Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavior and physiologic responses of mares to removal from an established pasture herd and to isolation in a pasture setting for 6 h (Group I, n=5). Responses of mares in Group I were compared to mares that were transported and returned to the herd (Group T, n=5) and to mares moved to the isolation pasture with a companion (Group C, n=5). Behavior was recorded continuously for 6 h on the day before the isolation procedures (baseline, Day 0) and again on the day of the procedure (test, Day 1). Plasma cortisol, white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (N:L), and hematocrit (HCT) were measured once on Day 0 (a.m.) and twice on Day 1 (a.m. and p.m.). Heart rate (HR) was monitored continuously during Day 0 and Day 1. Intradermal response to phytohemagglutinin (PHA) injection was measured 18 h following injection, which was administered at the end of Day 1. Average time spent standing alert increased (P<0.05) in Groups I and C and average time spent grazing decreased (P<0.05) in Group C from Day 0 to Day 1. Also, there was a significant difference between groups (based on a calculated χ2-square value) in the proportion of mares that autogroomed, defecated, urinated, rolled, and whinnied on Day 1. Activity shift rate (ASR) and temperament scores increased significantly in Groups I and C from Day 0 to Day 1 (P<0.05). Plasma cortisol increased significantly in all groups from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05) and decreased significantly from Day 1, a.m. to Day 1, p.m. (P<0.05). HCT significantly increased in all three groups from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05). WBC significantly increased in Group T from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05). N:L ratio significantly increased in Groups I and C from Day 0 and Day 1, a.m. to Day 1, p.m. (P<0.05). A variety of measures did indicate a response to removal from the pasture group, however, the overall, short-term response was minimal. Since the responses of Groups I and C were similar, the effects of isolation versus a novel environment or separation from the established herd could not be differentiated.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate behavioral compliance of horses and ponies with simulated intranasal vaccination and assess development of generalized aversion to veterinary manipulations. DESIGN: Clinical trial. ANIMALS: 28 light horse mares, 3 pony geldings, 2 light horse stallions, and 3 pony stallions that had a history of compliance with veterinary procedures. PROCEDURE: Behavioral compliance with 2 intranasal vaccine applicators was assessed. Compliance with standard physical examination procedures was assessed before and after a single experience with either of the applicators or a control manipulation to evaluate development of generalized aversion to veterinary manipulation. RESULTS: In all 30 horses, simulated intranasal vaccination or the control manipulation could be performed without problematic avoidance behavior, and simulated intranasal vaccination did not have any significant effect on duration of or compliance with a standardized physical examination that included manipulation of the ears, nose, and mouth. Results were similar for the 2 intranasal vaccine applicators, and no difference in compliance was seen between horses in which warm versus cold applicators were used. For 3 of the 6 ponies, substantial avoidance behavior was observed in association with simulated intranasal vaccination, and compliance with physical examination procedures decreased after simulated intranasal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although some compliance problems were seen with ponies, neither problems with compliance with simulated intranasal vaccination nor adverse effects on subsequent physical examination were identified in any of the horses. Further study is needed to understand factors involved in practitioner reports of aversion developing in association with intranasal vaccination.

Abstract: Each of 104 horses and ponies was approached for catching at pasture by the same human handler in a standard manner, either maintaining human-to-animal eye contact (EC+; n = 51) or avoiding eye contact (EC-; n = 53). A subset of 74 of these subjects were reevaluated 3 weeks later under similar standard conditions except with the eye contact condition opposite to that used in the first round. Nonparametric statistical methods were used to evaluate between subjects (round 1, n = 104) and within subjects (rounds 1 and 2, n = 74) comparisons of successful or unsuccessful catching outcome with EC+ and EC-. Catching outcomes were similar with eye contact condition. Although this study represents a single handler at one study site, results suggest that human-to-horse eye contact may not be an important influence on catching pastured horses. Certainly, further work is needed to better understand the role of eye contact in horse handling.

Abstract: This presentation will include commentary on work presented at this meeting as representative of the rapidly growing body of equine behavior science evidence relevant to human-horse interaction and the welfare of domestic, feral, and wild horses.
A substantial literature has accumulated detailing the behavior patterns of wild and feral equid populations, and to some extent the behavior of horses in various domestic environments. Professor Klingel“s and Professor Houpt”s work, begun nearly 40 years ago, continues to inspire colleagues around the world to qualitatively and quantitatively describe behavior of equids in a variety of environments. Several examples of the importance of this type of work to human-horse interaction and horse welfare are evident in throughout the meeting. It forms the basis for assessing the disturbance of behavior in wildlife management projects such as fertility manipulations (Hopkins; Ransom & Cade) or species reintroduction (Kaczensky et al). Study of the apparent variability in observations among the populations will lead to a better understanding of environmental and other factors, which will have fruitful application to welfare of horses both in domestic and natural environments. Unfortunately, this work always brings to mind what I perceive as a nagging threat to horse welfare and quality of human-horse interaction is misinformation concerning natural horse behavior. Natural horse behavior seems to be of great general interest, but unfortunately inaccuracies and misinterpretations are pervasive in popular “horse culture” and continue to be a conspicuous influence on management and training of domestic horses. Unfortunately, this misinformation often makes its way and influences equine education, both lay and equine science/veterinary education. Comparative observational study of behavior of horses in all settings by trained behaviorists, along with research designed to address purported implications for management of domestic horses, along with initiatives to transfer knowledge to educators at all levels should be encouraged.

Included in this meeting is considerable work addressing questions of domestic management practices such as forced weaning, transportation, stabling, and arbitrary grouping and regrouping of horses. This adds to a growing body of applied physiology and behavior research that has established trained behaviorists as a critical resource on teams making decisions on humane management.
Also well represented in work presented at this meeting is the exploration of cognition, perception, and temperament in horses. It is personally pleasing to see examples of direct investigation of the ability of the horse to respond to subtle human posture and gesture, which for many of us has represented just annoying possible confounders of earlier cognition studies. Behaviorists trained in perception and learning will no doubt contribute enormously to this exciting area of investigation.