Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39275860›Full record

ArticleEquine veterinary journal2025

The impact of restricted grazing systems on the behaviour and welfare of ponies.

Roxane Kirton, Imogen Sandford, Eleanor Raffan, Sarah Hallsworth, Oliver H P Burman, Ruth Morgan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exercise as a welfare strategy? Insights from horse (Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Roxane KirtonRedwings Horse Sanctuary, Norwich, UK.
Imogen SandfordDepartment of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7695-2299
Eleanor RaffanDepartment of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah HallsworthRedwings Horse Sanctuary, Norwich, UK.
Oliver H P BurmanSchool of Life & Environmental Sciences, Joseph Banks Laboratories, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Ruth MorganScotland's Rural College, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEquine obesity is a growing concern. Much of the current management advice centres on dietary restrictions, including the removal or limitation of grazing. Little is known about the impact of these approaches on the welfare of the horse.

objectiveThis study investigates the effect of two commonly used grazing systems advocated for the control of weight-the 'strip-grazing' and the 'track' systems-on the behaviour and welfare of outdoor-living ponies. STUDY

designA within-subject cross-over experimental design with four groups of pasture-kept ponies experiencing each system for 4 weeks in a random order.

methodsTime budgets and behavioural indicators of welfare were measured using 24-h electronic surveillance, morphometric parameters including weight, body condition score and cresty neck score were measured weekly and activity levels were tracked. The effect of grazing system on movement and behaviour was tested using a general linear model.

resultsPonies moved more [median (IQR) % time spent moving, track: 3.23% (2.08%), strip: 2.02% (0.90%); p = 0.001] and travelled a greater distance [median (IQR) metres/24 h, track: 7013.47 m (1761.49 m), strip: 5331.91 m (494.16 m); p < 0.001] and engaged in less overt agonistic behaviour on the track system compared with the strip system [median (IQR) prevalence per hour; track: 0.14 (0.30), strip: 0.21 (0.37) p = 0.02]. MAIN LIMITATIONS: A relatively short time period of exposure to each grazing system.

conclusionsPonies on strip systems moved less and exhibited increased agonistic interactions compared with the track system, maybe as a result of a perceived reduction in space or concentration of resources, although the accessible areas were matched. These results suggest that there may be physical as well as psychological health benefits to the track system.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareBehavior, AnimalAnimalsCross-Over StudiesFemaleHorsesMalegrazinghorseobesityweight losswelfare

Identifiers

PMID39275860
PMCPMC11982426

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.