Abstract: The purpose of this experiment was to determine if different methods of forage conservation influenced horse preference for conserved forages. Silage, haylage with two different dry matter (DM) levels and hay was produced from the same grass crop at the same botanical maturity stage. Four horses were simultaneously offered the four forages (1 kg DM of each forage) once daily for four consecutive experimental periods, each period consisting of 5 days. On each experimental day, the horses were observed for 2 h and their first choice, eating time and forage consumption was registered for every forage. The number of times each horse depleted individual forages and the number of times each horse tasted or smelled a forage, but left it in favour of another forage, was also recorded. Silage had the highest rate of consumption (0.90 kg DM/day, S.D. 0.14) and longest eating time (28.4 min/day, S.D. 5.16). Hay had the lowest rate of consumption (0.23 kg DM/day, S.D. 0.14) and shortest eating time (6.8 min/day, S.D. 4.08), while the haylages were intermediate. Silage was the first choice 72 of 84 times (85%). Hay was never completely consumed and silage was never left in favour of another forage after smelling or tasting it. We conclude that the forage conservation methods had an impact on horse preference in favour of silage, even if the reason for silage preference remains to be explained.

Abstract: The design of a captive environment should facilitate the expression of the natural behavioural repertoire of the species concerned. The domestic horse (Equus caballus) is a social, herd dwelling species that is often housed in isolation from con-specifics or kept in groups in paddock enclosures. Although the latter allows for social interaction and does not restrict movement per se, it may not promote natural activity patterns or group cohesion. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of two different paddock designs on the behaviour of a stable group of horses (n=6: 2 mares, 4 geldings).
The paddock designs tested were adjacent and grassed similarly, but configured differently. A central paddock (75 x 75m) designated NT, was surrounded by a track 1.6-5.5m wide, designated T. The horses were turned out in their group into T or NT for 3 consecutive days. Their behaviour was recorded for one hour three times each day (10.00, 13.00, 16.00 hrs). Within each observation period of one hour focal sampling was used, each individual horse being observed for a 10 minute period. They were then moved to the other enclosure type for a further 3 consecutive days, followed by a repeat of each condition. When turned out the horses were fitted with a global positioning system device (Garmin Forerunner 305) to monitor distance travelled and speed for the period 10.00-17.00 hrs. The mean percentage of time spent in each behavioural state (standing alert, standing resting, walk/trot, grazing, lying, social interaction) during the periods observed was calculated. Behaviour during social interactions was classified as either affiliative (approach, follow, friendly contacts, mutual grooming) or agonistic (approach and retreat, bite, chase, head threat).
The horses travelled significantly further in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 11.74, p<0.001) and moved significantly faster (Wilcoxon signed rank test: z = -2.21, p=0.03). See Table 1. When the percentage of time spent in each behavioural state in T and NT was compared some significant differences were found. A significantly higher percentage of time was spent active (walking /trotting) in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 5.74, p=0.002). Standing alert was only recorded in T (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 3.48, p=0.02). A significantly higher percentage of time was spent grazing in NT than in T (paired samples t-test: t (5) = -3.58, p=0.016). Significantly more social interaction occurred in T than in NT (paired samples t-test: t (5) = 5.93, p=0.002). See Figure 1. In T, 91% of social interactions were affiliative and 9% agonistic, whereas in NT 29% were affiliative and 71% agonistic. No difference was found in the percentage of time spent standing resting or lying down in T and NT.
The benefits of housing horses in groups as opposed to individually have been demonstrated in previous studies. In addition to better satisfying the behavioural needs of the horse it has been found that group housed horses adapt more easily to training and display less undesirable behaviour than those housed individually (Rivera et al. 2002; Søndergaard and Ladewig 2004; Visser et al. 2008). However, individual housing is frequently selected by horse owners in preference to group housing to avoid the risk of injury during agonistic encounters. Fureix et al. (2012) suggest that management practices may well contribute to aggressiveness in horses and that the conditions under which we keep horses should be reviewed. The findings of the present study indicate that the design of the enclosure in which groups of horses are kept affects the nature of social interactions. The T paddock design resulted in reduced intra-group aggression. However, this paddock design also reduced the time spent grazing and increased vigilant behaviour. Although the results demonstrate that a paddock system including tracks may facilitate group cohesion and more natural movement patterns, the long-term impact on behaviour and welfare requires further investigation.
References:
Fureix C, Bourjade M, Henry S, Sankey C, Hausberger M. (2012). Exploring aggression regulation in managed groups of horses (Equus caballus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138: 216-228.
Rivera E, Benjamin S, Nielsen B, Shelle J, Zanella AJ. (2002). Behavioural and physiological response of horses to initial training: the comparison between pastured versus stalled horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78: 235–252.
Søndergaard E, Ladewig J. (2004). Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during training. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 105-118.

Abstract: Contrary to the widely-spread assumption that horses just have restricted cognitive capacities and are not very flexible in their behaviors, we showed that horses display innovative behavior and even make use of tools (Krueger 2015, Krueger et al. 2015). These findings derive from a database (http://innovative-behaviour.org/) the Equine behavior team managed in the past two years. Some horses did not only show single innovations, but several different innovations. The number of innovations per individual varied from 1 to 10. 20 % of all innovative horses in the database showed more than one innovation. These individuals can be called the ‘true innovators’. Moreover innovations were dependent on age. Young horses were more innovative than older ones, whereby horses at the age of five to nine years were the most innovative. When considering the housing system innovative horses in a single housing (inside box, outside box, paddock box) had a slight majority towards horses in group housing (open stable, active stable, pasture day and night). But given the fact that ratings on housing system frequencies state 95% of the horses to be kept in individual housing, innovations in individual housing are rare. Nevertheless, horses kept in inside boxes without a window, opened doors more often than all other horses. Aside from this effect, housing systems did not trigger the frequency of innovative behavior. Innovations for gaining freedom and innovations in general were widespread among horses with daily access to pasture and daily contact with conspecifics. Innovations for gaining food were not more likely to occur in horses that were fed little amounts of roughage. In conclusion, the housing of horses does not seem to be the primary catalyst for developing innovative behavior in horses. What makes a “true innovator” in horses, in addition to age, remains to be seen.

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.

Abstract: The small Cape mountain zebra population in Gamka Mountain Nature Reserve represents a third of the entire gene pool of this endangered species and is thus vital for it's conservation. Presently, management of this population is largely hands off, with the belief that it will grow to levels which will allow it to form a source for the mixing of mountain zebra stocks in the future. The growth of this population however, has been slow and we investigated the influence of habitat and fire on this growth. Firstly, we used a diffusion model to perform a population viability analysis. This analysis indicated that the population had a low probability of attaining quasi-extinction in the next 50 years (G = 0.0032). However, our findings indicated that less than 30% of the reserve was suitable for mountain zebra and that the preferred habitat would have to be burnt at unnaturally short intervals to sustain the present growth. We therefore argue that the risk of quasi-extinction to this population is greater than predicted and suggest that management options need to be implemented to reduce this risk. These options include; translocation to another protected area; acquisition of adjacent land; burning preferred habitat at unnaturally short intervals; forming a conservancy with adjacent landowners; leasing cultivated land for pasture. We suggest that only the latter two options are likely to stimulate mountain zebra population growth in the short term and that these should receive immediate attention.