|
Appleby, M. (2002). Consciousness, Cognition and Animal Welfare: J.K. Kirkwood, R.C. Hubrecht, S. Wickens, H. O'Leary, S. Oakley (Eds.), Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 2001, 251 pp., Paperback, Supplement to Volume 10 of Animal Welfare, [pound sign]15/US$ 30, ISSN 0962-7286. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 77(3), 239–241.
|
|
Duncan, I. J. H., & Petherick, J. C. (1989). Proceeding (Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the Society for Veterinary Ethology, London, Great Britain, 30 November 1988)Cognition: The implications for animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 24(1), 81–1010.
|
|
Appleby M. (2002). Consciousness, Cognition and Animal Welfare – J.K. Kirkwood, R.C. Hubrecht, S. Wickens, H. O'Leary, S. Oakley (Eds.), Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 2001, 251 pp., Paperback, Supplement to Volume 10 of Animal Welfare, 15/US$ 30, ISSN 0962-7286. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 77, 239–241.
|
|
Gough, M. R. (1999). A note on the use of behavioural modification to aid clipping ponies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 63(2), 171–175.
|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Fraser, A. F. (1988). Przewalski horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 21(1-2), 1–3.
|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Rudman, R. (2002). Foreword to special issue on equine behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 78(2-4), 83–85.
|
|
Hall, C., Crowell-Davis, S. L., & Warren, R. J. (1993). Maternal and developmental behavior of the feral horses of Cumberland Island, Georgia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 37(1), 85.
|
Williams, J. L., Friend, T. H., Nevill, C. H., & Archer, G. (2004). The efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during acquisition and extinction of an operant task in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 88(3-4), 331–341.
Abstract: “Clicker training” is a popularly promoted training method based on operant conditioning with the use of a secondary reinforcer (the clicker). While this method draws from theories of learning and is used widely, there has been little scientific investigation of its efficacy. We used 60 horses, Equus callabus, and assigned each horse to one of six reinforcement protocols. The reinforcement protocols involved combinations of reinforcers administered (primary versus secondary plus primary), schedule of reinforcement (continuous versus variable ratio), and reinforcers applied during extinction (none or secondary). There were no differences (P>=0.11) between horses which received a secondary reinforcer (click) followed by the primary reinforcer (food) and those which received only the primary reinforcer (food) in the number of trials required to train the horses to touch their noses to a plastic cone (operant response). There also were no differences (P>=0.12) between horses which received the secondary reinforcer plus primary reinforcer and those which received only the primary reinforcer in regards to the number of trials to extinction. We conclude that there is no difference in the amount of training required to learn the operant task or in the task's resistance to extinction between horses that received a secondary reinforcer followed by a primary reinforcer versus horses which received only a primary reinforcer.
|
Crowell-Davis, S. L., Houpt, K. A., & Carini, C. M. (1986). Mutual grooming and nearest-neighbor relationships among foals of Equus caballus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 15(2), 113–123.
Abstract: A 3-year study was carried out on the developmental behavior of foals from birth to 24 weeks of age and the behavior of mares living with foals. Mutual-grooming partners of foals were primarily other foals. The peak frequency of mutual grooming occurred during Weeks 9-12, when fillies mutual-groomed 1.6 times h-1 and colts mutual-groomed 0.9 times h-1. Fillies mutual-groomed more frequently than colts (P < 0.025). Fillies mutual-groomed randomly with colts and other fillies (P < 0.05), whereas colts mutual-groomed almost exclusively with fillies (P = 0.03). At all ages studied, if a foal's nearest neighbor was not its mother, it was more likely to be another foal than would be expected if the foal was associating randomly with non-mother ponies. Fillies were more likely than expected to have a filly rather than a colt as their nearest neighbor (P = 0.01). Thus, during their first few months of life, the foals studied exhibited patterns of behavior which were consistent with the development of the usual social milieu of unmanaged adults, in which several mares form a cohesive herd with one or more stallions associating with them.
|
Anderson, M. K., Friend, T. H., Evans, J. W., & Bushong, D. M. (1999). Behavioral assessment of horses in therapeutic riding programs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 63(1), 11–24.
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.
|
