Defining health and welfare for the UK horse population – time for action

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-176
Author(s):  
Josh Slater
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
T.C. Whitaker

AbstractA summary of the current position of UK sport horse breeding is given in relation to genetic improvement within a commonly applied breeding scheme. Using event horse breeding as the example, rates of gain are shown to be extremely slow, at less than 1 point gain per generations. In order to ascertain the reasons for slow progress, stallion usage and impact on the population is investigated. The study highlights that currently, elite sires are having a very limited effect on the rate of gain. Further investigation of performance recording and analysis systems is therefore undertaken whilst considering the following three issues: 1 Our limited knowledge of environmental effect on performance. 2) the subjective nature of evaluation techniques and 3) the questionable link between performance and pedigree. The study concludes that limited knowledge of environmental effect on performance, poor linkage of pedigree and performance data and poor application of breed improvement strategies have led to extremely slow rates of genetic gain within the UK event horse population.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 191-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
T C Whitaker ◽  
J Hill

A greater understanding of the population characteristics of sport horse populations is required to enable potential breed improvement programmes to be formulated correctly and be effective in their outcomes. To date limited research has been conducted into the UK sport horse population.A selected group of progeny (n=339) sired by elite eventing stallions was examined. In the context of this study elite sires were defined as those that were ranked 1-10 by total lifetime points won by competing progeny up to the end of 2000 (British Horse Database, 2000). Comparative analysis was undertaken between the selected group and all competing eventing horses in 2000 (n=9387) (British Horse Database, 2000). Data collected for both groups included, total lifetime points won at eventing and dressage and total lifetime money won at show jumping. Basic descriptive statistics were produced for each data set (Table 1). Product moment correlations were performed for all discipline areas (Table 2). Data transformation was applied using LOG+1(Hassenstein, Roehe, and Kalm, 1996).


2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
TC Whitaker ◽  
J Hill

AbstractA preliminary investigation into the structure of the competing sport horse population within the UK for the year 2000 was undertaken, comprising 30 974 horses and 39 679 individual performances. All performance data were expressed as total lifetime winnings. The level of non-winning horses, expressed as a percentage, was high in all disciplines: dressage 22%, eventing 50% and show jumping 23%. The percentage of horses competing in disciplines at the highest recognized level was small: dressage 2.5%, eventing 10% and show jumping 6.5%. Highest earners for all disciplines all earned considerably more than the threshold for highest performance level in their respective discipline (×2.2 dressage, ×24 eventing, ×365 show jumping). Data for all three disciplines were highly skewed. Structural analysis of the distributions by level showed a highly skewed hypogeometric distribution at the lowest level of competition for all disciplines, uniform distribution at intermediate levels (bimodal tendencies were observed within dressage) and normal distribution at advanced levels. Product–moment correlations showed a significant correlation between show jumping and eventing (0.228, P<0.01). Problems with data availability and presentation may mean that up to 12.9% of the population may have had a confounding effect on the results of this study.


2000 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Hay ◽  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
F. G. H. Hill ◽  
D. M. Keeling

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 476-477
Author(s):  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Joanne Howson ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
Jenny L. Donovan ◽  
David E. Neal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document