Abstract: Veterinary and management procedures often are aversive to the animals, resulting in physiological and behavioural stress reactions, which increase the risk of accidents and might lower performance. We investigated the effects of previous positive handling and of gentle interactions during the procedure on behaviour and heart rate in dairy cows during rectal palpation with sham insemination. Twenty cows were allocated randomly into two groups of 10 animals: handling, received additional positive handling over a period of four weeks by one person (handler); control, only routine handling by different caretakers. The week after the handling period, tests lasting 9 min, including 4 min rectal palpation, were carried out with each animal on four successive days in four situations in a balanced order: cow is alone during the test, with the handler, with an usual caretaker, or with an unknown person. Behaviour and heart rate were recorded. Previously handled animals had lower heart rate during tests (P<=0.05, n=19), kicked less when alone (P<=0.05, n=19) and tended to show less restless behaviour (P<=0.1, n=19). Cows were further calmed by gentle interactions during the test, but people differed remarkably. Cows showed less restless behaviour when gentled by the handler, both in the 4 min of rectal palpation and in the 9 min test period (each: P<=0.001, n=19). No significant stress reducing effect was found for the other two persons. In conclusion, stress reactions of cows during rectal palpation/insemination can be reduced by previous positive handling as well as by a person providing positive, gentle interactions during the procedure. The results underline the importance of positive, gentle interactions with the animals to enhance animal welfare and reduce the risk of accidents. They also show that people differ in the success to calm down the animals in aversive situations and indicate the need to investigate the characteristics responsible for the differences and identify the preconditions for a stress reducing effect in future research.

Abstract: Rollkur, the usually coercively obtained hyperflexion of the horse's neck, is employed as a training method by some dressage riders; however, its use is controversial as it may cause discomfort and adversely affect the horse's welfare. The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) if horses showed differences in stress, discomfort and fear responses as measured by heart rate and behaviour when ridden in Rollkur (R) obtained by pressure on the reins compared to regular poll flexion (i.e. with the nose-line being at or just in front of the vertical; N), and (2) if they showed a preference between the two riding styles when given the choice. Fifteen riding horses were ridden 30 times through a Y-maze randomly alternating between sides. Riding through one arm of the Y-maze was always followed by a short round ridden in R, whereas riding through the other arm was followed by a short round ridden in N. Immediately after the conditioning phase, horses were again repeatedly ridden into the maze; however, riders left it to the horse to decide which arm of the maze to enter. During R, horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks (P < 0.05), and 14 of the 15 horses chose significantly (P < 0.05) more often the maze-arm associated with N rather than R. Subsequently, eight of the horses were also subjected to two fear tests following a short ride in N as well as a ride in R. During R, horses tended to react stronger (P = 0.092) to the fear stimuli and to take longer (P = 0.087) to approach them. These findings indicate that a coercively obtained Rollkur position may be uncomfortable for horses and that it makes them more fearful and therefore potentially more dangerous to ride. Further studies need to assess horses' reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion, in order to decide whether the practice should be banned.

Abstract: The human-horse relationship forms an essential component in the diversity of todays use of horses. The reactions of horses to interactions with humans are mostly the result of interplay between their own temperament; the temperament and skills of the human and their previous experience – with humans. Moreover, the understanding of the human-horse relationship may improve the welfare of horses and humans. Nowadays, “sympathetic” training methods are gaining tremendous attention of horse owners. In the “sympathetic” training method the focus lies on the use of body language in human-horse communication, as well as respecting the horses natural needs. With 28 horses the effect of a “sympathetic” training method versus a conventional training method on the horse“s response on a human-approach test was studied. Fourteen horses of 3.5 years of age were subjected to a five week training period with a conventional training method, the other fourteen horses were subjected to a ”sympathetic“ training method. The overall frequency of snorting during the human approach tests decreased on average from 4.4 (± 1.1) before the training period to 3.1 (± 0.9) after the training period (both groups). However, there was a significant (p=0.006) difference between training methods: the horses trained in the ”sympathetic“ method decreased snorting by 4.3 (±1.1) while the horses trained in the conventional method increased with 1.5 (±0.9). While horses trained in the conventional method whinnied less in the second human approach test, horses trained in the ”sympathetic“ method whinnied more after the period of training. This difference was found to be significant (p=0.006). Defecating decreased over time, but was not different between training methods. The frequency of touching the unfamiliar handler increased over time for both training methods. The horses trained in a conventional method increased from 1.5 to 2.5 and for the sympathetic trained horses from 1.9 to 3.7. This increase was not significantly different for the training methods. Heart rate showed a minor decrease between the human approach tests (before training period 85.3 bpm, after training period 74.3 bpm) but there were no significant differences between training methods. Similarly, there was a slight increase in heart rate variability (rmssd: from 37.0 to 45.2), but no significant differences between training methods. Overal it was concluded that horses trained with this ”sympathetic“ method tended to be more trustful and less stressful in the presence of an (unfamiliar) human compared to horses trained with a conventional method. This may have been due to reduced stress during horse-human contact in the ”sympathetic" training method used. The long term effects on the welfare of the horses, still needs to be investigated.

Abstract: This study investigated drinking behaviour of unhandled, semi-feral Dartmoor ponies. Aspects studied were drinking behaviour, latency to drink from novel unfamiliar drinkers after transport, preferences for different types of artificial water drinkers, effects of mixing with unfamiliar ponies and group size, on drinking behaviour, and the effect of a simulated market on the latency to drink. Ponies were tested in groups of three or six animals, or as individuals in test pens that were equipped with three water drinkers: bucket, automatic drinking bowl, flowing water trough. Behaviour was recorded using time-lapse video. An individual pony drank on average 10 l per day. Ponies also drank, but at a lower rate, during the night. The latencies to drink after 4.5 h of transport showed large variation, but most ponies drank within the first hour after being transported (all groups 80.5 ± 32.94 min, mean ± SEM). In the individual choice tests, the preferred drinkers were the bucket and the flowing water trough, but not the automatic drinking bowl (drinking time 25.2 ± 4.66, 11.5 ± 4.26, 2.4 ± 2.23 min for bucket, trough and bowl respectively, mean ± SEM; paired t-tests, bowl versus other drinkers, all tests p < 0.02). A possible reason for the avoidance of the automatic bowl was the noise it made when filling. After mixing a group of three ponies with a group of three unfamiliar animals, the ponies did not express their individual drinker preferences anymore. The use of the previously preferred bucket decreased significantly and the use of the initially, non-preferred, bowl increased significantly. This was likely caused by the fact that ponies were either intentionally or accidentally obstructing drinkers in certain areas of the pen and unfamiliar ponies did not want to push past them. In the simulated market, the differences in latencies to drink between ponies in the home pen and market groups did not reach significance. No significant effect of group size (groups of three versus six ponies) on drinking behaviour was detected. The results have implications for situations where only automatic water bowls are provided, such as during pony sales at livestock markets. Preventing ponies from expressing their drinking choice, either by offering non-preferred drinkers or by mixing with unfamiliar animals, could adversely affect their welfare especially if this happens in conjunction with other stressful events such as transport and markets, and potentially weaning.

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.