Abstract: Horses are likely to exhibit aggression when meeting for the first time. Therefore, this study compared 3 methods for mixing horses to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing aggressive interactions: (1) mixing pairs of horses in a paddock (P, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (2) introducing 1 unfamiliar horse to a pair of familiar, resident horses in a paddock (PP, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (3) allowing limited physical contact between pairs of horses for a short period of pre-exposure in neighboring boxes (B, 5 minutes, 16 tests) before mixing them in a paddock (BP, 10 minutes 16 tests). A total of 16 Swedish Standardbred mares, aged 6-18 years (mean age ± SD: 11 ± 4.4), were included in the study. Half of the horses were familiar with each other (resident horses, n = 8), whereas the other half were bought in from a variety of sources (unfamiliar horses, n = 8). Social interactions, consisting of behaviors from the sender, the receiver, and the subsequent sender's response, were recorded continuously as frequencies. There were no differences in the frequencies of aggressive behaviors between the 3 mixing methods, including those aggressive behaviors in which physical contact had been attempted (kick, strike). Although resident horses were overall more aggressive (median number of aggressive behaviors per horse, 62; Q1, 36; Q3, 68.5) than unfamiliar horses (median per horse, 4; Q1, 2; Q3, 12.5) during all tests (U = 97, P = 0.003), none of the 62 tests needed to be terminated. Unfamiliar horses did not receive more aggression from resident horses in PP (mean per test ± SD: 5.1 ± 3.1) than in P (mean per test ± SD: 6.4 ± 4.9) (t = 0.63, P = 0.544). However, the behavior “attack” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 2; Q1, 0; Q3, 5) than in P (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (U = 282, P = 0.042), and “flee” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 6; Q1, 4; Q3, 8) than in P (median per test, 1; Q1, 0; Q3, 6) (U = 290, P = 0.018). Pre-exposure in boxes did not reduce aggression in BP (median per test, 7; Q1, 4.3; Q3, 11.8) as compared with P (median per test, 6; Q1, 2; Q3, 16) (U = 264, P = 0.767), but during pre-exposure in B tests, horses exchanged more nonaggressive (median per test, 2; Q1, 0.3; Q3, 4) than aggressive (median frequency of aggressive behavior, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 71, P = 0.013) and mixed interactions (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 92, P = 0.016) through the opening. Results suggest mixing an unfamiliar horse with 2 resident horses at the same time instead of one by one may be preferable. In this way, the total aggression received by the unfamiliar horse will potentially be less, even though aggressive interactions may be more intense.

Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.

Abstract: To describe and then fulfill agricultural animals' needs, we must learn more about their fundamental psychological and behavioral processes. How does this animal feel? Is that animal suffering? Will we ever be able to know these things? Scientists specializing in animal cognition say that there are numerous problems but that they can be overcome. Recognition by scientists of the notion of animal awareness has been increasing in recent years, because of the work of Griffin and others. Feeling, thinking, remembering, and imagining are cognitive processes that are factors in the economic and humane production of agricultural animals. It has been observed that the animal welfare debate depends on two controversial questions: Do animals have subjective feelings? If they do, can we find indicators that reveal them? Here, indirect behavioral analysis approaches must be taken. Moreover, the linear additivity of several stressor effects on a variety of animal traits suggests that some single phenomenon is acting as a “clearinghouse” for many or all of the stresses acting on an animal at any given time, and this phenomenon might be psychological stress. Specific situations animals may encounter in agricultural production settings are discussed with respect to the animals' subjective feelings.

Abstract: By definition, punishment makes a response less likely in the future. Because horses are largely trained by negative reinforcement, they are susceptible to inadvertent punishment. Delays in the release of pressure can make desirable responses less likely and thus punish them. This study examines the correct use of negative reinforcement and identifies a continuum between poorly timed negative reinforcement and punishment. It explores some of the problems of non-contingent punishment and the prospect of learned helplessness and experimental neurosis. It concludes by introducing the concept of ethical equitation.