Introduction Summaries Factors Influencing Changes in Equid Population

Introduction Summaries Factors Influencing

Changes in Equid Population

The equids known and recognized today evolved

significantly over time from their three toed ancestors into single

toed equids (Matthew, 1926). Over the years, wild equids were

domesticated and used by humans for various reasons, such as,

transportation, agricultural work, hauling or carrying items, meat,

and warfare (Levine, 2005). As industrialization became more

widespread over the United States, the number of equids began to

decrease drastically (Research, 2007). The equine population in the

United States was increasing until the economic recession that

plagued residents in 2008 and the closure of several equine

processing plants (Taylor and Sieverkropp, 2013). Due to the

closures, the overall price of equids reduced and the unwanted

horse population increased, making it more difficult to quantify the

true population (Heleski et al., 2008). The role of equids also

shifted from working livestock into companion and recreation

animals (Stowe, 2012). The most recent data from the American

Horse Council (AHC), found that the majority of individuals

involved within the equine industry are women over the age of 35

using equids for recreational purposes (AHC, 2017), which is a

slightly different range then reported by the American Horse

Publication (AHP) who reported a larger portion of the

demographic being aged 45+, five years before (Stowe, 2012). In

terms of primary use of equids, Indiana found that 60.4% of their

respondents reported the primary use is for recreational purposes

(Susan E. Conners et al., 2011). Based on the most recent numbers,

there is a range from approximately 3.16 million reported by the

United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) to 7.2 million reported by the AHC (AHC, 2017; USDA,

2017b).

Public Assessments

A public assessment is a great tool that can be utilized to gain

a better understanding of public engagement and perception on a

given product or industry. This research method is a simple way to

reach individuals from different backgrounds all over the world

relatively fast with third party online survey generators, such as

Qualtrics or Survey Monkey, or with the use of circulating paper

copies. These methods are especially helpful when working within

the equine industry because it is widespread.

Assessments in the Equine Industry

Survey data has been an important resource for researchers to

gain evidence-based information about their industry (Fields et al.,

2015). In terms of the equine industry, the

AHC created a comprehensive survey that was distributed among

equine owners across the United States, consisting of questions

regarding equid and human demographics to gain a better

understanding of the overall industry (Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017).

Similarly, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a

disease tracking program, randomly selected people within the

equine industry to partake in a four page written survey designed to

gauge perception and use of the NAIS system, emergency

protocols, and preferred animal identification systems (Vanderman

et al., 2009). Surveys have also been utilized in the equine industry

to better under owner perceptions on various topics, such as,

knowledge of nutrition (Murray et al., 2015) or better

understanding feeding strategies and use of supplements (Hoffman

et al., 2009). To further comprehend supplement use within the

industry, a study was done using an online assessment to determine

the commonality in using supplements on the competition side

versus use in the recreational side (Swirsley et al., 2017).

Within the equine industry, online surveys have also been

used to assess equid behavior and characteristics. A study wanting

to evaluate equid temperament in the Equestrian Park, Tokyo,

distributed a questionnaire to the caretakers of 86 equids housed on

the property because the caretakers were the most familiar with

behavior (Momozawa et al., 2003). To gain more insight into

geriatric equine health and diseases, a questionnaire was sent to

owners of geriatric equids to learn more about management,

feeding practices, preventative health care, and quality of life

(Ireland et al., 2012). Overall, online surveys and assessments have

been utilized to gain insightful information throughout the equine

industry.

Marketing Public Assessments

A large portion of today’s society revolves around the use of

internet and many online social platforms. When it comes to

marketing, the content creator must consider the behaviors of the

consumer or their targeted audience (Tiago and Veríssimo, 2014).

In 2010, 45% of large companies were using opt-in email chains as

a form of marketing for their products (Abrahams et al., 2010). It

was later found that the individuals that received the emails were

more likely to visit the website or purchase something than those

that did not (Goic et al., 2021). Furthermore, it was found that the

younger generation finds the use of email as an effective marketing

strategy (Jeshurun, 2018).

Social media platforms, such as, Facebook, Instagram, and

Twitter, are utilized for not only personal use, but also used by

small businesses and organizations for marketing and public

interaction (Cox, 2012). It was found in a comparative study

between equine and agricultural industries that the equine

participants were more likely to use Facebook, and frequented

social media outlets >10 per day (Martlew, 2015). A survey-based

study looking into social media marketing for equine businesses

found that 84.4% of their respondents used social media as a form

of business promotion (Cavinder et al., 2017).

That same study found that Facebook was the most utilized social

media platform (Cavinder et al., 2017). When delivering important

information to those involved in the equine industry, it was found

that an infographic post on Facebook was 11x more effective in

reaching people than the same information on an a regular

webpage (Lochner et al.,

2021).

Challenges with Public Assessments

Survey-based assessments face some challenges throughout

the research process. A challenge that occurs is that not every

person that receives a survey will respond. For example, a study

was conducted to assess owner knowledge about equine nutrition

that was made available to 19,000 participants; however, only 34%

(6,538) completed the assessment (Murray et al., 2015). Another

challenge faced by industries like the governmental public health

practitioners have been seeing a decline in the number of willing

respondents because of the heavy survey burden (Leider et al.,

2016).

Economic Importance

Changes in the Industry Over Time

The equine industry, like others, is subject to changes over

time. The role of equids in society has changed as human needs

changed. In the early years, equids were utilized by farmers for

work, traveling individuals, and by the cavalry in times of war

(Levine, 2005).

After mechanization began, the value and population began

decreasing (Levine, 2005). In 2003, the AHC evaluated the United

States equine industry with a survey and estimated approximately

9.2 million equids (Kilby, 2007), but the most recent data from the

AHC only identified 7.2 million (AHC, 2017). The USDA reported

an overall reduction in the number of horses from 2007 to 2012,

but an increase in the number of mules, donkeys, and burros

(USDA, 2017a). This is likely due to the economic recession, but

also the closure of all of the remaining equine processing plants in

the United States, which reduced the overall bottom line price of

equids by 12-16% (Taylor and Sieverkropp, 2013).

Economic Impact

The AHC evaluated equine industry in the United States in

2016 and reported a total economic impact of $122 billion, along

with 1.7 million jobs (AHC, 2017) . Several states have conducted

similar studies to determine the economic impact within their state.

West Virginia University performed a survey based evaluation and

reported that the equine industry had a total industry output of

more than $509 million, along with 12,924 jobs across multiple

different discipline (Hughes et al., 2005). Pennsylvania reported

having

216,000 equids in 2003 that generated a direct output of $642.9

million and 14,960 jobs

(Swinker et al., 2003). A year later, Tennessee calculated the

industry impact based on the

2002 USDA census and found the value of the equids was $565

million (Kenerson and Moore, 2004). Tennessee later analyzed that

same survey data from Kenerson and Moore and inflated the

numbers to 2010 dollars giving a total economic impact of more

than $1 billion (Menard et al., 2010). Also in 2010, Purdue

University evaluated multiple facets of their equine industry,

including racehorse breeding, the racing sector, equine ownership,

equine businesses, and the showing industry (Susan E. Conners et

al., 2011).

Equine Racing Industry

Outline of the Industry

Horse racing is a sport that evolved from chariot racing in

ancient Rome into a recognized sport across six continents and

includes thoroughbred, quarter horse flat racing, and standardbred

harness racing (Bell, 2021; Legg et al., 2023). A large portion of

the racing industry utilizes parimutuel betting meaning that all the

money wagered is pooled together and a set amount goes to taxes

and the hosting track and the rest is divided between those with

winning tickets (Gramm and Owens, 2005). Legislation in 1906

outlawed betting in Tennessee and all of the racetracks were

deconstructed (Mielnik, 2017). However, it has recently become

legal to wager on events happening outside of the state and is

regulated by the Tennessee horse racing commission (Nicely,

2017). In more recent times, the interest in horse racing has

declined due to changes in social values and norms (Legg et al.,

2023) It has been noted that there is a decline in attendance at

horse racing events and on-site parimutuel betting, which could be

partly due to television broadcasting of the events along with the

ability to place bets online (Roult et al., 2017). Changes in public

perception and commercial broadcasting of the sport has generated

more equid welfare concerns within the industry, which can also be

contributing to the decrease in popularity overtime (Camp et al.,

2023; Legg et al., 2023).

Economic Impact

On a global basis, horse racing accounts for approximately

30% of the total economic impact for all horse activities (Roult et

al., 2017). It is reported that the economic impact of the racing

industry is approximately $122 billion (Legg et al., 2023). In 2002,

Pennsylvania estimated their racing industry to contribute

approximately $615.1 million to the economy (Swinker et al.,

2003). A study to evaluate the racing industry in Indiana estimated

approximately 40,000 horses active in the horse racing and

breeding industry. It was shown that the racetracks and off-track

betting generated over $319 million, and breeding generated a total

contribution of over $588 million in 2009. When comparing the

industry in 2014 after some restructuring, the racing industry still

generated more than $263 million from races and off-track betting

and breeding generated just under $508 million (Furdek and

Conners, 2015). As of 2021, Kentucky, one of the most well-

known horse racing states, was home to five thoroughbred tracks

and three harness racetracks that generate approximate 6,000 direct

jobs, along with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $190 billion

(Lambert, 2022a). The question posed now is: what happens to the

horses that are no longer racing or that did not make the cut?

Second Career Opportunities

The average racehorse career lasts approximately 4.5 years,

but the average life span or a horse is over 20 years (Camp et al.,

2023). Many people are concerned about the welfare of these

horses after their racing career is over. In the United States, the

unwanted horse population is approximately 200,000 with

anywhere from 6,000-10,00 housed in rescues, and 22% being

thoroughbreds in 2015 (Weiss et al., 2017). In 2022, the Jockey

Club registered more than 17,000 thoroughbred foals to add to the

nearly 50,000 active racing thoroughbreds across the United States,

which continued to contribute to the overflow of thoroughbreds

entering the rehoming pipeline (Club, 2022; Camp et al., 2023). As

horses retire from their racing careers, those that are not retained

for breeding purposes have the option of a second career (Evans

and Williams, 2022). Recently some studies have found that some

physical factors, such as age, sex, color, registration, and future

discipline were significant factors when determining online auction

prices (Camp et al., 2023). Many thoroughbreds are successfully

rehomed for second careers in other disciplines, specifically

performance disciplines (Crawford et al., 2021).

INDUSTRY – DEMOGRAPHICS, INDUSTRY SCOPE AND

ECONOMIC IMPACT

ABSTRACT

Overtime, the role of equids has changed, and has evolved

into a large, multifaceted industry. A challenge faced by the

industry is being able to adequately quantify something of this

magnitude. This problem is partly due to large reporting

discrepancies between major reporting agencies, which may be

caused by poor record keeping across the industry due to equids

not producing a direct commodity. The objective is this study is to

1) understand and identify the population, demographics, and

overall economic impact of the equine industry in Tennessee, 2)

identify trends to better understand the scope and prevalence of the

equine industry, and 3) identify areas of weakness within the

industry so appropriate steps can be taken for improvement. An

anonymous, online assessment was developed (March-August

2022; Qualtrics, Provo, UT) to determine individual industry

involvement, where participants reported information based on

personal involvement, ownership expenditures, business services,

and overall financial activity over the entire 2021 year. Data was

analyzed for descriptive statistics using the means and frequency

procedures in SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). Economic modeling was

performed using an economic Impact Analysis for Planning

(IMPLAN), an input-output model, to analyze the data to estimate

the total (multiplier-based) economic contribution of the industry.

This assessment had a total of 2,009 participants and identified

8,235 equids across the state. This assessment, along with previous

USDA Agricultural Census’, population trendlines, and the

American Horse Council’s data has produced the estimate of

140,000 equids in Tennessee in 2021. In terms of involvement,

95% (n=1,922; k=1,831) of participants were equid owners/leasers

with the most common primary use being companion or

recreational (k=1,340). Based on this assessment, it is estimated

that the average cost of a single equid per year if $6,719. Overall,

the total economic impact of the industry is estimated to be $1.805

billion in total economic activity, 33,345 jobs, and $1.032 billion in

gross state product. This study shows that the equine industry in

Tennessee has the opportunity to continue to grow and further

develop to continue contributing positively to the equids,

individuals, and the economy.

KEYWORDS: Tennessee, equine industry, economic, IMPLAN,

equid

Industry Overview

Changes in the role and use of equids overtime has given rise

to a large and versatile industry all over the world. Before

mechanization equids were used for primary modes of

transportation, various working capacities, and eventually used for

entertainment (Klecel and Martyniuk, 2021). Today, the primary

use of equids is companionship and recreational activities (AHC,

2017). The evolution of equids has created many challenges in

accurately quantify the industry. Economic impact and population

estimation is one of the biggest challenges faced by the equine

industry today, which is further complicated by poor record

keeping across the industry due to equids not producing a direct

commodity, large amounts of private, undocumented transactions,

and the increasing unwanted equid population that are inaccurately

reported (GAO, 2017; Camp et al., 2023). Thus, major reporting

discrepancies exist among reputable agencies including the United

States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), American Horse Council (AHC), and the

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). For example,

the USDA, who counts operations producing more than $1,000 in

revenue, identified 3.16 million equids in 2017, while the AHC,

who used a comprehensive industry survey, reported 7.2 million in

2016 (AHC, 2017; USDA, 2017b).

Disparities between reporting agencies on a national level

makes it even more difficult to understand populations on the state

level. In 2004, Kenerson and Moore conducted a survey based

study about the equine industry in Tennessee that estimated

210,000 equids and just over $1 billion economic impact

(Kenerson and Moore, 2004). In 2010, the industry was

reevaluated using the most recent USDA Census at the time, and

the 2004 survey by Kenerson and Moore, where the population

was estimated to be 160,353 with an economic impact over $1.3

billion (Menard et al., 2010). It has been seventeen years since the

last survey-based study of the Tennessee equine industry has

occurred, and thirteen years since the Tennessee industry was

evaluated. The objective is this study is to 1) understand and

identify the population, demographics, and overall economic

impact of the equine industry in Tennessee, 2) identify trends to

better understand the scope and prevalence of the equine industry,

and 3) identify areas of weakness so appropriate steps can be taken

for improvement. It is hypothesized that the equine industry in

Tennessee has positively impacted the state economy through

various direct and indirect routes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessment Development and Distribution

An online, anonymous assessment was constructed using

Qualtrics to obtain information from individuals within the equine

industry. The assessment by Kenerson and Moore in 2004 that

analyzed the Tennessee equine industry was used as a foundation

for this assessment (Kenerson and Moore, 2004). The assessment

was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at

the University of Tennessee (UTK IRB 22-06761XM). Participants

were required to be over the age of 18 but were not limited to being

a Tennessee resident.

Foundational questions covering equid demographics, such as

breed, sex, discipline, etc. contained in the assessment were

adapted from the assessment by Kenerson and Moore (Kenerson

and Moore, 2004). The assessment was broken down into default

sections and breakout sections (Fig. 1) (all figures are located in

the appendix) depending on participant involvement within the

industry with a total of 122 questions including likert, multiple

choice, multiple selection, and free response questions, similar to

question types seen in other equine related assessments (Hoffman

et al., 2009; Roberts and Murray, 2013; Murray et al., 2015).

However, participants only saw questions pertaining to their direct

involvement as detailed in the sections below. All participants were

asked to provide responses based on their involvement within the

Tennessee equine industry during the 2021 calendar year.

Participants had access to a QR code or an internet link

directing them to the assessment from mid-March – August 2022,

totaling 17 weeks. The assessment was marketed on social media

platforms and email chains, similar to the ways that previous

equine census’ have been marketed (Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017). To

increase potential participation, the assessment was emailed to 89

breed organizations, 33 boarding facilities, and every veterinarian

with a current email listed on the Tennessee Department of

Agriculture (TDA) website. Thirteen separate Facebook posts

reached over 15,000 people and had over 100 shares among

multiple different equine related pages. The Tennessee Extension

system and flyer distribution at thirteen different equine shows

across the state, one equine exposition, and one livestock auction

were utilized for in-person marketing.

Default Assessment Sections

Consent

An informed consent statement was displayed to all potential

participants at the start of the assessment. Anyone over the age of

eighteen years of age residing in the United States with any type of

involvement in the Tennessee equine industry was permitted to

continue the assessment. This section also contained the IRB

approval number (UTK IRB

22-06761-XM) and explained that there were no known risks upon

completion. Participants that did not agree were directed to the end

of the assessment and did not complete any other questions.

Consenting participants advanced to the next section.

Participant Demographics

After the informed consent, participants were asked to identify

residency, either in

Tennessee or out of state and then routed to name the county or

state (Musser et al., 1999). At the end of the assessment,

participants were asked age, sex, average income, and if part of

their income was from the equine industry to allow for comparison

of the demographic makeup of the industry in Tennessee with

other locations (Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017;

Stowe, 2018).

Industry Involvement

Participants were asked to place themselves in one or more of

the following categories: equid owner/leaser, boarding facility

owner/manager, breeder, equine sales, parent of a youth involved

within the industry, sales (feed, tack, etc.), show facility

owner/manager, tourism (trail rides, guided tours etc.), agricultural

worker, academic/extension, animal rights advocate,

breed/discipline organization, facility worker, farrier,

government/law enforcement, groom/jockey,

marketing/promotion/journalism, rescue/rehabilitation,

trainer/coach, veterinarian, or other (Stowe, 2012). If “other” was

selected an option to type a response was made available.

Participants that selected multiple areas of activity, were asked to

rank their involvement of the top three activities and what

percentage of their time is allocated to those activities. Participants

were routed to breakout sections related to their top three areas of

involvement.

COVID-19 Impact

The COVID-19-19 pandemic affected several industries across the

world (Soltas,

2021). Thus, participants were asked to reflect on previous years’

equine industry involvement and compare the impact of the

pandemic on their financial stability within the equine industry on

a scale from no impact to a major impact (Thompson et al., 2021).

Participants were then asked to identify if there were any changes

in industry involvement compared to before the pandemic on a

scale from no longer involved to more involved.

Breakout Sections

As previously detailed above, participants were provided

with breakout section questions based on their top three self-

reported industry involvement.

Equid Owned and Leased Demographics

Participants identifying as equid owner or leasers were asked

if the equids were owned, leased, or a combination of both,

followed by identifying the number of equids in each category

(horse, pony, mule, donkey, or other equid), class of horse, breed,

age, and sex (AHC, 2017). Participants were asked to identify

where the equids were housed with the options of a boarding

facility, property owned, property leased, or other (fill in the blank

option), followed by how many miles and how often they travel

round trip to the facility. To gain a better understanding of the

primary use of equids, participants were given the following

categories to choose from: breeding stallion, brood mare,

therapeutic riding, companion/recreational, cutting, dressage,

driving, endurance, foxhunting, eventing, gaited, hunter/jumper,

idle/retired/not working, racing, reining, rodeo, roping, saddle seat,

team penning, trail riding, western, working, or other based on

categories from previously published assessment classifications

(AHC, 2017; Melvin, 2021). Lastly, participants were asked if and

how many equids were bought or sold in Tennessee in the

following price ranges: $0-500; $501-1,000; $1,001-2,000; $2,001-

5,000; $5,001-10,000; $10,001-20,000; $20,001-50,000; $50,001-

100,000; and $100,001+, so the average price of equids bought or

sold could be better determined.

Equid leasers were also asked all the questions above along

with the base rate paid to lease all equids per month. In terms of

the leasing agreement, participants were asked what they were

expected to provide versus what the owner of the equid was

expected to contribute from the following list: daily management

and care, exercise, farrier services, feed cost, health or veterinary

maintenance or emergencies, housing, and other (fill in the blank

option). Participants then selected all permissible activities within

the leasing agreement from the following list: use for any or all

riding, showing, and breeding purposes, no use other than basic

care, shared use (only being permitted to use on certain days),

showing on/off the property, riding on/off the property, breeding

purposes, and other

(fill in the blank option).

For the economic responsibility involved in equid ownership

or leasing, participants were asked to provide information about

rider-related activity expenditures, specifically including land

rental, tack, personal riding supplies, riding attire, insurance,

maintenance/repair of structures housing equids and equipment,

utilities, equipment rental, fuel use, vehicle, and trailer

maintenance. Lastly, participants were asked what percent of the

previous list were purchased from a manufacturer versus retailer

versus a wholesaler.

Equid Boarding

Participants that selected boarding as the primary housing

method received a subset of multiple selection and fill in the blank

questions related to the boarding agreement. Participants were

initially asked the base rate paid for all equids each month. Within

the boarding agreement, participants were asked to identify what

they were expected to provide versus what the facility provides

with the option to select multiple amenities from the following list:

administration of medication, exercise, feeding, grooming, holding

for farrier, veterinary or other services, lessons with a trainer

employed by the facility, space for tack, stall, stall cleaning, turn

out, use of the facility for riding or training, or other (fill in the

blank). Participants were then asked to identify the cost of any add-

on services that are not included in their monthly board from the

list above.

Boarding facility owners were asked the aforementioned

questions to compare perspectives between facility owners and

boarders. Boarding facility owners then indicated the availability

of short term or nightly boarding. If available, boarding facility

owners were prompted to provide the average cost per night, and

the average number of nights the guests, and equids were staying.

Lastly, facility owners were asked if a trainer was employed, either

full-time working from that facility only, part-time working only

from that facility only, part-time working from multiple facilities,

no trainer employed, or other

(fill in the blank).

Show Industry

Participants that stated involvement in the show industry or

trainers taking clients to shows were asked a series of multiple-

choice questions to assess showing location, frequency, type, and

travel components. Specifically, participants were prompted to

report the number of shows (recognized and unrecognized)

attended within and outside of Tennessee, and the number of

equids exhibited/shown, equids housed on grounds but not

exhibited, or if participants attended shows but did not exhibit for

each event. For each show/event, participants were asked the

number of people traveling in their personal vehicle, number of

equids hauled in a personal trailer, nights stayed away from home

and location, and expenditures. Expenditures were broken into

Tennessee and out of state reporting percentages to aid in capturing

economic impact of the showing industry segment.

Equine Facility Owners

Facility owners, including boarding and show, were asked a

series of multiple selection, fill in the blank, and multiple-choice

questions to better understand the types and size of equine related

facilities across Tennessee. Participants identified what type of

facility was owned or operated with the choice of show/exposition

center/racetrack, landowner leasing for equid purposes,

boarding/lesson/training facility, or other (fill in the blank), and

what percent of their clients were from Tennessee versus other

states. All facility types were prompted to identify how many

equids were maintained on the property, either client or facility

owned, followed by the number of acres allotted specifically to

equine use. Show facilities were asked to identify the number of

shows offered throughout

2021, and the average amount charged to rent the facility for a

weekend (Saturday and

Sunday).

Equine Trainers/Coaches

Equine trainers or coaches received a subset of fill in the

blank and multiple-choice questions regarding their business. To

assess the types of clients served, trainers were asked what style of

riding was taught to individuals and to equids including English,

western, gaited/non-trotting, or other (fill in the blank), along with

how many equids were trained in 2021, either for personal use or

for clients. Participants were asked to provide the number of

lessons taught weekly, either to individuals or equids, along with

the ownership status of the equids used in lessons and the average

price per lesson. Trainers/coaches were asked to identify the

ownership status of the facility trained out of with the choice of the

facility being owned by the participant, leased by the participant,

owned by a client or third party, or other (fill in the blank); and if

leased, the monthly leasing fee.

Equine Healthcare Providers – Veterinarians and Farriers

Veterinarians were asked to identify what species services

were provided to with the options of: large animal, small animal,

equine, exotic, or other (fill in the blank). Participants providing

healthcare services to equids (veterinarians and farriers) were

prompted to identify counties their services were provided to. To

further understand the disparities among care between counties,

participants were asked to identify services provided, with the

option to select multiple services, given the options of

vaccinations, floating teeth, Coggins, lameness exams,

reproductive services, critical care, field surgical procedures, in-

house surgical procedures, emergency services, and other (fill in

the blank) for veterinarians; and barefoot trimming, basic shoeing,

corrective/therapeutic shoeing, resets, and other (fill in the blank)

for farriers. To further determine client needs, veterinarians were

asked the number of clients that preferred ambulatory calls to in-

house services. Lastly, to gain economic information, healthcare

participants were asked to identify what percentage of clients were

from in state versus out, along with the amount of revenue

generated from physical services or medications, and the average

price of farrier work.

Equine-Related Businesses

Participants involved in equine related businesses, including

sales, tourism, breeders, equine sales brokers, and

marketing/promotion/journalism, received a series of multiple

selection, multiple-choice, and fill in the blank questions. Business

owning participants were prompted to provide economic

information including, the amount of revenue generated and

percentage of clients from in state versus out of state, along with

the prices charged for various services. Equine breeders were asked

to identify the number of stallions and mares that were serviced by

their business, along with the average amount charged per service

with the options of artificial insemination, live cover, foaling

services, oocyte transfer, embryo transfer, recipient mares, and

other (fill in the blank) for mares, and a variety of semen collection

and extending services for stallions. Equine sales brokers were

asked to identify the number of equids sold within each of the

following categories: $0-500; $501-1,000; $1,001-2,000; $2,001-

5,000; $5,001-10,000; $10,001-20,000; $20,001-50,000; $50,001-

100,000; and $100,001+. Lastly, businesses providing tourist

activities were asked to identify which type of services were

provided with the option of trail rides (facility owned or client

owned equids), overnight or day ranch/camp (facility owned or

client owned equids), carriage or hayrides, or other (fill in the

blank).

Equid Maintenance Fees

Boarding and show facility owners, breeders, tourist

businesses, parents of youths, equid owners/leasers, and those

involved in rescue/rehabilitation were asked the average cost of

equine related maintenance, including seed, fertilizer, and lime for

pasture, feed (hay, grain, etc.), feed supplements, boarding fees

paid to others, equine bedding, farrier, training, veterinary fees,

medications, and breeding/stud fees, if applicable. Furthermore,

participants were asked what percentage of goods were purchased

in Tennessee, and the percent directly purchased from

manufacturer versus retail provider versus a wholesaler.

Economics

Equine businesses were asked to indicate how much revenue

was generated, the number of customers, percent of customers in

Tennessee, and the percent of revenue generated from Tennessee

customers. These categories included equine boarding, breeding,

training/lessons, therapeutic riding, on-site riding as commercial

activity, unguided trail riding, rodeos, show event participation,

commercial racing, and other. Participants also provided the

number of people employed part-time, full-time, and the average

payroll plus cost of benefits.

Expenditures were captured for participants identified as

business owners or equid owners/leasers. Participants were asked

the estimated value of their equid(s), real estate, equine related

purchases, and equine related equipment. Participants with equine-

related buildings were asked the total number of stalls on site.

Furthermore, participants estimated value of equine-related land

fencing, and buildings, and the value of all vehicles, equipment,

and tack used by the operation.

Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the assessment was completed using

SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC) frequency and means procedures. The

frequency procedure was utilized to be able to identify trends

among participants within the industry. The means procedure was

used to be able to further understand averages among the industry,

either for expenditures, or equid demographics. For questions that

allowed multiple selections, the variable “n” will be used to

identify the number of respondents, while “k” will signify the

number of observations made and “e” is the number of equids

identified.

Economic modeling was performed using an input-output (I-

O) modeling system, specifically IMPLAN, which is commonly

used to analyze the impact of industries producing commodities

(Musser et al., 1999; Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2000; Hughes et

al., 2005). This modeling system allows estimates of direct,

indirect, and induced effects of industry contributions. Direct

economic impact refers to the immediate effect of changes in the

demand of a particular industry (Menard and English, 2022), for

example individuals needed to sustain the industry, such as,

business owners, facility owners, and various other industry

employers, along with the spending by those people. The indirect

effect is the secondary effect caused by the purchasing of goods

and services from those involved in the Tennessee equine industry.

The induced effect is stimulated from the purchased made by

Tennesseans due to household income being generated by

employment within equine industry (Hughes et al., 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, there were 2,009 total participants (n); however,

participants were able to omit or skip any question throughout, and

only saw questions related to their direct involvement which led to

various sample sizes. Due to the nature of some questions, for

example, questions where participants were able to select multiple

options, more observations were generated than there were

participants (n), which is identified by “k”.

Lastly, the number of equids reported will be represented by “e”.

Participant Demographics

Participants (n=1,647) residing within Tennessee identified

their county of residence with Knox (n=109), Williamson (n=107),

and Rutherford (n=92) being the most represented counties. Lake,

Lauderdale, Clay, and Van Buren counties had no representation

(Fig. 2). Participants (n=104) residing outside of Tennessee

identified eighteen other states involved in the Tennessee equine

industry with Alabama (n=19) being the highest represented (Fig.

3). Only 12% (n=116) of participants (n=946) were males, while

85% (n=808) identified as female. The majority of participant

(n=951) were between the age of 35-64 years of age, with 25.55%

being ages 55-64. In terms of income, 21.47%

(n=201) of participants (n=936) reported a portion of their income

resulted from industry involvement. More than 70% (n=706) of

participants (n=889) had an annual household income of more than

$50,000.

Industry Involvement

The industry involvement question separated the participants

into specific breakout sections. In terms involvement, there were

28 different occupations or areas of involvement identified.

Participants (n) were able to select multiple areas of involvement

represented by the letter “k”. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of

respondent participation within the Tennessee equine industry,

except the equid owner/leaser category because 95% (n=1,922;

k=1,831) of participants were equid owners or leasers. The top

three areas of involvement for Tennessee residents, outside of

being an owner/leaser, are equine sales brokers (k=200), equine

breeders (k=225), and parents of a youth involved within the

industry (k=274). Out of state respondents followed a similar trend

to Tennessee resident respondents with the top three areas of

involvement being equine breeders (k=24), equine sales brokers

(k=17), and a tie between parents of a youth involved in the

industry (k=12) and trainers/coaches (k=12). Overall, the areas of

involvement across participants followed similar trends when

comparing in state versus out of state participants.

COVID-19 Impact

In terms of finances, participants (n=1,524) less commonly

reported having a major impact (n=225), while most either had

moderate (n=495), minimal (n=418), or no impact (n=335) on

finances. In terms of involvement, participants (n=1,524) were

more (n=384) or similarly (n=778) involved within the industry;

however, some participants were less

(n=304), or no longer (n=20) involved in the industry due to

COVID-19.

Equids Owned and Leased Demographics

Participants (n=1,959; k=2,225) identified 8,041 equids being

owned. Of the 8,041 equids identified, 83% (e=6,691) were horses,

9% (e=743) were ponies, 5% (e=382) were donkeys, 3% (e=199)

were mules, and <1% (e=26) were in the “other” category

comprised of zebras, zonkeys, and other nontraditional equids.

When broken down into class of horse owned, 41% (e=3,325) were

light type, 34% (e=2,662) were gaited, 9% (e=756) were ponies,

8% (e=611) were in the “other” category comprised of mules,

donkeys, and other nontraditional equids, 5% (e=411) were sport

breeds, and 3% (e=266) were draft breeds.

The light breeds were defined as being bred for endurance, agility,

riding, etc. (Griffin, 2020). Light breeds were most commonly

comprised of Quarter Horses (59%; e=1,890), followed by the

American Paint Horse (10%; e=321), then the Thoroughbred (10%;

e=315) (Table 5) (all tables are located in the appendix). Gaited

breeds were defined as being bred for pleasure riding and a smooth

gait (Bekker, 2009). Over half of the gaited breeds identified by

this assessment were the Tennessee Walking Horse (62%;

e=1,628) (Table

6). The pony breeds were defined as a horse measuring less than

14.2 hands (Griffin, 2020). A little more than half were identified

under the general pony option (53%; e=756), meaning that there is

variety of different breeds represented, but all measure less that

14.2 hands high (Table 7). The sport breeds were defined as being

bred for athleticism and sport (Griffin, 2020). Sport breeds were

mainly represented by the Warmblood (44%; e=140), which

included Belgian and Dutch Warmbloods, followed by the

Oldenburg (13%; e=40) and the Trakehner (20%; e=31) (Table 8).

Draft breeds were defined as a horse bred for work and pulling

heavy weight (Griffin, 2020). Percherons (23%; e=71) were the

most common draft breed identified, followed by draft cross breeds

(18%; e=53), and Friesian (16%; e=47) (Table 9). The other equid

category was filled with equids that did not fit into any of the other

categories, such as, donkeys, mules, zebras. A majority in this

category were identified as donkeys (67%; e=377) (Table 10).

Participants primarily owned geldings (e=3,298), followed by

43% owning mares (e=3,238) (Table 11). Average age ranged from

less than a year to 30+ years of age with the largest group being in

the 11-15 age range at 23% (e=1,753) (Table 12). Participants

identified 28 different primary uses for their equids (e=7,230) with

the most common use being companion or recreational use

(e=1340), followed by trail riding (e=1157), and then equids that

are retired, idle, or not working (e=1028) (Table 1). Lastly, 79%

(e=5,887) of the equids identified (e=7,487) were housed at a

property owned by the respondent (Table 13).

Equids leased followed similar trends to equids owned, but

on a smaller scale. Participants (n=117) that leased identified 174

equids. Like equids owned, horses (e=165) made up 85% of the

population, followed by 13% being ponies (e=25), 2% being mules

(e=3), and <1% being donkeys (e=1) or “other”. To further break

down the horse category, 47% were light breeds (e=84), 22% were

gaited (e=40), 15% were sport (e=27), 11% were ponies (e=19),

3% were drafts (e=5), and 2% were “other” (e=3), including

zebras, zonkeys, etc. The light breeds (e=84) were comprised

mainly of Quarter Horses (e=33) and Thoroughbreds (e=15) (Table

5). Of the gaited breeds (e=40), almost half were Tennessee

Walking Horses (e=19) (Table 6). Pony breeds (e=19) were mainly

Welsh Pony and Cob

(e=7) (Table 7). The sport breeds (e=28) were comprised mainly of

Warmbloods, including Dutch and Belgian (e=17) (Table 8). Only

four draft breeds (e=5) were identified with the draft cross (e=2),

American Cream, Friesian, and Percheron all having one (Table 9).

Lastly, the other equids (e=3) were mules (e=2) and one zebra

(Table 10).

The average age followed the same trend as equids owned,

with the age range of 11-15 (e=53) being the highest represented

group (Table 12). Sex also followed the same trend as equids

owned with geldings (e=101) being the highest represented (Table

11). One of the differences between equids owned and leased is the

primary use., where 34% (e=59) were used for hunter/jumper

activities, as opposed to companion or recreational use being the

highest for owned equids (Table 1). In terms of housing location,

68% (e=104) were housed at a boarding facility, while only 24%

(e=27) were housed at a property owned by the participant (Table

13).

Equid leasers were asked about the financial commitment and

permittable activities according to the lease agreement. Participants

(n=62) reported that they paid on average $608.58 (std. dev. ±

647.63) monthly to lease all equids, with the average person

leasing

1.8 (std. dev. ± 2.5) equids. Based on responses (n=62), those

participants paid a total of $37,732 for leasing only. When

discussing the responsibility of the individual leasing versus the

owner of the equid, individuals leasing (n=82) reported that they

were required to provide exercise (23%; k=68), followed by

providing feed costs (18%; k=52), and providing daily care and

management (17%; k=51) (Fig. 11). Owners (n=55) of the equids

were required to provide daily management and care (k=38),

followed by providing feeding cost (k=33), and health, veterinary,

and maintenance costs (31) (Fig. 12). Within the leasing

agreement, only 25% (k=46) of participants (n=83; k=180) were

permitted to use the equid for any/all riding, breeding, or showing

purposes (Fig. 13).

Participants (n=1,092) were more likely to be involved in the

buying or selling of equids in Tennessee, as opposed to not

(n=500). Participants (n=480) participating in the buying of equids

purchased 735 equids, with the most common price range being

between $2,001-$5,000 (k=159; e=233) (Table 2). Participants

(n=285) involved in selling followed similar trends to those buying

with a total of 514 equids sold, most commonly in the

$2,001-$5,000 (k=104; e=189) (Table 2).

Equine Facilities

This assessment identified nine different types of equine

related facilities (Fig. 5). In terms of acreage, participants (n=143)

allocated approximately 32.87 (std. dev. ± 40.90) acres for equine

use. Event holding facilities (n=11), such as showing or exposition

centers, held an average of 10.34 (std. dev. ±10.58) events in 2021.

Facility owners (n=14) reported that the average weekend rental

cost for their facility was $735.71 (std. dev. ±833.37).

Equine Facilities – Boarding (Client Perspective)

Based on the nine types of facilities identified by this

assessment, 69% (k=120) were boarding/lesson/training facilities

(Fig. 5). Participants (n=385) paid on average $791.81 (std. dev. ±

$1,018.78) per month for boarding services for all equids, keeping

in mind that on average each participant boarded 2 (std. dev.

±2.86) equids. Participants (n=385) identified 955 equids being

boarded in 2021. When traveling, participants (n=493) indicated

driving an average of 59 (std. dev. ±123.61) miles round trip

approximately 19

(std. dev. ± 8.96) times per month to the boarding facility.

Very little is reported on what types of services were

provided in a boarding agreement. Based on this assessment,

participants (n=391) identified seventeen different services that

were provided by the facility, with feeding (k=327), space for tack

(k=257), and a stall (k=214) being the most common (Fig. 14). In

terms of client responsibilities, participants (n=324), indicated that

grooming (k=281) and exercise (k=277) were the most commonly

responsibilities (Fig. 15). Some clients (n=92; k=243) reported

offered add-on services being available for an extra charge with the

most common service offered being lessons with a trainer (k=63),

but 21.7%% of clients (k=20) reported no add-on services being

available (Fig. 16).

Equine Facilities – Boarding (Facility Owner Perspective)

Boarding facility owners were asked similar questions to the

participants identifying as boarders. Facility owners (k=124)

housed an average of 7.38 (std. dev.

±17.6) facility owned equids and 12.01 (std. dev. ±293.81) owned

by clients. Owners (k=96) reported charging an average of $481.25

(std. dev. ±293.81) per equid monthly, which is more than the

average reported for a single equid ($395.91) by clients in the

above paragraph. For services, facility owners (n=106; k=483) also

reported feeding services as the top responsibility (k=96) (Fig. 14).

Some owners (n=92; k=267) also offered add-on services for an

extra charge with the most common service offered being exercise

or riding services (k=70), but 38% of owners (k=35) did not offer

any add-on services (Fig. 16).

When reporting on short-term boarding, 64% (k=69) facility

owners did not offer short term boarding, while the other 36%

(k=38) did. Those that offered short-term boarding (n=35) charged

an average of $40.29 (std. dev. ± 38.06) per night with the average

person staying 11.33 (std. dev. ±10.82) and bringing 9.22 (std. dev.

±14.59) equids for the duration of the stay.

Equine Trainers/Coaches

Equine trainers and coaches were among the top three areas

of involvement for participants (k=213) (Fig. 4). Trainers or

coaches instructed more individuals than equids in 2021. Trainers

(n=62) reported training an average of 9.63 (std. dev. ±11.91)

equids for clients and 4.66 (std. dev. ±8.30) for personal use. In

terms of lessons, participants (n=103) taught an average of 12.04

(std. dev. ±19) per week, mostly using an equid owned by someone

else for 2 or more clients. Price per lesson varied depending on the

number of riders. A private lesson for a single rider costed an

average of $49.98 (std. dev. ±20.96), while group lessons were

slightly cheaper at $43.73 (std. dev. ±21.59) per lesson (Table

14). A training session for only the equid was the most expensive

with an average cost of $71.71 (std. dev. ±124.54) per lesson.

Trainers (n=57) reported taking an average 9.83 (std. dev. ±13.73)

equids to 7.77 (std. dev. ±8.96) events in Tennessee per year.

When asked about facility ownership, 59% of trainers owned

and operated the facility they were working at (n=74), followed by

28% (n=35) working from a facility owned by a client or another

party. For those that were leasing a facility (n=9), average rent was

$1,544.44 (std. dev. ±1,321.33) per month.

Equine Healthcare Providers – Veterinarians and Farriers

There were thirty-two veterinarians and nine veterinary

technicians that responded to this assessment (Fig. 4).

Veterinarians (n=24) reported that 75% (n=18) provided services to

equids, with Knox County (n=3 or 16.6%) having the highest

number of clinicians providing services. When cross-referenced

with a list of veterinarians provided by the Tennessee Department

of Agriculture (TDA), there were 14/95 counties lacking veterinary

representation (Fig. 6). In terms of services, almost all the

participants (n=13) provided routine services, such as, vaccinations

(k=11), Coggins tests (k=11), and teeth floating (k=9), and less

commonly providing specialized services (Fig. 17). In terms of

cost of care, this assessment estimated approximately $750 for

routine veterinary care and $404 for farrier care annually per head

(Hughes et al., 2022).

A small number of participants were farriers (k=46) working

in the state of Tennessee (Fig. 4). Participants (n=31) indicated

what counties they provided services to and based on the

information given, 43/95 counties were not receiving services.

Knox county (k=9), Jefferson County (k=7), and Dickson County

(k=6) had the highest number of farriers providing services;

however, most of west Tennessee was not represented (Fig. 7).

Farriers (n=32) reported 95.47% of their clients being from

Tennessee. In terms of revenue, farriers (n=10) reported an average

of $24,900, with the highest reported being $147,000. Participants

did not indicate what services were provided or the average cost of

those services.

Equine-Related Businesses

Participants (n=10) that reported having some type of

business that attracted tourists were asked what services were

provided. Trail riding (k=38) businesses, either providing the

equids (k=27) or clients bringing their own (k=11) were the most

common (Fig. 8). In terms of revenue generated, tourism

businesses (n=49) reported that 86.45 %

(std. dev. ± 26.84) of their yearly revenue was produced within

Tennessee.

There were 249 equine breeders identified (Fig 4). Participants

(n=141) were more likely to offer services to mares (n=77), or

mares and stallions (n=62), as opposed to offering services for only

stallions (n=2). In terms of mare services offered, most of the

participants offered live cover (k=82) and artificial insemination

(k=80) services for equids owned by them and clients (Fig. 18).

However, the price of services varied highly depending on what

the service was with a range of $250-$3,140 (Table 3). Breeders

providing services to stallions (n=69) were most likely to provide

services for equids owned by the operation (n=59), with most of

providing live cover (k=49), as opposed to collection and various

extending services (Fig. 19). Like mare services, stallion services

pricing varied highly depending on the service with a range from

$433.33-$1,300 (Table

4).

Economics

Overall, the equine industry in Tennessee is valued at $1.805

billion (Hughes et al., 2022). It was found that for every $1 spent

an impact of $1.91 was generated (Hughes et al., 2022). In terms of

occupations, the equine industry generated 27,810 direct jobs,

which stimulated a total of 33,069 jobs (Hughes et al., 2022). Out

of state spenders accounted for

$36.974 million and the generation of 171 jobs (Hughes et al.,

2022).

DISCUSSION

After analyzing the results from this assessment, it was found that

the Tennessee equine industry mimics national industry trends but

on a smaller scale (AHC, 2017).

Participant Demographics

The United States equine industry is more concentrated in females

aged 35+, which is consistent with the findings of this assessment

for Tennessee (Swinker et al., 2003; Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017;

Stowe, 2018). Results from this assessment for average household

income was consistent with information from previous studies with

the average individual involved within the industry having a

household income of more than $75,000

(Stowe, 2018). In Tennessee, the average household income for

residents is $82,928 (Bureau, 2022). Based on this assessment,

41% (n=365) of participants had an average household income

between $100,000-$200,000+ and had a higher average household

income than the typical Tennessee resident in 2021 (Fig. 20).

Equid Population and Demographics

This assessment identified 8,325 equids across Tennessee. This

assessment was not competed by every equine owner across

Tennessee, so the overall population was estimated. Assessment

results, along with the estimation of 165,800 head in 2016 from the

AHC (AHC, 2017) and 104,827 head from the USDA Census

(2017) while evaluating previous populations trends, led to the

approximate total of 140,000 equids in Tennessee in 2021. It was

to be expected that horses were the most represented type of equid,

and consistent with studies from other states (Susan E. Conners et

al., 2011; AHC, 2017). It was also expected for the Tennessee

Walking Horse to be highly prevalent due to it being the state

breed, along with being highly represented in previous Tennessee

studies (Kenerson and Moore, 2004; Menard et al., 2010). It was

found in 2015 that the northeast region of the United States had the

highest portion of draft breeds, which could be why the number in

this assessment was low (APHIS, 2017). The higher prevalence of

mares and geldings is standard across other studies and what was

represented in the Coggins information from the state (AHC, 2017;

Berger et al., 2022). In terms of discipline, recreational riding has

been the most common use of equids among the industry for at

least the past 10 years (Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017), and results of

this assessment report recreation and trail riding as the most

common use which could be due to the high level of tourism in

Tennessee ((TDA), 2023). Interestingly, the population densities of

equids differ from this assessment and from the findings of Berger

et. al (2022) based on Tennessee Coggins information. Berger et al.

(2022) found that Putnam, Bedford, and Shelby counties had the

highest populations based on Coggins information. The findings of

the 2017 USDA census had the highest equid populations

identified in Bedford and Williamson and Wilson counties (Berger

et al., 2022). This assessment found that Wilson (e=422),

Williamson (e=420), and Bedford (e=369) counties were the

highest, which aligns more with the findings of 2017 USDA census

(Fig. 9). It is known that the USDA census only counts equids on

farms generating more than $1,000 in revenue, so it was thought

that the Coggins information would be able to better identify the

location of equids because every equid is required to have a

Coggins test performed yearly (TDA, 2021). Based on this

assessment and previous studies there still needs to further research

into finding the best way to accurately locate equids.

Leasing agreements are not well defined or commonly reported

(Ward, 2012). There are various forms of leasing agreements,

including full lease, partial lease, and care leases. Based on this

assessment, a majority of respondents fall into the partial lease

category, which is defined by the University of Maryland as a lease

where the horse can only be used part of the time; however, the

terms of usage are determined on an individual basis

(Bhadurihauck and Goeringer, 2017). Interestingly, only 25% of

participants were permitted to use the equid for any and all riding,

breeding, or showing purposes, which could be considered a full

lease (Bhadurihauck and Goeringer, 2017).

The average cost of ownership per equid resulting from this

assessment is $6,719, with estimated costs categories being

boarding, healthcare, breeding, training, and feed.

This number is consistent within the average reported range by

surrounding states (AHC,

2018b, a) (AHC, 2017). The economic value of the sale of equids

was estimated to be

$82.327 million, which is more than double the estimated value in

2010 (Menard et al.,

2010).

Industry Involvement

Due to the nature of the industry, there are various areas of

involvement for an individual. Based on this assessment, more than

90% of participants were equid owners or leasers, similar to

involvement in other studies (Stowe, 2012; AHC, 2017). Outside

of being equine owners, the top three areas of involvement were

equine sales brokers (k=200), equine breeders (k=225), and parents

of a youth involved within the industry (k=274). It is not surprising

that parents of a youth involved in the industry was among the top

areas of involvement because Tennessee has the highest enrollment

in 4-H programs than any other states (Foundation, 2021). Equine

breeders and sales brokers were more surprising; however a recent

study identified 34% of their participants working an occupation

under the general term of “farm management” which equine

breeding and sales operations could fall into (Jaqueth et al., 2023).

As for the other areas of involvement, a diverse population of

participants has been noted in other states because there is so much

versatility within the industry (Swinker et al., 2003).

COVID-19 Impact

The COVID-19-19 pandemic impacted the people worldwide

across numerous industries (Soltas, 2021). Many participants

remained financially stable throughout the pandemic, which may

be related to employment status of equine owners with full time

occupations outside of the industry, noting that only 21% of

participants indicated a portion of their income was generated for

equine activities. A recent study shows that labor-intensive

industries, such as the agricultural sector, were not impacted as

harshly as other sectors (Chen et al., 2021). While equids are

technically considered livestock and fall into the agricultural

sector, they do not produce a direct commodity such as milk or

meat, so it was not expected for only a small percentage of

participants to report major changes in their finances. Outdoor

parks and recreational facilities have seen an increase in visitation

(Ferguson et al., 2022), and it is probable that part of that increase

is due to an equine presence, since the primary use of equids is for

recreational or trail riding

(AHC, 2017)

Equine Healthcare Providers – Veterinarians and Farriers

Equine healthcare providers, either veterinary professionals or

farriers, have some presence in 86/95 counties across Tennessee

(Fig. 10). Based on the results of this assessment, there were 31/95

counties there was veterinary and farrier presence, which may be

credited to close working relationships between these professions

(Mansmann, 2019). With this information, it will be easier to pair

counties without access to healthcare to some type of care or be

able to help individuals find their closest healthcare provider.

A large concern for veterinary professionals and the equine

industry alike is the reducing numbers of equine veterinarians for

reasons like, the mental health crisis, or that 50% of practicing

veterinarians leave the large animal side for the small animal sector

within 5 years, but only 1.5% of graduating veterinarians pursue

equine practice, or the cost of veterinary school in relation to

income (Marquit, 2020; AAEP, 2022). In terms of cost of care, the

average cost per equid is $1,154 (Hughes et al., 2022), but times of

injury, lameness, or sickness can significantly increase prices

(Seitzinger et al., 2000). Due to hoof problems being the leading

cause of lameness, veterinarians and farriers find themselves

working together often (Moyer et al., 2012). The average cost of

farrier care varies, but has been reported that the average full-time

farrier charges $131.46 for a trim and basic shoeing, and standard

care is trimming and a reset every 6-8 week, then Tennessee is

below average for the price of annual farrier care at $404 annually

(Journal, 2017; Hughes et al.,

2022).

Equine-Related Businesses

Equine boarding facilities are rarely reported on and there is little

known information for standards of care and services among the

industry. This study captures a wide range of services provided,

but ambiguity among industry interpretation of full, partial, and

free board results in challenges to accurately capture included

services and prices. However, the prices reported ranging from just

over $300-$700 are consistent with information from a previous

study in Virginia (Porr et al., 2008). Further research into this

aspect of the industry is necessary to better understand not only the

standard of care, but the business itself.

Tennessee is ranked eleventh in the nation for travel and tourism

and contributed $27.5 billion in visitor spending alone ((TDA),

2023). Since tourism is a large industry and there has been an

increase in outdoor activities (Ferguson et al., 2022), it was

surprising that 2% of equine facilities were tourism related, but this

could be due to 62% of tourism related businesses were offering

trail riding services and a permanent facility is not necessarily

needed. Tennessee visitors accounted for $36.974 million and the

generation of 171 jobs (Hughes et al., 2022). Outside of tourism

businesses, the equine commercial sporting industry, more

commonly known as the showing industry, was ranked in the top

25 major economic contributors (Hughes et al., 2022).

Equine Industry Economic Impact

The Tennessee equine industry is not fully comparable to other

livestock industries because a direct commodity is not produced,

such as meat or milk. The equine industry is a service producing

industry (Bailey et al., 2000). In terms of evaluation, the

commodity producing sectors in Tennessee have been reported in

cash receipt value, as opposed to overall industry impact, meaning

that the total economic impact is not captured making it more

difficult to compare the different livestock sectors (Menard et al.,

2021). Therefore, future consideration for the Tennessee

Agricultural Enhancement Program (TAEP), a cost sharing

program that began in 2005 for agricultural producers in the areas

of: diary solutions, livestock solutions, herd health, genetics, row

crops, hay storage, livestock equipment, livestock solutions,

permanent working structures, poultry growers, and producer

diversification, should be viewed differently for the equine

industry (TDA, 2005). Overall, the Tennessee equine industry has

an economic impact of $1.805 billion and produces more than

33,000 jobs (Hughes et al., 2022). Comparing the most recent

study in 2010, the total population has decreased by approximately

70,000 head, but the economic impact increased from $1.032

billion in 2010 to $1.805 billion 2021 (Menard et al., 2010). It is

estimated that there were 140,000 equids in Tennessee in 2021,

which is 70,000 less equids than what was reported in 2010

(Menard et al., 2010). Despite inflation, and a huge reduction in

overall population, the equine industry was still able to positively

stimulate the Tennessee economy.

CONCLUSION

The Tennessee equine industry has made a substantial impact on

the state of Tennessee, not only for the economy, but for the

individuals involved. There is an estimated population of 140,000

equids across the Tennessee with the Tennessee Walking Horse

and Quarter Horse being top two breeds represented. The industry

has an overall economic impact of $1.805 billion, despite not

producing a commodity or a racing sector. Overall, the equine

industry has positively impacted the state of Tennessee through

various direct and indirect routes.

CHAPTER 3: INCLUSION OF FLAT RACING IN

TENNESSEE: A PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACT

The Tennessee horse racing industry has not existed for more

than 100 years. Recently, it has become legal for Tennessee

residents to wager on events taking place outside of Tennessee, but

that means the state is not benefiting economically to its fullest

abilities. The objective of this study was to determine interest and

gauge public perception on the inclusion of flat racing in the

Tennessee equine industry. As part of a larger subset, an

anonymous, online assessment was generated with using Qualtrics

(Provo, UT) to determine public perception on the addition of flat

racing to the equine industry in Tennessee. It was found that 60%

(n=901) of participants had attended live racing in other states at

some point in their lives. However, only 34% (n=505) of

participants were interested in attending live races within

Tennessee. The biggest cause for concern for participants (n=584)

that did not want to attend was welfare concerns (k=293). Based on

public opinion, participants indicated the racing industry had a

positive impact on tourism, the economy, facilities, educational

programs, industry related employment, and breed development. In

terms of welfare and management participants were split between

an overall positive (k=458) versus a negative (k=448). Overall,

there needs to be further assessments regarding the addition of a

racing sector to the Tennessee equine industry, but surveyed

Tennessee residents showed some interest in doing so.

INTRODUCTION

Tennessee is surrounded by states that have regulated flat

racing industries with public pari-mutuel wagering systems both

online and in person (Lambert, 2022b). However, Tennessee does

not have a racing industry, or an in-person pari-mutuel wagering

system for flat racing within the state. In 1906 new legislation

made wagering on horse races illegal and soon after all racetracks

were deconstructed or repurposed for different use (Mielnik, 2017).

In recent years the Tennessee Horse Racing Commission was

founded and wagering became legal only on events taking place

outside of the state since there are not any flat-racing tracks in

Tennessee (Nicely, 2017).

In other locations purse money from the horse racing industry

funds several government projects, including grants, education, the

lottery, etc. In Indiana, it was found that the racing industry

generated over $1 billion, with $69 million in state and local tax

revenue, of which can be used to fund programs outside of the

industry (Extension, 2013). When discussing tourism, it was found

that a significant portion of the revenue generated was from off-

track or pari-mutuel sources, which is what Tennessee residents

participate in (Extension, 2013).

The objective of this study was to determine public

perception on the addition of a flat-racing sector into the Tennessee

equine industry, and gauge public perception about the industry. It

is hypothesized that the inclusion of a racing industry could be

beneficial to the state economy, while also benefitting the equine

industry and individuals involved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessment

An anonymous, online assessment was constructed using

Qualtrics to obtain information from individuals within the equine

industry. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the

Institutional Review Board at the University of Tennessee (UTK

IRB 22-06761-XM). Participants were required to be over the age

of 18 but were not limited to being a Tennessee resident.

This assessment was broken down into five default sections

and eighteen breakout sections depending on participant

involvement within the industry with a total of 122 questions;

however, participants only saw questions pertaining to their direct

involvement. All participants were asked to report on the 2021

calendar year. Previously discussed were all sections except racing.

Since Tennessee does not currently have a racing industry,

participants were asked a series of multiple choice, and scale type

questions to help identify the public perception on the racing

industry.

Racing Industry

All participants were asked if live horse racing had ever been

attended in other states to detect if there is any interest in the racing

sector. Next, participants were asked if given the opportunity,

would they attend live horse racing within Tennessee. If “no” or

“unsure” was the response, participants were prompted to provide

justification. Lastly, participants were asked to state opinions

regarding the equine racing industry on breed development,

industry related employment, educational facilities, equine welfare

and management, the Tennessee economy, tourism, and grants,

responding on a scale from no impact to positively impacting. The

purpose of this question was to learn more about the public’s

knowledge on some of the downstream effects of the racing

industry.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.4 (Cary,

2013) frequency procedure. The frequency procedure was used to

identify trends in the answer selections of the participants. Due to

some questions allowing for multiple selections, the variable “n” is

used to designate the number of participants, while “k” represents

the total number of observations.

RESULTS

Racing Industry Attendance

Participants were asked to identify if live horse races had been

previously attended in other states. Approximately 60% (n=901) of

responding participants (n=1,502) had been to a race at some point

in their lives, while 40% (n=599) had never attended a race. In

terms of possibly attending any future equine racing events in

Tennessee, it was split among participants. Approximately 38%

(n=571) of responding participants (n=1,503) would attend, while

34% (n=505) would not attend, and 28% (n=427) were unsure.

Participants that selected “no” or “unsure” to the previous question

were prompted to justify why they were opposed to adding a racing

sector to the Tennessee equine industry. The biggest concern

among participants (n=584) was welfare for the horse (n=293),

followed by just generally not being interested in that sector of the

industry (n=163) (Fig. 21) (all figures are located in the appendix).

Racing Industry Impact

In terms of the impact on downstream effects of the industry, the

overall perception was positive. Participants (n) were able to

provide multiple responses to this question which is represented by

“k”. Participants (n=1,475) indicated an overall positive impact on

industry related employment (k=1,462), educational programs

(k=1,454), equine facilities

(k=1,453), the Tennessee economy (k=929), grants (k=591) and

tourism (k=967). Participants were split almost evenly between a

positive impact (k=458) and a negative impact (k=448) on equine

welfare and management (Fig. 22).

DISCUSSION

Racing Industry Impact

It has been seen in other countries that there is a decline in the

popularity of horse racing (Legg et al., 2023). It was not surprising

to be split in terms of overall interest in attendance. The use of

horses for entertainment purposes, such as racing, is under scrutiny

from some parts of the public for horse welfare issues, so it is not

unexpected for the biggest concern of participants in this

assessment is welfare related (Heleski et al., 2020; Legg et al.,

2023). In Tennessee, there is already a tough history with the

Tennessee Walking Horse and a negative public perception of that

part of industry due to welfare concerns, which could be a

contributing factor to the opposition seen among participants

(Dane, 2010).

However, it is important to note that many off the track

thoroughbreds have the opportunity for second careers outside of

the racing industry (Camp et al., 2023).

The racing industry has a large impact socially and

economically on the states with a prevalent equine industry

(Conners et al., 2011; Lambert, 2022b). However, due to some of

the negative aspects of the industry being highly publicized, many

of the benefits of the industry are unknown to the general public

(Douglas et al., 2022). This holds true for the participants in this

assessment. The “unsure” option was the second most common

choice for almost all given categories, except equine welfare and

management, where it was the almost even with positive and

negative impacts, and grants, where it was the top choice. It is

important to continue to advocate for the benefits of the racing

industry for it to survive

(Douglas et al., 2022).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a racing sector to the Tennessee equine

industry could be beneficial for the state in various aspects.

However, there is a big concern for the welfare of the animal. It

will be important moving forward to continue advocating for the

positive parts of the industry and all the benefits for the animal

itself and individuals involved. Overall, more studies need to be

conducted to better understand the possible benefits to the

Tennessee equine industry from racing events held within the state.

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

It has been more than a decade since the Tennessee equine industry

was evaluated and its contributions to the state economy was

estimated. It was found that the equine industry has made a

substantial impact on the state of Tennessee, for the economy and

individuals involved. It is estimated that there are 140,000 equids

across Tennessee. The Tennessee Walking Horse and Quarter

Horse are the top two breeds represented in this assessment. The

total economic impact of the equine industry is $1.805 billion,

despite not producing a commodity or currently having a racing

sector. Further assessments are needed before a racing sector can

be adding to the industry. However, there is general interest from

the public. Overall, the equine industry has positively impacted the

state of Tennessee through various direct and indirect routes.

Figure 1: Assessment Flow

A schematic of the assessment flow for participants residing in

Tennessee. In the case the participant resided outside of Tennessee,

those participants were asked to provide their home state and ties

to the Tennessee industry.

counties. The top three counties represented were Knox (n = 109),

Williamson (n=107), Rutherford (n=92). The counties that went

unrepresented were Lake,

Lauderdale, Clay, and Van Buren.

Figure 3: Location of Out of State Participants

Participants (n=104) identified their state of residence. The states

that are white had no representation. The shades light (1) to dark

(20) represent the number of participants from out of state.

Tennessee is shown by the stripes. Of the other responding states,

Alabama

(n=19) had the highest number of participants.

Figure 4: Participant Involvement in the Tennessee Equine

Industry

The equine industry has several different components and because

of this each participant was asked to report their relationship to the

Tennessee equine industry. Tennessee residents are represented by

the colored bars (n=1,815; k=2,131) and out of state residents are

represented by the orange bars (n=107; k=132). Participants

(n=1,922) were able to select multiple areas of involvement

leading to a larger number of observations (k=2,263). The

activities were broken into four categories, activities directly

related to facilities or facility ownership (yellow), equine

businesses (green), occupations or businesses directly related to

services to the equid (blue), and activities that do not fall into any

other group (purple). Not pictured is the own or lease equids

category because most respondents were equid owners/leasers (n=

1,922; k= 1,831).

Figure 5: Types of Equine Facilities in Tennessee

Nine different types of equine related facilities were identified in

Tennessee. Participants

(n=143) were able to make multiple selections within this question

which are identified by

“k”. Boarding, lesson, and training facilities (k=120) were the most

common facility type identified.

representation. The shades light (1) to dark (3) represent the

number of veterinarians providing services to those counties.

Veterinarians identified 50 counties that had access to at least one

veterinarian, with Knox County and Fentress County have 3

servicing veterinarians. Knowing that there are more than 18

equine veterinarians in Tennessee, the assessment results were

cross-referenced with a list provided by the Tennessee Department

of Agriculture (TDA), which are represented by the stripes.

Altogether, there are 14/95 counties without access to veterinary

care.

provided. The counties that are checkered had no representation.

The shades light (1) to dark (9) represent the number of farriers

providing care to those counties. Farriers (n=46) identified 53

counties that had access to at least one farrier, with Knox County

(n=9) having the highest number of servicing farriers, followed by

Jefferson County (n=7). There were

42 counties lacking farrier care, mainly localized to the western

region of Tennessee.

Figure 8: Types of Tourists Attracting Businesses

Participants (n) that indicated owning a business that attracts

tourists were asked to identify what type of service was offered.

Most businesses offered trail riding in some form, either with

equids owned by the facility (n=27) or equids provided by the

client (n=11). The least common services were foxhunting (n=1), a

riding arena (n=1), pony rides (n=1), and farm tours (n=1).

identified by were in Wilson (e=422), Williamson (e=410), and

Bedford (e=369) County (dark purple).

counties. After service providers were combined, it was found that

there were only 9 counties (white) without any type of healthcare

representation. There were 31 counties (dark green) with access

farrier and veterinary care, 18 counties with only veterinary care

(light green), and 21 counties with access to only farrier care (light

blue).

Equid Leasee Responsibilities

Participants that leased equids were asked to identify what types of

things they were expected to provide based on the leasing

agreement. Overall, most participants were required to exercise

(k=68) to the equid. The number of participants is indicated by “n”

and “k” is the number of observations.

Equid Owner Responsibilities

Participants that leased equids were asked to identify what the

owner of the equid was responsible for providing based on the

leasing agreement. Overall, most equid owners were responsible

for daily management and care (k=38). The number of participants

is indicated by “n” and “k” is the number of observations.

Equid Leasee Permissible Activities

Participants leasing equids were asked what types of activities

were permitted based on the leasing agreement. Most participants

were permitted to use the leased equid for showing on or off the

property (k=62) or riding on or off the property (k=60). The

number of participants is indicated by “n” and “k” is the number of

observations.

Services Provided by the Boarding Facility

Participants that boarded equids or that owned a boarding facility

were asked to identify what services were provided by the facility.

The blue bar represents facility owners and orange represents

clients. The number of participants is indicated by “n” and the

number of observations is “k”. The most common service provided

was feeding (k=423).

Boarding Facility Client Responsibilities

Participants that boarded equids were asked to identify what their

primary responsibilities were according to the boarding agreement.

The most common responsibility was grooming

(k=281). The number of participants is indicated by “n” and “k” is

the number of observations.

Boarding Facility Add-On Services

Participants that owned boarding facilities or that housed equids at

a boarding facility were asked to identify any add-on services

offered for an extra price. The blue bar represents facility owners

and orange represents clients. The number of participants is

indicated by

“n” and the number of observations is “k”. The most common add-

on service for clients was lessons with a trainer employed by the

facility (k=63). The most common service offered by facility

owners was riding or exercising the animal (k=70). Some

participants did not offer add-on services (k=55).

Veterinary Services

Equine veterinarians were asked to identify what types of services

were provided. Most veterinarians provided routine health services,

such as, vaccines (k=11), Coggins (k=11), and teeth floating (k=9).

The number of participants is indicated by “n” and “k” is the

number of observations.

Mare Services

Equine breeders were among the top three areas of involvement.

Breeders providing services to mare were asked to identify the

types of services that were provided. The green bar refers to the

number of mares that were owned by the operation and yellow is

the number owned by clients. The most common service offered

for mares owned by the operation was artificial insemination

(k=69), while the most common service for client owned mares

was live cover (k=18). The number of participants is indicated by

“n” and

“k” is the number of observations.

Stallion Services

Equine breeders were among the top three areas of involvement.

Breeders providing services to stallions were asked to identify the

types of services that were provided. The blue bar refers to the

number of stallions that were owned by the operation and orange is

the number owned by clients. The most common service offered

for stallions was live cover

(k=49). The number of participants is indicated by “n” and “k” is

the number of observations.

Average Household Income

Participants (n=889) were asked to identify the average household

income based on nine income ranges. Approximately 70% of

participants (n= 636) had an average household income above

$50,000.

Opposing Views on a Tennessee Racing Industry

Participants (n=584) were asked to justify why they oppose a

racing industry being developed in Tennessee. For the most part,

participants were opposed to racing because of concerns for the

animal (red). The other concerns pertained to concerns of the

attendee (green), overall disinterest in the sport (blue), and unsure

responses (black). The most common concern was welfare

(n=293).

Impact of a Racing Sector on Various Programs

Participants (n=1,475) were able to provide multiple responses to

this question which is represented by “k”. Participants (n=1,475)

indicated an overall positive impact (green) on industry related

employment, educational programs, equine facilities (k=1,453),

Tennessee economy (k=929), grants (k=591) and tourism (k=967).

About equine welfare and management, participants were almost

evenly split between a positive impact (k=458) and a negative

impact (red) (k=448).

Participants were asked to identify the primary use of their equids.

The total number of equids is represented by “e”. Equine owners

identified 28 different primary uses for their equids (e=7,230) with

the most common use being companion or recreational use

(e=1,340), followed by trail riding (e=1,157), and then equids that

are retired, idle, or not working (e=1,028). A major difference

between equids owned and leased was the primary use, where

leased equids were primarily 34% (e=59) were used for

hunter/jumper

activities.

Participants (n=1,092) were more likely to be involved in the

buying or selling of equids in Tennessee, as opposed to not

(n=500). Participants (n=480) participating in the buying of equids

purchased 735 equids, with the most common price range being

between $2,001$5,000 (e=233). Participants (n=285) involved in

selling followed similar trends to those buying with a total of 514

equids sold, most commonly in the $2,001-$5,000 (e=189). The

total number of equids is represented by “e”.

Breeders (n) were prompted to identify the prices charged per

service performed. Prices varied per service with a range from

$250 for an undisclosed service to $3,140 (std. dev.

+/- $5,007.29) for recipient mare services.

Breeders (n) were prompted to identify the prices charged per

service performed. Prices varied per service with a range from

$433.33 (std. dev. +/- $332.92) for semen collection without

extending to $1,300 (std. dev. +/- $1,174.02) for semen collection

with extending a shipping.

Particpants were asked to identify what breeds of light-type horses

were owned or leased.

The total number of equids is represented by “e”. The light breeds

were defined as being bred for endurance, agility, and riding

(Griffin, 2020). Light breeds were mostly comprised of Quarter

Horses for owned (e=1,890) and leased (e=33).

Particpants were asked to identify what breeds of gaited horses

were owned or leased. The total number of equids is represented

by “e”. Gaited breeds were defined as being bred for pleasure

riding and a smooth gait (Bekker, 2009). Over half of the gaited

breed identified by this assessment were the Tennessee Walking

Horse for owned (e=1,628) and leased

(e=19) horses.

Particpants were asked to identify what breeds of pony were

owned or leased. The total number of equids is represented by “e”.

The pony breeds were defined as a horse measuring less than 14.2

hands (Griffin, 2020). For ponies owned, the most common breed

was classified under the general pony option (e=756), meaning that

there is variety of different breeds represented, but all measure less

that 14.2 hands high. For ponies leased, the most common breed

was the Welsh Pony and Cobb (e=7).

Particpants were asked to identify what breeds of sport horses were

owned or leased. The total number of equids is represented by “e”.

The sport breeds were defined as being bred for athleticism and

sport (Griffin, 2020). Sport breeds were mainly represented by the

Warmblood, which included Belgian and Dutch Warmbloods for

owned (e=140) and leased (e=17) horses.

Particpants were asked to identify what breeds of draft horses were

owned or leased. The total number of equids is represented by “e”.

Draft breeds were defined as a horse bred for work and pulling

heavy weight (Griffin, 2020). Percherons (e=71) were the most

common draft breed owned, while the Draft Cross (e=2) was the

most common leased draft breed.

The other equid category was filled with equids that did not fit into

any of the other categories, such as, donkeys, mules, and zebras.

The total number of equids is represented by “e”. The donkey was

the most common other equid for owned equids (e=377). The mule

was the most common other equid for leased equids (e=2).

Participants were asked to identify the sex of the equids owned or

leased. The total number of equids is represented by “e”. Mares

(e=3,298) and geldings (e=3,395) were the most common sex,

owned and leased.

Participants were asked to identify the age range that best fit the

equids owned or leased.

The total number of equids is represented by “e”. The greatest

number of equids were in the 11-15 years of age range (e=1,806).

Participants were asked to identify the location where the equids

owned or leased were primarily held. The total number of equids is

represented by “e”. Participants typically housed the equids at a

property owned (e=5,887), while equids leased were typically

housed at a boarding facility (e=104).

Participants (n) that identified as trainers were asked the average

price charged per lesson. Results varied depending on the number

of riders per lesson or if the lesson was for the equid only. The

average lesson with the equid only was the most expensive with

the average price being $71.71 (std. dev. +/- $124.54). A private

lesson was approximately $50

(std. dev. +/- $49.98) and a group lesson was approximately $44

(std. dev. +/- $21.59).

VITA

Olivia Watson grew up in a small town in Virginia with her parents

and four siblings. In 2016, she started her collegiate career at the

University of Tennessee, Knoxville where she majored in animal

science with a minor in international agriculture and natural

resources. Throughout her time at Tennessee, she was able to build

lifelong friendships with her peers and had the opportunity to

expand herself and spend a semester in Dublin, Ireland. She

graduated in 2019 with a bachelor’s in animal science and worked

for a local mixed animal practice until beginning a graduate

program in 2021 with Dr. Jennie Ivey. Over her graduate school

career, she continued sharpening her skills while continuing to

learn something new every day.

Introduction Summaries Factors Influencing Changes in Equid Population

Students also viewed