Abstract: Mit der zunehmenden Bedeutung der Gruppenhaltung von Pferden ist die Tierärzteschaft gefordert mitzuhelfen, das Verletzungsrisiko in
Gruppenhaltungssystemen zu verringern. Dem Vermeiden von Schlag- und Bissverletzungen kommt hierbei eine zentrale Bedeutung zu. Präventive
Maßnahmen konzentrieren sich im Wesentlichen auf die Gruppenzusammensetzung und Eingliederung neuer Pferde sowie auf die
Gestaltung der Haltungssysteme. Die Raumaufteilung und die Fütterungstechnik müssen equidentypisches Verhalten (Lokomotion, langandauernde
Futteraufnahme und schadensfreie soziale Interaktionen) erlauben. Es gilt, Kenntnisse über Zusammenhänge zwischen Haltung,
Fütterung, Nutzung, Verhalten und Gesundheit an Pferdehalter und Stallbaufirmen weiterzugeben.
[Although group housing of horses has become common practice, the risk of equine injury is substantial. The veterinary community is challenged
to reduce this risk, particularly with regard to injuries caused by kicking and biting. Preventive measures should focus on the disposition
of horses within the group, the introduction of new horses to the group and the design of the housing facility. Feeding methods as
well as the structure of the environment should meet the physiological requirements for horses; there should be adequate space for exercise,
extended foraging and the possibility of benign social interactions. Veterinarians need to educate horse owners and builders of equine
facilities about the husbandry, feeding, use, behaviour and health of horses.]

Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.

Abstract: Play remains a mystery and adult play even more so. More typical of young stages in healthy individuals, it occurs rarely at adult stages but then more often in captive/domestic animals, which can imply spatial, social and/or feeding deprivations or restrictions that are challenging to welfare, than in animals living in natural conditions. Here, we tested the hypothesis that adult play may reflect altered welfare states and chronic stress in horses, in which, as in several species, play rarely occurs at adult stages in natural conditions. We observed the behaviour (in particular, social play) of riding school horses during occasional outings in a paddock and measured several stress indicators when these horses were in their individual home boxes. Our results revealed that (1) the number of horses and rates of adult play appeared very high compared to field report data and (2) most stress indicators measured differed between ‘players’ and ‘non-players’, revealing that most ‘playful’ animals were suffering from more chronic stress than ‘non-playful’ horses. Frequency of play behaviour correlated with a score of chronic stress. This first discovery of a relationship between adult play and altered welfare opens new lines of research that certainly deserves comparative studies in a variety of species.

Abstract: Recent research has shown that domestic dogs are particularly good at reading human attentional cues, often outperforming chimpanzees and hand reared wolves [1, 2]. It has been suggested that the close evolutionary relationship between humans and dogs has led to the development of this ability, however very few other species have been studied [3]. We tested the ability of 24 domestic horses to discriminate between an attentive and inattentive person when choosing whom to approach for food. While the attentive person faced forwards, the inattentive person either stood with their body turned 180° away from the subject (body orientation condition), stood with their body facing forwards but their head facing away (head orientation condition) or stood facing forwards but with their eyes closed (eyes closed condition). A fourth, mixed condition was included where the attentive person stood with their body facing away from the subjects but their head turned towards the subject while the inattentive person stood with their body facing the subject but their head turned away. Horses chose the attentive person significantly more often using the body cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003), the head cue (n = 24, k = 18, p = 0.011), and the eye cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003) but not the mixed cue (n = 24, k = 13, p = 0.42). In an additional pilot study, horses were tested in an object choice task. A human experimenter cued one of two buckets by either tapping the bucket (tap condition), orienting their body towards the bucket and pointing (body and point condition), pointing while facing forwards (point condition) or orienting their body towards the bucket (body condition). If the subjects chose the correct bucket they were rewarded. Subjects were able to use the tap cue (n = 31, k = 21, p = 0.035), body + point cue (n= 31, k = 21, p = 0.035) and the point cue (n = 30, k = 21, p = 0.021) but not the body cue (n = 31, k = 11, p = 0.076). These results taken together suggest that domestic horses are also very sensitive to human attentional cues, including gaze.
Keywords:
social cognition, animal-human interaction, horses, attention attribution, domestication
1. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., and Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634-1636.
2. Gacsi, M., Miklosi, A., Varga, O., Topal, J., and Csanyi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds` Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Animal Cognition 7, 144-153.
3. Hare, B., and Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 439-444.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to find convincing arguments, how horses should be ridden correctly, especially concerning the best head and neck position. Currently in the riding world, the opinions differ: The traditional way is to ride a horse with its nose in front of the vertical, while a new method claims that pulling the nose behind the vertical with an extreme flexion of the poll implies “gymnastic movements”. This article is focussed on the welfare and comfort of the horse in different head-neck positions, expressed by behaviours which document discomfort. As a first step, the behaviour of standing horses was observed while their heads and necks were put into seven postulated or frequently assumed positions. In the hyperflexed position the horses displayed most discomfort (with 49,7% of all reactions, like open mouths, head tossing, tail movements and other signs of resentment). The second strongest reactions of discomfort were shown in the highly raised position of the head (34,9%). The moderately rounded neck position as in traditional dressage lessons was not without signs of discomfort either, but less than the other two positions (11,2%). The high position and the extended position did not cause discomfort at all (0,17% and 0,23% respectively). In a second step, horses moving in all gaits under a rider were observed at competitions without the riders´ knowledge. The total number of observations was divided into two categories (each containing 30 horses) on the basis of the common rules of the FN: ridden with the horse’s nose in front of the vertical and ridden with the horse’s nose behind the vertical. The proportion of horses showing discomfort with the nose behind the vertical was clearly much higher (89,3%) compared to those ridden with the nose in front of the vertical (10,7%). Thus, the horses in the first category displayed signs of discomfort 8 times more frequent than those in the second group. In addition, scans carried out at tournaments showed that 92.8% of the horses were ridden with the nose behind the vertical. A clear result of this study is that the reality of riding differs widely from the rules. These results also show that riding in the hyperflexed position causes a great deal of discomfort for the horses and therefore should be abolished.
Die aktuellen Diskussionen in der Reiterwelt, welche Art und Weise des Reitens, besonders welche Kopf-Hals-Stellung zu erstreben ist, werfen die Frage auf, ob und wie die Pferde selbst ihr Befinden zum Ausdruck bringen. Über die Empfindungen der Pferde in verschiedenen Kopfhaltungen ist bisher sehr wenig bekannt. Deswegen wurde zunächst an stehenden Pferden das Ausdrucksverhalten beobachtet. Missfallensäußerungen häuften sich (mit 49,7% aller gezeigten Verhaltensauffälligkeiten wie Sperren, Rückwärtsgehen und Kopfschlagen) in der aufgerollten, hyperflektierten Stellung des Halses. An zweiter Stelle folgten Unmutsäußerungen in der absolut aufgerichteten Haltung (34,9%). Auch die beigezäumte Haltung wurde nicht ohne Unmutsbekundungen hingenommen, hier war deren Anzahl aber wesentlich geringer (11,2%). Die hohe Kopfstellung (0,17%) und die Dehnungshaltung (0,23%) bereiteten den Tieren kaum Unbehagen. Auch das Ausdrucksverhalten der Pferde unter dem Reiter wurde untersucht. Hierfür wurden, unter Berücksichtigung der schriftlich fixierten Regeln für das Turnierwesen der FN, je 30 Pferde in zwei Kategorien beobachtet: mit der Stirnlinie vor der Senkrechten und Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten. Die Beobachtungen wurden unbemerkt von den Reitern auf den Abreiteplätzen von Turnieren durchgeführt. Die Anzahl an Verhaltensauffälligkeiten der Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten war deutlich (89,3 %) erhöht im Gegensatz zu der anderen Gruppe (10,7 %). Die Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten zeigten 8 Mal mehr Unmutsäußerungen als die mit der Stirnlinie vor der Senkrechten. Entgegen den Regeln der FN zeigten die durchgeführten Scans, dass unmittelbar vor den Prüfungen auf Turnieren 92,8% der Pferde mit der Stirnnasen-Linie hinter der Senkrechten geritten wurden. Ein Befund dieser Studie ist die Feststellung, dass die Praxis deutlich von den Regeln abweicht. Das Reiten mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten ist nach diesen Befunden abzulehnen, da die Pferde deutliches Unwohlsein in dieser Haltung signalisieren.