Abstract: A behavioral assessment of horses who were being used and not used in therapeutic riding programs was conducted to help determine useful methods of selecting horses for use in therapeutic riding programs. A total of 103 horses (76 horses from five therapeutic riding centers and 27 non-therapeutic riding horses from four sites) were used. Temperament survey for each horse were completed by three riding instructors at each therapeutic riding center or by the individual most knowledgeable about the horse at the other sites. Twenty personality traits from the survey were used to quantify temperament. Concentrations of plasma cortisol, norepinephrine and epinephrine were also measured in each horse. A reactivity test was then conducted which involved introducing three novel stimuli: a walking and vocalizing toy pig placed on a cardboard surface in front of the horse for 20 s; popping a balloon near the horse's flank area; and suddenly opening an umbrella and holding it open in front of the horse for 20 s. Reactions (expressions, vocalizations and movement) to each of the stimuli were scored and used to calculate an average reactivity score for each horse. The therapeutic riding instructors did not often agree on the temperament of their center's horses. The personality trait ratings made by the therapeutic riding instructors at each center were on average significantly correlated (P<0.01, r>0.52) for only 37.8% of the horses for any two instructors and 7.8% for three instructors. No significant correlations were found between temperament, reactivity, and the hormone concentrations (r<0.19), but regression analysis indicated a possibility of predicting temperament from the reactivity score and hormone concentrations (P<0.08). There was also a tendency for relationships between extremes in temperament (desirable vs. undesirable) and the hormone concentrations (P<0.09), and between extremes in reactivity (low vs. high) and the hormone concentrations (P=0.08). The difference in ratings among riding instructors indicates a need for more collaboration between instructors when evaluating horse temperament. This study also indicates that it was very difficult to objectively determine the suitability of horses for therapeutic riding programs regarding their temperament and reactivity, probably because other traits (e.g., smoothness of gait) are also considered very important.

Abstract: This experiment investigated the effects of positive and negative tactile handling on the stress physiology and behaviour of dairy heifers. Forty-eight 5-14-month-old nonlactating Holstein-Friesian heifers were allocated to one of two handling treatments, either positive or negative tactile handling, over four time replicates. Handling was imposed twice daily, 2-5 min per session and involved moving animals individually along a 64 m outdoor route. The negatively handled heifers took longer to approach within 1 and 2 m of a stimulus person in a standard test, than their positively handled counterparts (P<0.001) and had a greater flight distance to an approaching stimulus (P<0.001). The time taken by the heifers to approach within 1 and 2 m of a familiar person was similar to that taken to approach within 1 and 2 m of an unfamiliar person in the standard test (P<0.05). There was a tendency for heifers to have a greater flight distance from the approaching unfamiliar person than from the approaching familiar person (P=0.06). The negatively handled heifers had greater (P<0.05) increases in total cortisol concentrations 5, 10 and 15 min after exposure to a human and had higher (P<0.05) free cortisol concentrations in the afternoon than the positively handled heifers. It is concluded that the nature of the human contact affects the subsequent behavioural response of heifers to humans. This behavioural response may extend to other humans through the process of stimulus generalisation, although there was some evidence of moderate discrimination. Negative handling results in an acute stress response in the presence of humans and also leads to a chronic stress response. Further research into the effect of these stress responses on milk production and welfare in fearful cows in a commercial situation is suggested.

Abstract: Recent studies have suggested that crib-biting in horses is associated with diminished capacity of learning or coping with stress. Such findings raise the question whether trainability, which is fundamentally important in practice, could also be affected by stereotypic behaviour. Trainability of a horse is difficult to assess in simple tests, however, it is reliably estimated by experienced riders. To assess trainability and other characteristics related to that, a questionnaire survey was conducted with the owners of 50 crib-biting and 50 control horses. Where possible, control horses were selected from the same establishment as crib-biters. Groups did not differ significantly regarding age, breed, gender, training level or usage. Principal component analysis revealed three main factors which can be labelled as [`]Anxiety', [`]Affability' and [`]Trainability'. The [`]Anxiety' factor consisted of the items [`]Nervousness', [`]Excitability', [`]Panic', [`]Inconsistent emotionality', [`]Vigilance', [`]Skittishness', and [`]Timidity'. [`]Affability' consisted of [`]Friendliness toward people', [`]Cooperation', [`]Docility' and [`]Friendliness toward horses'. [`]Trainability' involved [`]Concentration', [`]Trainability', [`]Memory', and [`]Perseverance'. Temperament traits were not affected by age, gender, breed or training level, but the usage of the horse and the presence of crib-biting behaviour had significant effects. Competition horses had lower level of [`]Anxiety' (p = 0.032) and higher level of [`]Trainability' (p = 0.068) than leisure horses. Crib-biting horses had significantly lower level of [`]Anxiety' than control horses (p < 0.001), while [`]Trainability' and [`]Affability' did not differ between groups (p = 0.823 and p = 0.543, respectively). Competition horses are more often exposed to novel environment and to frightening stimuli (e.g. colourful obstacles) than leisure horses and therefore might have also become more habituated to these types of stimuli. Coping with novel situation may be enhanced by defusing nervous behaviour by the more experienced riders of competition. Previous studies indicated crib-biting horses to be less reactive when challenged as compared to control horses. We suggest that the virtual calmness and lower nervousness of the crib-biting horses might be due to the passive coping style of these animals. [`]Affability' of horses might be more related to housing and management conditions than to crib-biting. Contrary to expectations, scores on [`]Trainability' had not coincided with the impaired learning of crib-biting horses reported in laboratory tests. However, previous behavioural tests on equine learning rarely had a direct relevance to the training abilities of the horses. Our results do not support crib-biting stereotypy to affect performance in training, which is a complex learning process involving cooperation and docility in the social environment.

Abstract: The ability of horses to learn through social observation may ease the implementation of new management systems, because the use of automatic feeders etc. by naive horses could be facilitated by observation of experienced horses. However, previous studies found no documentation for observational learning abilities in horses. This study aimed to investigate the ability of horses to learn an instrumental task from a familiar conspecific when social interaction was allowed during the demonstration. Two similar experiments were performed. In the first experiment, Observer horses (n=11) participated in ten successive demonstrations, where a trained Demonstrator opened an operant device by pushing a sliding lid aside with the muzzle in order to obtain a food reward. Immediately after the demonstrations the Observer horses were given the opportunity to operate the device alone. Control horses (n=11) were aware that the device contained food but were presented to the operant device without demonstration of the task. The learning criterion was at least two openings. Accomplishment of and latency to accomplish the learning criterion, and investigative behaviour towards the operant device were recorded. Five Observers and one Control, out of the eleven horses in each treatment group, accomplished the learning criterion. Even though this presents a high odds ratio (OR) in favour of the Observer treatment (OR=7.6), there was no significant difference between the treatment groups (P=0.15). Analysis of investigative behaviour showed, however, that the demonstrations increased the motivation of the Observer horses to investigate the device. Subsequently, a similar experiment was performed in a practical setting with 44 test horses (mixed age, gender and breed). We used the same operant device and the same number and type of demonstrations, although the horses were held on a loose rope to minimise aggression. In this second experiment, six of 23 Observer horses and five of 21 Control horses learned the instrumental task, representing no influence of the demonstration. Thus, this study did not demonstrate an ability of horses to learn an instrumental task through observation.

Abstract: We examined the effects of the presence of an unfamiliar, a gentle or an aversive handler during milking on behaviour and milk yield, and whether cows can learn to approach or avoid a handler by observing the neighbouring cow?s responses. In Experiment 1, Danish Friesian cows (n=16) were treated gently (offering hay and concentrates) by one handler and aversively (hit every 15s on the head with the hand) by another handler for six periods of 2min each. The two handlers wore different coloured overalls, and each cow received either gentle or aversive treatment in the first week and the other treatment the following week. All cows kept a longer distance to the aversive than to the gentle handler in a 1min test after treatment. Milk yield and residual milk did not differ when the aversive or the gentle handler was standing in front of the cow during milking, although the cows moved their legs and tail less when the aversive handler was present. When an unfamiliar person was standing in front of the cows during milking, behaviour and milk yield did not differ from control milkings. Cows and heifers (n=10) that had observed their neighbours receiving gentle treatment by one handler and aversive treatment from another handler did not differ in the distance they kept from these two handlers. In Experiment 2, cows (n=15) that had observed the neighbours receiving a gentle treatment (eight times for 2min) kept a shorter distance to that handler after treatment of their neighbours, and the distance they kept was correlated with the distance kept by the neighbouring cows. This suggests that responses of observer cows may be affected by the responses of the cows being treated. The cows rapidly learned to avoid an aversive handler, but although the cows showed clear avoidance response to the aversive handler there was no effect on milk yield when the aversive handler was present at milking.