United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

May 2007

Equine 2005

Baseline Reference of Equine Health

Management Strategies at Equine Events

in Six States, 2005
Mention of companies or commercial products does

not imply recommendation or endorsement by the

USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither

guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product

mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to

report factually on available data and to provide

specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#N456.0507

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,

write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202)

720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Cover photo by Bryan Ryder
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)–

Veterinary Services’ National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) during

a study of equine events.

The Equine 2005 Events Study was a cooperative effort among State and

Federal animal health officials, university researchers, extension personnel, and

event coordinators/organizers. This is the first time a NAHMS study has focused

on events where equids congregate. We want to thank everyone who helped

determine the direction and objectives of this study.

Thanks also to the State and Federal veterinary medical officers (VMOs) and

animal health technicians (AHTs) who conducted the survey with the event

coordinators/organizers. The implementation of this study posed a number of

logistical problems for the field force, whose hard work and dedication to NAHMS

are invaluable. The roles of the event coordinators/organizers, VMOs, and AHTs

were critical in providing quality data for the Equine 2005 Events Study. Special

recognition goes to the personnel at the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal

Health (CEAH) for their efforts in generating and distributing valuable reports

from this study, and to Dr. Josie Traub-Dargatz for her guidance in study

development and implementation.

All participants are to be commended for their efforts, particularly the event

coordinators/organizers, whose voluntary participation and willingness to share

their time and information made the Equine 2005 Events Study possible.

Larry Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
ii / Equine 2005

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2006. Baseline Reference of Equine Health Management Strategies at

Equine Events in Six States, 2005

USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH, National Animal Health Monitoring System, Fort

Collins, CO #N456.0607

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on the Equine 2005 Events Study methods or requests

for additional data analysis: Ms. Anne Berry 970.494.7000

Information on this report or other NAHMS reports: Mr. Brandon O’Neal

970.494.7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Event Characteristics 5

1. Equine event type 5

2. Origin of participating equids 6

3. Average duration of events 8

4. Duration equids were on event premises 10

5. Number of equids at event 14

B. Characteristics of Equids 21

1. Age 21

2. Types of equids 22

C. Livestock Present at Event 25

1. Types of other livestock 25

D. Requirements for Attending Equids 29

1. Health certificates 29

2. Equine infectious anemia (EIA) tests 35

3. Individual animal identification 39

4. Vaccinations 41

E. Equine Management During Event 44

1. Veterinarian hired or provided to monitor for equine illness or provide

care 44

2. Equine housing at event 47

3. Insect control at event 50

4. Security methods at event 53

5. Event record keeping 57

6. Destination of equids following event 59

7. Method of contacting participants after event 60

Section II: Sampling and Estimation 61

A. State Selection 61

1. List-building techniques 61

2. Event selection 62

3. Population inference 64

B. Data Collection 65

C. Data Analysis 65

1. Validation and estimation 65

2. Response rates 65
iv / Equine 2005

Appendix I: Population and Sample Profile 66

Appendix II: List of Registries and Events Checked in Each State 67

A. Horse Registry 67

B. Equine Events 68

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 69
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) created to help meet the

Nation’s animal-health information needs. The NAHMS Equine 2005 Events

Study was designed to provide participants, industry, and animal health officials

with information on equine health-management strategies employed at equine

events in six selected States.

The study’s objective was developed by exploring existing literature, attending

equine industry meetings to learn about information gaps, and soliciting input

regarding priorities for equine health from animal health officials. The objective

focused on describing health-management factors at events that could impact

the occurrence and potential spread of equine infectious diseases. Equine

infectious diseases can result in lost use of animals and in some cases death.

There are many potential control points for preventing or minimizing the impact

of equine infectious-disease outbreaks, including precautions that reduce

exposure to infectious agents, optimization of resistance through vaccination if

exposure occurs, and early identification of outbreaks—all of which can limit the

spread of disease.

When animals from multiple locations or sources are brought together for

various events there is a possibility for the spread of infectious and contagious

disease agents. Examples of events where equids congregate include sales or

auctions, shows, horse trials, western events, fairs, rodeos, race meets, polo

matches, organized trail rides, and training clinics.

A disease occurrence at an equine event could necessitate locating participating

owners/trainers and their equids in order to communicate important diseasecontrol information. The NAHMS Equine 2005 Events Study looks at the type of

information recorded by event coordinators/organizers regarding event

participants and their equids and explores animal-health control strategies

employed at the events. Data from the study can help veterinarians and event

organizers control the introduction and spread of equine contagious diseases.

Information about the practices used at various types and scopes of events in

different regions—e.g., requirements for entry, including health certification,

testing, and vaccination—allows veterinarians and event organizers to compare

their practices to those of their peers. This information can identify areas where

event requirements may need to be altered, depending on the evolution of

various equine diseases and the methods for their control. Methods used by

various events to contact participants are also of value to other event organizers,

should they need to contact participants after an event about equine healthrelated information.
Introduction

2 / Equine 2005

NAHMS staff developed a list of equine events for the six participating States

(California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Texas). This list served

as the sampling frame for the study. A statistically valid sample was selected

such that inferences could be made to major equine events in the State. Events

likely to have a small number of local equids—such as jackpot roping, local

lessons, or shows—were excluded from the study. The study sample yielded 252

participating events representing the 3,227 events on the list. (See Section II

Sampling and Estimation and Appendices I and II.) Start dates for these events

occurred between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005. Data collection

took place from January 9, 2005, to April 25, 2006.

Baseline Reference of Equine Health Management Strategies at Equine Events

in Six States, 2005 is part of an overall NAHMS study related to the equine

industry conducted by NAHMS in 2005. Veterinary medical officers (VMOs) and

animal health technicians (AHTs) from USDA’s Veterinary Services collected

data for this report via questionnaires administered either by phone or on-site—

either during the event or as soon after the event as possible. Results of the

Equine 2005 Events Study and other NAHMS studies are available at <http://

nahms.aphis.usda.gov>.

For questions about this report or additional copies contact:

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. B, MS 2E7

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used in This Report

Equid: Animal of the family Equidae. For this study, only domestic equids such

as horses, miniature horse, ponies, mules, and donkeys/burros were included.

Equine event types: Event coordinators/organizers indicated the major purpose

of their event by choosing from 12 different event types listed on the study

questionnaire. If the event type was not one of the 12 listed, coordinators/

organizers could choose “other” and specify the major purpose of the event.

Event types were:

• Show (including English and western pleasure, equitation, halter,

conformation, showmanship)

• Western events (including barrel race, team penning, roping,

cutting)

• Polo

• Fair

• Rodeo

• Race

• Trail ride

• Sale or auction

• Inspection

• Training clinic

• Draft-horse pull/show

• Horse trial (including dressage, cross country, show jumping)

• Other (specify)

Event scope:

State events—all participating equids came from within State.

Regional events—participating equids came from within State and from outside

State but not farther than adjoining States.

National events—participating equids came from within State, from outside

State, and potentially from outside the United States.

For reporting purposes, event types were collapsed into four categories to

improve the precision of the estimates. The collapsed events types were: show/

trial (included the draft-horse pull/show and horse trial); western event/fair/rodeo;

race/polo; and “other” (included training clinic, trail ride, sale or auction,

inspection, and those specified as “other”).

N/A: Not applicable.
Introduction

4 / Equine 2005

Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of

precision called the standard error. A 95-percent confidence interval can be

created with bounds equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard errors. If

the only error is sampling error, the confidence intervals created in this manner

will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example to the

left, an estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to 9.5

(two times the standard error above and below the estimate). The second

estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0.

Alternatively, the 90-percent confidence interval would be created by multiplying

the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Confidence intervals constructed in this

manner may result in limits that are below zero or over 100 percent. The

statistical software used to create these estimates, SUDAAN, produces

asymmetric confidence intervals for the proportions using a logit transformation,

which ensures that confidence limits are between zero and 100. Although the

asymmetric intervals are not included in this report due to space constraints, they

were used to aid in the development of interpretations of the results. Most

estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the

standard error was reported (0.0). If there were no reports of the event, no

standard error was reported (—).

Sample profile: Information that describes event scope by State from which

Equine 2005 data were collected (see Appendix I).

Standard Errors

(1.0)

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 (0.3)

Examples of a 95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence

Intervals
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Event Characteristics

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Event 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Show/trial 53.8 (6.5) 43.7 (3.9) 64.2 (3.7) 67.2 (6.7) 74.9 (8.0) 50.9 (7.7) 57.7 (3.7) 

Western 

event/fair/ 

rodeo 9.0 (3.7) 37.4 (4.0) 14.2 (2.7) 17.0 (5.5) 8.3 (5.1) 42.4 (7.7) 21.9 (3.1) 

Race/polo 10.5 (3.7) 5.4 (2.2) 7.7 (2.3) 6.7 (1.8) 7.8 (2.9) 0.6 (0.4) 6.1 (1.4) 

Other 26.7 (5.8) 13.5 (2.6) 13.9 (2.4) 9.1 (4.6) 9.0 (5.7) 6.1 (4.1) 14.3 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

USDA photo library

1. Equine event type

The most common event type was show/trial (57.7 percent) followed by western

event/fair/rodeo (21.9 percent). Event types in the “other” category include trail

ride, endurance ride, training clinic, sale, auction, and shooting event. Colorado

and Texas events had a higher percentage of western event/rodeo/fair events

compared to events in most of the other States.

Percentage of events by primary event type and by State:
Section I: Population Estimates

6 / Equine 2005

2. Origin of participating equids

Events that drew participating equids from within State and from beyond adjacent

States each accounted for approximately 40 percent of events. Western event/

fair/rodeo events had the lowest percentage of State events (16.0 percent)

compared to all other event types.

a. Percentage of events by origin of participating equids and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other All 

Origin Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Beyond adjacent 

States including 

outside U.S. 

(National scope) 34.7 (4.7) 64.8 (8.4) 40.0 (11.8) 16.7 (7.5) 39.0 (3.7) 

Adjacent States 

(Regional scope) 22.0 (4.1) 19.2 (6.5) 3.0 (2.1) 21.2 (8.9) 20.1 (3.0) 

Within State 

(State scope) 43.3 (5.2) 16.0 (6.4) 57.0 (12.0) 62.1 (10.4) 40.9 (3.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates

0

20

40

60

80

Other

Race/polo

Western event/

fair/rodeo

Show/trial

Beyond adjacent

States including

outside U.S.

(National scope)

Adjacent States

(Regional scope)

Within State

(State scope)

34.7

64.8

40.0

16.7

22.0

19.2

3.0

21.2

43.3

16.0

62.1

Percent

Origin

Percentage of Events by Origin of Participating Equids and by Event Type

Event Type

57.0

Overall, 1 of 10 events (9.6 percent) had any participating equids that came from

outside the United States.

b. Percentage of events that had any participating equids that came from outside

the United States, by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other All 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

8.2 (2.3) 14.7 (6.3) 27.3 (10.7) 0.0 (--) 9.6 (2.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates

8 / Equine 2005

3. Average duration of events

The average duration of events was similar across participating States, with an

overall average of 3.3 days.

a. Average duration of events by State:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

2.7 (0.3) 3.9 (0.3) 2.6 (0.1) 4.3 (0.7) 4.0 (0.9) 3.3 (0.5) 3.3 (0.2) 

On average, National events lasted longer than Regional or State events.

b. Average duration of events by event scope:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

4.9 (0.5) 1.8 (0.1) 2.6 (0.3) 

Race/polo events had a longer average duration than show/trial, western event/

fair/rodeo, and “other” events.

c. Average duration of events by event type:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

2.5 (0.2) 3.9 (0.7) 13.7 (3.0) 2.3 (0.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates

A lower percentage of National events (8.6 percent) had a 1-day duration

compared to events with a State or Regional scope (32.4 and 46.0 percent,

respectively). Overall, the highest percentage of events (66.5 percent) had a

duration of 2 to 6 days.

d. Percentage of events by duration and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State All 

Duration 

(Number 

of Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 8.6 (3.3) 46.0 (8.1) 32.4 (5.7) 25.9 (2.9) 

2 to 6 79.0 (4.8) 53.7 (8.1) 60.8 (5.9) 66.5 (3.3) 

7 to 20 8.1 (3.3) 0.3 (0.2) 6.8 (2.9) 6.0 (1.7) 

More than 

20 4.3 (1.9) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 1.6 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The majority of race/polo events had a duration of 7 to 20 days, while the

majority of show/trial, western event/fair/rodeo, and “other” events had durations

of 2 to 6 days.

e. Percentage of events by duration and by event type:

 Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Duration 

(Number 

of Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 28.1 (4.1) 21.2 (6.7) 12.8 (9.5) 28.5 (9.3) 

2 to 6 70.6 (4.2) 65.0 (8.1) 12.4 (4.9) 71.1 (9.3) 

7 to 20 0.7 (0.3) 10.4 (5.3) 63.6 (11.8) 0.4 (0.2) 

More than 

20 0.6 (0.5) 3.4 (3.1) 11.2 (4.6) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

10 / Equine 2005

4. Duration equids were on event premises

The average duration equids were on premises associated with the events was

similar across States, averaging just under 11 days overall. At some events,

equids may have been at the event site prior to and after the event occurred,

e.g., for a specific race.

a. Average duration equids were on event premises, by State:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

16.7 (7.0) 10.8 (3.1) 13.0 (5.4) 6.8 (1.1) 12.2 (4.1) 4.6 (0.7) 10.6 (2.5) 

There was no difference in the average duration equids were on event premises

by event scope, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Average duration equids were on event premises, by event scope:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

12.5 (4.6) 2.9 (0.4) 12.5 (4.6) 

The average duration equids were on event premises was longer for race/polo

events than for show/trial, western event/rodeo/fair, and “other” events.

c. Average duration equids were on event premises, by event type:

Duration (Average Number of Days)

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

3.3 (0.2) 5.6 (1.0) 90.8 (31.2) 14.1 (9.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates

USDA photo library
Section I: Population Estimates

12 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of Regional and State events (32.9 and 27.7 percent,

respectively) had equids that stayed on the premises for 1 day compared to

National events (3.6 percent). In contrast, a higher percentage of National events

(15.9 percent) had equids that stayed for 7 to 20 days compared to Regional and

State events (0.3 and 5.0 percent, respectively).

d. Percentage of events by average duration equids were on event premises and

by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State All 

Duration 

(Average 

Number of 

Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

1 3.6 (2.1) 32.9 (8.1) 27.7 (5.3) 19.3 (2.8) 

2 to 6 72.9 (5.0) 65.6 (8.1) 60.9 (5.8) 66.6 (3.3) 

7 to 20 15.9 (4.1) 0.3 (0.2) 5.0 (2.4) 8.3 (1.9) 

More than 

20 7.6 (2.7) 1.2 (0.7) 6.4 (2.7) 5.8 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of race/polo events had equids that stayed on the premises

for 7 days or more (81.7 percent) compared to show/trial, western event/fair/

rodeo and “other events.

e. Percentage of events by average duration equids were on event premises and

by primary event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Duration 

(Average 

Number of Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 22.6 (3.9) 16.9 (6.1) 10.8 (8.1) 13.2 (6.8) 

2 to 6 71.0 (4.2) 65.1 (7.9) 7.5 (3.2) 75.5 (8.5) 

7 to 20 6.4 (1.8) 11.0 (5.5) 29.9 (13.2) 3.2 (2.2) 

More than 20 0.0 (--) 7.0 (4.1) 51.8 (12.9) 8.1 (5.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The percentages of events where all equids stayed on event premises for the

entire duration of the event did not differ across National, Regional, and State

events, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

f. Percentage of events where all equids stayed on event premises for the entire

duration of the event, by event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State All 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

30.4 (5.7) 37.4 (8.1) 44.4 (6.4) 37.5 (3.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

14 / Equine 2005

The percentage of events where all equids stayed on event premises for the

entire duration of the event did not differ across event types, when considering

the estimates’ standard errors.

g. Percentage of events where all equids stayed on event premises for the entire

duration of the event, by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

40.3 (5.0) 19.2 (6.5) 28.9 (13.6) 54.7 (10.5) 

5. Number of equids at event

For all events, an average of 151.0 equids were at the event on a typical day.

Events in Colorado, Texas, Florida, and Kentucky had a higher average number

of equids present on a typical day than events in California.

a. Average number of equids at event on a typical day, by State:

Average Number of Equids 

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

90.3 (14.7) 182.7 (22.2) 177.7 (14.8) 213.1 (33.0) 137.8 (30.3) 193.8 (23.9) 151.0 (11.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates

The average number of equids at National events (240.9) on a typical day was

higher than the average number of equids at Regional and State events (106.1

and 87.2, respectively).

b. Average number of equids at event on a typical day, by event scope:

Average Number of Equids 

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

240.9 (24.1) 106.1 (15.8) 87.2 (13.2) 

The average number of equids at events on a typical day did not differ for show/

trial, western event/fair/rodeo, and race/polo events, when considering the

estimates’ standard errors. Race/polo events had a higher average number of

equids on a typical day than “other” events.

c. Average number of equids at event on a typical day, by event type:

Average Number of Equids 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

137.7 (12.5) 194.8 (32.3) 289.9 (68.2) 78.8 (28.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates

16 / Equine 2005

The highest percentage of events (80.3 percent) used the number of registered

participants as the method of determining how many equids were at the event.

For National, Regional and State events, the percentages of methods used to

determine the number of equids at events did not differ. “Other” methods

included familiar with participant, how many animals the premises could

accommodate, and observation.

d. Percentage of events by method used to determine the number of equids at

event and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State All 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Number of 

registered 

participants 75.5 (5.4) 91.0 (3.9) 79.6 (5.1) 80.3 (3.0) 

Number of 

stalls in use 30.9 (5.9) 23.6 (6.8) 15.8 (4.3) 23.3 (3.2) 

Number of 

arrivals at 

entrance 16.2 (4.9) 22.7 (7.4) 9.4 (4.0) 14.7 (2.9) 

Other 10.9 (3.6) 9.9 (5.0) 11.8 (3.9) 11.1 (2.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates

A lower percentage of “other” events used number of stalls in use to determine

the number of equids at the event compared to show/trial and western event/fair/

rodeo events. However, “other” events included trail rides, which do not typically

use stalls, which may explain the lower estimate.

e. Percentage of events by method used to determine the number of equids at

event and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Number of 

registered 

participants 84.7 (3.6) 77.0 (7.2) 59.8 (12.6) 76.0 (9.4) 

Number of 

stalls in use 24.4 (4.2) 32.6 (8.4) 26.9 (9.8) 2.8 (2.2) 

Number of 

arrivals at 

entrance 14.1 (3.8) 18.5 (7.3) 8.9 (3.6) 13.7 (7.8) 

Other 8.1 (2.9) 12.6 (5.0) 33.2 (12.2) 11.1 (6.6) 

Over the course of the entire event, an average of 270.9 equids attended,

compared to an average of 151.0 equids that attended the event during a typical

day (table 5a, p. 14). Events in California had a lower average number of equids

that attended over the course of the entire event, compared to events in the other

States.

f. Average number of equids attending the event over the course of entire event,

by State:

Average Number of Equids 

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

92.2 (14.7) 328.4 (52.0) 197.9 (16.5) 320.5 (48.7) 256.4 (66.4) 444.0 (171.5) 270.9 (58.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates

18 / Equine 2005

National events had an average of 499.9 equids attending over the course of the

entire event, while Regional and State events had an average of 124.5 and 123.9

equids attending over the course of the entire event, respectively.

g. Average number of equids attending event over the course of entire event, by

event scope:

Average Number of Equids 

Scope 

National Regional State 

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

499.9 (146.4) 124.5 (18.7) 123.9 (26.3) 

Race/polo events had a higher average number of equids attending (542.2) over

the course of the entire event compared to show/trial and “other” events (160.6

and 84.8, respectively). Although the average number of equids attending

western event/fair/rodeo events was quite high, there was a great deal of

variability in this category, as evidenced by the large standard error.

h. Average number of equids attending event over the course of entire event, by

event type:

Average Number of Equids 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

160.6 (14.8) 608.3 (262.2) 545.2 (165.5) 84.8 (30.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee

State events had a higher percentage of events (25.0 percent) attended by 1 to

25 equids over the entire course of the event than National or Regional events

(0.4 and 0.0 percent, respectively). National events had a higher percentage of

events (42.0 percent) attended by 250 or more equids than State events (7.9

percent).

i. Percentage of events by number of equids attending over the course of entire

event and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Scope 

 National Regional State All 

Number 

Equids Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 25 0.4 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 25.0 (5.3) 10.4 (2.3) 

26 to 50 5.9 (2.9) 36.2 (7.6) 23.6 (5.1) 19.2 (2.8) 

51 to 99 16.4 (4.7) 25.7 (7.8) 19.6 (4.9) 19.6 (3.2) 

100 

to 249 35.3 (6.0) 19.9 (5.9) 23.9 (5.1) 27.5 (3.4) 

250 

or more 42.0 (6.2) 18.2 (6.8) 7.9 (3.4) 25.3 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

20 / Equine 2005

“Other” events had a higher percentage of events attended by 1 to 25 equids

over the course of the entire event than race/polo, show/trial, and western event/

fair/rodeo events.

j. Percentage of events by number of equids attending over the course of the

entire event and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Number 

Equids Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 25 8.3 (2.8) 3.8 (3.3) 0.0 (--) 33.3 (9.8) 

26 to 50 22.2 (4.2) 3.8 (3.1) 4.6 (2.1) 37.0 (10.0) 

51 to 99 19.7 (4.2) 19.6 (7.2) 21.3 (11.8) 18.5 (8.7) 

100 to 249 32.4 (4.6) 25.5 (7.3) 49.3 (12.7) 1.7 (0.5) 

250 or more 17.4 (3.7) 47.3 (9.0) 24.8 (9.6) 9.5 (6.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates

B. Characteristics

of Equids

1. Age

Overall, the highest percentage of events had equids 18 months to 20 years of

age. Only 7.2 percent of events had attending foals (equids less than 6 months

of age).The percentages of events by age of attending equids at National,

Regional, and State events did not differ, when considering the estimates’

standard errors.

a. Percentage of events by age of attending equids and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State All 

Age Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 

6 months 12.2 (4.2) 4.2 (2.2) 3.8 (2.4) 7.2 (4.3) 

6 months to 

less than 

18 months 32.4 (6.0) 11.8 (4.8) 20.5 (4.9) 23.4 (3.3) 

18 months 

to less than 

5 years 85.2 (4.5) 86.6 (5.4) 67.8 (5.8) 78.4 (3.3) 

5 to 20 

years 100.0 (--) 99.1 (0.7) 92.9 (3.2) 96.9 (1.4) 

More than 

20 years 37.8 (6.2) 34.4 (8.3) 34.7 (5.7) 35.8 (3.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

22 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of show/trial and western event/fair/rodeo events had foals

attend compared to race/polo or “other” events. A higher percentage of show/trial

events had equids 6 to 18 months of age attend compared to western event/fair/

rodeo and race/polo events. A higher percentage of show/trial and western event/

fair/rodeo events (37.8 and 43.5 percent, respectively) had attending equids

more than 20 years of age compared to race/polo events (7.9 percent).

b. Percentage of events by age of attending equids and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Age Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 

6 months 9.9 (3.1) 6.5 (3.1) 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.2) 

6 months to 

less than 

18 months 33.1 (4.8) 10.7 (4.5) 0.0 (--) 13.7 (7.8) 

18 months to 

less than 

5 years 80.8 (4.1) 77.3 (7.8) 86.2 (8.9) 66.6 (10.2) 

5 to 20 years 97.9 (1.4) 99.2 (0.6) 94.7 (4.7) 90.5 (6.8) 

More than 

20 years 37.8 (5.1) 43.5 (9.1) 7.9 (3.1) 28.2 (9.8) 

2. Types of equids

More than one type of equid may have attended events. Horse was defined as

light or draft breed. “Other” included zebra. Overall, horses attended 98.0 percent

of events and ponies 43.2 percent. About 10 percent of events had miniature

horses and mules attend. A higher percentage of events in New York had ponies

attend compared to events in California, Colorado, and Texas. A higher

percentage of events in Colorado (17.1 percent) had miniature horses attend

compared to events in New York (2.9 percent). A higher percentage of events in

Colorado had donkeys attend compared to events in Florida, Kentucky, and New

York. A higher percentage of events in Colorado had mules attend compared to

events in Florida and New York.
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates

a. Percentage of events by type of attending equids and by State:

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Horse 97.8 (2.1) 97.7 (1.1) 95.5 (1.4) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 96.9 (3.0) 98.0 (1.2) 

Pony 36.6 (6.3) 42.4 (4.0) 59.7 (3.8) 56.6 (7.5) 76.2 (7.6) 28.1 (7.0) 43.2 (3.5) 

Miniature 

horse 8.5 (3.9) 17.1 (3.2) 9.4 (2.2) 13.8 (5.3) 2.9 (1.8) 14.3 (5.9) 10.4 (2.5) 

Donkey 2.2 (2.0) 9.9 (2.6) 2.3 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 2.7 (2.0) 2.0 (0.9) 

Mule 16.9 (5.2) 16.8 (3.0) 6.8 (1.6) 15.0 (5.4) 2.0 (1.8) 5.2 (3.6) 10.1 (2.2) 

Other 2.0 (2.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.7 (0.7) 

The percentages of events by type of attending equids and by event scope did

not differ, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Percentage of events by type of attending equids and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Type Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Horse 97.1 (2.5) 100.0 (--) 98.0 (1.8) 

Pony 34.3 (5.6) 57.5 (8.1) 44.7 (5.9) 

Miniature horse 14.1 (4.7) 3.9 (2.2) 10.0 (3.8) 

Donkey 2.8 (1.7) 1.2 (0.6) 1.7 (1.6) 

Mule 10.6 (3.5) 13.1 (5.9) 8.0 (3.3) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 1.7 (1.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates

24 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of show/trial events (54.9 percent) had ponies attend

compared to race/polo events (11.5 percent).

c. Percentage of events by type of attending equids and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Horse 96.6 (2.1) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 

Pony 54.9 (5.1) 29.9 (7.5) 11.5 (3.9) 29.7 (9.8) 

Miniature 

horse 11.7 (3.5) 12.4 (5.7) 2.3 (1.4) 5.3 (4.6) 

Donkey 0.2 (0.1) 4.1 (3.1) 3.5 (2.3) 5.3 (4.6) 

Mule 7.2 (2.5) 8.0 (3.7) 2.1 (1.7) 28.2 (9.8) 

Other 1.2 (1.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates

1. Types of other livestock

Overall, cattle were the most common animals other than equids to attend

events. Similar percentages of events had sheep and goats attend. Events in

Colorado and Texas had a higher percentage of events with cattle compared to

events in California, Florida, Kentucky, and New York. California had the lowest

percentage of events with sheep. “Other” livestock present included rabbits, yak,

bison, poultry, and dogs. Some animals included in the “other” category—e.g.,

dogs, poultry, and rabbits—would not typically be considered livestock but were

reported as such on completed study questionnaires.

a. Percentage of events by type of other livestock present and by State:

C. Livestock Present

at Event

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Cattle 11.9 (4.4) 49.3 (4.0) 12.2 (2.7) 20.0 (5.9) 4.6 (3.9) 59.8 (7.2) 28.8 (3.1) 

Sheep 0.1 (0.1) 17.1 (3.2) 7.4 (2.2) 13.7 (5.4) 6.6 (4.3) 4.2 (2.6) 4.7 (1.3) 

Goats 3.7 (2.5) 15.0 (3.0) 10.0 (2.5) 15.4 (5.4) 7.6 (4.4) 2.4 (2.0) 5.7 (1.4) 

Camelids 

(llamas, 

alpacas) 0.1 (0.1) 7.8 (2.4) 2.6 (1.4) 0.0 (--) 4.6 (3.9) 2.1 (2.0) 1.8 (0.9) 

Pigs 0.1 (0.1) 7.8 (2.4) 2.6 (1.4) 6.0 (3.8) 4.6 (3.9) 2.1 (2.0) 2.4 (1.0) 

Other 0.0 (--) 7.9 (2.5) 0.0 (--) 3.0 (2.8) 9.5 (4.7) 0.0 (--) 2.0 (0.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

26 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

11.9

49.3

12.2

20.0

4.6

59.8

28.8

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All

State

Percent

Percentage of Events with Cattle Present, by State

A higher percentage of National events (45.9 percent) had cattle attend

compared to State events (11.0 percent). The percentages of events with sheep

or goats attending did not differ for National, Regional, and State events, when

considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Percentage of events by type of other livestock present and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Cattle 45.9 (5.9) 31.3 (7.7) 11.0 (4.0) 

Sheep 6.5 (2.5) 8.6 (4.0) 1.0 (0.8) 

Goats 7.4 (2.7) 4.7 (1.9) 4.5 (2.1) 

Camelids (llamas, 

alpacas) 4.3 (2.3) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.1) 

Pigs 4.3 (2.3) 1.6 (1.5) 1.0 (0.8) 

Other 2.7 (1.1) 1.7 (1.5) 1.6 (1.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates

0

10

20

30

40

50

45.9

31.3

11.0

National Regional State

Event Scope

Percent

Percentage of Events with Cattle Present, by Event Scope
Section I: Population Estimates

28 / Equine 2005

Western event/fair/rodeo events had the highest percentage of events (86.9

percent) attended by cattle. A higher percentage of western event/fair/rodeo and

race/polo events had goats compared to show/trial events. Goats are often used

as companions for horses kept at race tracks. A higher percentage of western

event/fair/rodeo events had camelids and pigs compared to show/trial or “other”

events.

c. Percentage of events by type of other livestock present and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Animal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Cattle 13.3 (3.7) 86.9 (4.6) 1.1 (0.7) 13.8 (7.8) 

Sheep 1.9 (0.9) 16.2 (5.3) 1.1 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 

Goats 2.3 (0.9) 11.2 (4.4) 19.1 (9.2) 4.8 (4.6) 

Camelids 

(llamas, 

alpacas) 0.1 (0.1) 7.3 (4.1) 1.1 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 

Pigs 0.7 (0.5) 8.9 (4.3) 1.1 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 

Other 3.1 (1.4) 1.0 (0.4) 1.2 (1.1) 0.0 (--) 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates

D. Requirements for

Attending Equids

1. Health certificates

Overall, 57.1 percent of events did not require a health certificate for equids

attending the event. A higher percentage of events in Kentucky had some health

requirement compared to the other States. “Health certificates only for certain

equids” refers to horses that were a specified distance from the event or for

horses traveling from areas with known disease occurrence.

a. Percentage of events by health-certificate requirement and by State:

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Health 

certificate for 

all equids 10.0 (4.1) 19.7 (3.3) 19.3 (3.1) 52.7 (7.5) 16.0 (6.6) 22.2 (6.6) 20.3 (2.9) 

Health 

certificate 

only for 

equids from 

out of State 11.1 (4.2) 17.7 (2.7) 25.9 (3.3) 30.7 (7.1) 19.9 (6.7) 32.4 (7.8) 22.4 (3.3) 

Health 

certificate not 

required 78.9 (5.3) 55.2 (4.0) 54.8 (3.9) 16.6 (5.5) 64.1 (8.4) 45.4 (8.1) 57.1 (3.6) 

Health 

certificate 

only for 

certain 

equids 0.0 (--) 7.4 (2.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

30 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

10.0

19.7 19.3

52.7

16.0

22.2

20.3

Percent

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All

State

Percentage of Events that Required a Health Certificate for All Equids,

by State

A higher percentage of National events had some health-certificate requirement

compared to Regional and State events.

b. Percentage of events by health-certificate requirement and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Health certificate 

for all equids 32.7 (5.8) 6.8 (2.7) 15.0 (4.2) 

Health certificate 

only for equids from 

out of State 32.2 (6.0) 28.3 (7.5) 9.9 (3.9) 

Health certificate 

not required 34.9 (5.9) 64.9 (7.6) 74.7 (5.3) 

Health certificate 

only for certain 

equids 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates

0

10

20

30

40

32.7

6.8

15.0

National Regional State

Percent

Event Scope

Percentage of Events that Required a Health Certificate for All Equids, by

Event Scope

A higher percentage of race/polo events required a health certificate for all

equids (57.9 percent) compared to show/trial events (14.5 percent).

c. Percentage of events by health-certificate requirement and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Health certificate 

for all equids 14.5 (3.2) 24.4 (7.7) 57.9 (12.5) 20.9 (9.0) 

Health certificate 

only for equids 

from out of State 24.8 (4.5) 27.6 (8.3) 16.2 (9.0) 7.7 (4.0) 

Health certificate 

not required 60.5 (4.8) 48.0 (9.0) 25.9 (11.7) 70.9 (9.1) 

Health certificate 

only for certain 

equids 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

32 / Equine 2005

For events that required a health certificate, 70.7 percent required that health

certificates be inspected visually by an official at the event.

d. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events that required

health certificates be inspected visually by an official at the event:

Percent Events Standard Error 

70.7 (5.4) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

14.5

24.4

57.9

20.9

Show/trial Western

event/fair

rodeo

Race/polo Other

Percent

Event Type

Percentage of Events that Required a Health Certificate for All Equids,

by Event Type
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates

For events that required a health certificate, 10.8 percent received health

certificates in an electronic form.

e. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events that received

health certificates in an electronic form:

Percent Events Standard Error 

10.8 (4.1) 

Health certificates may have been required more than once during an event. For

events that required a health certificate, almost half (45.3 percent) required a

health certificate to enter the event facility, followed by after entering the facility

but prior to competition or sale (38.0 percent of events) and prior to arrival at the

event (23.8 percent of events). “Other” requirements included upon request and

if there was a complaint.

f. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events by when

certificate was required:

Certificate Required . . . Percent Events Standard Error 

Prior to arrival at event 23.8 (5.1) 

To enter facility 45.3 (5.7) 

After entering facility but 

before competition/sale 38.0 (5.4) 

Other 0.3 (0.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates

34 / Equine 2005

Health certificates may have been required for more than one reason. For events

that required a health certificate, approximately 8 of 10 (84.6 percent) required

health certificates for interstate movement, followed by event requirement (41.9

percent of events) and State requirement for intrastate movement (32.3 percent

of events). “Other” reasons included venue requirement (as opposed to event

requirement).

g. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events by reason

certificate required:

Reason Percent Events Standard Error 

State requirement for 

intrastate movement 32.3 (5.1) 

State requirement for 

interstate movement 84.6 (4.1) 

Event requirement 41.9 (5.7) 

Other 4.7 (1.6) 

Information on health certificates may include animal age, sex, breed, owner’s

name, etc. Overall, 17.1 percent of events that required a health certificate

recorded information from health certificates as part of event records.

h. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events where any

information from certificates were recorded as part of event records:

Percent Events Standard Error 

17.1 (4.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates

For events that required health certificates, the consequences of an attendee

showing up without a health certificate varied. The highest percentage of events

(43.9 percent) sent equids without health certificates home, followed by allowed

to stay without quarantine but required to make the animal legal during the event

( 26.7 percent of events). Only 12 percent of events allowed equids without

health certificates to stay without any restrictions. “Other” consequences of not

having health certificates included could stay but not participate in event;

required to send in proof; local veterinarian provides health certificate; do not

check the health certificate, just require it.

i. For events that required health certificates, percentage of events by

consequence of not having required health certificate:

Consequence Percent Events Std. Error 

Sent home 43.9 (6.0) 

Allowed to stay under 

quarantine until made “legal” 10.0 (3.4) 

Allowed to stay without quarantine 

but required to “make animal(s) 

legal” during event 26.7 (5.3) 

Allowed to stay unrestricted 12.0 (4.1) 

Other 7.4 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 

2. Equine infectious anemia (EIA) tests

Overall, nearly two of three events (64.7 percent) required an EIA (Coggins) test

for attending equids. A higher percentage of events in Kentucky, Florida, and

Texas (over 95 percent) required an EIA test compared to events in Colorado,

California, and New York.

a. Percentage of events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids,

by State:

Percent Events 

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

23.1 (5.7) 45.0 (4.0) 97.7 (1.0) 95.5 (1.8) 62.3 (9.3) 96.9 (3.0) 64.7 (2.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

36 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

23.1

45.0

97.7 95.5

62.3

96.9

64.7

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All

State

Percent

Percentage of Events that Required an EIA (Coggins) Test for Attending Equids,

by State

EIA tests are often required for horses traveling interstate, and particularly for

horses traveling between regions. Four of five National events (79.9 percent)

required an EIA test for attending equids compared to State events (47.3

percent).

b. Percentage of events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids,

by event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

79.9 (4.7) 70.2 (7.6) 47.3 (5.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentages of events by event type that required an EIA test for attending

equids did not differ, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

c. Percentage of events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids,

by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

64.0 (4.2) 77.3 (6.7) 70.0 (12.1) 45.9 (9.4) 

For events that required an EIA test for attending equids, the events were equally

likely to require proof of testing prior to arrival, to enter facility, and after entering

but before competition/sale.

d. For events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids,

percentage of events by when proof of test was required:

Proof Required . . . Percent Events Std. Error 

Prior to arrival at event 37.2 (4.7) 

To enter facility 42.9 (4.9) 

After entering but before competition/sale 38.4 (4.9) 

Other 0.8 (0.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates

38 / Equine 2005

For events that required an EIA test for attending equids, the most common

reasons for requiring the test were State requirement for interstate movement,

event requirement, and State requirement for intrastate movement. “Other”

reasons included venue requirement or association requirement. A test may have

been required for more than one reason.

e. For events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids,

percentage of events by reason test was required:

Reason Percent Events Standard Error 

State requirement for 

intrastate movement 81.3 (3.5) 

State requirement for 

interstate movement 94.7 (1.9) 

Event requirement 84.1 (3.7) 

Organization requirement 53.6 (5.1) 

Participants request that 

all equids be tested 14.2 (3.2) 

Health protection of 

equids at event 49.6 (4.9) 

Other 5.1 (2.0) 

Two of three events that required an EIA test (66.7 percent) sent equids without

proof of an EIA test home. “Other” consequences of not having proof of an EIA

test included do not check EIA papers, not allowed to participate in event, and

required to send in proof.

f. For events that required an EIA (Coggins) test for attending equids, percentage

of events by consequences of not having required proof of EIA test:

Consequence Percent Events Standard Error 

Sent home 66.7 (4.5) 

Allowed to stay under 

quarantine until made “legal” 9.8 (2.9) 

Allowed to stay without quarantine 

but required to “make animal(s) 

legal” during event 12.8 (3.3) 

Allowed to stay unrestricted 8.3 (2.7) 

Other 2.4 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Individual animal identification

Overall, about half of events (48.8 percent) verified individual animal

identification (ID). A higher percentage of Texas events verified individual animal

ID compared to California, Colorado, and Kentucky events.

a. Percentage of events that verified individual animal ID, by State:

Percent Events 

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

31.6 (6.3) 43.5 (3.9) 49.7 (3.8) 40.0 (7.6) 42.3 (9.4) 72.4 (7.1) 48.8 (3.7) 

The percentages of events that verified individual animal ID did not differ by

event scope, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Percentage of events that verified individual animal ID, by event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

55.2 (6.0) 52.3 (8.6) 40.8 (6.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

40 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of show/trial events (57.6 percent) verified individual animal

ID compared to “other” events (24.6 percent). Over half of show/trial and race/

polo events verified individual animal ID.

c. Percentage of events that verified individual animal ID, by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

57.6 (4.8) 38.0 (8.9) 59.8 (12.5) 24.6 (9.5) 

The highest percentages of events used match to registration papers and match

to health certificate and/or EIA test paperwork to verify ID. “Other” methods

included entry form, know by sight, and event registration. Events may have used

more than one method to verify ID.

d. For events that verified individual animal ID, percentage of events by method

used to verify ID:

Method Percent Events 

Standard 

Error 

Match to registration papers 48.7 (5.6) 

Match to health certificate 

and/or EIA test paper 55.5 (5.6) 

Microchip scanned 0.1 (0.1) 

Tattoo 12.5 (3.7) 

Freeze brand 11.2 (3.8) 

Brand inspection 6.4 (2.3) 

Bill of sale 2.2 (1.1) 

Event-specific ID 

(backtag, stall number) 20.6 (4.7) 

Smart cards 0.1 (0.1) 

Passport 17.1 (4.0) 

Other 8.5 (3.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Vaccinations

Overall, 14.3 percent of events had some vaccination requirement for attending

equids. A higher percentage of events in New York required some type

vaccination compared to events in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, and Texas.

a. Percentage of events that required any vaccinations for attending equids, by

State:

Percent Events 

State 

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

14.7 (4.6) 4.7 (1.5) 2.3 (0.9) 5.3 (3.0) 41.2 (9.2) 6.1 (4.1) 14.3 (2.6) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

14.7

4.7

2.3

5.3

41.2

6.1

14.3

California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All

Percent

State

Percentage of Events that Required Any Vaccinations for Attending Equids,

by State
Section I: Population Estimates

42 / Equine 2005

The percentages of events that required any vaccinations for attending equids

did not differ by event scope, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Percentage of events that required any vaccinations for attending equids, by

event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

16.8 (4.4) 10.8 (5.5) 13.7 (4.3) 

A higher percentage of race/polo events (52.7 percent) required any vaccinations

for attending equids compared to show/trial and western event/fair/rodeo events

(11.8 and 6.5 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of events that required any vaccinations for attending equids, by

event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

11.8 (3.2) 6.5 (3.7) 52.7 (12.4) 19.9 (8.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates

0

20

40

60

11.8

6.5

52.7

19.9

Show/trial Western event/

fair/rodeo

Race/polo Other

Percent

Event Type

Percentage of Events that Required Any Vaccinations for Attending

Equids, by Event Type

Events may have required more than one type of vaccination. Study participants

were made aware that the vaccine for Venezuelan equine encephalitis was not

the same as the vaccines for West Nile virus (WNV) or Eastern equine

encephalitis (EEE). For events that had some type of vaccination requirement,

about half required vaccinations for herpesvirus, influenza, and rabies. “Other”

vaccines required included tetanus, WNV, and EEE vaccines.

d. For events that required any vaccination of attending equids, percentage of

events by required vaccination:

Percent Events 

Required Vaccination 

Herpesvirus Influenza 

Streptococcus 

Equi (Strangles)

Venezuelan 

Equine 

Encephalitis Rabies Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

46.1 (9.8) 51.5 (9.7) 24.0 (8.6) 27.8 (9.7) 45.7 (9.2) 43.8 (9.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates

44 / Equine 2005

E. Equine Management

During Event

1. Veterinarian hired or provided to monitor for equine illness or provide

care

Overall, 22.8 percent of events had a veterinarian on site (either hired or

provided by a government agency) specifically to monitor attending equids for

illness. The percentages of events that had a veterinarian on site (either hired or

provided by a government agency) specifically to monitor attending equids for

illness did not differ by event scope, when considering the estimates’ standard

errors.

a. Percentage of events that had a veterinarian on site (either hired or provided

by a government agency) specifically to monitor attending equids for illness, by

event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State All 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

29.1 (5.2) 16.9 (6.9) 20.1 (5.1) 22.8 (3.3) 

0

20

40

60

Percent

Required Vaccination

For Events that Required Any Vaccination of Attending Equids, Percentage

of Events by Required Vaccination

HerpesvirusInfluenza Streptococcus

equi (strangles)

Venezuelan

equine

encephalitis

Rabies Other

46.1

51.5

24.0

27.8

45.7

43.8
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of race/polo and “other” events had a veterinarian on site

than did western event/fair/rodeo events.

b. Percentage of events that had a veterinarian on site (either hired or provided

by a government agency) specifically to monitor attending equids for illness, by

event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

22.0 (4.1) 6.5 (3.3) 43.3 (12.7) 41.7 (10.6) 

For events where equids were examined by a veterinarian, the two most

common reasons for the examination were organization requirement (79.3

percent of events) and event requirement (69.3 percent of events).

c. For events where equids were examined by a veterinarian, percentage of

events by reason for veterinary examination:

Percent Events 

Reason for Examination 

State 

Requirement 

Event 

Requirement 

Organization 

Requirement Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

11.9 (4.5) 69.3 (7.3) 79.3 (6.0) 0.0 (--) 
Section I: Population Estimates

46 / Equine 2005

Overall, 67.5 percent of events contracted with a veterinarian or veterinary

practice to provide health care for equids if illness or injury occurred. These are

not necessarily the same veterinarians represented in tables a and b, in

which veterinarians were either hired or provided by a government agency

specifically to monitor equids for signs of illness. The percentages of events

that contracted with a veterinarian or veterinary practice to provide health care

for equids did not differ by event scope, when considering the estimates’

standard errors.

d. Percentage of events that contracted with a veterinarian or veterinary practice

to provide health care for equids, by event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State All 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

73.4 (6.0) 64.9 (8.1) 63.4 (6.1) 67.5 (3.7) 

The percentages of events that contracted with a veterinarian or veterinary

practice to provide health care for equids did not differ by event type, when

considering the estimates’ standard errors.

e. Percentage of events that contracted with a veterinarian or veterinary practice

to provide health care for equids, by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

76.4 (4.5) 49.7 (9.0) 74.2 (9.4) 57.0 (10.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Equine housing at event

Overall, 81.6 percent of events provided equine housing. The percentages of

events that provided housing (e.g., stall, pens) did not differ by event scope,

when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

a. Percentage of events that provided equine housing (e.g., stall, pens), by event

scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State All 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

86.4 (4.2) 69.6 (8.2) 83.1 (4.6) 81.6 (2.9) 

A higher percentage of show/trial events provided equine housing than “other”

events. However, “other” events included organized trail rides, which are not as

likely to provide equine housing.

b. Percentage of events that provided equine housing (e.g., stall, pens), by event

type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

89.9 (2.9) 78.1 (7.1) 78.9 (9.4) 55.0 (10.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates

48 / Equine 2005

For events that provided equine housing, the majority (81.8 percent) routinely did

some form of cleaning and/or disinfecting of housing areas prior to the event.

The percentages of events that provided equine housing and routinely cleaned

and/or disinfected the housing areas prior to the event did not differ by event

scope, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

c. For events that provided equine housing, percentage of events that routinely

cleaned and/or disinfected housing areas prior to event, by event scope:

Percent Events 

Event Scope 

National Regional State All 

Percent Std. 

Error Percent Std. 

Error Percent Std. 

Error Percent Std. 

Error 

87.3 (4.8) 64.8 (10.0) 83.4 (5.4) 81.8 (3.5) 

For events that provided equine housing, all race/polo events routinely cleaned

and/or disinfected housing areas prior to the event.

d. For events that provided equine housing, percentage of events that routinely

cleaned and/or disinfected housing areas prior to event, by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

77.3 (4.9) 87.0 (5.8) 100.0 (--) 88.2 (8.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates

For events that provided equine housing and routinely cleaned and/or disinfected

housing areas prior to the event, the majority (97.9 percent) removed the

manure/bedding of previous occupants. Approximately one-third of events (32.5

percent) washed or scrubbed stalls, and about one-third (33.9 percent) applied

bleach or other disinfectant to stalls. “Other” methods of cleaning or disinfection

included added fresh bedding, water containers cleaned or drinking water

changed, applied lime to stall floors, painted, and kept stalls empty for a time.

e. For events that provided equine housing and routinely cleaned and disinfected

housing prior to the event, percentage of events by cleaning method:

Method Pct. Events Std. Error 

Removed manure/bedding 

of previous occupants 97.9 (1.3) 

Stalls washed/scrubbed 32.5 (4.6) 

Bleach or other 

disinfectant applied to stalls 33.9 (4.6) 

Other 6.7 (2.5) 

0

20

40

60

80

100 97.9

32.5 33.9

6.7

Removed manure/

bedding of

previous occupants

Stalls washed/

scrubbed

Bleach or other

disinfectant

applied to stalls

Other

Method

Percent

For Events That Provided Equine Housing and Routinely Cleaned and

Disinfected Housing Prior to the Event, Percentage of Events by

Cleaning Method
Section I: Population Estimates

50 / Equine 2005

3. Insect control at event

Examples of insect-control measures included spray at facility prior to or during

the event and equine owner applies own insect control. Overall, about half the

events (49.5 percent) did not use insect control on the premises. A higher

percentage of events in Colorado used insect control (63.9 percent) compared to

events in California and Florida (36.8 and 33.8 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of events by use of insect control on the premises and by State:

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Insect 

control 

used 36.8 (6.7) 63.9 (3.5) 33.8 (3.6) 43.5 (7.6) 45.7 (9.6) 43.0 (8.0) 41.8 (3.9) 

Insect 

control not 

used 58.6 (6.9) 36.1 (3.5) 54.3 (3.8) 37.7 (7.4) 39.8 (9.6) 49.6 (8.2) 49.5 (4.0) 

Event not 

held during 

insect 

season 4.6 (3.1) 0.0 (--) 11.9 (2.4) 18.8 (6.0) 14.5 (6.4) 7.4 (4.2) 8.7 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentages of events that used insect control on the premises did not differ

by event scope, when considering the estimates’ standard errors.

b. Percentage of events by use of insect control on the premises and by event

scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Insect control used 47.5 (6.4) 40.4 (8.2) 36.7 (6.2) 

Insect control 

not used 42.6 (6.3) 51.9 (8.4) 55.1 (6.4) 

Event not held during 

insect season 9.9 (3.7) 7.7 (3.8) 8.2 (3.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

A higher percentage of race/polo events used insect control on the premises

than show/trial, western event/fair/rodeo, and “other” events.

c. Percentage of events by use of insect control on the premises and by event

type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Insect control 

used 42.5 (5.2) 35.4 (8.8) 76.4 (9.5) 33.4 (10.2) 

Insect control 

not used 47.4 (5.2) 55.1 (9.2) 23.6 (9.5) 60.8 (10.5) 

Event not held 

during insect 

season 10.1 (2.9) 9.5 (4.8) 0.0 (--) 5.8 (5.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

52 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

Other

Race/polo

Western event/

fair/rodeo

Show/trial

Insect control

used

Insect control

not used

Event not held

during insect

season

42.5

35.4

76.4

33.4

47.4

55.1

23.6

60.8

10.1 9.5

0.0

5.8

Use

Percent

Percentage of Events by Use of Insect Control on the Premises and by

Event Type

Event Type

For events that used insect control on the premises, the highest percentage

reported that the equine owners applied their own insect control. Approximately

four of 10 events (42.7 percent) sprayed at the facility prior to the event, and 18.8

percent sprayed at the facility during the event. “Other” methods of insect control

included insect baits, insect traps, fly predators, city or county insect abatement

program in area of event, bug zapper by doors, and treating of standing water in

area of event. Events may have used more than on type of insect control.

d. For events that used insect control on the premises, percentage of events by

method of insect control:

Method Percent Events Standard Error 

Spray at facility prior to event 42.7 (5.8) 

Spray at facility during event 18.8 (5.1) 

Equine owner applies own insect control 77.4 (5.2) 

Other control used 13.4 (3.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Security methods at event

Overall, 41.8 percent of events had a security guard to ensure the safety of

animals at the event. A higher percentage of Florida events used a security guard

compared to California, New York, and Texas events. Approximately 3 of 10

events (30.6 percent) used a lock on the event entrance/exit gate.

a. Percentage of events by security measures used to ensure safety of animals

and by State:

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Security 

guard 37.3 (6.6) 57.2 (3.7) 67.1 (3.5) 51.8 (7.8) 42.3 (8.5) 39.8 (7.9) 41.8 (3.8) 

Security 

camera 2.0 (2.0) 0.0 (--) 19.6 (3.2) 1.3 (1.0) 5.6 (2.6) 0.0 (--) 2.3 (0.8) 

Lock on gate 

to event 

entrance/exit 41.6 (6.8) 37.9 (4.0) 47.4 (3.9) 24.3 (6.7) 19.0 (6.7) 24.8 (7.1) 30.6 (3.6) 

Ownership 

verified at 

gate when 

exiting 12.6 (4.5) 16.4 (3.1) 30.7 (3.5) 9.6 (4.3) 5.1 (2.6) 5.8 (3.6) 9.4 (2.1) 

Other 

security 

measure 18.5 (5.5) 15.1 (3.1) 2.3 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 11.0 (5.6) 0.0 (--) 8.6 (2.1) 

Any 75.6 5.7 70.6 3.5 81.3 2.9 62.9 7.7 57.3 8.8 57.9 8.1 65.4 3.8 
Section I: Population Estimates

54 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of National events (61.4 percent) used a security guard to

ensure the safety of animals compared to State events (28.2 percent). A higher

percentage of State events (17.1 percent) used “other” security measures

compared to National events (2.1 percent). Other security measures included

locking stalls, knowing all participants, police patrol, self police, dog and alarm,

event organizer on site, or check on horses.

b. Percentage of events by security measures used to ensure the safety of

animals and by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Security guard 61.4 (6.3) 31.7 (8.1) 28.2 (5.5) 

Security camera 1.6 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 4.0 (1.9) 

Lock on gate to 

event entrance/exit 29.4 (5.8) 26.2 (7.3) 34.0 (5.9) 

Ownership verified at 

gate when exiting 10.6 (3.0) 3.4 (1.7) 11.2 (4.1) 

Other security 

measure 2.1 (0.9) 4.1 (3.6) 17.1 (4.7) 

Any 75.1 5.8 54.0 8.8 61.8 6.1 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates

0

20

40

60

80

61.4

31.7

28.2

National Regional State

Event Scope

Percent

Percentage of Events that Used a Security Guard to Ensure the Safety of

Animals, by Event Scope
Section I: Population Estimates

56 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of race/polo events used a security guard to ensure the

safety of animals compared to show/trial and western event/fair/rodeo events.

c. Percentage of events by security measures used to ensure the safety of

animals and by event type:

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western 

Event/Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Security guard 39.6 (5.0) 36.9 (8.7) 81.4 (9.2) 41.0 (10.4) 

Security camera 0.7 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 18.6 (7.0) 4.8 (4.6) 

Lock on gate to 

event entrance/exit 20.1 (4.0) 29.4 (8.3) 47.3 (12.5) 66.8 (10.1) 

Ownership verified 

at gate when 

exiting 8.8 (2.5) 3.8 (3.1) 18.5 (8.5) 16.4 (8.0) 

Other security 

measure 8.4 (2.8) 3.8 (2.3) 12.9 (10.4) 15.0 (7.5) 

Any 59.9 5.0 60.1 9.0 97.3 2.2 81.5 8.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates

5. Event record keeping

Overall, approximately 9 of 10 events recorded participant/owner name, address,

and phone number. Approximately 7 of 10 events recorded equine registration or

ID number, participant/owner e-mail, and trainer name and address. A higher

percentage of show/trial events recorded equine registration number or ID

number compared to western event/fair/rodeo events.

a. Percentage of events by type of records kept and by event type:

Percent Events 

Event Type 

Show/ 

Trial 

Western 

Event/ 

Fair/ 

Rodeo Race/Polo Other All 

Record Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Horse 

registration/ 

ID number 82.3 (4.0) 46.5 (9.0) 56.0 (12.7) 68.7 (9.8) 70.8 (3.6) 

Participant/ 

owner name 100.0 (--) 90.2 (5.3) 94.7 (4.7) 94.5 (5.2) 96.8 (1.4) 

Participant/ 

owner address 97.6 (1.8) 81.7 (7.2) 100.0 (--) 88.0 (7.7) 93.0 (2.2) 

Participant/ 

owner phone 

number 94.3 (2.7) 78.3 (7.4) 100.0 (--) 94.1 (5.2) 91.1 (2.4) 

Participant/ 

owner e-mail 73.6 (4.5) 45.4 (9.1) 88.7 (5.5) 79.4 (9.19) 69.0 (3.7) 

Trainer name 72.6 (4.9) N/A 72.5 (12.2) N/A 72.6 (4.5) 

Trainer 

address 71.0 (4.9) N/A 72.5 (12.2) N/A 71.1 (4.6) 

Trainer phone 

number 65.7 (5.0) N/A 67.2 (12.4) N/A 65.8 (4.7) 

Trainer 

e-mail 51.3 (5.1) N/A 58.5 (12.5) N/A 52.0 (4.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

58 / Equine 2005

Approximately 9 of 10 events used a paper copy to record information, and about

2 of 3 recorded information electronically.

b. For events that kept one or more of the following types of records, percentage

of events by method of recording:

Percent Events 

Method of Recording 

Electronic Paper 

Record Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

Horse 

registration/ 

ID number 67.8 (4.3) 89.1 (3.0) 

Participant/ 

owner name 67.1 (3.8) 90.5 (2.4) 

Participant/ 

owner address 68.6 (3.5) 89.1 (2.7) 

Participant/ 

owner phone 

number 67.9 (3.6) 87.4 (2.9) 

Participant/ 

owner e-mail 78.9 (3.8) 84.3 (3.6) 

Trainer name 69.4 (5.0) 90.4 (2.9) 

Trainer address 69.9 (5.1) 90.2 (3.0) 

Trainer phone 

number 68.2 (5.4) 90.3 (3.2) 

Trainer 

e-mail 77.8 (5.5) 85.0 (4.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates

6. Destination of equids following event

About half of events (55.3 percent) had equids leave the State following the

event, and 1 in 10 events (9.7 percent) had equids leave the United States after

the event. A lower percentage of events in California had equids leave the State

after the event compared to events in the other States.

a. Percentage of events that had equids leave the State or United States after the

event, by State:

 Percent Events 

 State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas All 

Destination Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Left State 28.8 (6.2) 79.3 (3.0) 53.9 (3.8) 78.4 (6.3) 64.6 (9.4) 68.0 (7.2) 55.3 (3.7) 

Left United 

States 6.8 (3.2) 15.9 (3.1) 9.7 (2.3) 9.6 (4.1) 13.2 (5.6) 10.3 (4.9) 9.7 (2.2) 

A higher percentage of Regional and National events had equids leave the State

after the event compared to State events. Approximately 2 of 10 National events

(22.1 percent) had equids leave the United States after the event.

b. Percentage of events that had equids leave the State or United States after the

event, by event scope:

 Percent Events 

 Event Scope 

 National Regional State 

Destination Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Left State 93.8 (3.3) 83.3 (7.0) 4.8 (2.6) 

Left 

United States 22.1 (4.8) 0.0 (--) 2.5 (2.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

60 / Equine 2005

The percentages of events that had equids leave the State or United States after

the event did not differ by event type, when considering the estimates’ standard

errors.

c. Percentage of events that had equids leave the State or United States after the

event, by event type:

7. Method of contacting participants after event*

Event coordinators were asked how they would contact event participants after

the event to notify them about a disease problem. Approximately three-fourths of

respondents (162/222, 73.0 percent) reported that they would contact

participants by telephone. Mail (92/222, 41.4 percent) and e-mail (86/222, 38.7

percent) were also common methods of contact.

About one-fourth of respondents (67/247, 27.1 percent) reported that they had

contacted event participants after an event was over. Most respondents (48/65,

73.8 percent) reported that they had contacted participants by telephone. Mail

and e-mail each were used by about one-fourth of participants who had

contacted participants.

*Because these were open-ended questions, responses were summarized as simple tallies rather

than weighted estimates.

Percent Events 

Event Type 

 Show/Trial 

Western Event/ 

Fair/Rodeo Race/Polo Other 

Destination Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Left State 52.4 (5.0) 71.7 (8.1) 48.3 (12.5) 45.0 (10.7) 

Left 

United States 7.6 (2.3) 14.5 (6.4) 17.6 (8.4) 7.1 (6.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section II: Sampling and Estimation

Section II: Sampling and Estimation

The domestic equine population is a mobile segment of U.S. animal agriculture.

These equids move for multiple reasons, including competition, sale, and

breeding. Understanding the number and scope of equine events—as well as the

methods used to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases at these

events—can help veterinarians and others to best plan for ways to optimize the

health of equids participating in these events. The goal of the NAHMS Equine

2005 Events Study was to determine the scope (number and type) of equine

events in six selected States, the equine health management strategies used at

these events, and the traceability of participating equids once they leave the

events. The ultimate goal was to provide information that could be used to help

prepare for equine infectious diseases, should they occur in equids that have

attended various types of events.

A. State Selection The participating States were selected because they either had a USDAoperated quarantine facility for import of equids (New York, Florida, and

California) or they provided regional representation of States with relatively large

equine populations (Colorado, Kentucky, and Texas).

1. List-building techniques

A comprehensive list of equine events in the six study States did not exist prior to

the start of the NAHMS Equine 2005 Events Study. The events eligible for the list

developed by NAHMS staff were those that advertised the event on the Internet

for the calendar year 2004. During the initial list-building process, it became

apparent that developing a list of local events (events that draw equids only from

the local areas within the State they were held) was very intensive. Given the

focus of the study, list building was limited to events likely to draw equids from at

least a large portion of a State or from out of State. Extensive efforts were made

to identify these larger events.

For sampling purposes, the categorization of the scope of an event was

assigned based on information available from the event Web site. The scope

category was assigned to each event by information contained in the event title,

Web-site format, consistency of listing among several Web-site sources, and

geographic considerations. Events with State scopes were considered likely to

have participating equids primarily from within the State; Regional scope events

were events likely to draw participants from within the State as well as from

contiguous States. National scope events were likely to draw at least some

participants from States that were not contiguous with the event State. National

scope also includes events that may have had equids come from outside the

United States.
Section II: Sampling and Estimation

62 / Equine 2005

Information from Web sites regarding the nature of equine events was used to

categorize the events. Examples of “key” words used to search for events for list

building included polo, training or clinic event, fair, race, rodeo, sale or auction,

show, horse trial, organized trail ride, barrel racing, cutting, and team penning.

The date of each event and its location and name were included on the list. If an

event occurred more than once in a 12-month period (e.g., a sale that occurred

twice in a year with the same event title and at the same premises) it was

entered onto the list both times it occurred but was assigned a common event

identification number.

Once the list of events for each of the six States was developed, the individual

State-level lists were distributed to the NAHMS Equine 2005 Event Study

coordinator in each State to assess the completeness of the list. No events were

added to the list as a result of the individual State reviews.

2. Event selection

The equine event list for the six participating States formed the basis for

selection of equine events. Only events categorized during the list building as

National, Regional, and State scope were eligible. Some events appeared on the

list more than once. For example, a sale may have occurred monthly at the same

facility. An event was selected only once, even if it occurred more than once on

the list. The list was collapsed by letting events appear on the list only once to

evaluate the number of unique events in each State/scope stratum.

A maximum of 60 events were sampled in each State, based on available

resources for data collection. The allocation of samples to each event scope was

based on the total number of events in that stratum and the number of unique

events. Also, National scope events were considered to be of higher importance

because the event might draw a larger number of equine participants who

potentially could move to a large number of locations. This movement after the

event might contribute to tracing difficulties. Considering these three criteria,

sampling intervals (number of events/sample size) were determined for each

stratum in each State.
USDA APHIS VS / 63

 Section II: Sampling and Estimation

Strata population sizes and number of unique events for each of the six

participating States, by event scope:

Population Size 

State 

 California Colorado Florida Kentucky New York Texas 

Scope N 

Unique 

N N 

Unique 

N N 

Unique 

N N 

Unique 

N N 

Unique 

N N 

Unique 

N 

National 171 104 55 16 275 94 37 28 185 64 123 57 

Regional 328 264 312 192 129 100 221 175 156 81 476 310 

State 249 172 115 84 230 107 13 8 140 62 164 100 

Total 748 540 482 292 634 301 271 211 481 207 763 467 

The proposed sampling interval in each stratum was used to identify equine

events that occurred more times than the sampling interval. For example, in

Colorado the proposed sampling interval for the Regional stratum was 10.4.

Three events occurred in the data set 11 or more times (2 occurred 11 times and

1 occurred 22 times). Events were then split into two separate data sets based

on whether the events occurred more frequently on the list than the sampling

interval. If the events occurred more frequently than the sampling interval, the

sampling was considered to be two-stage sampling with the first stage (the

event) being sampled with certainty; the date of that event would then be

selected randomly from all the repeated events. For the Colorado example, there

were 3 events (44 occurrences) at the Regional level sampled with certainty at

the first stage of sampling.

Events that occurred less frequently than the proposed sampling interval were

evaluated. The original sample size in each stratum was reduced by the number

of events selected with certainty. A new sampling interval was calculated based

on the number of remaining events and samples still needed for the State and

scope stratum. Any event that occurred more frequently than the revised

sampling interval was sampled with certainty and removed from the list. A final

sampling interval was calculated for the remaining events on the list and the

remaining sample needed to fill the required sample size. Continuing with the

Colorado example, the revised population size for the Regional stratum in

Colorado was 268. The new sampling interval was 9.93 (268/27). One event

occurred 10 times in the data set and was moved to the two-stage sampling data
Section II: Sampling and Estimation

64 / Equine 2005

set and sampled with certainty. This adjustment slightly altered the sampling

interval to 9.92 (258/26). The data were sorted by event type and a systematic

random sampling was implemented with the survey select procedure in SAS.

This sampling approach allowed for a broader representation of event types

without strictly stratifying the sample by event type. The procedure used the

sampling rate, which is the inverse of the sampling interval (x100).

The second stage of two-stage sampling was completed by randomly selecting

an event from the two-stage sampling list. For each group of first-stage events

(group of repeated events), a single event and its associated date were selected

for inclusion in the study. The event was then assigned a sampling weight equal

to the number of repeated events. For example, the event in Colorado that

occurred 22 times resulted in the selection of an event on a specific date. The

observation was given a weight of 22. The State Fair from each State was

selected with certainty.

3. Population inference

Inferences cover the population of equine events in the six target States listed on

the Web and fit the criteria of being at least State-level in scope. Respondent

data were weighted to represent the population. A portion of the questionnaire

investigated the origin of equids that attended the events. These questions were

used to reclassify the scope of the events. Based on the responses of the

events, a high percentage of events had their scope category change. Notably, of

the 116 responding events considered Regional in scope, only 31 remained

defined as Regional when the questionnaire response was determined. Thus, the

number of events classified as Regional for reporting purposes was substantially

reduced. The inference for scope was based on questionnaire response rather

than list-frame designation.

Comparison of event scope based on Web-site information with the event scope

determined from the questionnaire response:

Scope Based on Questionnaire Response

Web Site 

Scope National Regional State Total 

National 44 5 25 74 

Regional 47 31 38 116 

State 21 15 26 62 

Total 112 51 89 252 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

 Section II: Sampling and Estimation

B. Data Collection Each State was assigned a VMO to act as the NAHMS coordinator for the

Equine 2005 Events Study. A conference call was held with these VMOs prior to

the initiation of the study to clarify the objectives and to review the questionnaire

and list-building methods. Each study coordinator was asked to find the contact

information for event coordinators/organizers for selected events in his/her State

by accessing the Web site provided. NAHMS’ coordinators were then to assign

VMOs or AHTs in the State to contact event coordinators/organizers and set up

an appointment to administer the questionnaire. The questionnaire was

administered either by phone or in person. Questionnaire responses were initially

validated in each State by NAHMS study coordinators. Data entry and further

data validation occurred at USDA’s Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

(CEAH). Data collection for events that occurred in 2005 took place from January

9, 2005, to April 25, 2006.

C. Data Analysis 1. Validation and estimation

Data entry and validation for the Equine 2005 Events Study questionnaire

information were performed by CEAH personnel. Data were entered into a SAS

data set. Individual records were reviewed by a team of equine health specialists

and epidemiologists.

2. Response rates

Of the 367 events selected from the list of events in the 6 States, 34 were not

held or were cancelled for the time frame of this study and were therefore

ineligible for the study. Of the remaining 333 equine events, 252 (75.7 percent of

eligible events) completed the Equine Event questionnaire; 57 events (17.1

percent of eligible events) were inaccessible (contact was not made).

Response 

Category 

Number 

of Events Percent Events 

Percent 

Eligible Events 

Event not held/ 

cancelled this 

year 34 9.3 NA 

Refusal 24 6.5 7.2 

Complete 252 68.7 75.7 

Inaccessible 57 15.5 17.1 

Total 367 100.00 100.0 
Appendix I: Population and Sample Profile

66 / Equine 2005

Appendix I: Population and Sample Profile

 Respondents 

State 

Scope 

(Webbased) 

List 

(Population) Sampled 

Original 

Scope 

Reported 

Scope 

California National 171 19 13 16 

 Regional 328 25 22 4 

 State 249 17 16 31 

Colorado National 55 17 10 22 

 Regional 312 32 25 13 

 State 115 13 8 8 

Florida National 275 23 16 20 

 Regional 129 15 11 2 

 State 230 23 15 20 

Kentucky National 37 15 11 20 

 Regional 221 37 27 14 

 State 13 9 6 10 

New York National 185 26 15 14 

 Regional 156 20 10 9 

 State 140 15 8 10 

Texas National 123 16 9 20 

 Regional 476 30 21 9 

 State 164 15 9 10 

Total 3,379 367 252 252 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

 Appendix II: List of Registries and Events Checked in Each State

Appendix II: List of Registries and Events Checked in Each State

A. Horse Registry American Azteca Horse InterNational Association

American Bashkir Curly Registry

American Buckskin Registry Association, Inc.

American Connemara Pony Society

American Council of Spotted Asses

American Cream Draft Horse Association

American Dartmoor Pony Association

American Hackney Horse Society

American Haflinger Registry

American Hanoverian Society, Inc.

American Holsteiner Horse Association

American Indian Horse Registry, Inc.

American Miniature Horse Association, Inc.

American Miniature Horse Registry

American Morgan Horse Association, Inc.

American Mustang and Burro Association

American Paint Horse Association

American Quarter Horse Association

American Saddlebred Horse Association

American Shetland Pony Club

American Shire Horse Association

American Show Pony Registry

American Sportpony Registry

American Suffolk Horse Association

American Trakehner Association, Inc.

American Walking Pony Registry

American Warmblood Registry, Inc.

American Warmblood Society

American Welara Pony Society

Appaloosa Horse Club, Inc.

Arabian Horse Registry of America, Inc.

Belgian Warmblood Breeding Association—North American District

Caspian Horse Society of the Americas

Cleveland Bay Horse Society of North America

Clydesdale Breeders of the USA

Colorado Ranger Horse Association, Inc.

Dales Pony Association

Dartmoor Pony Registry of America

Federation of North American Sport Horse Registries

Florida Cracker Horse Association Inc.

Galiceno Horse Breeders Association
Appendix II: List of Registries and Events Checked in Each State

68 / Equine 2005

B. Equine Events USEF–United States Equestrian Federation events

NATRC–North American Trail Ride Conference rides

AERC–American Endurance Ride Conference rides

Noncompetitive Trail Riding (State or breed organized trail rides)

(State) Hunter Jumper Association shows

Fox hunting

3-day eventing/horse trials/pair pace events

Stadium jumping (Grand Prix circuit)

Dressage

Steeplechase (National steeplechase)

Rodeos

Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association

Women’s Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association

National High School Rodeo Association

United States College Rodeo Association

Youth Rodeo

National Little Britches Rodeo Association

Indian Rodeo

Barrel racing (National Barrel Horse Association)

Team penning (National Team Penning Association)

Reining (National Reining Horse Association)

Reined cow horse (National Reined Cow Horse Association)

Working ranch horse/versatility ranch horse

Cutting (National Cutting Horse Association)

Team roping (United States Team Roping Championships)

Calf roping (United States Calf Roping Association)

Steer wrestling

Equine auctions and sales

Vaulting

Driving (American Driving Society)

BLM wild horse and burro adoption sales (usgovinfo.about.com)

Racing (Quarter Horse, Thoroughbred, Standardbred pacing and trotting,

Arabian, Appaloosa)

Clinics (Pat Parelli, John Lyons, Richard Shrake, Natural Horsemanship, etc.)

Mounted shooting

Polo matches

Fairs

Draft horse pulls and shows
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Focus on health practices that could impact the occurrence of equine

infectious diseases.

• Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005,

November 2006

• Highlights of Equine 2005 Part I information sheet, November 2006

• Equine Identification and Familiarity with the National Identification System

information sheet, November 2006

• Nonambulatory Equids in the United States information sheet, November 2006

• Demographics of the U.S. Equine Population information sheet, March 2007

2. Determine health-management factors related to the control of equine

infectious diseases, as implemented on-farm in the 28 participating States.

• Equine Biosecurity and Biocontainment Practices on U.S. Equine Operations

information sheet, November 2006

3. Compare relevant data collected in 2005 to data collected during the NAHMS

Equine ’98 study.

• Part II: Changes in the U.S. Equine Industry, 1998-2005, March 2007

• Trends in Equine Mortality, 1998–2005 information sheet, March 2007

• Movement of U.S. Equids, 2005 information sheet, March 2007

4. Help identify trends in equine health management related to the control of

equine infectious diseases.

• Part II: Changes in the U.S. Equine Industry, 1998-2005, March 2007

• Trends in Equine Infectious Anemia Testing (EIA) 1998–2005 information sheet,

March 2007

• Trends in Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Equine Operations information sheet,

March 2007

5. Gather data specific to equine vaccination.

• Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005,

November 2006

• Vaccination Practices on U.S. Equine Operations information sheet, December

2006

6. Determine the scope (number and type) of equine events in six selected

States, the equine health management strategies used at these events, and the

traceability of participating equids once they leave the events.

• Baseline Reference of Equine Health Management Strategies at Equine

Events in Six States, May 2007