|
|
McGreevy, P. D., & Nicol, C. J. (1998). The effect of short-term prevention on the subsequent rate of crib-biting in thoroughbred horses. Equine Vet J Suppl, (27), 30–34.
Abstract: The results of an experimental study of the motivational consequences of short-term prevention of crib-biting are reported here. Eight test horses wore a cribbing collar for 24 h. This was effective in preventing crib-biting in 6 subjects. Using analysis of co-variance that accounted for baseline differences in crib-biting rate, test horses showed significantly more crib-biting than control horses on the first day after prevention (P < 0.05). There was also a highly significant increase in the crib-biting rate of test horses on the first day after prevention in comparison with their baseline rate (P < 0.01). This defines the increase as a post inhibitory rebound. An increase in the novelty of the cribbing bar and an increase in feeding motivation during the period of prevention are rejected as explanations of the rebound in this study. Instead, it is suggested that the rebound reflected a rise in internal motivation to crib-bite during the period of prevention. Behaviours that exhibit this pattern of motivation are generally considered functional; and it has been argued that their prevention may compromise welfare.
|
|
|
|
Cooper, J. J., & Mason, G. J. (1998). The identification of abnormal behaviour and behavioural problems in stabled horses and their relationship to horse welfare: a comparative review. Equine Vet J Suppl, (27), 5–9.
Abstract: Many behaviours in domestic animals, such as the 'stable vices' of horses, are treated because they are considered undesirable for economic or cultural reasons, and not because the activity affects the horse's quality of life. The impact of a behaviour on the human reporter is not a function of its impact on the animal performer, and an understanding of the causes and effects of the particular activity is necessary to assess the costs and benefits of treatment. Where the behaviour is a sign of poor welfare, such as an inadequate environment, treatment can best be achieved by removing these underlying causal factors. Pharmacological or physical prevention of a behaviour can be justified only if the behaviour causes harm to the performer or to others. In these cases, prevention of the behaviour without addressing its causes is no cure and may result in its perseverance in a modified form or the disruption of the animal's ability to adapt to its environment. Where the behavioural 'problem' causes no harm and is not related to poor housing, then the education of the reporter, rather than treatment of the performer, may be the best solution.
|
|
