Abstract: The case of familiarity in equine husbandry is not a topic that has suffered vast amounts of examination. During their lifetime domestic horses will most likely experience multiple changes in their social environment such as being sold, moved, and sent to training amongst other things. In recent years a considerable amount of studies have shown the benefits of group-housing on horses, and familiarity timeframes are of genuine importance in management of such systems.
It is our intension to determine the timeframe a novel horse faces before it is recognized as being familiar in an already established group, what factors are of importance and the level of injuries sustained in the introduction period.
24 2-year old Danish Warmblood fillies were used for this study in two blocks of 12 horses. The familiar horses, titled the K-group, consisted of 16 horses and the U-group, the unfamiliar horses, of 8. The horses came from different studs to ensure no prior contact between the two groups of test animals. They were all raised in stable group-housing systems and thereby accustomed to social interactions between conspecifics.
Prior to pairing the K-horses up, nearest-neighbour observations was performed in the holding paddock to ensure the two horses were in fact familiar and would act as an established group.
8 groups of 3 individuals, 2 familiar and 1 unfamiliar, were held in separate paddocks measuring 80x80m. The horses were within eyesight of the other groups but were not able to have any physical contact.
Behavioural observations were performed for 20 minutes per group upon letting the U-horse enter, and then for one hour per group (3x20mins) every Monday, Wednesday and Friday the following 16 days. On day 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 they were tested for individual preference within the group, and on test day 1 and 16 any injuries sustained were also noted. Dominance rank within the groups was determined by a group-feeding test on the last day of observation.
Preliminary results from the first block indicate an overall timeframe of 6-7 days for familiarity to develop, established by observational data such as fading of greeting behaviour and decrease in distance between the three horses in the respective groups. It was also indicated that aggression between horses in the groups is not determined by familiarity but by dominance rank.
Results from the full experiment will be presented.

Abstract: Although horses are social animals they are often housed individually with limited social contact to other horses and this may compromise their welfare. The present study included eight young female horses and investigated the strength of motivation for access to full social contact, head contact and muzzle contact, respectively, to a familiar companion horse. Horses were housed individually next to their companion horse and separations between pens prevented physical contact. During daily test sessions horses were brought to a test area where they could access an arena allowing social contact. Arena access during 3 min was given after completion of a predetermined number of responses on a panel. Fixed ratios (FR) of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 40 responses per arena access were applied in a random order, one per daily test session, within each test week (Monday to Friday), and the number of rewards per daily test session was recorded. All horses could access all three types of social contact in a cross-over design, and an empty arena was used as control. Motivational strength was assessed using elasticity of demand functions, which were estimated based on the number of rewards earned and FR. Elasticities of demand for the three types of social contact were low (-0.20), and not significantly different, although increasing FR still resulted in a decrease in rewards obtained for all three types of social contact (P < 0.001). Across FR-levels horses earned more rewards for social contact than for an empty arena, as shown by much higher intercept values (2.51 vs. 0.99; P < 0.001). However, the elasticity of demand for infrequent access to an empty arena (-0.08) was lower than for social contact (P < 0.01) and not significantly different from zero (P = 0.07). Horses performed more social behaviour the lesser the restriction on social contact (full > head > muzzle). However, the finding that horses showed a similar and high motivation for all three types of social contact suggests that they are valued equally highly in a situation where the alternative is no social contact.

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.