Abstract: We tested untrained horses (foals and breeding mares) in 3 different breeding centres. Horses were kept in a pasture during daytime in bigger groups (median 12, min: 6, max 35 / pasture) according to age, gender and breed (hungarian halfbred, hucul, arabian and thoroughbred). To measure their reactions to an unfamiliar person we conducted an active and a passive human test. In the active human test the test person (TP) approached a focal animal in the group from a predetermined direction: from their front, from their side (left or right) or from the rear. As TP reached the horse (of app. 0.5 m distance), she tried to pet the animal’s head. The TP always chose and approached a standing or a grazing horse (ie. those that were not walking, galloping, playing etc.). The horse’s reaction to the approaching human was scored 1-5. Score 1: the horse moved away and the TP could not even approach it within 0.5 m; Score 2: the horse made max. 2 steps away, but could be reached and petted; Score 3 and Score 4: the horse stood in its place but showed different signs of discomfort (head turn – Score 3; backing ears, tail slash – Score 4); Score 5: the horse stood and did not show any sign of discomfort or actively approached the TP. There was no significant difference in the horses’ reaction between approaching from their left or right side. Approaching from their front or from their side (left or right) did not differ significantly either. However, the odds of walking away from the TP (score 1 or 2) was 2.7 (Fisher-test, p=0.039) and 3.3 (p=0.012) times higher when TP approached from the rear compared to approaching from their front or from their side (left or right), respectively. In the passive human test the TP stood immobile for 4 minutes in 5 or 10 m far from the horses during their active (grazing) or inactive (standing idle during noon) period. Horses approached TP significantly sooner (general linear model, p=0.017) when she stood 5m distance (38 ±63 s) compared to 10m (97 ±52 s). The arrival of a second horse after the first horse approached the TP showed significant high correlation with the latency of the first horse arrival (Pearson correlation, r=0.96, p<0.001). The horses were less keen (p=0.008) to approach the human when they were tested in an inactive period (177 ±110 s) compare to active period (38 ±63 s).

Abstract: We presented small groups of chimpanzees with two collective action situations, in which action was necessary for reward but there was a disincentive for individuals to act owing to the possibility of free-riding on the efforts of others. We found that in simpler scenarios (experiment 1) in which group size was small, there was a positive relationship between rank and action with more dominant individuals volunteering to act more often, particularly when the reward was less dispersed. Social tolerance also seemed to mediate action whereby higher tolerance levels within a group resulted in individuals of lower ranks sometimes acting and appropriating more of the reward. In more complex scenarios, when group size was larger and cooperation was necessary (experiment 2), overcoming the problem was more challenging. There was highly significant variability in the action rates of different individuals as well as between dyads, suggesting success was more greatly influenced by the individual personalities and personal relationships present in the group.

Abstract: Equine welfare can be enhanced by applying species specific training. This may incorporate social learning, as horses are highly social and social stimuli are of primary importance. Social learning is comparable to individual learning in its learning mechanisms, differing primarily in the way it is stimulated. Our initial study showed that horses of different breeds (N = 38) follow humans after observing other horses doing so, but only if the observed horse was familiar to and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's exact test: N = 12, P = 0.003). A second study showed that horses and ponies (N = 25) learned to pull a rope to open a feeding apparatus after observing demonstrations by conspecifics, again, only if the demonstrating horse was older and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's combination test, N = 3, v2 = 27.71, p = 0.006). Our third approach showed that horses and ponies (N = 24) learned to press a switch to open a feeding apparatus after observing a familiar person (GzLM: N = 24, z = 2.33, P = 0.02). Most recently, we confronted horses and ponies (N = 50) with persons demonstrating different techniques for opening a feeding apparatus. In this study we investigated whether the horses would copy the demonstrators' techniques or apply their own. Here only some horses copied the technique, and most of the successful learners used their mouths irrespective of the demonstrators' postures (Chi Square Test: N = 40, df = 2, &#967;2 = 31.4, p < 0.001). In all the approaches social stimuli elicited learning processes in the test horses, while only a few individuals in the control groups mastered the tasks by individual learning. The following behaviour observed in the initial study may have been facilitated by a social stimuli (social facilitation), and the opening of the feed boxes in the subsequent studies appear to be mostly the result of enhancement (social enhancement). Some horses may have used the social stimuli at first and continued their learning process by individual trial and error. However, the horses were also selective in whom and some in how to copy. This may have been conditioned (socially conditioned) or the result of simple forms of reasoning on the reliability of the particular information provided by demonstrators of certain social ranks or social positions, as high ranking and familiar horses and familiar persons were copied and some imitated exactly.
Lay person message: Traditional riding instructions suggest that horses learn by observing other horses. For example, older, more experienced driving horses are used for initial training of young driving horses. We have shown that horses indeed use learning stimuli provided by other horse, as well as by humans. Horses readily accept stimuli observed in high ranking and familiar horses, and familiar persons. Such stimuli elicit learning processes which are comparable to individual learning. We suggest applying social learning whenever possible, as it is much faster and less stressful than individual learning, where learners experience negative outcomes in trial and error learning.

Abstract: Stress responses play an important role in allowing animals to cope with challenges. Glucocorticoids, key elements in the neuroendocrine stress axis, are traditionally measured as a parameter for welfare assessment. As blood sample collection itself disturbs an animal, non-invasive or minimal invasive methods have gained importance for assessing stress. In horses saliva and faeces are most frequently used. Faecal samples offer the advantage that they can be collected easily and stress-free. In faecal samples circulating hormone levels are integrated over a certain period of time. As a consequence faecal glucocorticoid metabolites represent the cumulative secretion and they are less affected by short episodic fluctuations of hormone secretion.
However, in order to gain reliable information about an animal’s adrenocortical activity, certain criteria have to be met: Depending whether the impact of acute or chronic stressors is assessed, frequent sampling might be necessary whereas in other cases, single samples will suffice. Background knowledge regarding the metabolism and excretion of glucocorticoids is essential and a careful validation is obligatory. In addition, this presentation will address analytical issues regarding sample storage, extraction procedures, and immunoassays and various examples of a successful application in equids will be given. Applied properly, non-invasive techniques to monitor stress hormones are a useful tool for animal welfare assessment.