Positive Equine Welfare
L Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T Ghaye
University Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UK
Semi-structured interviews with three professional
breeders and three professional riding instructors were
coded, following the process set out by Saldana (2016). A
rigorous process of inter-subjectivity followed to agree
codes and discuss how these could be consolidated to
synthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).
Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  
Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a
‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professional
accountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting that
PEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplay
between ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).
References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), 
pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  
Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis has
been placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This study
aimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at the
term ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).
Interview questions;
1. What is your understanding of PEW?
2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?
3. What do you consider to be good practice
that promotes positive welfare in the equine
industry?
Positive Equine Welfare
Defined by practice…
Individual
Understanding/perceptions/experience
Need 
for/lack of 
education
Observation 
of signs of 
welfare
Individual 
horse 
preferences
Basic 
needs
Physical Behavioural
External Influencers
Standard(s) of 
horse health/ 
care/ training 
etc.
Doing the right thing…
Conflict of 
interest
Sometimes 
gold 
standard 
not possible
Holistic care
1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as
‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs
2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors
3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,
were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times
4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be a
prescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view
5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’
The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based college
Contact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.uk
Perceptions of Positive Equine Welfare
L Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T Ghaye
University Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UK
Semi-structured interviews with three professional
breeders and three professional riding instructors were
coded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). A
rigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agree
codes and discuss how these could be consolidated to
synthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).
Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  
Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a
‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professional
accountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting that
PEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplay
between ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).
References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), 
pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  
Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis has
been placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This study
aimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at the
term ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).
Interview questions;
1. What is your understanding of PEW?
2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?
3. What do you consider to be good practices
that promote positive welfare in the equine
industry?
Positive Equine Welfare
Defined by practice…
Individual
Understanding/perceptions/experience
Need 
for/lack of 
education
Observation 
of signs of 
welfare
Individual 
horse 
preferences
Basic 
needs
Physical Behavioural
External Influencers
Standard(s) of 
horse health/ 
care/ training 
etc.
Doing the right thing…
Conflict of 
interest
Sometimes 
gold 
standard 
not possible
Holistic care
1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as
‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs
2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors
3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,
were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times
4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be a
prescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view
5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’
The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based college
Contact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.uk
Perceptions of Positive Equine Welfare
L Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T Ghaye
University Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UK
Semi-structured interviews with three professional
breeders and three professional riding instructors were
coded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). A
rigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agree
codes and discuss how these could be consolidated to
synthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).
Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  
Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a
‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professional
accountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting that
PEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplay
between ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).
References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), 
pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  
Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis has
been placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This study
aimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at the
term ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).
Interview questions;
1. What is your understanding of PEW?
2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?
3. What do you consider to be good practices
that promote positive welfare in the equine
industry?
Positive Equine Welfare
Defined by practice…
Individual
Understanding/perceptions/experience
Need 
for/lack of 
education
Observation 
of signs of 
welfare
Individual 
horse 
preferences
Basic 
needs
Physical Behavioural
External Influencers
Standard(s) of 
horse health/ 
care/ training 
etc.
Doing the right thing…
Conflict of 
interest
Sometimes 
gold 
standard 
not possible
Holistic care
1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as
‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs
2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors
3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,
were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times
4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be a
prescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view
5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’
The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based college
Contact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.uk
Perceptions of Positive Equine Welfare
L Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T Ghaye
University Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UK
Semi-structured interviews with three professional
breeders and three professional riding instructors were
coded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). A
rigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agree
codes and discuss how these could be consolidated to
synthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).
Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  
Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a
‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professional
accountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting that
PEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplay
between ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).
References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), 
pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  
Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis has
been placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This study
aimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at the
term ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).
Interview questions;
1. What is your understanding of PEW?
2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?
3. What do you consider to be good practices
that promote positive welfare in the equine
industry?
Positive Equine Welfare
Defined by practice…
Individual
Understanding/perceptions/experience
Need 
for/lack of 
education
Observation 
of signs of 
welfare
Individual 
horse 
preferences
Basic 
needs
Physical Behavioural
External Influencers
Standard(s) of 
horse health/ 
care/ training 
etc.
Doing the right thing…
Conflict of 
interest
Sometimes 
gold 
standard 
not possible
Holistic care


Perceptions of positive equine welfare

Wills, Alison

Swanson, James

The relationship between perceived learning and student attainment: lectures and problem-based learning sessions

Lewis, Victoria

Kennerley, Ruth

A preliminary study to investigate the prevalence of pain in elite dressage riders during competition in the United Kingdom

Carter, Alice

Cameron, Lorna

Dumbell, Lucy

The aim of the study was to investigate trunk muscle fatigue, cognitive function and perceived pain levels during a
simulated jumping test.
Equestrian Performance Research & Knowledge Exchange Arena
Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK
Contact author:  Victoria.lewis@hartpury.ac.uk
A.R.Carter; V.Lewis;* L. Cameron; L. Dumbell
A PRELIMINARY STUDY TO INVESTIGATE TRUNK MUSCLE FATIGUE AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN EVENT RIDERS DURING A SIMULATED JUMPING TEST
Discussion and Conclusion: The findings suggest the simulator riding test was not sufficient to provoke fatigue in the riders trunk
muscles, however foundations for future studies have been laid to enable methodologies in realistic eventing settings. Whilst the SEMG
does not show muscle fatigue over the course of the test, riders perceived and increase in fatigue and also and increase perceived pain.
Whilst the area of pain was not supported the finding are in keeping with other studies suggesting riders experience pain whilst riding.
References: 
Lewis, V. and Kennerley, R. (2017). A preliminary study to investigate the prevelance of pain in elite dressage riders during competition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Comparative Exercise 
Physiology, 13 (4) 259-263.
Lewis, V. and Baldwin, K. (2018). A preliminary study to investigate the prevalence of pain in international event riders during competition, in the United Kingdom. Journal of comparative Exercise 
Physiology, accepted for publication 6th May 2018.
A – Ventral side B – dorsal side
(a) External oblique abdominals
(b) Rectus abdominus
(c) Transverse abdominus – internal 
obliques
(d) thoracic erector spinae
(e) lumbar erector spinae
(f) multifidus
(g) ground electrode
Figure 1: SEMG sensor placement for selected abdominal and lumbar muscles 
Method: Eight adult riders participated in a riding test on a Racewood
Event simulator for 10 minutes over a continuous jumping programme. 
The Surface EMG activity of six trunk muscles were bilaterally measured at 
every minute and normalized root mean squares (RMS) and median 
frequencies (MDF) were computed from EMG power spectra. Visual 
analogue scales (VAS) measuring fatigue and pain level and cognitive 
function ‘tapping’ tests were performed before and after the riding test.
Results: Average MDF values for all muscles differed significantly between each sample minute 
(p=0.017). A consistent decrease from minute 1 to 9 was not found, suggesting the trunk muscles 
fatigues and then recovered as other muscle groups important in maintaining the riding position 
during dynamic movement compensated. Differences between the MDF and RMS of different 
muscles were highly significant (H=213.01, DF=5, p < 0.001), supporting previous anecdotal evidence 
that different trunk muscles carry out different roles of posture maintenance during riding. RMS 
values were not significantly different between the sampled minutes or between riders, suggesting 
the riding test produced a consistent and repeatable effect on the trunk muscles. MDF values differed 
significantly between riders (H=50.8, DF = 5, p < 0.001), suggesting individuals may experience 
localised muscular fatigue of the same test differently, and that other parameters of physical fitness 
should be investigated to provide conclusions. Lumbar muscles were shown to be important in 
maintaining the position, therefore physical training program should focus on these areas. No 
significant differences were found between pre- and post-riding test VAS Pain and Fatigue scores or 
cognitive function test scores, suggesting the riding test was not significantly fatiguing for 
participants. However, a near significant correlation was found between time of riding test and VAS 
Pain score (p = 0.06), suggesting somatic pain may be a limiting factor to performance.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
V
A
S 
PA
IN
 S
C
O
R
E
RIDER
Pre-fatigue test Pain Score Post-fatigue test Pain Score
Figure 2: Pre- and post-fatigue test Visual Analogue Scale Score of Pain
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
V
A
S 
FA
TI
G
U
E 
SC
O
R
E
RIDER
Pre-fatigue test Fatigue Score Post-fatigue test Fatigue Score
Figure 3: Pre- and post-fatigue test Visual Analogue Scale Score of Fatigue


Preliminary study investigating trunk fatigue and cognitive function in event riders during a simulated jumping test

Not a member yet