Abstract: In der deutschen Pferdebranche besteht u. a. hinsichtlich der Ausrichtung, Lage, Größe und ökonomischen Zielsetzung von Pferdehaltern eine große Heterogenität, gleichzeitig sind die Strukturen in diesem Sektor bislang kaum wissenschaftlich erfasst. Aus diesem Grund wird im vorliegenden Beitrag die Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Erscheinungsformen in der Pferdehaltung mittels einer empirisch gestützten Typologie systematisch beschrieben. Mittels einer standardisierten Onlinebefragung wurden 1.110 private, landwirtschaftliche und gewerbliche Pferdehalter sowie pferdehaltende Vereine befragt. Abgefragt wurden neben der Organisationsform, Bestandsgröße und der Ausrichtung auch Aspekte wie u. a. die Ausstattung der Anlage, die angewandten Haltungssysteme für die Pferde sowie Angaben zur zukünftige Entwicklung und den wahrgenommenen aktuellen sowie zukünftigen Herausforderungen in der Pferdehaltung. Mittels einer Clusteranalyse konnten sechs Typen herausgearbeitet werden: ländliche Hobbypferdehaltung, stadtorientierte Hobbypferdehaltung, Hobby-Zuchtpferdehaltung, Zuchtpferdehaltung, Pensionspferdehaltung und diversifizierte Pferdehaltung. Dabei sind die drei erstgenannten Typen der Liebhaberei zuzuordnen und die drei letztgenannten Typen werden mit Gewinnerzielungsabsicht betrieben. Die ermittelten Typen unterscheiden sich teilweise signifikant u. a. hinsichtlich ihrer Größe, den angewandten Haltungssystemen, der Anzahl an Betriebszweigen oder auch ihren zukünftig geplanten Entwicklungen. Die vorliegende Studie zeigt somit, dass beispielsweise bei der Entwicklung politischer Maßnahmen im Bereich der Pferdehaltung die Auswirkungen für einzelne Pferdehalter sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen können und es daher notwendig ist, die unterschiedlichen, real existierenden Betriebstypen zu berücksichtigen.

Abstract: The traditional way to train horses is by the application of negative reinforcement (NR). In the past few years, however, the use of positive reinforcement (PR) has become more common. To evaluate the effectiveness and the possible stressor effect of the 2 training methods, 12 horses showing severe trailer-loading problems were selected and exposed to trailer-loading. They were randomly assigned to one of the 2 methods. NR consisted of various degrees of pressure (lead rope pulling, whip tapping). Pressure was removed as soon as the horse complied. PR horses were exposed to clicker training and taught to follow a target into the trailer. Heart rate (HR) was recorded every 5 seconds and behavior denoting discomfort was observed using one-zero sampling with 10 seconds sampling intervals. Training was completed when the horse could enter the trailer upon a signal, or was terminated after a maximum of 15 sessions. Of the 12 horses, 10 reached the criterion within the 15 sessions. One horse was eliminated from the study because of illness and 1 PR horse failed to enter the trailer. A Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that the horses trained with NR displayed significantly more discomfort behavior per training session than horses trained with PR (NR: 13.26 ± 3.25; PR: 3.17 ± 8.93, P < 0.0001) and that horses in the PR group spent less time (second) per session to complete the training criterion (NR: 672.9 ± 247.12; PR: 539.81 ± 166.37, P < 0.01). A Mann-Whitney U-test showed that no difference existed in mean HR (bpm) between the 2 groups (NR: 53.06 ± 11.73 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P > 0.05), but a Wilcoxon test showed a difference in the PR group between the baseline of HR and mean HR obtained during training sessions (baseline PR: 43 ± 8.83 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the PR group provided the fastest training solution and expressed less stress response. Thus, the PR procedure could provide a preferable training solution when training horses in potentially stressing situations.

Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of â&#65533;&#65533;unusualâ&#65533;&#65533; behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.