Abstract: Rescued equids are often exposed to rehabilitation and training (or retraining) programmes to improve their physical and psychological well-being as well as to facilitate the re-homing process. Training uses either positive or negative reinforcement learning procedures and it is considered here that, there may be welfare implications associated with using the latter technique as it has the potential to overlay acute stress on animals with a chronic stress life history. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare these training strategies (negative versus positive reinforcement) on equine behaviour and physiology as the first step in establishing an optimal rehabilitation approach (from a welfare perspective) for equids that have been subjected to chronic stress in the form of long-term neglect/cruelty. Over a 7-week period, 16 ponies (aged 6–18 months) were trained using either positive (‘positive’) (n = 8) or negative reinforcement (‘negative’) (n = 8) techniques to lead in hand, stand to be groomed, traverse an obstacle course and load into a trailer. Heart rate was measured (5 s intervals) on days 1 and 4 of each training week, ‘Pre’- (1 h), ‘During’ (0.5 h) and ‘Post’- (1 h) training session. Ethograms (10.00–20.00 h) outside of the training period were also compiled twice weekly. In addition, weekly arena tests (as a measure of reactivity) were also performed 1 week before and during the 7 weeks of training. Results showed significant differences between the two training schedules for some measures during the latter stages of the trial and suggested that animals trained under a positive reinforcement schedule were more motivated to participate in the training sessions and exhibited more exploratory or ‘trial and error’ type behaviours in novel situations/environments. In this context, the incorporation of positive reinforcement schedules within a rehabilitation programme may be of benefit to the animal from a welfare perspective.

Abstract: Current scores for equine personality traits assessed during performance tests are characterised by high means and inadequate variation, hampering genetic selection for these traits. A number of temperament and related behaviour tests have been developed in order to make assessment of equine personality more objective. However, rarely these tests have been validated for their use as a selection tool. Thus, as a first step the aim of the present study was to integrate a temperament tests into horse performance tests, in order to assess variability and repeatability of horses’ reactivity under the rider and the reliability of the judges’ assessment thereof. The temperament test was comprised of three novel stimuli, including a visual stimulus (BALL), a visual and tactile stimulus (GATE), and a visual and auditory stimulus (CANS). A total of 224 mares and stallions were subjected to the test during their participation in station performance tests for riding horses, and 133 of these horses were subjected to the test a second time either 2–3 weeks or 18 weeks after the first test. Horses were ridden in the test by professional riders, and their reactions to the stimuli were evaluated each by two judges and the rider using scores on a scale from 1 (task not concluded) to 10 (completely calm but attentive horse). Mean scores (±SD) ranged between 6.6 ± 2.4 (GATE) and 7.8 ± 2.1 (BALL), demonstrating lower means and considerably higher standard deviations than the same horses’ scores from present evaluation of the trait labelled temperament (8.1 ± 0.9) or related personality traits (e.g. character: 8.3 ± 0.8). Using variance components from mixed model analysis, inter-observer agreement between the two judges was for the individual stimuli very high (0.95 (BALL), 0.96 (GATE), 0.89 (CANS)), and there was likewise high agreement between the judges’ and the riders’ combined scores (0.93). Repeatabilities of horses’ scores were 0.72 (BALL), 0.75 (GATE), and 0.69 (CANS). Correlations to traits from the present evaluation of personality were low or non-existent, indicating that these traits are not a reflection of anxiety or fear reactivity as assessed by novel object tests. Horses’ improvement in judges’ combined scores from first to second test was not (P > 0.1) influenced by differences in time between tests, but differed between breed-types and individual riders. Also, not surprisingly, the higher horses’ scores in the first test were, the lower their improvement in the second test was (-0.45 ± 0.06 per additional score in the first test). Temperament tests using novel stimuli presented to horses under a rider may be a practical and valid tool for improving the current assessment of equine personality traits during performance tests. Considering a combination of absolute scores and horses’ improvement in scores of repeated tests, rather than measuring only absolute scores yields relevant information about horses’ personality, and at the same time it may prevent owners from deliberately training their horses for low reactions to the test-stimuli.

Abstract: Removing a horse from its social group may be considered risky, both for the handler and the horse, because other horses can interfere in the catching process. The main aim of this study was to identify where and when these risk situations occur while removing a horse from its group. A potential risk situation was defined by the closeness of loose horses in the group or by any physical contact with them. Whether the number of horses following would be influenced by the social rank of the horse being led out, and whether more horses would follow to the gate when a larger proportion of the group was removed compared to when a single horse was taken out were also investigated. Thirty-two mares (1–2 years) were kept in groups of four. All horses were taken out of their home paddock twice alone (64 tests) and twice with a companion (32 tests). One handler (or two handlers when two horses were removed) was asked to approach (phase 1) and catch the target horse (phase 2), walk it to the centre of the paddock and remain stationary at a post for 30 s (phase 3), walk to the paddock entrance (phase 4) and through the gate (phase 5). The number of horses following, and the number of loose horses in proximity (<2 m, 2–5 m) to the target horse and handler was estimated, and horse–horse and horse–human interactions were recorded continuously for the five scoring phases. Significantly more loose horses were within 2 m of a single target horse during the phases approach (mean ± SD: 1.5 ± 0.8), catch (1.6 ± 0.9) and post (1.7 ± 0.7) than during walk (1.0 ± 0.5) and gate (1.1 ± 0.6). Rank did not influence the number of horses following to the gate (high rank: 2.4 ± 0.7; lower rank: 2.0 ± 1.0; P = 0.396) and interactions between horses were rare. A greater proportion of the loose horses followed when two horses (0.9 ± 0.2) were removed compared to when a single horse (0.7 ± 0.3) was taken out (P = 0.011). In conclusion, maintaining a distance to other horses in the group by reducing the time being relatively stationary, so giving loose horses fewer chances to approach, is likely to contribute to improved handler's safety. Removing a small proportion of the group may also decrease the probability of the other horses following.

Abstract: Current definitions of horse personality traits are rather vague, lacking clear, universally accepted guidelines for evaluation in performance tests. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to screen behavioural and physiological measurements taken during riding for potential links with scores the same horses received in the official stallion performance test for rideability and personality traits. Behaviour, heart rate (HR) and HR variability from thirty-six stallions participating in a performance test were recorded repeatedly during their performance test training. Using the coefficient of determination, regression analysis revealed that about 1/3 of variation (ranging between r = 0.26 (“constitution” (i.e. fitness, health)) and r = 0.46 (rideability)) in the personality trait scores could be explained by selecting the three most influential behaviour patterns per trait. These behaviour patterns included stumbling (with all traits except character), head-tossing (temperament, rideability), tail-swishing (willingness to work), involuntary change in gait (character) and the rider's use of her/his hands (constitution, rideability), voice (temperament) or whip (constitution). Subsequent mixed model analysis revealed a significant (P < 0.05) influence of the behaviour pattern “horse-induced change in gait” on character (-0.98 ± 0.31 scores per additional occurrence of change in gaits), of head-tossing (-0.25 ± 0.08 scores) and rider's use of voice (-0.51 ± 0.25; P = 0.0594) on temperament, and of stumbling on each of the following: willingness to work (-2.5 ± 1.2), constitution (-2.5 ± 1.2 scores; P = 0.0516) and rideability scores (-3.3 ± 1.4). In addition, constitution scores tended (P = 0.0889) to increase with higher low frequency/high frequency heart rate variation ratios (LF/HF), indicating a shift towards sympathetic dominance and thus a higher stress load in horses with higher scores for constitution. Rideability scores from the training phase were also significantly influenced by head-tossing (-0.5 ± 0.1), and in addition rideability scores from the final test were influenced by the training rider, ranging between average estimated rideability scores of 6.8 ± 0.4 for one training rider and 8.36 ± 0.3 scores for another training rider. Horses ridden with their nose-line predominantly behind the vertical received higher scores for rideability (8.3 ± 0.3) than horses ridden with their nose-line at the vertical (7.7 ± 0.2). These findings indicate that either judges perceive horses to have a better rideability when they readily offer a more extreme poll flexion, or that riders make use of horses’ better rideability by imposing a more extreme poll flexion. Several of the above described associations, but also of the non-existing links (e.g. no association between shying or heart rate and temperament) between behaviour patterns and scores for personality traits are rather surprising, warranting further investigation regarding the underlying causes of these relationships. Some of these behaviour patterns should be considered when redesigning the current guidelines for evaluation of personality traits during breeding horse performance tests, ultimately leading to improved genetic selection for equine personality traits. However, ethical implication of defining aversive behaviour such as head-tossing as an indicator of, for example, poor temperament, should not be neglected when devising new guidelines: such aversive behaviour may in fact be an indication of inadequate training techniques rather than poor horse personality.

Abstract: The space allowance appropriate for sows in group housing remains scientifically undefined, since the social space requirement of a group of animals and the factors which affect this are unknown. Eight established groups of six pregnant, multiparous sows were used in a replicated Latin Square design of experiment, with 7 day periods, to compare four pen sizes providing 2.0, 2.4, 3.6 or 4.8 m2/sow. For the last 48 h of each 7 day period, a continuous video recording was made to determine general behaviour and all social interactions. Time spent rooting increased progressively with increasing space allowance, whereas time spent sitting and standing inactive were both progressively reduced. The total frequency of social interactions and aggressive behaviour both increased with decreasing space allowance. The Attack:Retreat ratio was significantly higher, and the Avoidance Index significantly lower, in the smallest pen. All body regions had the highest count of lesions after sows had been in the smallest pen, with damage levels being reduced as pen area increased. Analysis of body lesion scores, combining incidence and severity, gave the same treatment effects. In conclusion, the results indicated that a minimum space of between 2.4 and 3.6 m2/sow was necessary in the conditions of this experiment to promote good welfare. This result cannot be generalised to situations of different group size, group stability or feeding method.