Abstract: A behavioral assessment of horses who were being used and not used in therapeutic riding programs was conducted to help determine useful methods of selecting horses for use in therapeutic riding programs. A total of 103 horses (76 horses from five therapeutic riding centers and 27 non-therapeutic riding horses from four sites) were used. Temperament survey for each horse were completed by three riding instructors at each therapeutic riding center or by the individual most knowledgeable about the horse at the other sites. Twenty personality traits from the survey were used to quantify temperament. Concentrations of plasma cortisol, norepinephrine and epinephrine were also measured in each horse. A reactivity test was then conducted which involved introducing three novel stimuli: a walking and vocalizing toy pig placed on a cardboard surface in front of the horse for 20 s; popping a balloon near the horse's flank area; and suddenly opening an umbrella and holding it open in front of the horse for 20 s. Reactions (expressions, vocalizations and movement) to each of the stimuli were scored and used to calculate an average reactivity score for each horse. The therapeutic riding instructors did not often agree on the temperament of their center's horses. The personality trait ratings made by the therapeutic riding instructors at each center were on average significantly correlated (P<0.01, r>0.52) for only 37.8% of the horses for any two instructors and 7.8% for three instructors. No significant correlations were found between temperament, reactivity, and the hormone concentrations (r<0.19), but regression analysis indicated a possibility of predicting temperament from the reactivity score and hormone concentrations (P<0.08). There was also a tendency for relationships between extremes in temperament (desirable vs. undesirable) and the hormone concentrations (P<0.09), and between extremes in reactivity (low vs. high) and the hormone concentrations (P=0.08). The difference in ratings among riding instructors indicates a need for more collaboration between instructors when evaluating horse temperament. This study also indicates that it was very difficult to objectively determine the suitability of horses for therapeutic riding programs regarding their temperament and reactivity, probably because other traits (e.g., smoothness of gait) are also considered very important.

Abstract: Abstract Considering the ever-growing demand of various breeding organizations for an objective, inexpensive, reliable, and easily conducted assessment of the behavior of horses, the aim of our study was to implement a novel-object test and a startling test into any kind of breeding performance testing to assess horses' temperament. Additionally, the influence of testing areas (familiar or unfamiliar), riders, and horse factors such as levels of training, breed, and age were of interest. Furthermore, recommendations for the practical implementation concerning the parameters should be given. Therefore, 1,028 horses over a period of 3 years participated in a temperament test consisting of 5 different stimuli. The horses were either ridden (61.8 %) or led by hand (38.2 %) by an unfamiliar professional rider (N = 43) or a familiar rider (N = 20). Live behavioral observations were taken by a trained observer. Overall, horses' scores for reactivity in the present temperament test were distributed over the whole scale, with lower means and higher standard deviations (6.7 ± 2.2-7.6 ± 2.1) than corresponding scores from the conventional personality evaluation in performance tests (7.7 ± 0.8-8.2 ± 0.5; P < 0.01). High correlations (r = 0.3-0.9; P < 0.001) between the scores for reactivity and the other behavioral parameters (emotional expression, activity, time to calm down, rider's aids) show a large influence of these parameters in assessing the horses' temperament. Factors like breed type, sex, and age had significant influences (P < 0.001) on different scores of the temperament test. In most cases, the rider or handler had no influence on the different scores assessed during the temperament test. The training level and the testing modus never had a significant influence on different scores. Only the testing station or location had a small influence on the scores for the stimulus “bridge” in some horses. Based on the results, it could be concluded that an implementation of a temperament tests into performance testing is possible during various types of testing procedure. Especially the assessment of reactivity, emotional expression, interest in the stimulus and rider's aids during and after passing the stimulus, as well as the time to calm down are important parameters for analyzing the horses' personality.

Abstract: Current scores for equine personality traits assessed during performance tests are characterised by high means and inadequate variation, hampering genetic selection for these traits. A number of temperament and related behaviour tests have been developed in order to make assessment of equine personality more objective. However, rarely these tests have been validated for their use as a selection tool. Thus, as a first step the aim of the present study was to integrate a temperament tests into horse performance tests, in order to assess variability and repeatability of horses’ reactivity under the rider and the reliability of the judges’ assessment thereof. The temperament test was comprised of three novel stimuli, including a visual stimulus (BALL), a visual and tactile stimulus (GATE), and a visual and auditory stimulus (CANS). A total of 224 mares and stallions were subjected to the test during their participation in station performance tests for riding horses, and 133 of these horses were subjected to the test a second time either 2–3 weeks or 18 weeks after the first test. Horses were ridden in the test by professional riders, and their reactions to the stimuli were evaluated each by two judges and the rider using scores on a scale from 1 (task not concluded) to 10 (completely calm but attentive horse). Mean scores (±SD) ranged between 6.6 ± 2.4 (GATE) and 7.8 ± 2.1 (BALL), demonstrating lower means and considerably higher standard deviations than the same horses’ scores from present evaluation of the trait labelled temperament (8.1 ± 0.9) or related personality traits (e.g. character: 8.3 ± 0.8). Using variance components from mixed model analysis, inter-observer agreement between the two judges was for the individual stimuli very high (0.95 (BALL), 0.96 (GATE), 0.89 (CANS)), and there was likewise high agreement between the judges’ and the riders’ combined scores (0.93). Repeatabilities of horses’ scores were 0.72 (BALL), 0.75 (GATE), and 0.69 (CANS). Correlations to traits from the present evaluation of personality were low or non-existent, indicating that these traits are not a reflection of anxiety or fear reactivity as assessed by novel object tests. Horses’ improvement in judges’ combined scores from first to second test was not (P > 0.1) influenced by differences in time between tests, but differed between breed-types and individual riders. Also, not surprisingly, the higher horses’ scores in the first test were, the lower their improvement in the second test was (-0.45 ± 0.06 per additional score in the first test). Temperament tests using novel stimuli presented to horses under a rider may be a practical and valid tool for improving the current assessment of equine personality traits during performance tests. Considering a combination of absolute scores and horses’ improvement in scores of repeated tests, rather than measuring only absolute scores yields relevant information about horses’ personality, and at the same time it may prevent owners from deliberately training their horses for low reactions to the test-stimuli.

Abstract: Differences in behavioural characteristics between individuals of the same species are often described as being due to the temperament of the individuals. These differences can have enormous implications for welfare with some individuals apparently being able to adapt to environmental challenge more easily than others. Such differences have resulted in animals often being described as either `active' copers, which try to escape from or remove an aversive stimulus, or `passive' copers, which show no outward signs of a situation being aversive, thus, appearing to be unaffected. Tests previously developed to assess the temperament of animals have been criticised for several reasons. Behaviour is often recorded and categorised using methods that are not objective and tests are generally carried out once with no consideration of whether or not behavioural responses are consistent over time. This study takes these factors into account. The behaviour of 33 horses was recorded in three types of test--an arena test, response to a person and response to an object. In order to test whether or not responses were consistent over time, the tests were repeated three times with an average of 9 days between trials. Test results were validated using responses from questionnaires completed by the farm team leader. The data were analysed using an initial principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis. The horses were found to behave consistently over the three trials in their responses in the arena test. The responses to the person test and the object test were similar to each other; however, these responses were not consistent over trials. The behaviour in the arena test was unable to be used to make a prediction of behaviour in the person and object tests and vice versa. The responses shown by the horses did not enable them to be categorised as either active or passive copers. Behavioural responses in the tests were not predictive of the response to a startle test (water spray), nor could they be used to predict status or response to being reintroduced to the group after testing. There was no relationship between the responses in the tests and the ratings given by the farm team leader. It was concluded that horses vary widely in their responses to artificial behavioural tests, with only the responses to an open-field arena test being consistent over time, and therefore, the only type of test which can indicate some core factor of temperament.

Abstract: Four methods of ranking horses on reactivity were evaluated and compared: isolation from conspecifics, presentation of a static novel stimulus, traversing a novel stimulus in a runway (isolation, novel stimulus and runway tests, respectively) and assigning subjective emotionality scores. In all tests, horses' heart rates were recorded and behaviour was videotaped. To be considered a valid test of reactivity, at least one heart rate and one behavioural measurement in the test had to change significantly between treatments (tranquilizer administation versus sham tranquilizer administration), and behavioural measures had to be displayed in at least 75% of the trials. Forty horses performed each of the three tests daily on three different days in a switchback design. Horses were assigned randomly to a daily test sequence, which was maintained throughout the study. In the runway test, no significant difference in heart rate values in tranquilized and non-tranquilized horses was found, and no behavioural attribute was displayed in more than 52% of the trials; therefore it was rejected as a valid test of reactivity. Both isolation and novel stimulus tests produced valid measurements. Mean heart rate was the most precise physiological measure for these tests, and walking and defecation frequency were the most precise behavioural measures for novel stimulus and isolation tests, respectively. Mean heart rates on the novel stimulus and isolation tests were correlated (rs = 0.79, P < 0.01) indicating that these tests produced similar rankings based on physiological responses. However, behavioural measures ranked horses differently (rs = 0.27, P < 0.10) on the tests. Rank correlations between mean heart rates and behavioural measures were higher in the novel stimulus (rs = 0.66, P < 0.01) than the isolation test (rs = 0.55, P < 0.01), indicating that the novel stimulus test ranked horses based on either physiological or behavioural responses more similarly than did the isolation test. Therefore, the novel stimulus test was considered the more accurate evaluation of reactivity. Subjective emotionality scores were correlated moderately with mean heart rates (rs > 0.33, P < 0.01) from the novel stimulus and isolation tests and with walking scores (rs = 0.47, P < 0.01) from the novel stimulus test. Assignment of subjective emotionality scores was not as accurate as the novel stimulus or isolation tests in ranking horses for reactivity. Using physiological data alone, combining physiological and behavioural measurements or using more than one behavioural measurement in reactivity tests may reflect the reactivity of the horse better than a single behavioural measurement.