Bachelor Thesis - Christina Kuenen - Hufpfleger

2.4 Hoof Treatment and Welfare
Hoof treatment is strongly connected with welfare. The health of hooves is influenced by a practitioner
(Kummer et al., 2007) and the health is decisive for equine welfare. Basically every hoof treatment
practitioner has to observe the animal protection law. This says that no one is allowed to cause pain, suffering
or harm to an animal without good reason. Further it is written down that somebody should be qualified if
handling animals (BRD, 2006c).
These are the reasons why the 'Hufbeschlaggesetz' was reworked. Due to missing regulation concerning the
education of alternative hoof treatment practitioners, the BMELV together with some hoof treatment
associations, worked out a new content for the existing act. They see the animal protection in danger with
unqualified 'professionals' treating hooves (BVG, 2006).
On the other side the alternative hoof treatment practitioners split up from traditional farriery because they
see the animal protection in danger, due to the attitude of farriers. It is scientifically proved that iron shoes
damage the horse (Cook, 2008; Strasser, 2000a, 2000b). Farriers are known that they are often shoeing
horses without taking into account the developments in the hoof treatment industry, the change in horses'
useage and the disadvantages for the horse due to shoeing (Strasser, 2000a).
Within the animal protection report of the German federal republic of 2007 the renewals in legislation were
judged positively. They prefer the certificated farrier education for all hoof treatment practitioners with the
following possibility for more specialisation (BRD, 2007).
Interesting is that in welfare researches of other species, like cows or goats, the quality of claws and their
treatment is an important factor for assessing the welfare of the animals. It can be seen that this is often a
point of lacking welfare (Anzuino et al., 2010; Shearer, 2010).
2.4.1 Animal Welfare
The interest in animal welfare raised within the last decades. This created the need for a quantitative
assessment (Whay et al., 2003). Bokma-Bakker et al. (2009) see animal welfare as a pressing public concern
in the EU. Since the 1970´s Bartussek (2001) notices public discussions about regulating farm animal
welfare by law.
Although a lot of researches on this topic have been done, the scientists are not able until now to reach a
consensus on one definition (Bokma-Bakker et al., 2009). In the report of Bokam-Bakker et al. they refer to
animal welfare as the quality of life as it matters to the animals themselves. Broom (1986) defines welfare as
the state of an animal to be able to cope with its environment. Duncan (1996) defines welfare in terms of
subjective states such as hunger, pain, fear, frustration and pleasure. According to Smulders et al. (2006)
welfare is complex. They think it combines both subjective and objective parameters of the quality of life of
an animal. The Farm Animal Welfare Council of the United Kingdom developed the Five Freedoms. They
have been published in the Brambell Report which has been commissioned by the UK government in 1965.
Animal welfare according to the Five Freedoms is:
1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
2. Freedom from discomfort due to environment
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour
5. Freedom from fear and distress (Korte et al., 2007, Whay et al., 2003).
There is no single instrument for measuring the welfare of an animal. Nevertheless there is a considerable
degree of consensus on how to assess welfare and sentience is accepted as a necessary condition (Bokma-
Bakker et al., 2009). The different measurement approaches to welfare are explained in more detail within
the annex (Annex 9.4).
24