Abstract: Like many other herbivores equids feed on rather evenly distributed resources. Especially in ruminants several studies have proved the influence of social organisations, rank, sex and the depletion of feeding sites on the feeding behaviour of individuals. However, it is not yet understood whether social aspects affect horses´ feeding decisions. Horses roam on vast habitats with constantly changing vegetation. In non-competitive situations domestic horses tend to return to the same feeding site until it is overgrazed. Whereas, for competition over limited food the social status of the individuals appears to be important. Curiosity about the influence of social rank and different social feeding conditions on the horses´ feeding decisions between two buckets, equally filled with high-quality surplus food, led us to create the test situation described here. The observer horses were alternately tested with a dominant and a subordinate demonstrator placed in one of three different positions. We conclude that domestic horses use cognitive strategic decision making in order to decide where to feed in a social feeding situation. When possible they tend to return to the same, continuously supplied feeding site and switch to an “avoidance tendency” when another horse is already feeding from it or in the presence of a dominant horse. Thus the position and the social rank of conspecifics affect the feeding strategy of horses.

Abstract: Anecdotal reports of horses opening fastened doors and gates are an intriguing way of exploring the possible scope of horses' problem-solving capacities. The species' natural environment has no analogues of the mechanisms involved. Scientific studies on the topic are missing, because the rate of occurrence is too low for exploration under controlled conditions. Therefore, we compiled from lay persons case reports of horses opening closed doors and gates. Additionally, we collected video documentations at the internet platform YouTube, taking care to select raw data footage of unedited, clearly described and clearly visible cases of animals with no distinct signs of training or reduced welfare. The data included individuals opening 513 doors or gates on hinges, 49 sliding doors, and 33 barred doors and gateways; mechanisms included 260 cases of horizontal and 155 vertical bars, 43 twist locks, 42 door handles, 34 electric fence handles, 40 carabiners, and 2 locks with keys. Opening was usually for escape, but also for access to food or stable-mates, or out of curiosity or playfulness. While 56 percent of the horses opened a single mechanism at one location, 44 percent opened several types of mechanism (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 5) at different locations (median = 2, min. = 1, max. = 4). The more complex the mechanism was, the more movements were applied, varying from median 2 for door handles to 10 for carabiners. Mechanisms requiring head- or lip-twisting needed more movements, with significant variation between individuals. 74 horses reported in the questionnaire had options for observing the behaviour in stable mates, 183 did not, which indicates that the latter learned to open doors and gates either individually or from observing humans. Experience favours opening efficiency; subjects which opened several door types applied fewer movements per lock than horses which opened only one door type. We failed to identify a level of complexity of door-fastening mechanism that was beyond the learning capacity of the horse to open. Thus, all devices in frequent use, even carabiners and electric fence handles, are potentially vulnerable to opening by horses, something which needs to be considered in relation to keeping horses safely.

Abstract: Wolves returned to Germany in 2000, leading to fear in German horse owners that their horses could be in danger of wolf attacks or panic-like escapes from pastures when sighting wolves. However, reports from southern European countries indicate that wolf predation on horses diminishes with increasing presence of wildlife. Therefore, we conducted a long-term, filed observation between January 2015 and July 2022 on 13 non breeding riding horses, mares and geldings, kept permanently on two pastures within the range of wildlife and a stable wolf pack with annual offspring. Wildlife cameras at the fences of the pastures made 984 times recordings of wolves and 3151 times recordings of wildlife in and around the pastures. Between 1 January 2022 and 23 March 2022 we observed two stable horse groups. Pasture 1 was grazed by five horses of mixed breed, four mares and one gelding, with the median age of 8 years (min. = 6y, max. = 29y). Pasture 2 was grazed by eight heavy warmbloods and draught horses, three mares and five geldings, with the median age of 16 years (min. = 13y, max. = 22y). During this period no wolf was recorded at pasture 2, but wild boar several times, whereas at pasture 1, wolves were recorded 89 times, and for the wildlife mostly hare. Wolves may have avoided pasture 2 because of the presence of wild boar or because the large group of older, heavy breed horses may have formed a stable, protective group. The latter needs to be confirmed in a follow-up field observation, which records anti-predator behavior and welfare indicators in horses. In conclusion, wolves did not attack the mature horses on pastures with plenty of wildlife and the horses did not respond to the presence of wolves with visible signs of reduced welfare or panic. This indicates that wolves may prefer to prey on easily accessible wildlife around and at horse pastures and that Central European horses become accustom to the presence of non-hunting wolves.

Abstract: Viele Pferdebesitzer bevorzugen aus Angst vor aggressiven Interaktionen und Verletzungsgefahr der Tiere untereinander die Einzelhaltung, obwohl von Tierschutzorganisationen die Gruppenhaltung für Pferde empfohlen wird. In dieser Studie beobachteten wir während des alltäglichen Soziallebens als auch bei der Eingliederung von neuen Gruppenmitgliedern das Sozialverhalten, insbesondere das Aggressionsverhalten, von elf Gruppen domestizierter Pferde (Equus caballus) verschiedener Größe und Zusammensetzung. Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens hatten die Gruppe und der Paddock-Typ (Gras / kein Gras) keinen Einfluss auf die Verhaltensweisen, wohingegen die Paddockgröße unter 10000 m2 einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die submissiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) und einen nicht signifikanten Einfluss auf die aggressiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081) hatte. Allerdings verringerten sich sowohl die aggressiven als auch die submissiven Verhaltensweisen mit steigendem Platzangebot bis zu 10000 m2 (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=56; aggressive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.313, P = 0.019; submissive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.328, P = 0.014). Während den Eingliederungen reduzierten sich die Aggressionen pro Stunde mit der Vergrößerung des Platzangebotes (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034). Dies zeigte sich noch deutlicher, wenn Beobachtungen mit einem Platzangebot von über 10000 m2 ausgeschlos- sen wurden (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens näherte sich der Aggressionslevel der Nulllinie an, wenn das Platzangebot pro Pferd mehr als 331 m2 betrug. Deshalb empfehlen wir zur Reduzierung des Aggressionslevels und des Verletzungsrisikos von sozial gehaltenen Pferdegruppen ein Platzangebot von mindestens 331 m2 pro Pferd.
[Even though animal welfare organisations propose group housing for horse welfare, many owners stable horses individually for fear of aggressive interactions and injury risks. In the present study we observed social behaviour, and especially aggressiveness, in eleven domestic horse groups (Equus caballus) of different size and composition, in basic social situations and when new group members were introduced. During basic social situations, the group and the type of paddock (grass / no grass) had no effect on any of the behaviours, where- as the enclosure size below 10,000 m2 had a significant effect on submissive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) and an insignificant effect on aggressive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081). However, aggressive and submissive behaviour dimi- nished with the increase of enclosure sizes up to 10,000 m2 (Spearman rank correlation; n = 56; aggressive behaviour: r = -0.313, P=0.019; submissive behaviour: r=-0.328, P=0.014). During introductions, aggression levels per hour decreased with any increase of enclosure size (Spearman rank correlation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034) and even more when enclosure sizes above 10,000 m2 were excluded (Spearman rank correlation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). During basic social situations the aggression level approached zero when the space allowance was more than 331 m2 per horse. We therefore recommend keeping horse groups in an enclosure with at least 331 m2 per horse to reduce aggression and injuries.]