Abstract: Pain evaluation is a key issue for equine welfare and it is often cause of concern because it is difficult to determine its intensity and duration. This is essential when different people are looking after the animals and they need to decide when or not giving analgesics to guarantee the welfare of the subject. The most widely used technique to determine pain in horses is identifying pain related behaviors. The aim of this study was to determine inter-observer reliability of two different assessors evaluating pain related behaviors in horses undergoing castration. 8 stallions of different breed, aged between 2 and 4 years, were included in the study. All the subjects underwent routine castration (closed technique in general anesthesia). The subjects were placed in an observation box for 5 days and their behavior was recorded for 15 minutes before the surgery and 4, 8, 16, 24 and 40 hours after intervention. Two blind observers, using a given ethogram of horse pain related behaviors modified from literature (for a review Ashley, 2005), analyzed horses behavior at each interval. Descriptive statistics and K Kendall test were performed. Observers agreed significantly assessing agitation, reluctance to move, kicking the abdomen, lethargy, rolling, attention and curiosity (P<0.05), however agreement was low for head movements, stretching, flank watching, lowered head carriage, weight shifting, abnormal movement, fixed stare. Our results show that assessing pain in horses should be a cause of concern, because different pain related behaviors are difficult to identify and to have agreement between two observers. Training of care takers of horses on identification of specific behaviors is needed to standardize pain assessment. Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the EU VII Framework programme (FP7-KBBE-2010-4) for financing the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) project and for providing funds for Emanuela Dalla Costa and Michela Minero to present this paper.

Abstract: Like many other herbivores equids feed on rather evenly distributed resources. Especially in ruminants several studies have proved the influence of social organisations, rank, sex and the depletion of feeding sites on the feeding behaviour of individuals. However, it is not yet understood whether social aspects affect horses´ feeding decisions. Horses roam on vast habitats with constantly changing vegetation. In non-competitive situations domestic horses tend to return to the same feeding site until it is overgrazed. Whereas, for competition over limited food the social status of the individuals appears to be important. Curiosity about the influence of social rank and different social feeding conditions on the horses´ feeding decisions between two buckets, equally filled with high-quality surplus food, led us to create the test situation described here. The observer horses were alternately tested with a dominant and a subordinate demonstrator placed in one of three different positions. We conclude that domestic horses use cognitive strategic decision making in order to decide where to feed in a social feeding situation. When possible they tend to return to the same, continuously supplied feeding site and switch to an “avoidance tendency” when another horse is already feeding from it or in the presence of a dominant horse. Thus the position and the social rank of conspecifics affect the feeding strategy of horses.

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.