Abstract: Mares quickly form a bond with their foals, probably within the first hour. They lick the foal usually beginning at the tail end, then the head and later the body of the foal. Licking behavior disappears within the first hours in most mares. Once the bond is formed the mare will let no other foal nurse and stays within a meter of the foal most of the time during the first week. The foal follows her when awake, but when he sleeps she stands over him. As the foal matures the distance the mare maintains from the foals get longer and she may graze as he sleeps. The bond of the mother to the foal gradually weakens as revealed by her response to separation from the foal. Weaning usually takes place shortly before the birth of the next foal. Some mares will attempt to steal foals and this can lead to injury of either the mares or the foal. Because of the strong and exclusive bond of most mares to their foal, foal rejection is especially abnormal. It occurs in some breeds more frequently than others, indicating a heritable component. Arabian mares reject 5% of their foals and other breeds reject less than 2%. There are three types of foal rejection- simple fear of the foal that can be quickly solved by holding the mare so the foal can suckle. The mare learns that nursing is pleasurable. This process usually takes only a few hours of holding the mare because foals suckle so frequently- about four times an hours. The second form of foal rejection is avoidance of tactile stimulation of the inguinal fold. When the foal attempts to suckle he usually strikes that skin fold and causes the mare to cow kick and move away. Desensitization to stimulation of the inguinal fold can solve this problem in a few hours. Treatment is more complex and longer for mares that are aggressive to the foal even when it does not touch them. This type of foal rejection can be treated with drugs that inhibit dopamine such as acepromazine-not the alpha adrenergic agent xylazine. Dopamine inhibits the pituitary hormone prolactin, a putative maternal hormone, which increases milk production. Blocking dopamine will increase prolactin. The mare should always have visual contact with the foal, but be restrained so she can not bite or kick the foal. A pole across the stall confining the mare against a wall is best. Maternal behavior can be induced in non-pregnant mares using injections of estrogen, progesterone, and the dopamine inhibitor sulpiride. Once lactation begins cervical stimulation can be used to elicit maternal behavior toward the next foal the mare sees.

Abstract: Six pregnant mares were used to determine what level of water restriction causes physiological and/or behavioural changes indicative of stress. Nonlegume hay was fed ad libitum. During the first week of restriction, 5 l water/100 kg bwt was available, during the second week 4 l/100 kg bwt and, during the third week, 3 l/100 kg bwt. Ad libitum water intake was 6.9 l/100 kg bwt; at 3 l/100 kg bwt water intake was 42% of this. Daily hay intake fell significantly with increasing water restriction from 12.9 +/- 0.75 kg to 8.3 +/- 0.54 kg; bodyweight fell significantly for a total loss of 48.5 +/- 8.3 kg in 3 weeks. Daily blood samples were analysed; osmolality rose significantly with increasing water restriction from 282 +/- 0.7 mosmols/kg to 293.3 +/- 0.8 mosmols/kg bwt, but plasma protein and PCV did not change significantly. Cortisol concentrations fell from 8.1 ng/ml to 6.4 ng/ml over the 3 week period. Aldosterone fell from 211.3 +/- 74.2 pg/ml to 92.5 +/- 27.5 pg/ml at the end of the first week. The behaviour of 4 of the 6 mares was recorded 24 h/day for the duration of the study. The only significant difference was in time spent eating, which decreased with increasing water restriction from 46 +/- 3% to 30 +/- 3%. It is concluded that water restriction to 4 l/100 kg bwt dehydrates pregnant mares and may diminish their welfare, but is not life- or pregnancy-threatening.

Abstract: The value of behavioral techniques in assessing animal welfare, and in particular assessing the psychological well being of animals, is reviewed. Using cats and horses as examples, 3 behavioral methods are presented: (1) comparison of behavior patterns and time budgets; (2) choice tests; and (3) operant conditioning. The behaviors of intact and declawed cats were compared in order to determine if declawing led to behavioral problems or to a change in personality. Apparently it did not. The behavior of free ranging horses was compared with that of stabled horses. Using two-choice preference tests, the preference of horses for visual contact with other horses and the preference for bedding were determined. Horses show no significant preference for locations from which they can make visual contact with other horses, but they do prefer bedding, especially when lying down. Horses will perform an operant response in order to obtain light in a darkened barn or heat in an outside shed. These same techniques can be used to answer a variety of questions about an animal's motivation for a particular attribute of its environment.

Abstract: The ability of ponies to learn to avoid a relatively novel food associated with illness was tested in three situations: when illness occurred immediately after consuming a feed; when illness occurred 30 min after consuming a feed; and when illness was contingent upon eating one of three feeds offered simultaneously. Apomorphine was used to produce illness. The feeds associated with illness were corn, alfalfa pellets, sweet feed and a complete pelleted feed. The ponies learned to avoid all the fees except the complete feed when apomorphine injection immediately followed consumption of the feed. However, the ponies did not learn to avoid a feed if apomorphine was delayed 30 min after feed consumption. They could learn to avoid alfalfa pellets, but not corn, when these feeds were presented with the familiar “safe foods,” oats and soybean meal. Ponies apparently are able to learn a taste aversion, but there were constraints on this learning ability. Under the conditions of this study, they did not learn to avoid a food that made them sick long after consumption of the food, and they had more difficulty learning to avoid highly palatable feeds.