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: I investigated the behavioural background of the way horses learn to follow humans in the “round pen technique” suggested by “horse whisperers” as a gentle method for initial horse training. Though the practicability of this technique has been adequately demonstrated in the past, the horses' behaviour during such training has not yet been documented in detail. In a riding arena, horses, that did not follow the trainer immediately, were chased away so that they galloped around the trainer. Galloping horses showed specific behaviour such as turning the ear to the trainer, chewing, licking, and stretching head and throat downwards. In subsequent trials horses needed to be chased for less time and finally followed immediately, even when conditions were changed or the trainer was replaced by another person. This suggests that horses learn to follow in this particular situation and also show some generalisation. However, following did not occur on a pasture even after several successful trials in the riding arena.

Abstract: The horse's temperament, including its manageability and reactivity and/or fearfulness, is of importance as it can result in problems and can render horses unsuitable for inexperienced riders. Early experience, including handling during infancy, may influence the horse's adult behaviour and reduce its fear of humans and other potentially frigthening situations. In the various species studied, handling has generally been undertaken during the neonatal period. The aim of the present study was to test the effects of handling young horses around the time of weaning, a period which has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing ease of handling in cattle and goats. Sixteen Anglo-Arab foals were handled for 12 days either immediately following weaning (early handled: EH) or 21 days later (late handled: LH); eight additional non-handled foals served as controls (C). Handling consisted of haltering, gently petting all parts of the body, picking up feet and leading the foal over 120 m. During handling sessions, EH were easier to handle than LH: time taken to fit them with a halter, to pick up feet, and “walk-ratio” (time walking under constraint/total time walking) were significantly lower for EH. During subsequent tests conducted over 2 days, 4, and 7 months, as well as 10 months and to some extent 18 months after the end of handling period, EH and LH were easier to handle and less reactive than controls, although differences diminished with time. The period following weaning can therefore be qualified as an “optimal period” for handling. Some of the effects persist for at least 18 months.

Abstract: A previously described (Windschnurer et al., 2009) avoidance distance test was used to assess animals’ fear of humans in order to quantify the human–animal relationship (HAR). This study investigated the influence of the dominant and flightiest animals within a group on the responsiveness of animals during the avoidance distance test. Eighty-eight pregnant heifers comprised of four different genotypes were used (22 animals per genotype): Limousin × Holstein-Friesian, Limousin × Simmental, Charolais × Limousin, and Charolais × Simmental. Sixty of the 88 heifers were group housed (n = 5) into 12 pens with 3 pens per breed, while 28 heifers were singly housed (seven heifers per breed). A reactivity test was performed on days 10, 18, 25 and 30 post-housing on the singly housed heifers, and then on the group housed heifers, on the same days, to calculate a reactivity score. On days 33 and 37 flight and dominance tests, respectively, were performed to identify the flightiest and the dominant animal within each group. On day 41, an avoidance test, measuring both the avoidance distance towards a familiar and an unfamiliar human, was performed on all heifers. No difference (P > 0.05) in reactivity scores was found between the genotypes, between pens for the group housed heifers or between singly housed and group housed heifers (P = 0.28). The avoidance distance (AD) of singly (S) housed heifers towards a familiar (F) (ADSF) human was shorter (P < 0.001) than the avoidance distance of group (G) housed heifers towards an unfamiliar human (ADSU). The ADSF and ADGF were correlated with the ADSU and ADGU (R = 0.87 for singly housed heifers; R = 0.61 for group housed heifers, P < 0.001). For the singly housed heifers, no correlation was observed between reactivity score and ADSF (R = 0.36, P = 0.18), whereas the reactivity score and ADSU were correlated (R = 0.68, P = 0.004). For the group housed heifers no significant correlation was detected between the reactivity score and ADGF (R = 0.18, P = 0.22) or ADGU (R = &#8722;0.11, P = 0.39). No influence of the most dominant animal and the flightiest animals was found on the behaviour of the group in term of avoidance distance and reactivity (P > 0.05). It is concluded that the assessment of the fear of the animals towards humans using the avoidance test at the feed bunk may be useful for singly and group housed heifers and that the leaders of a group such as the flightiest animal or the dominant animal did not influence the avoidance distance test.

Abstract: Seven experiments were conducted on four miniature pigs to determine: (1) whether the pigs can discriminate between people wearing the same coloured clothing; (2) what cues they rely on if they could discriminate. For 2 weeks before the experiments began, the pigs were conditioned in a Y-maze to receive raisins from the rewarder wearing dark blue coveralls. They were then given the opportunity to choose the rewarder or non-rewarder in these experiments. Each session consisted of 20 trials. Successful discrimination was that the pig chose the rewarder at least 15 times in 20 trials (P<0.05: by χ2-test). In Experiment 1, both rewarder and non-rewarder wore dark blue coveralls. By 20 sessions, all pigs successfully identified the rewarder. In Experiment 2: (1) both wore coveralls of the same new colours or (2) one of them wore coveralls of new colours. They significantly preferred the rewarder even though the rewarder and/or non-rewarder wore coveralls of new colours. In Experiment 3, both wore dark blue coveralls but olfactory cues were obscured and auditory cues were not given. The pigs were able to identify the rewarder successfully irrespective of changing auditory and olfactory cues. In Experiment 4, both wore dark blue coveralls but covered part of their face and body in different ways. The correct response rate decreased when a part of the face and the whole body of the rewarder and non-rewarder were covered. In Experiment 5, both wore dark blue coveralls and changed their apparent body size by shifting sitting position. The correct response rate increased as the difference in body size between the experimenters increased. In Experiment 6, the distance between the experimenters and the pig was increased by 30 cm increments. The correct response rate of each pig decreased as the experimenters receded from the pig, but performance varied among the pigs. In Experiment 7, the light intensity of the experimental room was reduced from 550 to 80 lx and then to 20 lx. The correct response rate of each pig decreased with the reduction in light intensity, but all the pigs discriminated the rewarder from the non-rewarder significantly even at 20 lx. In conclusion, the pigs were able to discriminate between people wearing coveralls of the same colour after sufficient reinforcement. These results indicate that pigs are capable of using visual cues to discriminate between people.