Bachelor Thesis - Christina Kuenen - Hufpfleger

5.2 Hoof Treatment and Animal Welfare
The animal welfare during or through hoof treatment is regulated through the animal protection law in
Germany (BRD, 2006c). This act says that no one may cause an animal pain, suffering or harm without good
reason (BRD, 2006c). The satisfaction with animal protection legislation is medium in both research fields.
Hardly all of the interviewees and respondents answered that they find the education, knowledge, skills and
attitude of a hoof treatment practitioner relevant in terms of animal welfare. Also Kummer et al. (2007)
found that the hoof treatment practitioner influences the health of hooves.
Due to missing regulations and lacking quality standards the risk of horses suffering increases. Only 53.8%
of the experts and 21.2% of the practitioners think that the quality standards of certificated farriers are
sufficient in relation to animal welfare. The differences within the practitioner group is significant. The need
can be assessed to be medium, as well as the potential for improvement. With the alternative quality
standards only 34.8 % of the experts and 30.8 % of the practitioners are satisfied in terms of welfare. The
need has been judged as high, whereas the potential is assumed to be medium. The answers of the
practitioners within this section (31,6% satisfied) do not correlate with median of 4 (satisfied) within the
satisfaction score in terms of quality standards of alternative hoof treatment practitioners.
To be able to assess the animal welfare a variety of methods have been developed (Bokma-Bakker et al.,
2003). In terms of hoof treatment environmental and animal-based measurements can be tested. As an
animal-based measurement the freedom from pain, injury and disease of the Five Freedoms (Korte et al.,
2007; Whay et al., 2003) or the principle of the Welfare Quality Project of the EU ‘Are the animals healthy?’
can be used (Bokma-Bakker et al., 2003). The animal needs index (ANI) is also one of the methods to assess
animal welfare and has been developed in Austria (Bartussek, 2001). This index also includes the quality of
human care, which includes the hoof treatment through a practitioner. Also the German animal protection
law states that somebody must possess the knowledge and skills necessary for providing the animal with
adequate care (BRD, 2006c). Which knowledge and skills the necessary ones are for providing an adequate
hoof treatment is not explained in more detail. Within this study more than 80 % of the interviewees ticked
basic knowledge about horses, investigation of hoof and leg care, maintenance of working tools, health,
safety and protection, client advising and co-operation with other experts. Whereas the participants of the
survey ticked with more than 80% the following fields of knowledge: basics about horses, investigation of
hoof and leg care, bare hoof treatment, health, safety and protection, client advising and co-operation with
other experts and biomechanics. These can be seen as the most important ones, next to the others with also
partly high numbers of ticks.
The pathological findings in the horses' hooves are numerous. According to recent researches the number of
horses, which are useless for sports or are put down due to lameness, are high (Butler, 1984; Clausen et al.,
1990; Clayton, 1987; Gutekunst, 1977; Petzold et al., 1988; Rodewald, 1989; Rooney et al., 1986;
Seidensticker, 1999; Vollbach, 1954). This makes the necessity of a high quality hoof treatment clear. Also
Pollitt (1995) states that. Further the importance of co-operation with other experts has to be emphasized
within this context. This has been mentioned of 11.5 % of all experts as strength. In contrast to this 18.5 %
see a problem in missing communication and co-operation. Within the survey 10.0 % see the communication
and co-operation already as strength, whereas 45.8 % see their missing as problem. The lack of knowledge
and further education became already obvious in the quality of shoeing in the past (Dammann, 1898). This is
still a problem that is also relevant in relation to animal welfare (Fürst et al., 2005). Within the survey the
problem of missing further education was mentioned often (44.4 % of the experts, 18.8 % of the
practitioners). Both sides, traditionals and alternatives, mention the problem mainly in connection with
traditional practitioners. This corresponds with the literature of Strasser (2000a) and Cook (2008).
51