|
|
Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim. Welf., 13(1), 63–69.
Abstract: Historically, pet dogs were trained using mainly negative reinforcement or punishment, but positive reinforcement using rewards has recently become more popular. The methods used may have different impacts on the dogs� welfare. We distributed a questionnaire to 364 dog owners in order to examine the relative effectiveness of different training methods and their effects upon a pet dog�s behaviour. When asked how they trained their dog on seven basic tasks, 66% reported using vocal punishment, 12% used physical punishment, 60% praise (social reward), 51% food rewards and 11% play. The owner�s ratings for their dog�s obedience during eight tasks correlated positively with the number of tasks which they trained using rewards (P<0.01), but not using punishment (P=0.5). When asked whether their dog exhibited any of 16 common problematic behaviours, the number of problems reported by the owners correlated with the number of tasks for which their dog was trained using punishment (P<0.001), but not using rewards (P=0.17). Exhibition of problematic behaviours may be indicative of compromised welfare, because such behaviours can be caused byor result ina state of anxiety and may lead to a dog being relinquished or abandoned. Because punishment was associated with an increased incidence of problematic behaviours, we conclude that it may represent a welfare concern without concurrent benefits in obedience. We suggest that positive training methods may be more useful to the pet-owning community.
|
|
|
|
Henderson, A. J. Z. (2007). Don't fence me in: managing psychological well being for elite performance horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 10(4), 309–329.
Abstract: This article posits that stereotypical behavior patterns and the overall psychological well being of today's performance horse could be substantially enhanced with care that acknowledges the relationship between domesticated horses and their forerunners. Feral horses typically roam in stable, social groups over large grazing territories, spending 16-20 hr per day foraging on mid- to poor-quality roughage. In contrast, today's elite show horses live in relatively small stalls, eat a limited-but rich-diet at specific feedings, and typically live in social isolation. Although the horse has been domesticated for more than 6000 years, there has been no selection for an equid who no longer requires an outlet for these natural behaviors. Using equine stereotypies as a welfare indicator, this researcher proposes that the psychological well being of today's performance horse is compromised. Furthermore, the article illustrates how minimal management changes can enhance horses' well being while still remaining compatible with the requirements of the sport-horse industry. The article discusses conclusions in terms of Fraser, Weary, Pajor, and Milligan's “integrative welfare model” (1997).
|
|
|
|
Dalla Costa, E., Dai, F., Lebelt, D., Scholz, P., Barbieri, S., Canali, E., et al. (2016). Welfare assessment of horses: the AWIN approach. Anim. Welf., 25(4), 481–488.
Abstract: The EU-funded Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) research project (2011-2015) aimed to improve animal welfare through the development of practical on-farm animal welfare assessment protocols. The present study describes the application of the AWIN approach to the development of a welfare assessment protocol for horses (Equus caballus). Its development required the following steps: (i) selection of potential welfare indicators; (ii) bridging gaps in knowledge; (iii) consulting stakeholders; and (iv) testing a prototype protocol on-farm. Compared to existing welfare assessment protocols for other species, the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses introduces a number of innovative aspects, such as implementation of a two-level strategy focused on improving on-farm feasibility and the use of electronic tools to achieve standardised data collection and so promote rapid outcomes. Further refinement to the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses is needed in order to firstly gather data from a larger reference population and, secondly, enhance the welfare assessment protocol with reference to different horse housing and husbandry conditions.
|
|
