Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35049774›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

An Exploration of Environmentally Sustainable Practices Associated with Alternative Grazing Management System Use for Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and Mules in the UK.

Tamzin Furtado, Mollie King, Elizabeth Perkins, Catherine McGowan, Samantha Chubbock, Emmeline Hannelly, Jan Rogers, Gina Pinchbeck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Management of Donkeys in Assisted Interventions: A Snapshot.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tamzin FurtadoDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute for Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool CH64 7TE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1590-6417
Mollie KingSchool of Veterinary Science, Institute for Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool CH64 7TE, UK.
Elizabeth PerkinsInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK.
Catherine McGowanSchool of Veterinary Science, Institute for Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool CH64 7TE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1946-9584
Samantha ChubbockWorld Horse Welfare, Anne Colvin House, Snetterton, Norwich NR16 2LR, UK.
Emmeline HannellyThe British Horse Society (Welfare Dept) Abbey Park, Stareton, Warwickshire CV8 2XZ, UK.
Jan RogersThe Horse Trust, Slad Ln, Princes Risborough HP27 0PP, UK.
Gina PinchbeckDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute for Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool CH64 7TE, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBSuffolk Horse Society · GBWorld Horse Welfare · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Equestrian grazing management is a poorly researched area, despite potentially significant environmental impacts. This study explored keepers' use of alternative grazing systems in the care of UK horses, donkeys and mules through an internet survey. The survey was available during the summer of 2020 and comprised closed and open questions, which were analysed with descriptive statistics and iterative thematic analysis, respectively. A total of 758 responses was incorporated into the analysis; the most popular system used were tracks (56.5%), Equicentral (19%), "other" (e.g., non-grass turnout) (12.5%), rewilding (7.5%) and turnout on either moorland (0.7%) or woodland (2.5%). The thematic analysis highlighted that equid keepers across the systems were highly engaged in exploring sustainable practices. Their approaches varied according to each system, yet all aimed to fulfil practices in three major categories, i.e., supporting diverse plant life (usually through restricting equid access to certain areas), supporting wildlife (through the creation of biodiverse environments) and sustainably managing droppings and helminths. Additionally, proponents of the Equicentral systems declared to be aiming to support soil health. These data provide a promising insight into equid keepers' behaviour and attitudes to sustainability.

Indexed as

environmentequidequinegrazing managementhorsepasture managementsustainability

Identifiers

PMID35049774
PMCPMC8772570
OpenAlexW4205488209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.