Abstract: Horses are one-sided, not only on a motor level, but they also prefer to use one eye, ear or nostril over the other under particular circumstances. Horses usually prefer using the left eye to observe novel objects and humans. This preference is more marked in emotional situations and when confronted with unknown persons. Thus the horse’s visual laterality provides a good option for assessing its mental state during training or in human-horse interactions. A strong preference for the left eye may signal that a horse cannot deal with certain training situations or is emotionally affected by a particular person.
Pferde benutzen für die Begutachtung von Objekten und Menschen bevorzugt eine bestimmte Nüster, ein Ohr oder ein Auge. So betrachten die meisten Pferde Objekte und Menschen mit dem linken Auge. Die Lateralitätsforschung erklärt diese sensorische Lateralität mit der Verarbeitung von Informationen unterschiedlicher Qualität in verschiedenen Gehirnhälften und zeigt auf, dass positive und negative emotionale Informationen sowie soziale Sachverhalte mit dem linken Auge aufgenommen und vorwiegend an die rechte Gehirnhälfte weitergegeben werden. In diesem Zusammenhang ermöglicht die visuelle Lateralität, den Gemütszustand des Pferdes im Training und im therapeutischen Fördereinsatz zu erkennen und zu berücksichtigen.

Abstract: Horses kept in stalls are deprived of opportunities for social interactions, and the performance of natural behaviors is limited. Inadequate environmental conditions may compromise behavioral development. Initial training is a complex process and it is likely that the responses of horses may be affected by housing conditions. Sixteen 2-year-old Arabian horses were kept on pasture (P) (n=8) or in individual stalls (S) (n=8). Twelve horses (six P and six S) were subjected to a standardized training procedure, carried out by two trainers in a round pen, and 4 horses (two P and two S) were introduced to the round pen but were not trained (C; control). On sample collection day 0, 7, 21 and 28, behavior observations were carried out, blood samples were drawn and heart rates were monitored. Total training time for the stalled horses was significantly higher than total time for the pastured horses (S: 26.4+/-1.5 min; P: 19.7+/-1.1; P=0.032). The stalled group required more time to habituate to the activities occurring from the start of training to mounting (S: 11.4+/-0.96; P: 7.3+/-0.75 min; P=0.007). Frequency of unwanted behavior was higher in the stalled horses (S: 8.0+/-2.0; P: 2.2+/-1.0; P=0.020). Pastured horses tended to have higher basal heart rates on day 0 (S: 74.7+/-4.8; P: 81.8+/-5.3 bpm; P=0.0771). While the physiological data failed to identify differences between housing groups, the behavioral data suggest that pasture-kept horses adapt more easily to training than stalled horses.

Abstract: In ethical discussions, a cost-benefit analysis requires that welfare costs associated with an activity can be reliably estimated and balanced against the potential benefits of the activity to both humans and animals. The current study applies a meta-analysis to the peer-reviewed evidence for costs and benefits of hyperflexion of the neck in horses; a practice that has attracted enormous public and scientific scrutiny over the past 15 years. A literature review identified 55 studies dealing with horses’ head and neck postures. Fourty-two of these studies examined the impact of various postures on equine welfare, for example, by assessing behavior, physiological stress parameters, health or rider-horse interaction. Thirty-five studies examined the impact of various postures on gymnastics (e.g. kinematics, shifts in weight distribution, muscle activity, airway functioning or overall workload). For the meta-analysis a dataset containing information from each of the individual studies was created. Data included information such as type, degree, duration and circumstances of hyperflexion applied in that particular study as well as information on the horses (e.g., sport discipline, level of training, breed) and on the study design (e.g., size of study and experimental or epidemiological research design). The results of the study regarding the impact of hyperflexion on a) welfare and b) gymnastics were coded as positive (1), insignificant or contradictory (0) or negative (-1). The significant majority of studies (88%) concluded that a hyperflexed head and neck posture negatively impacts welfare. Just one study suggested welfare advantages of training in a hyperflexed head and neck posture. An analysis using a generalized linear mixed model to assess the influence of the above factors collated in the dataset revealed that none of these factors significantly influenced the probability of a study to detect negative welfare implications. Thus hyperflexing the neck appears to impair horses’ welfare regardless of, for example, the duration or the way of achieving hyperflexion. A concurrent assessment of the evidence for gymnastic benefits showed that approximately one quarter of studies conclude that there may be benefits, while another quarter of the studies conclude that hyperflexion has detrimental effects on gymnastics. Thus, on the costs-side there is a clear reduction in equine welfare and some undesirable gymnastic effects, as well as likely a compromised profile of the equestrian sports in public. Benefits, on the other hand, include some desirable gymnastic effects, and potentially increased control of the horse for the rider. On balance, it appears that the costs associated with hyperflexion exceed the potential benefits of the activity to both humans and horses.

Abstract: In general, codes that have been designed to safeguard the welfare of animals emphasize the importance of providing an environment that will ensure good health and a normal physiological and physical state, that is, they emphasize the animals' physical needs. If mental needs are mentioned, they are always relegated to secondary importance. The argument is put forward here that animal welfare is dependent solely on the cognitive needs of the animals concerned. In general, if these cognitive needs are met, they will protect the animals' physical needs. It is contended that in the few cases in which they do not safeguard the physical needs, it does not matter from a welfare point of view. The human example is given of being ill. It is argued that welfare is only adversely affected when a person feels ill, knows that he or she is ill, or even thinks that he or she is ill, all of which processes are cognitive ones. The implications for welfare of animals possessing certain cognitive abilities are discussed. For example, the extent to which animals are aware of their internal state while performing behavior known to be indicative of so-called states of suffering, such as fear, frustration, and pain, will determine how much they are actually suffering. With careful experimentation it may be possible to determine how negative they feel these states to be. Similarly, the extent to which animals think about items or events absent from their immediate environment will determine how frustrated they are in the absence of the real item or event but in the presence of the cognitive representation.

Abstract: In North America, there are few representative data about the effects of management practices on equine welfare. In a randomized survey of 312 nonracing horses in Prince Edward Island (response rate 68.4%), owners completed a pretested questionnaire and a veterinarian examined each horse. Regression analyses identified factors affecting 2 welfare markers: body condition score (BCS) and stereotypic behavior. Horses' BCSs were high (mean 5.7, on a 9-point scale) and were associated with sex (males had lower BCSs than females; P < 0.001) and examination date (P = 0.052). Prevalences of crib biting, wind sucking, and weaving were 3.8%, 3.8%, and 4.8%, respectively. Age (OR = 1.07, P = 0.08) and hours worked weekly (OR = 1.12, P = 0.03) were risk factors for weaving. Straw bedding (OR = 0.3, P = 0.03), daily hours at pasture (OR = 0.94, P = 0.02), and horse type (drafts and miniatures had a lower risk than light horses; P = 0.12) reduced the risk of horses showing oral stereotypies. Some of these results contradict those of other studies perhaps because of populations concerned.