Abstract: Sixteen horses were used to determine if number of trials given per training session (5, 10, 15 or 20) affected learning performance in an avoidance conditioning task. The horse had to move from one side of a test pen to the other during an auditory cue presentation to avoid aversive stimulation. A pen 8 mx3.6 m, divided into two equal sections by a 13-cm diameter plastic pipe lying on the ground, was used as the test pen. Painted plywood panels were fastened to the fence in half the pen to help horses distinguish visually between the two parts. A 10-s auditory cue was used as a signal for horses to move from one side of the test pen to the other. A 20-s intertrial interval was used. Training sessions were conducted every third day. Each trial was recorded as an avoidance (the horse completed the task during auditory cue presentation and avoided aversive stimulus) or an error (the horse received aversive stimulus). After completing ten consecutive avoidances (criterion), the horse was removed from the study. Numbers of training sessions, trials, avoidances and errors until reaching criterion were recorded for each horse. Horses varied greatly within these variables with ranges of 3-18 sessions, 37-121 trials, 20-68 avoidances and 17-53 errors to criterion. No differences were detected (P>0.05) in the number of conditioning trials per training session (treatment) for the mean number of trials, avoidances or errors to criterion. Number of training sessions to criterion differed (P<0.01) among treatments, indicating that an optimum number of learning trials per training session might exist. Mean sessions to criterion for horses receiving 5, 10, 15 and 20 trials per session were 15.1+/-1.3, 5.8+/-1.1, 5.3+/-1.1 and 4.6+/-1.1, respectively. Regression analysis indicated that 16.2 trials per training session would minimize number of sessions to criterion. Although it is widely assumed that learning efficiency in horses is decreased when intense activity is concentrated into a small number of sessions, these results indicate that moderate repetition of training activities is needed for efficient learning.

Abstract: Social licking patterns of heifer and steer herds were observed and recorded during periods of resting and intermittent feeding. The results revealed the following features: (1) heifers and steers had 15.0 and 15.2 social licking interactions per hour which lasted for 37.8 and 41.0 s on average, respectively. The average time an animal spent licking was about 25 s per hour; (2) all the animals in the herds were licked by others, but only 72.3% of the animals licked other animals; (3) the animals close in the social hierarchy tended to lick each other for a longer time than did remote animals; (4) the time receiving l licking and weight gain tended to be positively correlated. The observations suggest that (1) the motivation of giving licking may be individual-specific and may be influenced by genetic factors, while that of receiving licking appears to be general, and that (2) social licking may mean not only cleaning the skin and hair of a passive partner, but also leading it to psychological stability.

Abstract: It has been suggested that during instrumental learning, animals are likely to react emotionally to the reinforcer. They may in addition react emotionally to their own achievements. These reactions are of interest with regard to the animals' capacity for self-awareness. Therefore, we devised a yoked control experiment involving the acquisition of an operant task. We aimed to identify the emotional reactions of young cattle to their own learning and to separate these from reactions to a food reward. Twelve Holstein-Friesian heifers aged 7-12 months were divided into two groups. Heifers in the experimental group were conditioned over a 14-day period to press a panel in order to open a gate for access to a food reward. For heifers in the control group, the gate opened after a delay equal to their matched partner's latency to open it. To allow for observation of the heifers' movements during locomotion after the gate had opened, there was a 15m distance in the form of a race from the gate to the food trough. The heart rate of the heifers, and their behaviour when moving along the race towards the food reward were measured. When experimental heifers made clear improvements in learning, they were more likely than on other occasions to have higher heart rates and tended to move more vigorously along the race in comparison with their controls. This experiment found some, albeit inconclusive, indication that cattle may react emotionally to their own learning improvement.

Abstract: The millennia-old practices of horse training markedly predate and thus were isolated from the mid-twentieth century revelation of animal learning processes. From this standpoint, the progress made in the application and understanding of learning theory in horse training is reviewed including a discussion of how learning processes are employed or otherwise under-utilised in training. This review describes the process of habituation and the most commonly applied desensitisation techniques (systematic desensitisation, counter-conditioning, overshadowing, response prevention) and propose two additional techniques (approach conditioning and stimulus blending). The salience of different types of cues, the interaction of operant and classical conditioning and the impact of stress are also discussed. This paper also exposes the inflexibility and occasional inadequacy of the terminology of learning theory when translated from the research laboratory situation to the practical setting in horse training. While learning theory provides a rich toolbox for riders and trainers, the training process is subject to the simultaneous use of multiple learning processes. In addition, learning/behavioural outcomes and trained responses are not just the result of simple stimulus-response based interactions but are further shaped by arousal, affective and attachment states. More research is needed in these areas. For the field of equitation science to progress and to improve clarity and use of learning processes, changes in nomenclature are required. In particular, the use of the terms 'positive' and 'negative' as descriptive labels in both reinforcement and punishment modalities are unacceptably misleading for everyday use. These labels inhibit the understanding and recognition of the learning processes that these terms supposedly represent, yet the learning processes they describe are vital for horse riders, handlers and trainers to understand. We therefore propose that these labels should be re-labelled more appropriately as 'addition' or 'subtraction' reinforcement/punishment. This would enlighten trainers on the correct application of learning theory, and safety and welfare benefits for people and horses would follow. Finally it is also proposed that the term 'conflict theory' be taken up in equitation science to facilitate diagnosis of training-related behaviour disorders and thus enable the emergence of improved training practices. The optimal use of learning theory should be established as a fundamental principle in equestrian education.

Abstract: Domestic horses are faced with social challenges throughout their lives due to limitations in social contact, space restrictions and frequent changes in social companionship. This is in contrast to natural conditions where horses live in relatively stable harem bands. Currently, little is known about how repeated regrouping affect horse behaviour and welfare, and it is unknown whether horses may adapt to regrouping. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of an unstable group structure, caused by weekly regroupings, on behaviour and frequency of injuries in young horses. Forty-five horses were included in the study and were randomly assigned to the treatments; Stable (S; seven groups of three horses) or Unstable (U; eight groups of three horses). The experimental period lasted 7 weeks, during which horses in Stable groups remained in the same group, whereas one horse was exchanged between Unstable groups every week. The groups were kept in 80m×80m grass-covered enclosures and were fed additional roughage on the ground daily. Social interactions were recorded in Unstable groups immediately after each regrouping (30min), and in both Stable and Unstable groups on day 1, 3 and 6 after each regrouping (2×20min/group/day). Injuries were scored by the end of the experimental period. The level of aggression shown by horses in Unstable groups immediately after regrouping was not affected by week (F5,35=0.42, P=0.83), indicating that horses neither habituated, nor sensitized, to repeated regrouping. Compared to horses in Stable groups, more agonistic behaviour was shown by horses in Unstable groups (i.e. non-contact agonistic; F1,65=5.60, P=0.02), whereas there was no treatment effect on other variables. The level of play behaviour appeared, however, to be more variable in Unstable groups. There was a significant effect of week on the level of contact agonistic interactions as well as greeting behaviour, due to a high occurrence in weeks 4-6. Non-contact agonistic interactions constituted the major part of agonistic interactions (66%). Possibly as consequence, no serious injuries were registered and there was no treatment effect (U=184; P=0.11). We conclude that the behaviour of young horses is affected by group management, and that horses appear not to adapt to weekly regroupings.