Abstract: Horses are well able to form classical and instrumental associations and so the focus of much recent research has been on the stimulus control of instrumental learning. Horses appear to discriminate using spatial cues more easily than other stimulus features, as indicated both by the speed of initial task acquisition and by the extent to which acquired discriminations can be reversed. Phenomena associated with discrimination learning in laboratory animals, including generalisation and peak shift, have been demonstrated in horses. However, the ability of horses to classify stimuli into categories is more controversial. Although there is some evidence that horses may be able to form categories based on similarities in the physical appearance of different stimuli, there is currently no evidence that they are able to develop abstract concepts. Their performance on social learning tasks has also been poor. Few correlations are observed between the learning ability of individual horses on different tasks, suggesting that it may not be possible to classify individual horses as `good' or `poor' learners. Better learning performance by horses that are naturally calm is probably due to reduced interference in the learning process. Correct handling procedures can lower reactivity levels in horses, and may facilitate learning in some circumstances. Future research on equine learning needs to take into account the complex nature of equine social interaction. Studies on the effects of stress on learning, and on social and spatial cognition, are also particularly needed.

Abstract: Nineteen young horses that had recently started to perform the stereotypy of crib-biting were compared with 16 non-stereotypic horses for 14 weeks. After initial observations of their behaviour and an endoscopic examination of the condition of their stomachs, the horses were randomly allocated to a control or an antacid diet At the start of the trial, the stomachs of the crib-biting foals were significantly more ulcerated and inflamed than the stomachs of the normal foals. In addition, the faecal pH of the crib-biting foals (6.05) was significantly lower than that of the normal foals (6.58). The antacid diet resulted in a significant improvement in the condition of the horses' stomachs. The crib-biting behaviour declined in most of the foals, regardless of their diet, but tended to decline to a greater extent in the foals on the antacid diet.

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.

Abstract: The requirement for assessing the effects of stressor combinations in improving the welfare of animals has not been widely recognised. Knowledge of the effects of concurrent stressors is needed to improve environments such as transport, where animals are presented with many simultaneous challenges. However, no method for measuring the effects of different stressors with a common unit is currently available. A locomotor passive avoidance method was developed as a common currency measure of the aversion of domestic fowl to concurrent stressors, using vibrational and thermal stressors as an exemplar. Juvenile fowl, fasted overnight, were trained to run a raceway into a goal-box for small food rewards (FR1). When running consistently, the reinforcement schedule was superimposed with a FR5 treatment schedule (60 min confinement in the goal-box with either a control of no other stressors [N] or concurrent vibration and thermal stressors [VT]). Subsequent latency to return to the goal-box was recorded as a measure of aversion. The factors affecting bird response were addressed in a series of experiments to optimise the method and clarify interpretation of results. Pre-feeding (20% ration 2 h prior to testing) did not affect response, but increasing the number of treatment presentations facilitated learning and increased method sensitivity. Treatment responses were consistent across experiments; overall VT was avoided (P<0.001), but N was not. However, there was large individual variation in response to VT. A final experiment indicated that, given a visual discriminatory cue, birds were capable of learning the required association between entering the goal-box and receiving the treatment, suggesting that the delay responses were due to aversion rather than the immediate impact of treatment on ability to respond. Further work is required to test the singular stressors, but the method retains common currency potential for assessing aversion to multiple stressors.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.