THOROUGHBRED stud farms need specific protection when large-scale renewable energy developments are proposed nearby, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in the Irish Veterinary Journal recently.

The authors call for independent veterinary assessments, site-specific separation distances and developer-funded mitigation measures to address potential risks to mares, foals and youngstock.

They also identify a gap between Ireland’s animal welfare and planning systems, arguing that current planning legislation does not specifically require equine welfare to be considered when developments are proposed beside breeding establishments.

The paper, Large-scale energy infrastructure projects and thoroughbred stud farms: equine welfare, evidence gaps and planning considerations, is open access and therefore freely available for anyone to read. Scan the QR code for full access.

Its authors are Professor Warwick Bayly, Professor of Equine Medicine, Washington State University; D.R. Hodgson, Professor Emeritus, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine; and Dr Desmond Leadon of the Irish Equine Centre.

Large-scale solar

The commentary examines the potential effects of large-scale solar and wind developments, including construction noise, visual disturbance, dust and emergency access.

The authors acknowledge that direct research into the effects of these developments on neighbouring Thoroughbred breeding stock remains limited. However, they argue that established knowledge of equine behaviour, sensory physiology and respiratory health provides sufficient grounds for precautionary assessment.

“The current absence of direct equine-specific evidence should therefore prompt further research rather than regulatory inaction,” they conclude.

Breeding establishments

The paper distinguishes the needs of breeding establishments from those of premises keeping mature riding horses.

Pregnant mares, newborn foals and youngstock routinely move between paddocks, foaling areas and handling facilities. Mares’ protective responses towards their foals add another consideration when unfamiliar or unpredictable activity occurs nearby.

Construction noise receives particular attention, especially the repeated pile driving used to install solar-panel supports.

The authors argue that assessments should consider horses’ responses to sudden and irregular noise, rather than relying solely on thresholds developed for people or residential properties.

They also caution against using observations of experienced racehorses tolerating racecourse noise as evidence of acceptable exposure for mares and foals in normally quiet paddocks.

Visual disturbance, including machinery movements, warning lights, reflections and turbine blades, should receive site-specific consideration. The paper does not establish that these stimuli routinely cause adverse welfare outcomes, but identifies credible reasons to assess them.

Dust from excavation, disturbed soil and construction traffic presents a further potential exposure pathway. Recommended measures include baseline air-quality assessment, dust monitoring, suppression and traffic management.

Mare-and-foal paddocks

The authors argue that measures required because of a development should be paid for as part of that development, rather than by neighbouring stud farms.

Options include acoustic barriers, construction scheduling and appropriate separation from sensitive areas, such as foaling units and mare-and-foal paddocks.

However, mitigation has limitations. Moving horses may be impractical where alternative land is unavailable, while prolonged stabling can restrict movement and social contact. Repeated sedation is rejected as a sustainable response to recurrent disturbance.

The paper also calls for emergency planning. Although fires involving solar installations appear relatively infrequent, smoke, evacuation difficulties and changes to access routes could have serious consequences for adjacent equine premises.

Independent expert scrutiny

The authors report differing approaches to bloodstock concerns in Irish planning decisions, with such issues recognised in some cases and discounted in others.

They recommend veterinary-reviewed animal welfare impact statements, independent expert scrutiny and monitoring that separately addresses construction and operational risks.

While separation requirements exist or have been proposed elsewhere, these generally concern homes and do not establish a universal safe distance for horses. Distances should reflect each development and the animals exposed. It’s also important to note that the authors recognise renewable energy as necessary and clearly state the case for a planning system that assesses equine risks fairly and consistently.