Abstract: Horses, and in particular sport horses, remain housed predominantly in single stalls. One of the main reported reasons is the fear that they will become agitated and injure themselves and thereby impair their performance if released in paddocks. The hour spent daily at work is also assumed to be sufficient to satisfy the horses' needs for locomotion. Growing scientific evidence shows that single stall housing has negative consequences on horses' welfare and that time for free movement is necessary. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of allowing sport horses used to staying permanently in their stall (except for 1 h riding/day) daily free time in a paddock and to evaluate its potential impact on their welfare using two behavioural reliable indicators (stereotypic behaviours and ear position), as well as selected blood parameters (blood cell count, oxytocin and serotonin concentrations). Two experiments were conducted on the same site. The first experiment evaluated sport horses' habituation to the novel situation of daily sessions in a paddock, and recorded welfare indicators in their stall before and during the experiment, comparing horses that were taken outdoors (experimental) and those that stayed in their stall (control). The second experiment evaluated the impact of this daily free time in a paddock on horses' welfare and its durability, focusing on positive indicators. Behavioural observations in paddocks showed that even horses that had never experienced free movement outside their stall habituated rapidly to this situation. The presence of hay in the paddock, may have speeded up habituation. Their restricted living conditions were associated with abnormalities in blood cell count that were not overcome during the time of daily paddock sessions but behavioural indicators showed that their welfare improved. In the second study, the experimental horses' welfare improved during the paddock release period, in particular their stereotypic behaviours decreased and oxytocin levels increased. No effects on serotonin concentrations could be evidenced. These effects were directly associated with being in paddock, as the indicators returned rapidly to their previous levels indicating compromised welfare when the paddock release sessions stopped. In conclusion, it can be recommended to release sport horses for free movement in paddocks as welfare is improved and subjective assessment by caretakers indicated minimal risks.

Abstract: Vision, hearing, olfaction, taste, and touch comprise the sensory modalities of most vertebrates. With these senses, the animal receives information about its environment. How this information is organized, interpreted, and experienced is known as perception. The study of the sensory abilities of animals and their implications for behavior is central not only to ethology but also to animal welfare. Sensory ability, perception, and behavior are closely linked. Horses and humans share the five most common sensory modalities, however, their ranges and capacities differ, so that horses are unlikely to perceive their surroundings in a similar manner to humans. Understanding equine perceptual abilities and their differences is important when horses and human interact, as these abilities are pivotal for the response of the horse to any changes in its surroundings. This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the sensory abilities of horses. The information is discussed within an evolutionary context and also includes a practical perspective, outlining potential ways to mitigate risks of injuries and enhance positive horse-human interactions. The equine sensory apparatus includes panoramic visual capacities with acuities similar to those of red-green color-blind humans as well as aural abilities that, in some respects exceed human hearing and a highly developed sense of smell, all of which influence how horses react in various situations. Equine sensitivity to touch has been studied surprisingly sparingly despite tactile stimulation being the major interface of horse training. We discuss the potential use of sensory enrichment/positive sensory stimulation to improve the welfare of horses in various situations e.g. using odors, touch or sound to enrich the environment or to appease horses. In addition, equine perception is affected by factors such as breed, individuality, age, and in some cases even color, emphasizing that different horses may need different types of management. Understanding the sensory abilities of horses is central to the emerging discipline of equitation science, which comprises the gamut of horse-human interactions. Therefore, sensory abilities continue to warrant scientific focus, with more research to enable us to understand different horses and their various needs.

Abstract: During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses� behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses� natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses� ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as �rebound effect�), this might indicate that the horses� welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage.

Abstract: The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.

Abstract: An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.]