Abstract: Training can best be explained as a process that occurs through stimulus-response-reinforcement chains, whereby animals are conditioned to associate cues in their environment, with specific behavioural responses and their rewarding consequences. Research into learning in horses has concentrated on their powers of discrimination and on primary positive reinforcement schedules, where the correct response is paired with a desirable consequence such as food. In contrast, a number of other learning processes that are used in training have been widely studied in other species, but have received little scientific investigation in the horse. These include: negative reinforcement, where performance of the correct response is followed by removal of, or decrease in, intensity of a unpleasant stimulus; punishment, where an incorrect response is paired with an undesirable consequence, but without consistent prior warning; secondary conditioning, where a natural primary reinforcer such as food is closely associated with an arbitrary secondary reinforcer such as vocal praise; and variable or partial conditioning, where once the correct response has been learnt, reinforcement is presented according to an intermittent schedule to increase resistance to extinction outside of training.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: In many equestrian activities a specific position of head and/or neck is required that is dissimilar to the natural position. There is controversy about the effects of these positions on locomotion pattern, but few quantitative data are available. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of 5 different head and neck positions on thoracolumbar kinematics of the horse. METHODS: Kinematics of 7 high level dressage horses were measured walking and trotting on an instrumented treadmill with the head and neck in the following positions: HNP2 = neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 = as HNP2 with bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 = head and neck lowered, nose behind the vertical; HNP5 = head and neck in extreme high position; HNP6 = head and neck forward and downward. HNP1 was a speed-matched control (head and neck unrestrained). RESULTS: The head and neck positions affected only the flexion-extension motion. The positions in which the neck was extended (HNP2, 3, 5) increased extension in the anterior thoracic region, but increased flexion in the posterior thoracic and lumbar region. For HNP4 the pattern was the opposite. Positions 2, 3 and 5 reduced the flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) while HNP4 increased it. HNP5 was the only position that negatively affected intravertebral pattern symmetry and reduced hindlimb protraction. The stride length was significantly reduced at walk in positions 2, 3, 4 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant influence of head/neck position on back kinematics. Elevated head and neck induce extension in the thoracic region and flexion in the lumbar region; besides reducing the sagittal range of motion. Lowered head and neck produces the opposite. A very high position of the head and neck seems to disturb normal kinematics. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study provides quantitative data on the effect of head/neck positions on thoracolumbar motion and may help in discussions on the ethical acceptability of some training methods.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Little is known in quantitative terms about the influence of different head-neck positions (HNPs) on the loading pattern of the locomotor apparatus. Therefore it is difficult to predict whether a specific riding technique is beneficial for the horse or if it may increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of forelimb-hindlimb balance and its underlying temporal changes in relation to different head and neck positions. METHODS: Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: HNP1 – free, unrestrained with loose reins; HNP2 – neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 – neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 – neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; HNP5 – neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; HNP6 – neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge. HNPs were assessed by comparing the data to a velocity-matched reference HNP (HNP2). Differences were tested using paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test (P<0.05). RESULTS: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5. Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs. CONCLUSIONS: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: An extremely high HNP affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.

Abstract: Dressage is one of the Olympic equestrian sports practiced in several countries using different horse breeds. Specific characteristics of the walk, trot and canter are required for dressage. It has been assumed that some of these traits could be selected for genetically and contribute to dressage performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the walk, trot and conformation characteristics in young horses of different breeds used for dressage. A total of 142 horses age 3 years were classified into 3 groups of breeds (German, French and Spanish saddle horses) and tested using the same procedure. The skeletal conformation measurements were made by image analysis. Gait variables of the walk and trot were measured by the accelerometric gait analysis system Equimetrix. Discriminant analysis could explain the variability between the groups by taking into account the walk (P<0.0003), trot (P<0.0001) and conformation variables (P<0.0001). Many gait and conformation variables were significantly different between the breeds. In summary, the German horses had gait characteristics more adapted for dressage competition, and the results of this group could be used as a reference for early evaluation in dressage. Purebred Spanish horses could be considered as a reference for collected gaits used for farm work and old academic dressage. The gait and conformation tests could be applied in a breeding or crossing plan to detect more accurately young horses with good dressage ability.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING THE STUDY: As there are no reports on the real workload of horses that jump fences, this study was undertaken in riding-school horses. OBJECTIVE: To compare the workload of horses jumping a course of fences with that of horses cantering over the same course at the same average speed without jumping fences. The workload variables included heart rate (HR), packed cell volume (PCV), acid-base balance (venous pH, pCO2, HCO3-) and blood lactate (LA), glucose, total protein and electrolyte concentrations. METHODS: Eight healthy riding-school horses performed test A (a course of approximately 700 m with 12 jumps from 0.8-1.0 m high at an average speed of approximately 350 m/min) and test B (same course at the same speed, but without the rails) in a crossover study with at least 4 h between the 2 tests. Before each test the horses were fitted with a heart rate meter (Polar Electro). Blood samples were taken from the jugular vein at rest prior to the test, after warm-up before starting the course, immediately after the course and after recovery. All samples were analysed immediately. RESULTS: The mean +/- s.d maximal HR (beats/min) during the course (184 +/- 17 and 156 +/- 21, respectively) and the mean HR after recovery (75 +/- 6 and 63 +/- 7, respectively) were significantly higher in test A compared to test B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007 respectively). The mean LA concentrations after the course and after recovery (mmol/l) were significantly higher in test A (3.6 +/- 2.7 and 1.0 +/- 0.9, respectively) compared to test B (0.9 +/- 0.5 and 0.3 +/- 0.1, respectively), (P = 0.016 and P = 0.048 respectively). The mean PCV (I/l) after the course and after recovery was also significantly different between tests A (0.48 +/- 0.04 and 0.39 +/- 0.03, respectively) and B (0.42 +/- 0.04 and 0.36 +/- 0.03, respectively) (P<0.01). The mean pH and the mean HCO3- (mmol/l) after the course were significantly lower in test A (7.40 +/- 0.04 and 28.9 +/- 1.4, respectively) compared to test B (7.45 +/- 0.03 and 30.4 +/- 2.3, respectively) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that in riding-school horses jumping fences, even at a low level competition, provokes a significant workload compared to cantering the same distance and speed without fences. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study makes it clear that the extra workload of jumping fences should be taken into account in the training programmes of jumping horses. Further research with more experienced horses jumping higher fences will reveal the workload for top-level jumping horses.