Abstract: Recent interest has focused on the advantage of intensively handling young foals as a means of producing more tractable horses, accustomed to humans and receptive to training. To date, the effect of this intensive handling, dubbed “imprint training” in the popular literature, has not been tested. The present study compares seven foals handled intensively as neonates with eight untreated controls. The handling protocol started from 2-8 h after birth and continued daily for a total of 5 days. The protocol consisted of a series of stimuli and experiences that were each repeated until the foal no longer resisted or reacted negatively. Subsequently, foals were tested before weaning, at 4 months of age. Results indicated that handled foals (HF) ranked higher than control foals (CF) in subjective ratings of calmness (*P<0.0117) and friendliness (*P<0.0001) and in several specific handling tasks (venipuncture *P<0.0220; placing in stock *P<0.0128). Although, in approach tests all foals but one allowed approach of a person to 4 m, significantly more HF approached the person than CF (P<0.0080). In stimulus tests, foals were presented specific stimuli to which they had been tested as neonates. Two of eight CF were too unruly and dangerous to test. Of foals that could be tested, CF required significantly more time to hook-up a heart rate monitor (**P<0.0055). Split-plot analysis indicated that HF had lower heart rates to initial left-sided stimuli, presented first, than CF (*P<0.0421). In response to right-sided stimuli, heart rate scores of CF were not significantly different from HF (P<0.2259), suggesting reduced reactivity over time due to a learning effect. Behavioral responses to specific stimuli did not differ between CF and HF, suggesting that neonatal handling has a general rather than specific effect on subsequent behavior. Cortisol concentrations were measured before and after testing and the difference calculated. All foals had higher post-testing levels than pre-testing levels. There was a significant difference between HF and CF, indicating greater reactivity among the CF (*P<0.050). In general, the results indicated that foals handled as neonates were more tractable and less reactive. Specific neonatal handling tasks, such as sticking a finger up the foal's nose or patting the bottom of the foot, seemed to have no beneficial effect on related tasks such as passing a nasogastric tube or tapping with a farrier's hammer at 4 months of age. Mechanisms for the observed effect of neonatal handling require further investigation.

Abstract: An early training procedure commonly termed “foal imprint training” is widely promoted in the horse industry. However, there have been no published scientific investigations of its efficacy. This study determined the effects of a training procedure on foals and their reaction to stimuli used in the early training procedure, and to a novel stimulus, at 1, 2 and 3 months of age. Twenty-five foals received a standard training procedure at 2, 12, 24, and 48 h after birth. After the training procedure, the foals received minimal additional handling that included veterinary treatments and occasional relocation. Twenty-two foals born over the same time period served as controls. All 47 (25 trained, 22 control) foals were tested at 1 month of age. Only 20 were available for testing at 2 months of age, and nine were available at 3 months. Percentage change from baseline heart rate, time required to complete exposure to each stimulus (foals that were more reactive took longer) and the behavior of each foal during the introduction of each stimulus were recorded. Overall, the control foals tended to receive lower (better) behavioral scores at 1 and 2 months of age. Foals that underwent the training procedure tended to require less time to complete exposure to the stimulus and had lower heart rates during exposure to the stimuli at 1 and 2 months of age. By 3 months of age, there were no significant differences between trained and control foals for any measures. Early training was not efficacious in this study.

Abstract: Soiled bedding influences cleanliness and disease levels in dairy cows and there is no evidence of an inherent latrine behaviour in cattle. If cows were trained to use a concrete area of the housing system as a latrine, a cleaner bed could be maintained. Thirteen group-housed, 14-16-month-old Holstein-Friesian heifers, were clicker trained with heifer-rearing concentrate pellets as a reward. Training was carried out in four phases. (Phase 1) Association of feed reward with clicker, criterion: 34/40 correct responses. (Phase 2) Simple task (nose-butting a disc) to reinforce phase 1 association, criterion: 17/20 correct responses. (Phase 3) Association of eliminative behaviour with reward where criterion was four sessions with only one incorrect response: criteria for each heifer in phases 1-3 were set using binomial tests. (Phase 4) Shaping eliminative behaviour to occur on concrete. Possible responses were, eliminating on concrete (C) or straw (S), or moving from one substrate to another immediately before eliminating: C --> S, S --> C. Heifers were rewarded for the desired behaviours C and S --> C and ignored when S and C --> S occurred. If learning was achieved, C should increase as C --> S decreased and S --> C should increase as S decreased: tested with Spearman rank correlations. All heifers achieved criterion by day 4 of phase 1 (P = 0.001); day 1 of phase 2 (P = 0.001) and day 10 of phase 3 (P < 0.009). Responses changed throughout phase 3 beginning with (i) looking at the trainer whilst voiding then moving to trainer after the click, and later including (ii) moving to trainer immediately before- or (iii) during voiding. No relationship was found between S and S --> C (rs = -0.14; P = 0.63) or C and C --> S (rs = -0.33; P = 0.25). All group members eliminated more often on concrete (580) than on straw (141) but four heifers with consistently longer lying bouts also showed more C --> S before lying down (Mann-Whitney, P = 0.007). The present study is believed to be the first reported work to show that cattle can be trained to show an awareness of their own eliminative behaviour. This was not successfully shaped to latrine behaviour, however, and it is suggested that floor type may not have been a sufficiently salient cue. Voiding on straw occurred largely with response C --> S (0.73) and general behaviour suggested that this was strongly linked to lying patterns of individual heifers.

Abstract: Among equestrians the “natural” training methods of horses are gaining widespread popularity due to their spectacular efficiency. Underlying philosophy of trainers – founders of different “natural horsemanship training” (NHT) schools, along with other not well documented statements includes argumentation of solely welfare- and human-friendly effects of NHT in the horse. The aim of this review was to screen scientific papers related to NHT to answer the question whether „natural“ training methods may actually exert only positive effects upon equine mental state and human-horse relationship. It appears that NHT trainers may reduce stress and emotional tension and improve learning processes as they appropriately apply learning stimuli. Basing on revised literature it can be concluded that training is successful provided that [i] the strength of the aversive stimulus meets sensitivity of an individual horse, [ii] the aversive stimulus is terminated at a right moment to avoid the impression of punishment, and [iii] the animal is given enough time to assess its situation and make an independent decision in the form of adequate behavioural reaction. Neglecting any of these conditions may lead to substantial emotional problems, hyperactivity, or excessive fear in the horse-human relationship, regardless of the training method. However, we admit that the most successful NHT trainers reduce aversive stimulation to the minimum and that horses learn quicker with fear or stress reactions, apparently decreasing along with training process. Anyway, NHT should be acknowledged for absolutely positive role in pointing out the importance of proper stimulation in the schooling and welfare of horses.

Abstract: The long-held belief that human dominance and equine submission are key to successful training and that the horse must be taught to [`]respect' the trainer infers that force is often used during training. Many horses respond by trialling unwelcome evasions, resistances and flight responses, which readily become established. When unable to cope with problem behaviours, some handlers in the past might have been encouraged to use harsh methods or devices while others may have called in a so-called [`]good horseman' or [`]horse whisperer' to remediate the horse. Frequently, the approaches such practitioners offer could not be applied by the horse's owner or trainer because of their lack of understanding or inability to apply the techniques. Often it seemed that these [`]horse-people' had magical ways with horses (e.g., they only had to whisper to them) that achieved impressive results although they had little motivation to divulge their techniques. As we begin to appreciate how to communicate with horses sensitively and consistently, misunderstandings and misinterpretations by horse and trainer should become less common. Recent studies have begun to reveal what comprises the simplest, most humane and most effective mechanisms in horse training and these advances are being matched by greater sharing of knowledge among practitioners. Indeed, various practitioners of what is referred to here as [`]natural horsemanship' now use techniques similar to the [`]whisperers' of old, but they are more open about their methods. Reputable horse trainers using natural horsemanship approaches are talented observers of horse behaviour and respond consistently and swiftly to the horse's subtle cues during training. For example, in the roundpen these trainers apply an aversive stimulus to prompt a flight response and then, when the horse slows down, moves toward them, or offers space-reducing affiliative signals, the trainer immediately modifies his/her agonistic signals, thus negatively reinforcing the desired response. Learning theory and equine ethology, the fundamentals of the emerging discipline of equitation science, can be used to explain almost all the behaviour modification that goes on in these contexts and in conventional horsemanship. By measuring and evaluating what works and what does not, equitation science has the potential to have a unifying effect on traditional practices and developing branches of equitation.