Abstract: Many breeding organisations include a subjective scoring of rideability by a professional rider into their evaluation of sports horses, but the consistency and reliability of the scoring system is debateable. The aim of this study was to investigate (i) whether professional riders agree in their scoring of rideability, and (ii) whether rideability scores are affected by rein tension, horse conflict behaviour, heart rate, and salivary cortisol, and (iii) whether riders induce different levels of conflict behaviour and physiological responses in the horses. Ten professional, female riders each rode 10 dressage horses (level M German scale; n = 100 combinations) through a standardised dressage test (10 min warm-up followed by a 4-min test) and subsequently scored the horses for rideability on the official 1-10 scale (1 = poor to 10 = excellent) from the Danish Riding Federation. Rein tension, horse heart rate, saliva cortisol and conflict behaviour were measured for each rider-horse pair. The riders were inconsistent in their scoring of rideability to the individual horses, e.g. scores for one of the horses ranged from 1 to 8. There was a significant effect of rider (P = 0.003) and the frequency of conflict behaviour (undesired head movements: P < 0.001, breaking the gait: P = 0.013, and other evasive behaviour: P = 0.032) on rideability scores, i.e. the more conflict behaviour the lower the score. There was no significant effect of rein tension and the physiological measures on rideability scores. However, there was a significant effect of rider on rein tension, horses' heart rate and increases in saliva cortisol concentrations and a tendency for some types of conflict behaviour, suggesting that some riders induced more discomfort in the horses. Future studies could help shed light on which elements of riding style are particularly important for sports horse welfare. In conclusion, this study found a large variation in rideability scores assigned to ten sports horses by ten professional riders. Rideability scores were dependent on the level of horse conflict behaviour, but not rein tension and physiological measures. Further studies are needed to improve the objectivity, consistency and reliability of rideability assessment of sports horses.

Abstract: Every animal species has particular environmental requirements that are essential for its welfare, and when these so-called “basic needs” are not fulfilled, the animals suffer. The basic needs of horses have been claimed to be social contact, social companionship, free movement and access to roughage. To assess whether horses suffer when one or more of the four proposed basic needs are restricted, we examined several studies (n = 38) that reported behavioural and physiological reactions to these restrictions. We assigned the studies according to the four types of responses investigated: (a) Stress, (b) Active, (c) Passive, and (d) Abnormal Behaviour. Furthermore, the number of studies indicating that horses reacted to the restrictions were compared with the number of studies reporting no reaction. The limited number of studies available on single management restrictions did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the effect of each restriction separately, especially in the case of social companionship. However, when combinations of social contact, free movement and access to roughage were restricted, many of the horses had developed responses consistent with suffering. Passive Responses, indicating acute suffering, and Abnormal Behaviour, indicating suffering currently or at some time in the past, were especially clearly demonstrated. This provides further evidence of the usefulness of assessing behavioural parameters in combination with physiological measurements when evaluating horse welfare. This meta-analysis of the literature confirms that it is justified to claim that social contact, free movement and access to roughage are basic needs in horses.