Knowledge and priorities of UK and European equine industry stakeholders regarding equine genetics

The field of equine genetics has progressed considerably in the 21st century (Kalbfleisch et al., 2018, Bailey et al., 2022), with a wide range of genetic tests available and considerable research efforts examining different aspects of genomics and various genetic traits (Hamilton, 2024, McFadden et al., 2024, Puchalska and WitkowskaPiłaszewicz, 2025). A recent survey was conducted in the USA to assess knowledge and priorities of stakeholders in the industry to help direct future research efforts (Hernandez et al., 2025). In this study, we conducted a similar survey in UK and European stakeholders.<br/><br/>The survey was run from July to December 2024, targeting horse owners and industry professionals in the UK and mainland Europe using a snowball sampling method. Closed-ended and free text questions regarding their genetics knowledge, their experience and concern around genetic diseases, communication and information sources, and their priorities for genetics research were asked. We also tested respondents’ knowledge by asking 6 <br/>genetics questions of approximately secondary school biology level, requesting they answer ‘do not know’ if they were not certain of their answer, and generated a total knowledge score where respondents received 0 for an incorrect answer, 1 for ‘do not know’ and 2 for a correct answer. Descriptive statistics were produced, and closedended questions were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman’s correlations. The knowledge test score and self-reported knowledge scores were also transformed to a common percentile scale for analysis of over- and under-estimation of knowledge. Thematic analysis of free text responses is ongoing.<br/><br/>There were 177 responses, with the largest age category being 31-50 years old (n=94, 53%). The most common industry role was owner (n=78, 44%) followed by breeder (n=36, 20%), and the primary horse type worked with was sports horses (n=96, 54%) and native ponies (n=29, 16%). Respondents typically owned/cared for 1-5 horses (n=108, 61%), and their main activity was leisure riding (n=46, 26%), breeding (n=35, 20%) or dressage (n=26, 15%). The most common primary horse breeds worked with were warmbloods (n=63, 36%), other breeds (n=15, 8%) and a combination of breeds (n=11, 6%).<br/><br/>The majority of respondents (n=119, 67%) felt they had a ‘solid’ understanding of genetics (rank 3 of 4), and the lowest mean ranked information source was breed/discipline organisations (mean rank=2.59, SD=1.98), followed by universities (mean rank=3.16, SD=2.27), however respondents reported preferring to receive information via magazines/newsletters (n=103, 58%). The top three genetic diseases respondents were concerned about were osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) (n=65, 37%), polysaccharide storage myopathy type 1 (PSSM1) (n=55, 31%) and cervical vertebral stenotic myelopathy (CVSM) (n=54, 31%), whilst the disease most encountered by participant was none (n=103, 58%) followed by OCD (n=60, 34%). Respondents were interested in knowing the level of geneticdiversity in their horses (n=117, 68%) and in testing for performance genes (n=91, 51%). The mean genetics knowledge score was 8.67 out of 12 (SD=2.47) – the only significant difference in score between industry roles were in scientists, who had higher scores than breeders (U=209, p=0.033) and trainers (U=48, p=0.035).<br/><br/>There was a significant but moderate correlation between self-reported genetics knowledge level and the test score (ρ=0.33, p=5.95e-6). When compared on a common percentile scale, 46.9% (n=83) overestimated their own knowledge, whilst 53.1% (n=94) underestimated, showing no evidence of a skew to overconfidence (binomial p=0.816). However, lower performing respondents were more likely to overestimate than higher performing respondents: 69% of the lowest quartile and 74% of Q2 overestimated their knowledge, compared to 14% in Q3 and 23% in Q4.<br/><br/>Overall, our responding stakeholders had both knowledge and interest in equine genetics, with key priorities for future research in genetic disease, genetic diversity and performance traits identified. Future opportunity for outreach and communication of ongoing research to industry is also clear. However, we also present evidence of a pattern consistent with a Dunning-Kruger effect in our sample.<br/><br/>References:<br/>Kalbfleisch TS, Rice ES, DePriest Jr MS, Walenz BP, Hestand MS, Vermeesch JR, O′ Connell BL, Fiddes IT, Vershinina AO and Saremi NF 2018. Improved reference genome for the domestic horse increases assembly contiguity and composition. Communications Biology 1, 197.<br/>Bailey E, Petersen JL and Kalbfleisch TS 2022. Genetics of Thoroughbred Racehorse Performance. Annual review of animal biosciences 10, 131-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-020420-035235<br/>Hamilton NA 2024. Genetic Basis of Equine Performance. In Equine Sports Medicine and Surgery, pp. 114-127, Elsevier.<br/>McFadden A, Vierra M, Martin K, Brooks SA, Everts RE and Lafayette C 2024. Spotting the pattern: A review on white coat color in the domestic horse. Animals 14, 451.<br/>Puchalska M and Witkowska-Piłaszewicz O 2025. Gene doping in horse racing and equine sports: Current landscape and future perspectives. Equine Veterinary Journal 57, 312-324.<br/>Hernandez S, Nastrini E, Norton E, McCoy AM, Brooks SA and Mienaltowski MJ 2025. U.S. stakeholder survey examining understanding of equine genetics and concerns for genetic diseases. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 148, 105508.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2025.105508<br/>