| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Baumgartner, M.; Frank,V.; Gandorfer,J.; Ramoser, A.; Seiler, S.; Zeitler-Feicht, M.H. |
|
| |
Title |
Feasible animal-based indicators for assessing equine welfare |
Type |
Conference Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting |
Abbreviated Journal |
Proc. 3. Int. Equine. Sci. Mtg |
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Introduction
Are horses doing well in their husbandries? For the first time the answer shall be given objectively by an integral on-farm welfare assessment system for horse husbandries. A current research project at the Technical University Munich evaluates indicators for well-being, pain and suffering in horses in order to develop a welfare assessment system (Baumgartner and Zeitler-Feicht 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015, Zeitler-Feicht et al. 2015). The research project is professionally supported by horse husbandry experts from academics, industries as well as leading organizations for horse owners and veterinarians.
The aim of the project is to develop a welfare assessment system for all horse husbandry systems which can be applied both for sport horses and for leisure horses. It is based on national animal welfare standards (BMELV 2009) and does take sustainability into consideration. Animal-based indicators are completed with resource-based indicators if necessary. It is stipulated that indicators are valid, reliable and feasible.
Welfare criteria were formulated for the two principles „good health“ and „behavioural demands“ (see figure 1 and 2). Each has to be represented by at least one indicator.
The principle „behavioural demands“ aims at the possibility for horses to practise species-specific behaviour. It is gathered to what extent the housing conditions allow the horses to live out and show species-specific behaviour. Furthermore in the present studies the frequency of selected behaviours including abnormal behaviour were collected in precise timeframes.
Potential indicators for assessing equine welfare on-farm were selected by study of literature and field tests. The field tests included direct observations on free-ranged horses, horses in group-housing systems and single-stabled horses. The following section presents selected indicators that are feasible for assessing equine behaviour on-farm.
Feasible behavioural indicators for well-being
The literature research revealed that „being together“ is linked with affiliative behaviour. It includes „resting together“, „foraging together“ and additionally „walking together“. Horses do have a strong need for social bonds. „Being-together“ amongst horses must be voluntary and not caused by bad weather conditions or lack of space. Therefore the context must be considered. For temporary direct observations the frequency in group-housing systems is sufficient (0.57 ± 0.67 per horse per 20 minutes). That´s why in our study „being-together“ is considered as a feasible indicator for well-being for horses in permanent or temporary groups. It is intended to conduct further studies on its validity.
Other behaviours such as „social play“ is not only linked with positive emotional states in adult horses. Several studies showed that horses use „social play“ as a stress relief. However, it is too seldom to collect in an on-farm assessment system. Because of the lack of feasibility and validity we excluded „social play“ as an indicator for well-being.
Feasible behavioural indicators for suffering
Horses show „abnormal behaviour“ in distress, frustration, deprivation or conflict situations. The present studies showed a relatively high frequency in single-stabled horses (3.3 ± 6.45 per horse per 20 minutes). Hence „abnormal behaviour“ is a feasible and valid indicator for suffering. However, established stereotypes need to be excluded, because they may indicate a previous welfare status rather than the current welfare status.
Horses use „agonistic behaviour“ to regulate social relations, to defend themselves or to defend resources. If husbandry or management is inadequate, „agonistic behaviour“ increases and thereby the frequency of injuries caused by social conflicts. A high frequency of „agonistic behaviour“ indicates a high aggression level in group-housed horses and therefore distress and suffering. The mean frequency of group-housed horses is sufficient for temporary observations (2.6 ± 2.26 per horse per 20 minutes). As a result „agonistic behaviour“ is a feasible and vaild indicator for suffering. Further studies need to be done on the scoring and severity.
Key words
Animal-based indicators
Equine welfare
Being-together
Abnormal behaviour
Agonistic behaviour
References
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2013): Entwicklung eines Bewertungssystems zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen als Bestandteil eines Nachhaltigkeitsmanagementsystems. KTBL Schrift: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 503, 226 – 227.
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2014a): Indikatoren für Tierwohl beim Pferd. 7. Pferde-Workshop Uelzen 2014. DGfZ-Schriftreihe Heft 64, 161 – 166.
Baumgartner M. & M. H. Zeitler-Feicht (2014b): Entwicklung eines Bewertungssystems zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen als Bestandteil eines Nachhaltigkeitsmanagementsystems. 9. Niedersächsisches Tierschutzsymposium in Oldenburg, Hrsg. Nds. Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, 37 – 42.
Baumgartner M. & M.H. Zeitler-Feicht (2015): Eignung ausgewählter tierbezogener Indikatoren zur Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Pferdehaltungen hinsichtlich Praktikabilität. In: Tagungsband der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft e.V. (DVG), Fachgruppen „Ethologie und Tierhaltung“ sowie „Tierschutz“, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, S. 182 – 192.
BMELV (2009): Leitlinien zur Beurteilung von Pferdehaltungen unter Tierschutzgesichtspunkten. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. Sachverständigengruppe tierschutzgerechte Pferdehaltung.
Zeitler-Feicht M.H., Frank V., Ramoser A., Seiler S., Girisch C., Baumgartner M. (2015): Anhand welcher Verhaltensweisen lassen sich Rückschlüsse auf das Wohlbefinden von Pferden ziehen? In: Tagungsband der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft e.V. (DVG), Fachgruppen „Ethologie und Tierhaltung“ sowie „Tierschutz“, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, S. 148 – 156. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
Baumgartner,M. |
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
Xenophon Publishing |
Place of Publication |
Wald |
Editor |
Krüger. K. |
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium  |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5868 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Osman, F.; Zeitler-Feicht, M.; Fink, G. W.; Arnhard, S.; Krüger, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Überprüfung der lichten Weiten von Gitterstäben in der Pferdehaltung [Analysing demands for the clear widths of lattice bars in horse husbandry] |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2020 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
Landtechnik [Agricultural Engineering] |
|
| |
Volume |
75 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
24-33 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.] |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6595 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Baumgartner, M.; Boisson, T.; Erhard, M.H.; Zeitler-Feicht, M.H. |
|
| |
Title |
Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2020 |
Publication |
Animals |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animals |
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
441 |
|
| |
Keywords |
horse behaviour; feed intake pause; bedding; welfare indicator; feeding practices; roughage; horse welfare; individual housing system |
|
| |
Abstract |
During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses� behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses� natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses� ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as �rebound effect�), this might indicate that the horses� welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
Animals |
|
| |
Series Volume |
10 |
Series Issue |
3 |
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
2076-2615 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6647 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
