Abstract: Summary Domestic horses are equid members of the class Mammalia, order Perissodactyla, and family Equidae. Horses are obligate herbivores, with nutritional requirements as listed in a table. Adequate space is necessary for exercise, exploration, flight, sharing resources, play, and rolling. Company is essential for all horses, including stallions. Company provides opportunities for mutual grooming and play and allows horses to stand head-to-tail to remove flies. Unhandled horses may respond to humans as they would to predators, whereas handled horses' responses depend on their previous interactions with humans. Horses can suffer from several diseases as listed in another table. The best method of euthanasia of horses is usually sedation followed by either cranial shooting or the injection of an overdose of pentobarbitone into the jugular vein. Behavioural signs of distress can include increased locomotory activity, vigilance behaviours, neighing, snorting, pawing, nibbling walls and buckets, defaecation, rearing, kicking stable walls or doors, and high-stepping 'prancing'.

Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to sub-optimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horses? natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse?s social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.

Abstract: The ideals of equestrian technique combine art and science. Therefore students of equitation
encounter measurable variables such as rhythm, tempo and impulsion alongside more ethereal ones
such as outline and harmony. This mixture accounts for many of the idiosyncrasies of equestrianism
including the subjective scoring of performance in dressage tests, the elusiveness of perfection even at
an elite level of competition and the difficulty of expressing equestrian technique in empirical terms
(Roberts, 1992).
This chapter will describe and offer examples of the unwelcome behavioural responses horses
produce under saddle. Two broad sections are then proposed to allow the reader to consider
unwelcome behavioural responses caused directly by humans as distinct from those attributable more
to the horse than the rider. Ultimately the responsibility for problems in the ridden horse lies with
humans since we have undertaken the domestication and exploitation of equids. Therefore it is
accepted that the dichotomy is not absolute. The chapter closes with a

Abstract: We investigated lateralisation in horses because it is likely to be important in training and athletic performance. Thoroughbred horses (n = 106) were observed every 60 s for 2 h, when they were at pasture, and the position of the forelimbs in relation to one another was recorded. There was a population bias skewed to standing with the left forelimb advanced over the right (i.e. directional lateralisation). Using the first 50 observations, the distribution of preferences was 43 significantly left, 10 significantly right with 53 being non-significant (i.e. ambidextextrous). The strength of motor bias increased with age, suggesting maturation or an influence of training. The horses were also presented with an olfactory stimulus (stallion faeces) to score the tendency to use one nostril rather than the other. A significant preference to use the right nostril first was shown in horses under 4 years of age (n = 61) but not in older horses. Of the 157 horses tested for nostril bias, 76 had been assessed for motor bias and so were used for analysis of the relationship between laterality in the two modalities. There was no significant relationship between direction of foreleg motor bias and first nostril used, total number of inhalations or laterality index of nostril use. The absence of a correlation between laterality of nostril use and motor bias indicates that lateralisation of the equine brain occurs on at least two levels of neural organisation--sensory and motor--a finding that is consistent with other examples of lateralisation in species that have been examined in more detail.