Abstract: Als Tierärztin beschäftige ich mich seit geraumer Zeit mit den Anforderungen und Belastungsmomenten von Therapiepferden. Mein Ziel ist es, geeignete Methoden für die Auswahl, Ausbildung, Ausgleichs- und Korrekturarbeit dieser Pferde zu entwickeln.
Umfangreiche Recherchen haben ergeben, dass ein Pferd unter Berücksichtigung seiner physischen und psychischen Fähigkeiten durch die derzeit verbreitete Ausbildung, Ausgleichs- und Korrekturarbeit nur unzureichend auf die Aufgaben eines Therapiepferdes vorbereitet bzw. während seinesEinsatzes begleitet wird.
Aber genau hier liegt der Schlüssel für die Sicherheit von Klient, Therapeut und Pferd und den Erfolg der Therapie- und Fördermaßnahme. Darüber hinaus ist es auch im Sinne der Verantwortung für das Pferd und des Tierschutzes an der Zeit, durch geeignete Maßnahmen die verantwortbare Nutzung des Pferdes als Therapiepferd zu unterstützten.
Auf der Basis von interdisziplinärem Wissenstransfer und interinterdisziplinärer Kooperation werden die entscheidenden Elemente einer nachvollziehbaren, zielorientierten, bedarfs- und pferdegerechten Ausbildung, Ausgleichs- und Korrekturarbeit von Therapiepferden kurz skizziert.

Abstract: Abstract This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10–15 min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8–14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P < 0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2 = 36.67, P < 0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.

Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.

Abstract: Recent interest has focused on the advantage of intensively handling young foals as a means of producing more tractable horses, accustomed to humans and receptive to training. To date, the effect of this intensive handling, dubbed “imprint training” in the popular literature, has not been tested. The present study compares seven foals handled intensively as neonates with eight untreated controls. The handling protocol started from 2-8 h after birth and continued daily for a total of 5 days. The protocol consisted of a series of stimuli and experiences that were each repeated until the foal no longer resisted or reacted negatively. Subsequently, foals were tested before weaning, at 4 months of age. Results indicated that handled foals (HF) ranked higher than control foals (CF) in subjective ratings of calmness (*P<0.0117) and friendliness (*P<0.0001) and in several specific handling tasks (venipuncture *P<0.0220; placing in stock *P<0.0128). Although, in approach tests all foals but one allowed approach of a person to 4 m, significantly more HF approached the person than CF (P<0.0080). In stimulus tests, foals were presented specific stimuli to which they had been tested as neonates. Two of eight CF were too unruly and dangerous to test. Of foals that could be tested, CF required significantly more time to hook-up a heart rate monitor (**P<0.0055). Split-plot analysis indicated that HF had lower heart rates to initial left-sided stimuli, presented first, than CF (*P<0.0421). In response to right-sided stimuli, heart rate scores of CF were not significantly different from HF (P<0.2259), suggesting reduced reactivity over time due to a learning effect. Behavioral responses to specific stimuli did not differ between CF and HF, suggesting that neonatal handling has a general rather than specific effect on subsequent behavior. Cortisol concentrations were measured before and after testing and the difference calculated. All foals had higher post-testing levels than pre-testing levels. There was a significant difference between HF and CF, indicating greater reactivity among the CF (*P<0.050). In general, the results indicated that foals handled as neonates were more tractable and less reactive. Specific neonatal handling tasks, such as sticking a finger up the foal's nose or patting the bottom of the foot, seemed to have no beneficial effect on related tasks such as passing a nasogastric tube or tapping with a farrier's hammer at 4 months of age. Mechanisms for the observed effect of neonatal handling require further investigation.

Abstract: Understanding the factors that influence horse learning is critical to ensure horse welfare and rider safety. In this study, data were obtained from horses (n=96) training to step backwards through a corridor in response to bit pressure. Following training, learning ability was determined by the latency to step backwards through the corridor when handled on the left and right reins. Additionally, horse owners were questioned about each horse's management, training, behavior and signalment (such as horse breed, age and sex). Factors from these four broad domains were examined using a multiple logistic regression (MLR) model, following an Information Theoretic approach, for associations between horses' behavioral attributes and their ability to learn the task. The MLR also included estimates of the rider's ability and experience as well as owner's perceptions of their horse's trainability and temperament. Results revealed several variables including explanatory variables that correlated significantly with rate of learning. Horses were faster at backing, a behavioral trait, when handled on the right (t = 3.65, df = 94, P < 0.001) than the left side. Thoroughbred horses were slower at completing the tests than other breeds of horses when handled on the left side (LM, F1,48=4.5, P=0.04) and right side (LM, F1,45=6.0, P=0.02). Those in regular work, a training factor, did not learn faster than their unworked counterparts on the right rein but completed the task faster on the left rein (F1,44=5.47, P=0.02). This may reflect differences in laterality and habituation effects. In contrast, more anxious horses were faster at completing the test when handled from the right (Spearman, r=-0.22, P=0.04). It is possible that these horses have an increased arousal level when interacting with handlers, resulting in more engagement with the lesson, accounting for the improved performance results. The findings of this study will help clarify how horse behavior, training and management may influence learning and how their application may optimize learning outcomes. Future equine behavior assessment and research questionnaires should include items that assess these qualities.