Abstract: Solving horse nutrition challenges require contributions from Psychology, Biology, Agriculture, and Veterinary Medicine because these are biological challenges of an anthropological nature. The domesticated horse has shifted from an animal of war, transportation, and farmwork, to a companion enjoyed for sport, leisure and recreation. The first realization and responsibility must lie in the fact that it is the owners and managers which are the source of many of the horses’ challenges. Nutritional challenges include: defining requirements and absorption of nutrients, improving feed efficiencies for performance, improving feeding management and eating behaviors, and preventing or treating clinical problems. These challenges can be addressed through science, horse management, and education. Many of today’s challenges in horse nutrition can be related to the equine genome and genetics. Those that can be addressed with nutritional consequences include Polysaccharide Storage Myopathy, Equine Metabolic Syndrome, Recurrent Exertional Rhabdomyolysis, Glycogen Branching Enzyme Deficiency, Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis, and Development Orthopedic Disorders. It is the scientific understanding of cellular processes in relation to nutrients which address the symptoms associated with these diseases. Consequently, feeding management can be changed to actually treat the disease. The most recent advances in equine nutrition implement the use of molecular and cellular based techniques to understand how nutrients are needed during times of stress, feed withdrawal and to maintain gut health. For example, the absorptive capacity and transporter gene expression and localization, are now being quantified. We are also now assessing the impact of the loss of reproductive endocrines on calcium and phosphorus homeostasis in the horse. Additionally, bioluminescent pathogenic bacteria have been utilized to view attachment rates in the gastrointestinal tract of the horse. These are merely examples of the approaches of science to these nutritional challenges. Science is of little use unless it is incorporated into improved management of horses. Every type of horse requires different management and good husbandry. In our country, 70+% of the horses are kept in small herds, on limited acreage, and used for recreation and sport. Since we have taken the horse out of its natural environment and subjected it to these roles, we now seek to determine ways to feed the horse in our environments; i.e. obesity, inconsistent exercise, confinement, surgery, competition, diseases. Private horse feed agribusinesses have aggressively positioned excellent products with claims to improve health, reproduction, performance, and even horse happiness. Owners and managers seek unbiased science upon which they ultimately make their own decisions. General challenge categories seem to be feeding geriatric horses, active performance horses, and idle horses with secondary metabolic problems. Thus, feeding recommendations include the determination of specific horse nutrient requirements, maximization of available forages, providing other nutrients, and exercise to manage horses more as horses. Private and public companies and Extension systems exist to provide online and other sources of information. As more and more people own horses as a hobby and for recreation, they share responsibility to inform themselves on how to best feed and care for their horses.

Abstract: The design of a captive environment should facilitate the expression of the natural behavioural repertoire of the species concerned. The domestic horse (Equus caballus) is a social, herd dwelling species that is often housed in isolation from con-specifics or kept in groups in paddock enclosures. Although the latter allows for social interaction and does not restrict movement per se, it may not promote natural activity patterns or group cohesion. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of two different paddock designs on the behaviour of a stable group of horses (n=6: 2 mares, 4 geldings).
The paddock designs tested were adjacent and grassed similarly, but configured differently. A central paddock (75 x 75m) designated NT, was surrounded by a track 1.6-5.5m wide, designated T. The horses were turned out in their group into T or NT for 3 consecutive days. Their behaviour was recorded for one hour three times each day (10.00, 13.00, 16.00 hrs). Within each observation period of one hour focal sampling was used, each individual horse being observed for a 10 minute period. They were then moved to the other enclosure type for a further 3 consecutive days, followed by a repeat of each condition. When turned out the horses were fitted with a global positioning system device (Garmin Forerunner 305) to monitor distance travelled and speed for the period 10.00-17.00 hrs. The mean percentage of time spent in each behavioural state (standing alert, standing resting, walk/trot, grazing, lying, social interaction) during the periods observed was calculated. Behaviour during social interactions was classified as either affiliative (approach, follow, friendly contacts, mutual grooming) or agonistic (approach and retreat, bite, chase, head threat).
The horses travelled significantly further in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 11.74, p<0.001) and moved significantly faster (Wilcoxon signed rank test: z = -2.21, p=0.03). See Table 1. When the percentage of time spent in each behavioural state in T and NT was compared some significant differences were found. A significantly higher percentage of time was spent active (walking /trotting) in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 5.74, p=0.002). Standing alert was only recorded in T (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 3.48, p=0.02). A significantly higher percentage of time was spent grazing in NT than in T (paired samples t-test: t (5) = -3.58, p=0.016). Significantly more social interaction occurred in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 5.93, p=0.002). See Figure 1. In T, 91% of social interactions were affiliative and 9% agonistic, whereas in NT 29% were affiliative and 71% agonistic. No difference was found in the percentage of time spent standing resting or lying down in T and NT.
The benefits of housing horses in groups as opposed to individually have been demonstrated in previous studies. In addition to better satisfying the behavioural needs of the horse it has been found that group housed horses adapt more easily to training and display less undesirable behaviour than those housed individually (Rivera et al. 2002; Søndergaard and Ladewig 2004; Visser et al. 2008). However, individual housing is frequently selected by horse owners in preference to group housing to avoid the risk of injury during agonistic encounters. Fureix et al. (2012) suggest that management practices may well contribute to aggressiveness in horses and that the conditions under which we keep horses should be reviewed. The findings of the present study indicate that the design of the enclosure in which groups of horses are kept affects the nature of social interactions. The T paddock design resulted in reduced intra-group aggression. However, this paddock design also reduced the time spent grazing and increased vigilant behaviour. Although the results demonstrate that a paddock system including tracks may facilitate group cohesion and more natural movement patterns, the long-term impact on behaviour and welfare requires further investigation.
References:
Fureix C, Bourjade M, Henry S, Sankey C, Hausberger M. (2012). Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses (Equus caballus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138: 216-228.
Rivera E, Benjamin S, Nielsen B, Shelle J, Zanella AJ. (2002). Behavioural and physiological response of horses to initial training: the comparison between pastured versus stalled horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78: 235–252.
Søndergaard E, Ladewig J. (2004). Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during training. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 105-118.

Abstract: When a preliminary experiment in sodium-replete ponies revealed an increase, but not a significant increase, in salt consumption after furosemide treatment, the experiment was repeated using sodium-deficient horses in which aldosterone levels might be expected to be elevated to test the hypothesis that a background of aldosterone is necessary for salt appetite. Ten Standardbred mares were injected intravenously with furosemide or an equivalent volume of 0.9% sodium chloride as a control to test the effect of furosemide on their salt appetite and blood constituents. Sodium intake and sodium loss in urine, as well as water intake and urine output, were measured and compared to determine accuracy of compensation for natriuresis and diuresis. Plasma protein and packed cell volume showed significant increases in response to furosemide treatment (F = 29.31, P less than 0.001 and F = 11.20, P less than 0.001, respectively). There were no significant changes in plasma sodium concentration or osmolality in response to the treatment (P greater than 0.05). The furosemide-treated horses consumed 126 +/- 14.8 g salt, significantly more than when they were given the control injection (94.5 +/- 9.8 g; t = 2.22, P = 0.05). In response to furosemide, horses lost 962 +/- 79.7 and consumed 2,170 +/- 5 meq sodium; however, compared with control, they lost 955 meq more sodium and ingested only 570 meq more sodium, so they were undercompensating for natriuresis. The furosemide-treated horses drank 9.6 +/- 0.8 kg of water, significantly more than when they received the control injection (6.4 +/- 0.8 kg; t = 6.9, P less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Abstract: Every animal species has particular environmental requirements that are essential for its welfare, and when these so-called “basic needs” are not fulfilled, the animals suffer. The basic needs of horses have been claimed to be social contact, social companionship, free movement and access to roughage. To assess whether horses suffer when one or more of the four proposed basic needs are restricted, we examined several studies (n = 38) that reported behavioural and physiological reactions to these restrictions. We assigned the studies according to the four types of responses investigated: (a) Stress, (b) Active, (c) Passive, and (d) Abnormal Behaviour. Furthermore, the number of studies indicating that horses reacted to the restrictions were compared with the number of studies reporting no reaction. The limited number of studies available on single management restrictions did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the effect of each restriction separately, especially in the case of social companionship. However, when combinations of social contact, free movement and access to roughage were restricted, many of the horses had developed responses consistent with suffering. Passive Responses, indicating acute suffering, and Abnormal Behaviour, indicating suffering currently or at some time in the past, were especially clearly demonstrated. This provides further evidence of the usefulness of assessing behavioural parameters in combination with physiological measurements when evaluating horse welfare. This meta-analysis of the literature confirms that it is justified to claim that social contact, free movement and access to roughage are basic needs in horses.

Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of â&#65533;&#65533;unusualâ&#65533;&#65533; behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.